The Social Ideal of Masculinity and Societal Expectations - Essay Example

? TMA 04 – WHAT IS THE ROLE PLAYED BY MATTER IN THE PROCESSES BY WHICH ATTACHMENTS ARE FORGED BETWEEN PEOPLE AND BETWEEN PEOPLE AND OBJECTS? TO WHAT EXTENT DO ACCOUNTS OF THESE PROCESSES CHALLENGE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST ARGUMENTS? By Your Full Name Presented to Your Teacher’s Name Your Course’s Title The Name of Your University The City and the State Your University is Located in 22 February 2011 What is the role played by matter in the processes by which attachments are forged between people and between people and objects? To what extent do accounts of these processes challenge social constructionist arguments? Attachments, both physical and psychological, are constantly being forged in society between people as well as between people and objects. Societal norms and psycho-social factors play a very important role in this regard; however, it is interesting to note that even matter, or material things, play quite a big role in forming these attachments. “Matter” refers “principally, to the role material objects play in the making of social worlds” (Redman, 2008, p. 8), e.g. money and receipts which help create attachments between people as well as between people and objects. It can be argued that things (or matter) can affect social bonds on their own as well, since they “have agency as much as people” (Carter & Smith, 2008, qtd. in Redman, 2008, p. 12). Matter is inextricably linked to social attachments as well, both between people and between people and objects, everything material is at some point social and vice versa. There is much that has been said by social constructionists in this regard and this paper attempts to assess the above-mentioned role of matter with regard to what the social constructionists have put forward in this regard. Just how efficacious these arguments are is a matter that will also be addressed herein. In the end, a recommendation is made for more research to be done with regard to the role of matter in our attachment forging. To come back to matter, it may also include certain physical/biological traits, such as gender. But here the question arises if it is indeed gender that causes attachments to be forged between people (for instance mother and child, husband and wife) and not social norms. Thus, social constructionists argue, it can be an effect of both factors simultaneously, a woman is biologically female, and hence is expected by society to rear her child and love her unconditionally, however, this does not necessarily mean that the love she feels for her child is fabricated – it is the role of being a “mother” that may be socially fabricated, but not the feelings of being a “mother.” In such a context, it is our bodies, that are “matter,” and which are used to form attachments between people and between people and things, for instance, a girl having fondness for her doll, whereas a boy having it for his cricket bat. In this regard, social constructionists hold that it is actually the society that causes this errant belief of gender to be transferred into the social lives of people (Gabb, 2008, p. 31). Social constructionists argue that this phenomenon has more to do with social norms and practices than with individual needs and requirements. However, that cannot be completely true. There are certain individual traits that tend to form an attachment between people and objects and between people. In Woodward’s article, for instance, the attachment to boxing has been linked with certain ideals of masculinity, while that in itself cannot be considered to be matter, it is, perhaps, the biological sex of a person, and even the social implications that come with this, that determine and effect the propensity of boxers to be attached to the sport itself and the various factors it brings with it (2008). Moreover, the training of the boxer inculcates in him/her further attachment to the game. Although some would argue that it is more mental than physical – attachment to boxing is caused by a certain psychological drive in the person. However, it is clear that not only is the attitude, so to speak, necessary, but it is also the training required of boxers that causes them to feel attached to the sport. Therefore, there is an amalgam of body’s materiality as well as social practices and norm, along with certain psychological factors the latter bring, which causes this attachment. As per Joyce Carol Oates, boxing “is for men and is about men, and is men” (qtd. in Woodward, 2008, p. 87). As per Wacquant, the need for the boxers to fight stems from the fact that their physical training has caused them to be pugilistic, it “has become second-nature and to do otherwise has become unthinkable” (Woodward, 2008, p. 93). Thus, the body becomes used to it, in a way it becomes habitual. Hence, the material body causes an attachment with the sport. In case of presents, the gifts are attached to the person who gave them in the sense that they still belong to him, or that the receiver thinks of the giver whenever s/he uses/sees the gift. It is interesting to note that in this case an attachment is formed in both the emotional and physical sense, between people as well as between people and things. The gift still, in a strange way, belongs to the person who gave it to the receiver, even though the receiver now possesses it, thus it is attached to the giver. Furthermore, the gift helps both the receiver and giver form an attachment to each other, the giver by giving the gift and the receiver by receiving it and having it. The receiver always refers to the gift as a “gift” and not something s/he owns, which is testament to the fact that the gift has engendered an attachment between the receiver and the giver, as a token of their affection for instance, and between the gift and the receiver as the gift is now in the latter’s possession. Money is also matter that causes attachment both between people and between people and things. Sometimes money dictates what the extent of the attachment is, for instance, in the case of buying something from a store, we form a certain attachment with the store clerk when we give him/her the payment of goods bought, this fiduciary attachment lasts until we are handed back a receipt of things we have bought, upon which it ends with the person, however, the attachment is then shifted to the objects we have in our cart, as they now belong to us. In a certain way, both money and gifts can cause negative attachments to be forged. For instance, in the case of gifts, if a badly thought out or burdensome gift is given, it can send a message of the giver not liking the receiver and/or wanting to create a sense of indebtedness or destitution in the receiver. In certain parts of the Far-East, for example, a gift of a white elephant was considered to be a sign of displeasure by the monarch, as the upkeep of the white elephant was very costly and there was not much use the elephant could be put to, thereby causing many a receiver to go bankrupt. In the former case, a gift that is considered to be badly thought out, or inconsiderate, can be used to send a message of negative attachment to the receiver, whereby it is made clear by the giver that the receiver is not considered to be worthy of good gifts, this can be the case in many societies, both Western and Eastern. Biological sex is something material, and it influences our attachment not only with other people but it also influences our attachment to things. With society dictating, and popularizing, certain images with regard to biological sex, it is all but natural that males end up getting attached to things like cars and sports, whereas females form attachments with home based objects and, in the realm of other people, with family and, specifically, children. Interestingly enough, the body also plays the role of a facilitator in our attachments in the sense that we are attracted to certain “body types,” whether through social norms, or our own individual requirements, we feel attached to a certain “body type” and strive to find that in our partners. In this way the material body affects our attachment with other people: we feel secure in the presence of a brawny friend, thus attaching ourselves with him, for instance, whereas our extremely curvy friend can cause us to be less attached to her due to feelings of inadequacy. Again, this has both physical (material) and psycho-social connotations, however, the importance of the material cannot be underplayed. Taken in effect, this goes to challenge the social constructionists’ argument of the body merely being a pawn in a psycho-social engendered attachment. The role of the body is underplayed and needs to be emphasised in this regard. In the case of boxing, for instance, it is necessary that the body of the boxer has certain traits for effective training: poor hand to eye coordination, bad balance, or any physical affliction that weakens the muscles, old age for example, will not only hinder the boxer in his/her training, but also frustrate him/her, thus hindering the attachment the boxer has with the sport. “The materiality of the body is always present in the social and the social is always present in the materiality of the body” (Woodward, 2008, p. 103). In sexual orientation, or sexual practices, for instance, though societal norms do have a play, there is an inherent physical, or material, factor involved that causes us to form attachment with a certain act, for instance, for its pleasurability, or a certain partner, for fulfilling that need for pleasure. What social constructionists seem to not pay much attention to in this regard is the fact that we see ourselves as our bodies, which is to say that biological sex, or other physical attributes we possess, cause us to take a certain view about ourselves. This enables us further to form attachments – for instance, the attachment of a boxer to the sport may arise from his/her bad body image, and thus, low self esteem. Physio-psycho-sociological collection of actions – everything overlaps for attachments to form. The training, in the case of the boxer, is the matter that causes him/her to excel at the sport and, therefore, form an attachment with it. Social constructionists have paid little to no attention to how effective the capacity and attributes of the physical body are that either enable or constrain us (Woodward, 2008, p. 98). Instead, the focus more on the social effects that affect the body – in the case of the boxer, for example, social constructionists, like Wacquant, have focused more on the social training of the body of the boxer, whereby it is the social ideal of masculinity and societal expectations that cause the boxer to train and behave a certain way, without taking into consideration the effect the material body itself has on training. Therefore, though it is clear that matter plays quite a big role in forming attaching both between people and between people and objects, its role is quite downplayed by the social constructionists. This is not to downplay the psycho-social motivations and reasons that cause attachments to be forged; however, there is much need for more research geared towards establishing just how important matter is in this regard. Word Count: 1811 References Gabb, J. 2008. Affective Attachment in Families. In P. Redman ed. 2008. Attachment: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 19-50. Muniesa, F. 2008. Attachment and Detachment in the Economy. In P. Redman ed. 2008. Attachment: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 111-142. Redman, P. 2008. Introduction. In P. Redman ed. 2008. Attachment: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 1-18. Redman, P. 2008. Afterword. In P. Redman ed. 2008. Attachment: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 175-184. Rustin, M. 2008. What does Psychoanalysis Contribute to our Understanding of Failures of Social Connectedness? In P. Redman ed. 2008. Attachment: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 1-18. Woodward, K. 2008. Boxing Masculinities: Attachment, Embodiment and Heroic Narratives. In P. Redman ed. 2008. Attachment: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 83-110. Read More