Nature vs. Nurture in Gender Identity
Nature vs. Nurture in Gender Identity
Introduction
It seems undeniable that as a species, we are the result of a long process of biological evolution as well as 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 men or women or being masculine or feminine. This essay will assess the statement that “we are who nature makes us” by contrasting essentialism accounts of gender identity with explanations of gender as something learned, acquired, or socially constructed.
Biological Explanations of Gender
Biological explanations draw on a presumption that sexual dimorphism predicts gender dimorphism. In other words, the biological explanation 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 assumes that gender differences are biologically based and can be explained by the sexual selection theory, which is 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 notice that this approach is speculative, with many of its claims being untestable (Eagly and Wood, 2011; Wood and Eagly, 2002).
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 presumes that these same hormones produce sex differences in male and female brains (Jordan-Young, 2010), organizing the brain in a gendered way, producing ‘sex-typical’ patterns of behavior, interests, cognitive styles, and sexual desires. Brain organization theory therefore 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 think about 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). For example, boys generally perform better in math than girls (Miller and Halpern, 2014). While biological factors like hormones and brain structure influence behavior, emotion, cognition, and gender identity, it seems unlikely that a biological approach alone offers a sufficient explanation for gender differences (Hines, 2011; Jordan-Young, 2010).
Social 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 states that children are taught, and 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 with attentional and retention processes and motoric reproduction. For example, a child imitates his 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).
In their experiment, Gerull and Rapee (2002) also 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, 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 by cultural transmission, which is a learned behavior or tradition passed on through generations; for example, how boys or girls usually dress in different ways.
Vygotsky’s theory also held 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, and consequently, meaning constructed through social interaction becomes embedded in an individual’s thought processes.