LECTURE NOTES FOR GENDER – 1

Gender is a sociological concept. Therefore, it connotes a different set of meanings than the

concept sex. Sex, as a concept, refers to the physical-anatomical body one is born with. It defines “the

anatomical and physiological differences” which characterize male and female bodies. On the other

hand, gender refers to “the psychological, social and cultural differences between males and females”.

This distinction between the concepts of sex and gender is somewhat similar to the distinction we have

discussed in the culture chapter between “nature and nurture/culture”: to what extent human behavior

is determined by “nature” and “culture”. If we reformulate this question with respect to sex and gender

distinction: to what extent the differences between males and females have their origins in biology or

social and cultural learning. So, to the extent that we talk about gender differences we talk about social

and cultural processes of learning, adopting and adapting to. Clearly, this is a sociological issue and a

field of study.

Concerning the relative influences of sex and gender in determining the differences and

inequalities between males and females in social life, three approaches can be identified. The first

approach we can define as “natural differences” perspective. In this perspective gender is directly

reduced to sex. That is, gender differences are assumed to directly stem from biological differences.

Therefore, this approach claims that inequalities between genders are expressions of natural factors,

“ranging from hormones to chromosomes to brains size to genetics”.

The 2nd perspective is “gender socialization”. According to this perspective, gender differences

are learned in the socialization process of the human beings: “an infant is born with” the sex “and

develops” gender. As can be sensed, this perspective, while distinguishing sex and gender and defining

latter in terms of “learning”, retains an understanding of continuity between sex and gender. That is,

human beings “learn” the gender differences which are in conformity with their biological sex. Human

beings undergo the socialization process through primary and secondary agencies. Primary agency of

1
socialization is family; secondary agencies are friendship groups, schools, work etc. In a way,

socialization is a never-ending process. Gender socialization in this context, is the process of learning

gender roles and identities via family, friends, schools, work life etc.

The third perspective is “social construction of sex and gender”. This approach reflects the post-

structuralist turn in the social sciences in recent times. Post-structuralism rejects that the identities (any

identity) have unchangeable, given, taken-for-granted, natural-like universal essences. All identities are

socially and culturally constructed; they are discursively constructed, reiterated and reproduced. But, to

the extent that they are socio-cultural constructs they can be deconstructed, therefore changeable.

What this approach asserts concerning the sex-gender relationship is, in a sense, opposite of the

“natural differences” perspective; not only gender but sex itself is socially constructed. This is not about

denying the physiological and anatomical differences but claiming that the meanings human beings

attribute to these differences and the ways in which they live and express their sex are “learned”. The

point here is that the sex as an identity and experience is learned, hence constructed, by males and

females in a society. They learn and internalize sex-as an identity and experience- within certain

normative orders in social life which is mostly about learning how to become man and women. This

dominant normative order, it is argued, dictates a “binary” of sexual identity repressing other

possibilities like LGBT-Q ways of being. Judith Butler is the leading scholar and theoretician of this

perspective. As a result, this perspective rejects any biological-natural basis for gender identities.

GENDER RELATIONS

As can be expected, gender relations is a substantial field of study in sociology and social

sciences. As has been noted previously, sociological study investigates the “patterns” in social life. In this

sense, sociological study of gender relations examines how the relations between genders are

patterned. Therefore, gender relations, sociologically, refers to “the societally patterned interactions

2
between men and women.” In search of these patterns, a contemporary sociologist, Connell’s

introduction of several concepts have influenced the field. Three concepts can be emphasized here;

gender order, gender regime and gender hierarchy.

Gender order identifies the systematic inequalities between men and women and dominance of

men over women. This is the structure of patriarchy: “from the individual to the institutional level,

various types of masculinity and femininity are all arranged around a central premise: the dominance of

men over women.” This order or structure is constituted on the basis of three terrains of power

relations between genders which are labor, power and cathexis. These are distinguishable arenas of

power relations which interact with each other and creates the patriarchal structure. In this

categorization, labor is the arena of “sexual division of labor both within the home and in the labor

market”. While women mostly shoulder the burden of care at home, they suffer from discrimination and

unequal pay in the labor market. Power refers to, in this discussion, the arenas of institutional and

political expressions of authority, like state institutions, political parties, government, military etc. What

is pointed out in this context is that the figures of authority in these arenas are mostly the

personifications of a certain type of masculinity; authoritative, tough and dominant. Cathexis refers to

the sphere of intimacy; “emotional and personal relationships including marriage and sexuality.” Again,

it is argued that, there is a systematic repression of women in this realms which can be observed

through cases of violence and harassment.

While the term gender order points out the structure of patriarchy at a societal level, gender

regime refers to “the play of gender relations in smaller settings, such as a specific institution”; “a family,

a neighborhood and a state all have their own gender regimes.”

The gender hierarchy is another significant conception of Connell to reveal the aspects of

patterned relations between masculinities and femininities. This conception points out how different

3
masculine and feminine identities are structured in the form of a hierarchy in social life and cultural

mediums like media. Connell’s representation of these identities are rather “stylized ideal types” which

in real life could be found to be more mixed up and variable. At the top of this hierarchy there is

hegemonic masculinity. It is “dominant over all other masculinities and femininities in society”.

Hegemony here implies unquestioning social and cultural acceptance of a certain form of identity as

dominant by default; as if this is naturally so. Of course, this acceptance is constituted via endless and

repetitive representations in different spheres of social and cultural life from media to education, sport

and politics. In these representations, hegemonic masculinity is mostly associated with “authority, paid

work, strength and physical toughness”. The edition of our textbook has been published in 2006 and

interestingly one example of hegemonic masculinity is given as Donald Trump. What a foresight you may

think. Still, hegemonic masculinity, we should underline, is a representation of image than being real.

Therefore, what dominates social and cultural life is an image of masculinity which is endlessly

reproduced in popular culture; one can think of James Bond for that matter. In the side of masculinities

and under the hegemonic masculinity there is complicit masculinity. It is a masculine identity which

pretends, admires and strives towards acting and being like the hegemonic form. By doing so it

reproduces the hegemonic masculinity however imaginary it could be. At the bottom of the masculine

side of the hierarchy and as a case of subordinated masculinity there is homosexual masculinity.

Femininities “are all formed in positions of subordination to hegemonic masculinity”. One form of these

subordinated feminine identities is “emphasized femininity”. It appears as the feminine “complement”

to the hegemonic masculinity which is oriented to accommodate “the interest and desires of men and is

characterized by compliance, nurturance and empathy.” Certain subordinated femininities reject to play

the role and perform the identity of emphasized femininity like feminists and others. They are defined,

in this framework, as “resistant femininities.”

4
5