Changing Modes of Production and the Sexual Division of Labor among the Yoruba
Changing Modes of Production and the Sexual Division of Labor among the Yoruba
复制标题
约鲁巴人生产方式的变化和性别分工
DOI：
10.1086/493883
复制
发表时间：
1981
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Afonja
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Afonja
性别分工的分析家最近开始承认，现代化理论在妇女与发展研究中对性别不平等的解释是有限的，部分原因是它对性别分工基础的假设。现代化理论的基础是两个基本概念：（1）资本主义的积累和扩张决定了所有社会的性别分工;（2）历史进程和变化方向在整个人类历史上是相同的。第一种假设导致了一种传统，即主要根据妇女在家庭之外参与生产角色的程度来解释妇女的地位。然而，最近对发达工业国家和第三世界国家的发展模式进行的比较已经修正了这种对女性从属地位的解释。在研究不同的发展模式时，这些研究在概念和方法上进行了改进，区分了作为女性从属地位原因的性别分工和作为女性从属地位结果的性别分工。这些修订产生了一套新的假设：分析人员必须确定一个以上的“起因”变化因素;普遍的变化理论必须基于对自主历史进程的理解;必须审查生产和再生产中的性别关系，因为一个领域的变化标志着另一个领域的变化。卢尔德·本内尔法和吉塔·森在重新评价埃斯特·博瑟鲁普的著作时认为，博瑟鲁普把注意力集中在妇女的生殖领域，忽视了妇女在生物和社会再生产中的作用。
Analysts of the sexual division of labor have recently begun to acknowledge that modernization theory in studies of women and development provides only a limited explanation of sexual inequality, in part because of its assumptions about the basis of the sexual division of labor. Underlying modernization theory are two basic notions: (1) that capitalist accumulation and expansion determine the sexual division of labor in all societies and (2) that historical process and the direction of change are the same throughout human history. The first assumption has given rise to the tradition of explaining women's status chiefly in terms of the degree to which females participate in production roles outside the home. However, recent comparisons of development patterns in advanced industrial nations and in Third World countries have revised this explanation of female subordination. In examining divergent patterns of development, these studies have made conceptual and methodological refinements that distinguish between the sexual division of labor as the cause of female subordination and the sexual division of labor as the effect of female subordination. These revisions have generated a new set of assumptions: that analysts must identify more than one "causative" factor of change; that a universal theory of change must be based on an understanding of autonomous historical processes; and that gender relations in both production and reproduction must be examined, because change in one sphere signals change in the other. In their reappraisal of Ester Boserup's work, Lourdes Benerfa and Gita Sen argue that Boserup ignores the significance of women's role in biological and social reproduction by concentrating on the sphere of