Gender Socialization

Another route to take in understanding the origins of gender differences is the study of gender socialization, the learning of gender roles with the help of social agencies such as the family and the media. Such an approach makes a distinction between biological sex and social gender – an infant is born with the first and develops the second. Through contact with various agencies of socialization, both primary and secondary, children gradually internalize the social norms and expectations which are seen to correspond with their sex. Gender differences are not biologically determined, they are culturally produced. According to this view, gender inequalities result because men and women are socialized into different roles. 

Theories of gender socialization have been favored by functionalists who see boys and girls as learning ‘sex roles’ and the male and female identities – masculinity and femininity – which accompany them. They are guided in this process by positive and negative sanctions, socially applied forces which reward or restrain behavior. For example, a small boy could be positively sanctioned in his behavior (‘what a brave boy you are!’), or be the recipient of negative sanction (‘Boys don’t play with dolls’). These positive and negative reinforcements aid boys and girls in learning and conforming to expected sex roles. If an individual develops gender practices which do not correspond with his or her biological sex – that is, they are deviant – the explanation is seen to reside in inadequate or irregular socialization. According to this functionalist view, social agencies contribute to the maintenance of social order by overseeing the smooth gender socialization of new generations. This rigid interpretation of sex roles and socialization has been critiqued on a number of fronts. Many writers argue that gender socialization is not an inherently smooth process, different ‘agencies’ such as the family, schools and peer groups may be at odds with one another. Moreover, socialization theories ignore the ability of individuals to reject, or modify, the society expectations surrounding sex roles. As Comte has argued:

‘Agencies of socialization’ cannot produce mechanical effects in a growing person. What they do is invite the child to participate in social practice on given terms. The invitation may be, and often is coercive – accompanied by heavy pressure to accept and mention of an alternative…Yet children do decline, or more exactly start making their own moves on the terrain of gender. They may refuse heterosexuality….they may set about blending masculine and feminine elements, for example girls insisting on competitive sport at school. They may start a split in their own lives, for example boys dressing in drag when by themselves. They may construct a fantasy life at odds with their actual practice, which is perhaps the commonest move of all’ (Connell 1987).

It is important to remember that humans are not passive objects or unquestioning recipients of gender ‘programming’, as some sociologists have suggested. People are active agents who create and modify roles for themselves. While we should be skeptical of any wholesale adoption of the roles approach, many studies have shown that to some degree gender identities are a result of social influences. Social influences on gender identity flow through many diverse channels; even parents committed to raising their children in a ‘non-sexist’ way find existing patterns of gender learning difficult to combat (Statham 1986). Studies of parent-child interactions, for example, have shown distinct differences in the treatment of boys and girls even when the parents believe their reactions to both are the same. The toys, picture books and television programmes experienced by young children all tend to emphasize differences between male and female attributes. Although the situation is changing somewhat, male characters generally outnumber females in most children’s books, fairytales, television programmes and films. Male characters tend to play more active, adventurous roles, while females are portrayed as passive, expectant and domestically oriented (Weitzman et al. 1972; Zammuner 1987; Davies 1991). Feminist researchers have demonstrated how cultural and media products marketed to young audiences embody traditional attitudes towards genders and towards the sorts of aims and ambitions girls and boys are expected to have. Clearly, gender socialization is very powerful, and challenges to it can be upsetting. Once a gender is ‘assigned’, society expects individuals to act like ‘females’ and ‘males’. It is in the practices of everyday life that these expectations are fulfilled and reproduced (Lorber 1994; Bourdieu 1990).