Psychology of Sex and Gender Essay

Discuss the claim there is a lot to gain from studying a topic in psychology from more than one perspective. Drawing on our understanding of language and meaning as well as the psychology of sex and gender. Different psychological perspectives lead to different theories providing diverse insights into the same issue i.e. language and meaning. They focus their enquiry in different ways and consequently have dissimilar objects of knowledge. Each perspective asks different questions, use different methods and data and produce therefore different theories. These perspectives can be complementary, conflicting and/or coexisting, whereby each perspective and theory provides a variety of ways of applying their findings to everyday psychological problems. By focusing on the social psychological perspective, this essay will evaluate the contribution of two central issues in psychology: language and meaning as well as the psychology of sex and gender. Social psychological perspectives emphasise the importance of investigating cognition by studying how meaning is created through participation and cultural practices and through language. The evolvement, acquisition and application of language used by humans, to express meaning and pursue goals, have been a topic of study amongst the various perspectives in psychology most notably evolutionary, cognitive and social perspectives. In researching language and the development of subsequent theories, language itself is used as a medium to investigate language. This methodological reflexivity is the source of conflict between social and cognitive perspectives on language when trying to determine to what extent, if any, the necessity of responding in language predetermines what is said. Social psychologists, more specifically discourse psychologists (i.e. Parker, 1992, as cited in: Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 105), claims that in using language individuals do so in a social and historic context, with an audience and for a purpose. Individuals therefore will make assumptions about the knowledge, understanding and requirements of their interlocutors in an experimental setting which is a primary method used by cognitive psychologists to study the separate cognitive and underlying thought processes language represents in communication with others or dialog with the self. The social constructionist perspective, on the other hand, uses evidence from actual language used in day-to-day communication and therefore appears to have more ecological validity. With the use of discourse analysis, they manage to describe how individuals organise their talk and use particular strategies such as the creation of subject positions or constructions of the world, to achieve particular ends. Wieder (1974 as cited in: Cooper & Kay, 2007, pp. 104-105) illustrated the use of language to determine behaviour amongst newly released prisoners living in a hostel by employing a method called ethnomethodology (the study of how people do things) devised by Garfinkel (1967 as cited in: Cooper & Kay, 2007, p.103). Wieder found that the language used amongst the individuals ‘The Code’ does not explain their behaviour but rather was used by them to actively construct their social world and take appropriate action within it. Social constructionists therefore base their un derstanding of language on the concept that language can be seen as a vehicle for the socially formed and the sustained meaning that operates between individuals, in groups and societies (Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 113). Although it provides a viable explanation for the use of language, it does not explain how language evolved over time or how it is being processed individually. Evolutionary psychologists (Lorenz, 1952 as cited in: Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 78) offer an explanation about the evolution of language in claiming that language is an adaptive trait that has been acquired through the natural and sexual selection as well as being characterised by the ability of humans to create meanings through different ways of communication than that of other species. The complex interactive activation with competition (IAC) model devised by McClelland and Rummelhart (1981, as cited in: Cooper & Kay, 2007, pp. 91-94) and other studies (i.e. Moss and Gaskell, 1998, as cited in: Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 93) is used by cognitive psychologists in formulating their perceptive that language is part of an information processing system that resides in the brain of an individual who creates meaning when hearing others s peak or when speaking themselves. The above three perspectives therefore provide an understandings of language based on their individual analysis being evolution, individual processing or social construction. Parker (1992, as cited in: Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 105) described discourse as a set of symbolic meanings created through the use of language to construct an event or object in a particular way. This is apparent in the claim by social psychologists that individuals see the world as consisting of two basic types of people – women and men. This is partly accomplished through the social identity processes as theorised in the Social Identity Theory Tajfel (1919-82, as cited in Phoenix & Thomas, 2007, p. 62) whereby individuals develop descriptions which draw from the social group they see themselves belonging to, e.g. male or female. Individuals, according to SIT, then tend to make the most of the similarities to others in the same group (in-group) whilst minimising it with those outside the group (out-group) e.g. the notion of â€Å"opposite sex† (Hollway, Cooper, Johnston and Stevens, 2007, p. 151). Therefore Gender is one of the most important and powerful social categories by which individuals define themselves by. Bem (1981 as cited in: Hollway et al, 2007, p. 153) proposed in the Gender Schema Theory (GST) that femininity and masculinity are socially and culturally constructed dimensions absorbed by individuals to produce an understanding of gender to make sense of themselves and their behaviour. Social constructionists however, argue that gender is not a set of characteristics or properties acquired by an individual but rather that gender identity is constantly established and re-established by experiences, behaviours including actions on both an individual and group level resulting in ongoing throu ghout the lifespan of an individual. The study of sex and gender is therefore concerned with the complex interaction of nature and nurture in shaping similarities and differences between men and women. In studying sex and gender as a psychological fact (e.g. Clark and Hatfield, 1989, as cited in: Hollway et al, 2007) and biological (e.g. Fitch and Denenberg, 1998 as cited in: Hollway et al, 2007, p. 138) perspectives, give emphasis to the contribution of nature to the experiences of individuals by examining the biological and genetic structures relating to sex. Social constructionists acknowledge these influences but look at the importance of context and culture in constructing an understanding about gender whilst the psychoanalytic perspective incorporates biological differences as well as the social and cultural meanings. The difference between these approaches is demonstrated through conflict between them in relation to the social roles of men and woman and their personal relationships and behaviour. Biological and social explanations ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ expose a fundamental conflict whereby social perspectives echo the underlying principal of psychoanalysts questioning individual group in claiming that biological explanations, and most recently evolutionary explanations (e.g. Hilary and Rose, 2000, as cited in: Hollway et al, 2007, p. 172), are extremely deterministic (Hollway et al, 2007, p. 171). Social constructionists explained that historical research underlines the fact that values inevitably underpin all knowledge; however, allowance should be made for new ideas incorporating change and cultural settings such as the role of women in society. Such methods used by various psychological perspectives in studying a specific psychological issue are often complimentary a s opposed to contrasting. In explaining gender social constructionists take historical and cultural situations of human beings into account focusing on the meaning-making activities of humans. In studying differences in the approach of sexual behaviour between men and woman at an American college, Clark and Hatfield (1989 as cited in: Hollway et al, 2007, p. 146) concluded that women who accepted dating invitations were less prone to accept invitations for private meetings, at the house of a strange in addition to the majority of women refusing such invitations for sexual intercourse. The results were the same when women were first guaranteed of the trustworthiness of the stranger thus accounting for fear of potential danger as a confounding variable (Clark, 1990, as cited in: Hollway et al, 2007, p. 146). Clark and Hatfield claimed from an evolutionary perspective that the results are consistent with the arguments of evolutionary psychologists about evolved optimal reproductive style through natural and sexual selection processes. The findings of Clark and Hatfield underline from a social constructionist point of view, the notion that sexual behaviour of men and women is filtered through their own individual cultural lenses. Psychoanalytical psychologists (e.g. Benjamin, 1990, 1995, 1998 as cited in: Hollway et al, 2007, p.164) argue that these external influences (e.g. through discourse and discursive practices) are over emphasised by social constructionists and therefore does not explain the capacity for resistance and change by individuals. Each perspective provides a valuable point of view however none is able to give a complete explanation of the findings of the study as each perspective is concentrating on its own theoretical ground when analysing the findings of a study. In conclusion the social perspective has provided a rich understanding of language and meaning and sex and gender. Nevertheless, the focus is only on social influences such as other people and discourses. It therefore lacks a general understanding of a whole topic. In every case other perspectives are needed to see the full picture of both, sex and gender and language and meaning. In addition of the methodology the experimental approach could be helpful to support or disprove the results which are gained from the hermeneutic approach. Overall, in terms of social influences and discourses, the social perspective has contributed to a great body of knowledge which is very important to understand all aspects of any topic. The other side of the coin is that the focus is only on social influences, the social environment and social constructions which limit a full understanding of different processes involved in the same topic, such as meaning-making of language. References Cooper, T, & Kaye, H. (2007a). Language and meaning. In T. Cooper & I. Roth (Eds.), Challenging Psychological Issues (2nd ed). Milton Keynes: The Open University Buchanan, K., Anand, P., Joffe, H. & Thomas, K. (2007). Perceiving and understanding the social world. In D. Miell, A. Phoenix & K. Thomas (Eds.), Mapping Psychology (2nd ed). Milton Keynes: The Open University Hollway, W., Cooper, T., Johnston, A. & Stevens, R., (2007a). The psychology of sex and gender. In T. Cooper & I. Roth (Eds.), Challenging Psychological Issues (2nd ed). Milton Keynes: The Open University