Beyond Essentialism
Sociological Theories of Gender
Sociologists who study gender have gone through an ongoing process of empirical research and theoretical discussions that explore the etiology of gender as a social phenomenon. These theories are important to learn because they inform not just sociological thinking but public discourse, public policy, and personal identity (and the intersection among all those dynamics). Thus, it’s important that we return to these perspectives repeatedly as we begin our foray into the Sociology of Sex and Gender.
Barbara Risman outlined four theoretical traditions that have emerged from the social sciences:
3) Origins of sex — what Westbrook and Schilt refer to as Essentialism
2) Interactional theories of gender, such as “Doing Gender” by West and Zimmerman
3) Structural theories of gender
4) Combination approach: “Gender as Social Structure” (Risman)
I’m going to start with essentialism, which in historical context, emerged prior to any of the other three approaches. In essence, as we will learn, the more we come to understand, the more complex our theories become. Essentialist theories posit that sex and gender and sexuality emerge from our bodies; they are genetic, chromosomal, and pre-determined. The implication of this is that in addition, they are immutable; difficult to impossible to change. Most scholarly theories of gender emerged out of the feminist movement, which took to task this idea, by arguing that patriarchy is not inevitable, but is instead socially constructed (this will lead us to the rest of the theories).
Before we move on, it’s important to note the current sociological analysis of essentialism (as evident in Westbrook and Schilt).
Essentialism isn’t just a scientific theory, it is also woven into our culture. In other words, essentialism is also an ideology. In our society, we hold very strong cultural beliefs about the biological origins of sex differences. Despite evidence to the contrary (see Serena Williams or Megan Rapinoe), we still believe that “men” are stronger than “women,” or that “women” are more “natural” caregivers than “men.” Once we explore these ideologies with evidence, they start to break down.
Watch any mass/popular movie or T.V. show — Friends is a very clear example of this — and you will find the belief that “men” are more interested in sex than “women.” Even Sex in the City, which (first, and then followed by shows like Girls and Broad City) attempted to invert this assumption, is built upon the premise that women can have sex like men, where men’s sexual appetites are still the standard (this is how patriarchy works).
Examples abound of our belief in the essential nature of sex differences. The sociological explanation for this is found in the concept of hegemony, whereby culture is a primary vehicle for organizing and maintaining systemic inequality. That is, patriarchy, as a social system, requires a culture to justify it, to maintain it. Thus, the belief that “men” and “women” are “naturally” different upholds institutionalized patriarchy.
This articulation of theories of hegemony highlights structural theories of gender. Structural theories of gender argue that sex and gender are concepts that exist to organize a social system that is built into the macro level, and into the institutional fabric of society. That patriarchy doesn’t originate in our bodies, but in our laws and policies, and in our rules and regulations. The Constitution says “all men are created equal,” and did not give women voting or property or personhood rights. The right to vote came in 1920, but remember this was during the long era of westward expansion (severely changing the lives of Indigenous and Mexican communities) and Jim Crow segregation, so not all women were granted suffrage along with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
One way that gender is institutionalized is through the commodification of gendered ideas, in particular, through the ways in which feminist activism is co-opted into capitalist profits. Rather than exploring the ways in which the feminist model of choice became the mythos of having it all, we are encouraged to exhaust ourselves and anesthetize with wine. All the while, corporations like Amazon and Walmart, coupled with Big Alcohol make significant profits on women’s consumption (see all those 5-star reviews!). There’s even a tie-in with breast cancer awareness, which is particularly concerning given the links between alcohol consumption and breast cancer.
A few more examples of institutionalized gender can be found in exploring: the wage gap, hiring practices and policies, parental leave policy, the Violence Against Women Act, internet trolling, and the glass ceiling (and on and on). And, as Westbrook and Schilt (2014) point out, these institutions (legal, medical, sport) play a key role in “determining” our gender.
That leaves us with interactional theories of gender: gender is produced through social interactions. As West and Zimmerman articulated in 1987 (and Westbrook and Schilt illuminated more recently), gender both precedes interactions and emerges from interactions. What does this mean? Well, gender is a social construct, rather than an essential feature of humans. As such, it needs a system of social maintenance. It doesn’t just emerge from our bodies, but it has to be produced. It has to be enacted. We create gender through our regular, daily, persistent, mundane actions. Often we don’t even realize we are creating gender (difference) through our actions and our interactions, but in fact, we are! We all have hair, right? But, we grow it and cut it and shave it and style it in ways that produce and reinforce ideas of “men” and “women” (unless we are non-binary, but even then it is hard to evade the binary, as Spencer Garrison explores). On top of that, we are held accountable by others, and this shapes and reshapes our gendered enactments. For example, I (a cis-identified female) get dressed in the morning (in a feminine-ish style) and then I go to work. While at work a few different co-workers tell me that “I look nice today.” This makes me feel good, and reinforces my interest in dressing this way, which I continue to do. This response to my outfit is part of how gender is produced in interactions: gender norms are either reinforced or challenged through our day-to-day actions and interactions. If we challenge the norms, then we have to cope with the various ways in which we are held accountable: stares, snickers, insults, physical violence. These function as deterrents, and thus, to reinforce the prevailing patriarchal gender system.
Finally, Risman presents the fourth path, and the one that we will follow in this course: the one that integrates each of the three theories into one framework to be utilized for analyzing sex and gender. We will explore how essentialism shapes our lives as an ideology (not a biological reality), how gender is produced in interaction, how ideologies of gender are culturally embedded, and how gender is institutionalized. This combination approach is what Risman calls “Gender as Social Structure” and should be understood in relational terms; each level mutually shapes and reinforces the other (see image below).
Combined, and in conjunction with theories of intersectionality, these theoretical frameworks point us in sociological directions, allowing us to shift away from biological etiological explanations and into the realm of culture and structure.
Happy learning,
Dr. Monica
