Is Gender Identity Acquired or Ascribed - Essay Example

1. Is Gender Identity Acquired Or Ascribed? Discuss This Question Comparing Micro And Macro Sociological Perspectives. Table of Contents Introduction3 A Brief Overview of Different Sociological Perspectives 3 Comparison between the Sociological Perspectives 4 Critical Evaluation 7 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction Gender identity is referred to as an individual’s own sense and experience concerning gender. It can be further understood as one’s self-knowledge about the gender to which an individual belongs to. Identities are usually formed based on two common views namely ascribed identity and acquired identity. The identity of a person may be regarded as his/her self-creation, which is determined based upon the traits acquired from others. There remains ambiguity amid the people and the variables upon which gender identity gets determined in this present day context (Bendle, 2002). With this concern, the essay intends to determine whether gender identity is acquired or ascribed by making a comparison between micro and macro sociological perspectives. A Brief Overview of Different Sociological Perspectives Gender identity among the individuals can be determined based upon several macro as well as micro sociological perspectives including ‘normative’, ‘conflict’ and ‘interpretive’ perspectives. Similarly, for determining whether gender identity is acquired or ascribed, certain sociological perspectives including Goffman’s Dramaturgical and Mead’s Symbolic Interaction approaches have been taken into concern for discussion. These approaches reveal the macro sociological perspectives that differ from micro level approaches involving small face-to-face interactions ((Bendle, 2002). While determining whether gender identity is acquired or ascribed, one of the sociological perspectives i.e. the ‘dramaturgy approach’ proposed by Erving Goffman has been duly considered. Goffman holds the perception that the superlative way to recognise social interaction amid the people is by making interactions with the enactment of performance in a theatre. Goffman further added that similar to the actors performing on a stage, individuals make better use of impressions and forward information to others that present them in a situation wherein they belong to. It can be affirmed in this regard that Goffman’s dramaturgy approach tends to determine gender identity as ascribed in nature (West & Zimmerman, 2009). Another approach relevant to the study is the ‘Symbolic Interactionism Theory’, which propounded by George Herbert Mead and his student Herbert Blumer. According to Mead, the events as well as the objects do not have any special meaning by their own. Moreover, people provide meaning to any event and object by the way of making regular interactions with the different community members. Blumer supported the idea of Mead and holds the perception that people establish their self-social actuality based on individual and group actions and hence, the formation of social reality can be duly considered as an ongoing process. Symbolic interactionism theory intends to correlate gender identity as acquired by individuals (Deutsch, 2007). Comparison between the Sociological Perspectives After acquiring a brief idea about Goffman’s dramaturgy approach, it can be affirmed that this sociological perspective is much easy to comprehend. This might be owing to the reason that this sociological perspective is fundamentally based upon a simpler phenomenon, which considers individuals in terms of stage players. Furthermore, the theory focuses on the concept of ‘Impression Management’, which lays stress upon ascertaining the activities perform by the individuals, rather than assessing the consequences of the existing situations. More importantly, the theory involves face-to-face interactions that help in understanding the actions of others. Additionally, the theory described two different areas that provide the opportunity to relate stage situations with that of real life. The situations can be related with onstage idea where people perform well in front of others and backstage notion, wherein people behave in their own way without considering their social identity (West & Zimmerman, 2009). In contrast, ‘symbolic interactionism theory’ proposed by Mead and Blumer has its own attributes different to that of Goffman’s dramaturgy approach. The theory enables the people to have liberty of choice and action within a democratic macro level society. Furthermore, the theory allows individuals to gain moral responsibility apart from getting motivated through fixed norms. According to the theory, the individuals can have the opportunity to take their own decisions, select suitable preferences and modify their behaviours. Moreover, the theory gets involved in working over the interactions made by the people relating to social reality (Prevos, 2006). On a further note, Goffman’s dramaturgy approach focuses on the concept of ‘the self’, which he regards as a social origin. The self can be shaped into several patterns for presentation of the identities amid various social settings. Although the front stage allows the individuals to show off their talents, it can restrict them to play actual roles, as they often had to perform in accordance with the expectations of others. The gender identity in terms of feminine or masculine can be tied with dramaturgy approach, as there lay certain similarities of performance with that of identity conceptions. Women may play several roles in distinct situations such as dancers and singers among others that can be attributed to their performance, but not with their roles in backstage. Hence, Goffman’s theory fails to consider the sociological aspects of power and comprehending legitimacy persisting within the societies. Furthermore, the dramaturgy approach is unable to realize the reality of why individuals perform and actually conduct activities. Goffman further failed to analyse the patterns of shape and power in relation to the performance of individuals. Moreover, Goffman paid utmost attention on the theatrical metaphor, which may not be compatible in other situations. Additionally, it may lead to duplication of the deception and the knowledge of ‘impression management’ and ‘social identity’ in totality (Prevos, 2006). The symbolic interactionism theory of Mead and Blumer is relevant to the importance of analysing the human behaviour with the help of symbols. The theory can be related with the gender identity of femininity along with masculinity, as the attributes of both of them get established and reinforced with the help of making societal interactions. Both the concepts of masculinity and femininity are regarded as gender identities and gets differentiated based on performance. However, the theory can provide negative conclusions in the context of determining whether gender identity gets ascribed or acquired, as symbols may be interpreted in a wrong way. Furthermore, the symbolic interactionism theory fails to extend the concept of socialisation. The theory excludes certain influences that affect the social patterns acting as external factors. In addition, the theory fails to consider the socioeconomic categories apart from refurbishing the class patterns. By considering the fact that the theory lays stress upon the concept of ‘social identity’, gender identity can be regarded as acquired in nature (Bendle, 2002). Critical Evaluation With the support of dramaturgy approach, Goffman tries to discover the basic concepts underlying an individual’s identity, his/her relation with others and influence on the surroundings based on performance. It is worth mentioning that Goffman’s work tries to establish an association between the concepts of ‘performance’, ‘teams’ and stages’. The theory works at the micro level through agency and structure and provides evidences of various kinds of social interactions taking place amid the individuals in a society. Goffman regards performance creation as a form of impression management. Furthermore, the concepts of backstage and front stage, as proposed by Goffman, at certain times fail in real life evidences. One such example can be illustrated as women working in strip clubs and the responses of people towards them. As per Goffman, people tend to perform differently amid others in front stage as well as at the backstage. However, the feminine gender result in the creation of disparity, which in turn, influences the power and control of the works that one has to perform. Specially mentioning, gender disparities in real life situations such as sexual harassment in society cannot be matched with the theory propounded by Goffman. Besides, stage situations and performance cannot be compared with the actual settings. It will be vital to mention that the real life evidences of using social media, wherein online bullying is witnessed, conclude that gender identity is ascribed having relation with Goffman’s theory. According to Goffman, the stage can allow the individuals such as strip clubs, doctors and professors to perform in a particular situation, whether they act differently at the backstage or indulge themselves in any other responsibility (MacInnes, 2004). Following several modern day issues faced by feminine gender such as lower self esteem, it can be affirmed that gender identity is ascribed. This can be verified when compared to Goffman’s theory. However, situations including online bullying and sexual harassment can be regarded as acquired, as some feminine try to clarify such problems by themselves. This can be attributed with the ‘symbolic interactionism’ theory, which regards that gender identity is acquired (MacInnes, 2004). Conclusion Based on the above analysis and discussion, it has been quite clear that dramaturgy approach considers gender identity to be ascribed, as the problems faced by individuals in real life tend to occur in terms of backstage performances. However, in actual situations, masculine and feminine disparities that encompass internet bullying, strip dance and sexual harassment are identified to be ascribed. However, in alternate situations, when genders are able to cope and manage their problems by their own, the gender identity can be regarded as acquired, wherein the individuals themselves define their respective social identities. In this situation, they are able to manage certain problems, as these are acquired by their own. References Bendle, M. F., 2002. The Crisis of ‘Identity’ In High Modernity. British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 53, Iss. 1, pp. 1–18. Deutsch, F. M., 2007. Undoing Gender. Gender & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 106-127. MacInnes, J., 2004. The Sociology of Identity: Social Science or Social Comment? The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55, Iss. 4, pp. 532-543. Prevos, P., 2006. From Chicago to Frankfurt: Goffman and Marcuse on Identity. Goffman and Marcuse on Identity, pp. 1-4. West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H., 2009. Accounting for Doing Gender. Gender & Society, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 112-122. Read More