This account has been questioned, as it does not account for the range of masculinities and femininities over time, culture and from person to person. Giddens (1998: 92) draws attention to a case where, through an accident, the sex of an infant had to be changed and they subsequently grew up in the ‘new’ gender not knowing their past. Evidence such as this stresses that it is not only biological factors that account for gender and gender is not fixed, it can be changed. Anne Oakley (1972: 156) states, ‘the chief importance of biological sex is in providing a universal and obvious division around which other distinctions can be made’. This underlines what Bilton et al (2002: 134) describes as the ‘sex/gender distinction’, they state, ‘Sex is said to be rooted in nature; it [physically] distinguishes males from females. Gender on the other hand refers to the socially constructed and infinitely variable categories of masculine and feminine’.
Sexuality is defined as, ‘someone’s ability to experience or express sexual feelings’ (Cambridge University Press 2004). Sexuality, like gender, has also been investigated in the broad terms of the biological and the social/ cultural. It is biologically defined anatomically (as male and female genitals differ) and the experience of an orgasm is different (Giddens 1998: 99). There is also said to be a natural urge to reproduce or the species would become extinct (ibid). Again this has been investigated by the study of animals, which show the males to be more sexually promiscuous than females (ibid). Looking at sexuality in a biological perspective would mean everyone was a heterosexual as this is the means for successful reproduction; this is what is also condoned as the norm in society and is the basis of marriage and the family (Giddens 1998: 100). Although Lorber (1994 cited in Giddens 1998: 100) identifies as many as ten different sexualities such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transvestite and transsexual for both men and women. Furthermore sexuality varies across different cultures, heterosexuality, which is predominant in western culture, is not necessarily the norm in other cultures such as the Batak people of northern Sumatra where homosexuality is commonly seen and openly permitted (Giddens 1998: 105).
Although heterosexuality is dominant in contemporary Western societies its impact, like gender, differs between men and women (Bilton et al 2002: 154). Bilton et al (2002: 154) states that ‘Sexual activity, even promiscuity, is seen as tolerable and admirable in boys, while-except in the context of love and domesticity- an active sexual life brings girls into disrepute’. Sexuality influences the way we dress and the way we act combined in a way we like people to perceive us. This can certainly be said for females who, as Rich (1984, cited in Bilton et al 2002: 155) states, ‘…place men at the centre of their lives’, and want to ‘attract’ them.
Both sexuality and gender have considerable influences from culture. Many diversities of sociology argue that sexuality and gender are socially constructed and that biological definitions are only used to discriminate between the sexes. Society plays a highly defining role in shaping who we all are. Bilton et al (2002: 15) identifies that, ‘as a society we are shaped by beliefs, values, ideas, purposes and goals….there are important shared cultural norms and values and symbols interwoven into these social arrangements and into the consciousness of individual members’. The family is regarded as one of the tools in socializing children, it is there to teach children the values and norms held by society and if a child has not ‘conformed’ the family is to blame.
This ‘socialisation theory’ of gender is closely linked with the family as they have the first contact with the child (Bilton et al 2002: 136). Boys and girls are said to be unintentionally treated differently by their parents and different types of behaviour are acceptable for each gender. For example, dressing in boyish and girlish clothes, aggressive play for boys while there is more gentle play for girls, punishment for aggressive behaviour in girls while it tends to be encouraged in boys. There is also imitation, (girls see the mothers wearing make up and feminine clothes) the children witness the gendered roles the parents play (Bilton et al 2002: 136; Giddens 1998: 93, 95).
The traditional view of the family is from the functionalist perspective, from writers such as Parsons (1959), which is still fairy influential today (Muncie et al 1995: 23). It views the functions of the family as ‘the rearing and socialization of children and the physical and emotional support of the male work force’ (ibid). The ideal family situation as seen by functionalism consisted of a ‘household unit composed of a man and a woman in a stable marital relationship, and their dependant children’ (Bilton et al 2002: 230), this was labelled the ‘nuclear family’ (ibid, Muncie at al 1995: 10). This common sense notion remains strong in our society today and anything other than the nuclear family is classed as ‘deviant’ (Muncie et al 1995: 10). Therefore it can be said anything other than a heterosexual relationship does not work in society and is seen as abnormal.
Not all theories are centred around the socialisation theory of gender. Using psychoanalytical approach, Chodorow (1978) explains gender in relation to the attachment and the subsequent breaking of this attachment to the mother (Bilton et al 2002: 127; Giddens 1998: 98). She explains how this happens differently for boys and girls. The attachment between girls and their mother is gradually ‘eased off’ and not completely broken; they remain close emotionally and physically (still able to hug and kiss). Chodorow identifies that this heightens femininity traits, such as sensitivity, emotional compassion and ability for childcare. Whereas for boys the attachment is broken as a means of the boys repressing the feminine aspects of themselves and taking hold of their masculinities. Chodorow argues that this explains men’s inability at expressing emotion and in relating closely to others (ibid). She also suggests that it is this form of gender identity that is the cause of the ‘sexual division of labour’ and that ‘women are subordinated through this division’ (Muncie et al 1995: 273).
The family is seen as a place of gender socialisation and gender inequality. There is only room for one sexuality in the traditional sense of the family although it has been identified that many types of sexualities exist. Family is not the only factor to influence sexuality and gender and family formations are themselves greatly shaped by society and the norms and values of the current time. This essay has identified the biological determinants, social and cultural determinants and psychoanalytical approaches to gender development and sexuality. It has shown that neither is exclusive and all have valuable points.
REFERENCES
Bilton, T et al (2002), Introductory Sociology 4th ed, Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Giddens, A (1998), Sociology 3rd ed, Polity Press, Cambridge
Oakley, A (1972), Sex, Gender and Society, Temple Smith, London
Muncie, J et al (1995), Understanding the Family, Oxford University, London