Androgyny
In the past people tend to have very clear ideas about what was appropriate to each sex and anyone behaving differently was regarded as deviant.
Today we accept a lot more diversity (e.g. Hayley Cropper off Corrie) and see gender as a continuum (i.e. scale) rather than two categories. So men are free to show their “feminine side” and women are free to show their “masculine traits”.
For example,
• Beckman wears a skirt
• Earrings for men
• Women’s boxing
• Girl Power
So it has become a lot more difficult to say what us typically “male” or “female”, and people who are biologically one sex often possess qualities (and the behaviour) appropriate to the opposite sex.
Androgyny refers to the recognition that individuals possess qualities (or traits) which are characteristic of both masculinity and femininity. Androgyny was first identified by Bem (1974) and current research argues that this promotes psychological health. Davison (2000) reports in women that those who had androgynous characteristics scored highly in terms of their well-being than women that were not androgynous. In the same way Gana (2001) found that highly androgynous husbands had a happier home life and participated more in the household tasks and in the bringing up of the children than did husbands with rigid traditional gender views. Angrogyny can be measured using Bem's Sex Role Inventory (1974).
Sex role stereotypes are beliefs held by a culture about what is appropriate and typical behaviour for males and females. It is an oversimplified, general attitude of how males and females are expected to behave.
Examples of sex role stereotypes include:
• Men better at driving (than women), more aggressive, good at DIY
• Females are caring, good with children, cannot read maps.
Stereotypes overemphasise similarities between individuals and underestimate the similarities between groups. They work on the basis of exclusive categories. Behaviour can only be found in that category and will not be found in another. For example, if women are stereotyped as caring, men cannot also be stereotyped as caring. Any behaviour not constant with the stereotype is said to be deviant, therefore caring men are acting in a deviant (feminine) manner.
Most studies on sex stereotypes show that it is nurture (i.e. our environment, upbringing and socialisation) and not nature (biology, hormones and genes) that determines our sexual identity.
Gender and Cultural Diversity
There are a number of reasons why a researcher might consider carrying out cross-cultural studies. Traditionally psychologists have been preoccupied with the extent to which human behaviour is governed by universal social processes. By doing this, psychologists can be more certain that there theories can be generalised to the whole of mankind. For example, studies such as those by Mead (1935) point to differences between cultures as evidence of environmental factors playing a vital role in the development of gender identity.
Cultural diversity implies that different groups within society have different norms and values relating to behaviour and social roles. Therefore different cultural groups will have different ideas of the roles and behaviour of males and females within that society.
Cross-cultural studies take place in one culture and are designed to be compared with another culture. Psychologists, such as Mead, have used cross-cultural studies to investigate gender in one culture and compare it with another. This is a useful way of understanding the extent both nature and nurture have on gender.
Mead (1935) – An example of Cross-Cultural Study / Evidence for Nurture
Aim: Mead (1935) conducted a cross-cultural study of three societies to investigate whether there were differences in gender roles which would suggest that gender was a product of environment rather than culture.
Method: She visited three tribal communities on the island of New Guinea for a period of six months. The Arapesh lived in the mountain region, the Mundugamor lived by the riverside and the Tchambuli lived on the lakeside. She observed and recorded the behaviour of people within these groups for comparison with traditional Western culture.
Results: The Arapesh showed personality traits and behaviours similar to those found in Western society, although they were more interested in the community than in pursuing individual goals. The Mundugamor were described as fierce and cannibalistic. Both males and females displayed traits which were described as masculine. The Tchambuli had distinctive gender roles, but the reverse of those in the West; men were more artistic and women held the social and economic power.
Conclusion: There is no inevitable relationship between biological sex and gender role. Culture is the major socialising and conditioning agent, particularly in the early years.
Evaluation: Mead’s work is one of the most reported pieces of cross-cultural research and has been used as evidence to support the idea of the environment being the main force in gender role. However, the study and its conclusions are not without criticism. Many current anthropologists challenge her methodology as being unscientific. She was in her early twenties at the time with little life experience. This could certainly have affected her judgement of what she was observing and influenced the way in which she was regarded by the islanders, whose culture values age for its wisdom. Prior to her research in New Guinea, she already held a strong belief in the powerful role of the environment in shaping gender behaviour. This could have biased her perceptions of what she observed (made her subjective).
Errington and Gewertz (1989) have revisited the Tchambuli and re-analysed Mead’s original material. They record that the women do not dominate men, nor is the reverse true. The fact that Mead only spent six months in these communities is also a problem. During that period only a limited amount of the yearly cycle would have been observed; any other data would have been second hand. She herself recognised the problem of being a woman and therefore unable to understand a male perspective. Regardless of its flaws, the findings of cultural differences in gender behaviour stimulated the argument about the role of nature and nurture in defining gender roles.
