Many days instead of dissertation writing, I mull over various thoughts I have regarding "liberal" issues like racism, gender socialization, gay rights, attitudes towards evolution, and the like. I always think about how I should write down some of these thoughts (and therefore parlay them into something academically useful instead of just an interesting distraction). Therefore, today I'm going to start a multiple-post arc on issues of culture & biology in sex and gender.
One big question I've struggled with for years is: How much are gender differences biologically versus culturally determined? By gender I mean the traits, characteristics, behaviors, etc. associated with being masculine and feminine. The standard line is that sex is biological (women have boobs, men have gonads) but gender is socially constructed. The controversial question issue is how much is gender connected to sex? How much of femininity is biologically ingrained in women and how much do genes tell men to be masculine? (Interesting aside - Judith Butler argues both sex and gender are socially constructed.)
I've always leaned on the far side of the socialization scale. Girls like frilly dresses, the color pink, playing with dolls, and acting demurely because they are raised that way. And even when parents explicitly try bring their daughter up differently, influences like television, music, toys, movies, friends, family members, school, and practically everything else in our culture teaches them to adhere to a certain gender role. In this way gender is like a role we perform, where our gender identities are constantly reconstructed and reinforced through the repetition of everyday gendered acts, behaviors, words, etc. (See more about the performative theory of gender here.) Certainly things have changed a lot in contemporary U.S. culture over the past few decades, but it's still quite shockingly prevalent. (Think of gender stereotypes constantly used by the media, especially during Hillary Clinton's recent presidential campaign.)
Of course, many would point out (including my mother) that I am completely ignoring the large stack of research that demonstrates biological differences between the sexes. I'm not denying it completely. However, I would make three points. First, sex and gender are different concepts. Just because there are biological differences does not mean that they automatically lead to a behavioral gender attribute. So if the area of the brain that controls language tends to be larger in women, does this automatically mean women are inherently gossipy (as the gender stereotype says they are)? Absolutely not. I concept like "gossip" is a cultural construct. Maybe biology would say women tend to be better at remember the large amounts of information and social relationships that are part of "gossip" but the tendency for women to engage in this very specific kind of language activity (and the negative social connotations associated with gossip) are socialized IMHO.
Second, we can probably never truly test nature v. nurture arguments such as these. Short of finding a bunch of kids raised by wolves, there is no way to remove individuals completely from culture (and then we'd just be seeing the effects of socialization into wolf culture). In scientific experimental terms, we can never successfully apply the "treatment" of biology alone/no culture. Confounding cultural variables will always get in the way.
Third, biology and gender research can lead us down a dangerous ethical path. Here is one of my biggest pet peeves in the whole biology v. cultures debates. Why does a biological basis for any human behavior, attribute, belief, etc. differences make it somehow more justified? Why is “because it’s natural” a good justification for ethics and ideas about how society should be constructed?
For example, take the supposition that XYY men biologically tend to be more violent. (While the most recent research demonstrates XYY men are not more aggressive, just assume it for the sake of this point.) Can you imagine a judge who gave an XYY male a lighter sentence on an assult or rape charge because "he's biologically predisposed" to be more violent and therefore his behavior was "natural"? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. As a society we have an ethical standard against violence in most cases (with certain exceptions, of course), and we purport to apply this equally to all individuals, regardless of the amount of testosterone in the bodies.
Along those same lines, why should we tolerate arguments about women's role in the military, political leadership positions, math and science abilities, etc. that rely on supposedly biological differences between men and women. Just because it’s natural and there’s a biological explanation doesn’t mean it’s ethically correct. We construct our own ethical view of how the world should be independent of biology and use culture to shape biological, not vice versa. So, therefore, the biology v. culture in gender and sex differences debate should not be as meaningful as many think it is.
Part II and III to come later. I'm sure you can't wait!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Uh, how nice to finally find something really interesting on a blog - and not nerdy at at all ;-)
Being a devout J. Butler and Kristeva reader its soo nice to see your coments. I agree most of the way although I wonder whether its really so that (judges and) society at large really judge violence equally no regard of gender. For example a matter like domestic violence: I would argue that 'women' and 'men' are put in predefined roles generally irrespectible of the specific situation - cases where the man is victim of violence in the home, this is a much larger taboo than when it happens to women. Women aren't very easily judged by society when they are violent (and if they are it seems to be more harsh).
Or take the matter of gangs made up by girls. There are major discussions held here in Denmark because all of a sudden girls fight - but nobody even questions whether this should be the 'natural' behavior of boys.
I believe that the choice of violence to show the point that this notion about nature is far out is not necessarily a very strong case. Although I agree completely with your logic that this nature or biology argument is an empty phrase which all too often get to hijack the really interesting debates.
However I can't come up with a better suggestion on top of my head - I should be writing a thesis too :-)
I'm looking forward to parts 2 and 3 ;-)
I think you may be missing out on an essential question in all of this ... why analyze gender/sex identity at all? Why care if a person is male or female? Not that androgyny is the answer to the world's problems, but is analyzing causation going to change sexist practices? Women who have prejudices against men and men who have prejudices against women aren't swayed by causation findings. To change someone's behavior, you have to provide a benefit to a person to change (and, that benefit has to be more pleasurable than the benefit they received by being sexist). Then, you have to show the prejudiced person how to complete the change. If a person has no reason to change his/her belief and lacks tools for change, they won't change. There is nothing in it for them and they won't expend effort to do it. Argue nature vs. nurture all you want, but it won't matter a lick in ending sexist practices.
Although Erin has a point in that the evil sexist people probably won't change their minds and listen to reason I think the argument is too disillusioned. Certainly we can discuss matters that some people feel strongly about. And certainly these people shouldn't decide whether we get to steal the agenda and make up new wonderful arguments in favor of our ideas :-)
Diverging from the discussion at hand...
About a month ago, I was having a discussion with a friend doing her Ph.D. in Sociology about parallel parking. I brought up the topic paraphrasing something about how men are better at parallel parking than women because their brains are better at spatial reasoning than women. My friend countered that it has more to do with social constructs than biology, and that men are better at parallel parking because they are more assertive and spatially confident (and less concerned about being "in the way"). I hadn't really ever thought of that before, and it really did make me go "hmmm," but I don't know if I buy it.
Based on personal experience alone, I know that I suck at parallel parking. I've gotten significantly better after living in a town with lots of side street parking, but it still isn't easy. I also know that I am assertive and don't concern myself too much with how I am viewed, or worry about what others think. It also doesn't bother me to be "in the way" parking on a road, even if others are waiting behind me.
I guess I don't really know what other explanation there is for why I can't parallel park well, but my brother can do it without much thought, except for biological wiring.
Of course, parking isn't a major social issue...but it makes me think about this subject differently.
Thyra - I completely agree with your point that society does have different expectations about the level of violence that is "natural" for males and females to engage in. That paragraph where I said "we have an ethical standard against violence . . . and we purport to apply this equally to all individuals, regardless of the amount of testosterone in the bodies" was hastily written and not well-thought out. There are certainly different reactions when men engage in violence ("boys will be boys") and women do. And you're right that society is more surprised at things like girl gangs and women abusing men. However, I think that's a good example of society using "it's natural arguments" to justify something which is not ethically tenable. Ethically speaking, we should be treating specific acts of violence, regardless of the gender of the person who perpetrates it, the same.
Erin - my goal here is not to change the minds of people who are entrenched sexists. You right. It's exceedingly difficult to alter their beliefs. My point is that there's a lot of stuff out there in our culture that socializes us to accept the "naturalness" of gender differences. This is true for kids as well as for even people who believe in a general sense of gender equality. And achieving gender equality means questioning those assumptions. Or it can mean, which is my point, that we talk about what an ethical world should look like and not get bogged down in issues of culture v. biology (which, unfortunately, seems to be where a lot of the more journalistic accounts of sex, gender and sexual orientation are going these days).
Sara - you bring up a great point. Thanks for posting it. I see the parallel parking example is part of a larger social stereotype about "women drivers." It's not that men are naturally better at everything associated with cars. They are just generally taught to learn about cars, be interested more in cars and driving, and probably spend a lot more time learning how to do things like parallel park when they are young (with their fathers) than girls do. Your friends points about men being taught to be more "assertive and spatially confident" in general are right on the money for some women. However, even for women, like you, who consider themselves assertive and don't worry about getting in "the way," they can still be all of the above points about boys just having the opportunity to learn these things more than girls.
However, even we assume men and women are wired differently in terms of spatial reasoning, would that somehow justify being legally more lenient on women who hit another car when they parallel park? I don't think so, and that's my overall point - that we shouldn't construct ethical systems around supposed biological differences.
Also, I am a left-hander and it's sometimes said lefties have better spatial reasoning skills than righties. If we put the question above about different legal standards for people wired differently in the context of handedness instead of gender, it starts to sound a little silly. Why we may be able to find some people may sign off on fining women drivers less for bad parallel parking, I can't imagine anyone saying right-handed people should also get the same lenient treatment (and the poor right-handed women - they are doubly screwed).
I fully agree that ethical and legal standards and systems should not be based on biological differences. But I do think there is some merit in trying to understand these differences. The fact that we are self-aware beings allows us to have biological differences and work with or around those attributes to conform with legal and ethical standards. Just because differences exist does not make them an excuse to get away with injuring others. Understanding how we're wired can help to explain why certain things about us are what they are, and can help change or develop those traits as the case may be.
Of course, that could lead into all kinds of other discussions about genetic and biological controls....but I won't go there :-)
Post a Comment