Social Science History Association

[Comment on Tilly: Who Asks the Questions for Women's History?]: Response
Author(s): Louise A. Tilly
Source: Social Science History, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Winter, 1989), pp. 479-480
Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Social Science History Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1171225 .
Accessed: 16/10/2013 23:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press and Social Science History Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Social Science History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 201.255.124.156 on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:03:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Response
LOUISE A. TILLY

JUDITHBENNETThas persuadedme thatin theoral versionof

thispaperI conflated fivepoints:(I) All women'shistory has a
feminist motivationand message.(2) Descriptive women'shis-
toryhas discoveredvaluableevidenceaboutwomenin thepast;
thishas nowbeenacceptedas historical "fact."(3) Sociological
use of genderas a conceptadds an analytical edge to descrip-
tiveaccounts.(4) Social historythatmakesgenderand women's
experienceproblematic and analyzesit systematicallycan add
to theachievements of descriptive/interpretive
women'shistory.
(5) Bothtypesof women'shistory and
(descriptive/interpretive
analytical)canonlybenefit fromexplicitlydemonstratingtheways
in whichtheirfindings contributeto answeringquestionsalready
on thehistoricalagenda.I haverevisedmypapersomewhatto
clarifythesepoints.
I agreewithBennett thattherelationshipbetweenwomen'shis-
toryand thelargerhistorical agendashouldgo bothways-that
historiansin otherfieldsshouldtakeaccountof thefindings of
women'shistory as well.Thereis an internalagendato women's
history,as I thoughtI had pointedoutin mydiscussionof Carr
and the constantredefinition facts,and in arguing
of historical
thatall women'shistory arisesfromfeminist questions.
I disagree,however,withBennett'sphrasingof the "single

Social ScienceHistory13:4 (Winter1989). Copyright I1989by the Social

ScienceHistoryAssociation.ccc oi45-5532/89/$I.50.

This content downloaded from 201.255.124.156 on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:03:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
480 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

central question . . . of women's history":"Why and how has

thesubordinationof womenenduredforso longand in so many
different
historical
settings?" In thisform,it is an unanswerable
question,boththeoretically and practically. If subordinationis
universaland unchanging, it is unproblematic and cannotbe ex-
plained.The evolutionof women'shistory (and genderstudies
in general)towardmoreproblematic versionsof thisquestion-
comparing andconsidering differenttypesandlevelsofsubordina-
tion,andexceptions orsituations inwhichitis moreorlesssalient
-has been vital,boththeoretically and practically.
Answersto
suchquestionshavesuggested causefor(guarded)optimism and
publicpoliciesthatcan alleviateandpossiblyeliminate theheavy
burdenofinequality. Thereis muchtobe gainedfromlessglobal,
moreproblematic questions inwomen'shistory, whichinpractice
arewhatsomehistorians havebeenaddressing.

This content downloaded from 201.255.124.156 on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:03:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions