The Social Construction of Gender and Sex

In recent years, socialization and gender role theories have been criticized by a growing number of sociologists. Rather than seeing sex as biologically determined and gender as culturally learned, they argue that we should view both sex and gender as socially constructed products. Not only is gender a purely social creation that lacks a fixed ‘essence’, but the human body itself is subjected to social forces which shape and alter it in various ways. We can give our bodies meanings which challenge what is usually thought of as ‘natural’. Individuals can choose to construct and reconstruct their bodies as they please – ranging from exercise, dieting, piercing and personal fashion to plastic surgery and sex-change operations. Technology is blurring the boundaries o our physical bodies. Thus, the argument goes, the human body and biology are not ‘givens’, but are subject to human agency and personal choice within different social contexts. According to such perspective, writers who focus on gender roles and role learning implicitly accept that there is a biological basis to gender differences. In the socialization approach, a biological distinction between the sexes provides a framework which becomes ‘culturally elaborated’ in society itself. In contrast to this, theorists who believe in the social construction of sex and gender reject all biological basis for gender differences. Gender identities emerge, they argue, in relation to perceived sex differences in society and turn help to shape those differences. For example, a society in which ideas of masculinity are characterized by physical strength and ‘tough’ attitudes will encourage men to cultivate a specific body image and set of mannerism. In other words, gender identities and sex differences are inextricably linked within individual human bodies (Connell 1987; J. Butler 1999; Scott and Morgan 1993).

Two Theories of Gender Identity

Two of the leading theories to explain the formation of gender identities are concerned with the emotional dynamics between children and their caretakers. According to such views, gender differences are formulated ‘unconsciously’ during the earliest years of life, rather than resulting from a biological predisposition.

Freud’s theory of gender development

Perhaps the most influential – and controversial – theory of the emergence of gender identity is that of Sigmund Freud. According to Freud, the learning of gender differences in infants and young children is centered on the presence or absence of the penis. ‘I have a penis’ is equivalent to ‘I am a boy’, while ‘I am a girl’ is equivalent to ‘I lack a penis’. Freud is careful to say that it is not just the anatomical distinctions that matter here; the presence or absence of the penis is symbolic of masculinity and femininity. At around the age of four or five, the theory goes, a boy feels threatened by the discipline and autonomy his father demand of him, fantasizing that the father wishes to remove his penis. Partly consciously, but mostly on an unconscious level, the boy recognizes the father as a rival for the affection of his mother. In repressing erotic feelings towards the mother and accepting the father superior being, the boy identifies with the father and becomes aware of his male identity. The boy gives up his love for his mother out of an unconscious fear of castration by his father. Girls, on the other hand, supposedly suffer from ‘penis envy’ because they do not possess the visible organ that distinguishes boys. The mother becomes devalued in the little girl’s eyes, because she is also seen to lack a penis and to be unable to provide one. When the girl identifies with the mother, she takes over the submissive attitude involved in the recognition of being ‘second best’. Once this phase is over, the child has learned to repress erotic feelings. The period from about five years old to puberty, according to Freud, is one of latency – sexual activities termed to be suspended until the biological change involved in puberty reactivate erotic desires in a direct way. The latency period, covering an early and middle years of school, is the time when same-sex peer groups are most important in the child’ life. Major objection have been raised against Freud’s views, particularly by feminists, but also by many authors (Mitchell 1973; Cowa 1984). First, Freud seems to identify gender too closely with genital awareness; other, many subtle factors are surely involved. Second, theory seems to depend on the notion that if penis is superior to the vagina, which is thought of as just a lack of the male organ. Yet what should not the female genitals be considered superior to those of the male? Third, Freud traced the father as the primary disciplining against whereas in many cultures the mother plays a more significant part in the imposition discipline. Fourth, Freud believes that gender learning is concentrated at the age of four or five. Later authors have emphasized the importance of earlier learning, beginning in infants.