Do you see sexuality as a biological given or Essay Example

Do you see sexuality as a biological given or Essay Make you see gender as a biological given or as a societal building? Critically reflect upon your place. ( 2220/ 2000 ) Introduction In the 19th century biological accounts for gender became ascendent over the old theological 1s ( Kimmel, 2000: 22 ) . In some respects such accounts match our common sense’ apprehension of human gender, for after all is non sexuality finally the concern of biological science and reproduction? However, it is every bit true that the medical professions have played an of import function in the subjugation of homosexualism ( Marshall, 1983: 165 ) . In the first subdivision I explore the biological account of gender, demoing that such an attack is unequal at explicating human gender and the manner that it changes historically. In the 2nd subdivision I examine the statement that gender is in fact a societal building: that gender is learned behavior. In the decision, I sound a note of cautiousness, reasoning that, following Connell ( 2002 ) , what is needed is a manner of speculating gender, and more specifically gender, which includes both the societal and biological dimensions. We will write a custom essay sample on Do you see sexuality as a biological given or specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Do you see sexuality as a biological given or specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Do you see sexuality as a biological given or specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Sexuality as a Biological Given In this subdivision I explore biological accounts of gender, particularly within depth psychology. An illustration is found in the work of Marie Bonaparte ( in Thompson, 2003 ) . Marie Bonaparte ( 1882-1962 ) , a member of the ( in ) celebrated Bonaparte household, was a patient of Freud in the 1920s and 1930s. Following her analysis she developed a complex, though non needfully coherent ( Thompson, 2003: 366 ) , theory of female gender. For Freud anatomy is destiny ( in Kimmel, 2000: 21 ) , therefore within Freudian depth psychology a woman’s gender is finally the consequence of her deficiency of Phallus ( see Marshall, 1983 ) . [ 1 ] Following Freud, Bonaparte argued that female gender is a consequence of women’s passiveness and biological sensitivity to trouble: †¦woman is biologically doomed to endure [ †¦ ] and she can make nil but submit passively to the government prescribed’ ( Bonaparte in Thompson, 2003: 357 ) . Further, Bonaparte argued that t he manner in which a woman’s anatomy is ordered determines her titillating life: that the intimacy of the button and vagina reflect the androgyny inherent in every woman’ ( Thompson, 2003: 357 ) . For Bonaparte, if a adult female becomes fixated on her button, experience’s clitoric climaxs, she demonstrates her inadaptation to function’ ( Bonaparte in Thompson, 2003: 364 ) , and finally becomes a renouncer’ who abandons hope of happening love ( Thompson, 2003: 35 ) . If she remains fixated on both her button and her vagina, she becomes a claimer’ , and therefore denies world and is caught in a struggle between her sadistic ( male ) and inactive ( female ) gender ( Ibid. p. 364 ) . If she is alternatively fixated on her vagina, she becomes an acceptive’ or a true woman’ as she no longer wants for a phallus, but alternatively wants for a kid ( Ibid. p. 359 ) . A normal’ gender is therefore the consequence of lone vaginal c limax and a desire for kids. For Bonaparte, any account of human gender has as its base the biological reality’ . Such an attack to human gender is non confined to historical beginnings, a speedy study of modern-day psychological science reveals a similar procedure: for illustration a recent article on human gender argues that four differences are apparent between male and female gender: that work forces show more involvement in sex ( Peplau, 2003: 37 ) ; that adult females emphasize committed dealingss as the proper context for sex, whereas work forces are more permissive towards insouciant sex ( Ibid. pp. 37-8 ) ; that aggression plays a larger function in male gender ( Peplau, 2003: 38 ) ; and eventually, that women’s gender is more easy altered by cultural and situational factors ( Ibid. ) . Although this study was based on the respondents ain perceptual experiences, this did non forestall the writer from reasoning that an adequate understanding [ of gender ] may necessitate separate analyses o f gender in adult females and work forces, based on the uniquebiological scienceand life experiences of each sex’ ( Ibid. p. 39, accent added ) . Early on societal scientists relied to a great extent on the usage of science’ to legalize their subjects, and so besides relied on biological accounts ( Kimmel, 2000: 23 ) . However, Emily Martin ( 1991 ) demonstrates that the facts’ of biological science have non merely been interpreted though a cultural lens, these facts have beenmade to suitwith culturally dominant ideals of male and female gender: the egg is perceived to be inactive, the sperm active ( Martin, 1991: 489 ) ; [ 2 ] social imagery’ is mapped onto the gametes, giving them male and female personalities, so as to put a steadfast footing for reimporting precisely that same imagination asnatural accounts of societal phenomena’ ( Ibid. p. 500, accent added ) . Further, if we except such accounts how can we so explain they manner in which gender has changed historically? Relatively recent developments in human gender, such as the development of homosexualism as a signifier of individuality ( Ma rshall, 1983: 167 ) can non be explained by biological science. Finally, whilst our perceptual experience of the sexes is dichotomous, the world of biological science is non: there may really be every bit many as five sexes, including the inter-sexed ( Connell, 2002: 29 ; 36 ) . Such a disparity has led many to see alternatively the societal beginning of both gender and gender. Sexuality as a Social Construction In this subdivision I examine the work of Salvatore Cucchiari ( 1981 ) , who argued that gender must alternatively be seen as a societal building ; that instead than being the consequence of biological science, human gender must be regarded as portion of the societal building of gender’ . Early efforts to explicate gender as a societal building were to be found in sex-role theory, where gender is learned during the procedure of socialisation ( Charles, 2003: 2 ) . Aberrance from normal’ gender, such as homosexualism, would therefore be a consequence of a failure’ in socialisation ( Connell, 1987: 49 in Charles, 2003: 2 ) . By the 1970s, the impact of second-wave feminism had led many theoreticians to situate a differentiation between sex’ and gender’ ( Connell, 2002: 33 ) . Cucchiari ( 1981 ) , pulling on this development, conducted an interesting thought experiment’ in which he attempts to logically infer the development of gender and gender in pre-history. In a complex and disputing article his attack may be divided into cardinal phases: foremost he postulates a crude society without gender dealingss ; next, he imagines how such a society would run: who would look after the kids, who would run etc ; 3rd, he outlines the manner that gender would subsequently develop in such a society. Cucchiari imagines a pre-gender universe which is functionally divided into those who look after the kids ( Child Tenders ) and those who look for nutrient ( Foragers ) ( Cucchiari, 1981: 41 ) . Membership of these groups is unstable, non ascribed, alterations over clip and is democratic and Unitarian ( Ibid. p. 42-50 ) : therefore he imagines aspacial, instead than a sexual, division. In this imagined pre-gender society, gender is both bisexual and unrestrained’ and physical differences between the sexes are unimportant ( Ibid. p.45 ) . Subsequently, as portion of the demand to develop ties with other bisexual hosts, groups begin to interchange kids ( Cucchiari, 1981: 50 ) . Later a crisis develops between the unitarian political orientation [ †¦ ] and the biological dissymmetry or exclusivity of proto-women’s ability to hold and suckle children’ ( Ibid. ) . This is ab initio resolved by consecrating adult females, taking to the hypostatization of the physi cal characteristics associated with reproduction – the chest and genitalias – but finally, as this entails a negative definition of proto-man, [ 3 ] the two functions become reciprocally sole and adult females are no longer worshipped ( Ibid. p. 51 ) . Alternatively, the adult females entirely look after the kids, while the work forces Hunt and competition within gender-related activities – and all activities are now circumscribed by the gender duality – tends to reenforce and lucubrate the very significances of maleness and femininity’ ( Ibid. p. 57 ) : the gender revolution has occurred. Following this gender revolution is thesexualrevolution ; as a consequence of the competition between members of the same sex, work forces as huntsmans and adult females as kid carriers, sexual attraction assumes a new importance ( Ibid. pp. 56-48 ) , and the sex that produces kids,heterosexual sex, becomes more extremely valued and finally requires societal cont rol, or countenances ( Ibid. p. 58 ) . Finally, the exchange of kids easy develops into the exchange of adult females and therefore represents the exercising of laterality by some grownup members of the community over other grownups [ †¦ ] repairing the position of adult females as objects’ ( Ibid. p. 62 ) . Cucchiari’s attack is debatable ; foremost, it is to a great extent reliant on Freudian depth psychology ( Ibid. pp. 46-48 ) , which I discredited earlier for its covert trust on biological science: he posits the development of gender hierarchy as the consequence of asocietaloedipal crisis. However, Cucchiari argues that Freud’s theory allows the possibility that humanity ( past and hereafter ) need non take between the dictatorship of venereal primacy or the lawlessness of childish bisexuality’ , but alternatively take an intermediate sexual form’ : a non-repressive gender ( Cucchiari, 1981: 48 ) . Second, despite his averments that this is a mere thought experiment, he does try to back up his statement with mention to the archeological record ( Ibid. pp. 63-69 ) , so he argues that this procedure occurred in the Upper Palaeolithic period ( 35,000 B.C. to 12,000 B.C ) and is supported by the archeological stuff: The form of symbolic look of gender constructs during this era closely follows that in the theoretical account: an initial phase characterized by a chiseled, extremely specified feminine construct and correspondingly weak masculine representation: a in-between period of amplification in which both gender marks are related to each other in different contexts and mapped onto other sorts of marks: and eventually, toward the terminal of the Upper Palaeolithic, a clear, in writing representation of the Phallus but attendant weak and abstract rendition of female marks ( Ibid. p. 63 ) . This writer is non adequately experienced to judge the cogency of his statement here ; nevertheless, his thought experiment does let us to conceive of a gender-free universe, to see that gender and gender are socially constructed, and so conceive of that sexual and gender equality is possible in the hereafter. Decision In decision, we can see that biological accounts, including those of depth psychology, do non adequately account for human gender. Not merely does gender form our sexual relationships ( Connell, 2002: 143 ) , gender is a portion of the procedure in which gender is socially constructed, so, gender lies at the bosom of any gender system’ ( Cucchiari, 1981: 37 ) . Simone de Beauvior stated that One is non born, but instead becomes, a woman’ ( in Connell, 2002: 4 ) , it might be better to state that one is non born heterosexual/ homosexual/ bisexual, but instead becomes so ; gender is a affair of societal building, non of biological science, and is constructed as portion of the procedure of gender building: Human gender is fictile, non capable to stiff familial or hormonal patterning, but determined by the acquisition and symbolic countries of the brain’ ( Cucchiari, 1981: 38 ) . However, a concluding note of cautiousness is needed: gender is a societal building, but this does non intend that it is free from all the restraints imposed by biological science ; one is non wholly free to build one’s gender any more than one is free to build one’s ain gender. The societal building of both gender and gender is limited by and affects the human organic structure: Bodies can non be understood as merely the objects of societal procedure, whether symbolic or disciplinary. They are active participants in societal process’ ( Connell, 2002: 39-40 ) . The sociology of gender used to be chiefly concerned with the survey of aberrance ( Gamson and Moon, 2004: 47 ) , but queer theory’ is now in danger of situating genders as divorced from the organic structures that pattern them, and therefore sabotaging the part it can do to the wider survey of society. Bibliography Charles, Nickie ( 2003 ) Theorizing Gender’ ,Gender in Modern Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19. Connell, R.W. ( 2002 )Gender, Cambridge: Polity Press. Cucchiari, Salvatore ( 1981 ) The Gender Revolution and the Passage from Bisexual Horde to Partrilocal Band: The Origins of Gender Hierarchy’ ,Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and SexualitY, Ortner, S and Whitehead, H ( Eds. ) , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31-79. Gamson, Joshua and Moon, Dawne ( 2004 ) The Sociology of Sexualities: Fagot and Beyond’ ,Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30, pp. 47-64. Kimmel, Michael S. ( 2000 ) Ordained by Nature: Biology Constructs the Sexes’ ,The Gendered Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21-46. Martin, Emily The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotyped Male-Female Roles’ ,Signs, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 485-501. Marshall, John ( 1983 ) The Medical Profession’ ,Prejudice and Pride: Discrimination against Gay People in Modern Britain, London: Routledge, pp. 165-193. Peplau, Letitia ( 2003 ) Human Sex: How do Men and Women Differ? ’ ,Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 37-40. Thompson, Nellie L. ( 2003 ) Marie Bonaparte s Theory of Female Sexuality: Fantasy and Biology’ ,American Imago, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 343-378. 1