PrepTest 77, Section 4, Question 17
Passage A
During the 1990s, the study of history witnessed both a dramatic integration of the study of women's history into the historical mainstream and a transition from the subject of women to the issue of gender. Women as individuals receded into the background, and something more abstract called gender relations came to the fore. Since gender relations involved turning to an exploration of the social systems that underlay the relationships of men and women, the shift seemed to many historians to be a retreat from the effort to uncover the history of women per se. The new work took several forms: Articles about men evaluated the role of masculinity in shaping thought and action, and articles about women gave way to explorations of how an imagined domesticity, or separate sphere for women, shaped culture and politics.
This scholarship demonstrates the explanatory potential embedded in gender, but it also reveals why the topic "women" is now so often dismissed as too narrow and particular a category to illuminate historical processes. Where the study of the history of women is seen today as having celebratory content�its effort is to find our lost ancestors and restore them to a place in our memories�that of gender offers an analytic framework within which to analyze social and political structures.
And yet I am left to wonder what we have lost as we turn our attention to gender. I share the suspicion of many of my colleagues that gender obscures as much as it reveals: that in focusing on underlying structures, we overlook the particular ways in which individual women engaged their worlds.
Passage A
During the 1990s, the study of history witnessed both a dramatic integration of the study of women's history into the historical mainstream and a transition from the subject of women to the issue of gender. Women as individuals receded into the background, and something more abstract called gender relations came to the fore. Since gender relations involved turning to an exploration of the social systems that underlay the relationships of men and women, the shift seemed to many historians to be a retreat from the effort to uncover the history of women per se. The new work took several forms: Articles about men evaluated the role of masculinity in shaping thought and action, and articles about women gave way to explorations of how an imagined domesticity, or separate sphere for women, shaped culture and politics.
This scholarship demonstrates the explanatory potential embedded in gender, but it also reveals why the topic "women" is now so often dismissed as too narrow and particular a category to illuminate historical processes. Where the study of the history of women is seen today as having celebratory content�its effort is to find our lost ancestors and restore them to a place in our memories�that of gender offers an analytic framework within which to analyze social and political structures.
And yet I am left to wonder what we have lost as we turn our attention to gender. I share the suspicion of many of my colleagues that gender obscures as much as it reveals: that in focusing on underlying structures, we overlook the particular ways in which individual women engaged their worlds.
Passage B
Part of the Roman emperor Augustus's response to the disorder and disharmony of the Triumviral Wars (32�30 B.C.E.) was to promote laws aimed at restoring old-fashioned Roman morality. Augustus presented the peace and stability of Rome as resting upon the integrity of the Roman family, and he paid particular attention to relocating women in this domestic context as wives and mothers. Among the laws passed were the marital laws of 19�18 B.C.E. and 9 C.E. that penalized adultery and rewarded bearers of legitimate children.
When Augustus thereby rooted Roman prosperity and peace in the Roman family, he drew particular attention to women as significant participants in the system: their good behavior was partly responsible for the health of the state. Thus in this period, the gender roles assigned to women were becoming at once more constrained but also more visible and more politicized. The success and significance of this familial language became clear in 2 B.C.E. when Augustus articulated his unusual position in the state by accepting the title Pater Patriae, "Father of the Fatherland."
Within such a sociopolitical setting, it should occasion no surprise that Augustan-period artists drew on the iconography of the household in imagining the empire. Images of women concisely expressed Augustus's imperial project, a control of domestic space made visible in an old-fashioned style making the present look like the idealized past.
Passage A
During the 1990s, the study of history witnessed both a dramatic integration of the study of women's history into the historical mainstream and a transition from the subject of women to the issue of gender. Women as individuals receded into the background, and something more abstract called gender relations came to the fore. Since gender relations involved turning to an exploration of the social systems that underlay the relationships of men and women, the shift seemed to many historians to be a retreat from the effort to uncover the history of women per se. The new work took several forms: Articles about men evaluated the role of masculinity in shaping thought and action, and articles about women gave way to explorations of how an imagined domesticity, or separate sphere for women, shaped culture and politics.
This scholarship demonstrates the explanatory potential embedded in gender, but it also reveals why the topic "women" is now so often dismissed as too narrow and particular a category to illuminate historical processes. Where the study of the history of women is seen today as having celebratory content�its effort is to find our lost ancestors and restore them to a place in our memories�that of gender offers an analytic framework within which to analyze social and political structures.
And yet I am left to wonder what we have lost as we turn our attention to gender. I share the suspicion of many of my colleagues that gender obscures as much as it reveals: that in focusing on underlying structures, we overlook the particular ways in which individual women engaged their worlds.
Passage B
Part of the Roman emperor Augustus's response to the disorder and disharmony of the Triumviral Wars (32�30 B.C.E.) was to promote laws aimed at restoring old-fashioned Roman morality. Augustus presented the peace and stability of Rome as resting upon the integrity of the Roman family, and he paid particular attention to relocating women in this domestic context as wives and mothers. Among the laws passed were the marital laws of 19�18 B.C.E. and 9 C.E. that penalized adultery and rewarded bearers of legitimate children.
When Augustus thereby rooted Roman prosperity and peace in the Roman family, he drew particular attention to women as significant participants in the system: their good behavior was partly responsible for the health of the state. Thus in this period, the gender roles assigned to women were becoming at once more constrained but also more visible and more politicized. The success and significance of this familial language became clear in 2 B.C.E. when Augustus articulated his unusual position in the state by accepting the title Pater Patriae, "Father of the Fatherland."
Within such a sociopolitical setting, it should occasion no surprise that Augustan-period artists drew on the iconography of the household in imagining the empire. Images of women concisely expressed Augustus's imperial project, a control of domestic space made visible in an old-fashioned style making the present look like the idealized past.
Passage A
During the 1990s, the study of history witnessed both a dramatic integration of the study of women's history into the historical mainstream and a transition from the subject of women to the issue of gender. Women as individuals receded into the background, and something more abstract called gender relations came to the fore. Since gender relations involved turning to an exploration of the social systems that underlay the relationships of men and women, the shift seemed to many historians to be a retreat from the effort to uncover the history of women per se. The new work took several forms: Articles about men evaluated the role of masculinity in shaping thought and action, and articles about women gave way to explorations of how an imagined domesticity, or separate sphere for women, shaped culture and politics.
This scholarship demonstrates the explanatory potential embedded in gender, but it also reveals why the topic "women" is now so often dismissed as too narrow and particular a category to illuminate historical processes. Where the study of the history of women is seen today as having celebratory content�its effort is to find our lost ancestors and restore them to a place in our memories�that of gender offers an analytic framework within which to analyze social and political structures.
And yet I am left to wonder what we have lost as we turn our attention to gender. I share the suspicion of many of my colleagues that gender obscures as much as it reveals: that in focusing on underlying structures, we overlook the particular ways in which individual women engaged their worlds.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between passage A and passage B?
Passage A endorses a trend in the study of social history as that trend is reflected in passage B.
Passage A criticizes passage B for failing to take all of the available evidence into account in passage B's analysis.
Passage A offers an analysis that is similar to that in passage B in both the evidence used and the conclusions drawn.
Passage A discusses the strengths and weaknesses of a trend in scholarship that is exemplified by passage B.
Passage A advances an argument that is parallel in general terms to that in passage B, though different frames of reference are used.
0 Comments