he aim of this paper is to critically discuss the hypothesis that children learn gender behaviour and if this is true, when and why do they do so. In order to do so, first of all it is necessary to define the terminology used in this paper. In a second step we need to evaluate the present findings with the view to finding out if there are other approaches to the topic. The following paper will therefore present the standpoints of different researchers, display both contrasts and similarities and try to find arguments supporting or opposing the findings.
From my point of view, both genetics and socialisation are responsible for the gender behaviour, which can be observed in even very young children. „Gender‟, in contrast to sex, is a term, which is investigated at the social, sociological level, but used interchangeably with „sex‟, which in Western cultures is used in dichotomous categories: male and female. „Sex‟ is commonly understood as a biological, genetic concept which is stable over time, whereas gender is seen as dynamic, shifting, having multiple versions. In general it can be described as the sense of oneself as man or woman and it reinforces the differences between men and women. However, there is no real agreement on the definition of gender so far. Later on, we will put this concept into perspective by introducing further categories of sex and gender.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. VARIOUS APPROACHES TO THE CONCEPT OF GENDER
2.1. ESSENTIALIST AND CONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACHES TO SEX AND GENDER
2.2. THE NATURE – NURTURE DEBATE
2.2.1. Biological accounts of gender differences
2.2.2 Genetic and evolutionary accounts
2.2.3. Freud and the Psychoanalysis
2.2.4. The Role of Socialisation
2.2.5. Cross-cultural Comparisons
2.2.6. Sex-differentiated Responses to Girls and Boys
2.2.7. Social-learning Theory
2.2.8. Gender Behaviour and Language
3. CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this work is to critically examine the hypothesis that children acquire gender-specific behaviors, while determining the timing and underlying motivations for these developmental processes. The paper evaluates various theoretical perspectives to identify contradictions and consistencies in existing research regarding gender formation.
- Theoretical dichotomy between essentialist and social constructionist perspectives.
- The influence of the nature-nurture debate on gender identity and behavioral development.
- Evaluation of biological, psychological, and sociological explanations for gendered behavior.
- The role of socialization, language, and cultural environment in forming gender roles.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.1. Biological accounts of gender differences
Biological accounts have often been used to support and legitimate inegalitarian practices, which lead to the feminist development of social accounts of gender differences (Burr 2003: 32). The problem which arises when natural is seen simultaneously as “right” is that “unnatural” e.g. sexual orientation such as homosexuality is thus treated as unacceptable. Man and women are obviously naturally different and those differences are right. The problems occur when nature is mobilized in arguments for ideological purposes. Biological accounts of gender differences being focused upon hormonal, genetic and evolutionary factors are deterministic and reductionist, positing a causal route from biological through psychological and evolutionary factors. For example genetics and hormones are supposed to account for psychological differences between sexes, such as aggressiveness and nurturance, which in turn are responsible for social phenomena like domestic violence or horizontal/vertical division of labour (Burr 2003: 33).
Hormonal accounts suggest that e.g. sex hormones (androgen, progesterone and oestrogen) have direct effects upon thinking and behaviour. But it has been shown in studies that there is no connection between hostility and aggression and testosterone levels. However, there seems to be a certain relationship between hormones and behaviour, e.g. androgens produce a higher degree of specialisation in male children’s brains, so emotional and verbal centres are unconnected to each other which in turn makes it difficult for men to talk about feelings. Here we could argue, that, since such phenomena are biologically driven and “have always been that way”, they are desirable or at least unchangeable (Burr 2003: 34).
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the research aim to investigate when and why children learn gender-specific behaviors, introducing key definitions of sex and gender.
2. VARIOUS APPROACHES TO THE CONCEPT OF GENDER: Analyzes the theoretical tension between essentialism and social constructionism, and details various biological, evolutionary, psychological, and cultural perspectives on gender development.
3. CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the findings, asserting that gender is a multifaceted product of socialization and construction that persists throughout the human lifespan.
Keywords
Gender, Sex, Socialization, Nature-Nurture Debate, Essentialism, Social Constructionism, Gender Identity, Psychoanalysis, Biological Determinism, Gender Roles, Language, Developmental Psychology, Behavioral Science, Intersex, Cultural Influences.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines whether gendered behavior is learned by children and seeks to understand the timing and mechanisms behind this social development.
What are the primary thematic fields covered in the text?
The work covers theoretical frameworks of gender, the debate between nature and nurture, biological factors, psychological theories like psychoanalysis, and the impact of socialization and language.
What is the central research question?
The central question is: when and why do children learn gender-specific behavior?
Which scientific methods are utilized to explore this topic?
The paper uses a critical literature review, evaluating various researchers' standpoints, historical case studies, and cross-cultural comparisons to contrast different academic perspectives.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body treats the essentialist versus constructionist debate, genetic and hormonal influences, Freudian concepts, cognitive development theories, and the role of linguistic environments.
Which keywords best describe the paper?
Key terms include Gender, Socialization, Nature-Nurture, Constructionism, and Gender Identity.
How does the author view the 'nature-nurture' debate?
The author argues that both genetics and social environment contribute to gendered behavior, noting that while biological explanations have historical dominance, the social construction of gender is equally critical.
What is the significance of the 'John/Joan' case mentioned?
The case is used to demonstrate the limitations of socialization in overriding biological sex and to highlight the ethical concerns regarding medical intervention in gender reassignment.
How does the author evaluate the impact of language on gender?
The author discusses how communicative styles between parents and children, as well as participation in gender-specific subcultures, play a significant role in developing differential communicative competencies.
- Citation du texte
- M.A. Irina Maric (Auteur), 2010, How Do Children Learn Gender and Why?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/205976
