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.