|
“Come you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here; and fill
me, from crown to the toe, top-full of direst cruelty". “To be or not to be"…..
How does it happen? (Shakespeare, 1606-7)
The following five points may be significant for an understanding of how
gender is socially constructed. (1) The first point is that there are a range
of sometimes conflicting theories that attempt to explain gender and gendered
behaviours, that raise questions that further research may not answer
absolutely. The second point is that gendered behaviours have been viewed as
responses/reactions to power and authority in such things as British
Colonization, Capitalism, Patriarchy, families, adult/child relations, workplace,
groups, and institutions such as schools. Point number three is that messages
from media, texts, history, popular culture and social structures are believed
to have a powerful influence on gender construction. Point number four is that
gender construction has been viewed as taking place through ‘discourse’. The
final point, number five, is that public places such as schools are important
sites of gender construction/production, reproduction. These points are all
interrelated and cannot be discussed in depth without overlapping into another.
THEORIES
The concept of Gender is ‘one of the muddiest concepts’ according to Constantinople
(Connell, 1993, 174). It is ‘problematic’ (Thorne, 1993, 58), because it means
different things to different people. Some use the word interchangeably with
the word sex. Eg. ‘Gender’ is written on some documents to find out the
biological nature of the person filling out the form. For some who view it from
a biologically determined perspective, it is a natural outcome of such things
as genetics, hormones and brain organisation. (Weiten, 1998, 464). For some who
view it from an environmentally determined perspective, the word is used when
referring to the variable and negotiable, culturally and socially constructed
ways of being ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ in a particular historical or cultural
circumstance (Measor and Sykes, 1992, 5). The concept is as problematic as the
‘nature versus nurture’ debate! It is also problematic because the concept of
gender has introduced a range of influential and derogatory vocabulary that is
reinforced, through popular beliefs and usage. E.g. ‘Tomboy’, ‘Wimp’,
‘masculine’, and ‘feminine’.
The concepts raise questions such as: Why use the words ‘masculine’ and
‘feminine’ when referring to behaviours and characteristics, thereby inferring
that some are normal for a particular sex? Why not just call them behaviours
and characteristics? Surely leadership qualities are not ‘masculine’ or male
behaviours. Surely caring qualities are not ‘feminine’ or female behaviour. Are
there any behaviours that are only socially constructed? Are all but physical
differences between the sexes socially constructed?
How much control does a person have in becoming and being who they are?
Would genderless behaviour mean eliminating the word ‘gender’, ‘masculinity’
and ‘femininity’? Do we want to become so indiscriminate that we accept as many
ways of being that are possible or desired?
In the field of gender research there are ‘problems’ also. Although much
research has been done on gender differences, conclusions have sometimes been
postulated in the form of group stereotypes about ‘average people’ which fail
to show the range of individual differences (Weiten, 1989, 462-3), and make the
presumption that girls and women / men and boys are a homogeneous group
(Sturrock, 1995, 127). Differences between and within the sexes, have been
magnified because similarities have been neglected in studies. According to
Howard and Hollander (1987, 12), differences between the sexes have been found
to be minimal.
There are a number of frameworks that have been used to classify the
different gender theories. E.g Connell (1993, 41-65) uses, ‘extrinsic’ and
‘intrinsic’ to classify theories. The frameworks make it appear that the
dominant academic theory has moved in stages from (1) favouring a biological
imperative orientation to (2) a socially contracted one, to (3) a socially
constructed one and now to (4) a more holistic one. I will use the framework
that Howard and Hollander (1997) have used as a base to explain and discus some
of the gender theories. Ie. Essentialist Theory, Socialisation Theory, Social
Construction Theory, and Post-structural Theory. Essentialist theories suggest
that ‘natural’ things like sex, genetics, hormones and brain organisation
determine gender (Weiten, 1989, 464), (Howard and Holland, 1987, 153). These
theories neglect to account for the interaction of cultural and structural
influences and of human agency. They tend to equate gender with sex.
In Socialisation Theory gender differences have environmental origins and
are mainly the result of socialisation via the three main processes of ‘operant
conditioning’, ‘observational learning’, and ‘self socialisation’ (Weiten,
1989, 465-7). They suggest that children actively learn through observation of
role models and the reinforcements of powerful ‘others’ to classify themselves
as male or female and to further value the characteristics and behaviours
associated with their sex. Families, schools and media are considered to be the
three most influential sources of gender socialisation. These theories do not
explain the structural and physiological influences, nor why people develop
ideological positions contrary to the significant others in their environment.
They do explain some gendered behaviour. E.g. A number of mothers excuse what
could be called anti-social behaviour on the grounds that it is ‘real boy
behaviour’, when boys are preschoolers. The community is not so pleased with
similar behaviours when the boys get a little older.
Social Constructionists theorise that gender is constructed by individuals
through their actions. It sees the influence of the positions people have in
social structures, character, cognition, and resources as deterministic but
neglects to include the effects of human agency.
Post-structural Theories suggest that gender is consciously and
unconsciously constructed as the result of cultural and social activities. It
takes into account the complex interactions of human agency with the ‘constraining
nature of social structure’ (Howard and Hollander, 1987, 43). It views gender
construction as a process of ‘subjectification’ not socialisation and this
takes place through the discourses they have available to them (Davies, 1993,
13-14). These theories tend to leave out the influence of the physiological
area in the gender construction equation. The human being is a complex
creature. If gender is only socially constructed, then aggression, which is
sometimes referred to as a masculine trait, must be self-controllable. Yet
brain injuries and medications such as Ritalin, and hormone treatments such as
Progestin are known to impact on this social (or anti social) behaviour
(Fausto-Sterling, 1992, 134). (2)
Franzoi (1996, 156), suggests that ‘together’ some of the theories give a
better understanding than any single perspective. Each of the theories has
something to offer. Biological potentials filtered through cultural beliefs and
understandings have influenced the gendered division of labour, which in turn
influences gender construction. Eg. the ability to sing soprano will influence
choices about whether to do so or not. Some aspects of Gender are learned and
maintained through socialisation. Social position in various social heirarchies
such as race, class, age and sex orientation have an influence as do various
structures. Human agency can also be seen at work in constructing and
attempting to deconstruct gender realities
MESSAGES
Many cultural practices are involved in the construction of gendered subjectivity
(Clark, 1993, 81) . (3) Cultural ideals about men, women, girls and boys are
created and maintained through overt messages from media, and intrinsic
messages everywhere. Messages are embedded in and affect every area of
production, the labour force, the market and society. For example, when
clothing is designed, it is influenced by messages from the past and present.
These are popularised through various media channels. Even the production
process sends messages about the product. Desires for the product are created
and influenced by a whole range of things such as store layout and atmosphere,
display design and advertising. Clothing is advertised and displayed using life
style messages about its rightness, ‘coolness’, and appropriateness for a particular
sex and group. The clothes become part of the stereotyping of a particular
masculinity or femininity and send gender messages. Moral judgements about who
do and don’t wear the particular clothing are formed. People then resist or
accept the messages conveyed in the clothing package, although life style may
preclude the power to but. These include lifestyle and promises of things like
beauty, power and acceptability.
Gender messages have a powerful influence on gender construction. However
they are not ‘simply absorbed’ (Clark, 1993, 81). They can be accepted or
rejected. E.g. Hursthouse, a Victorian emigrant, immigrated to New Zealand
because he wanted to ‘throw off the chains of effeminacy’ that
pervaded/engulfed Britain, and ‘become a man’. He lectured and published a book
that was ‘excerpted’ in a popular emigration publication. (Phillips, 1987,
4-5). Hursthouse, recognised and rejected the influence of the gender messages
he perceived in the job situation in Britain (Phillips, 1987, 4-5). He rejected
what he considered ‘effeminate’ masculinity, which he saw as the hegemonic
masculinity in his English world and he encouraged others to do the same. Some
may have been influenced by the overt messages Hursthouse published such as
“New Zealand is a man’s country" and consequently emigrated. This may have
increased the power of Patriarchy in New Zealand and the acceptance of the Fred
Dagg image.
POWER
Power (force and influence) and authority (legitimate power) are ‘fluid and
contextual’ (Thorne 1993, 159). They work in many ways through many means to
genderize. According to the socialisation theory of operant conditioning,
‘gender roles are shaped by the power of reward and punishment’ (Weiten, 1989,
465). Significant others use the power of rewards and punishment to reinforce
what they consider to be appropriate gender behaviour. They are able to do this
because of their powerful positions. E.g. the adult/child relationship.
Power relations in cultural processes and social structure also genderize
(Gilbert and Taylor, 6). According to James & Saville-Smith (1989, 14-16),
New Zealand gendered culture emerged out of the ‘exigencies of British
colonisation’. It was not imported, nor part of the Maori culture. It developed
as a way to cope with struggles over land. This resulted in social problems
which some believe resulted in the ‘elaboration of particular forms of
femininity and masculinity’ and their organisation into distinct female (‘the
cult of domesticity’) and male (‘the man alone’ and ‘the family man’) cultures.
It is believed that these Patriarchal cultures were maintained because
difference was seen as biological, therefore normal and desirable, benefiting
those in dominant positions in the hierarchies of race, class and sex. There
were also some benefits to some subordinated groups who were able to expand
their access to power and resources. The ‘glass cellar’ effect, where men feel
‘drafted’ into hazardous jobs because of the money they pay, could be used to
support this theory. (4)
Power has a constraining function on social practice (Connell, 1987, 107).
Its role as a constraint can be seen in what is called the ‘glass ceiling’
effect where ‘male dominance’, among other things, has lead to conditions that
keep women from advancing into positions of power and prestige (Connell, 1987,
83). 5 It can also be seen in the limiting, legitimising and/or marginalisation
of some forms of masculinity and femininity. Power also plays a part in what is
questioned or challenged. Clark (1993, 83) suggests that some forms of gender
persist because they are not questioned or challenged.
Power shapes language and knowledge and this includes the definitions of
words relating to gender. This power can be seen in how and what adults teach
children, or what children learn from adults, and what educational institutions
such as schools and universities put forward as acceptable language and
knowledge to be learned. Some words, theories, and subjects are made more
powerful in all sorts of ways because of the power that individuals, groups and
institutions have . (6) Those who support, and /or use them are also invested
in power.
Power works in all of the structures and processes of credentialing which in
turn empowers those who are credentialed. 7 According to Connell (1993, 199)
credentials open the door for a gendered identity for males, that include forms
of passivity, rationality and responsibility, as opposed to ‘pride and
aggression’ for those who are not. 8 According to Kerr (1991, 69 & 72) it
is a sense of ‘separation’ and a refusal to acknowledge gender limitations,
that allows eminent women to resist the ‘daily barrage of stereotypic sex-role
images and media comments’, and ‘powerful peer group pressure to conform’.
Fleming (1996, 138) puts forth an argument for social self-esteem as an
important factor in androgyny and agency. (9) Perhaps the measure of the power
within has the greatest influence on which form of masculinity or femininity
(types of behaviour/characteristics etc.) a person
exhibits/accepts/constructs/resists. (10)
DISCOURSE
The social construction of gender takes place through ‘Discourse’. Feminist
Post-structural Theory changes the ‘ideological’ understanding of the word to
mean the complex interactions between language, social practice and emotional
investment (Yelland, 1998, 159).
Language is used to categorise people on the basis of sex and gender. E.g.
wife/husband, masculine/feminine, waitress/waiter. These categories give rise
to expectations about how people should be. E.g. The category ‘girl’ influences
gender specific expectations about what a girl is, looks like and does etc.
Patterns of desire become associated with particular categories and social
practises arise. (E.g. Clothing is designed to distinguish girls from boys).
Emotional investments are made to ensure that the social practices are ‘right’.
Discourses produce a sense of what is right and/or normal and can become
institutionalised enabling some people to exercise power. E.g. parenting
theories and Piaget’s ages and stages theories. Those discourses that have more
political or social power dominate and can marginalise others. This political
strength can be derived from their institutional location. E.g. schools.
Although gender is actively negotiated, ‘powerful discourses circulate in
and via social structures and institutions’ and shape desires, making some
‘ways of being’ more possible than others (Yelland, 1998, 160). According to
Weedon (Yelland, 1998, 160), the range and social power of discourses, the
political strength of the interests they represent and a persons access to them
will determine some of the gendered choices people make.
SITES
Gendered behaviour is more often visible in public places particularly in
public places such as schools (Thorne, 1993, 49-55). Schools are important
sites of gender construction and reproduction because they are invested
consciously and unconsciously (The not so Hidden Curriculum!) with authority to
reproduce dominant ideologies, hierarchies, and gendered culture. E.g.
‘Hegemonic masculinity and emphasised femininity’ (Connell, 1985, 183). This is
done through such things as age separation, the choice of knowledge,
timetables, resources, teacher expectations, interactions, control of space,
and heirachical structures. 11 They are important sites also because of the
inequalities that their gendered structures and practices produce for their
‘captive audience’, and because it is a site where changes can and are wrought.
E.g. One of the changes that primary schools made in the name of anti-sexism,
was to eliminate the images of females in traditional sex roles and include
images of men in non traditional sex roles. This powerful practice was another
form of ‘sexism’ and gendering. It sent and continues to send value-laden
messages about (behaviours/characteristics) which forms of masculinity and
femininity are acceptable. This may have contributed to the loss of social
status and other negative attitudes, that women who choose to ‘stay at home’
now often face (McKenna, 1997, 130-1).
TEMPORARY CONCLUSION
Gender construction is as complex a subject as the human being, and would
benefit from multi and interdisciplinary analysis (Miller, 1993, 17). It can be
viewed as a form of self-preservation. As an individual and social
construction, it is negotiated actively as a response and/or reaction to power
and authority, and messages from everywhere including media. Gendered
behaviours tend to vary with the context. Flexibility is seen not only in the
development of a gender self-concept (Fausto-Sterling, 1992, 89), but also in
its maintenance. It is not a rigid way of being or a passive form of ‘osmosis’
(Yelland, 1998, 7). However, desires can be shaped by external influences such
as medications and the way in which powerful discourses circulate in, and via,
social structures and institutions’ (Yelland, 1998, 149).
MacNaughton encourages people to continue to search for more effective ways
to theorise and not assume to have found the ‘right way forward’ (Yelland,
1998, 172).
Perhaps the door might be opened to valuing the variety of behaviours that
are possible and helpful for unique people to express themselves, not so much
by deleting certain forms of masculinity and femininity, but by allowing more
to be seen and experienced. Ie. Limiting the hegemonic nature of some forms.
Oh to be sexless where love can be unlimited!
To be or not to be? How does it really happen?
If the answer could be practiced, would it be what we really wanted?
Footnotes
1. ‘Are significant’ is too powerful for me to use after such a short
excursion into this topic.
2. It is interesting to note also that a correlation has been found between
giftedness and physical superiority, giftedness and intellectual ability, and
intellectual ability and some forms of masculinity and femininity (Clark, 1992,
509, 516).
3. “Subjectivity" describes who we are and how we understand ourselves,
consciously and unconsciously’ (Yelland, 1998, 13).
4. ‘Invisible barriers that keep men in jobs with the most hazards’ Farrell,
1994, 107)
5. ‘Invisible barriers and difficulties that prevent women rising in
organisations’ (McLennan, 1995, 189).
6. The ‘sciences are connected to power". ‘They represent an
institutionalized version of the claim to power hat is central in hegemonic masculinity’
(Connell, 1993, 201).
7. According to Connell (1993, 200), ‘masculinity shapes education and
education forms masculinity’. It could also be argued that femininity does the
same thing. The ‘feminisation’ of schools is referred to as one of the reasons
for boys lack of success in schools (Video Classroom).
8. It is interesting to note that gifted girls ‘who reject the traditional
feminine sex typed behaviour have higher intellectual ability than those who
accept the feminine stereotype (Clark, 1992, 509). Or put the other way,
androgyny is a trait that is more often seen in gifted girls.
9. Instrumental traits (independence, decisiveness) that contribute to a
‘sense of agency are stereotypically viewed as masculine’ (Fleming and
Hollinger, 1988, 254). Does a person need a sense of agency in order to
construct it?
10. With more space and time, the links of power with fear could have been
examined, as it has an important bearing on gender choices. Mckenna (1997, 132)
calls it a ‘powerful adhesive’.
11. ‘Researchers found that gender separation and age separation went
together’ (Thorne, 1993, 50).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clark, M. (1992) Growing Up Gifted. 3rd Edition. New York: Merrill
Publishing Company.
Clark, M. (1993) The Great Divide. Gender In The Primary School. Brunswick:
Impact Printing
Connell, R. (1993) Gender & Power. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Davies, B. (1993) Shards Of Glass. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
Farrell, W. (1994) The Myth Of Male Power. Milsons Point: Random House
Australia Pty Ltd.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985) Myths Of Gender. Biological Theories About Women
And Men. Revised Edition. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Franzoi, S. L. (1996) Social Psychology. Dubuque: Brown & Benchmark.
Gilbert, P. and Taylor, S. (1991) Fashioning The Feminine. Girls, Popular
Culture And Schooling. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Howard, J. and Hollander, J. (1997) Gendered Situations, Gendered Selves.
Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, Inc.
James, B. and Saville-Smith, K. (1989) Gender Culture & Power. Critical
Issues In New Zealand Society. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Kerr, A. (1991) Smart Girls, Gifted Women. Cheltenham: Hawker Brownlow
Education.
Limerick, B. and lingard, B. (Ed.). (1995) Gender And Changing Educational
Management. Rydalmere: Hodder Education
McKenna, E. (1997) When Work Doesn’t Work Any More. Adelaide: Griffin Press.
McLennan, R. (Ed.) (1995) People And Enterprises. Organisational Behaviour
In New Zealand. 2nd Edition. Sydney: Harcourt Brace And Company.
Measor, L. and Sikes, P. (1993) Introduction To Educaton. Gender And
Schools. London: Cassell.
Miller, B. (Ed). (1993) Sex And Gender Hierarchies. Cambridge:
University Press.
Phillips, J. (1987) A Man’s Country? The Image of the Pakeha Male. A
history. Auckland: Penguin Books
Rudduck, J. (1994) Developing A Gender Policy In Secondary Schools.
Individuals And Institutions. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Shakespear, W. (no date given on this old book. Editor could be B. Hodek)
Shakespear. Complete Works. Comedies. Histories. Tragedies, Poems. London:
Spring Books
Thorne, B. (1993) Gender And Play. Girls And Boys In School. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Weiten, W. (1989) Psychology. Themes And Variations. Third Edition. Pacific
Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Yelland, N. (1998) Gender In Early Childhood. (Ed) London: Routledge.
ARTICLES
Fleming, E. and Hollinger, C. (1984) Internal barriers to the realisation of
potential: Correlates and interrelationships among gifted and talented female
adolescents in Gifted Child Quarterly. Volume 28. Number 3.
Fleming, E. and Hollinger, C. (1988) Gifted and Talented Young Women:
Antecedents and Correlates of Life Satisfaction in Gifted Child Quarterly.
Volume 32. Number 2.
VIDEO
The Trouble With Boys. Education and Training Resources. Melbourne: VC Media
Video Classroom
|
