The idea that the biological differences amongst males and females should be used to explain the gendered body is adopted by Goldberg (1993: 45). He identified that men dominate society and are more powerful than women due to males higher levels of testosterone, males also have a hormonal aggression advantage in competition for top jobs, males have a drive and more force to want higher jobs and wanting o succeed. Goldberg also goes on to argue that this ensure patriarchy in society, and is needed to ensure that institutes run swiftly and smoothly and this is more likely to happen whilst men dominant as women don’t have such a drive to succeed. The gendered body is purely down to males and female genes and as they differ from one another it creates different roles for each sex within society, women the mother and housewife and men being the breadwinner and using their strength to carry out jobs, this suggests that society doesn’t create these roles through discourses or social practices, the gendered body is purely created through the biological differences between the sexes.
There is a clear difference in the way in which women and men are biologically different due to different sex organs, but does this mean that being a male or female really makes us feel or act differently from the other sex. There is strong evidence to suggest that in truth there are no differences between the sexes biologically. Jacklin and Maccoby(1975: 349) identified that after an immense amount of studies which compared the differences in behaviour and feelings etc between girls and boys found that there were no significant differences between the two sexes. That beliefs that women are more sensitive and less motivated than males due their hormones and biology was not true at all, and in fact based on myths, there is no reasons as to why there should be a gendered body based on biology as these differences are no prevalent in all males and females and that biological reasoning is an excuse to explain the real differences between the two sexes. This is where the social constructionist approach comes into account and recognises other reasons that biology to explain the gendered body.
Social constructionist approaches take as their starting point a rejection of the biological components of the gendered body, so completely disagree with the viewpoints already mentioned. This approach emphasises the ways in which our social meanings, categories, values attitudes and behaviours are socially produced rather than naturally given to our biological inheritance. Social constructionism suggests that the body is something that is somehow shaped, constrained and even invented by society.
Foucault a social constructionist holds the view that the body is central to the lives of embodied subjects, while also maintaining that the importance of the body is determined ultimately by social structures, which exists beyond the individual. (Shilling: 2003: 63). Foucault’s theory states the body is not only given meaning by discourse, but is wholly constituted by discourse. Foucault (1972: 49) states discourses are practices, which form the objects of which we speak. By this he means that a discourse refers to a set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images, stories, statements etc that is some way together produce a particular version of events. These discourses of how we see meanings and how we feel we should act in order to do with our sex creates the gendered body.
Foucault (cited in Hall: 2001:72) argues that discourse constructs the topic, it defines and creates the objects of our knowledge. If discourses regulate our knowledge of the world, our common understandings inform our social practices then it becomes evident that there is a close relationship between discourse, knowledge and power, this was a relationship that Foucault specifically focused his attention upon. In -relation to power Foucault rejects the view that power is an essential repressive force, in reality he sees power as a produce of knowledge. Changes in the nature of society such as increase in population, the change from agricultural to an industrial economy, brought together with them social practices that allow certain discourses or knowledge of the person to rise to prominence. These discourses have produced the individual, the individual we feel to be inhabited by drives and motivations; possessed by traits and characteristics, and who freely chosen actions are monitored by conscience. These knowledge’s are extremely powerful, in the way that they manage to control society and the members of each society efficiently without force, through what Foucault refers to as ‘disciplinary powers’ (Jones & Porter:1994: 21). These powers are once again what create the gendered body as the power tells us that those of us who are women will enjoy being a mother and looking after the home, whilst if you are male you are more likely to be competitive and strive for more in the workplace.
Discourses have implications for what we can and cant do, this is particular evident is discourses of femininity. Females are often constructed as emotional and vulnerable even weak, thus women are not able to do stressful high paid jobs unable to cope with the stress and are better suited to staying in the home and being a good housewife and an excellent mother. It is not based on biology that men and women are different (the gendered body) it is through discourses that stigmas are attached to each sex thus prevailing what is acceptable for men and women to do and it also addresses how women and men should behave, women should be polite weak polite etc whilst men should be butch hard and should be dominant in the workplace. (Longmore: 2000) These discourses are intimately connected to institutional and social practices that have a profound effect on how we live our lives, these discourses do not account for any biological aspects in order to explain the gendered body (Riley:1997). This shows that in society through structures and practices we are lead to believe that men, are still in a more powerful position than women in society today, this suggests that prevailing discourses of femininity serve to uphold this power inequality. This power inequality is not based on the fact that men and women are biological different due to there genes and reproductive organs they are in fact the gendered differences are due to the structures and practices in society that are lived out from day to day.
Foucault’s work has been very influential to feminists in relation to the explanation of the body. For example Sawicki (1991: 57) identifies through the use of Foucault’s discourses that reproductive technologies are used as producing and shaping not only certain identities for women but also their desires for motherhood. Oakley (1972: 120-37) identifies that gender roles are not biologically defined but are culturally, she argues that biological characteristics do not keep women from certain occupations and the mother role is placed on women through their culture. In other words men and women learn the behaviour of what is expected of them in their society. She sees four main ways in which socialisation in gender roles take place. Firstly a child learns through manipulation e.g. mothers tend to pay more attention to girls hair and dress them in 'feminine' clothes. Secondly the direction of boys and girls towards different objects gives them a good idea of what is expected of them in the future e.g. girls are given dolls (caring is practised) and boys bricks and guns (aggressive behaviour is practised and logic). Thirdly, verbal appellations ' you're a naughty boy' and 'you're a good girl' leads children to identify with their gender. Lastly boys and girls commit to different activities, girls are encouraged to become involved in domestic tasks. It is evident that many believe that society creates the gendered body and that biology has little or nothing to do with it.
Radley (1995: 13) recognises that discourses are important to the understanding of the body but draws on phenomenology to provide what he sees a deeper and more in-depth study of the body. Phenomenology is useful when looking at the body as it takes bodily experiences as foundational, it is the raw material out of which meaning is constructed. The experiences are what count in determined a gendered body. The experiences for men and women are different in everyday life and living in society, thus these experiences, which may well be due to discourses, but could also be due to the fact that men and women are biologically different. So identifies that it is not either biology or society separately that creates the gendered body it is a dualism of both of them.
Mauss, M (1973: 82) pointed considerable differences in the ways in which different social groups (both within and across societies) ‘use’ their bodies. Just as there are different languages and regional accents, he noted, so too there are different ways of walking, running, swimming, sleeping, eating, having sex etc. Furthermore, not only do societies and groups vary in the way they do these things, but some societies have some techniques (e.g. spitting), which other groups and societies don’t have. This suggests that both women and men have different body techniques making them different, these techniques are affected by a persons class and gender, so the techniques one use create the gendered body, thus it is our surroundings and our socialisation that make up our gendered body and not our biological factors.
It is evident that both these arguments show strong evidence in suggesting reasons for the gendered body and explaining why the gendered body exists within society. The gendered body and that both the biological and social aspects have an influence on the gendered body. Bodies have agency and bodies are socially constructed. Biological and social analysis cannot be cut apart from each other. (Connell: 2002: 47) Both the biological and the social account of the body must be considered when trying to understand the gendered body, as both influence and construct the gendered body. The gendered body is constructed from the biological differences that each sex is born with but also these differences are added to through discourses and social practices and made stronger creating clear distinctions between males and females. There is more evidence to suggests that individuals are shaped in their gender identities by their upbringing in life, how their culture, religion, general environment and socialisation shape their roles, rather than their biology, although the biological aspect does need considering when gaining a clear understanding of the gendered body. The dualism of the two approaches is needed to identify fully the differences between the two sexes, both approaches separately neglect the other factors social constructionist ignore the biological accounts and visa versa. So like Connell does when bringing both aspects together a better understanding of the gendered body is reached, but both explanations are needed and are extremely useful when trying to understand the gendered body.
(2521 words)
Bibliography
Archer, J. and Lloyd, B. (1985) Sex and Gender. U.S.A: Cambridge University Press.
Connell, W, R. (2002) Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press
Davis, K., Leijenaar, M. and Oldersma, J. (1991) The Gender of Power. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Firestone, S. (1979) The Dialectic of Sex. The Case for Feminist Revolution. London: Women's Press Ltd
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Goldberg, S. (1993) Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance. Chicago: Open Court.
Hall, S. (2001) Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Discourse. In M. Wehterall, S Taylor and S.J. Yates (Eds) Discourse Theory and Practice: A reader. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Jacklin , C and Maccoby, E, E. (1975) The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Jones, C. and Porter, R. (1994) Foucault: Power, Medicine and the Body. London: Routledge
Longmore: M. (2000) Sex Acts: Practices of Femininity and Masculinity. Journal of Sex Research. [Online] Available from:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/
[Accessed on 12th Nov 04]
Mauss, M (1973) Techniques of the Body. Economy and Society. Vol.2: 70-88.
Mauss, M. (1979) Sociology and Psychology, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Murdock, G. P. (1965) Social Structure. London: Free Press; Collier- MacMillan.
Oakley,A. (1972) Sex, Gender and Society: towards a new society. London: Temple Smith
Radley, A. (1995) The Elusory Body and Social Constructionist Theory. Body and Society, 1(2), 3-23.
Riley,N. (1997) Gender, Power, and Population Change. [online] Available from:
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/AboutPRB/Population_Bulletin2/
[Accessed on 20th Nov 04]
Sawicki, J. (1991) Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power and the Body. London: Routledge.
Shilling, C (2003) The Body and Social Theory. Second Edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Turner, B. (1984)The Body ad Society. Oxford: Blackwells Publisher Ltd
