The idea of blue for a boy and pink for a girl still prevails to-today with balloons in the maternity hospital shop clearly differentiating between the genders of the newborns by a simple
representation of colour. Clothes shops and toyshops continue to differentiate by labelling sections as Boys or Girls. In our society we continue to dress boys and girls differently and continue to teach them how to behave differently. We treat them differently and stress gender as a socially important category. In 1998 when the English footballer David Beckham wore a skirt-like garment, his appearance hit the front page of many newspapers and gained prime billing on the news bulletins. When males and females end up behaving differently to each other “we interpret the resulting patterns of gendered identity, attributes and behaviours as confirmation that they were different to begin with” (Kane, 2013. p 13). The outcomes expressed by the male and female would seem to be shaped from the moment of birth (or even in the womb with scan confirming the baby’s sex) and appear to be continued in the home, in education, at work, in social life and in political life, resulting in the view of gender as being socially constructed. There is the notion that purely biological aspects such as chromosomes and hormones predetermine our gender-specific behaviour. Gender is still viewed by many as biological differences pertaining to physiological and reproductive capacities. In general nursing, for example, male nurses are still used and at times ab-used for their muscle power. My research allowed the 10 participants to consider what each perceived to be the practice of nursing, with an emphasis on what it was like for each man to be a nurse. There were many citations of where it was considered that being a man played a pivotal role of how each one was treated.
41
There was (and to an extent remains) a strict binary of two distinct categories bringing with it constraints for both the male and the female. However, in the last few decades, the idea of gender being socially constructed at three instead of two levels has been explored. This third level allows for “individual-level internalisation of gender expectations without relying on it alone to explain gendered outcomes” (Kane, 2013. p 14). The arguments against a belief based purely in biological terms are very strong. The levels of aggressiveness or the levels of passivity among males/females, greatly differs between cultures. Coupled with this is the argument that even if there is a
commonality regarding a particular trait, it does not prove that the origin is biological but that cultural/social factors were also most likely at play. Whereas we are born with a biological sex, it is our socialisation process that moderates and controls our gendered behaviour whereby boys and girls learn sex roles and the male and female identities of masculinities and femininities. “Babies were, from the start, called either female or male-labelled by the famous pink and blue baby clothes. Blue babies were expected to behave differently from pink babies-rougher and tougher, more demanding, aggressive and vigorous” (Connell, 2002. p 76).
Bem’s psychological androgyny theory contested the bipolar notion and considered masculinity and femininity to be two separate and independent concepts and thus a person of either gender can possess both femininity and masculinity at the same time. This integration of both concepts in the same person is referred to as androgyny (Bem, 1974). In order to explore gender, it cannot be assumed that masculine behaviour is displayed only by men or feminine by women. “Gender and sex are not equivalent, and gender as a social construction does not flow automatically from genitalia and reproductive organs” (Lorber, 1994. p 17).
42 3.2.3. Agency or Performative Gender
If masculine behaviour is not always displayed by all men or if masculine behaviour may be displayed by a woman, then social construction of gender is insufficient to explain gender. Social learning theory has been criticised for ignoring the agency of the child and for perceiving the child as the “passive recipient of social moulding” (Donehower, 1983. p 20). As human beings, we are not mere sponges who can all be conditioned. The socialisation model does not take account of a person’s ability to form gender relations nor does it take into account people’s ability to go against pre-existing definitions, for example, the boy who hates sports, the teenager who realises he is not heterosexual, or the girl who wants to work in a job traditionally viewed as being a man’s job (Connell, 2002). Connolly (2004) comments that children’s habitus can change depending on the particular social networks in which they are operating. Davies’ (2002) position is that sex and gender are aspects of the social structure, created within and by individuals. This social structure cannot be separated from the individuals who comprise it. It cannot be, per se, imposed on
individuals but its very presence constrains their individual and social actions: “These are not simply an external constraint…they provide the conceptual framework, the psychic patterns, the emotions through which individuals position themselves as male or female and through which they privately experience themselves in relation to the social world” (Davies, 2002. p 283).
Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), a French sociologist, was interested in the dynamics of power in society. He was concerned with the role of practice and embodiment in social life. Bourdieu (1973) notes that the agency of individual actors, changes. As people we are advantaged or disadvantaged relative to one and other, dependent upon a plethora of factors including access to power, privilege, resources and social position. Bordieu's belief was that each individual’s habitus is socially
constructed, developed and generated through lived-experiences within our contextual situation. Agency is embedded in enlightenment understandings of an individual whereby an individual is
43
seen as a free spirit whose thoughts, words and deeds are based in the principle of free and rational choice. Therefore “everyone has agency even though some clearly have more options than others” (Phillips, 2011. p 11).
Performativity is the capacity of communication not merely to communicate but it also acts an action. Judith Butler (1956 to present) is a theorist in gender studies who considers that even everyday communication is performative in that it contributes to defining identity. Therefore, identity is not just the source of verbal and non-verbal communication but it explores the construction of identity as it is caused by performative behaviours. Butler postulates what she refers to as the bind or the apparent contradiction of agency. In her theory she considers that the process of becoming a subject is based on and dependent upon discourses that a subject has never chosen. But it is this very discourse that maintains a person’s agency. Therefore, Butler contends that the agent becomes subordinate to a specific discourse and consequently subordination is a condition of agency. It is this subordination and its ensuing power that itself actually limits agency (Butler, 1997). In Butler’s thinking, the role of agency seems to have no place and it appears to result in wondering about the ability of a subject to consciously act (McNay, 2000). Gender is viewed by Butler as being performative. She argues that whereas gender might appear to be a fixed entity, it is rather a series of perfomative gestures imposed on the body in line with powerful discourses (Butler, 1990).
My research was interested in finding out what were the influencers on the participants when they made the decision to commence the four-year degree programme in general nursing. By virtue of being male, they were going against the social norms of what work a man should do and I therefore discussed with them what coping mechanisms they used in the female world of nursing. I wanted to explore how the social structure affected the participants. I wanted to find out if the male general student nurses exercised agency and if there were factors other than gender, for example, was
44
sexuality a factor and was there any reference to race. Performativity was also a consideration in exploring the experiences of being a male general student nurse and aspects considered included if there were displays of hyper-masculinity and if there were signs of ‘script’ against which the
participants ‘performed.’