Seminar Fifteen: Domesticity – Masculanism and Feminism

This seminar focuses on the sociology of gender, we will be looking at how gender is structured within social relations. Below is a general overview of the subject.

General overview

What is natural and what is social in gender? There is no consensus on this question, instead we have a variety of approaches, each seeking to provide an explanation on biological sex and gender identities. These vary from one end of the spectrum i.e. biological determinism to the other end of pure social constructivism. At one end, we have a strong biological determinist position that would argue that gender traits can be rooted in chromosomal differences, hormonal differences or some other natural difference. This strong determinist position is problematic, as for it to be established, universal differences need to be proven to exist and that these differences determine identical behaviour on the part of men and women across societies and over history.

At the other end we have a strong social constructivist view, such as that advocated by post-modernist gender theorist Judith Butler. Butler argues that there is no reason to believe in the idea of two genders, an idea that is based on a heterosexist worldview. “Bodies becomes gendered through being socially classified as biologically different and through the continual process of people acting in gendered ways. For Butler, gender has no pre-given essential existence.” (Maynard 1999: 120)

Hence, meanings of gender have no fixed referent, including that of biological sex, all are reduced to factors of socialization. For example, there are some feminists who question the assumption “that gender is culturally constructed, while sex is still seen as having an innate biological basis (Ramazanoglu 1995). Such an approach is essentialist because it implies that how we interpret and give meaning to biological phenomena is unproblematic, inherent and independent of cultural discourses and practices. Further, this way of thinking perpetuates the opposition between nature and culture which permeates western societies. It precludes the possibility of analyzing the various ways in which bodily functions and processes (for instance, pain or pleasure) may influence the gendered experience of social life. Ramazanoglu (1995), for example, argues that ideas about the body are social, although not entirely independent of biology. It is important to take account of people’s bodily existence (for women, such things as menstruation and childbirth) , without assuming that this determines their behaviour” (Maynard 1999: 120)

This approach seeks to go beyond sociological approaches that differentiate between biological sex and gender roles. The argument here being that writers who make this differentiation, while focusing on gender roles and role learning implicitly accept there is a biological basis to gender differences. In contrast, it is stated, even how we experience our bodies i.e. bodily functions and processes can be affected by social factors. Hence, we must go beyond a dichotomy that argues that while gender identities and role are socially constructed, biological sex has some form of fixed characteristics. Recent examples, of altering bodies, could include plastic surgery, dieting, exercise and sex-change operations. Even biological differences can be culturally elaborated.

However, I would raise some issues with this approach. While it is true that biological differences can be altered and acted upon through intervention, it cannot be said that there is no basis for an idea of biological sexes and therefore of two genders. When individuals alter their bodies they are altering something that they are physically born with. For example, altering the body through a sex-change operation, entails the altering of the body into another distinct and recognisable form – a female or male. This form is known by some biological referent i.e. that a female and male bodily are indeed different, and with essential characteristics. Otherwise it would make no sense of talking about a sex-change operation. “As Anne Oakley explained in her influential book sex, gender and society (1972), bodies are the trigger for the assignment of gender difference; femininity of some sort will be elaborated for anatomical females, and masculinity of some sort for males. ‘The chief importance of biological sex’, argues Oakley, ‘is in providing a universal and obvious division around which other distinctions can be organised’ (Bilton et al. 2003: 134)

Also download the seminar’s presentation slides by clicking here….

To download the handouts click here and here

Further Reading:

• The second handout is a breakdown of the main ideas in Chapter 6 of ‘Introductory Sociology’ by Bilton et al. I would recommend you take out the book or photocopy the chapter for revision.
• Also have a look at Chapter 6 in ‘Sociology: Issues and Debates’ edited by Steve Taylor. The chapter is written by Mary Maynard and is devoted to gender relations.