This ethnography tells of the social construction of masculinities and femininities in The Group, a charismatic social change movement. While sex essentialism led to sex-segregated jobs and only two authorized gender performances, men performing hegemonic masculinity and women performing emphasized femininities, alternatives existed. Alternative gender performances—for example, men performing emphasized femininity, men performing marginalized masculinity, and women performing hegemonic masculinity—were functional to organization. While these alternative gender performances were allowed, they were not acknowledged in the sex essentialist organizational discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarilG.ElbertN.Mahar-PorterS., & ReavyG. (1989). Are androgynous managers really more effective?Group & Organizational Studies, 14, 234–249.
2.
BernS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
3.
BernS. L. (1993). The lens of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
4.
CarriganT.ConnellR. W., & LeeJ. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society, 14, 551–604.
5.
CasagrandeJ. B., & HaleK. L. (1967). Semantic relationships in Pagago folk-definitions. In HymesD. H. & BittleW. E. (Eds.), Studies in Southwestern ethnolinguistics: Meaning and history in the languages of the American Southwest (pp. 165–193). The Hauge: Mouton.
6.
ChengC. (1996). “We choose not to compete”: The “merit” discourse in the selection process, and Asian and Asian American men and their masculinity. In ChengC. (Ed), Masculinities in organizations (pp. 177–200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
ChengC. (1997a, November). Is it an “international educational foundation” or a cult?: An ethnography on organizational identities and educational change strategies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Comparative and International Educational Society Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
8.
ChengC. (1997b, October). Racio-ethnic masculinity discrimination against Asian and Asian-American men in the managerial selection process. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies, Boulder, CO.
9.
ChengC. (1999). Sacralizing essentialistic sex roles in the superior-subordinate relationship: An ethnography on an organizational discourse of “naturalizing” sex differences and organizational power. Working paper. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
10.
ConnellR. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
11.
ConnellR. W. (1990). An iron man: The body and some contradictions of hegemonic masculinity. In MessnerM. A. & SaboD. F. (Eds.), Sport, men, and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
12.
ElyR. J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203–238.
13.
FineG. A. (1980). Cracking diamonds: Observer role in little league baseball settings and the acquisition of social competence. In ShaffirW. B.StebbinsR. A., & TurowetzA. (Eds.), Fieldwork experience: Qualitative approaches to social research (pp. 117–132). New York: St. Martins.
14.
GarfinkelH. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, “trust” as a condition of stable concerted action. In HarveyO. J. (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction (pp. 187–238). New York: Ronald Press.
15.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. S. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
17.
GoffmanE. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. (Original work published 1958).
18.
GramsciA. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks, London, UK: Lawrence & Wishart.
19.
HamadaT. (1996). As they see us: Americanization of a Japanese multinational in the United States. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 3, 31–44.
20.
HooksB. (1981). Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston: South End Press.
21.
HooksB. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End Press.
22.
KanterR. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic.
23.
KesslerS. J., & McKennaW. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. New York: Wiley.
24.
KimmelM. S. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free Press.
25.
LorberJ. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
26.
MesserschmidtJ. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lantham, MD: Rowland & Littlefield.
27.
MessnerM. A. (1993). “Changing men” and feminist politics in the United States. Theory and Society, 22, 723–737.
28.
PierceJ. (1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
PowellG. N., & ButterfieldD. A. (1979). The “good manager”: Masculine or androgynous?Academy of Management Journal, 22, 395–403.
30.
PowellG. N., & ButterfieldD. A. (1989). The “good manager”: Did androgyny fare better in the 1980s?Group & Organizational Studies, 14, 216–233.
31.
ScheinV. E. (1973). Relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.
32.
ScheinV. E. (1975). Relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20, 103–110.
33.
SmithD. E. (1988). Femininity as discourse. In RomanL. G. & Christian-SmithL. K. (Eds.), Becoming feminine: The politics of popular culture (pp. 37–59). London, UK: Falmer.
34.
SpradelyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart.
35.
SpradelyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt Rinehart.
36.
SpradelyJ. P., & McCurdyD. W. (1975). The cultural perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
37.
SteinB. (1973). The internal economics of communes. In KanterR. M. (Ed.), Communes: Creating and managing the collective life (pp. 274–276). New York: Harper & Row.
38.
TelfordL. (1997). “Selves in Bunkers”: Organizational consequences of failing to verify alternative masculinities. In ChengC. (Ed), Masculinities in organizations (pp. 130–159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
