In Western culture, men are stereotypically seen as being aggressive, competitive,
and instrumentally oriented while women are seen as being passive, cooperative, and
expressive. Early thinking often assumed that this division was based on underlying
innate differences in traits, characteristics, and temperaments of males and females. In
this older context, measures of femininity/masculinity were often used to diagnose
what were understood as problems of basic gender identification, for example,
feminine males or masculine females (cf. Terman and Miles 1936).
We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon
social and cultural conditions. Anthropologist Margaret Mead addressed the issue of
differences in temperament of males and females in Sex and Temperament in Three
Primitive Societies (1935). This early study concluded that there are no necessary
differences in traits or temperaments between the sexes. Observed differences in
temperament between men and women are not a function of their biological
differences. Rather, they result from differences in socialization and the cultural
expectations held for each sex.
Mead came to this conclusion because the three societies showed patterns of
temperament that varied greatly with our own. Among the Arapesh, both males and
females displayed what we would consider a "feminine" temperament (passive,
cooperative, and expressive). Among the Mundugamor, both males and females
displayed what we would consider a "masculine" temperament (active, competitive,
and instrumental). Finally, among the Tchambuli, men and women displayed
temperaments that were different from each other, but opposite to our own pattern. In
that society, men were emotional and expressive while women were active and
instrumental.
Mead's study caused people to rethink the nature of femininity/masculinity. Different
gender-related traits, temperaments, roles, and identities could no longer be
inextricably tied to biological sex. Since Mead's study, the nature–nurture issue has
been examined extensively, and with much controversy, but no firm conclusions are
yet clear (Maccoby and Jacklin 1974). While there may be small sex differences in
temperament at birth (and the evidence on this is not consistent), there is far more
variability within each sex group (Spence and Helmreich 1978). Further, the pressures
of socialization and learning far outweigh the impact of possible innate sex
differences in temperament.
There are at least three major theories that explain the development of femininity and
masculinity: psychoanalytic theory (Freud 1927), cognitive-developmental theory
(Kohlberg 1966), and learning theories that emphasize direct reinforcement
(Weitzman 1979) and modeling (Mischel 1966). In all of these theories, a two-part
process is involved. In the first part, the child comes to know that she or he is female
or male. In the second part, the child comes to know what being female or male means
in terms of femininity or masculinity.
According to psychoanalytic theory, one's gender identity develops through
identification with the same-sex parent. This identification emerges out of the conflict
inherent in the oedipal stage of psychosexual development. By about age 3, a child
develops a strong sexual attachment to the opposite-sex parent. Simultaneously,
negative feelings emerge for the same-sex parent that are rooted in resentment and
jealousy. By age 6, the child resolves the psychic conflict by relinquishing desires for
the opposite-sex parent and identifying with the same-sex parent. Thus, boys come to
learn masculinity from their fathers and girls to learn femininity from their mothers.
A later formulation of psychoanalytic theory suggests that mothers play an important
role in gender-identity development. According to Chodorow (1978), mothers are
more likely to relate to their sons as different and separate because they are not of the
same sex. At the same time, they experience a sense of oneness and continuity with
their daughters because they are of the same sex. As a consequence, mothers will
bond with their daughters, thereby fostering femininity in girls. Simultaneously,
mothers distance themselves from their sons, who respond by shifting their attention
away from their mother and toward their father. Through identification with their
father, boys learn masculinity.
Cognitive-developmental theory is another psychological theory of gender-identity
development (Kohlberg 1966). Like psychoanalytic theory, it suggests that certain
critical events have a lasting effect on gender-identity development, but these events
are seen as cognitive rather than psychosexual in origin. Unlike psychoanalytic theory
and learning theory (which is discussed next), cognitive-development theory sees the
development of a gender identity as preceding rather than following from
identification with the same-sex parent. Once a child's gender identity becomes
established, the self is then motivated to display gendercongruent attitudes and
behaviors, well before same-sex modeling takes hold. Same-sex modeling simply
moves the process along.
Kohlberg identifies two crucial stages of gender identity development: (1) acquiring a
fixed gender identity and (2) establishing gender-identity constancy. The first stage
begins with the child's identification as male or female when hearing the labels "boy"
or "girl" applied to the self. By about age 3, the child can apply the appropriate gender
label to the self. This is when gender identity becomes fixed. By about age 4, these
gender labels are appropriately applied to others. Within another year or two, the child
reaches the second critical phase, that of gender constancy. This is the child's
recognition that his or her gender will not change despite changes in age or outward
appearance.
The most social of the theories of genderidentity development are the learning
theories. In these theories, it is the social environment of the child, such as parents and
teachers, that shapes the child's gender identity. Here, parents and teachers instruct the
child on femininity and masculinity, either directly through rewards and punishments
or indirectly through acting as models to be imitated. Direct rewards or punishments
are often given for outward appearance, such as what to wear (girls in dresses and
boys in pants); object choice, such as toy preferences (dolls for girl and trucks for
boys); and behavior (passivity and dependence in girls and aggressiveness and
independence in boys). Through rewards and punishments, children learn appropriate
appearance and behavior. Indirect learning of one's gender identity emerges from
modeling same-sex parents, teachers, peers, or models in the media. Children imitate
rewarded models' thoughts, feelings, or behavior because they anticipate that they will
receive the same rewards that the models received.
SOCIALIZATION
Hidden curriculum is also used as a vehicle for socialization in school. Hidden curriculum as the
term implies is what children learn other than the academic content from what they do or are
expected to do. Teachers and classmates shape children’s attitudes towards social class, gender
etc. which get reflected in their behaviour. In this way, school as an agent plays a pivotal role in
the socialization of children reinforcing the habits, values, and norms which are acquired from
the family and at the same time exposing them to new realms of thoughts and deeds.
