Gender as a Social Construct - Assignment Example

Sociologists believe that ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ are socially constructed. Discuss using one example. Gender as a Social Construct When a child is born, often the first question asked is whether it is a ‘boy’ or a ‘girl’? ‘Gender’ pervades all walks of life even in a so-called developed society. Sometimes gender and sex are used interchangeably, though sociologists differentiate between the two terms. So what exactly is ‘gender’ and what is ‘sex’? How are ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ social constructions and how does it affect social interactions? This short essay shall try to explain the above points as succinctly as possible. Simone de Beauvoir (1949) observes that, from ancient times, the male body is thought to have ‘substance’ by itself while the female body appears devoid of meaning without the reference point of the male body, and that a man can ‘think’ for himself without women while a woman cannot think without a man; therefore women becomes the ‘sexed being’, the ‘other’ to the one ‘absolute’ that is male (p. 6). It is pertinent to note that anthropologist Margaret Mead in her work Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) has studied three cultures and concluded that the temperaments generally attributed to gender are not biologically based. The constructions of gender are essentially shared with specific rituals that reinforce the accepted norms of social behaviour or interactions between the members of a community. Therefore, while ‘sex’ denotes the physical/anatomical attributes and organs with which one is born, ‘gender’ refers to the conversion of these anatomical distinctions into accepted social behaviours and norms with which every member of the society is expected to comply, thereby falling under the categories of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. While gender relative, that is, gender is dependent on the binary differences of social behaviour; like for example, masculine “aggression, competition and anxiety" (Kimmel 1994: 271); and the feminine way of laughing, preoccupation with looks and so on. Gender, being relational is likely to change, for example, women’s domain of work was within the house; however, now that has changed with women taking up jobs in all fields of occupation; consequently, kitchen and child-care are men’s job too. Kimmel (1994) has explored the topic of masculinity in detail and states that the norms of masculinity are filled with power-play and dominance over – primarily, fellowmen and secondarily over women. Typically a white, early middle-aged, middle-class, heterosexual man is considered as the standard for masculinity and frequently the standards of other men are compared to this standard to assess degrees of manhood (p. 271). For example, it is considered masculine to crack lewd jokes, comment on the female form in crude terms, not to display emotions in public, exhibit interest in sports, communicate interest in the opposite sex in an obvious exhibition of sexuality. And therefore, persons who conform to the category of ‘men’ have to constantly display these traits that reinforce their identity as ‘men’ or ‘boys’. Failure to do so would be to risk being called ‘sissy’ or ‘being like a woman’ (Kimmel 1994: 270). Definitions of what masculinity and femininity stands for differs from society to society, cultures, race, and time. While sex denotes the anatomical organs of the person, gender is the identity fixed by the society on the individual and by individuals themselves that defines their roles in the society. Non-conformation leads to ostracism from the society. References: Beauvoir, Simone de (1952 (reprinted 1989)). The Second Sex. Trans. H. M. Parshley. Vintage Books (Random House). ISBN 0-679-72451-6. P. 6. Kimmel, M (1994), ‘Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity’, in H Brod, & M Kaufman (eds),Theorizing masculinities, Research on men and masculinities series, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 119-42, viewed 20 January 2014, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243627.n7. Mead, Margaret (1935), Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies New York, W. Morrow & Co.  The terms ‘globalisation’ and ‘globalism’ are often used to describe modern social trends. Discuss the terms using examples. Globalization – The New Phenomenon One does not have to go to the best pizzerias at Naples anymore to savour the authentic taste of Margherita to get a pizza topped with fior di latte, a mozzarella made from cow’s milk, because it is available at the pizzeria round the corner in Australia itself. Nor do you have to travel to India or Japan to see a Buddhist temple; you can visit one in our own Wollongong. We are living in the era of ‘Globalization’. In the following pages, globalization will be described and explained in its various dimensions, to arrive at a fuller understanding of what it constitutes and how it has changed the world. Globalisation or globalism can be explained as the process through various states, cultures and economies of the world are linked together by way of exchange of good, language, knowledge and cultures and the world citizens are increasingly becoming aware of their growing interdependence. It affects all spheres of life, like culture, art, business, food, life-styles, work ethics, language, technology and finance. Manuel Castells (2004) emphasizes that globalization is not merely economy; it includes everything from media, all form of information technologies, networking of countries and so on. He describes the new global form of economy, as having all kinds of businesses and activities; the structure, form, its equity and its competitiveness are all dependent on information technologies to a large extent (Castells 2004: p. 2). The labour in the globalized economy may still be sourced locally, regionally and nationally; however, the products are exchanged across regional boundaries. For example, Sweat-shops that exploit cheap labour working in cramped spaces in third-world countries like Bangladesh to manufacture clothing for the Americans. While globalization may be described as the product of modernity; simply put, technological advancements and inventions, transformations in the information and communications industry, facilitated transfer of jobs and work to various locations profitably (Giddens 1991). This special focus on economic gains necessitated the translocation of people from one place to another. However, more subtly, frequent travel repeated exposure to different cultures of the world ensured that languages, cultures, food preferences, technologies, scientific advancements, art religion, language along with other commodities were exchanged (p.21). Arjun Appadurai (1996) takes off from where Castells ends, and analyzes globalization in the light of its cultural contexts and the transformations it has caused. Looking at the world in the aftermath of a post-national system of governance, Appadurai (1996) posits that the transmigrations across boundaries are helping to create new alternatives to the current political system of governments, namely nation-states. He classifies the “diasporic public spheres –post-national crucibles of political order” (Appadurai1996:22) into ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finacescapes and ideoscapes (p.33). These ‘scapes’ are the passages that facilitate the global exchanges that promote transnational imaginings which render the nation-states into disuse. His work helps us visualize the cycle of exchange of commodities, people and images, in the current globalized era, and perceive globalization from a new angle. However, globalization is not only progress. Many critics like Ulrich Beck (1992) have warned of the risks that this new phenomenon of globalization has ushered in. Some risks are that wealth tends to concentrate in some pockets, and accentuate the disparities between the rich and the poor; for example, the development of Bangalore in India as the electronic capital, has not touched the suburbs of Kolkotta, which still has poverty and illness in its midst, though both are in the same country. Furthermore, since the economies are interdependent, the risks affect all the countries across boundaries too. Globalization or Globalism is a phenomenon that affects all spheres of life like economy, business, education and culture. It brings about many changes and transforms all equations; however, it has some disadvantages too, like increasing the disparities of the rich and the poor. References: Appadurai, Arjun(1996). Modernity at Large  University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1-33. Beck, Ulrich (1992). Risk Society — Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. Castells, Manuel (2004). The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar (2004), (editor and co-author), ISBN 978-1-84542- 435-0. Giddens, Anthony (1991). Modernity and Self - Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press. Pp. 1-108. What is ‘modernity’, and how does it relate to sociology（Religion and Society & Bruce） Modernity in the context of Sociology Effects of industrialization on the society have been irreversible and blatant. It is hard to imagine the world without electricity and the modern transport and communication systems. People were transformed in terms of social classes, religious beliefs, emotional needs, physical endurance, financial limits, their professional outlook and social relationships due to the impact of industrialization and the package of benefits and banes that it offered. This essay shall briefly explore the impact of modernity on the society, its social structure and its interrelation to sociology. Religion was a strong uniting factor across various social classes in the pre-industrialized era societies. Many went to the church and followed the dictates of religion seriously. However, as industrialization came into being, people in the society divided, and soon the inevitable divorce between daily life and religion followed (Bruce 2001:2). Bruce cites statistics to point out that there was a decrease in religious beliefs; even a thirty-five percent increase in the population did not proportionally increase in the number of clergy in the period between 1900 to 1984 (Bruce 2001: 2), leading to a slow but steady rise in secular forces. Modern people were becoming less superstitious and too clever to have complete faith in religion anymore. Modernization ushered in better work prospects by means of machines and more economic growth and job opportunities; Thereby emerged different social classes, inherent class tensions and conflicts and also class avoidance. The fall out of modernization was a decreasing faith and this had its impact on the social class structures and family structures. Interestingly though, modernization was also something more than the “religious culture responding to social, economic and political changes” (Bruce 2001:3) since new thinking in religious matters was simultaneously underway and that also influenced the way modernization took place. While in the feudal societies the class structures were near stable and trans-migration from one social class to another was near impossible, modernization facilitated new ways of income and easier cross-over of social class, since production was no longer confined to a family; industry and manufacturing units became the production unit and therefore they ushered in wealth and the path to cross over social classes. Modernization impacted the social structure in three important ways, namely: 1) it forced mass movement of populations from the countryside to cities in search of work and therefore there was movement of language, religion and cultures which had to adapt to new settings. 2) While the old social structures were obsolete, the mass movement of populations to new locations forced the state to absorb them with all their differences in classes and cultures, resulting in “cultural pluralism” with different interests. 3) This also brought in religious diversity (Bruce 2001: 6). Industrialization gave rise to urbanization which in turn brought in new norms of socialization that included diverse cultural and religious interests. Social identity became the new underlying factor as against religion; simultaneously religion also became a sort of social identification and denominations with the same ethnicity and religion formed a sub-category of social group, with their own reforms and difference. All this ensured what is termed as “seculariazation” of religion, thinking and social interactions giving rise to entirely new ways of studying the society. Modernization brought in permanent changes due to the way production shifted from families to industries. This brought in movements of population from traditional settings to new settings and locations. This exposed diverse populations with diverse interest to each other and rendered old social structures useless, even as new classes and structures were formed leading to secularization of the society. Sociology, in other words can be said, is a product of modernization. References: Bruce, Steve (2001): “Chapter 13: The social Process of Secularization” in Sociology of Religion ed. Richard K. Fenn. Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 1-11. Read More