Nature vs. Nurture: Exploring the Determinants of Gender Identity
It seems undeniable that as a species we are as much the result of a long process of biological evolution as we are of cultural development. Therefore, although the relationships between the natural and the cultural are understood in different ways, both aspects form part of who we are. Humans can be male or female, a biological characteristic called sex. Gender, on the other hand, refers to the socially constructed roles, actions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that a particular culture associates with being male or female, masculine or feminine. This essay will assess the statement that “we are who nature makes us” by contrasting essentialist accounts of gender identity with explanations of gender as something learned, acquired, or socially constructed.
Biological Explanations of Gender
Biological explanations draw on the presumption that sexual dimorphism predicts gender dimorphism. In other words, this perspective suggests that human beings come in two types: male and female, and that this biological difference predicts the difference we see in genders (masculine and feminine).
Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionary theory assumes that gender differences are biologically based and can be explained by the sexual selection theory, which posits the selection of characteristics that make individuals in a species more attractive to the opposite sex, and therefore more likely to enjoy reproductive success. Evolutionary psychology suggests that gender differences in abilities and behaviors are hardwired. It is important to note that this approach is speculative, with many of its claims being untestable (Eagly and Wood, 2011; Wood and Eagly, 2002).
Brain Organization Theory
Becoming biologically male is dependent on the masculinizing influence of hormones, specifically androgens. These sex hormones determine the development of male and female genitalia. Brain organization theory posits that these same hormones produce sex differences in male and female brains (Jordan-Young, 2010), organizing the brain in a gendered way and producing ‘sex-typical’ patterns of behavior, interests, cognitive styles, and sexual desires. This theory naturalizes the notion that men and women are ‘born different’ and that boys and girls develop different abilities, thought processes, and behaviors based on this biologically determined differentiation. However, a critical examination of sex difference research in psychology demonstrates that the differences between male and female brains are actually very small and don’t seem sufficient to explain the gender differences we see in human behavior and abilities. That is why we need to consider the role that culture may play in predicting gendered behavior. The interaction between gender and biology is more complex than brain organization theory might suggest. For instance, the strongest predictor of aggressive behavior is not male or femaleness, but negative parenting and impoverished socioeconomic environments (Berkout et al., 2011). While biological factors like hormones and brain structure may contribute to some differences in behavior, emotion, and cognition, it seems unlikely that a biological approach alone offers a sufficient explanation for gender differences (Hines, 2011; Jordan-Young, 2010).
Social and Cognitive Approaches to Gender
Social cognitive approaches explore gender as something we perceive and learn about through the interaction of cognitive and social processes. Gender is understood as acquired through socialization, tuition, and observational learning.
The Bussey and Bandura Model
The Bussey and Bandura model states that children are taught, and that they observe and imitate. This model suggests that we learn from others, and therefore our behavior and way of thinking are not hardwired. Bandura’s social learning model explains how we learn by imitating others through attentional, retention, and motoric reproduction processes. For example, a child imitates their mother eating with a spoon; the child needs to pay attention (attentional process), memorize how she does it (retention), and then practice and reproduce it (motoric reproduction).
Learning from Others
In their experiment, Gerull and Rapee (2002) showed how toddlers learned particular behaviors from others. They were shown toy snakes and spiders while their mothers expressed fear to one type of toy but not the other. Later, the toddlers were frightened when they saw the toy the mother had been afraid of. These studies show that human behaviors are acquired by learning from others. Another way of learning behaviors is through cultural transmission, which is a learned behavior or tradition passed on through generations. For example, boys and girls usually dress in different ways.
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory
Vygotsky’s theory also emphasizes the belief that the development of mental functioning is contextualized and rooted in society and culture. He believed that a child is born into a social world and learns by interacting with adults and peers who have more expertise. Language, as a cultural tool, mediates between the child and the social world. Consequently, meaning constructed through social interaction becomes embedded in an individual’s thought processes.
Conclusion
While biological factors undoubtedly play a role in shaping our physical bodies, it is clear that social and cultural influences are equally important in shaping our gender identities. Through observation, imitation, and interaction with others, we learn the norms, values, and behaviors associated with being male or female in our particular culture. Therefore, it is overly simplistic to claim that “we are who nature makes us.” Our gender identities are the result of a complex interplay between nature and nurture.