To take up an example of androcentric bias and explain it, it is first necessary to define and shed some light onto what the phrase actually means. As the term ‘androcentric’ suggests, it is the assumption that the male or masculine view of the situation is the only way to understand a scenario. It puts the male in the centre and disregards conclusions and experiences other people may have noticed from their vantage point. It clearly invites a bias into the proceedings, hence the term ‘androcentric bias’.
Selfish behaviour in market transactions.
It’s a very easy assumption to make, as of course it simplifies things for the economist looking to create a model or attempting to understand and theorise a sequence of events with economic agents. However, it is truly necessary to take a step back and re-evaluate the underlying connotations of that assumption.
Carrying on in this same vein, as a young woman, here are some examples of androcentric bias that I have seen. One is the preferences, beliefs and constraints (PBC) assumption that is very often seen in micro-economic theories and models.
Women are generally known to be more altruistic and more benevolent in their tendencies, Feminist Economists study this. It is a presumptuous statement, as it teeters on the border of being hideously stereotypical, however when addressing a blanket statement such as the assumption brought to light by Paula England earlier, sometimes extreme examples do the trick.
Do all women have the capitalist drive for profits? Can selfish behaviour always be seen? For centuries, women have been engaged heavily with communities where selfish behaviour is looked down upon. With this deep seated need to something altruistically right, the fact that many women find themselves grappling with, selfish, individualistic behaviour isn’t often found, whether it be in the public, community or market.
Preferences therefore are flawed, and going along the extension of that, the assumption that preferences stay the same is further flawed. All people have some preferences — one would be hard pressed to find an individual without any, really, but whether they act on them, and whether societal norms and rules will allow that is a question to be further looked into. The beliefs that many women find themselves working under are a product of societal constructs and the constraints they face are a function of structural inequalities working against them. PBC doesn’t take into account the gender, sexuality, race, caste, class, sex of the person. These qualitative factors can severely impact the results of microeconomics, and I would be bold enough to assume that the results that we derive from models and theories may be flawed to a terrible degree. As a student learning feminist economics, this has resulted in an unsettling feeling, where women and children are apparently deliberately left out of the assumption and a clear androcentric bias is being made which is being let slide.
A clear recommendation would be to start addressing this; pushing for feminist thought when deriving results would be a great place to start. Being aware of this will make drafting and scoring public policies and programs easier and will help in creating in schemes that actually have a positive impact.
