Part Two: The Theoretical Framework and Existing Studies
Chapter Three: Reproduction Theory and the Gender Status Quo
pp. 25-26: "In this chapter we recount the historical path of critical education and feminist theory through three conceptual distinctions: (1) prejudice versus social reproduction, (2) reproduction versus production, and (3) production versus practice."
Traditional (liberal) education theory -- America society conceived to be as given, not changeable, presumes a meritocracy, those who earn the rewards (regardless of the standing of their parents, siblings, friends, etc.) should get the rewards. Social reproduction theory asserts that society, the social system itself must be critically considered, the system of power and privilege must be changed. Social reproduction theory grounded in Bourdieu and Passeron's identification and exposure of the "cultural arbitrary" of French schools, which rewarded those who already knew and relegated those who never had a chance. But social reproduction theory, in focussing on the society, missed the role of student agency or resistance, i.e. social/cultural production.
pp. 30-31: "In the earlier reproduction theories of Althusser, Bowles and Gintis, and Bourdieu and Passeron, which focus on the policies, texts, exams, and practices of school officials, the lower classes are, by implication, silent and presumably passive and submissive to the programming of the state. Willis' dramatic study of the "lads" of Hammertown Boys, a "non-selective" modern secondary school in Britain, and Ogbu's decade-and-a-half of work on minorities in the United States, especially blacks, suggest otherwise."
p. 32: "By animating the working class in the scenario of reproduction, Willis escaped the determinism of Althusser and others."
Production theory looks at the "lived culture" of the students first, while reproduction theory looks at the practices of the school, its administrators, teachers, etc., and not at the students.
p. 33: "More explicitly than Kelly and Nihlen, Arnot (1982) emphasized the importance of incorporating resistance into views of schooling and gender. In order to avoid the implication of inevitable reproduction, she proposed to substitute the Gramscian (1971) concept of "hegemony" for reproduction and modified Bernstein's (1971, 1980) concept of "codes" to suggest that young women might contest and contradict gender codes learned from their families, peers, and schools. Feminist theory on gender and schooling thus began to incorporate an explicit production component."
Feminist critique of Willis' Learning to Labour: p. 34: "...Willis virtually neglected the process of the construction and emergence of groups (e.g. lads, girls, Pakis) within the working class. Many conceivable interests crosscut student groups in institutions, and how they coalesce is a matter of cultural politics and struggle. If the process is not studied, one group, like the lads, is apt to be seen as representing the whole."
p. 36: "In some feminist theories, which Connell (1987:41) calls "extrinsic," gender hierarchies are seen as subordinate features of a society organized around class relations [in line with social reproduction theories, as well as theories which treat gender hierarchy as an ideology to be cast off at the appropriate time]. In other theories, categorized as "intrinsic" by Connell, gender relations are a social phenomenon unto themselves."
p. 37: "The idea that the gender hierarchy constitutes a structure or system of equal importance to, and related to, the class hierarchy emerged in the late 1970s articulated by Hartmann (1979) and by a collection of papers edited by Eisenstein (1979). It crystallized into a "dual systems theory," in which gender subordination is viewed as a separate system with its own logic and basis. Class relations and gender relations crucially intertwine in different ways in different moments of history, but neither determines the other."
Questions: how to intertwine the dual systems? And how to theorize the already intrinsically, intuitively defined gender hierarchy, if economic strata are not applicable?
pp. 38-39: "A number of theories have been proposed that purport to answer this question, or at least establish the preliminary terms and arena for analysis. Connell (1987: 54-65) has divided the competing theories into two very abstract types, "categorical" and "practice." The distinction depends upon whether the investigation or explanation presupposes the categories to be investigated. If so, the theory qualifies as "categorical" [for example, if the categories are male and female, or if the categories are "typical" male and "typical" female] If, instead, the investigation presumes that interest groups emerge around culturally constructed "sexual" activities, the theory qualifies as a "practice" theory [for example, sexual intercourse].....By their nature, practice theories are apt to be more complex than categorical theories...The advantage of practice theory is that it can accommodate the issue of internal divisions within categories...As conceived by practice theory, different forms of masculinities and femininities are likely to arise, along with different interest groups that stand to gain or lose depending on the ascendancy of one form over another. The categories themselves are at issue as well as the cultural construction of the activities."
p. 41: "Production theory, to the extent that it rests upon taken-for-granted, immutable categories (e.g. class, gender, race) and assumes that its job is to study the conflict between and among these categories and the subcategories formed by their intersection (e.g. black women, white men), is also at risk of the limitations that Connell and Arnot point out for the older theories of social reproduction....Practice theories attempt to overcome this risk. they focus on the generation of meaning systems by groups in response to structural constraints, as does production theory. But they respond to internal divisions and struggles as well and thus enlarge upon production theory."
p. 41: "With incorporation into its [practice theory's] theory of internal differences among working-class and other structurally defined categories of youth, a major vestige of the structuralist view, a priori categories and preordained interest groups, is being cast off...The focus has moved to the production of incipient social movements that could conceivably challenge existing class and gender regimes to the point of crisis and disruption."
