El Cambio progresivo como propuesta

3.3.4.1 Introduction

As a response to essentialist understandings, social constructionists have analysed the concepts of sex/gender and sexuality on three main levels: (inter)personal, cultural and structural. Feminism has been central to these debates (Dunk West and Brook 2015). Prior to the ‘cultural turn’ and the influence of post- modernism and queer theory, feminist theorists challenged the naturalist approach by predominantly linking the construction of sex/gender and sexuality to encompassing structures such as patriarchy and capitalism (Rahman and Jackson 2010). This resulted in meta-narratives.22 _{The latter has been challenged by post-}

modernist claims that society is fragmented, fluid and diverse, and this has shifted the focus of analysis and understanding towards historical and cultural practices, in particular the role of language and discourse, in their construction. Many feminists have criticised this shift as it gives too much weight to cultural norms over that of material and structural inequality, which they maintain provide foundation to the discursive analysis of gender and sexuality (McLaughlin et al 2006; Jackson 2001; Hennessy 2000). The significant contributions made by feminist theorists to the field have been to problematise heterosexuality, challenge traditional gender assumptions, and consider sexuality as more than a ‘private’ issue by locating it in both the public and political realm (Richardson 1997).

22_{Contemporary work using the approach where gender constitutes sexuality has moved away}

from attempting to produce meta-narratives and focuses on the complexities of the relationship between gender and sexuality. This involves considering both, the different levels of society in relation to social construction (Jackson 2005, 1999) and the types of sexualities that are involved (Richardson 2007).

67

3.3.4.2 Sex/Gender divide

Positioning sex and gender respectively as representing the biological/anatomical differences between male and female, and the cultural, psychological and social differences between male and female (see also Oakley 1972) was an immense conceptual breakthrough for feminism (Scott and Jackson 2013). Although keeping some links with essentialism it enabled feminist theorists to argue that the gendered social roles with their inherently related inequality (Oakley 1972) were not ‘naturally’ fixed. De Beauvoir had acknowledged the process of ‘becoming gendered’ many years previously in her seminal book exploring the oppression of women where she stated, “one is not born, but rather becomes a woman” (1997 [1949], p259). How a person ‘becomes’ a gender is a site of theoretical debate, which will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.4.3. The biological/social division of sex/gender has been successfully challenged through authentic argument that bodily sex differences can only be named and discussed through an understanding of the gender (Butler 2011 [1993]; Butler 2006 [1990]; Delphy 1984). Therefore sex differences are socially constructed, in other words, gender constructs sex (Richardson 2015). This is now the generally accepted position within social constructionism and the sex/gender binary is perceived as unhelpfully maintaining a link with essentialism (Rahman and Jackson 2010).

3.3.4.3 Gender and sexuality

Owing to the interrelationship of gender and sexuality it is difficult to consider the social construction of one without invoking some connection, however small, with the other. Situating both concepts within one section will allow flexibility to continue the discussion, if connections demand it. Having previously considered the significance and definitions of sexuality, the review now turns to a discussion of gender and its inter-relationship with sexuality.

Feminist gender theory challenges essentialist views by not only identifying ways that gender is socially and culturally defined but also how these ‘attributes’ of ‘becoming and being’ a man or woman are linked to power and inequality respectively. From this viewpoint gender is regarded as a social division (Abbott 2013; Rahman and Jackson 2010). This view differs from queer theorists who perceive gender as a cultural distinction (McLaughlin 2006). Criticism of feminism’s gender role theory, where the practices and values of a particular gender are learnt through socialisation, has been forthcoming due to the view that it is over- deterministic and gives no recognition to people who resist or challenge gender norms and expectations. The theory also fails to take account of both the

68

diversities within the gender binary and the development of ‘genders’ outside of the binary (Rahman and Jackson 2010). An important contribution to the debates around gender has been the work of Butler (2011 [1993], 2006 [1990]) and her concept of ‘performativity’. For Butler, performativity captures the continuous process of ‘doing gender’ and differs from merely expressing gender ‘norms’ to producing or constructing what it is to be a ‘woman’ or a ‘man’. Gender is regarded as an unstable concept, needing to be repeatedly performed, which in turn restates its ‘naturalness’. However the ‘repeat’ enactments do not necessarily produce the ideal woman or man, and the gaps and incongruences, together with its inherent instability, enable people to exercise resistance and perform subversions of the gender binary (Butler 2006 [1990]).

One of the main criticisms of Butler’s position is its overemphasis on the cultural and discursive aspects of gender and sexuality resulting in a neglect of the material and structural inequalities and subsequent constraints on the exercise of agency (Hennessey 2000; Jackson 1999; Walby 1997).23_{The challenge presented by}

Butler 2006 [1990] and queer theory to the politics of identity and the use of ‘essentialised’ categories such as ‘woman’ leads critics to maintain that lived experiences of difference and gendered inequalities are denied (Jackson 1999), and that the analysis of structural identities are thwarted (Gunnarsson 2011). It is important that any continued consideration of gender incorporates issues of diversity, resistance, agency, and embodiment whilst also analysing gender’s intersection with other social divisions (Richardson 2015).

There are three main theoretical positions with regards to the relationship between gender and sexuality. First, sexuality is regarded as establishing gender (see also Ingraham 1996; MacKinnon 1982). Second, gender is seen as determining sexuality (see also Jackson 2005, 1999). Third, gender and sexuality are regarded as analytically two separate, yet related, domains (see also Sedgwick 2008 [1990]; Rubin 2007 [1984]; Butler 2006 [1990]). The first two positions are located within differing feminist approaches where gender and sexuality are analysed together. The third position represents the challenge from queer theorists who advocate analysing sexuality and gender separately, and disputes the stability of the relationship between the two concepts (Richardson 2015). Queer theorists claim that maintaining the relationship between gender and sexuality constrains and

23 _{Butler (1997, p265) did address this criticism by acknowledging that sexuality could not be}

viewed as “’merely’ cultural”, but is criticised further for reducing the structural aspects to capitalism and class relations and ignoring gendered non-capitalist processes such as women’s domestic labour and childrearing (Rahman and Jackson 2010).

69

over-simplifies understandings within the field in a way that fails to recognise diversities and sexualities that are not associated with ‘normally respective’ genders. Within this research project the position that gender constitutes sexuality is taken for a number of reasons. First, older women’s experiences of sexuality are predominantly gendered due particularly to the influence of Viagra and the medicalisation of sexuality, which has a heterosexist and male defined focus (Loe 2004). Second, gender is central to developing understandings of the impact of heteronormativity on all people regardless of sexual orientation (Carabine 2004). For example older people are often denied the right or ability to be sexual but at the same time are assumed to have a heterosexual identity (Carabine 2004). The standpoint of gender constituting sexuality therefore contributes to the coherency of the research study, which uses sexuality as a lens through which to explore the intersection between age and gender.

3.3.4.4 Gender, sexuality and power

Power is a central concept for feminist theorists in their analysis of gender and sexuality, particularly for those theorists who regard gender as a social division in which differences equate with inequalities. Considering age as a social division (Vincent and Phillips 2013) constitutes an even further complexity in relation to power. The link between power and older people’s sexuality is evidenced in the way it is influenced by both biomedical ‘knowledges’ and the cultural equating of sexuality to the youthful domains of beauty, desire and attraction (Gott 2005). Feminist theorists have regarded power and domination as central to the construction of male and female sexuality and have argued that the operation of power, namely male power, is through a patriarchal system (Richardson 1997). There have been opposing approaches within feminist thought regarding the location of male power, as being based either within social institutions or with men themselves. The concept of patriarchy has been criticised for its implied universality and subsequent inflexibility to respond to the complexities and fluidities of gender (Abbott 2013) and its relationship to sexuality. Additionally an overemphasis on patriarchy led to a neglect of the influences of other social divisions, in particular class and race/ethnicity, which gave rise to further power inequalities, not only between men and women but also between different women or groups of women (Richardson 2015).

Further criticism of a model of universal ‘top-down’ power, as proposed by the advocates of patriarchy, comes from post-modernism and in particular the work of Foucault (1990 [1977]). Foucault locates power, not in social institutions and

70

particular groups (i.e. patriarchy and men), but in everyone everywhere, effectively embedding power into everyday practices and relationships and at all levels (historical, social, cultural and personal) of society. Power is diffused and embodied in discourse as opposed to being located either in a person or a structure.24 _{In relation to sexuality Foucault claims that the discourse around}

heterosexuality creates not only boundaries in terms of normality/abnormality, but also generates positions for people in terms of identity and how people make sense of themselves. Within the normalisation boundaries, discourses have in effect produced rather than repressed sexuality.25 _{The extent of disruption that a}

dominant discourse experiences from ‘counter’ discourses depends on the amount of power attached to the latter.

An example is the difference in power between medical/biological discourses in relation to older women’s sexuality and the discourses espoused by older women. Interestingly in relation to ageing and sexuality there are two prevailing discourses, that of asexuality or having a ‘youthfully defined’ sexuality. It is the latter which is the countervailing discourse and the debate is how much it has successfully disrupted the dominant discourse, or is the experience of having different and contradictory discourses as a context for older people’s sexuality equally oppressive, a point noted in Section 1.2. In relation to older people, and in particular older women, Foucault also recognises the use of silence within the construction of a discourse. Silence, being an active element of constructing discourse, is particularly relevant to the asexual discourse and the predominant invisibility of older women and older women’s sexuality. Although the dominant discourses in relation to sexuality transmit and produce power, they can also be undermined, exposed and challenged. Foucault maintains that the construct of sexuality is fragile and that power through alternative discourse can be transformative offering “a point of resistance and a starting point for opposing strategy” (Foucault 1990, p101).

24_{It is important to note the Foucauldian meaning of ‘discourse’ as confusion can arise in the}

common usage of the word to mean a spoken exchange between people (Burr 1995). For Foucault ‘discourse’ relates to groups of systematic and coherent ‘statements’ that can be made up of texts, speech or images. These groups of statements provide language for discussion and represent knowledge about a particular topic. Discourses are dominant ways of framing knowledge and constructing a topic that come to represent the ‘truth’ and rendering anything discussed outside of that discourse as meaningless.

25_{Foucault viewed the Victorian period as one where there was a ‘discursive explosion’ around}

71

Criticisms of Foucault’s model of power and discursive construction of sexuality include the view that discourse can present itself as a ‘micro’ narrative and for change to happen the question is how many of these ‘reverse discourses’ are needed (Abbot 2013). Related to this is the risk of neglecting the material, economic and structural influences in the operation of power (Hall 2001) as well as a risk of presenting people as passive victims of discourse (Carabine 2004).