On the Roots of Epistemological Sexism and its Impact on Public Administration Scholarship and Praxis

• Published date: 01 September 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241266565
• Author: Sharon Mastracci
• Date: 01 September 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241266565

Administration & Society

2024, Vol. 56(8) 1031 –1053

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997241266565

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

On the Roots of

Epistemological Sexism

and its Impact on

Public Administration

Scholarship and Praxis

Sharon Mastracci1

Abstract

Bureaucratic neutrality norms render emotions problematic in the workplace

largely due to presumptions that emotions cloud reasoning. This article

traces the origins of bureaucratic neutrality to 17th-century Cartesian mind/

body dualism. However, in Descartes’s correspondence with contemporary

philosopher Elisabeth of Bohemia, he retreats from strict dualism in reaction

to her argument that emotions may actually inform decision making.

Elisabeth’s critique stays lost to history due in part to the epistemological

sexism underpinning bureaucratic neutrality and public administration.

Structural Topic Modeling reveals embodied reasoning and interpersonal

interdependence in Elisabeth’s critique, undermining the strict mind/body

dualism that lurks in both bureaucratic neutrality and public administration.

Keywords

bureaucratic neutrality, epistemological sexism, mind/body dualism, structural

topic modeling, content analysis, digital humanities

1Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, USA

Data Availability Statement included at the end of the article

Corresponding Author:

Sharon Mastracci, Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, 104 Draper Road, SW, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.

Email: smastracci@vt.edu

1266565AAS0010.1177/00953997241266565Administration & SocietyMastracci

research-article2024

1032 Administration & Society 56(8)

In public sector worklaces norms surrounding bureaucratic neutrality render

emotions problematic largely due to the presumption that emotions cloud

reasoning. This article traces the origin of bureaucratic neutrality norms to

17th-century Cartesian mind/body dualism. Bureaucratic neutrality is upheld

as a “sacred cow” in public administration even today (Sweeting & Haupt,

2023, p. 1; also see Mayer, 1909/1944; A. Roberts, 1996; Weber, 1921/1968)

due in part to beliefs that reason is superior to emotion and that emotions

cloud reasoning. Far from being a blank slate, however, bureaucratic neutral-

ity is justly criticized for its own biases including privileging Whiteness

(Alexander & Stivers, 2020; Portillo et al., 2022a, 2022b) and maleness

(Stivers, 1995, 2000, 2002). Bureaucratic neutrality rejects emotions as dis-

ruptions to professionalism and hindrances to public service. From this per-

spective, emotions impede professionalism; they do not foster it. And yet,

emotions and emotional labor are foundational to work in public organiza-

tions and fundamental to presenting oneself professionally (Guy & Mastracci,

2018; Guy & Newman, 2004; Guy et al., 2008; Humphrey, 2023). Emotions

are fundamental to professional practice.

One view of emotions in the workplace is found in Max Weber’s ideal

bureaucracy sine ira et studio—without anger and passion. Weber’s ideal

type shaped the development of bureaucratic organizations and particularly

those in the public sector, due in part to the formative years of the academic

field of public administration coinciding with the translation of Weber’s work

into English. However, Kramer (2002) places Weber in context when he

observes: “At the time impersonal public administration was proposed, it was

a necessary and essential corrective for nepotism. Standardized rules and pro-

cedures were revolutionary breakthroughs in administrative thinking and

retain value as a safeguard against corruption even today” (p. 14). Furthermore,

Weber lamented on more than one occasion that the human need for order

that bureaucracy satisfies could drive people to despair (Mayer, 1909/1944;

Weber, 1921/1968). In this way, even Weber understood the value of emo-

tions; or at least he recognized the long-term danger of suppressing them.

Emotions in the public-sector workplace should not seem so out of place; yet

according to norms of bureaucratic neutrality, they are.

In this article, I argue that the bias against emotions in the public adminis-

tration workplace can be traced to the genderedness of Cartesian mind/body

dualism, which situated emotions in the body and therefore inferior to mind

and reason. The genderedness of mind/body dualism, with reasoning being

male and positive and emotions being female and negative, arises in public

administration’s origins, as revealed by Stivers’s (1995, 2000) bureau men and

settlement women. Bureau men pursued “information that could be defended

as ‘scientific’” (Stivers, 2000, p. 79), while settlement women engaged what