Total views : 213

Gender Aspects of “Subjectivity” in the Private and Public Spheres: Sociological Analysis


  • Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management, Russian Federation


Background/Objectives: The article aims to examine the gender aspects of “subjectivity” that reveal themselves both in the private and public spheres of the sociological domain. Methods: interdisciplinary approach, comparative analysis and basis of theoretical sociology. The study is based on the main works and findings of Russian and foreign authors considering the analysis of gender practices and organizational culture. Questionnaires were used as an empirical method. The sample was formed using the statistical data according to the Russian National Classifier of Economic Activities. The sample included 1354 respondents. The article presents the findings of correlation analysis. Findings: The developed methodology enabled us to identify the influence of the style of management on self-satisfaction. In the public area, occur objective and subjective factors that have a significant importance for the satisfaction and fulfillment. The objective factors include gender and organizational culture. Such an indicator of organizational culture, as a style of leadership, has an effects on the self-satisfaction. The laissez-faire management style leads to dissatisfaction. Women show higher appreciation of the less authoritarian management. At the same time, young women are dissatisfied with a male boss, which complicates the implementation of subjectivity. Young men, like older men and women, on the contrary, enjoy the male leadership. This can be explained by a high degree of professional maturity. Communication with the boss is more important for women and young men. The forces guiding the company’s development have the largest impact on the satisfaction and fulfillment of men. The company’s philosophy and mission have a positive correlation with fulfillment only for young women. The satisfaction depends on organizational culture and gender – the agents of the public sphere, – which represents the novelty of the study. Improvement: The research results can be used in further work with private and public sociology and the sociology of gender.


Fulfillment, Gender, Management Style, Men, Mission, Organizational Culture, Philosophy, Satisfaction, Subjectivity, Women.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 127)


  • Abulkhanova-Slavskaya KA. Moscow; MODEK: Voronezh: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute: Psychology and consciousness of an individual (issues of methodology, theory and research on a personality): selected psychological works. 1999.
  • Groshev IV, Emelyanov PV, Yuryev VM. Moscow: UNITYDANA: Organizational culture. 2004.
  • Hofstede G. New York: Harper Collins Publishers: Cultures and organizations (software of the mind). 1994.
  • Schein E. Piter: St. Petersburg: Organizational culture and leadership: translated from English. V.A. Spivak (ed.). 2002.
  • Solomanidina TO. Organizational culture of the company.Moscow: OOO Journal Personnel Management. 2003.
  • Alvesson M. Kharkov: Publishing house of the Humanitarian Center: Organizational culture. 2005.
  • Berger P, Luckman T. The Social Construction of Reality.Moscow: Translated from English by E.D. Rutkiewicz. “Medium”.1995.
  • Ilynykh SA. The theory gender management. Ideas and Ideals.Scientific Magazine. 2012; 2(12):115-26.
  • West C, Zimmerman D. Publishing House: St.Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin: Creation of gender. Anthology of feminist texts. Translations. E. Zdravomyslova, A. Temkina (ed.).2000.
  • Zdravomyslova EA, Temkina AA. Social construction of gender. Sociological Journal. 1998; 3-4:171-82.
  • Voronina OA. Socio-cultural determinants of gender theory development in Russia and in Western countries. Social studies and Today. 2000; 4:9-20.
  • Hirdman Y. The gender system. T. Andreasen, et al. (eds.).Aarhus Univ. Press: Moving on New Perspective on the Women’s Movement. 1991.
  • Lauretis T de. Bloomington: Indiana University Press: The technology of gender: theories of representation and difference.1987.
  • Reingardė J. Heteronormativity and Silenced Sexualities at Work. Kulturair Visuomene. 2010; 1(1):83-96.
  • Rogers T. The invention of the heterosexual. Salon. 2012 January; 22.
  • Kletsina IS. St .Petersburg: Aletheia: Psychology of gender relations: theory and practice. 2004.
  • Barchunova TV. Selfish gender or gender asymmetry modeling in gender studies. Social Studies and Today. 2002; 5:180-91.
  • Bern Sh. St. Petersburg: Prime-Evroznak: Gender psychology.2004.
  • Werhane P. The public/private distinction and the political status of employment. American Business Law Journal.1996 December; 34(2):245-60.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.