The Construct of Gender by Lexie Markell
Has the ‘construct of gender’ been more beneficial or more harmful to humanity throughout history? – theoretical perspectives on gender and its social applications
Within a society defined by conflict and an omnirelevant struggle for power, it is integral that we become conscious of these divisions and differentiate that which is tangible ‘reality’ and thus that which is a product of its social condition. This school of thought was appropriately manifested when Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that ‘facts do not exist, only interpretations’: a proposition that everything we ‘know’ and ‘see’ is entirely situated from within our own minds and interactions with our environment (Kaufmann, 1954). Each individual has a unique, subjective, and biased image of the world; therefore everyone’s perspective must be fictional to some degree. Yet, it is within fundamental aspects of the human condition that these structures lie, and the concept of gender is an ideal example.
According to social constructionist ideas, gender is not an indispensable category but ultimately a structure created within society – it only holds value within a context that recognises it as valuable. Yet, the influence that it possesses within these specific contexts still cannot be mitigated. To describe it as an essential aspect of one’s identity would indicate that said aspect would define an individual in itself, and moreover imply that certain traits and behaviours are inherent to a distinguishing feature. This concept of essentialism characterises gender as something that is an essence of one’s reality – and to some extent this agrees with the more modern approach of constructionism as the effects can be felt within all aspects of one’s experience; though arguably more significantly it describes how an identity without essence is in itself intangible and not an identity at all, and thus the key misalignment between the two schools of thought arises. For example, the official view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that gender is an ‘essential characteristic’ of one’s eternal, unchangeable God-given identity, and one can only be male or female (Saints, 1995). To attempt to alter this would be disrespectful and disregarding of God’s sacrifice. Here, the focus is shifted away from individual identity and into the metaphorical hands of some supernatural higher power – in this case it is the Christian God. This extremely strong essentialist attitude highly contrasts with social constructionist ideas which entail the belief that gender cannot be a natural essence as gender itself is not natural, but an artificial structure. As Simone de Beauvoir claimed, ‘one is not born, but, rather, becomes a woman’ – implying that instead, gender is a malleable feature, manipulated throughout one’s life by a plethora of social influences such as particular environments, beliefs, cultures, and traditions (de Beauvoir, 1949).
Expanding on this, gender as a social construct serves several purposes; which in turn serve as motivation for it to continue to be upheld. To establish the functionalist perspective, it is critical to note that within this school of thought gender inequality is recognised but reframed as a beneficial social structure as opposed to something that must be eradicated. Here, the stability of society is prioritised; it can be achieved by increasing social efficiency, productivity, and maximising resources. Popularised and majorly developed by American sociologist Talcott Parsons during the 1950s, the nuclear family model consists of a working father whose role is to provide the primary stream of income that his domestic wife and several children depend on(Parsons, 1959). According to structural functionalists, the predetermined roles that are assigned based on gender are wholly complementary and exist solely to divide the labour – men must go out to work whilst women must take care of the home and children. These gender roles that spring from predetermined characteristics of men and women are required to make the gender distinction both tangible and moreover wellbeing of society as a whole can be maintained: a form of instinctual self-preservation that originates from our most primal, basic needs.
With this in mind, structural functionalists view gender as another structure or social institution that has a beneficial impact on society through a wider lens; and thus here is where its key limitation arises. When focusing on a complex society on a macro-level, it is possible to overlook the nuanced relationships between individuals and said individuals themselves – an element of humanity within which I believe deeply holds the most significance. As mentioned before: each individual has a unique image of the world, impacted by both personal inherent attributes and the environment within which they exist, thus is it inevitable that the majority of people will deviate from conventional social norms at some point in some manner. This lack of individual focus truly withdraws from the overall functionalist goal, it creates a divide between those who follow the path set for them centred on their identity (in this case people who follow the roles that correlate with their sex at birth) and those who do not. This dysfunctional dynamic will thus inevitably lead to that which the structural functionalist ideas seek to avoid – direct and harmful social discourse.
One opposing school of thought surrounding this issue would be Conflict Theory which originates from the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and views social conflict as a direct consequence of divisions such as race, class, and culture – and further the inevitable power imbalances that they bring.(Marx, 1848) Broken down to a purely conceptual basis, it is that the existence of division allows for dispute; moreover within this narrative gender is a social division that allows for the formation of destructive power dynamics between men and women. In a sense, a patriarchal or matriarchal society is an unavoidable side effect of implementing gender as an integral attribute, both in an individual and professional manner. Engels wrote about how the same employer-employee relationship can be seen in the typical heterosexual household, attributing the role of the worker to the woman. This comparison is particularly reflective of the relationship between men and women in a conventional sense, due to the woman’s reliance on the man for wages, and ultimately her lack of independence and autonomy entirely. With these divisions in mind, one group becomes socially authoritarian to the detriment of the other, and – according to Marx – at some point the said oppressed group will become conscious of their own exploitation. Consequently, this will serve as fuel for significant social change and naturally, the dominant group will resist and fight to maintain said dominance.
Within the context of gender, this interaction can be most notably observed in the Women’s Suffrage Movement – one of the most pivotal socio-political movements in 20th century Britain and North America. The suffragettes challenged Victorian social norms through their notable disruptiveness and demand for votes in a time where women were expected to maintain roles as submissive, obedient wives and daughters. In their struggle to become economically and socially on a par with men, these suffragettes lost their ‘womanhood’ and were looked down upon – often portrayed as very masculine and uncivilised in media at the time. This is a model example of how extremely repressive the gender roles of the time can be; this wholly justified outcry for gender equality (as viewed from a modern perspective) was met with such resistance, when the dominant group remained desperate to prevent social change. To allow women the vote would be to allow them a form of independence from men and social status that had never been granted before. The seemingly unbreakable oppression of the subordinate group had been proven to be relatively fragile: this small but significant permission of power saw a slight break in the previous patriarchal socio-political structure. Still, when women in the UK were allowed the right to vote in 1918, this was conditional for another 10 years and only applied to women who were both over the age of 30 and met certain property qualifications. This was one of the key points of an almost 300-year struggle for equality yet did not mark the end of a patriarchal society.
According to Conflict Theory and more specifically the social constructionist ideas it entails, gender is entirely socially situated: a product of its social condition and therefore dependent on the particular culture that it exists within. Gender is simply a divide to allow more control over the inferior class and will inevitably bring conflict. Instead, the view of gender as a ‘spectrum’ is proposed, within which there is no allowance for isolation of certain individuals who would deviate from a specific social ‘norm’ as there theoretically is no ‘norm’. Thus, within this idealistic view there is no longer a detrimental, definitive divide and social conflict regarding gender can be somewhat prevented (as there simply cannot be a superior gender). Gender and sex are independent of one another: sex refers to physiological characteristics whilst gender is a much more malleable feature that refers to cultural norms and expectations that is a result of socialisation. However, many psychologists view a deep contradiction within these definitions – if gender is simply an arbitrary social creation, how can one simultaneously identify so deeply as a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’, and view it as an inherent aspect of self? The main drawback with this social constructionist attitude is that is disregards any relation with the two and does not account for biological influences on one’s sense of self. Whilst it is wholly irrational to attribute a person’s sense of self in its complex entirety to either their inherent, unchangeable nature or social influence, critics of social constructionism argue that it is in fact a perpetrator of this. It is somewhat anti-realist, accused of denying that knowledge and truth is a direct perception of reality; instead, what is ‘real’ to the human mind is socially situated and itself defined by social events instead of object reality. This in itself is illogical as we cannot
we live. To deny a clear link between biological characteristics and societal gender roles would be to declare that the oppression caused by gender roles was instead the incentive to implement them as opposed to the consequence. These dramatically conflicting roles within society are much older than concepts of money and economic class that have been previously claimed to cause social tension and conflict, thus they must come from a more primitive, raw form of being. Egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies that operated within gender roles have preceded the development of other dictating social forces; however there is no denial that gender and its implications has advanced further as varying cultures flourished and took on a far more complex meaning – as social hierarchy became more influential, power dynamics became interwoven with gender and amplified the divide.
To conclude, the ‘construct of gender’ has had a multitude of social impacts and is viewed in highly contrasting ways; according to the functionalist perspective it serves as a structure that stabilises society, whilst according to social constructionist ideas it implements a divide that inevitably brings hierarchy. In my opinion, it has ultimately had a more harmful effect on humanity throughout history – though I would not entirely disregard biological influences on one’s sense of self, I believe that we as beings develop more significantly within the cultures that surround us that instil particular values and beliefs. As a species, we are so deeply influenced by our environments and appear to adapt accordingly thus we internalise that which we are taught to define ourselves with. When these identities are so heavily ingrained in society, conflict is seemingly inevitable – it allows the capacity for an oppressor.
References
de Beauvoir, S., 1949. The Second Sex. s.l.:s.n.
Kaufmann, W., 1954. The Portable Nietzsche. s.l.:s.n.
Marx, K., 1848. The Communist Manifesto. s.l.:s.n.
Parsons, T., 1959. The Social Structure of the Family. s.l.:s.n.
Saints, C. o. J. C. o. L.-D., 1995. The Family: A Proclamation to the World. s.l.:s.n.
