Gender Socialization Across the Life Span - Essay Example

?Gender Socialization Across the Life Span By Gender Socialization Across the Lifespan Introduction Gender socialization refers to the acquisition of gender identity and the roles expected of the different sexes (Stockard, 2006). UNICEF (2007) reported that gender socialization starts at birth with children learning to identify and comply with gender roles according to cultural prescriptions. These gender expectations continue throughout the life span (UNICEF, 2007). Gender is thus perceived as deeply entrenched in virtually all social spheres of daily life and within social units (Risman, 2004). There are three main theories used to explain gender socialization processes. Psychoanalytic, social learning and cognitive developmental theories offer explanations of gender socialization and help us to understand how gender socialization endures throughout the life-span (Bern, 1983). However, gender schema theory is often presented as an alternative to the three theories (Bern, 1983). This paper analyzes the four theories and identifies the implications of gender socialization. Psychoanalytic Theory of Gender socialization Bern (1983) informed that Sigmund Freud was the first psychoanalyst to inquire into how males and females were “transmuted into masculine and feminine” (p. 598). Freud was primarily concerned with explaining the eventual subordinate roles of women (Bern, 1983). Psychoanalytic theorists have drawn on Freud’s inquiries and developed psychoanalytic theory as a means for explaining and understanding gender socialization. The value of psychoanalytic theory of gender socialization is that it specifically targets the process of gender socialization rather than gender socialization as a part of socialization generally (Ryle, 2011). Thus, psychoanalytic theory of gender socialization can be distinguished from other theories because they focus on learned and patterned behavior that children acquire in the general socialization process. Ryle (2011) noted that psychoanalytic theory of gender socialization starts off by focusing on the status of women as mothers and utilizes Freud and other psychoanalysts’ contributions to shed light on the manner in which gender identify “becomes deeply embedded in the psychic structure of our personalities” (Ryle, 2011, p. 135). From the psychoanalytic theorist’s perspective, gender is intricately tied to early childhood development. Psychoanalytic theorists assume a psychoanalytic identification exists in early childhood which refers to a child’s modification of his or own self perceptions in order to incorporate some form of power, capability or trait that is observed in others, typically a parent (Ryle, 2011). Another early childhood identification process occurs in terms of setting “ego boundaries” (Ryle, 2011, p. 136). Ego boundaries is a term coined by Freud to describe “the sense of personal psychological division between” the child and the “world around us” and thus ego boundaries aid the individual in determining where “me” ends and “everything else begins” (Ryle, 2011, p. 146). The significance of ego boundaries to gender socialization is that ego boundaries are not automatic. At first the child’s ego boundaries are influenced by the fact that boys and girls’ identification during infancy is tied to that of their mothers. Thus there is no “sense of ego boundaries” between the infant and the mother (Ryle, 2011, p. 136). Thus, immediately after birth, babies form a sense of union with the mother. However, as time progresses, children eventually learn that although they depend on their mothers for survival, the same is not true of the mother. She can survive without them. Psychoanalytic theory “focuses on how boys and girls resolve the tensions” created “by this realization” (Ryle, 2011, p. 136). As Ryle (2011) puts it, the child rationalizes that: If mom has concerns that are not consistent with my own, mom must actually be separate from me. The process is qualitatively different for boys and girls, which gives us radically different personality structures for men and women as adults (p. 136). Mothers share the same gender as their daughters and thus females foster a closer connection to their mothers than males do. As a result gender identity comes more naturally to female infants than they do to male infants. Mothers have already developed a sense of female identity unconsciously “push their sons away” (Ryle, 2011, p. 136). As a result, females develop personality traits consistent with empathy and sensitivity. Males on the other hand have a more difficult time establishing masculinity (Ryle, 2011). Boys must first break the bound that forces identification with the mother. Therefore while females naturally have a sense of connectivity with others, boys develop a sense of “separation from others” (Ryle, 2011, p. 137). Masculinity thus begins with the deliberate rejection of femininity. In the absence of a corresponding strong connection to a male figure, masculinity is thus a learned behavior acquired via dominant norms in society as opposed to the acquisition of femininity by virtue of “direct observation of the mother” (Ryle, 2011, p. 137). Psychoanalytic theory of gender socialization thus informs that feminine identity is natural and prescribed at birth. Thus feminine identity is acquired through direct observation and contact with the mother and is thus initially learned within the familial environment. Since the same observations are bounds pervade most familial structures, these early feminine roles and identities are perpetuated in the larger society. Boys on the other hand, begin by realizing that their genders are different from their mothers and thus reject femininity and have to actively seek masculine models in male figures. Social Learning Theory Social learning theory of gender socialization is similar to psychoanalytic theory in that they both relate to the acquisition of gender identity via observations. Social learning theory instructs that gender identity, traits and roles are learned as a result of observations. Thus social learning theory emphasizes “observable events and their consequences” and thus underscores the significance of environmental factors in shedding light on the dynamics of gender socialization (O’Brien, 2009, p. 357). Social learning theory takes the position that an individual’s social conduct in a reaction to his or her environment. Fortifying learned behavior is a system of rewards and punishments. When an individual’s conduct is appropriate pursuant to the norms of the dominant culture, the individual is rewarded, thus the behavior is not only learned but practiced. When behavior is inconsistent with the established norm of the dominant culture, the behavior is either not rewarded or punished thus dissuading the adopting of a non-normative personality trait (O’Brien, 2009). In this regard, social learning theory is a straightforward method for understanding gender socialization. As O’Brien (2009) noted: Social learning theory, then, views gender socialization as an ongoing process of learning about gender through reinforcement from others (p. 357). Social learning theory, like psychoanalytic theory assumes that children often pattern their behavior and perspectives in a manner consistent with the parent with whom they share gender with. Unlike, psychoanalytic theory however, parental modeling is not the only method by which children are informed of gender identity. According to O’Brien, social learning theory also assumes that “cultural images and expectations” that fortify a child’s gender identity also emanate from other areas such as influences from “peers, teachers, and other gendered institutions” (O’Brien, 2009, p. 357). Thus, according to social learning theory, the acquisition of gender roles during early childhood is not permanent. Gender identity and perceptions of gender roles can be changed throughout the life-course as the child is exposed to different social conditions as he/she ages. The fact is, as children grow and learn they come into contact with the environment and the manner in which these contacts and situations change will correspond with changes in the child’s perceptions and conduct. Thus, social learning theory takes the position that gender identity and the acquisition of gender roles do not necessarily last from birth to later life. Gender roles and identity are learned throughout the life span (O’Brien, 2009). There is no concrete evidence that one theory explains gender socialization better than the other. A study conducted by Shimoda and Keskinen (2004) produced mixed results. The study was used to determine whether or not gender identity is best explained by virtue or psychoanalytical theories (acquired at birth and persists throughout the lifespan) or cognitive learning theory (influenced by the environment and thus malleable). The study was conducted on 135 Japanese university students and 119 Finnish university students. The students participated in a survey calculated to identify their ideal gender images and the primary influencing factors (Shimoda & Keskinen, 2004). The results of Shimoda and Keskinen’s (2004) study were mixed indicating that there is no single or universal code for understanding gender socialization processes. The survey results determined that Japanese student’s idealization of gender images were “more stereotypic than those of Finnish students” (Shimoda & Keskinen, 2004, p. 1187). Students’ perceptions of the ideal mother and their mother’s image as the ideal mother were “only related to their sex” (Shimoda & Keskinen, 2004, p. 1187). The survey also found that students’ learned “other gender images” (Shimoda & Keskinen, 2004, p. 1187). For Japanese students, mothers represented ideal gender images, however, Finnish male respondents did not identify gender images with parents (Shimoda & Keskinen, 2004). It can therefore be concluded that psychoanalytic theories and social learning theories alone do not explain gender socialization. While psychoanalytic theory or social learning theories may explain gender socializations in some cultures they may not explain gender socialization in other cultures. Moreover, while either psychoanalytic theory or social learning theory may explain gender socialization in a particular culture, they may only partially explain it as observed in the study conducted by Shimoda and Keskinen (2004). Cognitive Developmental Theory Cognitive developmental theory can be distinguished from social learning theory and psychoanalytic theory in that it does not explain gender socialization by virtue of familial or broader social indicators and influences. Cognitive developmental theory occupies a separate plateau in that it focuses on the influences of cognitive development (Martin et al, 2002, p. 909). Cognitive developmental theory argues that throughout the lifespan, gender is constant along three important cognitive development phases. First, children continue to realize and grow in the knowledge that they belong to one sex: gender identity. Secondly, this gender identity is static and unchanging: gender stability. Thirdly, children acknowledge and accept that their gender identity is not altered in terms of “gender-typed appearances, activities and traits” : gender consistency (Martin et al, 2002, p. 909). After children have passed through these gendered cognitive developmental phases and form understandings of themselves accordingly, gender classification plays a more important role in the way that children react to “gender norms”, “develop relevant attitude” and “guide their behaviors” (Martin et al, 2002, p. 909). Cognitive developmental theory goes further to stress that the development of gender identity is “an active construction of the meaning of gender categories” which are emulated by the child rather than by socialization of the child through other “socialization agents” (Martin et al, 2002, p. 909). Martin et al (2002) also noted that cognitive developmental theory: Argues that mastery or competence motivation is a driving force in gender development, as children seek to bring their perceptions and behaviors in line with their developing knowledge about gender categories (p. 909). In other words, gender identity provides the fundamental basis by which children learn gender roles and perceptions. It therefore follows that when children process and accept the knowledge that gender is constant, they form fixed ideas of gender identity, thus cognitive developmental theory can be distinguished from social learning theory in terms of gender socialization and gender identity generally. Bussey and Bandura (1999) argued however that cognitive developmental theory is not well supported by empirical research studies. There is a paucity of research findings in the literature supporting the contention that children acquire gender consistency and that it is connected to their “gender-linked conduct” (Bussey & Bandura, 1999, p. 680). For instance it has been determined that children select gender specific toys well before the acquisition of gender consistency (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Gender Schema Theory Gender schema theory specifically attempts to explain gender differentiation and gender differentiation. Like cognitive developmental theory, gender schema theory focuses on different genders process and evaluates information about gender identity and gender roles. However, gender schema theory is different from cognitive developmental theory in that gender schema theories do not call for gender consistency as an indicator of gender identity development. Gender schema theories looks at mastering gender identity and children’s ability to: label themselves and others as males and females, is considered necessary for gender schema development to begin” (Bussey & Bandura, 1999, 910). Bern (1981) instructed that gender schema theory sex classification partially emanates from “gender-based schematic processing” (p. 354). In other words, individuals have a general propensity to evaluate information based on the sex links constituting the gender schema (Bern, 1981). Specifically, gender schema theory takes the position that sex typing is a result of self-perceptions that are “assimilated in the gender schema” (Bern, 1981, p. 354). In this regard, a schema is defined as a “framework that serves to organize and direct understanding of incoming information” (Hudak, 1993, p. 280). Bern’s (1981) gender schema theory thus supposes that the individual is either schematic or aschematic in terms of gender. Hudak (1993) explains that for the schematic individual, gender serves as the main source for receiving and interpreting information. Aschematic individuals do not rely so much on gender schema and are therefore more capable of interpreting information in a neutral way (Hudak, 1993). Hudak (1993) explained that there is significant debate over whether or not gender has an impact on self-perceptions or whether or not gender stereotypes has an impact on the way that others are perceived. It is even more hotly debated whether or not: individuals are more consistently schematic and others more consistently aschematic with respect to judgments made about others (Hudak, 1993, p. 280). Even so, the development of two conflicting methods for identifying and explaining gender socialization (schematic and aschematic) leaves a lot of room for flexibility in analyzing gender identity and gender socialization processes. Thus gender schema theory can fill in the gaps left by psychoanalytic, social learning and cognitive developmental theories. Conclusion Understanding human behavior is an increasingly complex exercise. However, behavioral scientists have looked to cultural identities to inform of ways to predict how people would likely behave in a given context. Gender is a cultural identity used for predicting and cataloguing human behavior. However, because of the complexity of human behavior and the difficulty with accurately predicting how people of a specific group might behave, theories explaining gender socialization have only provided partial explanations for gender differentiation, development, identities and behavior. However, collectively, the various theories explaining gender socialization provide a benchmark by which gender behavior, perceptions and treatment can be understood. Bibliography Bern, S. L. (1983). “Gender Schema Theory and Its Implications for Child Development: Raising Gender-aschematic Children in Gender-Schematic Society.” Signs, Vol. 8(4): 598-616. Bern, S. (1983). “Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing.” Psychological Review, Vol. 88(4): 354-364. Bussey, K. and Bandura, A. (1999). “Social Cognitive Theory of Gender Development and Differentiation. Psychological Review, Vol. 106: 676-713. Hudak, M. A. (1993). “Gender Schema Theory Revisited: Men’s Stereotypes of American Women.” Sex Roles, Vol. 38(5/6): 279-293. Martin, C. L.; Ruble, D. N. and Szkrybalo, J. (2002). “Cognitive Theories of Early Gender Development.” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128(6): 903-933. O’Brien, J. (2009). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Risman, B. J. (August 2004). “Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism”. Gender & Society, Vol. 18(4): 429-450. Ryle, R. (2011). Questioning Gender: A Sociological Exploration. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Shimoda, H. and Keskinen, S. (June 2004). “Ideal Gender Identity Related to Parent Images and Locus of Control: Jungian and Social Learning Perspectives.” Psychology Report, Vol. 93(3/2): 1187-1201. Stockard, J. (2006). “Gender Socialization.” Cited in Chafetz, J. S. (Ed.). Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. New York, NY: Springer. UNICEF (August 2007). “Early Childhood: Early Gender Socialization.” http://www.unicef.org/earlychildhood/index_40749.html (Retrieved November 11, 2011). Read More