“我更喜欢和母马一起工作,就像女人一样,性格艰难,但要付出更多”:一项关于马(体育)行业多重不平等的研究

IF 3.9 1区 社会学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Gender Work and Organization Pub Date : 2023-07-17 DOI:10.1111/gwao.13044
Eline Jammaers, Astrid Huopalainen
{"title":"“我更喜欢和母马一起工作,就像女人一样,性格艰难,但要付出更多”:一项关于马(体育)行业多重不平等的研究","authors":"Eline Jammaers,&nbsp;Astrid Huopalainen","doi":"10.1111/gwao.13044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The idea that a “single category”—focus in the study of workplace inequality leads to oversimplification and obscures its complex nature is now generally accepted. Yet few concerns have been raised with regard to the “single species”—focus of inequalities in the context of management and organization studies. In this paper, we shed light on the interplay of multiple inequalities in the multispecies, sex-integrated setting of equine (sports) business in the Belgian context, and paying particular attention to show jumping activities. An Ackerian analysis reveals the persistence of gendered inequalities despite women's “theoretically” improved chances of identifying with the ideal rider construct, following changed breeding preferences and an organizational logic of “passion-merit.” Popular imageries of horses paradoxically reveal the lack of agency awarded to animals and the instrumental nature of the human–horse bond. This study opens the debate on how nonhuman animals may be integrated into core feminist organizational concepts, looking at organizational logic through a multispecies lens. We initiate a claim to knowledge about overlapping and intersecting forms of inequality in a posthumanist spirit whilst reflexively acknowledging our human-centered approach to data collection. Finally, we ponder upon the question of what ontological and methodological shifts would be required to convincingly speak of multispecies inequality regimes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48128,"journal":{"name":"Gender Work and Organization","volume":"30 6","pages":"2049-2068"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwao.13044","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“I prefer working with mares, like women, difficult in character but go the extra mile”: A study of multiple inequalities in equine (sports) business\",\"authors\":\"Eline Jammaers,&nbsp;Astrid Huopalainen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gwao.13044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The idea that a “single category”—focus in the study of workplace inequality leads to oversimplification and obscures its complex nature is now generally accepted. Yet few concerns have been raised with regard to the “single species”—focus of inequalities in the context of management and organization studies. In this paper, we shed light on the interplay of multiple inequalities in the multispecies, sex-integrated setting of equine (sports) business in the Belgian context, and paying particular attention to show jumping activities. An Ackerian analysis reveals the persistence of gendered inequalities despite women's “theoretically” improved chances of identifying with the ideal rider construct, following changed breeding preferences and an organizational logic of “passion-merit.” Popular imageries of horses paradoxically reveal the lack of agency awarded to animals and the instrumental nature of the human–horse bond. This study opens the debate on how nonhuman animals may be integrated into core feminist organizational concepts, looking at organizational logic through a multispecies lens. We initiate a claim to knowledge about overlapping and intersecting forms of inequality in a posthumanist spirit whilst reflexively acknowledging our human-centered approach to data collection. Finally, we ponder upon the question of what ontological and methodological shifts would be required to convincingly speak of multispecies inequality regimes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gender Work and Organization\",\"volume\":\"30 6\",\"pages\":\"2049-2068\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwao.13044\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gender Work and Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.13044\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gender Work and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.13044","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究工作场所不平等的“单一类别”会导致过于简单化,并掩盖其复杂性质,这种观点现在已被普遍接受。然而,很少有人对“单一物种”提出担忧——这是管理和组织研究中不平等的焦点。在这篇论文中,我们揭示了比利时马(体育)业务的多物种、性别综合环境中的多重不平等之间的相互作用,并特别关注表演跳跃活动。Ackerian的一项分析揭示了性别不平等的持续存在,尽管女性在“理论上”提高了认同理想骑手结构的机会,因为生育偏好和“激情价值”的组织逻辑发生了变化。“马的流行形象矛盾地揭示了动物缺乏代理权,以及人马关系的工具性。这项研究开启了关于非人类动物如何融入核心女权主义组织概念的辩论,从多物种的角度看待组织逻辑。我们本着后人道主义的精神,提出了关于重叠和交叉形式的不平等的知识主张,同时本能地承认我们以人为中心的数据收集方法。最后,我们思考了一个问题,即要令人信服地谈论多种族不平等制度,需要进行哪些本体论和方法论的转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“I prefer working with mares, like women, difficult in character but go the extra mile”: A study of multiple inequalities in equine (sports) business

The idea that a “single category”—focus in the study of workplace inequality leads to oversimplification and obscures its complex nature is now generally accepted. Yet few concerns have been raised with regard to the “single species”—focus of inequalities in the context of management and organization studies. In this paper, we shed light on the interplay of multiple inequalities in the multispecies, sex-integrated setting of equine (sports) business in the Belgian context, and paying particular attention to show jumping activities. An Ackerian analysis reveals the persistence of gendered inequalities despite women's “theoretically” improved chances of identifying with the ideal rider construct, following changed breeding preferences and an organizational logic of “passion-merit.” Popular imageries of horses paradoxically reveal the lack of agency awarded to animals and the instrumental nature of the human–horse bond. This study opens the debate on how nonhuman animals may be integrated into core feminist organizational concepts, looking at organizational logic through a multispecies lens. We initiate a claim to knowledge about overlapping and intersecting forms of inequality in a posthumanist spirit whilst reflexively acknowledging our human-centered approach to data collection. Finally, we ponder upon the question of what ontological and methodological shifts would be required to convincingly speak of multispecies inequality regimes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
13.80%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Gender, Work & Organization is a bimonthly peer-reviewed academic journal. The journal was established in 1994 and is published by John Wiley & Sons. It covers research on the role of gender on the workfloor. In addition to the regular issues, the journal publishes several special issues per year and has new section, Feminist Frontiers,dedicated to contemporary conversations and topics in feminism.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Moving forward with Gender, Work and Organization Sexism in business schools (and universities): Structural inequalities, systemic failures, and individual experiences Doing transgender: Gender minorities in the organization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1