La Desigualdad del Ingreso

The importance of power relations to the dynamics of gender and sexuality has been touched on in much of the discussion so far. It has just been argued that the construction of women’s bodies as “out of place” in the workplace is used to exclude and control women, and that actual or threatened violence is part of this process. In Jenkins’ (2004) concept of identity, the allocation of power resources is demonstrated to operate in conjunction with organisational identification. Here I examine a framework for analysing gendered power within organisations.

“Gendered processes” within organisations, as expounded by Acker (1990), create and maintain gendered hierarchies, with men at the top, and women’s bodies controlled through female sexuality. However her view of hegemonic male sexuality that operates

80

to control women in work organisations appears to represent a one-directional view of power that does not allow for the possibility of more complex gendered power relations, which could, for example, invoke a dominant heterosexuality to control homosexual men, as well as women. It also may not allow for ways in which women may take pleasure in the expression of sexuality in workplace interactions (Halford et al., 1997; Pringle, 1989), or find ways in which to exert power through sexuality, although this is a complex and contested area (see discussion in Chapter 7). Nevertheless, women can and do find ways to challenge male domination at work, and one of the attractions of Harriet Bradley’s (1999) notion of gendered power resources is that it allows an understanding of the complexity of power relations involved in relations between women and men. It also rejects a universalistic view of power – associated with the concept of patriarchy – in which men always dominate women. She gives the following definition:

“Gendered power refers to the capacity of one sex to control the behaviour of the other. Patriarchal power refers to the capacity of men to control women. Gendered power, then, is a broader concept which allows for variable relations between men and women, but does not rule out the possibility that power relations may be patriarchal.” (Bradley, 1999: 33)

Bradley develops Giddens’ conceptualisation of power as differential access to and control of rules and resources, and applies this to gender, which he did not. Her framework is proposed as an empirically grounded account of the power resources involved in relations between men and women, to assist in analysing power at the micro level of organisations. Bradley defines nine dimensions of gendered power resources (ibid: 34-35): economic; positional; technical; physical; symbolic; collective; personal; sexual and domestic power7.

7

Economic power: the control of economic resources such as property, income and earnings, with men having the greater share of earnings. Positional power: gained by virtue of holding positions of authority, such as employer, manager, union leader, head of household, roles which are typically dominated by men. Technical power: the deployment of technical expertise and mechanical competence, normally monopolized by men at work and used to justify gender segregation and pay differentials. Physical power: physical strength is held to be associated with male body shape and muscularity, which has historically helped them to dominate at work. Male physical power also remains a source of male domination through the threat of violence. Symbolic power: the ability to impose one’s own definitions, meanings, values and rules to give one’s own experience primacy. This involves controlling how meanings are determined, including through the media of

communication, such as control of ‘talk’ in meetings. Collective power: the mobilisation of collective resources, for example within trade unions, pressure groups or networks. Traditionally men have dominated trade unions and used management networks to maintain power, but women are starting to

81

Elements of this framework are useful for examining women’s experience in male- dominated workplaces, where men may have an additional source of power, almost too obvious to mention, that of sheer numerical power. Clearly there is no automatic power derived from numerical majority – or workers would always dominate their bosses – but in male-dominated work there is often strength in numbers, as Kanter (1977)

demonstrated in the processes by which ‘tokens’ are excluded by ‘dominants’.

However, male power may be challenged by the inclusion of women in a ‘man’s world’ and Bradley’s framework can help to investigate the ways in which men attempt to retain power or, indeed, how the power balance may shift as women enter. It also allows exploration of whether heterosexual women and lesbians experience differences in the operation of power by men, as well as the ways in which women may exercise power in relation to male colleagues. Additionally it can help to understand the ways in which women use female networks to strengthen their position at work, using collective power to mobilise collective resources. Identification is entwined with power, as the

deployment of such collective resources will depend on the extent to which women choose to identify with other women, or perhaps prefer to ally themselves with other sexual minorities, for example through lesbian, gay or bisexual groups (discussed in Chapter 8).