what IS gender after all?

[Amy Sheldon]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:50 PM, Kenneth Hyde wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Amy Sheldon wrote:
>
>> But how we theorize gender is related to how we theorize language  
>> and gender.
>
> This seems to be rather worryingly Whorfian.  If by "theorize," you  
> mean "talk about" or "write about," then I can accept your point.   
> However, if you mean "conceptualize" or "think about," then I would  
> have to demur.

I mean "make a theory of" gender.
I use 'theory' in the usual way scientists use it.
For example. The way I understand gender, as it is conventionally  
socially constructed, is that it is a THEORY OF DIFFERENCE.
Gender is the social meaning given to bodies that are female or male.  
This social theory constructs these bodies as being "the opposite  
sex".  It's, currently, a difference that makes a difference...

>  I'm not persuaded that language has a deterministic effect on our  
> thinking.

that's a different kettle of fish.

>  I'm fairly firmly committed to the proposition that concepts and  
> categories exist independent of the existence (or lack thereof) of  
> labels (i.e. words or other semiotic tokens) and that the mapping  
> between the realm of thought and the realm of language is imperfect  
> at best.
>
>> Can you give an example of what "presents herself in a 'masculine'  
>> way" is and what the "masculine zone of the collective gender- 
>> space of her community" (or yours) is, or contains, or means, or a  
>> woman would behave like when they're there?  And what is the  
>> "feminine zone"?
>
> Well, let me start by expanding on the idea of "gender-space."   
> First, I posit that gender is a socially constructed abstract  
> aspect of identity (this seems fairly unexceptionable).

Well, here's where I stumble on what you say.

I think of gender as socially constructed, too, but I am talking  
about REPRESENTATIONS, not necessarily identity.
I don't think there is a simple one to one mapping between social  
representation(s) of gender(s) and a person's psycho-social identity,  
constructed at some point in their life span.
Humans are aware of the representations of gender that circulate in  
their social spheres (through books, media, norms transmitted tacitly  
in action and explicitly through prescriptions that we are given  
(e.g., "be nice" to a girl,) etc.)
BUT, those are sketchy, thin, and mostly stereotypes, if not  
caricatures.
Real human beings are far more complex than the stereotypes that  
circulate to represent gender(s).

DOING gender is a creative process that requires us to align, resist,  
ignore, transform, or do something with the internalized  
understanding we have of general, gender "appropriate" behaviors and  
conventions.

As for identity, whatever that process entails, it too is creative.  
It requires us to mediate between the internalized representations of  
gender and our "sense of self", whatever that is...  This is very  
much affected by our awareness of what gender is, and the freedom our  
society gives us to act, and the sanctions that we're threatened with  
if we do.  Many women around the world, for example, don't have the  
luxury of having conversations that could raise awareness, and the  
social supports that could  liberate them from the bonds of gender  
expectations.  Just having a female body is dangerous.

>  In order to talk about this abstract construct, I'm using the  
> model of a conceptual space.  That space is defined by the features  
> (and values of those features) that are relevant to gender in a  
> given community.  As the axes of features intersect and interact,  
> zones of identity within the space are created.  The masculine zone  
> would be the part of the space that contains those features and  
> values that the social group collectively view as "masculine" (i.e.  
> associated with the label "masculine")  Between social groups, the  
> specific features and values that form the masculine zone of the  
> gender-space could vary.  The feminine zone would be a similar part  
> of the gender-space characterized by those features and values that  
> are viewed by the social group as meriting the label "feminine."   
> Other zones of identity could also exist.  For example, in some  
> social groups, "macho" might be a distinct zone from "masculine" or  
> "femme" might be distinct from "feminine."  In theory, by mapping  
> this gender-space, we could perhaps arrive at a more accurate  
> picture of gender identities

oops...why would that mapping tell us about gender IDENTITIES?  It  
seems that what you could say with more certainty is that it would  
tell us something about gender REPRESENTATION.

> in a community, discovering specific zones that are not yet labeled  
> but that nevertheless exist.
>
> Okay, now, to the first question.  By "presents herself in a  
> 'masculine' way," I mean to say that the woman in question through  
> behavior, speech, appearance, and other social and individual  
> phenomena aligns herself with the features and values in the  
> masculine zone of her community's gender-space.

"aligns"?
Or "gets aligned with"?

Frankly, when I use certain forms of speech, like direct requests, I  
am not aligning with anything masculine. If I'm conscious of  
anything, it's that I'm RESISTING alignment with a caricature of  
femininity that says it's "women's language" to hedge, mitigate,  
etc.  Or I'm aligning with the professional role I have that requires  
me to sound authoritative.  Sometimes I'm conscious of taking a risk  
that by NOT hedging I may be sanctioned, because I'm stepping OUT of  
the STEREOTYPE of what the listeners think I SHOULD talk like, and  
therefore, who I should BE, what kind of a woman I should be.  This  
has been discussed as "role stress", or "the double bind".

And, since I come from a dialect area (the Bronx), and a culture in  
which women DO/DID talk like this,  it doesn't seem UNfeminine to do  
so at all.  All of this is relative. What passes for acceptably  
"feminine" in a place like Minnesota, is read quite differently in  
other cultures and regions, in which women are far less sanctioned  
for speaking in less mitigated ways.  And vice verse.  This is not news.

But it is relevant to this discussion. My concern is that it is easy  
to get seduced into thinking we have represented a LIVED femininity  
or masculinity (i.e. "identity"), when all we have done is made more  
explicit reductionist stereotypes and caricatures.

Our representations of gender are too limited.  Real people are far  
more complex than the labeled boxes people want to put us into  
(especially before they really 'know' us).

My own opinion is that (notice the mitigator), I don't think it is  
very revealing to describe someone as a "masculine woman".  That is  
just RElabeling.
Plus,  it's a perjorative label.  Just as "feminine man" is.
What if we moved beyond labels?

>  Thus, in a community where masculine is associated with features  
> of strong verbal posturing (braggadocio or one-upsmanship, etc.),  
> the "masculine" woman would exhibit these features.  On the other  
> hand, in a community where stoicism or withholding is a feature of  
> masculine identity, then the "masculine" woman would exhibit this  
> trait.

And what about a woman who belongs to multiple communities in which  
'strong verbal posturing", whatever "posturing" means,
is allowed in one but sanctioned in another?  She's bicultural, let's  
say. Is she simply regarded as a "woman" in one community and a  
"masculine woman" in another?  And what's her LIVED experience of  
womanhood?  How does SHE understand herself to be?  What about women  
and men who consider labels to be a hinderance?  There is no direct  
mapping between the labels and one's "identity".   It's not just  
trans people who feel this way about gender...
>
> Nor would this presentation be limited to language behavior.  It  
> could include actions, clothing, facial expressions, physical  
> posture, etc.  In some communities (perhaps many), a woman who  
> plays rough sports, wears sweats and a hoodie, maintains a closed  
> expression and stands and moves in a certain way could be said to  
> be "presenting herself in a masculine way."

		do we want to live in a world like this?

>  And yes, these examples are simplistic stereotypes.  In reality, I  
> realize that self-presentation is much more complicated, involving  
> a vast number of variables.  In a properly mapped gender-space some  
> features would be neutral, either because they are not associated  
> with any identity zone or because they are associated with several  
> different zones.  Other features or values might be more or less  
> proximal to the center of an identity zone and thus more or less  
> relevant in self-presentation.
>
	If the gender space is neutral, then we don't need it any more...

> And of course, self-presentation would not necessarily be a  
> phenomenon of the conscious self.  I suspect that most people do  
> gender identity and other types of self-presentation from a  
> partially or entirely subconscious basis.  It would be very  
> interesting to study whether conscious self-presentation of gender  
> differs from subconscious...and how it differs if it does.

	how would you design a study to test this...?
Amy
>
> And once again, I think I'll stop here.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> Kenneth Hyde
> ELI & Dept of Linguistics
> University of Delaware
> kenny at udel.edu
>
> "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulders  
> will seriously cramp his style.—K. Z. Steven Brust
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gala-l/attachments/20080328/88a4debc/attachment.htm>