What do Venda people wear

Lohwasser (Ed.) Gender research

in Egyptology and Sudan archeology

Internet articles on Egyptology and Sudan archeology Vol. II

Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin Seminar for Sudanese Archeology and Egyptology


Gender research
in Egyptology and Sudan archeology
Two days of exchange at the Humboldt University in Berlin

Contribution to a colloquium at the Seminar for Sudanese Archeology and Egyptology at the Humboldt University in Berlin (May 8 and June 19, 1999)

Internet articles on Egyptology and Sudan archeology Vol. II

Published at the following WWW address (URL):


Edited by Angelika Lohwasser Webdesign and Interneted by Steffen Kirchner

Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin Seminar for Sudanese Archeology and Egyptology


Cover image: The Lwen Temple of Naqa Representation on the pylon: on the left the King Natakamani, on the right the Kandake Amanitore slaying the enemy (from: Calliaud, F., Voyage Mro. Paris, 1823, plate 14)

Page Preface Program of the Colloquium Iris Peinl Claudia Nser Katharina Waldner Angelika Lohwasser Friederike Herklotz Angelika Lohwasser Martin Fitzenreiter Discussion Forum Gender: "Sex" and "Gender" - An Introduction to Gender Archeology (Basic Architecture) "Gender Studies" in Classical Philology There are more than two sexes? On the relationship between gender and age Berenike II. - Queen and Goddess King / Queen - God / Goddess. On the complementarity of male and female in Napatan and Meroitic times On the presentation of gender roles in the grave statues of the Residenz in the Old Kingdom 5 8 9 21 25 33 43 63 75 113

Preface 1 The topic of the second volume of IBAES is gender research. As in the first volume with the Egyptian mummy, an interesting field of research is also taken up for the wider community. Both general interdisciplinary and very subject-specific contributions could be compiled here.2 The attempt was made to move away from the pure

"Women's research" to move to "gender research" - that is, to include the opposite sex or the other sexes. Gender research, however, has its roots in women's studies. To the male researchers of the 19th century, the "secret of women" was worth a multitude of investigations, which in the meantime have themselves become the subject of research, which is now mainly carried out by women. Oliver Knig says in his article Gender Discourse and Cultural Criticism: 3 "In this research, old and new, 'the man' appears almost exclusively as a metaphor for rule and ideology, which in the 19th century was rather intrusive or criticized, but today is mostly condemned and from whose social and discursive motives 'the woman' is to be freed. Feminism, against the women's movement, male and women's studies are common from their opposition domination,

social disadvantage and underestimation of women arose. Without this close connection between the political movement and academic research, the gender issue would not have been able to find its way into all areas of society to the extent that it is today. "In recent years, however, women's studies have expanded into gender research Even if the feminist roots are often unmistakable. On the subject of 'women' the subject of 'man' has now come. The man - or rather masculinity - stands on the one hand as a contrast to femininity, but also as a complement. There is a pluralization of gender roles , or, in my opinion, better to the dynamic balance. Feminism and gender studies naturally have a strong connection to ancient studies, as the theory of a matriarchy that is said to have ruled before patriarchal society in the distant past is a central question. Many studies are from the point of view of the fe minist archeology emerged. The question remains, however, whether this perspective arose out of the respective science, i.e. as a question of archeology that suddenly appeared or as a focus resulting from the current state of research, e.g. Egyptology. Or are we dealing with a societal problem that is carried into the respective science? In this context I would like to quote a quote that is based on the matriarchy theory of Marija Gimbutas. Gimbutas was one of the most important advocates of matriarchal ideas in a prehistoric society. The quote is from Brigitta Kunz from her essay "Marija Gimbutas revisited. An archological examination of Gimbutas' matriarchal theory": 4

1 Abbreviated and slightly changed wording of the greeting. 2 Unfortunately, not all contributions to the publication have been received. 3 In: G. Vlger (ed.), Frauenmacht - Mnnerherrschaft, Cologne (1998), 63. 4 In: G. Vlger (ed.), Frauenmacht - Mnnerherrschaft, Cologne (1998), 132

"Historiography remains an ongoing process. To look at history from a feminist perspective is no doubt long overdue. Throwing a fictional cloak of contemporary wishful thinking with scientific blessing on the historical building is certainly not the right approach. To shed light on today's gender ratio, but not its supposed roots in prehistory. The matriarchal utopia grows out of modern deficits that have arisen between the sexes - but not out of a historical original state. " Our colloquium should not be about feminist antiquity, but about gender studies. Compared to feminist archeology, gender research is much less well received in ancient studies. The Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin has been offering the Gender Studies course for three years. Students can put together their courses from a wide range of courses across all subject areas. In this semester (summer semester 99), I suspect that, apart from Ms. Waldner's seminar on gender studies in classical studies and my colloquium, no other courses on gender in classical studies will be offered at either university. The situation is similar with the projects of the women's research funding program of the Berlin Senate. In the report, which includes the different types of funding - i.e. research projects, grants, infrastructure measures and publications - of the 181 measures listed, a single funding, namely a 3-month short-term scholarship, was given to an ancient scholar. Against this background, it is particularly to be welcomed that in 1998 a graduate college was set up at the Julius-Maximilians-Universitt Wrzburg with the title "Perception of the gender difference in religious symbol systems". In addition to Catholic theologians and social scientists, Classical Archeology, Greek Studies, Ancient Oriental Studies and Egyptology are also represented there. It was important to me at this colloquium to demonstrate to the audience how broad the issues on the gender problem are in classical studies. The two days should serve as an opportunity for the speakers, but also for the audience, to exchange ideas. Nonetheless, I am aware that there are reservations about gender research, precisely because it has arisen from the zeitgeist and not from the branches of science. Perhaps, however, gender research in ancient studies is something more than swimming in the current of the zeitgeist? The foreword of IBAES I reported on the development and the technical data of IBAES (Internet articles on Egyptology and Sudan archeology) .5 In particular - wrongly! - The often criticized lack of citability is explained. It is reproduced here in abbreviated form: Like a printed article, the article published in IBAES can include the author, title,

5 To be found at http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/nilus/net-publications/ibaes1

Series (IBAES) and page are cited. The articles are saved in PDF format, which allows page numbers to be included in the printed copy. Afterwards, for example, the following should appear: Online in the Internet: URL: http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/nilus/netpublications/ibaes2/Lohwasser/text1.pdf [Status 1.7.2000]

This notice indicates that this is an Internet publication and where it can be found. Even if subsequent changes to the text are not possible with IBAES, the date should appear as subsequent changes are permitted in other Net publications. The images were scanned with a low resolution so that the quality on the screen is good, but not suitable for printing. Since the copyright of images on the Internet has not yet been clarified, this approach seems to make sense in order to be able to show images despite the uncertain legal situation. The following coding is used for Egyptian transcription:

Berlin, July 2000

Angelika Lohwasser

Postal address: Seminar for Sudan Archeology and Egyptology, Humboldt University in Berlin Unter den Linden 6 D - 10099 Berlin

Gender research in Egyptology and archeology of the Sudan

Two days of exchange at the Humboldt University in Berlin
Sat, May 8, 1999 Gender Research in Classical Studies - Introduction from 10 a.m. (s.t.!) Dr. Angelika Lohwasser Dr. Iris Peinl Claudia Nser, M.Phil. 12.30 p.m. - 2.00 p.m. From 2 p.m. (s.t.!) Dr. Katharina Waldner Dr. Angelika Lohwasser "Gender Studies" in Classical Philology Are there more than two genders? On the relationship between gender and age Limiting gender: "Sex" and "Gender" - An Introduction to Gender Archeology (Basic Literature) Lunch Break

Discussion on "Gender and Generation"

Sat, June 19, 1999 Gender Research in Sudan Archeology and Egyptology - Case Studies From 10 a.m. (s.t.!) Friederike Herklotz, M.A. Dr. Angelika Lohwasser Berenike II. - Queen and Goddess King / Queen - God / Goddess. On the complementarity of male and female in Napatan and Meroitic times 12.30 p.m. - 2 p.m. From 2 p.m. (s.t.!) Martin Fitzenreiter, M.A. Dr. Heinz Felber Gender roles and social gender in AR Male and female. Constructions of sex lunch break

Discussion on "Gender Research in Classical Studies - More Than Swimming in the Current Zeitgeist?"

Location: Seminar for Sudanese Archeology and Egyptology at the Humboldt University, Prenzlauer Promenade 149-152, room 590/591

Iris Peinl

Introductory lecture on the topic: Gender as a category in the social sciences

I am pleased to be able to make an introductory contribution to the announced topic in this unfamiliar professional framework. In advance, however, I would like to clarify the scope of my statements. Today I will be concerned with fixing the categories of gender, which are anchored on the most varied of subject-specific and everyday cultural levels, to a certain extent with social science glasses. So today I want to talk about gender as categories in the social sciences. My lecture is structured as follows: First of all, in a first section I will turn to central, secular processes of change in the gender order and the arrangements that came or will come to fruition with the establishment and development process of capitalism. Second, I will speak in a short statement on social science research on women and gender as a corrective to gender blindness by specialist disciplines. In the third point, my main point, I come to the central dimensions of the term gender in the social sciences. I. On the social order of bisexuality and its change The development of capitalist society in the 18th and 19th centuries changed traditional feudal gender arrangements. This relates above all to the family form of the whole house, which has so far been lived in rural and manual social contexts and has a leading social function. It was characterized by a unity of production and household. That means: Neither these families mentioned were conceivable without the agricultural or handicraft production, nor the production without the family framework that shaped and limited this production (Rosenbaum 1982: 19f). In everyday family life, factual, economic and work-organizational aspects dominated. Because of the frequent involvement of servants, journeymen or apprentices, a private sphere with deep emotionally affective relationships was not very pronounced. Against this backdrop, the relationships between the spouses in this social form of the whole house were ambiguous: on the one hand, they were shaped by the common work for existence1. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence that women are socially lower than men. For the peasant family, for example, the man had a structural advantage in status, which was reproduced and legitimized above all through a long socio-cultural tradition of patriarchalism and his property titles to land that were normally brought into the marriage. The development of capitalism represented a point of departure for this form of relationship between men and women, which is connected with the social form of the whole house: Against the background of new ones

1 In the farming family, for example, the woman did housework, gardening, dairy farming and keeping small animals,

Men’s field and wood industry (cf. Rosenbaum 1982).


technical-technological2 as well as

more political

Developments 3





Means of production and the workforce take place in particularly favorable locations. This process was connected with a specialization of the production plants, their increasing mutual interdependencies and interdependencies as well as strongly growing social mobility. In other words: With this historically contextualized capitalist development, the social form of the whole house, which was geared towards self-sufficiency and a low division of labor, eroded: Production was increasingly outsourced from the household association, there was an increasing separation into an area of ​​employment dominated by men and a living area filled by women. Ideologically, this drifting apart of production and family was reflected and worked on in a new quality by the aspiring bourgeoisie: While in the agrarian-feudal society statements were made about men and women about their status, i.e. about their social positions and the virtues associated with these positions, We can now speak of a new quality in the description of the sexes, which has always been contrasting (Hausen 1976). Men and women are characterized as polarizing sex characters. To illustrate this, I quote from the large Meyer Konversations-Lexikon of 1848: Corresponding to the more universal character in women, the feeling is predominant in them - the woman is more of a feeling being; with the man, on the other hand, prevails because of his greater individuality, the reaction - he is more thinking being ... and so that one is more compassionate, more benevolent, it is more moral and religious, than the more rough, often hard-hearted man who is inclined to measure everything according to his ego ... According to this, the general determination of the sexes for outer life would also have to be judged at all .... While ... the woman mainly establishes the internal family relationship, the man more the outer one, he is at the same time the link between family and family, he mainly establishes the state. (P. 367) What is historically new about this contrasting description of the sexes is that the sex characters are derived from nature as a combination of biology and determination and at the same time are transferred to the interior of people as an essential feature. In other words: the feudal particular class definitions of men and women have been replaced by a universal principle of classification. Massive and rigid social-cultural interventions cemented the separation of humanity according to (biological) gender. Women were defined exclusively through marriage and family as the result of an allegedly sensible plan of nature, there was now an exclusively female privacy. Conversely, men were assigned to the employment-centric public. By means of this definition of the sexual characters, read from a supposedly natural world order, it became possible to dissociate work and family life
2 E.g. in the form of the steam engine or the mechanical loom.


to be declared as natural, as it were. This new social order of bisexuality (Pasero 1993) was seen not only as necessary but also as ideal. With it, asymmetrical social connections prevailed from now on in a new quality for men and women with a reality-shaping effect: men earn a family income and experience and shape in the course of the differentiation of social functional systems in the emerging economics, law, politics individualization phases, women shape economically Completely dependent on the husband - privacy and intimacy. The dialectic of the becoming of this economically and ideologically well-founded bourgeoisie

Gender arrangements, which are politically supported by an income and social policy focused on the male breadwinner model (Ostner 1995), consist in the fact that it already begins to dissolve in this process of becoming. In other words: the individualization process associated with the development of capitalist gainful employment, which was initially withheld from men, is successively followed - initially in a completely alienated form by proletarian women at the end of the 18th / beginning of the 19th century - as a catching-up modernization process by women. Its central indicators include: the increasing naturalness of female wage and gainful employment, female educational expansion, demographic changes such as the decrease in the number of children per woman or the increasing reflexivity of people about their gender roles as well as the embedded dismissal of the traditional, in the polarity of the public and Anchoring privacy, gender arrangements by women.A relevant finding in this regard for the western industrialized countries from the 1970s onwards: a normal female biography is becoming rarer, the pluralization of lifestyles and life patterns is also associated with an increase for women, above all in terms of public freedom of action and options. 2. On social science research on women and gender as a corrective to gender blindness in the relevant specialist disciplines The research on women and gender, which has been established since the 1960s and 70s, takes a particularly critical look at the building of science in general. The central objection is that it cannot be without consequences, since science has initially been a professional activity of men since its constitution - exceptions confirm the rule (Honnegger, C. / Wobbe, Th. 1998). Hence, for feminist science critics, there is an androcentrism in the traditions of thought and methods. It is characterized by the fact that approaches and methods are based one-sidedly on the life contexts, patterns and value orientations of men embedded in the outlined social order of bisexuality and are based on them. This automatically halves the claim of science to speak for and about people. We talk about and for men and their context in life. This is characterized as a gender hierarchical thinking that forgets the female half of humanity and systematically ignores the unequal hierarchical positioning of men and women.

3 E.g. the establishment of the Zollverein in 1834 for the unhindered exchange of goods or the formation of a unified and centralized German nationality state in 1871.


For sociology, for example, it applies in this context that in classical inequality research centered on gainful employment, women are included in the analysis of social inequalities via the appendix of the marriage contract and thus remain invisible in their social individuality. The key point of this inequality research is that all members of a household are one and the same class 217). but also the class membership is determined on the basis of the employment status of the usually male head of the household (Kreckel 1997: classic family sociology, women are to some extent left out because the gender division of labor within the family appears as a mere distribution of roles. The disadvantageous structured dominance of women - and relationships of dependency in families are just as neglected as the social unacceptance of women's work in private reproductive contexts is critically disclosed. Only with the feminist social sciences is this invisibility of women, which existed in the so-called classical traditions of thought, an issue with their male colleagues and began a fundamental reconstruction of the scientific structure of the social sciences This sexual dispute over the interpretation of the truth, or to speak with Karl Mannheim, in the competition in the field of intellectual terrain. One of their central categories of social analysis is gender. Its central object is the historically contextualized social organization of gender relations. The question is asked about the social life chances and perspectives mediated by gender in the context of societal-gender power structures. That brings me to my third section. The aim here is to ask which central analysis dimensions of the gender category are used by feminist social scientists to intervene in the specialist debates in social analysis. The focus of the following presentation is not on the detailed discussion of individual approaches, but their contouring. 3. Central dimension of the term "gender" in feminist social sciences 3.1 Research on women into the context of female life in the 1970s and 80s With the emergence of the women's movement at the end of the 1960s, there was initially talk of women's studies. The content-related location determination that followed was combined with a comprehensive search for the sources of the previously secretive history of women (Treibel 1997). For example, women historians set out to describe the history of women, for example using the burnings of witches, their role in the French Revolution or German fascism as a history of the successive suppression of female forms of life by male rulers and / or patriarchal structures. Sociologists focused primarily on the situation of women in contemporary society. The female life context (Prokop 1976) moved into the center of research interest and analyzed it in its contradicting state of affairs, with both enlightening and practical-political intentions.


Exposed representatives of this women's research are e.g. Helge Pross4, the authors of the so-called Bielefelder approach with Maria Mies, Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen and Claudia von Werlhof or Ilona Ostner and Regina Becker-Schmidt as representatives of the approach of a female work capacity. Maria Mies, for example, was actively involved in the new women's movement and developed methodological postulates of women's research as a counter-methodology to the dominant, male-dominated social science (Mies 1984). Accordingly, the following applies to the self-image of women's research: In place of objectivity and representativeness, there is conscious partiality for a certain social group and active participation in emancipatory actions. Political practice takes precedence over theory. Qualitative methods are preferred over quantitative ones. The central category is one's own experience (Treibel 1997: 70). In collaboration with the authors of the Bielefeld approach, Maria Mies examines the emergence of the gender dichotomy in the context of the capitalist world economy (Werlhof / Bennholdt-Thomsen / Mies 1988). The main thesis of this approach is: women and colonial oppressed peoples have something in common. Both do not belong to the core of the actual capitalist society with its social antipodes proletarians and capitalists, but are considered natural resources like water, air and earth. Both are exploited - the peoples colonized, the women housewifeized. The housewife is an invention of capitalism, through it women are referred to the private sphere, in which their work is defined as love and thus as non-work. According to the authors, this non-payment results in a profit for society as a whole. The approach to female labor, developed by Ilona Ostner and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim at the beginning of the 1970s, was of central importance because it was to play a prominent role in further feminist debates about the nature of the gender relationship. In their research, Ostner (1990) and Beck-Gernsheim (1981) address the gender segregation of labor markets to the disadvantage of women, against the social background of the impending dissolution of partial full employment and a prevailing status concept that ascribed women a buffered, employment-related commitment. With their concept of female labor they developed central theses on gender hierarchy labor market segregations to the disadvantage of women: 1. Initial thesis: A structural tension between two forms of work is embedded in capitalist society as the condition for its existence, namely between professional work and domestic work. Both forms of work require different work logics and require different work capacities. They are complementary to the reproduction of society as a whole, but not necessarily compatible. 2. Thesis of the ideal-typical polarity of housework and professional work: Ideally, housework follows a logic of corporeality. The professional work follows a logic of technical-economic instrumentality. In housework, knowledge production takes place more in the form of concrete experience-based knowledge, in professional work more as a specialty.

4For the beginning of women's research, the large representative studies by Helge Pross on female employees, on (training) education, on housewife and on the understanding of the role of men are of central importance


3. Thesis of the probably more frequent acquisition of work methods and assets that are appropriate or close to housework by those people who deal longer with household chores. As a rule, these will be women - and with them their experiences of social exclusion, disregard and taboo. 4. Thesis of an em structural competitive disadvantage of female labor: Women bring certain basic qualifications and characteristics into gainful employment, so the more substantial task fulfillment and more intensive attention to people. These dispositions are taken up in operational personnel strategies, but ultimately and for which they functionalize these economic work systems as a lack of recovery process. or interpreted at the same time. will be leading

Assertiveness of status, income and career interests of women in employment. Perceived ambivalence of employment-related underprivileged women. In other words, it is not the addition of the two areas of responsibility that leads to excessive demands on women in gainful employment, but rather the content-related conflicts of conflicting demands. 3.2 Change of perspective in the feminist social sciences in the 1990s towards gender research. Central dimensions of the term "gender" For the present of the 1990s, a conceptual change in the feminist social sciences towards the basic category of gender can be observed, which has taken the place of the apparently simpler terms such as women or the female context (Becker-Schmidt 1993). This change of perspective towards researching gender relations is justified by the complexity of what feminist research was or is about in the course of its development. It is now emphasized that possible peculiarities of a female life context are only visible in comparison, namely in comparison with those of male life contexts. I quote Karin Hausen and Heidi Wunder: Women's history, as long as it is methodically reflected and scientifically well-founded ... cannot avoid understanding itself as gender history. Even if the focus of the study is directed towards a certain group of women, these women must nevertheless always be thought of and observed as people of the female gender and thus in relation to the male gender. Because women and men are integrated into the respective valid cultural orders of the hierarchically constructed gender relations that permeate all areas of society. Accordingly, the concept of gender research demands something: namely, the analysis of the social conditions under which women and men are socially related to one another. In other words: The social situation of women only takes shape when the nature of the specific social relationships between them and men is examined. In the following I will turn to the outline of three analytical dimensions of the gender category that are central to the social sciences, with the help of which the in










Sexes examined. a) Gender as a social structuring principle Gender as a social structural category means that it has a structure-forming influence on society as a whole. This means that gender has the same status logically as class or class, milieu, ethnicity, nationality or age. That means: Like the structural categories mentioned, gender indicates a principle of social classification; it is a structural indicator of social inequality (Becker-Schmidt 1993: 44). Social positioning and life chances are influenced by gender. However, this gender influence is not the only one on individual chances in life, rather it is determined by the mutual influences or the specific mixing of the structural categories mentioned - such as gender, class or even race. So when we begin to relate the various structures and forms of female disadvantage to one another, it is necessary to analyze the gender ratio and how it is embedded in society. b) Gender as a social relationship: For the social organization of the

Gender relationship A social relationship sets population groups into social dependency on one another. From this perspective, the gender ratio is seen as a form of social organization that describes the economic, political and cultural dividing lines and demarcations between men and women as well as the associated modes of appropriation and disposal of social resources (time, education, income). In this gender ratio, the social exchange processes are complex and their conditions are multilayered. We are dealing here with exchange processes on two different levels: the domestic one, which is governed by the public and legal position of women and men, and the exuberant one, which is influenced by the family, gender division of labor. Therefore, the gender ratio is based not only on objectified social order principles, but also on personal relationships of dependencies and affinities, is the result of the interweaving of anthropological, economic, political, ideological, cultural or even psychological influences. It can also be stated that there are different women due to the respective society and culture-specific interactions of gender, class and ethnicity. historicalThis inethnographic gender relations between men and

Establishing relationships between different structural categories also obliges us to think differences between women (as well as between men) in terms of different and simultaneously effective structures. Women, like men, are not a socially homogeneous group, because they are always at the same time members of different classes, ethnicities, age groups, etc. This consideration of the category of gender as a social relationship leads, among other things, to Regina Becker-Schmidt's concept of the double, contradicting socialization of women (1987)


and Gudrun-Axeli Knapp (1990). Since it is still a central point of reference in feminist social science research, I would like to give a brief presentation. In the critical reception of the gender dualism represented by women's research, especially in the thesis of female labor capacity, the authors saw its conceptual shortcoming in the form of a beautiful appearance (s) of completeness and consistency that applies to all women. In contrast, they represent the theorem of the double and contradicting socialization processes of women. In a very simplified way, it contains the following main statements: 1. Social reality is differentiated by gender and at the same time hierarchized in this differentiation. In this way, gender determines the different allocation and evaluation of fields of practice, the boundaries of which are only partially permeable. For women, this constellation of the gender ratio includes exclusion from certain areas of society or delegation to others, as well as a specific development of opportunities for appropriation. 2. Women find themselves in this social reality - and - and more precisely their labor - in the form of a double socialization. This means: women are usually active at least in phases in two areas of social practice: in private work and in paid work 5. In this they differ structurally and across classes from men who first had to revolutionize the relations of the gender division of labor at home in order to be on an equal footing in this dimension. 3. This conception of the double socialization of women has the consequence for the conception of sexual socialization processes that it can no longer be thought of in terms of narrowing femininity / motherhood and the orientations and specializations associated with it - and working time norms are included, as is the acquisition of specific basic vocational qualifications. This double socialization is concretized for women in a further contradiction: each of the two spheres of life sets its requirements and standards independently of one another, each sphere takes all the labor for itself and seals itself off from the other. That means: the double socialization of women goes hand in hand with mutual suppression structures. 4. Theses 1 to 3 build a bridge to the theorem of female labor capacity criticized by the authors: What is historically specific about the so-called female labor capacity, in addition to the breadth and combination of their labor capacity, could also be particularly pronounced experiences of ambiguity. At least it is in the face of men are asked to deal with conflicts of ambivalence. Therefore contradictions in the female context are close, since they are more pervasive than women who cross the border. So what they have in common is more on the level of the structure of experiences and contexts of experience, rather than on identical characteristics of the female
5 One thing is clear: there were always only very small groups of women who could afford it or were forced to limit themselves consistently to family and domestic practice. However, the accentuation of the feminine characteristics of the work capacity suggests that the entire feminine sex only


Social character. In this way, according to G. A. Knapp, a specific melody is composed that women should play under the circumstances. c) Gender as a social construction - gender


social contrast experiences. Sociopolitically, she adds: From their material

When gender is discussed as a social construction or gender, action is usually taken on the level of symbolism and interaction. In principle, it is assumed that the current dichotomous classification scheme female - male involves social constructions within the framework of a cultural system of bipolar bisexuality.This system represents something socially produced and coagulated over historical periods of time. It helps to continue to locate the genders symbolically separated from one another in their areas of activity and life and, through this mechanism, ultimately to reproduce the social inequalities between the genders. This takes place About the factual power or symbolic violence of this cultural system, which are anchored in everyday culture in unquestioned routines and are effective in proportion to their misunderstanding. Relatively new to this gender debate are two aspects: on the one hand, the withdrawal of the initially introduced differentiation between sex in the sense of the natural gender difference (Bublitz) or the sexuological differentiation (Becker-Schmidt) and gender as a social construction of gender, and on the other hand the with the deconstruction discourse linked to gender debate. In a nutshell and with the necessary shortages, I would like to address these two aspects: In the social science debate, there are plausible reasons for moving away from the distinction between sex and gender. The aim of this distinction was to denaturalize gender, but it left the problem of naturalizing sex. This means that the body gender in the sense of sex is not a statistically measurable variable in society, but always has a concrete historical social meaning, i.e. it is charged with social meaning and also sensuality. Therefore, body genders are objects and projections of social perceptions, evaluations or even aesthetic value judgments to which hegemonic and hierarchically structured norms and norms of masculinity and / or femininity are attached. The ideological trap of the separation of sex and gender therefore lies in the danger of the naturalization and essentialization of gender difference as a natural, inherent difference as well as the associated attribution of gender-specific properties, spaces, skills, jobs or even professions. In the deconstruction approach, the difference itself comes into play. The question is no longer to what extent women or men differ, but how the bipolar system of bisexuality produces women and men culturally and symbolically. It is being reconstructed

touched by one side of the double society and socialized towards it. Such constructions are thus pervaded by a civic and ethnocentric bias.


how subjects present themselves as women or men or how subjects are gendered in interaction, made women or men. Angelika Wetterer (1995), who examines gendering processes in professions with this focus on, refers - in contrast to other authors - emphatically to the stability of the social construction of dual gender and the inescapability and inevitability of doing gender, i.e. the active adoption of gender-specific classifications by the Subjects. Her antidote, with which she seeks to deal with this hermeticism of the gendering circle, can only lie in a strategy of de-plausibility and de-naturalization. She pleads for a deconstructivist guerrilla war that starts with the cultural construction of the sexes and aims to read the mode of production of two-sexes against the grain and to create gender confusion by transgressing and ridiculing ascriptions. The aim is to de-naturalize the system of bisexuality and to decipher it as a socially produced relationship. Radical constructivism (Butler 1991) does not stop at the cultural reshaping of the body and the questioning of the two-gender system ideologically created in the sense of a power construct. With him - to put it briefly - reality itself becomes fiction; Body perception and body relationships are imaginary, fictional, illusory, woven into a social space filled with power. Ultimately, body and matter disappear here, which is also a major criticism of this radical constructivism. According to critics such as Regina Becker Schmidt, G. A. Knapp or Karin Gottschall, gender is both: fictitious and real in one, a social construct in the sense of dichotomous typifications and at the same time the product of historical-social constitutional processes. From the point of view of gender, the body and the symbolic are of outstanding importance as a social construction. A (de) constructivist perspective helps to uncover crucial mechanisms of the cultural reproduction of social (in) equality relationships, in this case gender relationships, on the level of everyday interactions as well as of signs and symbols and to make (ideology-critical) reflections accessible. But it also has limits: not everything in the world is a social construction, not everything is a product of thought. This perspective of both-and-also is missing, i.e. specifically taking into account material conditions of existence or objective social structures, the dialectic of the double constitution of reality is missing. Literature: Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1981): The gender-specific labor market. On the ideology and reality of women's professions. Frankfurt / New York: Campus Becker-Schmidt, Regina (1987): The double socialization - the double oppression. In: Unterkirchner, Lilo / Wagner, Ina (ed.): The other half of society. Austrian Sociologists' Day 1985. Vienna, pp. 10-27 Becker-Schmidt, Regina (1993): Gender difference-gender ratio: social dimensions of the term "gender". In: Zeitschrift fr Frauenforschung 1/2, pp. 37-46 Becker-Schmidt, R./Knapp, G.-A. (1995): The gender ratio as a subject of the social sciences. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus