How Has Social Construction Theory Challenged the Perception That Sexuality Is Biological - Essay Example

How has social construction theory challenged the perception that sexuality is biological? What other biological perception has the theory challenged? The theory of social construction challenged the conventional view of the masses and behavioral sciences that sexuality is biological and surfaces as a result of some biological and chemical processes taking place inline and inside the humans. The social construction theory argued that the sexuality is not produced as a result physiological and psychological processes and biological needs only rather it is socially constructed as a result of the social norms, personal experiences, taboos in the respective societies. This paper will represent the details and logic of social construction theory about sexuality and investigate the underlying principals keeping in view the different aspects of theory and its differences from conventional ideas. Theory of social construction argues that diverse sexual aspects can take place in a single and convergent society and that is because of the fact that the personal experiences and nurturing of the societal roles have to play a key role in defining sexuality for every individual at different levels (Vance, 1989). The conventional connotations about sexuality have been of the view that the sexuality is experienced in the human beings as a result of desire and deprivation of the basic instincts of sex whereas these theories are missing a very important factor and that is societal perspective and perception, social norms and traditions about the sexuality in any society (Maslow, 1943). The segregation of patriarchal perspective and socio cultural aspects are very important in this matter. As the social construction theory perceives every matter in the collective environments so sexuality is also regarded as something not only coupled with the desire rather certain determinants underlying in the personal perceptions, training, thoughts, personal experiences and cultural norms decide the course of action in this scenario. The supporters and arguers of the social construction theory advocate that the physically identical sexual behaviors are not only the results of sexual desires as medical science proves that the sexual desires are also variable in the human beings (Freund, 1988). They argue that socio-historical construction give rise to the sexual identities and experiences which in turn lay down the basis of sexuality in any society (Mallon, 2007). The biological roles are certainly depleted because of the fact that sexuality is perceived to be controlled from the mind of the human beings and the perception can tell either the sexuality if going in the positive way or a negative way in any collective societal scenario (DeCecco & Elia, 1993). The main and importunate logic of the social construction theory says that if the sexuality has been driven by biological determinants then this factor can never be "repressed" and "liberated" in the human beings but the practical scenario is depicting something different (Gamson, 2000). Hunger, for instance cannot be minimized and any person without food will eventually die because hunger is purely a biologically driven instinct inside the human beings. But the world has seen numerous movements in order to liberate the sexual norms in society and in the same way a person can control the sexuality if he wants to and do not die without it. The social constructions of the personalities have the main role to play in defining sexuality standards for every person. The feminist movements claim that the sexual advancements have a social instinct rather than physical because in the same society a person of same age will be living in different mindset of sexuality (Villanueva, 1997). As great philosopher Foucault said in his epic work “history of Sexuality: An introduction” that there is no such thing as uncontrollable desires which can compel a person to commit illegal sexual acts. He said that the sexuality is what the man thinks and paints in his mind as a result of potential regulator of the ways in which sexuality can be thought of and expressed in personal experiences (Foucault, 1978). These personal experiences will give him the future course of action in his life. If the thoughts and perceptions are aligned with the ethical standards of the society then there is no way the biological trigger can enforce some illegal act on an individual. The ardent supporters of social construction theory argue that the sexuality is something that is in a volatile condition and keep changing every time as a result of external variables and influences (Vance, 1991). The mind game of an individual controls the definition of sexuality and with the time, the sexuality definitions and related acts keep changing. The experience of a person has also a very importunate role to play. The theme of the social construction theory is not declining the fact that sexuality and its experiences are totally independent of the physical aspects rather the point of the theory is that there are certain social regulations which conform to the mindset of a person regarding sexuality and different kinds of behaviors are surfaced as a result (Lichtenstein, 1961). There are different set standards in every society and the native people have sexuality definition according to those definitions. According to Goettsche, the sexual experiences will be perceived as biological actions when the mindset will be nurtured according to that. An accidental experience involving sexuality will never be taken as a sexual experience. The biological aspects are strongly coupled with the social and psychological aspects in sexuality and they define the overall behavior and perception of the experience (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Social constructionist approach tends to disdain and reject many other biological aspects regarding diverse activities in the human society for example it says that the gender is a misnomer if it is seen in the biological aspects solely (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). The social factor, roles and responsibilities decides the practical and societal gender of the human beings. Social construction theory rejects the fact that the life of the human beings are driven on the basis of physical instincts and says that the social evolution is responsible for the poverty factors , societal influences, workforce environments and behaviors of the human beings. The cultural aspects and societal factor play a key role to nourish a brute force from which an individual handles his surroundings. Biological aspects have their own importance but without the coupling with societal norms, biological factors can lose their significance (Hacking, 1999). References Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). 77ie social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday, 58, 749-83. DeCecco, J. P., & Elia, J. P. (1993). A critique and synthesis of biological essentialism and social constructionist views of sexuality and gender. Journal of Homosexuality, 24(3-4), 1-26. DeLamater, J. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research,35(1), 10-18. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage. Freund, P. E. (1988). Bringing society into the body. Theory and Society, 17(6), 839-864. Gamson, J. (2000). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research.Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 347-365. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Harvard University Press.,p. 12 Lichtenstein, H. (1961). Identity and sexuality—A study of their interrelationship in man. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 9, 179-260. Mallon, R. (2007). A field guide to social construction. Philosophy Compass,2(1), 93-108. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review,50(4), 370. Vance, C. S. (1989). Social construction theory: Problems in the history of sexuality. Homosexuality, which homosexuality, 13, 17. Vance, C. S. (1991). Anthropology rediscovers sexuality: A theoretical comment. Social Science & Medicine, 33(8), 875-884. Villanueva, M. I. M. (1997). The Social Construction of Sexuality: Personal Meanings, Perceptions of Sexual Experience, and Females Sexuality in Puerto Rico (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Read More