Is the Body Irrelevant to Sex/Gender Theory - Coursework Example

Is the body irrelevant to sex/gender theory? Name Institution Date Course Is the body irrelevant to sex/gender theory? Introduction The human body is considered by many theorists as an important site to theorize their academic and scholarship. This is because it is used as a metaphor for both culture and society, and thus the body is regarded as a text from which societal norms and the related systems, such as, sex and gender are inscribed. It is important to note that studies about the body raises issues of global concern or more provocative questions that requires the scholar to understand the intersections or conceptualizations of the gender and sex issues as well as interrogates the notions about the existing relationships between these categories (Johnson1997). Since the ideas of sex and gender can be misunderstood particularly when related to the body, it would be necessary to point out that any research that is aimed at bridging the solitudes of the gender/sex theory is challenging. Due to continuing changes that take place in the theories of gender and sex, it becomes difficult to effectively implement such theories in a more concrete manner. As a result, the body becomes the final ultimate frontier to bring together sex and gender relationships because it enables us to develop clear perceptions about the sexed and gendered bodies as well as their variations and relationships in a different way (Johnson & Repta 2007). From the perspective of embodied gender or considering gender as performance, theoretically gender is seen to be constructed in day-to-day practices of individuals. Thus, it is important to note that gender is manifested in different manners that people style their bodies as well as carry themselves in terms of how the speak and move. In so doing, it can be argued that gender is not only generated by and on particular bodies, but also seen to be within specific activities, behaviours and practices. It is apparent, therefore, that through the stylized repetition of various gendered practices, such as, body, gestures or mannerisms that gender is considered to be performed. In addition, when an individual is involved more in gendered behaviours or practices, the gender identity becomes more accountable and assessed by other people. As a result, the aspects of gendered identity are legitimated which in turn renders gender as embodied (Johnson, Greaves & Repta 2007). Considering the Volatile Bodies, Fausto-Sterling (1999) explains the ideas of Elizabeth Grosz about how the body and mind exist as one thing. Basically, the study focused on the Mobius strip which acted as a metaphor for that particular psyche. In this context, Grosz viewed the body in terms of the brain, muscles, hormones and sex organs as features constituting the inside of the so referred to as ‘Mobius strip’. On the other hand, culture and experience would make the outside surface. The logic behind the image is that both the inside and outside features is continuous to enable a person move freely from one end to the other without necessarily lifting his or her feet off the foundation or ground. As noted by Grosz that psychoanalysts and phenomenologist relate the body with feelings, it means that the work of the mind is to translate physiology into a more interior sense of the self. In such a case, therefore, oral sexuality is seen as a physical feeling that any child who also grows to become adult translates into the psychosexual meaning, a translation that occurs inside of the Mobius surface. However, as one grows and gets exposed he or she will develop an interest to trace the outside surface, and thus begins to think of connecting to other bodies and objects or simply things regarded as clearly not-self (Fausto-Sterling 1999:24). Hypothetically, sex is categorized as normative or a regulatory ideal which not only functions as a norm, but also a regulatory practice results in the body it governs. Therefore, the bodies’ regulatory influence is considered as productive power to produce or demarcate, circulate as well as differentiate the bodies that particular power controls. This implies that sex is regarded as regulatory way through which materialization is compelled, can occur or not take place through some commonly regulated practices. Sex is constructed and forcibly materialized over time, and thus it cannot be seen merely as static condition of a given body, instead it is a process through which regulatory norms play an integral role to materialize sex as well as achieve such materialization process by means of forcible reiteration of the norms. It is important to note that the reiteration aspect of this process is a significant reason to explain why materialization has never been quite complete, implying that bodies have never complied completely with the norms through which materialization is impelled (Butler). According to Fausto-Sterling, Susan (2012, p.412), adopting a more dynamic developmental view of gender differentiation is crucial to understanding each and every person’s gender variability. This means shifting from the traditional or statistical approach to determine difference in gender identities. Furthermore, Fausto-Sterling argues that as a way of adding in gender, infants have a tendency of gradually learning how to differentiate males from females. In particular, when infants are two years old they develop interest in acquiring the knowledge of socially expected gender roles. However, in their third year of development, they tend to apply the already acquired knowledge to themselves as well as others (p.412). Research shows that although the transgendered bodies may raise questions to understand individuals’ categories of sex and gender, they can similarly confirm and reinforce the traditional gender system. In so doing, the transgendered bodies can be analyzed critically for sex relocation surgery (Johnson & Repta 2007). Female and male bodies are dependent in their existence, indicating that complete absence of gendering activities would mean that physical bodies have ceased to exist. On the other hand, Butler (1993) argues that bodies considered as the material foundations upon which gender is constructed, should be seen as constructed by themselves to appear as if they are the source of such material foundation. In her view, Butler (1993) examines that sexed bodies cannot exist outside the social meanings, and hence how individuals perceive gender shapes the manner in which sex is understood. Therefore, sexed bodies should not be regarded as empty matter by which gender is constructed and objects from which sex categories are merely obtained based on the objective features existing in the world. Rather, the sexed bodies need to be seen themselves discursively constructed and they have features that classify them or attributed to sexed bodies (Butler 1993). Fausto-Sterling critically analyzed the work of David Crews, an expert biologist in genes, gender and development or generally sexual development in organisms. The author was more interested in understanding the existing relationships among the gene networks, how metabolic changes occur in the social behavior networks particularly within the brain and environment. In his view, Fausto-Sterling noted that Crews commonly used the dynamic systems themes in his work. For example, the complex behaviours as well as their related bases are regarded as cumulative processes that take the place of prior individual history, while current states offer the ground on which the future development of an individual builds. From the perspective of how genes work, it can be noted that prior experience greatly shapes the manner in which genes respond to subsequently occurring experiences. On the other hand, later experiences can modify the earlier effects. This clearly shows that Crews intended to emphasize on the idea presented earlier about how a number of social behaviours are more often than not supported through an interconnected network of related brain nuclei. Although Crews clearly demonstrates how genes and environment are related to the brain and behaviour, Fausto-Sterling argues that Crews based his approach more on dynamic systems than biometric analysis of variance. Therefore, Fausto-Sterling illustrated how dynamic systems approach can be used to think about or shape the gender identity formation as well as its associated behavioural consequences in human development (Fausto-Sterling 2012). The ‘reiteration’ as referred by Butler (1993: 7-8) is the continuing construction of a given identity through a process she terms as ‘performativity’. Based on this perspective, bodies themselves are identified through the gendered characteristics that are relevantly associated with their sex right from their birth and throughout life gender that is performed in a repetitive manner. The most fundamental question to consider is how does the idea of gender performativity incorporated in this conception the materialization process? Taking into consideration that performativity cannot be understood as a deliberate act but a reiterative and citation practice from which discourse causes the effects that it refers to. Therefore, it becomes relevant to mention that the regulatory norms that relates to sex works in a more performative way to include the materiality of the bodies. This materializes the body’s sex, and as a result, it materializes the sexual differences within the process of strengthening heterosexual imperative (Butler1993). Based on this view, therefore, it is worthwhile to note that the fixity of the body as well as its contours and movements are entirely constituted by material. However, the materiality is regarded as the effect of power or its most productive effect. Butler (1993) argues that gender will no longer be understood as a cultural construct forced on the surface of matter or the body and its sex. This is because once sex itself is clearly perceived within its normativity it means that the materiality of a given body will no longer be a thinkable issue. Instead, the materialization of that particular regulatory norm will be the most important aspect to consider as far as the gender issues are concerned. Therefore, sex should not be merely seen as what one owns or simply a static description of a person, but rather the norms through which an individual becomes viable completely that will make a body qualify for life in the domain of a particular cultural intelligibility. Generally, the development of gender identity or commonly referred to as knowledge of the self as male or female as compared to gender expression or embodied aspects of masculine and feminine expression takes place at or before birth. However, this slowly emerges right from the first birthday of an infant, implying that the aspects of self-identity become stronger, more detailed and specific as the infant grows into adult person (Fausto-Sterling 2012, p.415). The fundamental questions asked by Fausto-Sterling is whether the bodily manifestations exhibited by infant sex as it is opposed to parental behaviours that have biological relationships with the knowledge of sex of their infant, the appropriate measure? Or can neonatal physiology, morphology and developmental maturity as well as the parenting style and efforts of the sole caregiver be considered the significant contributor to the development of the masculine and feminine identities and the self-expression among infants as they grow into older children? From the general conclusions made by Fausto-Sterling, it can be noted that more devised new paradigms need to be adopted to develop a clear view of the gender differences, particularly as dynamic systems that evolve over time and reform. It is also apparent that genes that are related to the neural physiology and that can be activated or suppressed in different ways and environments based on hormonal and social aspects contribute more to behavioural systems. However, in Fausto-Sterling’s view it is crucial for the researchers to shift their focus beyond a biometric approach when identifying such genes so as to effectively study their function in the developmental systems (Fausto-Sterling 2012, p.417). In this case, therefore, it can be argued that the body is less relevant to sex/gender theory. Studies indicate that mobilization of various categories of sex in the political discourse will be troubled by the instabilities resulting from foreclose generated by such categories. The fact that the political discourses that have involved in the mobilization of identity categories have successfully achieved identifications in their pursuit of a political goal, it can also emerge that certain practice of dis-identification can as well be useful in the reshaping of the democratic contestation. Precisely, it can be discovered that through certain practices which contribute to dis-identification with such regulatory norms from which sexual difference is materialized can be the same way by which feminist and the queer politics are mobilized. Through such collective dis-identification, a more detailed conceptualization of bodies which matter and those which are yet to develop as matters of critical concern can be made to understand the relevancy of the body in the gender/sex theory (Butler 1993). In Ancient Greeks and throughout the prevalent scientific period until the late 18th century, the female and male sexes were not considered as two distinct categories. Instead, there was a single sex model that viewed males and females as related members of the same category. Specifically, the genitals of females were seen equal the male’s though directed within the body, ovaries and testes which were given the same term. The male type was still considered the single basic structure that has represented the human body. Rather than emerging as the outcome of increased scientific knowledge, new and various ways of interpreting the body as well as representing and constituting the social realities were developed. By referring to Mary Douglas idea that, “The human body is often regarded as an image of society, and thus cannot be naturally considered if the body does not truly involve or relate to a social dimension.” Laqueur (1997) examines that the new biology, with its focus on the key differences between the sexes and its provocative questions about the existence of a woman’s sexual desire and pleasure, became a debatable issue precisely during the time when the history of the old social order were irrevocably shaken. This created the basis to think of a new order of sex and gender as a critical issue of global concern, and hence the development of political theory and practice. Heat is considered to have a critical importance within the Galenic account because it signifies the perfection of an individual’s place in the hierarchical order of great chain of being. Although humans are seen as the most perfect of all animals, men specifically are considered to be more perfect than women because they have excess heat. However, it should be noted that men and women are, in this context, no longer different in kind but only in the configuration of their respective organs. Therefore, the male emerges as the hotter description of the female, while the female is seen as the cooler and less perfect compared to male (Laqueur 1997). The female potential is limited less by the hormonal hurricanes compared to the wrong type of hormones. Relatively, women possess lower levels of the testosterone than it is the case with men, a condition that makes women to seen as less aggressive, have low levels of drive and achievement. Research indicates that although there is increased role of female soldiers within the armed forces, most key military leaders still assume that the actual fighting is a job always left for a man. The ideas about a hormonal basis for considering male dominance and aggression deserve similar qualification. In most cases, the socio-biological discussion supports the notion that male’s aggression is basically a fact of life, while a woman’s less assertive nature has over time hindered her fate in life. However, individuals choose to celebrate or value body images that are seen to be reluctant to reconcile with the main sociological theories. The mind, body and socio-cultural aspects interact in such a manner that scientific research cannot completely disentangle (Rhode 1997:30-31). It seems that concerns raised about physical limitations among women generally have been discussed openly in some women and in certain circumstances but not necessarily individuals requiring the greatest physical demands. Fausto-Sterling (1999) argues that people’s bodies are too complex to respond with clear-cut answers regarding sexual difference. Therefore, the more we focus on a simple physical basis to understand sex, the more it becomes apparent that sex cannot be a mere physical category. It should be noted that all bodily signals and functions that we identify as male and female have already entangled in an individual’s ideas about gender. Studies indicate that uniformity as observed in muscular shape, size and strength particularly in sex categories is not influenced completely by biological factors. Instead, it relies more on exercise opportunities, for instance, in situations where males and females could be given the same exercise opportunity as well as equal support to exercise, it is assumed that bodily dimorphism would shrink. Most of the medical phenomena that involve bones have social impacts directly associated with the expectations about, women’s diet, gender and their respective exercise opportunities. Such examples provide the view that physiological features considered as sex-specific traits that cannot be affected by the social and cultural factors could act as products of the social conditioning. Social forces construct some objects in particular, sexed bodies or commonly referred to as gendered individuals as well as key ideas such as sex and gender concepts. Furthermore, the physiological and biological features that differentiate males from females are commonly affected by the social practices (Fausto-Sterling 1992). This clearly suggests that social conditioning plays an integral role in shaping biology. When discussing human sexuality, it is crucial to include the notion of the material. However, the idea about material exists in an already tainted form, containing in it the pre-existing ideas regarding sexual difference. It is in Butler’s view that the body should be seen as a system that produces and is developed by social meanings in a simultaneous manner. This calls for the need to imitate a biological organism that often become the end result of the combined and simultaneous actions involved in the developmental nature and nurturing of a body (Butler 1993). Elizabeth Grosz is another feminist philosopher who unlike Butler argues that biological instincts or drives play a significant role in providing the kind of raw material needed for the development of sexuality. However, she emphasizes that raw material must be accompanied by a set of meanings or a network of desires that provides the real consciousness of a child’s bodily functions. It is notable that wild children brought up without the human constraints, they do not acquire language and sexual drive. This indicates that although their bodies were the main source of the raw materials, it is quite unfortunate that lack of human social setting the so called ‘clay’ or materials could no longer be moulded into a visible psychic form. It also means that human sociality is crucial for the development of human sexuality. In general, Grosz aimed to develop a clear view of how human sociality and the associated meaning that is presented outside the body is finally incorporated into such physiological demeanour to differentiate unconscious and conscious behaviours. It is worthwhile to note that the mind or body dualism maps appropriately onto the sex/gender difference. The underlying idea here is that gender can be mapped onto the mind, while sex onto the body (Fausto-Sterling 1999). Conclusion Based on the above discussions, it can be concluded that the body is more relevant to the sex/gender theory. It apparent that female and male bodies are dependent in their existence, indicating that complete absence of gendering activities would mean that physical bodies have ceased to exist. It is notable that sexed bodies cannot exist outside the social meanings, and hence how individuals perceive gender shapes the manner in which sex is understood. It important that sexed bodies should not be regarded as empty matter by which gender is constructed and objects from which sex categories are merely obtained based on the objective features existing in the world. Rather, the sexed bodies need to be seen themselves discursively constructed and they have features that classify them or attributed to sexed bodies. In general, the development of gender identity or commonly referred to as knowledge of the self as male or female as compared to gender expression or embodied aspects of masculine and feminine expression takes place at or before birth. Bodies themselves are identified through the gendered characteristics that are relevantly associated with their sex right from their birth and throughout life gender that is performed in a repetitive manner. It is apparent that through the stylized repetition of various gendered practices, such as, body, gestures or mannerisms that gender is considered to be performed. Sex and gender are two terms perceived differently by different feminist theorists to mean different things. Therefore, it is crucial to sketch out certain feminist historical terms so as provide a clear starting point. Adopting a more dynamic developmental view of gender differentiation is crucial to understanding each and every person’s gender variability. The ideas of sex and gender can be easily misunderstood particularly when related to the body. It is relevant to point out that any research that is aimed at bridging the solitudes of the gender/sex theory is challenging. Although the transgendered bodies may raise questions to understand individuals’ categories of sex and gender, they can similarly confirm and reinforce the traditional gender system. Sex should not be merely seen as what one owns, but rather the norms through which an individual develops completely that will make a body qualify for life in a particular domain of cultural intelligibility. List of references Butler, J., 1993, Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of sex, Routledge, Pp 1-23, ‘Introduction’. Fausto-Sterling, A., 2012, ‘Not Your Grandma’s Genetics: Some Theoretical Notes’, Psychology of Women Quarterly December 2012 Vol. 36, No.4, pp. 411-418. Fausto-Sterling, A., 1992, (2nd revised edition) Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men, Basic Books, New York. Fausto-Sterling, A., 1999, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, Basic Books, New York. Johnson, L.J & Repta, R., 2007, “Sex and Gender”, Retrieved online from: Johnson, M., 1997, Beauty and Power: Trans-gendering and Cultural Transformation in the Southern Philippines, Berg. Laqueur, T., 1997, “Orgasm, generation and the politics of reproductive biology”, chapter 15 of (eds) Roger Lancaster and Micaela di Leonardo: The Gender / Sexuality reader: culture, history, political economy, Routledge, London A305.309. Rhode, D.L., 1997, "The ideology and biology of gender difference", Chapter 2: In Speaking of sex: The denial of sex equality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Read More