GENDER ROLE DIFFERENCES

Description

Lets Talk Sociology Discussion #4: Gender Role Differences. Nature and Nurture Revisited. The late anthropologist Margaret Mead (December 16, 1901 – November 15, 1978) is known for stating that human nature is “almost unbelievably malleable”. Many social scientists have long cited her as a proponent of the view that personal identity (including gender) is shaped more by social environment or culture as opposed to biology. This view is believed to be clearly in evidence in her 1935 publication entitled Sex and Temperament, in which she was said to advocate a culturally constructed gender fluidity. The so-called “Mead paradigm” was opposed by some of her fellow anthropologists, most notably Derek Freeman (August 15, 1916 –July 6, 2001). Freeman claimed that Mead was “anti biological, antievolutionary, and culturally deterministic”. He proposed a new paradigm, “a synthesis in which there will be, in the study of human behavior, recognition of the radical importance of both the genetic and exogenetic and their interaction, both in the past history of the human species and our problematic future.” Insofar as Freeman and his followers were concerned, Mead was largely dismissive of the role biology played in the formation of personal identity. Elesha Coffman has recently called into question the notion that the so-called Mead paradigm made no room for biology in the formation of gendered identity. Admittedly, while a prolific writer, Mead was not always a careful writer. Her attempts to clarify what she had previously written often created new confusion. Nevertheless, Coffman documents that Mead’s perspective on nature, nurture, and genetics were much more nuanced than many of her critics, and even some of her supporters cared to acknowledge. Neither the early nor the latter Mead taught that gender was a purely cultural construct capable of being refashioned in an infinite number of ways should certain cultural barriers be removed. In a letter she wrote to her colleague Violet Klein in 1950, Mead made it clear that her work always took a both-and rather than an either-or approach to culture and biology. Such an approach is clearly in evidence in her 1949 publication entitled Male and Female. For further discussion, see Coffman’s “’I Didn’t Say That’: Margaret Mead on Nature, Nurture, and Gender in the Nuclear Age”, Modern Intellectual History (online, August 14, 2019), 1-21. For this discussion, you will need to start by reading the following two links: “Nature v.s. Nurture – A False Debate”, and “Sociobiology”. Sociobiology came into prominence in 1975 with the publication of E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Irrespective of how one feels about Wilson’s attempt to wed the social sciences into a single biologically-based discipline, Wilson’s book reintroduced many sociologists to the possibility that certain common behaviors can be traced to specific genes as opposed to differences in culture alone. The role assigned either to genetics or culture often takes an either-or form in which primacy is given to an individual’s innate qualities or their personal experiences. In its extreme form, the nature versus nurture controversy has pitted two forms of determinism against the other—genetic determinism versus cultural determinism. Some sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have been guilty of genetic determinism (i.e. the idea that genetics is inalterable destiny). On the other hand, many sociologists have been equally guilty of implying that our social behaviors are culturally determined as a result of sociologist’s contention that our environment is a social creation. The next link is the Lumen handout entitled “Gender Socialization”. It centers on social constructionist theories of gender roles and gender identity as a result of socialization. Socialization is the process whereby a society transmits its values, norms, beliefs, and behaviors to group members. The most intense period of socialization occurs during childhood. Gender is included in this process and entails the teaching of individuals to behave in accordance with their gender, which is in turn assigned at birth based on their biological sex. Sociologists have historically leaned towards social constructionist models of gender roles and gender identities. This is seen in the following Lumen handout: “The Social Construction of Gender”. At the same time, biology plays a part, as is evidenced by the section entitled “Opening the Door to Biology” found in chapter ten of the text (13th edition). One thing is clear. The controversy over biology and culture is far from settled. While there is general agreement that it is both biology and culture in complex interaction, social scientists continue to debate the extent to which biological predispositions are overlaid by culture. Differences likewise appear over the extent to which the environment can modify heredity. Quick Tips Besides reading the four links provided here, you want to watch the video “Gender Differences: The Nature vs Nurture Debate” and the Crash Course Sociology video “Theories of Gender”. I would further recommend reading the handout “Jan Morris’s Experience in Conundrum” before participating in this discussion. Discussion Prompt After reading the handouts and links and watching the videos, participate in the following topics. Start the discussion by defining certain terms such as sex, gender, and gender socialization. Next, give your understanding of the core tenets of nature and nurture, as well as determinism in either its biological and social constructionist forms (such as gender performativity). Tie this into your understanding of the core tenets of sociobiology and social constructionism theories of gender. Most contemporary social scientists deny the relationship between biology and culture in its “either-or” form. The majority believe that the nature of the relationship is “both-and”. Start with the section entitled “Gender Differences in Behavior: Biology or Culture?” located in chapter ten of the text (13th edition). Also read the sections that follow up unto the subsection entitled “In Sum”. How might these more recent studies enable future generations to avoid the pitfalls associated with the earlier nature versus nurture extremes? You may find the supplemental handouts on Jan (aka James Morris) and the Berdache Tradition helpful here. I want to give all of you practice using the attachment feature in your discussion replies. I am including a link on how to include an attachment (How to attach file as a student to Canvas Discussion.pdf). You can submit an attachment either by pdf file or by inserting a URL link. The Canvas 24/7 support hotline is available to assist you should the need arise. You are to include an article dealing with either gender roles, gender socialization, or gender identities. Manage your time so you can locate such an article. You must submit your contribution to this discussion no latter than 11:59 p.m., Dec. 4th. Remember to check back a couple of times during the week to catch up on the discussion. Also, make sure you reply to at least two other students during the week. Offer a comment on your classmate’s article. Engagement does not mean merely complimenting another student’s ideas. It is an interaction whereby one provides additional ideas or insights growing out of the original post. Grading This discussion will be graded, along with the other five. It will be part of your overall grade. Each discussion will be worth a total of 15 points. Please see the grading rubric for guidance on what is expected for full credit. Click the snowman icon (3 vertical dots in the title bar), then select “Show Rubric.” Mobile users: Click Grades, then click into the Discussion. The rubric can then be found on the Grades tab.