ARTICLES

“WHY DON’T I KNOW ABOUT THESE WOMEN?”:

THE INTEGRATION OF EARLY WOMEN
SOCIOLOGISTS IN CLASSICAL THEORY COURSES*

In recent years, early women sociologists such as Harriet Martineau, Ida B.

Wells, and Jane Addams have begun to appear in some introductory text-
books and theory books. Usually, they appear in a box, as a sidebar, or as
selected “others.” So why do we not know more about these women? Our
research seeks to answer this question. Given the availability of books by and
about these women, we hypothesized that one explanation might lie in the
training of theory instructors. If graduate students were not exposed to the
work of early women sociologists, then it seemed unlikely they would incorpo-
rate them into their own teaching, research, and analyses. To assess this the-
ory, we collected theory syllabi from 40 graduate schools. Since we were
most interested in early women sociologists, we focused our analysis on
“classical” theory syllabi. Our findings indicate that Marx, Weber, and Durk-
heim still dominate classical theory syllabi. The writings of women were as-
signed on 17 percent of the syllabi in our sample. We believe this indicates a
weak but visible indication that the diffusion of their work has begun.

JAN E. THOMAS ANNIS KUKULAN

Kenyon College Kenyon College

ALEXANDER DEFINES a classic as a work includes an analysis that reflects a privi-

that is given privileged status, establishes
some “fundamental criteria in the field” and
helps integrate the discipline (1987:12).
Brady et al. (2001) add that the classics are
important because they establish who the
most influential thinkers are in the field and
imply a “shared set of assumptions and au-
thors that are the core of the discipline” (p.
268). These individuals are often thought to
compose the “canon” in sociology.
Who and what constitutes the canon has
been hotly debated in sociology as well as
other disciplines. Sprague suggests that the
canon sociologists have inherited is “the
product of a particular subgroup’s perspec-
tive on society” (1998:24) and offers a very
limited analysis of the social world, which
*Please address all correspondence to Jan E.
Thomas, Department of Sociology, Kenyon
College, Gambier, OH 43022;
e-mail: thomasj@kenyon.edu.
Editor’s note: The reviewers were, in
alphabetical order, Julie Cannon, Mary Jo
Deegan, and Terri LeMoyne.
leged, white, male perspective (1997). Her
view has been echoed by many others who
would like to see the canon be a more inclu-
sive representation of the voices and ideas
of those previously ignored. These include
the voices of women, people of color, and
other oppressed groups.
Some scholars have specifically argued
for the need to include early women soci-
ologists as part of the discipline’s founda-
tional core, part of our “classical” tradition
(Deegan 1991; Lengermann and Neibrugge-
Brantley 1998; McDonald 1994, 1998). In
contrast to this call to become more diverse,
other sociologists have advocated for a dis-
ciplinary “core” and believe that a move to
a more diverse canon fragments and weak-
ens the discipline (Alexander 1987; R.
Collins 1997; Horowitz 1993; Huber 1995;
Turner and Turner 1990). Our research
looks at the impact of these debates on the
substance of classical theory courses. In
particular, we were interested in whether
women are being included in theory

Teaching Sociology, Vol. 32, 2004 (July:252-263) 252

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

WOMEN IN CLASSICAL THEORY
courses, thus broadening the canon and
making it more inclusive, or if there is a
disciplinary core of more traditional voices
still in place.
These questions grew out of a course we
both participated in on the inclusion of
women in sociology. In the fall of 2001, we
participated in an upper-division, under-
graduate seminar exploring the works of
women sociologists. The course was taught
at a small, private liberal arts school with a
strong theoretical orientation. The 16 stu-
dents enrolled (including Kukulan) were
primarily junior and senior sociology ma-
jors. Most students had already taken or
were taking the required courses in classical
and contemporary theory. The instructor
(Thomas) assigned a variety of primary and
secondary texts to assess the works of
women such as Harriett Martineau, Beatrice
Potter Webb, Marianne Weber, Ida B.
Wells, Anna Julia Cooper, Jane Addams,
the women of the Chicago School, Charlotte
Perkins Gilman, Rose Hum Lee, and Helen
Hughes. We ended the semester with stu-
dents presenting research papers on the
work of contemporary women sociologists.
The purpose of the course was to uncover
the contributions made by women to the
discipline of sociology, to consider the dif-
ferences and similarities between the writ-
ing and theories of women sociologists and
male theorists writing at about the same
time, and to assess the contemporary sig-
nificance of their work. One question came
up repeatedly: “Why haven’t we heard
about these women before?” This question
became the focus of our research.
A lack of research and writing by and
about early women sociologists seemed like
a logical reason why students of sociology
might not have heard about any of the early
women founders of the discipline. How-
ever, in the last decade works by early
women sociologists and books about their
contributions to the discipline have become
widely available. Important collections of-
fering excerpts and analyses of early women
sociologists include: Mary Jo Deegan’s
Women in Sociology: A Bio-Bibliographic
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
253
Source Book (1991), Lengermann and Nie-
brugge-Brantley’s textbook The Women
Founders (1998), and Lynn McDonald’s
Women Founders of the Social Sciences
(1994). Several primary and secondary
sources are available on specific women
such as Harriett Martineau (Hill and
Hoecker-Drysdale 2001; Hoecker-Drysdale
1992; Martineau 1995), Jane Addams
(Deegan 1988; Elshtain 2002), and Char-
lotte Perkins Gilman (Gilman 1989, 1997,
1998a, 1998b). Collections of the writings
of two African-American women, Anna
Julia Cooper (1998) and Ida B. Wells
(1997), have also been published. In addi-
tion, many articles have also been published
about these women, their exclusion from
the classical theory canon, and the impor-
tance of their contributions. Some of these
women are even present today in sociologi-
cal theory books (Adams and Sydie 2001;
Lemert 1993; Ritzer 1999; Zeitlin 2001).
Since a lack of resources was not a logical
explanation for the absence of knowledge
about early women sociologists, we hy-
pothesized that another possible explanation
might lie in the training of theory instruc-
tors.1 Are graduate students—the future
generation of theory instructors—being
taught about the “founding mothers” of
sociology? If these women are not part of
the core curriculum then graduate students
might be left with the impression that their
work was not significant in the development
of the discipline. In order for women to
appear on theory syllabi in undergraduate
level courses, instructors must be exposed
to their work during their graduate training.
The more that sociologists come in contact
1
There are certainly other possible explana-
tions as well. Time constraints are probably one
of the most significant. Time constraints during
the semester force instructors to chose only a
selected group of readings. If textbooks do not
include women sociologists, then additional time
for supplemental readings is required. These are
often the readings first to be cut if time begins
to run short during the semester, thus reinforc-
ing the belief that these authors are not as im-
portant.
254
with the ideas and writing of early women
sociologists, the more likely it is that they
will become integrated into the discipline.
This idea follows from the concept of
diffusion. Diffusion is a process through
which cultural knowledge and practices can
be transmitted (Johnson 2000:89). Diffusion
may be used to explain how cultural prac-
tices from one ethnic group are spread to
the dominant culture or it can help us un-
derstand the widespread acceptance of tech-
nology in our society. Diffusion of new
ideas, practices, and technologies has in-
creased rapidly with the growing ease of
interaction between various groups. In soci-
ology, the knowledge and practices of the
discipline are transmitted primarily through
graduate schools, publications, and confer-
ences. In this research we will focus on a
particular aspect of graduate school, specifi-
cally the classical theory course, to see if
there is evidence of the diffusion process in
regards to the work of early women sociolo-
gists.
THE GRADUATE
THEORY CURRICULUM
Graduate schools of sociology are the train-
ing ground for future sociologists, thus we
focused our attention there. The graduate
school curriculum is designed to provide
students with a comprehensive foundation in
sociological theory and methods and to pre-
pare them to engage in scholarly research
and teaching. The content of the curriculum
is crucial for understanding the past, pre-
sent, and future of the discipline. It is also
important in terms of providing the founda-
tion for what future generations of profes-
sors teach their students about the disci-
pline’s central ideas and perspectives.
Dowd (1991) argues that the graduate cur-
riculum serves as a canon for graduate stu-
dents; required courses, exams, and the
dissertation serve as “sacred texts.” The
curriculum “specifies, although not always
explicitly, an authoritative, approved list of
courses, authors, works and ideas” (p.
317). Through required and elective
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
courses, graduate students are socialized
into the main ideas and perspectives of the
discipline (Brady et al. 2001). Specific
course requirements vary across institu-
tions, but some training in sociological the-
ory is a critical component of the socializa-
tion process. Students learn about specific
theorists and read specific texts that provide
the foundation for their own research,
analysis, and teaching. Through this proc-
ess, the central ideas, or the core, of the
discipline are transmitted.
In the past, graduate programs typically
offered courses in classical and contempo-
rary theory. Classical theory generally be-
gan with Comte or, in some cases, Aristotle
and Plato and ended around 1920. Contem-
porary theory typically focused on signifi-
cant works beginning with the post-war
years. Today, graduate theory courses are
much more varied. The most recent edition
of the ASA Resource Book for Teaching
Sociological Theory (2001) illustrates how
diverse theory syllabi have become. The
syllabi in this set are primarily for under-
graduate theory courses and are organized
into modern and postmodern approaches.
The modern approach is based on an as-
sumption that sociological theory grows out
of Enlightenment thought and a desire to
understand modernity. In this view, social
scientists are objective researchers who seek
to uncover the “truth” (LeMoyne 2001:7).
The postmodern approach to sociological
theory reflects a belief that “knowledge is
always bound by both moral and ideological
considerations” (LeMoyne 2001:78). This
lens emphasizes an analysis of the stand-
point of theorists and the deconstruction of
texts to uncover hierarchies of knowledge
and power (LeMoyne 2001). Regardless of
approach, ASA Resource Book editor Terri
LeMoyne notes a surprising consistency
between the theorists and theories that are
taught. While there is considerable variation
in how the theorists and their works are
analyzed, most courses consider the work of
Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. The amount
of time spent on this “holy trinity” (Sprague
1997:89) varies considerably, with those
WOMEN IN CLASSICAL THEORY
instructors teaching from a postmodern per-
spective spending the least time on these
theorists.
Continuity and Change
What is taught as the classics or the canon
of the discipline is important in terms of the
socialization and scholarly development of
new Ph.D.s. The classroom according to
Gorak is the “universally acknowledged site
of perpetuating the canon” (1991:2).
Through course work, students learn about
theorists and perspectives, which help them
understand the discipline in a particular
way. The importance of these theorists and
perspectives is reaffirmed through the sub-
stance of qualifying exams, published re-
search, academic discourse, and their ap-
pearance in introductory and theory text-
books.
There has been very little research on
what theorists and theories are being taught
in graduate programs in sociology. Brady
et al. (2001) examined the structure and
substance of qualifying exams in graduate
schools. In terms of the substance of ex-
ams, the researchers measured exam topics
(theory and methods were the most com-
mon) and recommended reading lists. The
early sociologists that appeared on the most
theory reading lists were Marx, Weber,
Durkheim, and Simmel. Comte and Mead
were also mentioned on several reading
lists. Other early theorists appearing more
than once included Aristotle, Adam Smith,
Rousseau, Hobbes, Tocqueville, and Toen-
nies (Brady et al. 2001). Brady et al. (2001)
concluded that there appears to be only a
“small ‘core’ of common expertise” that is
required across programs (p. 282).
Barry Markovsky (2002) has also con-
ducted work on graduate training in theory.
As part of a larger project on developing
sociological theories, he interviewed soci-
ologists who taught required theory courses
in the top 50 graduate schools. He asked
instructors a series of questions regarding
their own theory training, how they cur-
rently teach their theory courses, and what
they viewed as the “essential readings” in
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
255
sociological theory. In regards to classical
theory, he found “a strong consensus” on
content. Marx, Weber, and Durkheim were
far and away the most cited theorists, ac-
counting for almost 56 percent of all cita-
tions. While Markovsky (2002:5) found a
“strong consensus with respect to the key
figures seen as responsible for laying the
discipline’s historical foundation” there was
no real consensus on the significance of
other theorists, and there were no women in
the group of key figures. These findings
held across cohorts of junior and senior
sociologists, suggesting that instructors
adopted the canon they were taught. In
other words, we teach what we are taught.
As many schools increasingly emphasize the
importance of research, faculty members
are even more likely to teach what they are
taught rather than take additional time to
research and develop a different approach to
teaching theory.
In the 1984 edition of the ASA syllabi set
for social theory, only 6 out of 29 course
syllabi presented or included some type of
recognition or attention to feminist theory
(Alway 1995:217). This included all types
of theory courses, not just those focused on
classical theory. The 2001 edition reflects
the continuing importance of Marx, Weber,
and Durkheim in theory courses but shows
a greater recognition of women’s contribu-
tions to sociology. However, most of the
assigned works by women appear in courses
emphasizing postmodern or contemporary
theory rather than the classical courses. We
look at whether or not these findings are an
accurate reflection of the diffusion of
women sociologists in graduate level classi-
cal theory courses.
METHODS
In order to assess what theorists are being
taught to graduate students, we focused on
theory course syllabi from the top 65 sociol-
ogy graduate programs. These schools were
determined using the 2001 US News and
World Report rankings (www.usnews.com)
and were crosschecked with the Princeton
256
Review rankings to verify that the top group
of schools was the same. Our concern was
not with the exact ranking of each school
but instead with obtaining a reliable list of
schools whose faculty and students were
most likely to be influencing future genera-
tions of sociology instructors.
We first viewed each school’s Department
of Sociology website. All 65 schools had
websites, although the extent of information
available on these sites varied dramatically.
Some schools provided the necessary syllabi
online, available for downloading, while
other schools had only profiles of profes-
sors. In these cases, contact was made
through e-mail with professors who taught
core theory classes. When the correct the-
ory professor could not be determined from
the website, an e-mail was sent to a profes-
sor that had primary research interest in
theory. The e-mail requested current syllabi
for any theory classes required for graduate
level students. A small number of programs
did not require theory classes. In those
cases, a selection of syllabi for theory
courses was sent. In a few cases, when no
response was received from the school, a
graduate student listed on the school’s web-
site was contacted who provided the rele-
vant material. In total, we collected 108
syllabi for graduate level theory courses
from 40 different schools.
Syllabus Classification
In our initial review, we attempted to clas-
sify the syllabi as primarily focusing on
classical or contemporary theory. Although
most syllabi fell into these two categories,
we found this framework too limiting given
the wide diversity of theorists and topics.
With further analysis, we found that most
theory classes could be classified into five
groups: classical, contemporary, combined,
theory construction, and special topics.
Classical and contemporary syllabi high-
lighted the main theorists within a fairly
general time period. A syllabus was classi-
fied as classical if it was either titled
“classical social theory” or primarily cov-
ered theorists writing before the 1920s.
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
Most syllabi in this category covered pri-
marily classical theorists and readings—
typically Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and
selected other theorists. Some classical syl-
labi included theorists up through the
1940s, but most ended at or before Mead.
A few syllabi ended the semester with some
contemporary readings. These syllabi were
still considered classical if more than 75
percent of the semester was devoted to theo-
rists pre-1920 or if the course title was
“classical theory.” There were 46 syllabi in
this group.2
The contemporary designation was gener-
ally made by course title. Of the 38 syllabi
in this category all but six contained the
words contemporary and theory in the
course title. If contemporary was not in the
title, we read the descriptions of the course,
topics to be covered, and the required read-
ing list. Contemporary theory courses gen-
erally covered a variety of theorists and
were often organized around schools of
thought such as structuralism, post-
modernism, and feminist theory. Merton,
Parsons, Bourdieu, Foucault, Dorothy
Smith, and Patricia Hill Collins were fre-
quently mentioned on these syllabi. Goff-
man and Freud bridged the classical and
contemporary categories. These categories
were fairly equivalent to the modern and
postmodern designations used by LeMoyne
(2001) in the ASA syllabi set.
The seven syllabi in the combined cate-
gory tended to cover multiple theorists from
a variety of time periods. The focus in these
courses seemed to be a more general over-
view or survey of sociological theory and
ideas. Within this category was a subgroup
of syllabi that seemed to be designed around
a “classical in a contemporary context”
theme. These courses surveyed a variety of
theorists, however the classical theorists
were juxtaposed with contemporary sociolo-
gists. Therefore, a classical theorist was
2
These 46 syllabi were from 40 different
schools. Some schools had more than one per-
son teaching these courses, so each instructor
sent a syllabus.
WOMEN IN CLASSICAL THEORY
paired with a more contemporary theorist
who had either developed the earlier per-
son’s theory or applied classical theory to a
contemporary situation. An example of a
course title that fell within this subgroup
was “Imagining the Contemporary: Founda-
tions of Social Theory.” The required read-
ings for this course included Marx, Weber,
Durkheim, Giddens, Foucault, and Fanon.
A small number of syllabi (four) focused
on theory construction and emphasized the
theory of theory or how theory was devel-
oped generally by sociologists rather than
by specific sociologists or theories. These
theory classes examined issues such as the
definition of sociological theory, the strate-
gies that sociologists use to construct the-
ory, the role of theory explanation, and
theory analysis. Most of the syllabi in this
category listed Cohen’s Developing Socio-
logical Knowledge (1989) as a text and sup-
plemented this work with various articles
and book chapters.
Finally, 13 syllabi were designed around
special theoretical topics. Some schools
offered a very wide variety of theory
courses from which students could choose.
We received topical syllabi in areas such as
feminist theory, social psychology, and so-
cial organization. Depending on the topic,
readings were drawn from early sociologists
or concentrated solely on contemporary
theorists. For our analysis, we focused only
on the 46 syllabi in the classical theory cate-
gory.
Quantification of Theorists—Breadth and
Depth
Our main interest was on the actual theo-
rists being taught to graduate students rather
than the specific writings or perspectives of
these theorists. We first did a simple count
of how many syllabi each theorist appeared
on. This count gave us a broad, overall
measure of whom was considered signifi-
cant in the development of the discipline
(breadth). In order to assess the depth of
their significance, we also devised a tabula-
tion process looking at the amount of time
allotted for the study of each person. This
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
257
was calculated by looking at each week’s
required readings and estimating the propor-
tion of the week devoted to an individual
theorist. Using this system, a 2 represents
two full weeks devoted to a particular theo-
rist, while a .5 means just half of one week
(50% of the reading for that week).
Over 50 sociologists were taught in
graduate level classical theory courses from
the 46 syllabi we received. Given this large
number of sociologists, we eliminated any
theorist who was covered on fewer than two
syllabi or whose primary work began after
1940. The exceptions to these exclusions
were women. Any female theorist men-
tioned on these syllabi was kept, regardless
of the number of syllabi covering that theo-
rist or the amount of time spent covering
the theorist.3 This process was in accor-
dance with our primary concern of learning
whether women were being included in
classical social theory.
In addition to the theorists covered, two
other pieces of data were also recorded. We
noted the year each course was taught so
that we could observe any trends in theo-
rists covered in recent years. Generally,
however, the syllabi received were taught
either during the 2000-2001 or 2001-2002
school year. Many of the instructors con-
tinually taught classical theory, but we had
no way of measuring the changes in their
courses over time. We also recorded the sex
of the instructors to see if female instructors
were more likely to include women sociolo-
gists in their courses.
INCLUSION AND COVERAGE
OF CLASSICAL THEORISTS
At the broadest level, our findings suggest
that theory is very much alive and well in
graduate training programs in sociology.
We were struck by the tremendous variety
3
Occasionally one of these women would be
covered on a syllabus designated as contempo-
rary or combined. These were not included in
our analysis. Only those appearing on syllabi
designated as classical were counted since that
was the period we were most interested in.
258 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
of theory courses currently available to Table 1. Inclusion of Theorists
graduate students. While many courses are
broad overviews of sociological theory, Theorist Syllabi Average
Included Weeks Spent
others offer an in-depth look at a more nar-
on (N=46) Discussing
row theoretical area such as contemporary
Marxist theory, Post-Parsonian theorists, or Max Weber 46 2.58
social interaction and group processes.
E. Durkeim 45 2.41
Some departments divide their core theory
courses according to time periods (for ex- K. Marx 42 2.55
ample, 1850 to 1920, 1920 to 1970, 1970 to
current), some use a more traditional divi- G. Simmel 20 1.45
sion with classical and contemporary
G.H. Mead 16 1.00
courses, and others have a “cafeteria” ap-
proach with a variety of topical courses S. Freud 8 1.00
from which students can choose.
In the 46 classical syllabi we collected, A. Comte 7 .44
the “holy trinity” of Marx, Weber, and
Durkheim still seemed firmly in place (see A. Smith 6 .93
Table 1). However, very few classical the- H. Spencer 6 .72
ory courses only looked at the work of these
three theorists. Mead and Simmel were A. Tocqueville 5 1.30
often included in these courses, though sig-
nificantly less time was devoted to either of G. Hegel 5 .56
them. In the first week or two of classes, E. Goffman 5 .81
Comte, Tocqueville, and Adam Smith were
the names most likely to appear on syllabi W.E.B. DuBois 4 1.88
that did not start with one of the three major
theorists, though none of these sociologists C.H. Cooley 3 .50
appeared frequently. R.K. Merton 3 .36
The amount of time spent on each theorist
gave us an idea of how significant they H. Arendt 2 .75
were in the view of the instructor (depth).
We found four main groupings of theorists H. Martineau 2 .63
based on how much time was dedicated to
C.P. Gilman 1 2.50
studying their work. Marx, Weber, and
Durkheim composed the first cluster. We- Marianne We- 1 .50
ber was included on all of the 46 syllabi, ber
with students spending an average of 2.58 I.B. Wells 1 .25
weeks on him. Durkheim and Marx were
close behind, appearing on 45 and 42 syl- A.J. Cooper 1 .50
labi respectively. An average of 2.55 weeks
was spent on Marx and 2.41 weeks on 1.45 weeks was spent discussing him, while
Durkheim. Thus, while Durkheim appeared an average of 1.0 week was spent on Mead.
on more syllabi, those schools that included Again, this represents a considerable de-
Marx devoted slightly more time to him. cline in the breadth and depth of coverage
Of secondary importance were Simmel as compared to Marx, Weber, and Durk-
and Mead, who were covered on 20 and 16 heim.
syllabi respectively. This indicates that they Freud, Comte, Smith, and Spencer com-
appeared on less than half of the classical posed a third cluster, constituting an even
theory syllabi in our sample. For the smaller proportion of syllabi and average
schools that included Simmel, an average of weeks of coverage. Freud appeared on eight

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

WOMEN IN CLASSICAL THEORY
syllabi and Smith on six with approximately
one week spent discussing their work. On
average, less than a week was spent on
Comte and Spencer. When compared to the
previous groups, the breadth and depth of
coverage for these theorists was quite mini-
mal. Table 1 also includes Goffman and
Merton even though their work was primar-
ily produced after 1940. They appeared on
five and three syllabi, respectively, and
seemed to be a bridge to the contemporary
theorists.
We include the female social theorists in a
fourth cluster for comparative purposes.
Work by or about early women sociologists
appeared on only eight syllabi. Hannah Ar-
endt appeared on two syllabi, with an aver-
age of .75 weeks devoted to her work. The
writings of Harriet Martineau were assigned
on two syllabi. Marianne Weber, Anna
Julia Cooper, Charlotte Perkins Gilman,
and Ida B. Wells were each mentioned on
one syllabus. Martineau, Weber, Cooper,
and Wells were all discussed in about one
half week or less. Gilman had considerably
more time spent on her work (2.5 weeks),
but this was all on one syllabus.
Sex of the Instructor
There did not appear to be any connection
between the sex of the instructor and the
inclusion of women in classical theory
courses. Men (37 of 46) taught 80 percent
of the classical theory courses. Of the eight
syllabi that included something by or about
early women sociologists, seven of the pro-
fessors were male while only one professor
was female. These trends held true for the
contemporary theory courses as well. Male
instructors taught 31 courses, women in-
structors taught 6 courses, and 1 class was
team-taught by a male and female.
THE DIFFUSION OF WOMEN
INTO CLASSICAL THEORY
The presence of women sociologists in
graduate level theory courses was minimal;
however, eight classical theory syllabi in-
cluded some reading on or by early women
sociologists. In two syllabi, Lengermann
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
259
and Niebrugge-Brantley’s textbook The
Women Founders: Sociology and Social
Theory was on the required reading list. In
one of these syllabi, The Women Founders
was on the required reading list, but the
instructor did not assign any of the read-
ings. The book was used as the basis for a
writing assignment. Students were asked to
prepare term papers based on the writings
of one of the women theorists covered. The
other syllabus using The Women Founders
provided a more integrated approach. The
instructor assigned the introductory chapter
as part of the overview of the course. He
also assigned the chapter on Martineau in
conjunction with the study of Durkheim’s
work on structuralism and the chapter on
Marianne Weber during the examination of
Max Weber’s work.
Just one reading about or by early women
sociologists was assigned on five syllabi.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s book Women
and Economics was assigned at the end of
the semester in one classical theory course.
No specific weekly or class topics were
outlined on the syllabus, but the course be-
gan with Marx, Weber, and Durkheim and
ended with DuBois’s The Souls of Black
Folks and Gilman’s Women and Economics.
Three and a half weeks were spent covering
DuBois, two and a half weeks were spent
covering Gilman, one and a half weeks on
Marx, two and a half weeks on Weber, and
four and a half weeks were spent on cover-
ing Durkheim. The added attention to the
work of DuBois and Gilman seems situated
in the expressed purpose of this classical
theory course to examine how theorists have
“defined and described society within their
own social contexts” (from syllabus).
In addition to the previously mentioned
course that paired Martineau’s work with
Durkheim’s, Martineau’s (1989) How to
Observe Morals and Manner was also as-
signed in one other course. It appeared as
though one week was spent devoted to this
work, with attention focused on its contri-
butions in regards to “daily life, observa-
tion, induction, and gender” (from sylla-
bus).
Deegan’s (1981) article “Early Women
260
Sociologists and the American Sociological
Society” was assigned on one other course
syllabus. The Deegan article was used for
the second week of class as part of an intro-
duction to the historical background and
philosophy of sociology along with the first
several pages of Coser’s (1977) Masters of
Sociological Thought. Having this reading
as one of the first readings of the course
brings women’s contributions to the fore-
front. However, no further readings by the
women Deegan mentions were assigned.
The 10th week of class included two contem-
porary women theorists commenting on
Marx and Weber.
Finally, readings from the work of Han-
nah Arendt appeared on two syllabi. In both
cases, Arendt was the last assigned reading
of the semester. Both syllabi preceded Ar-
endt with Simmel and Goffman, thus ex-
tending the classical period into the 1950s.
Another approach to including women
sociologists demonstrated how women could
be included in a particular substantive sec-
tion of the course. The description for this
particular classical theory course stated:
This course is designed to give a rigorous and
critical introduction to the roots of sociological
theory. The purpose of this course is to give
you some insight into how sociology evolved
as a discipline and how the major thinkers
dealt with such issues as stratification, alien-
ation, and the movement of history.
The required readings included works by
Marx (Marx-Engles Reader), Weber
(Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capital-
ism), and Durkheim (Division of Labor).
However, this instructor also required A
Voice from the South, a collection of writ-
ings by Anna Julia Cooper, “Lynch Law in
America” by Ida B. Wells, and On Sociol-
ogy and the Black Community by W.E.B.
DuBois.
The semester was divided into five main
topical areas. In each section a variety of
perspectives was presented. For example, in
the first two weeks, a section entitled “the
proper objective of sociology,” readings
included selections from DuBois, Marx,
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
Durkheim, and Weber. The second section,
“classical perspectives on stratification,”
contained several readings by Cooper and
Wells in addition to selections from Marx,
DuBois, and others. The syllabus provided
a useful model for including the early
women founders in particular topical areas.
Our findings verify that there does seem
to be an elite core of classical theorists
(Marx, Weber, and Durkheim), yet there is
a wide range of other theorists also thought
to be important in the development of the
discipline. By and large, early women soci-
ologists are still not included in this group.
While there is much debate in the discipline
about the importance of the core, our re-
search confirms other studies that indicate
that there is agreement on the significant
contributions of Marx, Weber, and Durk-
heim (Brady et al. 2001; Markovsky 2002).
The question now seems to be how many
other significant contributors should be in-
cluded in the classical canon.
The perspective of the instructor and how
the course fits within the context of the the-
ory curriculum are likely to be important
determinants in deciding which theorists and
perspectives will be covered. Though we
were unable to test this hypothesis directly,
we believe that the perspective of the in-
structor is likely to have been heavily influ-
enced by his or her own theory training. If
graduate students do not learn about early
women sociologists during their training,
they are unlikely to include them in theory
courses they teach. Our research suggests
that, by and large, graduate students are
still not being taught about the early women
sociologists. This is also consistent with
Markovsky’s (2002) research on the read-
ings that theory instructors view as most
important.
It is also possible that even when graduate
students read the works of early women
sociologists they still do not view them as
particularly influential thinkers. Reading an
excerpt or doing a writing assignment out-
side the framework of class discussion is
not likely to give students the impression
that the theorist has a privileged status
within the discipline. Even though women
WOMEN IN CLASSICAL THEORY
like Gilman, Weber, Martineau, and Webb
were very astute observers of gender strati-
fication, their work is not credited with es-
tablishing some “fundamental criteria in the
field” (Alexander 1987), thus they are not
part of the elite group of classical theorists.
If this is what graduate students are taught
(directly or indirectly), then it should not be
surprising that the diffusion of the ideas of
early women sociologists has been slow. It
is most likely that those who have incorpo-
rated women have not drawn on their train-
ing in theory but have had to search out
these works on their own.
We view the presence of eight syllabi
(17%) that include women as a weak but
visible indicator that the diffusion of their
ideas and works has begun. Some instruc-
tors are beginning to recognize the place of
early women sociologists in the discipline''s
history and are creating a place for them on
the syllabus. We focused our attention on
graduate level syllabi since these courses
would provide the perspective of the canon
for future generations of sociologists. The
undergraduate theory syllabi found in the
ASA teaching guide for sociological theory
suggest that there is more evidence of diffu-
sion at this level. Perhaps instructors have
educated themselves about these women, or
they may have attended graduate programs
not included in our sample. Change may be
more likely to come from the bottom up,
beginning with more junior theory instruc-
tors teaching at the undergraduate level. As
these undergraduates progress to graduate
school they may begin to ask, “Where are
the women?”
We did anticipate that there would be a
much greater presence of women in contem-
porary theory courses, both as instructors
and as theorists covered on the syllabi. The
impact of feminist thought on the discipline
since the 1970s has been significant, though
many would argue that there has been tre-
mendous resistance within the discipline to
placing gender at the center of sociological
inquiry (Alway 1995; Chafetz 1997; Stanley
1992; Stacey and Thorne 1985; Ward and
Grant 1985). Though contemporary theory
was not the focus of our research, a brief
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
261
review of those syllabi showed that there is
a greater inclusion of women theorists and
feminist theory in these courses than in clas-
sical theory courses. However, the level of
inclusion was not as great as we anticipated.
Of the 38 syllabi we classified as contempo-
rary theory, all but 7 included readings by
at least a few contemporary women sociolo-
gists, and many included a section on femi-
nist theory. However, 10 syllabi (26%) de-
voted one week or less to these discussions
and readings. We were also surprised that
only about 20 percent of contemporary the-
ory instructors were women. Men still seem
to dominate the teaching of sociological
theory even though more and more Ph.D.s
in sociology are being awarded to women.
The most recent theory syllabi set com-
piled by ASA had a better representation of
women instructors but did not focus on
graduate level courses. In total, 19 syllabi
(classical and contemporary) were included
in the 2001 edition, and women taught 11 of
the classes. Women taught all five of the
classical theory courses listed, and four of
these included the work of early women
sociologists.
This disparity represented a significant
change from the previous (1997) edition. In
the 1997 edition, edited by Richard
Moodey, 15 syllabi were highlighted to
illustrate major topics covered in theory
courses (classical and contemporary). Four
of these 15 syllabi described theory courses
taught by women. In the two courses that
focused more on classical theory, one in-
cluded the work of Martineau and Harriet
Taylor Mill as a main topic. The other
course had a topical area entitled, “Bringing
the Experiences of Women to the Center.”
Of course, these syllabi are selected spe-
cifically by each editor to illustrate various
aspects of teaching sociological theory.
While they represent a biased sample, they
do suggest that women are teaching theory
and that the work of women sociologists is
becoming more visible in the theory
courses. However, most of the courses in
these syllabi sets are designed for under-
graduates. Women may be more likely to
teach undergraduate theory courses rather
262
than the graduate theory courses that were
the focus of our study. As suggested earlier,
the presence of early women sociologists
may be more likely to appear first at this
level. Many people, especially new instruc-
tors, use the ASA teaching guides to aid
them in the development of courses. The
presence of women in these syllabi sets is
thus important in terms of what they suggest
should be included in classical theory
courses and in encouraging new instructors
to “think outside the box.”
As more sociologists and graduate stu-
dents come into contact with the work of
women such as Harriet Martineau, Ida B.
Wells, Beatrice Webb, Marianne Weber,
and the many other women who were pro-
viding astute sociological analysis in the
early years of the discipline, we would an-
ticipate the continued diffusion of their
ideas into the discipline. Graduate theory
courses are an important part of this proc-
ess. The presence of these women and their
work in sociological theory books, courses,
conferences, presentations, and journals
will bring sociologists into more frequent
contact with their ideas and thus hasten the
diffusion process. As the diffusion of mate-
rial culturally enriches a society, the diffu-
sion of new ideas will enrich our sociologi-
cal culture.
The traditional canon in sociology has
limited our understanding of how the disci-
pline has developed. This limited view has
prevented us from having a more complete
picture of the social world during the devel-
opment of the discipline. The incorporation
of women’s analysis can provide us with the
opportunity to do better sociology. Their
work offers new perspectives and expands
our depth of understanding on issues such
as politics, the economy, and family life.
As Lucal (2002:5) has pointed out, “we
have no idea what sociology might have
looked like if the work of the women foun-
ders had been taken seriously.” We can
begin to legitimize their work by giving it
the same privileged status we have given the
work of their contemporaries rather than
relegating them to a textbook box. It is time
to move outside the box and integrate
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
women into the classical curriculum.
REFERENCES
Adams, Bert N. and R.A. Sydie. 2001. Socio-
logical Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1987. “The Centrality of
the Classics.” Pp. 11-57 in Social Theory To-
day, edited by Anthony Giddens and Jonathan
H. Turner. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Alway, Joan. 1995. “The Trouble with Gender:
Tales of the Still-Missing Feminist Revolution
in Sociological Theory.” Sociological Theory
13:209-28.
Brady, David, Carol Hostetter, Melissa A.
Milkie, and Bernice A. Pescosolido. 2001.
“The Structure and Substance of Preparing
Sociologists: The Nature of Qualifying Exami-
nations in Graduate Education.” Teaching
Sociology 29:265-85.
Chafetz, Janet Saltzman. 1997. “Feminist The-
ory and Sociology: Underutilized Contribu-
tions for Mainstream Theory.” Annual Review
of Sociology 23:97-120.
Cohen, Bernard P. 1989. Developing Sociologi-
cal Knowledge. 2d ed. Chicago, IL: Nelson-
Hall.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist
Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin
Hyman.
Connell, R.W. 1997. Why is Classical Theory
Classical?” American Journal of Sociology
102:1511-57.
Cooper, Anna Julia. 1998. The Voice of Anna
Julia Cooper. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Coser, Lewis. 1977. Masters of Sociological
Thought. 2d ed. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanocich.
Deegan, Mary Jo. 1981. “Early Women Sociolo-
gists and the American Sociological Society.”
The American Sociologist 16:14-24.
_____. 1988. Jane Addams and the Men of the
Chicago School. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-
action.
_____. 1991. Women in Sociology: A Bio-
Bibliographical Sourcebook. New York:
Greenwood
Dowd, James J. 1991. “Revising the Canon:
Graduate Training in the Two Sociologies.”
Teaching Sociology 19:308-21.
DuBois, W.E.B. 1980. On Sociology and the
Black Community. Chicago, IL: University of
WOMEN IN CLASSICAL THEORY
Chicago Press
_____. [1903] 1996. The Souls of Black Folks.
New York: Penguin.
Durkheim, Emile. 1997. The Division of Labor
in Society. New York: Free Press.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 2002. The Jane Addams
Reader. New York: Basic.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. 1989. The Yellow
Wallpaper and Other Writings. New York:
Bantam.
_____. 1997. With Her in Our Land. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
_____. 1998a. Herland. Mineola, NY: Dover.
_____. 1998b. Women and Economics. Mineola,
NY: Dover.
Gorak, Jan. 1991. The Making of the Modern
Canon: Genesis and Crisis of a Literary Idea.
Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone.
Hill, Michael and Susan Hoecker-Drysdale.
2001. Harriet Martineau: Theoretical & Meth-
odological Perspectives. New York:
Routledge.
Hoecker-Drysdale, Susan. 1992. Harriet Marti-
neau: First Woman Sociologist. Oxford, Eng-
land: Berg.
Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1993. The Decomposi-
tion of Sociology. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-
action.
Huber, Joan. 1995. “Institutional Perspectives
on Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology
101:194-216.
Johnson, Allan. 2000. Blackwell Dictionary of
Sociology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
LeMoyne, Terri, ed. 2001. ASA Resource Book
for Teaching Sociological Theory. 4th ed.
Washington, DC: ASA.
Lemert, Charles, ed. 1993. Social Theory: The
Multicultural & Classic Readings. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Lengermann, Patricia Madoo and Jill Niebrugge-
Brantley, eds. 1998. The Women Founders:
Sociology and Social Theory, 1830-1930: A
Text-Reader. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lucal, Betsy. 2002. “Out of the Ghetto of His-
tory: Taking Early Women Sociologists to the
Next Level of Inclusion.” Presented at the
annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, August 16, Chicago, IL.
Markovsky, Barry. 2002. “Theory and Methods
in Graduate Education of Sociologists.” Pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association, August 17, Chicago,
IL.
Martineau, Harriett [1838] 1989. How to Ob-
serve Morals and Manners. Edited by Michael
Hill. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
263
12
Marx, Karl. 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader. 2d
ed. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York:
W.W. Norton.
McDonald, Lynn. 1994. Women Founders of the
Social Sciences. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton
University Press.
_____. 1998. “Classical Social Theory with the
Women Founders Included.” Pp. 112-41 in
Reclaiming the Sociological Classics: The
State of the Scholarship, edited by Charles
Camic. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Moodey, Richard W., ed. 1997. ASA Resource
Book for Teaching Sociological Theory. 3d ed.
Washington, DC: ASA.
Ritzer, George. 1999. Classical Social Theory.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Sprague, Joey. 1997. “Holy Men and Big Guns:
The Can[n]on in Social Theory.” Gender &
Society 11:88-107.
_____. 1998. “(Re)Making Sociology: Breaking
the Bonds of our Discipline.” Contemporary
Sociology 27:24-8.
Stacey, Judith and Barrie Thorne. 1985. “The
Missing Revolution in Sociology.” Social
Problems 32:301-16.
Stanley, Liz. 1992. “The Impact of Feminism on
Sociology in the Last 20 Years.” Pp. 254-69
in The Knowledge Explosion: Generations of
Feminist Scholarship, edited by Cheris
Kramarae and Dale Spender. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Turner, Stephen, and Jonathan Turner. 1990.
The Impossible Science. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Ward, Kathryn B. and Linda Grant. 1985. “The
Feminist Critique and a Decade of Research in
Sociology Journals.” The Sociological Quar-
terly 26:139-57.
Weber, Max. 2001. The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism. 2d ed. New York:
Routledge.
Wells, Ida B. 1997. Southern Horrors and Other
Writings. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Zeitlin, Irving M. 2001. Ideology and the
Development of Sociological Theory. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jan E. Thomas is an assistant professor of sociol-
ogy at Kenyon College. In addition to her class on
women sociologists she also teaches courses on social
movements, health and illness, institutions and ine-
qualities, and research methods. Her research is pri-
marily in the area of women’s health.
Annis Kukulan graduated from Kenyon College in
2002 with a Bachelor’s degree in sociology.