Fetishizations of Difference: the Life Course Perspective and a Complex Social Theory of

Gender Conceptualization across Theoretical Disciplines

Jade Crimson Rose Da Costa
Western University
Sociology 9258A December 11th 2014

Introduction
In On the Jewish Question, Marx (1978) states that: If you want to be politically
emancipated, without emancipating yourself humanly, the inadequacy and the contradiction is
not entirely in yourself but in the nature and the category of political emancipation. If you are
preoccupied with this category you share the general prejudice (p. 40). In this quote, Marx
speaks of the politics of identity in capitalism, and the fundamental problem is dividing the
proletariat based on social categories of identity. Social identities, such as race or sexuality,
divide the masses based on abstract forms of identification forged in the matrix of capitalist
production. Marx maintains that the political emancipation of specific social groups reestablishes both the state and cultural forms of consciousness, i.e., social identities, as distinct
forms of alienation (Marx 1978: 32). This fails to recognize the innate inequality of capitalism
and confuses political emancipation for human emancipation. Problematically however, Marxs
debunking of cultural fragmentation falls on deaf ears; the polemics of identity that divide the
proletariat cultivate a similar theoretical division between Social Theory, Feminist Theory and
Queer Theory. Such a division hinders a multifaceted, multidimensional, well develop, social
philosophy of gender conceptualization. This paper adapts the multidimensional Life Course
Perspective in order to draw on the major theoretical components of Feminist, Social and Queer
Theory. This will: 1) establish a complex, thorough and diverse social philosophy of gender
conceptualization In North America, and 2) demonstrate that the political divide between the
three major theoretical domains is a division based on identity politics. As a result, the academic
conceptualization of gender as a social phenomenon is fragmented based on the hegemonic
ideologies it serves to disrupt.

The Literature Review will identify the characteristics of social philosophy that
distinguish Social Theory, Feminist Theory and Queer Theory. Social Theory will first be
distinguished from Feminist Theory, than a practical definition of contemporary Feminist Theory
will be developed in order to distinguish Feminist Theory from Queer Theory. The theoretical
premise of Queer Theory will then be established to address the epistemological divorce between
Marxism and Queer Literature. Then Historical Materialism will be defined in order to
problematize the absence of Marx is Queer Theory. Lastly, the major principles of the Life
Course Perspective will be used to draw on all three bodies of academic literature in order to
produce a multidimensional theory of gender conceptualization. This will illustrate that The Life
Course Perspective serves as a remedy for the theoretical divide between Feminist, Queer, and
Social Theory.
This paper first establishes the relationship between capital and gender within the
framework of Historical Materialism. This will demonstrate that all gender ideologies are
historical and social products subject to specific historical time and place. The paper will then
engage in an evaluation of the North American division of labour in both industrial and
contemporary capitalism in order to exemplify the materialist ontology of gender identity. Male
privilege, female sexism, and transgender discrimination are situated within this cultural,
historical, social, and economic context where dominant consciousness is the ontological basis
for all gender performativity. With regards to this relationship between Historical Materialism
and Hegemonic Gender ideology, gender performativity is viewed as a gender trajectory
interrelated with other life course trajectories. The gendered sexual trajectories of homosexual
and heterosexual men, the work trajectories of transgendered individuals, and the work and
family trajectories of ciswomen and men are then theorized. The comparison of heteronormative

and non-normative gender trajectories illustrates that gender performativity occurs across all
genders. Such gender trajectories are framed by cultural definitions of masculinity and
femininity, rooted in industrial capitalism, and maintained by the gender binary of contemporary
capitalism.
Based on the theoretical framework of Historical Materialism and the Methodological
practice of Gender Performativity, the multidimensionality of the Life Course Perspective
incorporates both the macro and micro processes of gender conceptualization. This illustrates the
significance of historical, cultural, economic and social conditions in gender conceptualization,
as well as the fluidity of gender identity across the life course. Such a compressive social
philosophy of gender inequality problematizes the theoretical divide between Feminist, Social
and Queer Theorists. Use of The Life Course Model suggests that this division is based on
politics of difference that merely serve to hinder the academic discussion of gender.
Literature Review
Feminist Theory as Social Theory
The depth and diversity of Feminist Theory suggests that the discussion of gender in
Social Theory is not up to par with the multifaceted dimensions of gender conceptualization.
What is the defining characteristic of Feminist Theory that allows for an ample discussion of
gender? Why is this not the case in Social Theory? In other words, what distinguishes Feminist
Theory from Social Theory? Dorothy Smith (2008: 585) distinguishes Feminist Theory from
Social Theory with a phenomenological methodology. Smith incorporates phenomenology into a
Marxist epistemology because, for Smith (1992:89), Social Theory uses the cultural texts of
hegemonic masculinity in order to understand inequality. As a result, women are dominated and
objectified within the academic discipline that seeks to understand domination and exploitation.

As a sociologist and a Feminist, Smith illustrates the tension between Social Theory and
Feminist Theory well; it is the tension of masculinist domination. Like Smith, many Feminist
Theorists draw on both social structure and lived experiences; however, this is not a
methodological practice unique to Feminist Theory, nor is it a practice that is absent in Social
Theory. What is unique to Feminist Theory is the discussion of society from the position of the
minority, where social theorization in centralized around women (Scholz 2010: 3). As an
ontology and epistemology, Feminist Theory cannot be distinguished from Social Theory any
more than one can argue that Emilie Durkheim is a sociologist, and Max Weber is not. Social
Theory is complex with diverse social philosophies. It is merely as a political symbol that
Feminist Theory is separated from Social Theory as the Feminist Theorist is allotted the social
and physical space appropriate to gender conceptualization. The Feminist discusses gender not
because of the theoretical inaccuracy of Social Theory but the cultural politics of academia.
Feminist Theory: Structuralism and Intersectionality
The gender politics that divide the Feminist from the Social Theorist, also divide the
Feminist from the Queer Theorist; however, in the ladder the distinction is predicated on the
conceptual divide between genderism and transgenderism. In order to distinguish Queer Theory
from Feminist Theory, Feminist Theory, must first be defined beyond the former definition of a
politicized Social Theory. Although Feminist Theory cannot be distinguished from Social Theory
as a social philosophy, Feminist Theory as a movement can be separated from the institution of
sociology. The main conceptual ideas of Second and Third Wave Feminism bear the most
relevance to contemporary Feminist Theory. Second Wave Feminists drew heavily on
structuralism in their analysis of gender. Within structuralism, gender identity is understood
within a social, cultural, economic and historical context of identity formation (Scholz 2010: 72).

Many second wave Feminists were deemed Eurocentric, elitist and homogeneous however
(Marinucci 2010: 89). As a result, Third Wave Feminism argued for a broader and more complex
understanding of gender and social identities. Third Wave Feminists therefore focused on the
concept of intersectionality; the belief that there are multiple and interconnected sources of
oppression and domination (Degele and Winker 2011: 51). A practical definition of
contemporary Feminist Theory therefore focuses on the epistemological developments of
Second Wave Feminism, i.e., structuralism, well moving beyond their homogenous political
and social agenda, as well as their elitist and Eurocentric conceptualization of gender identity.
Despite this sense of social pluralism in contemporary Feminist Theory, there is an
epistemological residue of structuralism where the individual is still within the context of social
structure (Scholz 2010:113). What is implicit in this is that structure is at the foreground of
theoretical conception. It is this epistemological devotion to structure that distinguishes Feminist
Theory from Queer Theory, and as a result, what distinguishes the conceptualization of
transgenderism from that of genderism.
Queer Theory and Gender Performativity
Queer Theorists understand transgenderism as the active and explicit performance of
gender, in which the naturalism of gender is revealed and the masculine/feminine divide is
problematized (Stryker 2006: 10). This conceptualization of gender is informed largely by
Judith Butlers concept of gender performativity. Butler defines gender performativity as a
process of becoming gender, which for Butler (2004: 10) is both habitual and active, as one
appropriates cultural and social ideologies into the terms of their corporeal body and individual
existence. Butler wants to illustrate that sex and gender are not natural; moreover, identity and
social conceptions of identity are imaginary productions of individual negotiation with social and

cultural meanings (Jagger 2008: 18). The underlining assumption to this sentiment is that the
trans-individual is consciously subverting heteronormativity and gender naturalism.
Problematically as Elliot notes (2010: 33), within the theoretical structuralism of Feminist
Literature, gender is understood as a social prescription imposed on the corporal body based
on patriarchal gender ideologies. This assumes that the transgendered is merely rejecting static
gender identities, and opting out of gender altogether (Elliot 2010: 33). The main distinction
here is that while the contemporary Feminist perceives gender as acting on individuals, Queer
Theorists perceive transgenderism as acting on gender.
Historical Materialism
This negation of structuralism in Queer Theory is why Queer literature is almost entirely
devoid of grand social theories such as Marxism. The epistemological wedge between Marxism
and Queer Theory stems from Marxs social philosophy of Historical Materialism. Historical
Materialism develops a dialectical progression of humankind based on the interconnected
evolution of economic structures. For Marx, labour is the expression of human consciousness.
This is because for Marx, the production of material existence is the defining characteristic of
human consciousness as humans are the only beings that produce their means of existence (Marx
1978: 150). In order to support this materialist ontology, Marx outlines a historical analysis of
eight epochs each characterized by a unique mode of production. Each mode of production is
comprised of a means of production, relations of production, and an ideological superstructure,
i.e., dominant consciousness. These structural facets dictate the organization of the material
world and the expression of labour. Every epoch is a part of the dialectical realization of
humanities essential powers throughout history, and contains a thesis, and anti-thesis and a
synthesis. This dialectic results in a material change in the mode of production, and the

appropriation of the means of production, dominant consciousness and the division of labour
(Marx 1978: 161). In capitalist mode of production, labour is based on the production of capital
and the accumulation of wealth derived from the workers unpaid labour. This places the
labourer in direct conflict with private property as the more the worker is exploited, the more that
is produced (Marx 1978: 134). Capitalism contains therefore within it its own thesis and its antithesis; the very premise of capitalism produces an opposing force, and the antagonisms between
the proletariat and wealth are resolved by the proletariat revolution, and the subsequent synthesis
of crude communism (Marx 1978: 134).
Queer Theory and Marxism
Queer Theorists, as well as many other academic domains, criticize Historical
Materialism for its economic determinism. Marxs emphasis on the economic mode of
production pushes sexual politics and gender categories to the back burner of the more
significant concern of private property (Floyd, 2009: 6). This is because labour is the
expression of consciousness for Marx, and the economic structure is the organization of
production and labour; hence, as labour produces consciousness, the mode of production
produces forms of consciousness (Marx 1978: 173). Forms of consciousness include such
things as religion, philosophy, and ideologies surrounding identity, such as gender or race.
Hence, in a capitalist society where labour is reduced to wealth, all social identities, including
gender, are viewed as relations of capital. This is seemingly problematic to Queer Theorist whom
identifies the radical and conscious performance of transgenderism; however, gender ideology as
the abstract form of capital does not mean that gender is reduced to capital. It means rather, that
gender is the expression of capital. While Historical Materialism may not speak directly to the
differences of sexuality, sex and gender, it provides a theoretical framework for a dialogue of

sexual politics. In other words, Historical Materialism is the social, cultural and historical context
in which gender performativity occurs.
The Life Course, Historical Materialism and Gender Performativity
The Life Course Perspective offers a remedy for the current epistemological divorce
between Marxism and Queer Theory. This not only allows for a well-rounded social philosophy
of the gendered life course, it problematizes the political divide between Feminist, Queer and
Social Theory. The Life Course Perspective presumes human development and aging as a
cumulative, life long process (Crosnoe et al. 2003: 11). Our temporality is informed by the
progression and interconnected relations of multiple life stages. This is through life processes
such as accumulation of advantage or disadvantage, individual meaning attributed to life
experiences, and emotional, intellectual, social and physical development (Crosnoe et al.
2003:11). This process is comprised of multiple trajectories, as well as a degree of turning points.
A trajectory is a sequence of transitions, which is a change in a social status, role or state.
Similarly, a turning point is a transition that changes the course of one of more trajectories
(Crosnoe et al. 2003: 8). Like Gender Performativity then, The Life Course Model handsomely
encapsulates gender as the result of an ongoing process of transitions, reproduced and
reconstructed throughout the life course (Carpenter 2010:160). As Carpenter (2010: 160) notes,
doing gender, or gender performativity, is inherently a lifelong process as individuals recreate
and appropriate varies gendered beliefs and norms. The symbolic meanings individuals attribute
to gendered texts grow and change as they do. Individuals also respond to social circumstances,
such as the opinions and values of peers, their social environment such as the distinction between
work and school, as well as cultural and social trends. Furthermore, gender as a trajectory
recognizes that the timing of events, transitions and or turning points in ones life is significant

(Crosnoe et al. 2003: 12). Similarly, Gender Performativity assigns prevalence to the symbolic
understandings of gender identity formation across the life course. Therefore, like trajectories,
Gender Performativity necessitates the significance of timing in gender expression.
The Life Course Perspective emphasizes that the individual life course is still within the
opportunities and constraints of specific historical and social structures (Crosnoe et al. 2003:
11).Within the Life Course Perspective then, gender can be discussed as a trajectory
contextualized by historical and social structures, informed by Historical Materialism. For
example, gender trajectories may follow the socially ascribed scripts of hegemonic masculinity
or femininity. Likewise, asocial gender trajectories of subordinated masculinity and/or
femininity may consist of transitions informed by gendered texts rooted in hegemonic gender
ideology. Here, transgenderism is not the opting out of the gender binary. Transgenderism is
the construction of a unique gender trajectory based on the gendered texts that comprise
dominant gender ideology. In other words, the transgendered is appropriating the social
relationship between the masculine and the feminine. Within this framework,
masculinity/femininity and queer gender identity are contextualized within the same social
philosophy. This recognizes the unique gender trajectories of all men and women while
maintaining a common source of meaning.
Historical Materialism emphasizes the role of historical and social structures as well as
the significance of historical and social contexts. Likewise, The Life Course Perspective situates
individuals within a specific historical time and place (Crosnoe et al. 2003: 12). Social structures
such as gender, class, and sexual orientation, or social institutions such as education, family, and
work, may influence gender trajectories; however, Historical Materialism is a historical
development of material existence. Within Historical Materialism then, social structures and

institutions are reliant on their historical and geographical location, and forms of consciousness,
such as gender, are connected to a historical time and place. Moreover, Historical Materialism
was developed in a time that could not possibly foresee intersectionality, i.e., the political, social
and academic recognition of multiple forms of oppression. Thus, while sexuality and gender
politics may not have been prevalent during the time at which Marx wrote, such politics have
gained significant relevancy in contemporary life. Hence, a Life Course Perspective stays true to
the historical component of Historical Materialism, and addresses the temporal disconnect
between Marxs epistemology and a discussion of gender and sexuality.
The Life Course Perspective encompasses both the macro and micro levels of analysis
within Social Theory. This allows for a historical and social construction of gender ideology
through the epistemological lens of Historical Materialism, while also recognizing the
methodological significance of the individual life course. The multidimensional Life Course
approach therefore creates a well-rounded social philosophy of gender conceptualization. This in
turn, problematizes the political segregation of gender ideologies according to gender specific
disciplines. The proposition that Feminist, Queer and Social Theorists are distinguished delegates
of theoretical conceptionnn creates an academic fragmentation of gender inequality. This hinders
a well-rounded social philosophy of gender and transforms the social praxis of gender based
inequality into fraternizations of arbitrary difference.
Social and Historical Context: Historical Materialism
Gender and Capital
This paper previously distinguished between gender as reduced to capital, and gender as
the expression of capital. The distinction between these two expressions illustrates a common
epistemological fallacy in the criticism of Historical Materialism. That is, in the critical and

academic analysis of Marx, one often confuses class with that of capital. For example,
Mitchell (2011: 397) claims that the assumption that female liberation will follow a socialist
revolution diminishes the unique oppression and subordination felt by women, and that a specific
theory about gender inequality is required for its eradication. The assumption in this criticism is
that gender and class are two distinct modes of oppression. Gender and class however, are both
mutually informed by their relation to capital. For Marx, consciousness is determined by material
life as labour is the expression of consciousness, and the economic conditions that organize
material existence determine the production of labour and the process of production; therefore,
the means of production and the division of labour inform the ideological superstructure (Marx
1978: 173). The superstructure is a theoretical expression of the mode of production comprised
of complimentary ideologies. These are sentimental systems of values and concepts that mediate
between the lived reality of the individual and the mythological reality of the social (Allahar and
Cote 1998: 4). The production of capital and the accumulation of wealth is the driving force of a
capitalist mode of production; thus, the ideological superstructure of capitalism is the abstract
form of capital (Marx 1978: 172). In other words, the beliefs, values, ideas, and norms of a
capitalist society relate the lived reality of the individual to the mythological permanence, and
essentialism, of the production of capital. The production of capital is derived from the surplus
value of the labourer based on the relations of private property; therefore, capitalism is based on
exploitation. Here we see two key components of capitalism: 1) hegemonic ideology is the
expression of capital, and 2) exploitation is both essential and necessary in the production of
capital. It follows then, that the dominant consciousness of a capitalist mode of production seeks
to either legitimize or obscure social inequality in an effort to maintain capital. To say then, that
gender is the expression of capital, is to say that masculinity and femininity are ideologies

forged in the interest of capital which seek to maintain gender inequality and exploitation
(Allahar and Cote 1998: 93). This is a materialist explanation of gender ideology that provides an

ontological basis for the social conceptions of gender identity. Gender as the expression of
capital does not dictate the individual choices and actions that build gender trajectories; it merely
establishes gender as a social location. This recognizes that the choices individuals make are
shaped by historical and social circumstances as well as culturally produced knowledge.
The Division of Labour and Genderism
An historical analysis of the North American division of labour allows us to establish
masculinity and femininity as expressions of capital. This illustrates how gender ideologies are
products of specific historical and social contexts which produce normative social pathways of
gender performativity. In the era of industrial capitalism the division of labour was characterized
by the dichotomy between the public and private sphere. The public sphere is the economic
production of capital in the form of wage labour, competition and profit (Andersen 2011:398).
The private sphere on the other hand is characterized by the organization of unpaid domestic
labour, such as household maintenance, care for dependents, and consumption practices
(McMullin 2010:46). The premise of a capitalist economy is the production of capital and the
accumulation of profit. As a result, value is dictated by the social relations of capital in the form
of paid labour and its materialized form of currency (Allhar and Cote 1998: 96).With the
economic nepotism of wealth in capitalism, the public sphere is characterized by the process of
production and therefore considered valuable. Likewise, as the social domain of consumption,
the private sphere adapted the ideological ethos of value-less. Prior to the industrial revolution,
there was little paid labour as production and consumption occurred within the context of the
home (McMullin 2010: 147). With the rise of industrial capitalism in the early 1900s however,

production shifted to outside of the home and resulted in the subsequent separation of the private
and public sphere (Andersen 2011: 116). As women occupied the private sphere the devaluation
of the domestic permeated the ideological conceptualization of femininity, and the male female
sex distinction evolved into a gender binary informed by the cultural ethos of consumption and
production. Masculinity and femininity served to legitimize the division of labour within
industrial capitalism. Furthermore, femininity and masculinity as inherently connected to
processes of production, and consumption, naturalizes labour as an essential component of male
and female identities. As a result, the production of capital, in the form of either paid or unpaid
labour, becomes a necessary characteristic of the essential individual.
The Life Course Perspective demonstrates that historical time and place is significant and
that social structures are in flux with historically specific narratives. Similarly, we see that while
gender ideologies are rooted within the social and historical contexts of industrial capitalism, the
relationship between the ideological superstructure and the division of labour has shifted across
time. Contemporary capitalism compared to industrial capitalism is a separate place in time and
space with unique effects on gender identity. The division of labour has evolved since the
industrial revolution resulting in an ideological adaptation of the gender mythology of industrial
capitalism; despite the fact that female participation in the labour force has tripled since 1941,
the gender binary of the early 1900s still resides now in its abstract form (Armstrong and
Amstrong 1994: 104). Women are over represented in feminized jobs that maintain the
ideological residue of domesticity and consumption; for example, women are unevenly
employed within the service industry, the beauty industry, and jobs characterized by the caregiver
role (Allahar and Cote 1998:105). The segregation of women into paid womens work is the
systematic devaluation of paid labour through gender mythology. Such feminized jobs are

more precarious, less prestigious, offer lower pay and have fewer benefits (McMullin 2010:
202). The feminization of labour brings the connotative ideals of consumption surrounding
femininity, to the forefront of the public sphere as a legitimatization of pay inequality. As a
result, half the population becomes a reserve army of cheap labour based on the categorization of
their physical body. Hegemonic ideologies of masculinity and femininity naturalize historical
and cultural definitions of the gendered body while legitimatizing exploitation based on sex.
The Gender Binary and Transgenderism
The social separation of the public and private sphere was informed by the cultural
meanings attributed to production and consumption. Within capitalism productivity and
consumption are binaries; the presence of one assumes the absence of the other, and the
inferiority of consumption is based on the superiority of production. As the ideological
predecessors of production and consumption, femininity and masculinity adapted a similar
binary. Masculinity is the opposite of femininity, and vice versa; furthermore, masculinity attains
the value-able status of production and is therefore superior to the inferior feminine gender
(Andersen 2011: 398).Similarly, masculinity adopted the characteristics of the public:
producer, driven, dominant etc., while femininity adopted the attributes of the private: docile,
passive, domestic, etc. The gender binary not only legitimizes female subordination and
exploitation, it conceptualizes gender as comprised of two, opposing identities. As a result,
gender and sexual expression are refined to a cultural binary. Transgendered individuals identify
beyond this gender binary and thus exist in between the gendered lines of social existence
(Bloodswoth-lugo 2007: 60). This blurs the strict gendered lines of capitalist North America
which conflate labour with gender identity in order to naturalize wage labour as an expression of
gender affirmation. The gender binary further legitimizes gender exploitation in order to increase

profit accumulation. Transgenderism is the visible and social disruption of gender essentialism
and illuminates the capitalist construction and perpetuation of gender inequality; furthermore,
transgenderism de-naturalizes gender identity which in turn de-naturalizes the selling of labour
power as an expression of the individual. Subsequently, Transgenderism is often met with social
blacklash and aggression. Stotzers (2009: 170) review of hate crimes in the United States
indicates that transgendered people are at a significantly high risk for multiple types of violence,
specifically sexual violence, persistently across the life course starting at an early age. The innate
social activism in visible transgenderism is an aggressive threat to the gender ideals of North
American society. As a result, transgenderism is often combated with an attempt to obliterate
gender subversion, i.e., murder, or an attempt to reassert normative gender ideologies through
sexual domination and heteronormative expression (Bloodswoth-lugo 2007: 65). Transgenderism
is a threat to the ideological maintenance of capital and hegemonic ideology and is therefore
subjected to discrimination. Like female sexism and male privilege, transphobia can therefore be
historically and socially located to the development of capitalism. Historical Materialism merely
illustrates that hegemonic gender ideology is informed by a historical and social context, time
and place, and that all gender trajectories take place within specific historical, cultural and social
systems that dictate what gender means.
Gender Performativity across the Life Course
Gendered Trajectories and Cumulative Advantage/Disadvantage
Within the Life Course Perspective Historical Materialism is the macro conceptualization
of gender that deals with the social construction of gender ideology. Whereas gender
performativity is the micro conceptualization of gender that seeks to understand the symbolic
meanings we attribute to the experience of gender. Carpenters (2014) adaptation of ORands

Cumulative Disadvantage/Advantage Theory for a gendered life course nicely illustrates this
sentiment of subjective development. ORands (1996) Cumulative Disadvantage/Advantage
Theory focuses on the accumulation of possibilities and adversity across the life course. This
illustrates that the timing and sequence of life transitions and/or turning points may result in
accumulative advantage and/or disadvantage across life trajectories. Similarly, this has
subsequent effects on the aging process. ORands (1996) theory maintains that advantageous life
events result in higher exposure to subsequent health advantage, and disadvantageous life events
result in exposure to health disadvantage. Carpenter (2014) revamps this Cumulative
Disadvantage/Advantage Theory of aging with the concepts of gender performativity and
hegemonic ideology in order to conceptualize sexuality across the life course. Carpenters model
for studying gendered sexuality across the life course (GSLC), proposes that sexuality is a result
of lifelong exposure to advantageous or disadvantageous sexual experiences, and that
individuals sexual scripts are informed by individual navigation within specific historical and
social contexts of gender mythology (Carpenter 2014: 157). The GSLC model, while tailed to
gender and sexual expression, theoretically bridges macro and micro structures across the life
course through social structure and symbolic internationalism. Thus, the GSLC model is
methodologically synonymous with Ferraro and Shippees (2009: 334) Cumulative Inequality
Theory. Cumulative Inequality Theory maintains that social systems produce inequality, and that
inequality is reproduced across the life course through structural and individual processes. As a
result, individual trajectories are informed by accumulative advantage and disadvantage as well
as individual navigation, negotiation and adaptation across life trajectories (Ferraro and Shippee
2009: 334). The GSLC model is unique in that it incorporates Feminist and Queer concepts into
Life Course Research which provides a more thorough discussion of gender as a trajectory;

however, unlike the GSLC model, Cumulative Inequality Theory outlines specific principles that
establish cumulative inequality thus further developing Carpenters argument. Relevant
principles will be drawn upon throughout the paper.
Gender Performativity and Sexual Trajectories
Cumulative Inequality Theory necessitates that Life Course trajectories are shaped by the
accumulation of risk, available resources, and human agency (Ferraro and Shippee 2009: 335).
This is true within the vertical span of individual trajectories, as well as horizontally across
trajectories. Individuals occupy multiple roles throughout the life course, such as worker, parent,
male, etc., that are mutually informative and dependent on the meanings provided to each
specific role, as well as the experiences and life sequences within each specific trajectory
(Copher and Macmillan 2005: 859). Gender as a trajectory is arguably interconnected with all
life course trajectories as gender is consistent across the life course (although gender expression
changes). As Carpenter (2010: 161) notes, the relationship between the trajectories of gender and
sex is likely the most obvious, as sexual activities are often predicated on gender normative
assumptions and practices. Greens (2006) study of sixty homosexual and fifty heterosexual men
from New York City, aged twenty one to fifty two, illustrates how sexual trajectories are
informed by hegemonic practices of masculinity and cultural assumptions of family. Straight
men in the study found that the transition to marriage provided a transition into age normative
expressions of masculinity. Heterosexual males found that youth provided a cultural environment
of masculine expression through sexual domination and the exploration of sexual capital.
Marriage on the other hand, aloud men to express their masculinity through the patriarchal
assumptions of the family unit (Carpenter 2010:167). Marriage was then considered an
advantageous transition in the heteronormative gender trajectory due to the age normative

assumptions embedded in the social pathway of hegemonic masculinity. Heterosexual men

adapted sexual transitions in accordance with normative gender performance, and negotiated
their gender performance based on life transitions and age norms. The reproduction and adaption
of masculine expressions of sexuality and gender identity were simultaneous and mutually
dependent. The sexual and gender trajectories of homosexual men were similarly interconnected;
however, gay men had to negotiate between their non-normative sexuality and the dominant
heteronormative trajectory of marriage and family (Carpenter 2010: 167). As a result, coming
out became a turning point for both their family and sexual trajectories. Coming out increased
exposure to family disadvantage due to the institutional restrictions and the lack of normative
milestones; however, the sexual and romantic sincerity of coming out provided an
advantageous turning point for sexual and romantic trajectories (Carpenter 2010: 167). The
homosexual and heterosexual men of this study engaged in gender performativity within the
historical and cultural context of capitalist gender mythology. Despite sexuality this affected
sexual, romantic and family trajectories, and influenced the exposure to opportunities and
constraints vertically and horizontally across the life course.
Gender Performativity and Work Trajectories
Within Historical Materialism, the ontological roots of masculinity and femininity reside
within the division of labour of early industrial capitalism that established strong ideological ties
between capital, gender and paid/unpaid labour. While the division of labour has evolved in
contemporary capitalism, the trajectories of gender and work are still highly interconnected. As
hegemonic gender ideology is the ontological basis for all gender performativity, gender and
work trajectories are interdependent across all gender identities; however, this section looks
specifically at the gendered trajectories of transgendered individuals and the effect of non-

normative genders on work. More specifically, a study about the work experiences of
transwomen, transmen and the genderqueer will be discussed. A transman is someone who was
born with the sex sites of a woman, and adapted the ideological gender of masculinity. A
transwomen is the opposite process of man to femininity, and genderqueer is someone who
identifies beyond the masculine feminine divide. Connell (2010) interviewed nineteen American,
transgendered individuals about their work experiences, from the ages twenty six to sixty four.
Three of the respondents were queer, eleven were transwomen, and five were transmen. Of the
nineteen people interviewed, five respondents were stealth; stealth refers to trans-individuals
who neither openly identity as transgendered, nor are socially recognized as transgendered
(Connell 2010: 39). Going stealth is a complex process which may be enriched with the fourth
principle of Cumulative Inequality Theory: the perception of life trajectories inuences
subsequent trajectories (Ferraro and Shippee 2009: 335). This allots significance to the symbolic
meanings attributed to trajectories and experiences, and recognizes the complexity of gender
performativity. On the one hand, stealth trans-gender performativity may be understood as an
imposed gender trajectory based on demographic processes, informed by hegemonic gender
ideology and non-normative discrimination. This identifies the historical and social constrains of
agency, as well as the significance of historical time and place. Connells (2010: 39) eldest
transgendered interviewee Mark, a sixty four year old transman, illustrates such structural and
environmental imposition. Marks turning point of gender identification occurred within a
historical and cultural time and place riddled with the masculine feminine divide. As a result,
legal and social policies offered little to no gender protection in the workplace, and Mark felt he
had to publicly assimilate to dominant gender norms in order to survive (Connell 2010: 39).
Mark undid early gender socialization of femininity, and adapted dominate practices of

masculinity at work in order to maintain a stable work trajectory (Connell 2010: 39). The
structural lag between both social and work polices in regards to gender expression resulted in
Mark appropriating his gender identity based on his social environment. Stealth gender
trajectories are not homogeneous however; for example, Jessica, a twenty six year old
transwomen saw going stealth as her right to privacy (Connell 2010: 39). Jessica did not fear
gender discrimination or harassment. Jessica merely felt that her gender was irrelevant and that
there was no point in attempting to explain it to uneducated co-workers (Connell 2010: 40).
While Mark and Jessica both have stealth trans-gendered trajectories in the workplace, the
symbolic meanings they attributed to their gender performativity were quite different; Marks
gender identity turning point was disadvantageous due to the social timing of his transition. This
resulted in the accumulation of disadvantage in his gender trajectory as his gender expression
was largely dictated by social structures and cultural context. In contrast, Jessicas gender
transition was less of a turning point because she associated stealth with control and agency,
and utilized public passing as a way to maintain power over her current gender trajectory.
Thirteen of Connells (2010: 42) respondents publically and intentionally engaged in
gender subversion in the workplace. The ages of the openly transgendered respondents ranged
from twenty to fifty, with an outlier of fifty nine, and a median of thirty four for all thirteen
respondents. This indicates that due to historical time and place, these respondents were less
likely to perceive gender expression as a risk factor for gender discrimination when compared to
older birth cohorts. As a result, younger transgendered participants had less structural limitation
on gender expression which may have influenced their subsequent gender trajectory and nonstealth gender identification. Notably, the younger birth cohort of openly transgendered
interviewees did still experience gender discrimination and stigma. For example, Julie, a thirty

one year old transwoman, customer service representative, explained that many customers would
try to give her a masculine name, such as Jake, in an attempt to negate her gender subversion
(Connell 2010: 41); however, many of the openly transgendered interviewees stated that they
experienced sexist discrimination in line with that of the male female binary. Agape, a twenty
year old transwoman, computer programmer, noted that while her boss was supportive of her
transition from male to female, he subjected her to sexist stereotypes, and worried that Agapes
gender identification as female would subsequently impair her computer programming skills
(Connell 2010: 45). Similarly, female to male transgendered respondents identified relaxed or
omitted experiences of sexism in the workplace. Kyle, a twenty nine year old probation officer
identified an elevated social status as a man, and found that male peers began to encourage
profound work transitions into more masculine and prestigious occupations such as police
work (Connell 2010:44).
Connells (2010) study illustrates a fascinating relationship between hegemonic ideology
and gender performativity. While the transgendered experience unique sexual and gender
discrimination, many also experience discrimination and privilege based on heteronormative
assumptions. For open trans-individuals, gender performativity is negotiated based on the unique
turning point of the non-normative transition from one dominant gender to the other. While the
transgendered identities experienced atypical gender trajectories, the gender mythology they
experienced was informed by dominate gender ideologies. These ideologies are historically
rooted in industrial capitalism and socially tied to relations of capital and gender exploitation. In
turn, female sexism and male privilege affected work trajectories based on outward gender
expression despite atypical gender trajectories. The interconnected relationship between gender

and work abided by traditional cultural assumptions of femininity and masculinity, and peers
were able to negate gender subversion with gender essentialism despite sexual autonomy.
Gender Performativity and the De-standardization of the Life Course
The stark division of labour in industrial capitalism resulted in highly distinct life courses
among men and women. Notably, the gendered division of labour in the early twentieth century
was a largely Eurocentric and elitist cultural script, as women of colour and women of poverty
never participated in the ideological social role of the domestic house wife. However, this was a
historical period of jingoism and economic prosperity and therefore the gendered division of
labour merits a degree of generalizability. The division of labour was a formal and informal
institutionalization of the life course. Institutionalization refers to the institutional factors such as
policy, i.e., retirement, or age norms, i.e., timing of child birth, that regulate life course
trajectories and transitions (Taylor and Marshal 2009: 574). The life course trajectories of
women were informally institutionalized by the gendered norms of femininity and the social
expectation that women would be domestic house wives. The life course trajectories of (white)
men were more formally institutionalized through the standardized male life course known as the
Tripartitie Model. The Triparitie Model is a highly differentiated life course model comprised of
only three trajectories of education, work and retirement, differentiated by three major turning
points of: 1) child to student, 2) student to worker, and 3) worker to retiree (Taylor and Marshal
2009: 575). While the model is an ideal type, it is generalizable to the male life course of
industrial capitalism. With the shift to a more diverse division of labour and the increase
participation of women in the work force, women and mens lives eventually became more
similar then different. This resulted in a de-standardization of a gendered life course as men and
women did not have to abide by rigid cultural scripts, and life course trajectories of men and

women become more fluid, diverse and complex (Settersten Jr. 2003: 84) This allowed for more
fluid gender trajectories dependent on informal associations of multiple roles opposed to rigid
gender norms. Vespa (2009) for example, draws on varies studies to discuss how ciswomen and
men negotiate their gender based on family and work trajectories. Vespa (2009: 367 - 368) noted
that both married women and men, and married couples with children, are more likely to
maintain the ideological masculine feminine binary of industrial capitalism with regards to the
responsibilities of paid and unpaid labour. In contrast, single or divorce women are less bound to
genderism because the de-standardization of the family structure problematizes the
romanticization of the nuclear family, and highlights gender inequality (Vespa 2009: 367).
Furthermore, married men are more likely to ascribe to the male bread winner mythology, and
attribute advantageous work trajectories to gender performativity, and view the work life cycle as
a measure of successful gender transitions (Vespa 2009: 369). The role transitions into or out of
marriage, and/or into parenthood, have an effect on gender trajectories and the individuals
negotiation with historical and social texts of dominant consciousness.
Work trajectories also have a direct effect on gender performativity. Women who engage
in paid labour are more likely to have diverse conceptions of gender performativity then women
who do not engage in paid labour. This is because the transition into paid employment results in
higher exposure to sexual discrimination in the workplace (Vespa 2009: 369). As a result,
employed women are more likely to experience the gap between gender mythology and lived
realities, and thus view gender as more of a conceptual process then a natural predicament.
Similarly, working black women who could not historically afford traditional expressions of
femininity, are less likely to associate employment with more egalitarian gender ideologies
(Vespa 2009: 368). Vespas data collection illustrates that cisgender performativity is influenced

by family and work trajectories and negotiated within the cultural ideologies of Historical
Materialism and dominant consciousness. Heteronormative gender identities experience the same
effects of role transitions, cultural and social scripts, and trajectory pluralism that homosexual
and transgendered individuals experiences across the life course. Gender performativity across
all genders is negotiated based on historical and social pathways of masculinity, femininity, and
heteronormativity, and their interconnected relationship with other life course trajectories.
Conclusion
The Life Course and a Social Theory of Gender
The Life Course Perspective is able to build off of the theoretical framework of Marx in
order to provide a complex and diverse theory of gender. Historical Materialism outlines a
historical and social context of capitalist ideology that contextualizes social pathways of gender
performativity. Gender trajectories are thus viewed as heterogeneous experiences of negotiation
embedded in a homogeneous environment of gender ideology. This unites genderism and
transgenderism under the same umbrella of social philosophy instead of banishing them to the
specific academic domains of Feminist and Queer Theory. The Life Course Perspective is able to
draw on Marxs overarching Social Theory in order to unite gender identities based on a common
source of oppression. As Floyd (2009) states: If Marxism has long been criticized for a tendency
to emphasize sameness rather than difference, for imposing a form of epistemological
tolitarianism, it is more accurate to say that it refutes epistemological fetishizations of
difference (p. 6). This fetishization of difference is the very premise that divides Feminist,
Queer and Social Theory, and transforms a unified conceptualization of oppression into the
cultural fragmentation of identity politics. By adapting a Life Course Perspective the paper was
able to illustrate that these separations are superficial and detrimental to a true conceptualization

of gender. The theoretical division between Feminist Theory and Social Theory serves to reestablish the masculine feminine divide of hegemonic gender ideology in the realm of academia.
Instead of creating a separate space for the sociology of women, we should address the
masculinist domination within sociology so gender conceptualization is viewed as a social issue,
not a feminine issue. The theoretical division between Queer Theorists and Feminist Theorist
further disintegrates gender based on the same cultural assumptions of dominant consciousness
and hegemonic identity. The distinction between transgenderism and genderism is based on
the same cultural, historical and social definitions of capitalist gender mythology that divide
women and men. These cultural assumptions of the corporal body seek to impose the gender
binary on both the transgendered and the cisgender on the basis of excluding the former and
including the latter. This is in a simultaneous, mutually dependent attempt to naturalize capital
and legitimize the political division of the proletariat. This distinction serves to re-establish
capitalist gender ideology by negating the ontological origins of gendered cultural texts, and
positioning that genderism and transgenderism cannot be contextualized within the same social
philosophy. The neutrality and multifaceted dimensions of the Life Course Perspective allows for
the academic cohesion of gender conceptualization across disciplines despites the polemics of
identity. The emphasis on social and historical constraints, and historical time and place, in The
Life Course Perspective allows for the epistemological utilization of Historical Materialism as a
framework for the gendered life course; furthermore, the micro recognition of individual
trajectories and meanings in the Life Course Model validates the methodological significance of
Gender Performativity. Within the all-encompassing umbrella of the Life Course Perspective this
paper was able to draw on both the ontological and epistemological merits of Social Theory, as
well as the epistemological and methodological insights of Gender performativity. In turn, this

provided a discussion of gender conceptualization that contextualizes gendered inequality for

both the Feminist and the Queer Theorist. As a result, this paper was able to establish a complex,
diverse and intersectional social philosophy of gender that allows the academic to talk about
gender as it really is; a universal social experience.

References
Andersen, Margaret L. 2011. Thinking about Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and
Gender. United States of America: Pearson Education Inc.
Anton L. Allahar and James E. Cote. 1998. Richer and Poorer: The Structure of Inequality in
Canada. Toronto. James Lorimer & Company Ltd. Print.
Bloodsworth-Lugo, Mary K. 2007. In-between Bodies: Sexual Difference, Race, and Sexuality.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Elliot, Patricia. 2010. Debates in Transgender, Queer, and Feminist Theory: Contested Sites.
Great Britain: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Floyd, Kevin. 2009. The Reification of Desire: Toward a Queer Marxism. United States of
America: University of Minnesota Press.
Gabriele Winker and Nina Degele 2011. Intersectionality as multi-level analysis: Dealing with
social inequality. European Journal of Womens Studies. 18(1): 5166.
Jagger, Gill. 2008. Judith Butler: Sexual Politics, Social Change and the Power of the
Performative. New York: Routledge.
Jeylan T. Mortimer and Michael J. Shanahan. Eds. 2003. Handbook of the Life Course. United
States of America: Springer Science+ Business Media, Inc.
Judith Butler and Sara Salih. Eds. 2004. The Judith Butler Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Laura Desfor Edles and Scott Appelrouth. 2008. Classical and Contemporary Sociological
Theory. United States of America: Pine Forge Press.

Marinucci, Mimi. 2010. Feminism is Queer: The intimate Connection between Queer and
Feminist Theory. New York: Zed Books Ltd.
McMullin, Julie. 2010. Understanding Social Inequality: Intersections of Class, Age, Gender,
Ethnicity, and Race in Canada. New York: Oxford University Press.
ORand, Angela M. 1996. The Cumulative Stratification of the Life Course. Pp. 188207 in
Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, edited by R. H. Binstock and L. K. George.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Philip Taylor and Victor W. Marshall. 2009. Restructuring of the Life Course Work and
Retirement.
Ronda Copher and Ross Macmillan. 2005. Families in the Life Course: Interdependency of
Roles, Role Configurations, and Pathways. Journal of Marriage and Family. 67 (4): 858879.
Scholz, Sally J. 2010. Feminism. New York: One Word Publications.
Smith, Dorothy E. 1992. Sociology from Womens Experience: A Reaffirmation. Sociological
Theory. 10: 88 98.
Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle, eds. 2006. The Transgender Studies Reader. New York:
Routledge.
Stotzer, Rebecca L. 2009. Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data.
Aggression and Violent Behaviour.14 (3): 170 179.
Tucker, Robert C. ed. 1978. The Marx Engels Reader. New York: W.W. Norton and Company

Vespa, Jonathan. 2009. Gender Ideology Construction: A Life Course and Intersectional. Gender
and Society. 23(3): 363-387.
Carpenter, Laura M. 2010. Gendered Sexuality Over the Life Course: A Conceptual Framework.
Sociological Perspectives. 53(2): 155-178.
Kenneth F. Ferraro and Tetyana Pylypiv Shippee. 2009. Aging and Cumulative Inequality: How
Does Inequality Get Under the Skin? The Gerontologist. 49(3): 333343.