Gender Socialisation

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

Gender Socialisation

It's an obvious - but important - point to note that any human infant is born into a culture that already exists and this culture involves a multitude of social relationships (both inter-personal and institutional).

Not only does this mean that a child has to learn how to fit into these existing cultural arrangements, it also means that the people charged with the task of raising an infant already possess a set of ideas (an "ideology") about how to raise that child in line with the various moral and normative expectations of the social groups and society to which they belong.
Gender preconceptions about how males and females should be raised, how they should respond to adult stimulation (such as toys, books and language) and so forth are already in place from the moment a child is born. Thus, a baby is born into an already existing cultural environment - with all its attendant labels, categorisations, expectations and cultural preferences.
From the moment of birth - once the identifying label of "male" or "female" is applied - a human infant is categorised on the basis of their biology.

The child is not, however, simply identified as male or female, since these are merely labels on the boxes that contain socially defined characteristics associated with "masculinity" and "femininity" in the society into which the child is born.
Whilst all societies recognise biological sex differences, they may attribute very different gender characteristics to the respective sexes. In effect, therefore, the child is categorised in terms of gender (using sex as the initial mechanism of such a categorisation).
"He" is not simply male, but heir to a wide range of social traits that our culture attributes to "being male" (masculinity).

"She", similarly, is not merely female, but heiress to the (different) range of social traits that our culture associates with masculinity.

Parents have a socially derived and socially constructed "world view" (or "ideological framework") that tells them something about the kinds of behaviour that the people in their culture expect from males and females. Their objective, as parents, therefore, is to raise their children in line with the generally-held normative expectations associated with gender appropriate behaviour.

This is significant when we consider that, for the first few months of its life, the human baby is totally dependent upon adults not just for its physical survival but also for its social stimulation. A baby is born into a strange world of light and sound that it is not, as yet, mentally-equipped to understand...

However, we should not assume that because it doesn't understand it is not conscious of its surroundings - on the contrary, even new-born babies are involved in the rapid learning process (albeit largely unconsciously). One of the most significant stages in child development is the learning of language, but language - as a form of communication - has many dimensions and is not restricted to verbal utterances.

Non-verbal communication is important at this stage. The child will be aware of physical differences in the way it is handled, for example. It will also be aware of differences in smell, tone of voice and so forth between males and females. Even at this early stage in its development a child is aware - at a primitive level of comprehension - of gender differences.
As a child develops physically within their cultural environment it is generally considered that, by the age of 2, a child knows whether they are a boy or a girl.
By 5 or 6 the child will have come to understand that "gender" does not change and that male / female differences are anatomically based.
What this starts to demonstrate is the process of socialisation that begins when a child is born; the label applied to it is a key cultural categorisation (that is, it represents a "master label"; in this case, an ascribed label (one that is given to us regardless of whether we want it or we accept it) that will stay with the child for the rest of its life.

This idea is important - not just in relation to gender but to all forms of socialisation - because it allows us to note two major ideas:

Firstly, any socialisation process must have a cultural context. That is, a set of existing values and associated norms into which the child is to be socialised.

Secondly, just as adults (parents, for example) develop mental maps about acceptable and unacceptable cultural values and norms that reflect their knowledge and experience in and of the social world, so too does a child...

The cultural context in which we develop as an individual sets various boundaries for our behaviour, some of which are highly specific and fairly rigid and others which are highly generalised and open to various interpretations. The socialisation process to which children are subjected reflects adult's knowledge of these boundaries (they are landmarks, if you like that guide the development of our mental maps / ideological frameworks concerning such things as "how to be a female, husband, child, friend, lover, check-out operator, brain surgeon or whatever). The process of socialisation therefore, involves a mixture of boundary-setting, social control (both external - what others do to you - and internal - what you do to yourself) and interpretation.

In relation to explaining differential educational achievement, therefore, the basic idea behind this particular theory is that because, in our society, boys and girls are socialised differently within the family group they grow-up with different perceptions and expectations of that world (both in terms of "what it's like" and, of course, what they can expect to achieve on their journey through that world).

In short, therefore, the theory of primary gender socialisation argues that as children in our society leave the family group and enter the education system they are already primed with certain perceptions and expectations about their likely future adult roles. For both males and females, therefore, how much they try to achieve in the education system is related to their primary socialisation within a family group.

www.sociology.org.uk/tece1th.htm

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

Gender Socialisation

Although it's fairly clear (from writers such as Mead and Oakley) that the primary socialisation process within the family group is influential in terms of creating different gender roles and identities, it doesn't necessarily follow from this that we can easily establish the extent to which these differences translate into educational differences.

In one sense, therefore, we are faced with a classic "chicken and egg" situation. That is, which comes first:

Do differences in gender socialisation within the family group translate into educational differences and work role differences or
Do changes in the workplace and education system "filter down" to the family group, producing differences in the gender socialisation process?
The overall picture is, of course, further complicated by recent changes in the relative educational achievements of males and females.

In the past, it was possible to suggest that parental socialisation produced clear differences in the perceptions and expectations of male and female children (for example, the expectation that males would enter the labour market on a full-time, life-long, basis, whereas the primary female adult role would be a child-rearing, domestic labour, one.

The fact that girls underperformed in the education system was explained in a variety of ways. For example, Abbot and Wallace ("Feminist Perspectives") identify four major areas of the hidden curriculum that apparently disadvantage girls:

a. The academic hierarchy.
b. Stereotyped attitudes.
c. Textbooks.
d. Subject choice and activities.

Similarly, Scott ("Patriarchy in School Textbooks") found three basic themes in her analysis of curriculum materials:

The derogation of women (women portrayed in subordinate or decorative roles).
The invisibility of women (women simple fail to feature in many books).
The insignificance of women (for example, history books that focus exclusively on male exploits in wartime).
These ideas, however important they may or may not prove to be, are beyond the immediate scope of this particular section and are discussed in more detail in relation to the hidden curriculum and the education system.

In the present, however, it is difficult to see how the recent and fairly rapid changes in overall female performance can be simply traced-back to primary gender socialisation. If anything, one might suspect that changes in wider society (the workplace, for example, and a general change in perceptions for male and female adult roles) are more-likely to have contributed to a change in educational performance. In this respect, the argument here is that the secondary socialisation process is more likely to have influenced male / female social development than the primary socialisation process within the family.

A further complication, however, is added by class, ethnic and regional differences in (female) educational achievement (as, of course, they also complicate the general picture for male educational achievement).

Interestingly, however, it is perhaps significant to note that higher levels of female achievement have coincided with changes to the school curriculum.

For example, the introduction of the GCSE exam (and it's accompanying emphasis on coursework) seems to have benefited females more than males (possibly because girls are more willing to spend extended periods of time working independently).

The introduction of a National Curriculum that specified subjects to be studied by all children may also have benefited females by removing subject choices from students. For example, the fact that mathematics became a compulsory part of the curriculum for all students up to GCSE level meant that large numbers of girls no-longer "dropped-out" of this subject at the earliest possible opportunity, leading to an overall improvement in female levels of achievement.

Similarly, the appearance of science (like maths, traditionally perceived as a "male subject") as a core part of the curriculum has meant that larger numbers of females achieved more in this area.

Finally, however, the above suggests one way in which primary gender socialisation may influence the educational process (and, by extension, differences in levels of achievement) and that is in terms of a gendered curriculum. This is the idea that males and females are encouraged to study different subjects. Some subjects becoming seen as male, some as female and some as gender neutral.

Over the past 100 years, explicit curriculum differences have been progressively eliminated. As Taylor et al ("Sociology In Focus", 1996), for example, note:

"The 1902 Education Act made domestic subjects such as cookery and needlework compulsory for girls but not for boys…During the 20th century…the tradition of girls doing home economics and boys woodwork and metalwork has been largely replaced by technology for all pupils.".

One explanation for the fact that girls perform as well as boys academically but tend to avoid certain subjects) is that when girls enter education they have a problem:

a. They are taught, as part of the secondary socialisation process in schools, that they are the equal of boys and that their eventual achievement will be on merit (that is, girls are not actively discriminated against - although there is evidence of passive forms of gender discrimination).

b. Their primary socialisation has taught them that there are some areas of the social world that are not considered, in our society, to be feminine.

This situation creates a problem of anomie. In this instance a conflict over role expectations and the ideology that surrounds male and female roles. For example:

As a schoolgirl, a girl is expected to try her best to achieve academically.
As a female, girls are not expected to enter areas of the curriculum (and by extension the workforce) associated with masculine gender characteristics.
Thus, girls are secondary socialised into ideological assumptions about competing and succeeding at school. Primary socialisation, however, teaches them that some areas of work (and the curriculum) are off-limits. If they insist on studying those areas then they run the risk of attracting a deviant label ("unfeminine" is probably one way of expressing it...).

Girls resolve this problem by avoiding certain subjects classified as masculine (such as the natural sciences) and opting for subjects classified as feminine (such as modern languages) or socially neutral (such as English literature). For males the above process also holds true, except it is largely reversed.

The significance of a gendered curriculum is that boys and girls become segregated within the school in a way that channels girls into a relatively narrow range of future occupations (usually those that reflect social stereotypes about women and affective roles - the teaching, nursing and social work professions, for example).

Although this theory explains why some boys and girls take certain types of subject, the fact that not all boys and girls stick to gender appropriate subjects indicates that the theory cannot fully explain the gendered curriculum.

Additionally, at GCSE level and below a National Curriculum has meant that blatant forms of gender association are no-longer as much in evidence, since all pupils are expected to follow the same basic curriculum. This may eliminate some forms of gender association (especially in GCSE subjects such as maths, which all children are now expected to take).

It is not clear why some subjects, such as sociology and psychology should be female gendered. One explanation - that they are seen as easier - is plausible since it keys into traditional assumptions about the relative abilities of males and females. However, if this were the case, as evidence of female achievements become more widely known, we would expect this situation to change.

Alternatively, the association with social science and social work, teaching, nursing and so forth might explain the gendering of these subjects, since such careers are still highly gendered in our society.

Anomie theory does seem to offer a general explanation as to the process of the curriculum becoming gendered, especially in the higher levels of the education system where students are free to pick the subjects they want to follow.

In particular, one of the strengths of this theory is that it relates events in the wider world (work, the secondary socialisation of males and females) to individual choices and shows how wider social structures influence such choices. In this respect, anomie theory can be used to explain why patterns of gendered subjects develop.

To conclude, therefore, it is evident that primary gender socialisation does have some influence on perceptions and expectations in the educational system. When we add in factors such as class and ethnic background to this equation it perhaps becomes easier to see how such socialisation must have some form of influence.

However, it's one thing to note the possibility of such influence and quite another to argue that primary socialisation alone can account for differences in educational achievement. In this respect, the case either for or against parents being the prime culprits in this case is, at best, unproven...

www.sociology.org.uk/tece1eh.htm