Nature
vs Nurture
This essay will discuss two
explanations for the development of gender, the two explanations are biological
and social constructionist. Firstly the essay will review each explanation,
look at key thinkers and discuss strengths and weaknesses. The essay will then
move on to compare the two explanations against one another and therefore by
the use of research studied, lead to a conclusion.
The biological explanation as
stated by Udry, R. J. (1995) looks at evolution, endocrinology and genes
(p.1267). Evolution looks at how behaviour has evolved through time and the
impact it has on the development of gender. Pinker, S. (2003) explains that
throughout the animal kingdom, females have to endure the risks and hard labour
with each pregnancy and also have to devote time nurturing the offspring as it
is the female that would have to endure all this again to replace a child
rather than the male (p. 297). Pinker is suggesting that this may be an evolutionary
explanation for the nurturing trait of the females. Genetics looks at how
behaviour is effected by genes, a common method of researching this has been
through twin studies such as a study done by Thomas Bouchard. According to
Udry, R. J. (1995) Bouchard found that two identical twins who had been
separated whilst growing up were found to have no behaviour or manner on which
there was not a definite genetic effect (p. 1271). Furthermore, endocrinology
takes account of the responsibility hormones have for an individual’s behaviour
from birth and throughout life. As Pinker, S. (2003) describes “Androgens have
lasting effects on the brain during fetal development, in the months after
birth, and during puberty, and they have transient effects at other times.
Estrogens, the characteristically female sex hormones, also affect the brain
throughout life” (p. 298). Pinker, S. (2003) also states that studies have
shown that the amount of testosterone is found to be greater in violent
criminals than it is in non-violent criminals and also higher in trial lawyers
rather than those who deal with paperwork (p. 298). This suggests that hormones
can largely effect an individual’s behaviour and that different hormones assist
in developing an individual’s gender. For example, according to Pinker, S.
(2003) women with a higher level of testosterone tend to outshine in apparent male
traits such as not smiling as much and possessing a stronger handshake (p.
299).
A major strength to the biological
explanation is that it is scientific, this makes the research valid and
reliable. On the other hand, there is little space for free will, this
explanation suggests that gender development is down to biology alone without
taking into consideration any social factors.
Moving on to look at the
social factors, it is suggested that gender is constructed through
socialisation. This is known firstly as early socialisation which is the impact
aspects such as home life, friends, family and anything else in your early
years has on your development. This could be a parent dressing a baby in Blue
because they are male or the toys you are bought such as cars and trucks. A
child may be oblivious to the gender being forced upon themselves, the parent
may also be unaware that they are forcing a gender upon their child. Following
on from this is secondary socialisation which is any institution outside of
home such as media, church, school and work. Society creates a stereotype image
of how genders must portray themselves, for example slouching, using
inappropriate language and dressing in unkempt clothes are not traits you would
expect to see of a woman. As Butler, J. (1988) states “gender is instituted
through the stylization of the body, and hence, must be understood as the
mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments of various
kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self” (p. 1). Every aspect
of society has an impact on how an individual’s gender develops, from seeing
famous people in the media that you may look up to or the respectable teacher
at school that acts gracefully as a lady apparently should. The consideration
of all environmental factors within this explanation is a major strength,
however at the same time it is a limitation as the social constructionist is
limited to just this, the effect only society has.
Both the biological
explanation and the social constructionist share the view that gender develops
throughout life, it is not something we are born with. Both explanations also
share the deprivation of free will, neither take into consideration that an
individual could create their own gender, the view is it is constructed either
by society or biologically. A further similarity of the nature vs nurture
debate is that they both acknowledge gender roles and sexuality, they recognise
that gender has an impact on how you act, the role you play in society and your
attraction to others.
On the other hand, a
difference between the two explanations is that society can and does change,
whereas although biology may be improved, it will not change. A further
difference is that biology is something that can be tested repeatedly, it is
tangible whereas society is not. Society is not something we can touch, it is
intangible and theories cannot be repeatedly researched in the way that
biological theories can.
In conclusion, research
studied suggests that both explanations have strong arguments as to the
influence each have had on the development of gender. However it has been
discussed that starting at early socialisation the people in a child’s life are
influencing a gender upon ones self, this includes the colour of clothing or
variety of toys different sexes may wear or play with. Although the biological
explanation offers clarification as to the different characteristics and
behaviours of male and female, it does not offer justification as to why it is
usually possible to tell an individual’s sex just by their appearance. It seems
that the greatest explanation offered as to how gender develops is the
unquestionable effect of society.