'Gender is a Social Construct' - Abridged Flashcards
Firstly,
I’d just like to wish you all a happy pride month. I thought I’d try and do something topical, so today, I’ll be discussing gender in a sociological context, specifically, through the theory of social constructionism. Now, the ideas behind social constructionism originated back in the 16th century, but the theory was more recently preponed by these two absolutely wild looking fellas Berger and Luckmann. In its essence, social constructionism examines the extent to which experiences can be classified as social phenomena; subjective creations of dynamic social interaction.
So, section 1:
what actually is a social construct? Now, as is often the way with our beloved English language, the definition of this concept fluctuates. So, I took some agency, scoured around for as many as I could find from credible sources (see History GCSE!) and shmushed them together! This is what I came up with: a social construct is a shared idea or perception that only exists because it has been created and accepted by the people in a society. Essentially, a social construct is not a representation of any objective or inherent reality – ‘the only meaning they have is the meaning given to them by people.’
So, how, late at night,
when we ponder the meaning of life, do we decide what is objectviely ‘real’, and what is socially constructed? Well, I’m hoping that, like me, we have some English literature eggheads in the crowd with a flair for the melodramatic – any fans of Cormac Mccarthy’s ‘The Road’ 1) well done, you have excellent taste, and 2) this activity will be right up your street. (ba-dum-dum). Right, anyway, this is how I picture things: imagine you are the protagonist of a post-apocalyptic narrative, abandoned by your parents on some foreboding craggy looking rock, you’ve never met or seen another human being in your life. In other words, you have no society. Now, would the concept you’re currently ruminating on still affect you?
Having completed this exercise,
you might be surprised at how many things have been constructed around you. It is important at this point to note that a social construct is not inherently a bad thing. Picture yourself again, the sole survivor of the human race. Now, I’d like to think I speak for the vast majority of us when I say that this image is not a particularly appealing one, even when we’re feeling at our most misanthropic. As human beings, we place immense value on the idea of society. We hate to feel lonely and we love to belong. The people in our lives are, in most cases, what give us validation, what give us meaning.
In order to survive with
any semblance of similarity to the humanity we know to today, human beings need society. Society necessitates social constructs. Thus, logically, they cannot be innately bad.
However, neither logically are they innately good.
Social constructionism posits that humans construct in order to make sense of the objective world - we categorise and structure so that we can relate to one another in the society we have built. But, and this is crucial, the world that we as individuals understand it is not the world as a whole. The limits of our exposure are part of what make life interesting, they remind us that there is always something we have yet to discover and understand - it is the birth of the phrase ‘you learn something new every day’, and the infamous “Reigate bubble”.
We construct socially
to understand, but that does not mean that we can enforce these constructs to control that which we have yet to understand. We must be aware of when social constructs we have built provide shelter, and when they have been outgrown – to become cages. That, I believe, is the crux of social constructionism.
Alright, so now I’m going to speed you
through one example of an anthropological perspective on gender, and how it can be used to counter arguments against the validity of gender multiplicity. A brief side note before we begin, I’ve noticed a trend in modern debating, or that is, debating fueled by either willing or accidental ignorance, which I’ve desperately tried to avoid in this talk, and that is the technique I’ve labelled ridiculous extrapolation.
A third gender they say,
outraged; flabberghasted. And you know what comes next: ‘well then, I identify as an attack helicopter’, they sling at you and they smirk that smirk that tells you they’ve been planning that comeback for a while and just been itching to strike. Well, here’s an interesting fact to counter that kind of mockery, and it’s that the maximum number of genders any studied society has institutionalized is seven. None of which, I can assure you, have been attack-helicopter related.
Now, onto business - studying the case of
the Zapotec community that lives in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, population 100,000. It’s important to mention that this community is not alone with the institutionalisation and integration of a ‘third gender’ (which is a sociological concept generally understood to mean any gender ‘other’ than men and women). I was curious so I timed myself, and it took me less than 8 minutes to find at least 24 examples – imagine what we could uncover with some concentrated research! The reason why I chose this example specifically will hopefully reveal themselves as I chat it through.
So, the ‘third gender’ in the Zapotec community
are the muxes – defined as ‘transgender people with characteristics sui generis (that’s just scientist speak for ‘unique’) in relationship to a concrete sociocultural environment’. Now, that all sounds very complex, and I actually much prefer the way the muxes choose to define themselves, which is, by the way, exactly what happens. Muxe status is entirely self-identified, which is one of the few close comparisons to western transgenderism that can be made. Muxes identify as ‘neither man nor woman, but all the contrary’; perhaps what we might most closely align to agenderism.
Now, there is a brief little side-note here
that can split this slide into two, and that is on the concept of ‘microlabelling’. Now, I’ve met a lot of people, both my age and older, that do not like the idea of ‘microlabelling’. Firstly, you can tell that we, socially, are not a fan of microlabelling, because of the name we have given it. You can probably tell that I am not a fan of the fact that society is not a fan of microlabelling, and the fact that that is the name that we have given it, because I keep going like ‘this’ every time I say it.
The prefix ‘micro’ I think,
is a linguistic clue into the lack of importance we assign the the validation and acceptance that these specific labels can provide people, and personally, I think that that is a very sad thing.
To link, ‘agender’ might be considered
a ‘microlabel’, that is, it is an identity that comes under the umbrella term of ‘genderqueer’. Juchitan, the language of the Zapotecs, have approximately 23 terms for sub-classifications of muxes, as far as I could find out anyway. None of these are dismissed as lacking in importance or validity.
The reason why I find this interesting,
is the observation from the study that the Zapotec community ‘does not respond to binary, patriarchal and heteronormative logic’ - that is, their language has evolved alongside their culture so that it does not marginalise those who we would, should they choose to relocate to the ‘Reigate Bubble’. They have socially constructed to shelter those who we have chosen to shun.
