Chodorow’s Theory of Gender Development

While many writers have made use of Freud’s approach in studying gender development they have usually modified it in major respects. An example is the sociologist Nancy Chodorow (1978, 1988). Chodorow argues that learning to feel male or female derives from the infant’s attachment to its parents from an early age She places much more emphasis than Freud does on the importance of mother, since she is easily the most dominant influence in early life. This attachment has to be broken at some point in order to achieve a separate sense of self – the child is required to become less closely dependent. Chodorow argue that the breaking process occurs in a different way for boys and girls. Girls remain closer to mother – able, for example, to go on hugging and kissing her and imitating what she does. Because there is no sharp break from the mother, the girl, and later the adult woman, develops a sense of self that is more likely to managed with or dependent on another’s: first her mother, later a man. In Chodorow’s view, this tends to produce characteristics of sensitivity and emotional compassion in women. Boys gain a sense of self via more radical rejection of their original closeness to the mother, forging their understanding of masculinity from what is not feminine. They learn not to be ‘sissies’ or ‘mummy’s boys’. As a result, boys are relatively unskilled in relating closely to others’ they develop more analytical ways of looking at the world. They take a more active view of their lives, emphasizing achievement, but they have repressed their ability to understand their own feelings and those of others. To some extent, Chodorow reverses Freud’s emphasis. Masculinity rather than feminity, is defined by a loss, the forfeiting of continuing close attachment to the mother. Male identity is formed through separation; thus men later in life unconsciously feel that their identity is endangered if they become involved in close emotional relationships with others. Women, on the other hand, feel that the absence of a close relation to another person threatens their self esteem. These patterns are passed from generation to generation, because of the primary role women play in early socialization of children. Women express and define themselves mainly in terms of relationships. Men have repressed these needs, and adopt a more manipulative stance towards the world. Chodorow’s work has met with various criticisms. Janet Sayers, for example, has suggested that Chodorow does not explain the struggle of women, particularly in current times, to become autonomous, independent beings (Sayers 1986). Chodorw has also been criticized for her narrow conception of the family, one based on a white, middle class model. What happens, for example, in one parent households or families where children are cared for by more than one adult? These criticisms don’t undermine Chodorow’s idea, which remain important. Her idea teach a good deal about the nature of femininity, and they help us to understand the origins of what has been called male inexpressiveness – the difficulty men have in reveling their feelings to others.

Perspectives on Gender Inequality

Gender is a socially created concept which attributes differing social roles and identities to men and women. Yet gender differences are rarely neutral – in almost all societies, gender is a significant form of social stratification. Gender is a critical factor in structuring the types of opportunities and life chances individuals and groups face, and strongly influences the roles they play within social institutions from the household to the state. Although the roles of men and women vary from culture to culture, there is no known instance of a society in which females are more powerful than males. Men’s roles are generally more highly valued and rewarded than women’s roles: in almost every culture, women bear the primary responsibility for childcare and domestic work, while men have traditionally borne responsibility for providing the family livelihood. The prevailing division of labor between the sexes has led to men and women assuming unequal positions in terms of power, prestige and wealth. Despite the advances that women have made in countries around the world, gender differences continue to serve as the basis for social inequalities. Investigating and accounting for gender inequality has become a central concern of sociologists. Many theoretical perspectives have been advanced to explain men’s enduring dominance over women – in the realm of economics, politics, the family and elsewhere. In this section we shall review the main theoretical approaches to explaining the nature of gender inequality at the level of society.

Functionalist Approaches

Functionalist and functionalist-inspired perspectives on gender seek to show that gender differences contribute to social stability and integration. While such views once commanded great support, they have been heavily criticized for neglecting social tensions at the expense of consensus and for promulgating a conservative view of the social world. Division of labor between men and women is biologically based and they perform those tasks for which they are biologically best suited. Thus, the anthropologist George Murdock saw it as both practical and convenient that women should concentrate on domestic and family responsibilities while men work outside the home. On the basis of a cross-cultural study of more than 200 societies, Murdock concluded that the sexual division of labor is present in all cultures (1949). While this is not the result of biological ‘programming’, it is the most logical basis for the organization of society. Talcott Parsons, a leading functionalist thinker, concerned himself with the role of the family in industrial societies (Parson and Bales 1956). He was particularly interested in the socialization of children and believed the stable, supportive families are the key to successful socialization.