Hacking does a good job of thoroughly analyzing the concept of social constructionism. He says that some benefits that occur through use of the idea are a feeling of "liberation" (pg 2) and a "raising of consciousness" (pg 6).
He addresses gender and says, "undoubtedly the most influential social construction doctrines have had to do with gender" (pg 7). He also briefly goes over the development of the idea that "gender" is socially constructed. Initially, to early feminists, the idea of "gender" was simply an add on to physiology, but later the idea was developed further by Judith Butler who argued that we each have the ability to interpret our bodies in our own way and determine what "sex" means to us personally. "Sex" is not a physiological given that occurs before human thought and it is just as socially constructed as "gender."
Hacking also talks about the debate between "essentialist" and "constructionist" views about race. It is a debate between the question of whether race has a deep, inevitable, essential connection with our being (our essence), or whether "race" doesn't penetrate that far into who we are and is instead simply a social construction humans use (pgs 16-17).
Questions:
If "race" and "gender" are simply social constructions, what are others ways to define who we are that don't fall under the constructionist heading?
What is the difference between gender and sex? (I'm still a bit confused)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Alright, I'm gonna throw out a couple answers and please feel free to correct me, but:
1. Individuals. The impression I got from the Hacking is that any sort of category that we come up with to classify a group of individuals risks being referred to as socially constructed. I'm not sure even "Individual" escapes the pitfall since you could say that you construct yourself from the way people see you and especially if you are interacting with them to make yourself distinctly individual, i.e. not like anyone else. But possibly, in a certain abstract sense, individual works; although I'm less certain of that then when I started writing this. I think a big point of some Social Constructionists is that all the categories we come up with to define ourselves are in fact constructed.
2. I believe that gender is more often referring to the gender roles we have in a society whereas sex is used to denote the biological differences between the two. Hence the force of saying that not only gender is socially constructed, but sex as well.
Great posts guys.
As to 2): sex is typically drawn up in terms of biology, bodies, reproductive organs, etc. whilst gender is typically described in terms of the social attributes (masculinity-macho v. femininity-nurturing) that we use to organize ourselves and which some people thing flow from natural distinctions between male and female sexes.
In the 70s and especially 80s a number of feminists said, "hold on: gender norms are not natural and do not flow from our bodies or biology even if our sex, i.e. our reproductive organs, are naturally distinct as male and female." Then a little later Butler came along and said, "well wait maybe sex two is constructed or performed so let's think about that." More next week!
Butler, using Foucaultian concepts, talks about gender as being something we perform. From an early age, we are first sexed, determined whether we are male or female. Then based on this dichotomy, infants are treated one way or the other. From day one, boys are dressed in blue, girls in pink. Boys are taught not to cry, while girls are encouraged to focus on their emotions, etc…. So yeah, within cultures, the determination of sex at an early age helps or restrains people to act out (perform) their gender. I think that Foucault and Butler both agree that what we perform determines who we are—and that which we perform is largely influenced on how we are treated growing up, how we are molded to fit into society. As we become more aware of the vast differences treated to opposite sexes, I think we are beginning to break down this barrier. People are beginning to perform whatever gender they feel right, rather than basing it purely on how they were sexed at birth. This doesn’t just have to apply to sex/gender either. Performativity can apply to any aspect of one’s life—how they enact that which they want to become.
As already noted, I think that "sex" is a biological term, whereas "gender" is in fact a social construction.
This brings up the issue of people that identify themselves as part of a third gender. (ex: Hijras)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)
Post a Comment