Читать книгу Gender and Social Movements - Jo Reger - Страница 8

While the common usage of “gender” often refers to whether someone identifies as male or female (e.g. sex), theorists argue that gender is more than sex and is, in fact, embedded in society in a multitude of ways beyond the individual. Judith Lorber (1994) defines gender as a process, a system of stratification, and as a structure shaping social life. To understand the difference between gender and sex, Lorber explains that we typically are assigned a sex at birth (male or female), and due to the assignment are placed in a sex category (woman or man, boy or girl). That sex category then takes on the attributes of gender dictated by our culture, prescribing our behaviors and lifelong expectations related to our gender. Gender is a core identity for individuals, set up on the binary of woman/man or masculine/feminine. People whose gender identity and sex category are in alignment are called cisgender. People also have identities outside the binary. Identities such as gender non-binary, gender non-conforming or gender fluid are present in society with more diverse identities being articulated. However, since gender is also a structure in society (Lorber 1994), it is used to sort people into the categories, making it difficult to completely break out of the binary in all aspects of life. For example, it is a relatively recent development that some places will allow identification outside the binary on official documents such as IDs, driver licenses, and birth certificates. Gender also resides outside of the individual and is commonly assigned to traits or behaviors such as acting masculine (i.e. active, rational, instrumental) or feminine (i.e. passive, emotional, nurturing). Embedded in this binary way of seeing identities and behaviors are value judgments (e.g. it is better to be active rather than passive) as well as indications of societal power (e.g. instrumental/action-oriented actions are rewarded more than emotional/nurturing ones). This illustrates how gender is both a system of stratification, that is distinguishing, valuing, rewarding individuals who show the most prized behaviors, and a structure with gendered ideas built into the very organization of society such as the home or workplace. Overall, gender is used to sort where people “belong” and what they should “do” in a society.

As such, gendered identities shape the way an individual experiences social life. Candace West and Don Zimmerman (1987) coined the phrase “doing gender” to explore how we integrate gender into everything we do. Seen as a type of performance, gender is not only a set of behaviors (e.g. acting masculine, feminine or fluid), but is also a set of social expectations for which we are held accountable. People who step out of their “side” of the gender binary – men who act feminine, women who act masculine – can be sanctioned by others in society (Lorber 1994; West and Zimmerman 1987). As West and Zimmerman put it, we can be “held hostage” to gender’s production in everyday life (1987: 126). It is important to note that with the hierarchy of gender characteristics, women can often “get away with” acting more masculine than men who do “too much” femininity. The unevenness of sanctions against these forms of “deviance” tells us that gender is, in fact, a system of inequality, operating on multiple levels of privilege and oppression (Connell 1987).

Despite having our gender evaluated in everyday life, scholars note that there are places that allow more agency and control over our “doing” of gender. For instance, Mimi Schippers (2002) argues that in the alternative hard rock community, participants engage in “gender maneuvering” that reworks some of the hierarchy embedded in their interactions and contributes to an alternative gender order, while not completely eradicating it. Tony Silva (2016) found that a group of rural men who identified as heterosexual also engaged in sexual practices with other white, masculine, heterosexual, or secretly bisexual men. Silva labels this “bud sex” and notes that men continued to define themselves as masculine and heterosexual, despite having same-sex sexual encounters. In other words, they controlled the gender discourse around their behavior. Overall, despite being held accountable for doing “appropriate” gender, people can find ways to resist and change how they “do gender,” to some degree.

In addition to “doing” and learning our gender, we also “determine” the gender of others. Laurel Westbrook and Kristen Schilt (2013) note that in social interactions, we draw on visual and behavioral cues to determine an individual’s gender category. However, Westbrook and Schilt problematize this process by noting how transgender individuals in public settings can confuse this process and cause “gender panics.” These panics are particularly apparent in spaces that are gender segregated such as public restrooms. Westbrook and Schilt remind us that even when binary-focused ideas of gender identity are changing, core beliefs in a dichotomy of sex, gender, and sexuality are still maintained. Gender then is not only something we do throughout our days, but it also something that is determined about us, based on the cues we provide through dress, behavior, and social context.

Returning to the idea that gender is a structure as well as a process, we can see how gender is present in large-scale structures and processes, such as in institutions, organizations, societal norms, and ideologies. Joan Acker (1990) noted how gender is integral in the construction of organizations, shaping policy, practices, and infrastructure. While she notes that feminist sociologists have examined male dominance in leadership, hierarchy, and opportunities in organizations, missing is a sense of how gender is embedded in the documents and policies that construct the organization and become the groundwork for its belief system. She writes that “advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity, are patterned through and in terms of a distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine” (1990: 146). For example, considering gender as a structure includes understanding how it shapes the division of labor, wages, performance evaluations, and job descriptions within the workplace (Martin 2003; Ridgeway 2001). These differences are not due to innate differences between women and men but instead are the result of gender positioning people differently in the social structure (Lorber 1994).

Barbara Risman (2004) adds to our understanding by arguing that it is best to conceptualize gender as an overall structure that is found in the individual level (through processes such as socialization and the construction of selves), the interactional, cultural level (evident interactions around status, bias, and power), and the institutional domain (which accounts for organizational practices, legal regulations, resources, and ideology). This conceptualization captures the complex ways in which gender exists in society with multiple levels extending from the individual, sustained in interaction, and embedded in the ways the social structure, institutions, and organizations function. Drawing on this multi-level conception of gender allows us to see how the #MeToo movement is more than just the result of the actions of individuals but is also the result of gendered interactions that are supported within organizations and structured by gendered policy, norms, and regulations. For instance, Weinstein was able to escape any sanctions for his behavior due to the institutional order he was embedded in, the power he held over those lower on the hierarchy, and laws and policies that have limits in terms of enforcement. His behavior was also supported by a culture that accepted and encouraged his domination over women.

How gender binary sorts society is also illustrated in the Weinstein case. Much of the power and control evident in his assaults were derived from his status as the most powerful person – masculine, manly, male – in the room. The power and status he achieved outside the room were also a benefit of masculinity in society. In other words, Harvey Weinstein was not just a bad person, he was a person, because of the divisions of masculinity and femininity in society, who was able to dominate, control, and assault women. Overall, the gender binary divides all levels of gender from the individual to the societal. In many societies the gender binary is accepted because it aligns with Western thought’s use of dichotomies to understand the social world. Dichotomies divide the world into simple binaries, such as black and white, rich and poor, men and women, and in the process solidify one side’s power and value in society. Our cultural aversion to ambiguity makes it difficult to see past binaries and recognize that a more complex situation exists. Therefore, the gender binary structures and sorts our world, even when people identify as being outside of it.

In sum, acknowledging that gender is multi-dimensional and always in flux contributes to how we understand the social world around us and how it changes. Understanding gender as a form of power and control in society is also key in social change. Knowing that society is always changing also helps us to understand what social movements are and how they arise.