Date:         Wed, 25 Jun 97 09:45:25 EDT
From: Meredith <MMREDL0@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: tracking
To: socgrad@CSF.COLORADO.EDU
In-Reply-To:  <97Jun24.215812edt.2683-7@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Message-Id:   <970625.102434.EDT.MMREDL0@ukcc.uky.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Ok, at the risk of pounding this topic into the ground--here's my thoughts
or definitions? of tracking....

The concept of tracking I would define as a path of least resistance which is
not necessarily mapped by the individual, but rather arises from larger constra
ints.  I guess the best model for my concept would be habitus--which includes
both a conscious and non (un?)conscious theory of action and constraint. Furthe
r, it incorporates both the individual and the structures/discourses around
them in dynamic relation.

Tracking, as such, would not have unique characteristics within any given
structure but would be visible across them.  In academia, for example, tracking
would not need to be established in any particular discipline to demonstrate
its existence, but would be apparent in many.  Equally, any individual "excep-t
ion would not discount the "reality" of tracking simply because of their presen
ce in a nontracked area, or of their success.  I'm thinking here of the example
of Barbara McClintock, who feminist Evelyn Fox Keller biographied (not a word,
sorry).  It is clear from McClintock's career that she individually not only
bucked her female "track" in society, but also that she challenged the discipli
ne of science with her approach.  However, despite her efforts and courage, she
continued to be well aware of her exceptionality and she herself referred to
her scientific accomplishments as not womanly--not a direct quote, but same
words.  Her approach to science--a feeling for the organism--is still considere
d radical within her field, and is, according to my biologist friends, still
regarded as a "woman's" insight which gained knoweldge but needs to be translat
ed into models of "organism" in order to be real science.  Despite the fact of
individual success in either fighting the broader constraints of social "track-
ing", she is constructed as both an exception (not womanly) and as not truly
part of the discipline (needs to be translated to be real).  She is still
indicative of the tracking of gender in the broader society, and at the same
time of the tracking in academia and in hard sciences,regardless of her success

Now, for me in sociology at this program, I would say that such constraints
in structure continue to divide along larger social expectations in both of tho
se ways.  Many successful women in this program align there studies within
"nongendered" theoretical frameworks, and are encouraged to do so.  In my own
work, I have tried to incorporate work by, for example, French feminists
Catherine clement, and Helene Cixious, and have been advised that while very
interesting, it was definitely NOT sociology.  There is no open market of
ideas.  I guess to reduce it to factors, I would count this as a big push
factor, in that the controlling of ideas which were perceived as legitimate--
and not efficacy of my use of them--did push me into the company of faculty
who were both open and receptive to those ideas, mostly feminist and mostly
women.  Their experiences, not coincidentally, were much like my own.  the
pull factor in all this would be in finding a community of people open to
the ideas which attracted me.  It's important to remember, however, that these
ideas are not individual idiosyncracies, but are reflective of broader
structures and experiences.  That is, my being female cannot help but create
some awareness of and attraction to filling in the gaps of sociological work
around issues of women's lives.  I also am very attracted to French theory in
general, and discovered the French feminists through my master's work on
Foucault, Bourdieu, etc.  While very encouraged (at the time--philosophy studen
t) to move to French feminist thought, I had a male friend who was not.  Guess
that's tracking--what would you call it?  In soc, I've been (constantly)
"tracked" as a social theorist feminist, but only marginally a
sociologist (in the view of some) because of the rejection of ideas which i
employ.

It's not a tidy package--I don't have stories of "then they said you must
study such and such because you're a woman."  NOnetheless, the entire construct
from the perceived legitimacy of ideas, to their reception in the discipline,
to their reception in academia as a whole, is indicative to me of tracking.

Geez, way too long, sorry all.....Meredith UKy