Bringing together rational choice theory and gender theory

structure. Power relations therefore always change. In addition, Davis (1991) emphasizes that power relations are complex and that power is never absolute.

“Despite this asymmetry, however, power relations are always reciprocal, involving some degree of autonomy and dependence in both directions. Power is never a simple matter of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Such a conception can only lead to an overestimation of the power of the powerful, closing our eyes to both the chinks in the armor of the powerful as well as the myriad ways that the less powerful have to exercise control over their lives [...]. Investigating power will therefore also involve uncovering the ‘dialectic of control’:

‘how the less powerful manage resources in such a way as to exert control over the more powerful in established power relationships’ (Giddens 1984: 374)” (Davis, 1991, 73).

Although asymmetrical social positions exist, disadvantaged individuals also attempt to pur-chase power. Since intimate relationships encompass different areas of partners’ lives, an individual might have power in some areas but might be powerless in others. For instance, even if gender theorists consider women as disadvantaged by definition, the female partner nevertheless tries to make use of her resources, e.g. money, to purchase power. At the same time, she might do her gender by renouncing the purchase of power in another area of the couple’s life. This is just one example illustrating the complexity of power in intimate re-lationships. Considering power as similar to a zero-sum game (one partner is completely powerful and the other is not powerful at all) is misleading. Heath (1976, 25) also emphasizes that power is not always exploitative. Power has to be detected in different dimensions of a couple’s life since a partner might have power in one dimension but not in another. In order to highlight that power is not necessarily allocated to only one partner but that it may vary between different dimensions, the term powerallocationwill be used.

We have seen that power processes are complex, and as a matter of fact cannot be ex-plained by either rational choice theory or gender theory. An analysis benefits from a com-bination of the two approaches, which are perceived as complementary rather than exclusive theories. In the next chapter both theoretical approaches will be brought together.

In this study rational choice theory and gender theory therefore provide the theoretical back-ground of the empirical analysis of power allocation within couples. But how exactly can a link between rational choice and gender theories be developed? For those readers who skiped the detailed explanations of the theories, their main assumptions should be summarized before answering this question.

Social exchange theorists define social relations in which two individuals exchange valued resources as power relations. Imbalances in the individuals’ ratio of resources, in their ac-cess to alternative sources, i.e. to other social relations, or in their interest in the relationship produce power asymmetries. The person with a higher amount of resources, more alternative exchange relations, or less interest in the relation is thus powerful. He or she can manipulate the gain-cost ratio of the exchange partner. Similarly to social exchange theory, resource the-ory and the bargaining model define resources, alternative social relations, and interest in the relationship as power bases.

Gender theory considers gender on an interactional as well as a structural level. Gender is de-fined as a social institution which links agency and structure. The doing of gender reproduces gender and has an impact on social structure. Social structure, in return, is the material basis of gender and therefore constrains interaction. Gender as a social institution implies power relations. Women and men are given different social positions by society, leading to women being generally disadvantaged and men advantaged. These differences are reproduced in in-teraction. Thus doing gender also implies the doing of power relations. Power always has an interactional and a structural component. Hence gender and power are features of the duality of structure (Giddens, 1984). They are products of and means to the interaction between in-dividuals.

The link between both theoretical approaches lies in the role of social structure which is not only crucial in gender theory, but can also be found in rational choice theories, e.g. in the works by Thibaut and Kelly (1991), Ott (1992), Lundberg and Pollak (1993) and Blau (1964).

According to the later, social exchange between at least two individuals produces and repro-duces social structure. The individuals maintain certain social positions which determine the nature of the exchange process and its outcomes. Giddens’ (1984) assumes an interplay be-tween agency and structure. Social structure is internal to agents who realize structure through agency.

Social exchange is embedded and framed by social structure. Since social structure is gen-dered, social exchange is framed by gender and reproduces gender at the same time. Gender norms, which are part of gender as a social institution, frame the exchange between individ-uals and their perception of the exchange situation. Within exchange situations, it is not only rational for individuals to attain the best gain-cost ratio in terms of allocating resources, but also in terms of maintaining their gender identities. Violating these identities is a high cost individuals try to avoid. One example for this bounded rationality is the unequal division of labor in couples. Partners exchange paid and unpaid work with leisure time. The partner who

works more in the labor market is rewarded with leisure time. The other provides this leisure time by taking over more unpaid work in the household. The relation between paid and unpaid work and leisure is, however, not gender-neutral. In dual-earner couples, where both partners spent an equal amount of time working in the labor market, women are less rewarded with leisure time than men. Women are generally responsible for the “second shift” (Hochschild, 1989), while men often only “help out” with housework. Gender norms become even more obvious in case gender identities are violated. When he loses the position as breadwinner, women increase their amount of housework (Greenstein, 2000).

Another example for gendered social exchange are power relations – the subject of this study.

Gender frames power processes and sets the context within which power relations are per-ceived and evaluated by individuals (Szinovacz, 1987, 664). Remember that power bases are an individual’s power potential. Especially Thibaut and Kelly (1991) point out that so-cial norms shape individuals’ perception and use of their power potential. They may either renounce to use their potential to purchase power outcomes or even do not perceive this poten-tial at all. With regard to gender, this means that, because having power fits less to women’s than to men’s gender identities, women use and perceive their power potential less than men.

Even if women have more power bases than their partner, they will not purchase power out-comes.

What does this mean for partners’ power allocation? According to rational choice theories, power bases – resources, alternative social relations, and commitment – are related to power outcomes. But this relation is different for male and female partners. Since gender shapes partners’ interactions, the relation between power bases and power outcomes is less strong for women than for men. In order to maintain their gender identities, women either do not use or do not perceive their power bases to purchase power outcomes. Furthermore, in case gender identities are violated on one level of partners’ lives, e.g. the division of labor in the household, partners allocate power to men in order to cope with this violation. These are two hypotheses which illustrate how the combination of rational choice and gender theories is ap-plied to the subject of this study, namely couples’ power allocation. Section 4 summarizes the theoretical argumentation and explains the hypotheses presented above together with all other hypotheses which will be tested in the empirical analysis.

To sum up, within social exchange relations, the actions of individuals and their power rela-tions are shaped by gender and related gender norms. The idea of social norms is not new in the context of rational choice theories, which also account for social norms such as reciprocity and distributive justice. In exchange or bargaining situations, individuals try to achieve the outcome which they perceive as the best outcome for themselves. Thus, they act rationally within these situations. However, what is the best outcome is not only determined by a simple gain-cost calculation made in a social vacuum. Individuals’ perceptions and decisions to use their power potential are embedded in a gendered setting. By allocating power, individuals try to maintain their gender identities. Power bases are therefore linked to power outcomes –

but less for women than for men.

Returning to the duality of structure, we saw that agency has an impact on social structure and vice versa. Gender is the link between agency and structure and, as a social institution, implies power relations. Due to the dynamic interplay between agency and structure, power itself is a dynamic process. Power relations are not static but change over time. Emerson (1976) in particular points out that power relations should not be treated ahistorically. However, power does not only change within society, but throughout individuals’ life courses as well. The life course is structured by transitions, which have a considerable impact on the lives of individu-als and on the interconnected lives of partners in an intimate relationship. In the final sections of this chapter, power relations will be discussed from a life course perspective. The relation between social structure and the life course, gender and the life course, and finally between power and transitions in couples will be explained.