Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri Mar 31 17:18:52 2006 |
Message-ID: |
|
References: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Criticism of Becker's theory does not necessarilly imply that it is
"ideology or normative banter or worse". And nobody on this list suggested
or implied that a master-craftsman like Gary Becker is guilty of sexism.
Formalistic vacuity (Robin Neill) is, of course, another matter ("Shall I
compare thee to a positive sign of the cross derivative of our utilities?").
What is perhaps the most important aspect of the Beckerian project is the
claim that the most important part of the different treatment of females in
our economy and society is the result of rational decisions and that social
norms and discriminatory perceptions do not matter. The two, of course, may
interact (In-market-discrimination may lead to a "rational" decision to
invest less in productive traits suggesting ex post
pre-market-discrimination or differences in "preferences"). If social norms
do not matter it is the objective characteristics of sex (e.g., fertility)
that bring about different outcomes. Considerations of gender, i.e., the
social construction of sex, according to this view, are irrelevant. But
perceptions of traits as "feminine" or "masculine" *are* important and this
affects the acquisition of productivity-related traits during socialization
and the assessment of individual productivity in the workplace (see e.g.
Goldin & Rouse (2000), "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind"
Auditions on Female Musicians", American Economic Review, 90 (4): 715-41).
So "rational" decisions in the presence of fertility may be part of the
story but certainly not the most important part of it.
Nicholas J. Theocarakis
|
|
|