Gender and Migration

Transnational and Intersectional Prospects

Anna Amelina, Helma Lutz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351066280
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sozialwissenschaften
• Subtopic: Soziologie

From its beginnings in the 1970s and 1980s, interest in the topic of gender and migration has grown. Gender and Migration seeks to introduce the most relevant sociological theories of gender relations and migration that consider ongoing transnationalization processes, at the beginning of the third millennium. These include intersectionality, queer studies, social inequality theory and the theory of transnational migration and citizenship; all of which are brought together and illustrated by means of various empirical examples.

With its explicit focus on the gendered structures of migration-sending and migration-receiving countries, Gender and Migration builds on the most current conceptual tool of gender studies—intersectionality—which calls for collective research on gender with analysis of class, ethnicity/race, sexuality, age and other axes of inequality in the context of transnational migration and mobility. The book also includes descriptions of a number of recommended films that illustrate transnational migrant masculinities and femininities within and outside of Europe.

A refreshing attempt to bring in considerations of queer theory and sexual identity in the area of gender migration studies, this insightful volume will appeal to students and researchers interested in fields such as sociology, social anthropology, political science, intersectional studies and transnational migration.

Chapter 1

Gender relations and migration

Introduction to the current state of the debate

1.1 The social construction of gender

This introductory chapter presents some of the main analytical concepts, fundamental debates, and traditions both of women’s and gender studies and of migration research. It will serve as the starting point for the subsequent discussion of these two areas, of the linkages between them, and of their commonalities and differences. Two central theoretical debates from gender studies will be of particular importance in that discussion. The debate to be introduced first is about the social construction of gender, which deconstructs the assumption of biological gender binarism and focuses on analyzing the production of gender. The second debate is about the methodological foundations and includes the debate about intersectionality, which not only criticizes the sole focus on gender but in particular makes a case for analyzing the interplay of gender, class, race/ethnicity, and other social categories—a proposition that is also relevant when analyzing transnational social inequality.

For a long time, mainstream social inequality research gave little attention to gender relations. Analyses of social asymmetries and fragmentations focused primarily on inequalities in education and employment or income, as a result of which social class/stratum differences became defined as the most important indicators of social inequalities. As sociologist Helga Krüger observes, “From the perspective of social structure analysis, and in view of the ‘real’ challenges with which our society is faced, gender inequality was regarded (and continues to be regarded today) more as a secondary phenomenon” (2007: 178, transl., HL).

Krüger criticizes this perspective as a “misperception,” noting that gender, as one of several social structure categories, must be systematically taken into consideration in studies of social inequality.

Gender, or gender difference, is regarded as an ordering principle that creates the expectation that every member of society identifies with one of two genders. However, this identification does not remain optional and subjective but occurs at the intersection of institutional constraints, normative patterns, and individual behaviors that influence people’s entire life courses. The role of gender may change during the course of a life history; at the same time, the consideration of gender in relation to other categories, such as social class, ethnicity, nationality, and age, is indispensable. In doing so, it is necessary to avoid singularizing and static approaches, because gender relations are different at different points in time (in socialization, education, working life, family life, and old age). This is why inequality scholar Karin Gottschall (2004: 193) argues that gender relations must always be considered in terms of their temporal or process dimension.

However, there is not necessarily a consensus on the efficacy of gender. Stimulated by the second wave of the feminist movement of the 1970s, an accompanying, and eventually long-lasting, debate ensued within the emerging academic fields of women’s and gender studies with regard to how gender should be defined. There is some consensus in this debate, particularly concerning the initial assumption that most societies are organized on the basis of gender binarism, which in turn is based on the dichotomic male/female principle; charged with cultural interpretation patterns, this difference is regarded as a socially produced category (as opposed to one that exists in nature). At first glance, such a perspective is confusing because it is contrary to widely shared common knowledge, as well as to many people’s common-sense perceptions. After all, the perception of gender seems to be beyond doubt and, precisely for this reason, seems to require no explanation. Gender scholar Angelika Wetterer correctly notes:

That there are two—and only two—genders; that everyone belongs to either one gender or the other; that gender identity is fixed from birth onward and never changes or disappears; that gender identity can be determined beyond a doubt on the basis of the genitalia, which makes it a natural and unambiguous biological fact on which we have no influence – all of these are basic rules of our “everyday theory of gender binarism” (Hagemann-White 1984: 78) that seem to be as unquestionably correct as the assumption that this has always been the case, and that it is no different in other cultures

(Wetterer 2010: 126, transl., HL).

This “everyday theory” had already been called into question in the premodern era, but only in modern times was it criticized extensively, and only during the last third of the 20th century did such criticism become more comprehensive and complex. The book The Second Sex by the French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, published in 1949, is widely regarded as a pioneering work that inspired the women’s liberation movement that would start to emerge some twenty years later, as did, along with it, the study of gender. In her book, de Beauvoir traces the long history of discrimination against women as a process in which personal autonomy and self-determination were considered a male prerogative, whereas the female sex was characterized as an Other, a deviation from the male. Her statement “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” (de Beauvoir 1953 [1949]: 267) laid the foundations for the social constructivist perspective on sex and gender that continues to have a significant influence on the debate in gender research today. For this perspective to be able to establish itself, it was first necessary to accept the null hypothesis that “there is no essential, naturally prescribed gender binary, but that there are only different cultural constructions of gender” (Hagemann-White 1984: 230, transl., HL).

In the 1980s, the American historian Joan W. Scott (1988) caused quite a stir in the historical research community when she established the concept of “gender” as a central category of historical analysis. Scott called into question the distinction between sex as a biological characteristic and gender as a socialized, learned identity that until then had been used in the feminist debate, and instead emphasized the important role of discourses, which have always changed our understanding of sex/gender and sexual/gender differences.

The linguistic turn

The most radical revolutionizing contribution to the debate was made by the American philosopher Judith Butler (1993), who dismissed the distinction into sex and gender, noting that language does not represent but rather constitutes reality (linguistic turn), so addressing an individual with reference to that individual’s gender (e.g., Mrs. or Mr. So-and-So) does not simply identify that gender, but it is generated anew every time that individual is addressed. Addressing an individual by means of language produces the unambiguity of gender identity that society expects, and this “is repeated and confirmed again and again until it seems like a natural characteristic” (Kraß 2013: 41, transl., HL). The benefit of Butler’s approach is that not only has it drawn attention to the normative belief that there are only two genders, but it has also opened a new perspective on the relationship between gender and sexuality given that the social regulation of sexuality is based on a binary distinction as well, namely the distinction into heterosexuality and homosexuality. “If gender, including the body, is a social construct, then there is no reason to postulate any kind of natural orientation of desire and we must accept that heterosexuality, like the gender binary, is a performative act and discursive effect (Kraß 2013: 41, transl., HL). Thus, gender is neither “naturally” nor “divinely” given. ¹

These poststructuralist considerations from the linguistic turn have also played a role in the debate about social inequality, although these approaches have had a greater influence on the humanities than on sociological inequality research because of the complex requirements of an empirical design that result from the suggestion that the binaries of gender (male–female) and sexuality (heterosexual–homosexual) be abandoned and new ways of addressing them be sought. Admittedly, this would involve a variety of requirements that are not that easy to meet, because every questionnaire and every interview invokes one of two genders and reproduces this classification, so that this structural category is reduced to these two genders.

Doing gender

A promising approach for inequality research is a version of constructivism that addresses the production of gender—known as doing gender—in everyday interactions. This approach was first developed in the 1960s by the American interaction theorists and ethnomethodologists Harold Garfinkel and Erving Goffman. In his case study of “Agnes,” a male-to-female transsexual, Garfinkel (1967) was able to show that neither hormone replacement therapy nor plastic surgery, and neither female clothes nor make-up, is sufficient to convincingly change one’s gender in everyday life. Instead, gender identity must be produced day in and day out, which can be successful only if it is constantly reproduced and recognized as either male or female. Thus, doing gender—that is, doing masculinity or femininity—involves productive efforts that are made so as to conform to the requirements of everyday behavior. Goffman (1977), drawing on Garfinkel’s work, developed the theory of “the arrangement between the sexes,” emphasizing that doing gender is by no means an arbitrary, individual activity, but that there is an institutionalized framework that suggests, pre-structures, and controls the form of this activity, so that rule violations that are monitored and punished during childhood (“boys don’t wear skirts and don’t cry”) are eventually unconsciously avoided. ² This behavior is practiced as part of primary (family) and secondary (school, sports clubs) socialization processes and also becomes an internalized matrix, or behavioral grammar (Bourdieu), that manifests itself in unconscious everyday behaviors. For transgender individuals, reorienting themselves to the matrix of the other gender is an arduous learning process that involves working on their voice, on a variety of other body-related performances (movements, clothes), and on their biographical narratives (see in this regard the many male-to-female voice-training videos on YouTube ³ ).

Ethnomethodology has reversed the direction of the widely held assumption that gender derives from sex by starting from the cultural interpretation of nature rather than from nature itself:

When we view gender as an accomplishment, an achieved property of situated conduct, our attention shifts from matters internal to the individual and focuses on interactional and, ultimately, institutional arenas.

(West and Zimmerman 1987: 140, emphasis added)

In addition, it should be noted that the debate about the social construction of “the gender binary as a knowledge system” (Hirschauer 1996, transl., HL) opened the way for sociological approaches to comparable considerations of other social markers that are virulent in modern societies, such as ethnicity/race, sexuality, social class, citizenship, “disability,” and age (see the following section on intersectionality).

“Productive” vs. “unproductive” labor

Of particular importance for the debate about the gender dimension of social inequality is the observation that social inequality between the sexes is constitutive of our modern labor society (Arendt 1958). This inequality is the result of a hierarchization of labor that implies a gendered structural opposition of production and reproduction in which the sphere of production has always been favored over the sphere of reproduction; remuneration for productive labor (wage labor) in the value chain continues to be higher today than remuneration for reproductive labor (or “care work,” as we have come to call it), which is generally considered to be unproductive (Lutz 2010a; see also Chapter 4 in this book). The inequality researcher Reinhard Kreckel has described this distinction between “productive” wage labor and “unproductive” care work in the modern labor society as follows:

There, in the sphere of production, we find the primary power asymmetry between capital and labor, and that is also where we find the power asymmetry of the bureaucratic-capitalist labor market. That is where income is generated and distributed (unequally), and where the official hierarchy of social positions is anchored. The second, unofficial hierarchy, which is particularly unfavorable to women, is based on a distinction between paid productive labor and unpaid reproductive labor. For in the monetary economy, a twofold rule of thumb applies: work that is not paid does not count, and work that does not count is not paid.

(Kreckel 2004: 270–71, transl., HL)

In a system in which it is only through wage labor that socialization can occur and that individuals can be recognized as honorable members of society—and this is exactly what happens in post-industrial late modern societies—power relations and recognition (or the withdrawal of recognition) in the gender order develop along these spheres as well. The concept of double socialization of women, developed by the gender scholar Regina Becker-Schmidt (1987), can be used to identify a pertinent disparity: Our society associates the socialization of masculinity primarily with the breadwinner role and with gainful employment, whereas femininity is ambivalently socialized as the dual role of being responsible both for reproductive labor and for contributing to the family income. This disparity results in a system of social regulation that in turn leads to a permanent gender-specific asymmetry, because men have no care responsibilities or, put differently, because their care responsibilities are limited to the male-breadwinner principle.

Because of this double socialization, or double orientation, women are confronted with a multitude of endurance tests with which men are never confronted to the same extent. Women have developed a complex capacity for work that qualifies them for two ‘workplaces’—the one at home and the one outside the home. If they want to experience both of these fields of practice, they risk running into the qualitative and quantitative issues this double burden involves

(Becker-Schmidt 1987: 23, transl., HL)

Some 25 years ago, it was predicted that the double socialization of women would erode as women became better educated. However, now, in the early 21st century, we see that it is still difficult for women to pa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of films
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Gender relations and migration: Introduction to the current state of the debate
• 2. Migration and gender: Researching migration in national, global, and transnational frameworks
• 3. Doing migration and doing gender: Intersectional perspectives on migration and gender
• 4. Care: An intersectional analysis of transnational care work and transnational families
• 5. The changing face of citizenship: From the national model to the transnational and intersectional approaches
• 6. Teaching intersections of gender, migration and transnationality
• References
• Index