|
Word Search |
|
GENDER & SOCIOLOGY Now you might be forgiven for thinking that sociology and sociologists might have long since 'dealt with' the issue of gender. For lets face it there are only two of them after all and all it takes is some solid research questions to be asked and for those questions to be addressed and researched. Reality isn't much like the above though! For one thing sociology seems at best to have forgotten women! At worst it seems to have systematically repressed all discussion of the problems and issues around women such that most contemporary Feminists would charge sociology with being 'sexist' and working predominantly with a male bias. Personally I go for the 'at worst' scenario. This is not because this could make for an easy life with Feminist colleagues. Rather it's because even a cursory reading of classical and traditional sociology tells me and anyone else who cares to read these works that indeed women have, until comparatively recently, been made 'invisible' within sociology. The consequences of this 'forgetting' has been that the male dominance of the profession has been taken as the 'normal' view of things and sociology has become 'gender-blind'. On a more profound measure it has meant that sociology is only now beginning to understand that issues involving what we call 'gender' and sexualities are fundamental to ALL social analysis.
So we have to rely on Feminism to kick-start us into an analysis of 'gender' (look, I've done it again!). The latest phase of Feminism began in the 1960s. In this period the development of a Radical Feminism and a Marxist or Socialist Feminism as well as a Liberal Feminism took place. All three were united in their objective to explain and eradicate the oppression of women. Patriarchy and Patriarchal societies were identified as the ideology and the structures in turn which led to the oppression of women. What the different Feminisms disagreed about was the means or method to be used to alter the balance of power between men and women. Clearly these distinct means were going to based in part anyway on the differing theoretical and social explanations offered by the various Feminisms for the oppression of women. In this paper I am going to concentrate on the commonalities amongst the Feminisms as this seems to be the most fruitful for an introductory essay such as this.
The leading French philosopher, Simone De Beauvoir, had in the late 1940s written her book 'The Second Sex'; a rigorous analysis of the condition of women in modern societies. A phrase from that work is worth paraphrasing here. 'A woman is not born, she is made' De Beauvoir is suggesting that women's condition is not a result wholly of her own biology but of the structures, ideologies and practices of the society in which she finds herself. In short De beauvoir is pointing to the idea of a social explanation of gender relations and hence a social explanation of women's condition. Feminists have sought to develop such social explanations of women's position in society. One such contemporary thinker is the British sociologist Sylvia Walby. She has identified modern societies as Capitalist- Patriarchal and as containing six structures or institutions which operate in such a manner as to maintain the dominance of men in modern societies. The six structures are:
Can you think of the ways in which we might find evidence to demonstrate the male bias of these six institutions? My hint would be: Think about the question of the personnel of these institutions. Are women employed or found in them? In what capacity or position? Take the example of Work. Who, in a company, occupies the seats on the Board? Who, on the other hand is likely to occupy the lower positions? If you're guessing or going by a 'gut reaction' in answering these questions then I'm afraid that isn't good enough. Take yourself off to a library and consult some Government or research statistics. Alternatively, find a sociology journal and look in the index for an article on the institution you're interested in. But it's not only a question of personnel, it's also a question of the manner in which the institution 'works'. Does it have a male bias? Thus the British House of Commons works to an absurd schedule (beginning in the afternoon and running late into the night!!) which seriously impairs female MPs ability to care for their children and relatives. Again, it is still the case that many employers will ask women at interview if they're planning to have children. The same question is rarely aced of men who after all are potential or real fathers! Whilst you're looking up the statistics on these issues, make a note of the following concepts and whilst in the library get a definition of each of the concepts and use the concepts to build an explanation of the statistics you find.
De Beauvoir had raised yet again the long standing problem in social sciences as to the relative significance of human biology on the one hand and the power of social culture to shape an individual. This is the 'nature - nurture' debate. As a social theorist De Beauvoir was clearly coming down on the side of culture as the 'weightier' variable in the shaping of human beings. Ann Oakley addressed this issue in her early work. She suggested that whilst every individual was a 'sexed' individual this 'sex' was largely biological. However the 'gender' of an individual was social and cultural. Oakley put forward the idea that a 'socially constructed' gender was built on a more fundamental sex which was biologically based. This 'gender' had to be learnt by individuals and it had to be taught to those (younger) individuals by (older) individuals. Parents, suggested Oakley, didn't simply socialise their children. Since gender is fundamental to all societies it is the teaching of gender roles that is most important to any society. Hence parents were engaged in gender socialisation argued Oakley. Parents achieved through the processes of 'manipulation', 'canalisation' and 'verbalization'. Oakley used anthropological research that suggested some other societies used different ideas of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' as their role models. Oakley argued that gender and gender roles were socially constructed. You might like to think about the mechanisms of gender socialization as suggested by Oakley. How do these operate in the real world? Let me give you an example of each and then you might think of your own examples and fill in the boxes below. As far as 'manipulation' is concerned we might remind ourselves of research that demonstrates that mothers will hold the youngest of babies in ways that are dependent upon those babies gender. Equally, mothers will 'push' children into certain forms of activity depending upon their gender;girls perhaps expected to help around the house whilst their sons are enjoying the adventures of the 'street'. This would constitute an example of canalisation; that is to put boys and girls into distinct 'canals' (is channels a better word?) of behaviour and expectations. Finally the forms of address and the words used by parents to their offspring are of great importance. A young female is likely to grow suspicious if she is continually told 'Who's a big girl, then?' rather than the more conventional; 'Who's a pretty girl then?'. Equally, young boys are likely to take exception to the being told that they are beautiful boys!
(Male readers should not assume that this table is not for them because of the pink font used!)
Oakley makes the important point then that 'gender' is a term whose meaning is relative to the culture and cultural practices of the society in which it is found. But, she argues, so too are notions of 'motherhood' and 'fatherhood'. You will notice that again I have placed these two words in inverted commas. This is to stress Oakley's point that these terms do not possess fixed and unchanging meanings but that they vary in meaning in two senses: firstly across time. Thus notions of motherhood are not the same today as they were in the England of 1200. Secondly, that the terms may change from one society to another and finally that these terms may differ according to the class or ethnicity of groups within any given society. An important consequence of Oakley's work which should never be forgotten is that it tells us that the oppression of women in modern societies is not just as a result of the 'big' social institutions such as the state or education. Gender inequalities are very much associated too with the 'small' institutions such as family life and local community life. This conclusion has led much of Feminism to adopt a micro-sociological approach particularly when it comes to sociological research. Feminists have sought to design research projects which can adequately grasp and explain the personal and 'lived' conditions which women experience. Feminists are more likely to look to 'qualitative' research methods with which to explain women's oppression. Oakley's early research on 'the housewife' used Participant Observation as one of it's methods in order to gain insight into women's experiences.
Times move on though and so does sociological research! Much of Oakley's work has stood the test of time but recent research suggests that all of sociology needs to question the assumptions that a) 'gender' is a concept that applies to all societies and perhaps more surprisingly b) that there are only two genders!! The two assumptions are connected as is the criticism of them. We need to identify the sources of the criticisms. First there is the growing interest in sexualities and how they are constructed and maintained socially. In particular gay and lesbian sociologists have questioned the way assumptions are made regarding so-called 'norms' of sexuality and sexual expression. These sociologists have suggested that in modern societies there is evidence of what they call compulsive heterosexuality. This belief-system or ideology works to repress all alternatives to heterosexuality and to name them as abnormal. However research by Michel Foucault and Jeffrey Weekes (see references below) suggests that heterosexuality is itself a socially constructed term and that far from being 'natural' only arose comparatively recently in modern societies (Foucault pinpoints it's origins as being in the middle of the 19th century). A second source of criticism comes, somewhat ironically perhaps, from Anthropology (ironically because Oakley's early work took much of it's insights from Anthropology). Work conducted in particular, but not solely, by Feminists, in Papua New Guinea suggested that some peoples could and did use notions of their sexuality and 'gender' in a much less fixed and more 'fluid' manner than we do in the 'west'. If nothing else these peoples seemed to demonstrate that there might be the possibility of multitude of 'genders' which were driven by personal narratives/accounts of the self. A third source of criticism comes from the upsurge of interest in transsexuals and transsexualism. Research here 'discovered' that transsexuals felt themselves to be living in the 'wrong body'. They wanted to have a body which they felt adequately 'expressed' their true sexuality. Sexuality for transsexuals was expressed in similar terms to the peoples of Papua New Guinea; as being an expression of a personal narrative or sense of self. Putting all three sources of criticism together we are left with the following observations on sexualities and 'gender'. 1. 'Gender' is a term which in fact masks about as much as it reveals about women and men and their sexualities. In particular it is a 'culturally specific' term. In short 'gender' is now understood to be a way that societies likes ours have of speaking about sexualities and bodies BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY OF DISCUSSING SEXUALITIES AND BODIES. Certainly it cannot be applied to other societies. Social theorists cannot therefore use it as a general and fundamental category for understanding humankind. 2. The idea therefore that 'sex' refers to the 'biological bits' of individuals and that 'gender' refers to the socio-cultural 'bits' cannot be accepted. 'Sex' is now understood to be as socially constructed as hitherto 'gender' was seen to be.
3. There are not just two 'genders' then. If one still has to use the term 'gender' then there a number of genders. 4. 'Gender' must be replaced by concepts of 'sexed individuals' and 'sexualities. Nor is there only two of these, rather there is multitude of possibilities although most cultures will be more or less 'tolerant' to only some of these. 5. Perhaps the central problem here has been the traditional and conventional 'debate' within social science regarding the relative weighting given to 'biology' and to 'culture'. Many sociologists are coming to see this as a sterile debate if it is couched in either/or terms. For years the nature/nurture debate asked: Is it biology or is it culture which shapes individuals? As if the two were mutually exclusive! More fruitful is a 'debate' which seeks to integrate these two 'phenomenon' into an holistic approach regarding humankind.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE WORK OF OAKLEY AND THE CONCEPT OF 'GENDER'? There can little doubt that Oakley's work is still of great value and worth. It demonstrates the need to develop a social explanation of human conduct which accounts for the role of culture and social institutions in shaping and enabling that conduct. My view is that Oakley's theory and her invaluable research are part of an ongoing 'global' research project which still has some way to go in fathoming human sexualities. The research has been invaluable because of the way it has indicated the glaring gender and sexual inequalities present in modern societies. There are various references below which discuss these inequalities. If you want to read more about the nature and level of such inequalities click on the link at the bottom of this page to my document 'International Women's Day'.
GENDER
More difficult texts include (though the references
marked with an asterix are appropriate as introductions). Connell, R (1988) Gender & Power (Sage)
|
|
