Nature v Nurture

The Development of Gender: Nature Vs Nurture

Gender is a label defined by masculine and feminine attributes identified through different social and cultural characteristics (Browne, K. 2006). The development of gender is something that is widely discussed and debated. The main two arguments involve the sociobiological theory: that gender can be explained in biological terms; and the social constructionist theory - that gender has been learnt from society (Giddens 1993). This essay will discuss these two theories, there strengths, limitations and evaluate them in their approach to the development of gender.

Haralambos and Holborn (2000) explain that E.O. Wilson based the development of socio-biology around the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin, furthermore it was applied to gender by David Barash (1979). The sociobiological theory believes that all behaviour of humans and animals can be explained through three biological means: Endocrinology (study of hormones), genetics and evolution. “Socio-biology refers to the application of biological principles in explaining the social activities of all social animals including human beings” (Giddens, A. 1993. Pg 35). Biology has proven that there are different levels of hormones produced in the body dependent upon sex, and there is a direct link between behaviour and hormones. This has been further shown in Baren-Cohen’s experiments, where results have shown that levels of testosterone during pregnancy can cause different behaviours in males and females by the age of one (Marsh, I. et al pg 220). Further, this experiment has been backed up by Udry (1995) in his studies on hormones. It has also been documented before but ethological studies on primates. Most of these biological studies and experiments do have scientific evidence, however they are mainly performed on animals (Udry, R.J. 1995), meaning they lack validity as they cannot always be applied to human gendered behaviours. Although there may be experiments on humans giving evidence to support the biological theory it is not always applicable in every society and culture. The sociobiologist theory also limits the variation within their evidence as other social and cultural factors are not taken into account, for example, in tribes where women are more dominant, males have the responsibility of rearing children (Haralambos & Holborn 2000). By underestimating the effect that socialisation may have on gender, studies can be hindered with the belief that their theories are always correct.  

The social constructionist theory follows the belief that all social behaviour can be explained through social construction. The constructionist’s believe that gender is a social construct and has been developed through socialisation (Giddens, A. 1993). A major influence to this is gender roles. Gender roles are the expectations set by society that determine the way we act, feel, think and behave. Within each culture these roles are varied due to the differences in ideologies. From the moment of birth (or even before with the technology of today) gender roles are set into place. Within most western societies gender differences are poignantly visible through observable behaviours and social identities. Primary socialisation is the first stage of this ‘gender teaching’, starting early on within the family. When children are born, families, consciously or unconsciously, influence their child’s gender through gender specific names, toys, clothes and behaviours (Marsh, I et al 2009). This theory has been backed up by studies on the treatment of gender specific babies. A child was dressed in pink and given a female name which led to the adults describing the child as having feminine traits and encouraged to play with ‘female toys’. When the same baby was dressed in blue and given a male name it was described as having masculine traits and was encouraged to play with ‘male toys’ (Giddens, A. 1993). This experiment shows that gender is enforced through socialisation early on in life. Haralambos and Holborn (2000) explain that the family is not the only the part of gender learning, secondary socialisation occurs within education and other agencies. With same sex schools, and gender aimed classes, an individual’s identity in extremely influenced to make them fit in to their society. Whilst in this stage of secondary socialisation peer groups are also a major influence. Through all parts of social life gender has been taught to the individual, e.g. family education health religion. Anybody who does not follow these gender ‘norms’ that are set by the society in which they exist have been as far as labelled as ‘abnormal’ by psychologists. With it even resulting in people being medicated and receiving therapy to ‘fit in’ and meet these norms. To reiterate a weakness of the socio-biologist theory, social constructionists also hinder their studies and experiments by only looking for supporting evidence rather than anything that may be contradicting to their belief. This theory also does not take into account the social and cultural differences, where some cultures may not have so many gender traditions (Haralambos & Holborn. 2000).

These two theories may seem very contrasting but there are small similarities between each. With socio-biologists explaining gender through nature and socio-constructionists through nurture, there is no evidence given that gender may be a choice, it is either forced upon us or written within our human DNA, everything is predetermined. Along with these similarities there are also differences: Sociobiological may seem to be a more scientific approach but as the evidence provided cannot be applied to every human being, the social constructionist theories may hold a stronger argument. To contradict this, something intangible is not something that is so easily backed up by scientists, who tend to disregard social science, with the belief that science is physical.

The contribution of nature nurture evidence provided by these theories is hard to deny. However it is difficult to apply either one of these theories globally due to the lack of external validity within their experiments. The socio-biologists may be able to provide evidence to their theory, but it is difficult to ignore the fact that socialisation unquestionably encourages and manifests gender and its roles within society.

Word count: 990

 

References

 

Anderson, M.L. and Witham, D.H. (2010) Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender. 9th edition. Boston: Pearson Education. Browne, K. (2006) Introducing Sociology for AS Level 2nd ed., United Kingdom: Polity Press. Fulcher, J. and Scott, J. (2011) Sociology 4th ed., United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Pg154-155 Giddens, A. (1993) Sociology, United Kingdom: Cambridge : Polity Press. Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London : Collins. Illich, I. (1983) Gender, United Kingdom: London ; New York : Marion Boyars. Marsh, I., Keating, M. and Punch, S. (2009) Sociology: Making Sense of Society 4th edition. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited. Taylor, P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I. Troke, K. Pilkington, A. (1995) Sociology in focus. Ormskirk: Causeway Press Limited. Pg 125. Turner, B., Abercrombie, N. and Hill, S. (2006) The Penguin dictionary of sociology 5th edition. United Kingdom: Penguin Group.

Udry, J.R. (1995) Social Forces: Socilogy and Biology: What Biology Do Sociologists Need to Know? North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. 73 (4): pp 1267-1278.