toptermpaper.com

The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. Whether or not the publication was planned to coincide with the first revolutions in France we can only surmise. However what we do know is that both Marx and Engels were commissioned to compile the Communist Party Manifesto at the Second Congress of the Communist League which met between November and December 1847.

The Manifesto is split into four sections but the overall aim of the book is an attempt to explain the ideologies and goals of the Communist party. Marx and Engels argue that it is “the history of class struggles” [1] that are the driving force of history. Marx claims that relationships between classes are dependant upon that period’s channel of production. He also argues that once these relationships are no longer well-suited a revolution happens and a new ruling class take power. This is Marx’s explanation for the move from feudalism to capitalism at the hands of the bourgeoisie (middle classes). This is also how Marx views the progression from capitalism to socialism and from socialism to communism. Marx and Engels believe that Communism is inevitable, that eventually the proletariat (working class) will seize power straight from the hands of the bourgeoisie.

The first section of the manifesto is based on the Communists theories of history and of the relationship between the bourgeois and the proletariat in a capitalist society. Marx informs the reader of class struggles that have dominated history, how classes are either oppressor or oppressed. Marx states that as a result of the move from the complicated feudal system to the capitalist system hostilities between classes have simplified to the point where there are no only two classes in direct opposition; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The manifesto pinpoints the fact that because of the demands of society and the rise of “modern industry” the modern bourgeois have became the ruling class by doing away with the old feudal system and allowing people to become more self-interested. Despite this new self-interest Marx argues that the modern bourgeois has done away with the traditional family values and instead turned each family member into a commodity, someone to go out and earn a wage. He states that this new bourgeois society has “resolved personal worth into exchange value.” This new capitalist society, Marx states, leaves one man dependant on another in a way they had never been previously; it has created “a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital.” Thus we have a society based on production and demand. However this society will not always see the relevant demand for the products they produce so those who rely on industry to supply wages in order for them to have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, are expendable, they will be used, and be able to afford to live, only so long as the bourgeoisie need their skills.

Section two then goes on to discuss the relationship between the Communists and the proletarians. Marx is keen to point out that the Communists do not see other working class parties as opposition rather they wish to help these other parties in “aˆ¦clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” Marx addresses the question on the abolition of property directly and clearly states that it is not the aim of the communists to abolish all property but to abolish private property, that property owned by the bourgeois. He points out that property only belongs to one tenth of society as the other nine tenths cannot afford such luxury as owning their own properties. Upon addressing this he also claims that as a result of this, and many other defining features, “Capital, is therefore not a personal, it is a social power. Upon defining the role of the proletariat in society Marx states that the Communist party wish to do away with “the miserable characteraˆ¦.under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.”

The third section of the Manifesto outlines and evaluates the three divisions of Communist writings. These are; reactionary socialism, conservative socialism and critical-utopian socialism and communism. Marx argues that each of these divisions fail because each of the fail to realise critical communist values. The reactionaries and the conservatives fail to take note of the fact that the bourgeoisie will eventually fall at the hands of the proletariat whereas the utopians fail to realize that social change is essential; there is no perfect world where communism is king without this change.

The fourth and final section of the manifesto confronts the Communist party’s feelings towards the opposing parties that exist in society. The communists final and foremost aim is the proletarian revolution and they strive for this constantly and consistently even if it means working with other opposition parties in order to achieve this. Marx and other communists believe that history goes through stages of social change and that by arming the proletariat in one particular stage (capitalism) it will ensure the overthrow of the bourgeoisie at the hands of the proletariat thus reigning in a new era of socialism and eventually communism.

All in all The Communist Manifesto is extremely clear

The everyday lives of people living in the 21st century are pervaded by the media. Due to the huge rise in modern technology the pressure on individuals to conform to a certain body type is more intense than ever. Tiggemann (2002) claimed that the media puts severe pressure on woman of all ages to be a certain size, `Repeated exposure to such images may lead a woman to internalize the thin ideal such that it becomes accepted by them as the reference point against which to judge themselves (Tiggemann, 2002, P92)`.

Unrealistic standards of what is considered “normal” in reference to body weight and appearance are constantly shown in the media. This portrayal of what is considered “normal” continues to become thinner and thinner. There is no surprise that the ongoing exposure to unrealistic ideas on what is said to be the ideal body shape for women within this media-driven culture has contributed to the current high levels of body dissatisfaction in females today. As schools include ‘healthy eating’ on the school curriculum and media images continue to reinforce the ideal of the slender women, young girls are becoming increasingly aware of the pressure to be slim (Fulcher & Scott, 2007:307).

In The Sociological Imagination, C Wright Mills argues that ‘neither the life on an individual nor the history of society can be understood without understanding both’ (Mills, 1959:3). Throughout, keeping C. Wright Mills statement in mind, a sociological outlook on the everyday issue of body weight will be a central focus, examining how specific eating habits and behaviors came to be constructed. From this, social and cultural concepts will also contribute to a better understanding of how bodily processes and social structures are in many ways contributing to the development of disorders such as anorexia and bulimia.

In modernity, the media represent a key cultural structure which influences eating behavior and in turn, what constitutes normal eating. According to Durkheim (1970), both cultural and social structures are external factors in society which have a constraining effect on the individual. In western society the media are responsible for spreading female body type ideals through the ‘glamorization of slenderness’ (Bordo, 1993: 103). In the 1950s the ideal female body type was a curvaceous, fuller figure (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 307) as represented by Marilyn Monroe, one of the most photographed women of her time. As cultural ideals have changed, images of women portrayed in the media have become increasingly thinner. Furthermore, female body shape ideals are reinforced by advertisers who use slim models to sell products (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 307). This leads to women comparing themselves with the cultural ideal and internalizing modern conceptions of femininity (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 307). Therefore, women are becoming increasingly accustomed to altering their eating habits in order to achieve the cultural ideal of slenderness. One way women control their eating habits is through dieting, which involves the restriction of the amount and type of food consumed (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 307), the steady increase in dieting over the past few decades is undoubtedly influenced by the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and fashion industries that emphasise the importance of dieting and healthy eating (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 306). Furthermore, the media have a vital influence on the individual’s food choices (Ogden, 2010: 283). For example, in the summer of 1990 UK beef sales fell by 20% in response to widespread publicity about the health risks of beef (Ogden, 2010: 38). This demonstrates that the media can have a major effect on the food consumers buy. The combination of images in the media, publicity around the benefits and risks of certain foods, and the emphasis on dieting and healthy eating in today’s society contribute to what constitutes normal eating in today. Young girls begin controlling their weight from an early age (Bordo, 1993: 99) as a result of media images, and the normalization of dieting means that young girls view dieting as a good tool for weight loss (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 307). Therefore, we can argue that images of femininity in the media and the emphasis on maintaining a slim figure contribute to the eating habits of the general public, especially women. In addition to this, negative publicity surrounding particular food produce can result in reduced consumption of certain products which highlights the media’s influence on an individual’s food choices.

To add to the emphasis on weight loss and slender figures, the media, particularly advertisers, often send mixed messages about food which further confuses what constitutes normal eating. On the one hand, advertisers promote weight loss products such as slimming pills and diet drinks; however, they also encourage women to indulge in unhealthy foods. Susan Bordo describes this conflict as the contemporary woman’s ‘dilemma’ (Bordo, 1993: 105) between making healthy choices and satisfying cravings. One way advertisers encourage the consumption of food products is through the eroticization of food (Bordo, 1993:112). Advertisers play on the feelings of women who are ‘overwhelmed by their relationship to food’ (Bordo, 1993: 108). What this means is that adverts for products such as ice cream and chocolate aim to tantalize the senses of the viewer and persuade them to buy foods by attaching emotional rewards to the consumption of these products. They do this by constructing food as a sexual object, therefore, making food appear to be a ‘sensual delight,’ (Bordo, 1993: 112).

Social structures like family and education play a major role in determining the eating habits of young people which can have an effect on an individual’s diet for the rest of their lives. An example of how normal eating can be effected by the social institution of the family is the prevalence of eating disorders such as anorexia, in women from white middle class backgrounds (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 309). Although anorexia can affect women who do not fit into this social class bracket the disorder is particularly prevalent amongst this social group. In white middle class families typically, the protestant value ethic and puritan ideas of self control are observed (Giordano, 2005: 139). Therefore, being overweight is viewed as an indicator of laziness and self indulgence; this means that amongst this social group body shape represents an individual’s moral values (Giordano, 2005: 139). Bromwell (1991) provides further support for this argument, suggesting that society in general equates slenderness with ‘moral perfection’ and assumes that people who are thin have achieved this ideal through hard work, ambition, self control and purity (Ogden, 2010: 91). This attitude to eating and body shape suggests that being fat is a sign of lacking self control. This is demonstrated in the young anorectics belief that fat is associated with mental decay whereas slimness represents ‘triumph’ over the body’s appetite through self control (Bordo, 1993: 147). Therefore, young middle class women can infer that to achieve a slender figure one must invest time, effort, hard work and willpower (Bordo, 1993: 105), into moulding her body to achieve the cultural ideal of femininity portrayed in the media.

Bordo describes the typical anorexic as someone who lacks power in most aspects of their life and explains that often the anorexics parents have made most of the important decisions for her in her life (Bordo, 1993: 33). Therefore, these young women feel powerless in their environment and use their eating disorder as a way to exert control over one aspect of their lives (Giordano, 2005: 153). Furthermore, in the families of anorexics high expectations are placed on children by their parents, (Giordano, 2005: 144) therefore, through the development of an eating disorder like anorexia, women from middle class backgrounds find an activity they are able to achieve in – losing weight (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 310). As the Western woman believes that thinness equates beauty, (Giordano, 2005: 149) attaining a slender figure through hard work is seen as a personal achievement as well as the fulfillment of the young anorexics parents’ expectations of her appearance (Giordano, 2005: 33). The role of social class in the development of eating disorders suggests that social structures have a cardinal effect on normal eating.

A century ago disorders such as anorexia and bulimia were almost non existent, but in the present day they are reaching epidemic proportions (Bordo, 1993: 139). Therefore, we can suggest that over the last century changes in cultural and social values must have played a crucial role in the increasing obsession with health and fitness in modern society, which can affect normal eating behaviour. Pathological disorders in individuals often reflect the character of a society (Lasch, 1979: 88) and what is wrong with a particular culture (Bordo, 1993: 141); which means that the increase in eating disorders in the 20th century is most likely influenced by the society we live in. In The Sociological Imagination, Mills’ explains that in order to understand the personal struggles of an individual, sociologist must observe the society the individual belongs to (Mills, 1959: 3). According to Bordo, ‘disorders reflect the central ills of our culture’, (Bordo, 1993: 139). This further indicates that abnormal eating behavior may be caused by the society an individual is raised in. Therefore, the connotations attached to being a slender attractive woman in today’s society, such as representing independence (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 306) and freedom (Bordo, 1993: 60) create a desire to be thin. Furthermore, the view that obesity is a self inflicted state (Ogden, 2010: 95) contributes to the development of abnormal eating patterns because of the cultural attitudes towards individuals with certain body types. In addition to this, Bordo cites the words of Michael Sacks, an associate professor of psychiatry who argues that in the post modern age people no longer feel able to control events outside themselves, however, they can control what they eat (Bordo, 1993: 153).

In conclusion, normal eating refers to the eating patterns of individuals in a particular society. Although eating is influenced by biological mechanisms in the body which inform a person when they are supposed to eat however it is the social and cultural influences in society which will determine whether or not a person actually does eat. Mass media, family, and even education have all become a circuit linking bodily processors and social structures. Replacing history and promoting social movements.

Cultural structures such as the media are not the only structures in society that have an influence on what constitutes normal eating. This means we can infer that social attitudes towards obesity and slimness can dictate eating behaviour amongst certain groups. This suggests that the sociological approach to normal eating is valuable because it can explain how social and cultural values affect the individual’s attitudes towards eating. This means that normal eating can be viewed from a sociological perspective because the prevalence of eating disorders in some social groups suggest that social factors have an fundamental role in determining eating behaviour. Furthermore, a sociological approach is useful for understanding eating behaviour because it can explain why eating disorders appear in certain sections of society as opposed to others. Additionally, a sociological understanding of eating disorders can be applied to the treatment of eating disorders which could help people suffering from anorexia.

Therefore, The Sociological Imagination is relevant because the development of eating disorders in the individual is undoubtedly influenced by the social and cultural structures and ideals prevalent in modern Western society. Therefore we can argue that individuals within modernity use their diet as a way of exercising control over their bodies; apparently one of the only aspects of their lives that they can regulate. For anorexics dieting appears to restore the sufferers’ sense of identity (Fulcher & Scott, 2007: 309) therefore, we can argue that anorexics are individuals who best represent the effects of perceived loss of control which seems to be a central ill in modernity.

Societal interpretation impinges on every person’s existence and takes the part of a significant position for typecasting males as well as females to be adverse of each other. Persons within the public characterize maleness and womanliness as something that was educated in them during the growing years, whether it was through loved ones, acquaintances or through publications or broadcast. Whenever a person visualizes a consultant, solicitor, pastor, technician or even a supervisor they customarily conjure up males whereas matrons, educators and homemakers are considered as absolutely feminine vocations of the social order. An individual possibly will not go through with a particular occupation by virtue of preference but for the reason that it’s communally admissible. The majority of mannerisms connected to sexual category are imbibed instead of being inherent. An individual’s inception of gaining knowledge of the correct and iniquitous consistent with the public is attained since the instance of birth. When a son is conceived households instantaneously commence purchasing mammoth trailers, speedy cars also battle champion sort of playthings while making annotations similar to ‘a big, tough boy’ thereby promoting purported masculine conduct.

Social Construction of Masculinity

Manliness cannot be a monumental, comparable collection of features neither can it be personified as an exclusive masculine character custom. Infact, there subsists an assortment of manliness bureaucratically organized and huddled within a continuous condition of fluctuation as well as disagreements. A person is unable to be alleged for encompassing an exclusive maleness, infact a person’s manliness works in unremitting, vigorous restoration that is appurtenant on numerous chronological as well as relative aspects and it can as a matter of fact be imagined as implementation and not an article that a personage acquires instead it’s a deed that a person carries out. Independently when manliness is exercised as respective it actually attributes to the tangible composition of manliness that a person engages in over a period of time otherwise to maleness to be a broad-spectrum category of prospective partisanship.

Machismo is not in the colossal nor analogous grouping. There subsist innumerable manly speciality standings that young men are capable of assuming as well as executing. Such categories are not preordained, permanent and irretrievable, infact they are dynamically structured through every person in the premise of communal, intellectual as well as chronological frameworks. Male sexual character could also be externalized with regard to associations more noticeably than individual positions established on sexual category. Precedential as well as interconnecting ethnic examinations have revealed that there exist divergent prototypes of maleness that have been discovered amongst every situation and instances. Numerous traditions as well as various interludes in times past, structure manliness in different ways. Maleness is orchestrated in pecking order whereas several virilities are considered commendable as well as honoured over the others. Several of them are deemed peripheral and are vigorously besmirched like the homosexual manliness of contemporary western civilization as well as some that are deliberated as consummate for instance sport champions. The perception of communal machismo exists with the intention of demonstrating that maleness is not just ascribed for a person infact it is circumscribed as well as maintained within establishments like conglomerates, military, managements and educational institutions furthermore subsist uncongenially within our society like within the manliness that is disseminated as well as endorsed through electronic games, prearranged athletics and electronic mediums. Machismo is not just a straightforward, homologous precedent infact it frequently encloses incongruous wishes as well as reasoning. These rigidities and incongruities are in point of fact causes of modifications of sexual characteristic configurations.

The characteristics encompassing authoritarian manliness as well as the affiliation to alternative machismos are discernible by means of the emphasis on premises of sport competency, combativeness, belligerence, triumphs of sex, antipathy or prejudice or discrimination towards homosexuality. Being a sportsperson, having a good appearance and having a beautiful woman by his side are things that all men necessitate for being manly. To be a man, one ought to indulge in sexual activity with women to provide evidence for not being homophile, even if it requires thrashing a gay person to establish heterosexuality. Condescending manliness does not symbolize personal revelation, introversion, emblematized as well as inventive representation it infact denotes a gregarious and substantiated articulation. Domineering manliness has been aligned adversarially towards compassion, sentiment, expose, adaptation as well as observation. These interpretations have frequently been derived from specific light-skinned, bourgeois and heterosexual adaptations of manliness that have not inevitably been characteristic of various other kinds of machismo.

Even though the majority of modern-day investigation of interpretation of manliness within electronic mediums has been concentrated over violent behaviour, some exploration is also starting to scrutinize representation of machismo in male publications like Playboy, Esquire, Maxim, GQ, etc. Such glossies spotlight subjects like fitness, vogue, sexual intimacy, associations as well as modus Vivendi that perform such an imperative function to delineate the connotation of being an avant-garde male. Several reviewers contend that such publications epitomize a development in representations of sexual category in view of the fact that the limelight over themes formerly considered as exclusively connected with females. Yet other evaluators dispute over these publications to nonetheless be depending upon conventional descriptions of the male sex as well as manliness while representing good-looking, fair-skinned, powerfully built and elegantly suited males that are concerned solely with attaining better items for life.

In natural methodology, sexual composition is compared with gender providence. Corporal structure provides corroboration of being male. To be male, undertakes a unanimous standing that is metaphysical as well as unchangeable. Antagonism, underlying principle, hegemony, combativeness as well as emotive uncommunicativeness are considered as inherent elements of a man whereas incongruity and indistinctness is abomination for the male. Males are constantly testified to lead condensed lives on the other hand females attain elevated proportions of corporeal as well as psychological despondency. Innumerable assessments account for the wellbeing comportment exercised by males negatively influences their fitness results with regard to reduced usage of medicinal as well as psychiatric therapy facilities. The inflexibly forbearing deportment becomes part of the cause of various corporeal as well as cerebral maladies that have unreasonably been encountered by males.

Counterbalancing manliness along with achievement propagates an allegory of the west thereby making it difficult for males while acknowledging infirmity as well as articulating uncertainties and desires. Enduring affliction akin to a man insinuates concealment in the rear of a valiant disguise, in spite of being lonesome and anguished. Those males who exhibit themselves to be exceedingly manly do not detail their indications of illness. Intentions as well as sentiments are shrouded at the time males give an account of feelings that they be supposed to possess in concurrence to repressive conventional traditions regarding maleness.

Societal presumptions never attribute a separate denotation towards masculinity. Men constitute children as well as senior citizens, productive and sterile, homosexual as well as being heterosexual, managers and aficionado and it is inside such unformulated precincts that distinctions proliferate. Males as well as females reside within pulsating stalwart anatomies wherein certain females are swathed with corporal hair and certain males do not have body hair at all. Hermaphrodites, transvestites as well as androgynous individuals are not atypical amongst men. Analysts conducted a survey with men and women for recording their manly as well as womanly qualities. They the results depicted that those males and females who achieved substantially on womanly qualities were predisposed to utilizing fitness facilities as well as demonstrating better realistic anxiety on the subject of preventive medicine. Considerable capacities of psychosocial observations recognize sexual category more willingly than sexual characteristics nonetheless they continually identify that the manly and womanly qualities of males progress independently. Such interpretations persist on hypothesizing maleness to be a phenomenon where construction of males is predetermined and encompass male or female features otherwise joint features also with no credibility prearranged for any peripheral circumstance.

Societal progressive speculations about maleness acknowledge that sexual characteristics are accomplished owing to as well as at the hands of individuals and their environment; thereby eliminating the hypothetical dissimilarity amid sexual category as well as gender. Sexual characteristics are not a state of being infact they are something people carry out during communal exchanges. A research was conducted over a small capacity of males who had been restored to health from cancer and had been languishing from nervousness and hopelessness. Nevertheless not one of them endeavoured for amelioration, thus insinuating that it becomes fundamental for males to adopt a inhibited as well as taciturn attitude concerning their sentimental lives. When enquired if their sensation of manliness had suffered an emotional impact as a consequence of their encounter but they had a reciprocated retort of their repudiation. In spite of that at the time when the matter of employment had been brought to attention, professional predicaments had been expressed to be a paramount source of trepidation concern all the way through the tribulation where business co-workers were not enlightened of their health conditions. Business had been administrated over infirmary phones where the conversations happening between the collaborators under no circumstances exposed that they were convalescent in consequence making it out of the question to disclose the anguish encountered at the time of investigation and cure as well as the succeeding reprieve for becoming restored to health, consequently arrogance prohibited them from soliciting amelioration at the same time help had not also been propounded conceivably for the reason of the smokescreen of restrain as well as impassiveness along with doctors’ viewpoints that men act in that manner in spite of standing in front of overpowering hazards. This has been the detriment of the onerous encumbrance to advocate the common conviction of how a real man is made, something that females do not need to achieve because they have been dispensed alternative characteristics like susceptibleness as well as articulateness. Such philosophies are complete allegories on the contrary conceivably not so astringent during the time of ill health. Male inherent attributes amalgamate together with societal presumptions of men that are persistently fabricated about males as individuals possessing stern orifices and an image of young men who would never shed a tear not in vacuity, but within a communication procedure. Assessing through means of sexual characteristics most laissez-faire presumptions recommend pragmatic transformations between practitioner and convalescent communications while explicating obstructions in therapeutic investigation as well as procedures that require supplementary exploration. Although precisely like the manner in which the pragmatist technique accredits instinctive manly qualities onto males, hermeneutical contemporary hypothesis additionally designate typecasts of sexual category to the physique. Contemporary presumptions persist on strengthening a communal constructivist standpoint in order to disentangle one from any prearranged classifications of the indeterminate objects identified as sexual category and characteristics. People reside within polychromatic worlds of disjointed as well as contradictory veracities where males may shed tears during a concurrence as well as impassively extract in an alternative circumstance or probably cling to a cuddly toy for reassurance at the same time repudiating psychoactive medication in trepidation of expending charge or where a body builder could heave large amounts of weight while being in good physical shape at the same time become incapable of grasping a spoon during poor health.

The Role of Masculinity in Bodybuilding

A bodybuilder tends to believe that his selected sport replicates the person one is and its characteristics that everybody is sanctified with like power, steadfastness, regulation, bravery, fervour as well as relinquishment. Undeniably, tough grind as well as forfeiting scores of enjoyment of life in order to accomplish distinctively contended objectives one necessitates potency in disposition incomparable with numerous other physical exercise, the typical attributes of simply the reflexive bodybuilder. Aggressive bodybuilders are required to maintain equilibrium regarding numerous objects for attaining corporeal objectives at the same time sustaining perception for the aspiration of being introspectively and devoutly hale and hearty as well. At first glance bodybuilding gives the impression of being an industrious and meaningful enterprise, educing multiplicity of advantages like enhanced potency, physical robustness, unassailable dietary structure, self-assurance as well as nominal flab quantities. At the bottom of everything quite a few people contend that bodybuilding as well as a bodybuilder by means of benefit of participation in the sport tends to be nonstandard.

As a matter of fact, intellectuals that observe bodybuilding by means of a tremendously disparaging speculative vision have a propensity for disagreeing with the advantages whereas focusing exclusively over the unconstructive conduct of a selected minority of people involved in the sport. On the other hand some researchers prefer to put into practice an additional women-oriented approach that is susceptible to represent bodybuilding to be a male subjugated sport that is responsible for philosophies of maleness as well as consecutively emphasizes domineering manliness that has been developed from the venerated hypothesis where the man belongs to the standing of supremacy. Various research conducted over several gymnasiums have put forth the results that establish that bodybuilders have a propensity for belonging to a secondary ethnicity of apprehensive, indulging in the usage of mass-developing drugs, egotistical and nonstandard individuals along with supplementary prominence given to homophiles as well as repulsion of women being ubiquitous in the midst of bodybuilders. A bodybuilder is an overanxiously self-doubting individual who participates in an absolutely meaningless pursuit of an aggressively manly physical representation.

Such researches have proven to be principally inconsistent because they have been employed taking nothing else into account also they do not give an explanation for the substantial preponderance of those bodybuilders who get pleasure from substantial as well as legitimate advantages from their gymnasium labours. A number of commensurate researches have observed about bodybuilding mannerisms that generally speaking most bodybuilders possess especially elevated degrees of sense of worth and they also tend to lead flourishing and constructive lives. Fact established that there in all probability are multitudes of bodybuilders that participate in what may perhaps be illustrated like anatomically as well as corporeally hazardous conducts to be precise compulsive conduct that might possibly bring about muscular tissue malformation as well as disproportionate utilization of steroids probably emanating from fanatical conduct.

Such mannerisms ought to be observed in standpoints and not as a prejudiced and unacquainted approach in addition the numerous constructive characteristics of bodybuilding ought to be buttressed. The byzantine of bodybuilding represents a vulnerable male who is crammed in reservations regarding his sexual category, capability to be esteemed as well as adored by acquaintances as well as relations, all in all he harbours uncertainties concerning himself on the whole, at the same time he is concealing himself in the rear of a redoubtable appearing fortification that he himself has contrived, he can concurrently anticipate to consider himself unwavering towards rebuffs and misgivings in addition to be pleased about having achieved something.

The inherent physique is perceived amongst bodybuilders as inadequate therefore they beguile their physiques consistent with communal as well as intellectual principles. Bodybuilding for that reason metamorphoses a person’s physical type in the direction of something that is competent of performance at a most advantageous intensity in the company of enhanced movement, potency, and concreteness of bones as well as a supplementary benefit of possessing a well- proportioned and flattering countenance. With the exception of destructive fitness consequences nobody prefers to in point of fact fancy appearing corpulent. Apart from social standards, a weak and rotund physique is not properly serviceable given that someone possesses inadequate muscular potency makes them unable to go through life to the absolute. Some researchers have deemed body building to facilitate unconfident males in emphasizing their manliness, bodybuilding is infact a comeback towards a predicament of maleness. As a result of its assurance of more superior corporeal as well as psychosomatic strength of mind as well as artistic usefulness bodybuilding infact has facilitated appellants to piece together an enhanced personal distinctiveness that had once upon a time hypothesized against national standards of the west regarding obsessive manliness which took account of supremacy, command as well as ascendancy yet another time bodybuilding has been publicized to be an abnormal endeavour that is en suite of denunciation.

Bodybuilding had been considered by social scholars to be an activity on the periphery of what has been satisfactory as well as accurate. The absolute dimension of numerous bodybuilders may perhaps be measured uncharacteristic, which could conceivably be in actuality the single reasonably nonstandard characteristic of bodybuilding. During the first part of the twentieth century the contradiction in terms of contemporary livelihood had been introduced to be an understanding of the humanistic sinews. While being a component of the corporeal ethnicity association the attempt of bodybuilding for determining physical boundaries operated in contradiction as reinforcement alongside implications of decomposition and improbability that had filtered through the atmosphere of permutation at the same time it had been intrinsically distinct through the apprehension adjacent to which it countered.

In the course of the ethnicity of physical types the personification of recentness concerned productive as well as detrimental inclinations as well. The renovation considered necessary for bodybuilding had been accentuated through the trepidation of corporal disintegration as well as the termination of the manly character. Battle aggravated an end of the previous century’s trepidation of physical disintegration thereby propounding sensational perceptible confirmation of its subsistence. With the bearing of the initial World War over masculine physiques as well as intellect intensified the appeals of physical much more than societal or governmental renaissance. Contemporary aesthetic principles presented hopefulness for the deteriorated waxen masculine physique by means of ethnicity of bodybuilding. The armed conflict had furthermore brought about particular noteworthy truth-seeking as well as imaginative modifications inside the bodybuilding traditions that had to a certain extent acted in response in opposition to the previous centennial’s penchant for a disinfected hermaphrodite principle. By means of an capacitated and refashioned objectivity bodybuilding instituted new-fangled principles for the masculine physique compelling contemporary maleness of the preceding earlier period within a scientific as well as sexually characteristic prospect.

Corporeal traditions included an assortment of callisthenics premeditated for corroborating the physique as well as the brainpower. These exercises included caterwauling, sparring, cudgelling, conventional modelling, symmetrises of Dalcroze, callisthenics as well as restoration promenade of the Greeks. They additionally incorporated bodybuilding that had concentrated over the harmonizing as well as prominence of muscles through repetitive activities of contracting as well as discharging predominantly by means of utilising poundage. Fine art as well as statuettes of the Greek regime had encouraged cleanliness as well as integrity at the same time positive reception of the conventional figure had been scientifically artistic as well as intentionally emasculated in an attempt to discourage any inappropriate acquaintance with the physique. At the time when consideration had been furnished upon the peripheral corpuscles it had been enlightened as a result of philosophies of Christian views of the physique as well as the culture of colonialist maleness signified over categorical suppositions of chivalrous antagonism. On the other hand the occurrence of the war had seen a noteworthy transferral further than the philosophies of bodybuilding of Christian views, as an alternative an uncomfortably polytheistic as well as a considerably greater imagery of the phallus along with a stimulating form of maleness was cultivated.

The First World War considerably destabilized self-assurance within the masculine natural feeling through representation of the prehistoric liveliness of masculine physical machismo; corporeal potency as well as violent behaviour became competition against contemporary scientific combat. The physical physique of males had been devastated as a result of armoured vehicles, firearms, poisonous gases, missiles as well as alternative advancements prepared for weaponry as well as functioning firearms that appeared to find the middle ground for this intuitional manliness. It had been acknowledged that every able-bodied male had become disfigured, etherized, slaughtered and condensed to becoming psychologically demolished that has bequeathed a complete production of castoffs for inhabiting the subsequent age group.

The suggestion that the robustness of the male physique may perhaps divulge conditions of the individual brainpower had been made fashionable through bodybuilding traditions. Bodybuilding supposititious the physicality of the battle encounters. A number of bodybuilders steadily observed overweight males to be recreants and it had been supposed they possibly will never be able to escape or engage in combat therefore their sluggishness represented them as pusillanimous as well as powerless. During the repercussions of the war the reconstruction of maleness by means of magnification of sinews epitomized the jurisdiction of the evacuated male genital organs thus to all intents and purposes the enchanting exhibition of rock-solid physiques became a reimbursement for manliness’s topical trouncing. As a consequence regardless of the commanding physique of the conventional body builder his sexual organs and inguinal area continued to be open to the elements of damage whereas he in spite of everything required defending the hazardous region by means of the contemporary innovation of accommodating undergarments. This had been a manifestation of the heightened requirement of maleness to be sheltered as well as strengthened during an interlude discernible through after war uncertainties of emasculation as well as deficiency that had persistently laid emphasis upon the societal connotation of bodybuilding.

Body building procedures do not necessitate proficiency neither is there any connected ocular to any alternative athletic endeavour. Simply, the focal point of bodybuilding over countenances as well as robustness is immeasurably dissimilar to the objective of weightlifting to achieve serviceable potency. Functionally the bodybuilder looks to assert their masculinity both in and outside the gym by their physique, making powerful public and personal statements about their identity. Specialized bodybuilding as well as its procedures that have been propagated beneath the semblance of fitness as well as strength desire a physical category exemplified by a powerfully built torso with muscular upper limbs as well as extensive shoulders narrowing downwards for a slender midsection. Qualified bodybuilding has become a procedure that quarries masculine diffidence and symbolizes an athletic background assembled over an irrational chemical element.

Therefore a researcher’s affirmation states that bodybuilding substantiates as well as consequently separates the masculine personality through to physique as well as the intellect. This has been executed through considering as masculine physique to be a peripheral objective as well as a piece of equipment, such as for bodybuilding training the upper limbs get converted into armaments whereas posterior limbs turn into spirals. Such a procedure of automation complies with masculine yearnings of character examination by means of a vernacular that fastens the physique towards hypothesis of potency as well as industriousness. This development of restructuring physical attributes has become the explanation of bodybuilding proprieties. In actual fact it has become deep-seated within the vernacular of the procedure itself by means of which factually a physique is constructed. As a result bodybuilding makes available a superlative paradigm of communal contemporary interpretation of physiques as formularized positions as well as commodities of behind schedule permutations.

Why People Do Bodybuilding

Bodybuilding is with reference to a hale and hearty standard of living. It is as a consequence of bodybuilding that an individual is capable of living a sustained life, while being in good health, retaining additional liveliness, precluding ailments, lessening nervous tension as well as becoming unwell not as much frequently. One possibly will time and again become aware of a cluster of persons or maybe massive gatherings of individuals gaining admittance as well as departing from a fitness centre every once in a while. One may perhaps speculate what is capable of being so fascinating regarding a sports centre that is able to produce such scores of persons at its access way whenever one likes to.

A physical education building at the present time has turned out to be the focal point for every person. For the most part it has become crammed full of young people. The solitary most important raison d’etre for it is that young people predominantly are devoted to becoming enthusiasts of any admired sportsperson otherwise an fighting character in addition this has turned out to be an inclination in this day and age for being a possessor of a powerfully built as well as a athletic physique.

Individuals have a high opinion of such people who become contented possessor of such physiques subsequently in order to have the spotlight of everybody’s consideration on the whole adolescents are present at aerobics studio callisthenics as well as fitness programmes for developing into to the extent that is achievable to be similar to athletic celebrities. With the intention of becoming akin to them youngsters endeavour all that they possibly are capable of as well as performing gruelling workouts. Working on preparing a able-bodied physique appears to be time-consuming as well as unconstructive when one yearns for an instantaneous transformation of the countenance as a consequence individuals are bereaved of staying power as well as make an effort to comprehend techniques to enhance velocities of muscular augmentation and intensification.

The Underclass: Who is to Blame?

Upper class, middle class and working class; these are the traditional classifications of social classes in nearly all societies in the world. But, what if a group of people proves to be unable to fit into one of these social stratums and creates a need for establishing an additional lower class? In this case, one of the most prominent problems will inevitably surface. Such a problem was and still is a major issue that enters into the American society especially with the emergence of the ‘underclass’. This term that is generally used to refer to people “at the bottom of, or even below, the rest of society” (Alcock, 1997). However, some details about the underclass are still a subject of controversy. While some associate the underclass with those who could not integrate into the mainstream societies due to their behavior and different culture, others just ascribe the emergence of the underclass to certain structural and situational factors. In this respect, the first part of this essay will discuss both approaches: the one that puts the blame on the behavioral characteristics of the underclass and the other which is oriented towards the structural process that led to the creation of the underclass. The following part will deal with blacks as a case of study. And the last part will cover one possible solution for this issue.

Some sociologists argue that people belonging to the underclass are excluded from society due to their inappropriate attitudes, improper behavior and wrong choices. Adherents to this view agree that the underclass “includes only the undeserving poor” (Jencks, 1988), since this group of people often displays distinct behavioral characteristics that lead them to be “socially isolated from mainstream patterns of [society]” (Wilson, 1987). In this light, Ken Auletta (1991) divides the underclass into four elements stressing the boundaries that separate them from the rest of society. In his classification, he includes: “the passive poor, usually long-term welfare recipients, ” the hostile street criminals”, “the hustlers” i. e. those who rely on underground economy and “the traumatized drunks, drifters, homeless shopping-bag ladies and released mental patients. ” To these people, “violent crimes, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy [and] joblessness” (Sawhill, 1992) become distinguishing hallmarks. The underclass, in this respect, is depicted as living by a code of jungle (Marks, 1991); a code that is fueled by the breakdown of a paramount institution which is the family and characterized by the loss of any “tangible incentive to learn” (Murray, 1984). In this context, Murray points out the common issues that mark the underclass including: the breakdown of families, illiteracy and single-parent household. All these attributes not only set the underclass apart from the mainstream American culture but also make welfare dependency their preferred choice. For instance, the emergence of the underclass is often associated with “an ‘overgenerous’ [system] that encourages such a ‘dysfunctional’ behavior”(Heisler, 1991). Taking the example of unemployment, Lawrence Mead says “The problem is not that jobs are unavailable but that they are frequently unacceptable, in pay or conditions, given that some income is usually available from families or benefit programs” (Mead, 1986). This means that underclass dependency on governmental support would create disincentives to work.

Another causal factor of the existence of the underclass in the American society is the failure of the structure in providing a just society. In defining structure, sociologists analyze the complexities of social institutions and organizations in dealing with matters of integration and high trends of inequality. Hence, from a structuralist approach society is the one to blame for the emergence of an underclass.

The American Sociologist William Julius Wilson (1987) argues that the ‘tangle of pathology of the inner-city’ is represented in structural factors: Among these inter-related factors, historical segregation and discrimination of the minority groups in America led to the emergence of large underclass communities in the cities. A persistent interaction between high poverty rates and rising level of residential segregation explains Segregation role in concentrating poverty. In their study of segregation in the U. S, Nancy and Douglas (1998) depicted an Apartheid-American style in dealing with minorities in Urban areas. Indeed, segregation has negative socio-economic impacts. Consequently, underclass was the result of profound structural economic shifts that have marginalized inner cities positions and displaced the industrial sectors that were supposed to provide employment for the minorities and for the working poor. (Darity, Myers, Carson, & Sabol, 1994). This prevents the population from achieving its full potential in the labor market.

Besides, Gender Discrimination is one key feature of the structuralist causation. The high rate of poverty among women may be viewed as the consequence of a patriarchal domination. Women were fighting to resist the exclusion in a society that has been historically dominated by men. Welfare programs have been designed in some ways to stigmatize public support for women. Indeed this tends to reinforce patriarchy. (Abramovitz, 1996) Moreover, social isolation was behind the inadequate human capital of the labor force that resulted in lower productivity and inability to compete for employment. (Darity, Myers, Carson, & Sabol, 1994) William Wilson (1985) defines social isolation as follows “the lack of contact or a sustained interaction with individuals and institutions that represent mainstream society. ” Indeed, urban poor suffer from the lack of assistance, resources and community safeguards. As a consequence, the difficult interaction between culture and behavior has produced an isolated-population from the labor economy. (Wilson, 1985) the isolation was linked to a growing concentration on poverty. Another major factor in the structuralist approach is that of Migration of the successful members of the community that leads to the reduction in social capital. (Wilson, 1987) This phenomenon essentially created a geographic polarization. Inner-cities are getting poorer and suburbs getting richer. The process of regeneration helped mobile individuals but was proved harmful for the ones who were not able to leave the urban areas.

One perspective refers to the political factor adopted by Republicans (in America particularly) the welfare programs that have removed any desire to work, thus creating a culture of poverty and the underclass. Inner-city poverty is the unanticipated consequence of public policy that was intended to alleviate social problems but has, in fact, caused them to worsen in some ways. (Wilson, 1987). Public policies including federal aids and programs indirectly affected poverty. Public housing for example did not aim at improving or rebuilding slum dwellers but rather at eliminating poor housing (Gautreaux case in the 1970s)

In an attempt to define the underclass, Time Magazine reported that it “ is made up mostly of impoverished urban blacks who still suffer from the heritage of slavery and discrimination” (1997). Because Blacks constitute the majority of the underclass, we chose to apply on them the two perspectives previously analyzed.

According to the culture-of-poverty thesis, blacks “do not possess those traits or values that are conducive to individual achievement and success “ (Zargouni, 2007). Minority groups, such as Chinese, Japanese and West Indians suffered from discrimination and yet they were able to “ris[e] to affluence” because of their “effort, thrift, dependability, and foresight that built businesses “ (Sowell, 1981). Because these traits are absent within African-American’s culture, blacks remained “trapped” in the “same inner cities “, other races were able to “escape” (Lemann, 1986). Lemann (1986)asserts that “the greatest barrier “ for blacks is their “culture”. Within this same line, Chuch Robb suggests that the barriers of segregation and racism were abolished and it is time for blacks to get rid of their “self-defeating patterns of behavior “ (in Jackson, 1988). Thus, according to this first perspective Black’s cultural traits are the reasons behind their failure in “some of the richest cities on earth “ (Hamill, 1988).

One major critique for this perspective is that the years following the Civil Rights Movement witnessed the rise of a black middle class (Wilson, 1990). That is, Blacks proved that when given equal opportunities and decent living conditions, they can defy the stereotypes and achieve success. Following the same line and in an attempt to distance himself from the “culture of poverty” thesis, Wilson (1990) insists that although blacks were living in poor conditions before the mid-twentieth century, unemployment, crimes and perverseness were not as prevalent as they are today. According to him these changes were due to two main reasons. First, many blacks lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector which was contracted and could not catch the new opportunities in the suburbs (Wilson, 1990). Second, the departure of the black middle class meant the removal of “role models” who used to show for the less advantaged “that education is meaningful, that steady employment is a viable alternative to welfare, and that family stability is the norm, not the exception” (p. 56).

In his assessment of the situation of blacks, Wilson does not deny that they have “ghetto-specific cultural traits” (p. 137); but he acknowledges that they are but the consequences of unemployment and social isolation, rather than the reasons behind them. He also insists that these traits are “not self- perpetuating” and would disappear if faced with proper care (p. 138).

The government’s reaction to the underclass was in the adoption of some welfarist measures. These policies were criticised by many who believe that they only encourage dependency.

Goodman, Reed and Ferrara (1994) argue that welfare can only be successful if based on the“- determination of the amount and type of aid case by case. The private sector “would be able to do so since it may reduce the level of assistance, or withdraw assistance altogether, if recipients do not show behavioral changes” (Goodman, Reed, & Ferrara, 1994).

We think that such a system would be more beneficial than the traditional welfare system for it encourages people to work hard to deserve and preserve the assistance they are getting.

At the end of this research, it is worth to mention that Underclass is a major problem in the American society. Despite all the advancement and the principles on which this nation is built upon, the appearance of an underclass indicates that there is a notable failure in implementing the right measures to better the situation of minority groups. Blacks were chosen as a case of study in this report due to their high population and their difficult integration comparing to other races. Whether behavioral factors or Structural causes (Wilson, 1987) were behind the emergence of this distinct class, serious reforms should be adopted to overcome this phenomena.

References

Abramovitz, M. (1996). Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial Times to the. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Alcock, P. (1997). Understanding Poverty (ed. 2nd). Plgrave: Basingstoke.

Auletta, K. (1991). The New Yorker. In C. Marks, Annual Review of Sociology.

Darity, W. A., Myers, S. L., Carson, E. D., & Sabol, W. (1994). The Black Underclass: Critical Essays on Race and Unwantedness. New York: Garland.

Douglas, M., & Nancy, D. (1998). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.

Goodman, J. C., Reed, G. W., & Ferrara, P. S. (1994). Why Not Abolish the Welfare State? Texas.

Hamill, P. (1988). Breaking The Silence. Esquire.

Heisler, B. S. (1991). jSTOR. Retrieved from Theory and Society: http://www. jstor. org/stable/657687

Jackson, J. (1988). Racism created the black underclass. In Poverty: Opposing Viewpoints. (D. Bender, & B. Leone, Eds. )

Jencks, C. (1988). Deadly Neignborhoods. New Republic.

Lemann, N. (1986). The Origins Of the Underclass. The Atlantic.

Marks, C. (1991). Annual Review of Sociology. Recupere sur Jstor: http://www. jstor. org/stable/2083350.

Mead, L. (1986). From Beyond Entitlement.

Murray, C. (1984). Losing Ground.

Sawhill, I. V. (1992). Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Retrieved from Jstor: http://www. jstor. org/stable/986911.

Sowell, T. (1981). Ethnic America.

The American underclass: destitute and desperate in the land of plenty. (1997). Time Magazine

Wilson, W. J. (1985). Cycles of Deprivation and the Underclass Debate. Social Service Review.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Zargouni, C. H. (2007). Roots of american culture and identity : Connecting the present with the past. Tunis.

Homosexual identity is abstracted as a life-spanning development process. This process eventually leads a person to personal acceptance of a positive gay self-image and a clear personal identity (Minton & McDonald, 2012). According to Haberma’s theory of ego development, it is utilized to provide a synthesis and understanding of the literature on the construction and maintenance of the homosexual identity. It is concluded that the homosexual identity generally emerges in a three-stage process, in which the person progresses from (1) an egocentric interpretation of homoerotic feelings to (2) an internalization of the normative, conventional assumptions about homosexuality to (3) a post-conventional phase in which societal norms are critically evaluated and the positive gay identity is achieved and managed. In short, homosexual develops in three stages. The first stage is the homoerotic feelings in a self-centered way. The second stage is the internalization of the normative, assuming homosexuality in a convention way. The final stage is a post-conventional phase where the critical evaluation of societal norms happens and the positive gay identity is achieved and managed.

However, no one knows how exactly homosexuality entered into human history. According to Samhsa, the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) describe distinct groups within the gay culture. The early initiatives for people who were gay focused mostly on men. So, in an attempt to draw attention to issues specific to gay women, “lesbian” is often listed first. People who are bisexual or transgender have been traditionally left out of, or underrepresented in, research studies and health initiatives. Other than that, a study from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy revealed that the term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19th century by German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. Although the term is new, discussions about sexuality and same-sex attraction have occasioned philosophical discussion ranging from Plato’s Symposium to contemporary queer theory (Pickett, Brent, 2011). However, the gay group is different from “sissies” and “tomboy”.

According to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United State, the dictionary itself documents the distinction between tomboy and sissy with gay, while tomboy refers to romping, boisterous, boyish young girl, “sissy” an effeminate boy or man, a timid or cowardly person (Siecus Report, 2003). Thus for a boy been called “sissy” can be devastating, as it pierces his self-image at its most vulnerable point. By contrast, “tomboy” is said with approving tones, and does not detract from a girl’s sense of worth (Green, 1979). By this definition, it could be understood that a gay individual is more likely to have same sex attraction, but a sissy person may only behave like a girl while having a normal sexuality as other heterosexual males.

According to National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), LGBT refers to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. The term gay refers to both men and women who are attracted to persons of the same sex. Lesbian is the term used specifically for women who are romantically and sexually attracted to other women. Bisexual is used to indicate that a person is attracted to both men and women. Some describe bisexuality as an attraction to the qualities a person possesses rather than the gender of the person who possesses the qualities. Bisexual persons often experience a lack of acceptance in both heterosexual and GL communities because of misconceptions and stereotypes associated with bisexuality. Finally, transgender is an umbrella term used to describe someone who experiences his/her gender in a way that varies along a continuum from masculine to feminine (Brown & Rounsley, 1996; Perez, DeBord & Bieschke, 2000; Cunningham, 2003; Smith 2006).

Hall (1996) coined the term of under erasure to refer to the LGBT individuals who happen to occupy “outside the field”. “Within the gay and lesbian community, the subjective voices of transgender people are often marginalized or ignored” (Minter, 2000) It indicates that the social status of the LGBT persons often insignificant and lower in rank.

Social networking sites are spots where youth are easily influence by sexual text, photos and videos and also creates such materials by own (Rebecca, 2001). New media helps in addressing issues such as sexual health and their important role of youth at risk depends on media which is in use (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010). To see the ever present queerness in the most prosaic straightness is important to be sure, as it has been for every oppressed minority. Visibility is much important to gays and lesbian because change of social acceptance.

1.1 Problem Statement

This study addresses the issue of the portrayal of the marginalized group, known to be LGBT, by the new media and to what extent it influences the perceptions of the young individuals towards this group. A study performed by Free Malaysia Today stated that the Centre for Independent Journalism reprimanded the Malaysian print media for their lop-sided reporting on the Azwan Ismail video that was first made by a group called Seksualiti Merdeka. Azwan, an engineer, shot to fame after he stated his sexual preference in a video entitled, “I am Gay, I am Okay”. The video was first aired in an event organized by Seksualiti Merdeka. His open statement, however, did not go down well with other media. The Malay dailies newspaper and the community made their displeasure known via various cyber platforms. Some even went to the extent of issuing death threats against Azwan. One prominent Muslim blogger took the government to task for its failure in curbing the spread of gay and lesbian activities (Free Malaysia Today, 2011).

Other than that, Youth Pride Inc also stated that 36.5 % of GLB youth grades 9-12 have attempted suicide and 20.5% of those attempts resulting in medical care (Robin, 2002). In 2005, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) survey of LGBT youth, 90% reported experiencing verbal or physical harassment or verbal assault in the past year (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005). All these findings share one conclusion namely LGBT people are greatly discriminated in the society. This study thus chooses to highlight on homosexuality and Seksualiti Merdeka with aims to create awareness among today’s generation about the need to respect every person’s right, including the rights to be homosexuals.

1.2 Research Objectives

To discover the new media’s portrayal of the LGBT community in Malaysia.

To examine the Malaysian youths perceptions towards the LGBT community in general and specifically towards Seksualiti Merdeka.

To create awareness about the issue of homosexuality among Malaysian youths.

1.3 Research Questions

How are new media’s portrayals of the LGBT community in Malaysia?

What are the Malaysian youth’s perceptions towards the LGBT community and Seksualiti Merdeka?

How far Malaysian youths are aware about the issue of homosexuality?

1.4 Research Hypothesis

This research has one hypothesis, which is if the new media portrays the LGBT community negatively; the perceptions of youth towards LGBT community will be negative. This means, if the new media portrays the LGBT community positively, the perceptions of youth towards LGBT community will be positive.

1.5 Research Significance

This study examines the influence of new media on the youth’s perception towards LGBT community. The researchers highlight youth perceptions on this issue because in the modern era today, youths are expected to be more open minded apart of being daring to voice out their opinions about any arising issues. A research by Pew Internet & America Life Project (2007) revealed that 94 percent of internet users are young people with age range between 18 to 29 years old. This finding indicated that youths today are the active users of new media such as social networks, forums, blogs etc.

With new media, the youths can easily get information about LGBT issues that occured in the country or abroad. Therefore, the youths may have more awareness towards LGBT groups. New media is becoming a platform for the youth to express their opinions and to discuss about any issues. Therefore, the researchers think that, there is a need to study more about the influence of new media on youth’s perceptions towards LGBT community.

This study will help to instil awareness and provide a better perspective about the issues of LGBT and Seksualiti Merdeka to upcoming generation. It can also be useful and functional as reference for future researchers who are interested to expand the discussion on similar topics and areas.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Media Portrayal of LGBT

Society has always had a general fear or disdain for homosexuality. That is why the media tended to support the already common perceptions, instead of challenging them (Montgomery, 1981).

According to Kanter (2012), since the start of television programming, the forms of LGBT characters in entertainment or popular culture have both been limited. If they did exist, they were either exaggeratingly stereotypical, or associated with criminality or deviance. All the way through the 1980s, gay characters were seen on television as cameo roles with particular “problems” that hold almost non-existent lives, absent of desire or relationships. With the spread of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) epidemic, starting in the 1980s and into the 1990s, homosexuals were portrayed in more substantial, reoccurring roles (Netzley, 2010).

Jackson & Gilbertson (2009) explained that versions of the media lesbian that preceded her contemporary incarnation as ‘hot’ typically cast her in stereotypical and undesirable ways, for example as masculine and unattractive (Wilton, 1995; Ciasullo, 2001). Dow (2001) notes how the lesbian on television historically occupied a fleeting space as an object of humor or as a villain. In her contemporary guise, the media lesbian can most often be seen as constituted within post-feminist discourses that produce women as sexually desiring, sexually plural, and self-pleasing (McRobbie, 1996).

Gamson (1995) encouraged the homosexuals to tell their views in the talk shows. Talk show is the place where they get the attention they want and rise out their views which they cannot get in other ways. He is also the only spot in mainstream media culture where it is possible for non-heterosexuals to speak for themselves.

A study shows the changes in attitudes towards homosexuality in the United State through fashion in public opinion polls. The results were considered by issues connected to homosexuality which integrated legal status, morality, acceptability, causes, familiarity with self-identified homosexuals, as well as views on both military and nonmilitary occupations, civil rights, marriage and adoption rights, and AIDS. This also concluded that community behavior have shifted in a free-thinking path (Yang, 1997).

2.2 LGBT Youngster’s Engagement with New Media

Past research had supported the idea that the Internet is frequently a lifeline in the development of sexual health among LGBT young people (Hillier & Harrison, 2007). Many of them first “come out” online, and report learning about sexual behaviours, pursuing friendships with other LGBT young people, and exploring same-sex attraction online (Harper, Bruce, Serrano, & Jamil, 2009; Hillier & Harrison, 2007).

Social networking tools had been widely used among youngsters in getting sexual health information. Importantly, social networking tools do not only allow researchers and practitioners to receive and provide information, but also allow the LGBT young people to exchange information and experiences with LGBT peers, engendering broader development of their sexual health (Bargh & McKenna, 2004). This opportunity allows for a greater chance for LGBT young people to “test out” identities and gather information in a more controlled, private environment than is typical among general Internet resources or large social networking sites (Joshua, Louisa, Samantha & Brian, 2011).

According to Wilkerson (1994), there several types of homophobic attitudes like the treatment of people with human immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) about ways in which HIV is transmitted, media representation of AIDS and the way the medicines purpose reinforces a positive view inimical to lesbians and bisexuals. African-American news websites are growing in influence in terms of the number and loyalty of the unique visitors they attract. Homophobia and discrimination are the top storylines on the African-American news websites we analyzed, followed by culture, religion, and same-sex marriage in equal measure (Siegel, 2012).

2.3 Health Issues among LGBT Community

By the 1990s, lesbian, the LGBT youth have appeared only as a separate cultural group. There are quite few youth identified themself or turn as LGBT since social sanctions and stigma contributed to severe repercussions and isolation, limiting access to supportive communities and awareness of sexual and gender identities in the earlier periods. However, only a handful addressed the needs of youths although a range of lesbian and gay service organizations developed in large cities during the 1970s and 1980s.

According to Makadon (2008), elimination of health disparities among LGBT individuals, also collectively called sexual minorities, is a critical need for focus on their health. LGBT populations are disproportionately at risk for violent hate crimes, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV/ AIDS, a variety of mental health conditions, substance abuse and certain cancers. However, LGBT patients frequently encounter problems with access to quality health services, experiences disparities in screening for chronic conditions, and report a lack of counseling pertinent to actual lifestyle behaviors.

Historically, homosexuality has been judged quite harshly due to cultural and religious taboos. The Pew Research Centre’s 2003 Global Attitudes Survey found that the majority of people in Western European and major Latin American countries (Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil) believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society, while most Russians, Poles and Ukrainians disagreed, and people in Africa and the Middle East objected strongly. Meanwhile, majority of Americans believe that homosexuality should be accepted (Makadon, 2008).

Stigma, prejudice and discrimination create a stressful social environment that can lead to a variety of health problems among LGBT group. In LGBT group, minority stress is caused by (a) an external, objective traumatic event, such as being assaulted or being fired from a job; (b) the expectation of rejection and development of vigilance in interactions with others; (c) the internalization of negative societal attitudes (also known as internalized homophobia, transphobia, or biphobia); and (d) the concealment of gender identity or sexual orientation out of shame and guilt or to protect oneself from real harm. In addition, research shows a relationship between internalized homophobia/biphobia and various forms of self-harm, including eating disorders, high-risk sexual activity, substance abuse and suicide (Makadon, 2008). According to Rosan (1978), “homophobia” is a shortened form of “homophilephobia,” which means the fear of person neither of one’s own sex, clearly not the connotation given to these terms in common parlance nor in professional literature. Garner (2008; as cited in Mulick & Wright Jr., 2003) describes biphobia as psychological construct of negative attitudes towards bisexual individuals and bisexuality in general.

In Malaysia, the rising trend of sexual transmission from 5.3% in 1990 to 22.15% in 2005 (Ministry of Health AIDS/STD Section) indicates that the situation could expand into a general epidemic. Furthermore, the proportion of women infected has risen from 1.4% in 1990 to 14.5% in 2005 (Ministry of Health AIDS/STD Section). Indeed, the female to male ratio of new infections has narrowed substantially. In sharp contrast to men, 64% of HIV infections in women were sexually transmitted. The result of HIV situation has an emergency need to go for gender-sensitive national respond by Malaysia government (Zulkifli, Lee, Yun, & Lin, 2007).

To do better in lend a hand to LGBT group for their healthcare, people should spend more time and attention to learn about LGBT health and obtain support in making educational improvements. Explanation focus on the clinician-patient relationship and address all threes domains of learning which comprised of attitudes, knowledge and skills would help clinicians to provide better care to LGBT patients. Attitudes have a major effect on health outcomes. Attention to attitudes requires growth in the affective arena. For clinicians, this involves developing awareness of and respect for a patient’s differences and willingness to listen empathically to that person’s experience (Makadon, 2008).

2.4 LGBT involvement in international human rights

Under international human rights law, all persons who including LGBT community are entitled to equal rights, including the rights to life, security of person and privacy, freedom from torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to be free from discrimination (The Road To Safety, 2012).

There are more than 80 countries still maintaining the laws that make same-sex consensual relations between adults a criminal offence. In year 2008, such laws were used in Morocco to convict six men, after allegations that a private party they had attended was a “gay marriage”. On 19 July 2007, six men were arrested after a young man who had been arrested on theft charges was coerced by police into naming associates who were presumed to be homosexual (O’Flaherty & Fisher, 2008).

According to journal The Road to Safety (2012), LGBT refugees in Uganda and Kenya are among the most vulnerable of refugee populations. Due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, they can be targeted for violence by other refugees and some members of the host populations, harassed and extorted by police officers, and marginalized from accessing services from government institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

According to Julie (2006), LGBT advocates have engaged in two very different kinds of activities on the international human rights stage. First, they have engaged in traditional human rights activism, using the traditional human rights techniques of monitoring and reporting to apply existing human rights norms to LGBT lives. These rights included the right to privacy in the criminal law context; the right to equality; the right to family; the right to non-discrimination; the right to freedom from torture (applicable in cases of “forcible cures” for homosexuality and psychiatric mistreatment generally); and the right of transsexuals to recognition of their new gender. Second, they have tapped into both traditional monitoring techniques and human rights culture-building efforts to promote new international human rights that are important to LGBT lives, including “the right to sexuality.”

Until the mid- to late-1990s, most of LGBT advocates that involved in the international work on gay rights were also working with LGBT-specific organizations, such as the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). This organization was found in 1978 in Brussels as a “world federation” organization, and today it is joined by more than 500 gay and lesbian organizations from ninety countries on all inhabited continents. From its inception, ILGA has “focused on presenting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as a global issue.” Another prominent group during this era was the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), founded originally in 1990 by Russian and US activists and now a US-based organization with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Buenos Aires (Julie, 2006).

2.5 Seksualiti Merdeka in Malaysia

The rejection of homosexuality by Malaysian law and culture leads to the rise of human rights to the LGBT people. An increasing integration of Islamic political thinking and practice that builds on literal interpretations of Islamic textual sources is the main reason for why LGBT rights are neglected. Muslims who are under group of LGBT facing politically charged from conservative of normative Islamic discourses on sexuality and gender.

To fight for their rights, LGBT community in Malaysia had formed Seksualiti Merdeka or Sexuality Independence in the year 2008, founded by Pang Khee Teik and Jerome Kugan. Seksualiti Merdeka is an annual sexuality rights festival held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and represents a coalition of Malaysian Non-Government Organizations which included Malaysian Bar Council, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Empower, Pink Triangle Foundation (PT Foundation), United Nations, Amnesty International and general public. The term used to highlight the fact that even after Malaysia independence, not all Malaysians are free to be who they are. The organization believes that everyone in Malaysia deserves to be free from discrimination, harassment and violence for their sexual orientations and their gender identities. They believe it is our right to be responsible for our own body and believe everyone is entitled to the freedom to love and the freedom to be, whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersexes, straight, asexual, pansexual, or simply fabulous (Sexualiti Merdeka, n.d.).

Being a Muslim-majority country, Malaysia would have to reiterate its strong objections to a policy that clearly contradicts the principles enshrined in the religion of Islam. On November 3, 2011, police banned Seksualiti Merdeka as the festival was deemed a threat to national security and a threat to public order. Co-founder of Seksualiti Merdeka Pang Khee Teik said that they are not trying to promote homosexuality. This festival is actually the chance for Malaysians to listen to their story, why after all these years of trying to be somebody else, some of them have found peace with themselves and to accept who they are (Chun, 2011).

According to Mosbergen (2012), on September 2012, Malaysia’s Education Ministry has “endorsed guidelines” to help parents identify gay and lesbian “symptoms” in their children. The guidelines are as below:-

Symptoms of gays:

Likes having a fit body and likes to show off by wearing V-neck and sleeveless clothes;

A preference for tight and bright-colored clothes;

Attraction to men; and

A preference for carrying big handbags, similar to those used by women.

Symptoms of lesbians:

Attraction to women;

Besides their female companions, they tend to distance themselves from other women;

A preference for going out, having meals etc. with women and a preference for sleeping in the company of women;

Not attracted to men

Pang Khee Teik, however disagreed with the guidelines and he advised the ministry to rely on sound research instead of endorsing pseudo-experts as this could be damaging to children. Pang said education is an important tool to address inequality but the ministry had instead sought to use it for teaching hate, promoting inequality and playing politics. Besides that, the ministry should teach all children to be confident and to respect one another, no matter who they are. Seksualiti Merdeka thus was prepared to brief the Education Ministry if its officers were willing to listen to reliable research on the LGBT community (Asia One, 2012).

2.6 Online discussion of sexuality

According to Mckee (2004), in one of the ¬?rst published articles addressing online discussions of sexuality, the homophobic comments made by composition students using the synchronous chat program interchange to brainstorm possible topics for a research essay (as cited in Regan, 1993).

When a student raised homosexuality as a possible topic, a number of students posted homophobic comments: “We’re taught that homosexuality is a sin”; “A homosexual once made a move on me. I really didn’t like it. I mean I really didn’t like it!” and “To whoever was thinking about the topics of death and homosexuality, here’s a thought, why not join together and do a project on the death of homosexuals? Not by AIDS.” At the time of the exchange, the researcher Regan was unsure what to do when confronted with these comments, but she did try to redirect the conversation by interjecting, “Has anyone thought about writing about homophobia?” but it does not seem that her efforts were successful at redirecting what she called “socially sanctioned classroom terrorism” (McKee, 2004).

Regan was distressed that the online environment enabled students to articulate “their fear and hatred of homosexuals in a way that would not have happened in the traditional classroom,” and she concluded that online spaces are not egalitarian, as was frequently claimed at the time.

2.7 Discrimination towards LGBT group in Malaysian Context

Malaysia is one of the countries that illegalized homosexuality. Among the reasons for the country`s disapproval of homosexuality is its status as an Islamic nation, where everything that goes against the Islamic law and teaching is strictly prohibited and thus, condemned.

According to Goh (2012), the rejection of same-sex behavior is not one that has emerged from a socio-political vacuum. Sexuality is considered “taboo” (Goh, 2012; as cited in Jerome, 2008) and appears to have a prominent place in the psyche of many Malaysians, notably institutional quadrants of Islam. Islamic civil and religious authorities closely observed on Muslims in Malaysia, ravaging the sexual lives of Muslims that are as private as “khalwat” (illicit close proximity) and “zina” (illicit sex or adultery)” (Lee, 2010:31). In the Malaysian legal context, male homosexuality or ‘gayness’ as a globally-recognized cultural trope has no direct equivalence to sexual identitiesaˆ‚ Section 377A, 377B and 377C of the Malaysian Penal Code make provisions against acts of sodomy or “liwat” without being gender-specific, although it is in section 2 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territory) Act 1997 that one discovers a clearly-defined morphology of “liwat” as “sexual relations between male persons” (Goh, 2012).

Uproars over male homosexuality in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries came into prominence with two major events. First is the sodomy charges of the former Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and second is the festival celebrating the human rights of sexually-diverse persons, Seksualiti Merdeka. Raging debates on homosexuality in relation to Anwar (Kanaraju, 2007) and the banning of Seksualiti Merdeka in 2011 (Shazwan, 2011) caused innumerable forums on men`s masculinities population to mushroom among the Malaysian.

Back in the year 1992, the Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad made the statement that democracy would lead to homosexuality (Offord, 1999). Dr Mahathir used the conflation of homosexuality with democracy to consolidate Malaysia’s cultural borders (and its postcolonial status), so that Malaysian people can maintain the pureness and uniqueness. Dr Mahathir is drawn on cultural specificity in this context to explain the indigenous from the foreign, and homosexuality is conceived of as alien and “other”.

It is in this sense that Anwar Ibrahim is “bothered” by the use of the accusation that he is homosexual. Anwar has been notable for his liberal views about democracy and transparent government (The Asian Renaissance, 1996). To simply do away with opposition and perceived threats to his authoritarian rule, Dr. Mahathir can inscribe upon his enemy the descriptor of “homosexual” (Offord, 1999).

Prior to the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) leader’s summit in Kuala Lumpur in late 1998, amid the controversial jailing of Anwar and civil unrest and demonstrations, the role of homosexuality as a political and cultural tool of difference was propounded strongly by the Malaysian Foreign Minister, Dr Abdullah Badawi. It was his contention that sodomy was a serious offence in Malaysia; it was against the country’s religious and social values (The Weekend Australian, 1998). Dr Badawi maintained that in certain places in Europe, and perhaps Australia and America, they do not treat it as something big but to Malaysia, it is bad consider as a scandal.

Following Dr Mahathir’s accusations against Anwar, a People’s Anti-Homosexual Voluntary Movement was formed to combat the “dangers of homosexuality”. In one blow Dr Mahathir succeeded in undermining Anwar’s credibility and deployed homosexuality as the number one impossibility. Anwar, also a Muslim, entrenched the perceived, corrupting value of homosexuality by asserting in the Time interview that his character was assassinated by this descriptor (Offord, 1999).

Therefore in Southeast Asia today, this is one sense of where homosexuality is located, something that is “demonized”, and deeply disturbed. It is conflated at once with democracy, corruption, and foreignness. It does seem clear that when the nation state perceives a threat to its existence, that danger is frequently translated into sexualized terms. Same sex sexuality is deployed as the alien other, linked to conspiracy, recruitment, opposition to the nation, and ultimately a threat to civilization (Offord, 1999).

2.8 Theory applies between relationship of Media and LGBT Community

Media plays a very important role in human life, where people get more of information they need from it. Therefore, to be more understand the influence of media on youth’s perceptions and opinions about homosexuality, the study chooses to employ framing theory. The concept of framing has been variously attributed to sociologist Erving Goffman and anthropologist Gregory Bateson. Frames allow journalists or media in general cover and package issue. The choice of journalists who shelter a story can influence the way issues are framed. The theory describe that the message framer has the choice of what is to be emphasized in the message, as the view through a window is emphasized by where the carpenter frames, or places, the window. If the window had been placed, or framed, on a different wall, the view would be different (Botan & Hazleton, 2006).

According to Muthudotin (2010), this theory suggests how media influences the thinking of people. The model of framing is related to the agenda-setting tradition like media telling the youth what to think, but not what to think about. However, it is more focused and expands the research by focusing on the nature of the issues and then places it within a field of meaning which can easily effects the audiences. Framing is an important topic since it can have a great influence.

If we look at dissimilar context in Malaysia, sexually explicit content on media will be associated with values and eastern culture which hold norms of decency and morality. Eastern society, which is very different from western society, has an unusual mindset of perceiving sexual content. Everything which is related to sexuality is perceived as taboo and people would refuse to discuss the matter openly. In addition, as a Muslim country, Malaysia struggles to bind the whole thing linked with sexually oriented content (Mariesta, 2012).

According to The Star online (2011), Pahang and Malacca are the states that practicing Islamic laws in punish Muslims engaging in homosexuality. Once the state amends and g

Birth Order Theory

The birth order theory was first coined by Alfred Adler. This is a theory that often refers to the order of birth in which one was born in. He was the first to say that “not only the parents but also the siblings influence the child’s behavior characteristics” (Leman, 2000).

It is often believed that the order in which a child is born plays a significant role in how the child will be able to have life and all of the problems that life will bring such as relationships, work ethic, and just life in general. The birth order theory consists of 4 birth order theory personalities: first born, second born, the only child and youngest all of which will have a list of traits, a list of strengths and a list of weaknesses that each child should possess.

The birth order personality of an individual relates to both their working style, which is how a person works and their relationship style. For many people that means working along different birth order lines. The first born is generally the leader of the family, and tends to be the most responsible of the siblings. These people like to be in charges of other people and love to be in control. They feel uncomfortable with surprises or being out of familiar surroundings.

Their ability to focus on a goal and their propensity to organize others means they can achieve whatever they put their minds to. They are also perfectionist. Approval of authority is important for this group. Second born’s the compromisers, and flexible. They have to be motivated by a cause and will enjoy working with people. They tend to be involved in projects that will give them a sense of belonging.

The second born child will treasure friendships they are generally always the one that will get along with everyone and be the peacekeeper. Hey generally will always put others first. The only child is the one that expects nothing less than the best. They will always be the one and only to raise the bar for everyone else to reach this will generally push those around them to do their best. One of their best strengths is the fact that they are able to work on their own for long periods of time.

They make great project finishers and strategic thinkers but they can be secretive and don’t deal well with conflict. Ciadvertising.org says that “Recognition is important to this group”. The youngest are the initiators; they have great ideas and like to challenge people. They are very creative and are full of fun. They like to do things on the spur of the moment. They also like to be the center of attention.

As for my family there are 3 of us so this is perfect to analysis us. I am the oldest, and then there is my brother Don Jr., and my sister Jessica. I am definitely a leader and I love being in control. I remember bossing my brother around, but there always seemed to be some tension between us there was definitely sibling rivalry. I never liked being surprised and to this day if I suspect a surprise I will try to find out what it is and do my best to mess it up.

For my brother he was rebellious and always said that he did not fit in the family. He still has the same close group of friends that he had in high school. He wasn’t the stubborn one I was so he always seemed to get along with everyone in the family but me. My little sister who is the youngest is manipulative, even a little flaky. She is too slick and sneaky and a bit unbelievable, even though she was likeable, fun to be around, easy to talk to.

She is definitely gullible, and has been easily taken advantage of a lot. She has made some decisions based too much on her feelings and did no give enough thought to her decisions. One thing that was and is still very true is that she is the favorite. So while looking into the birth order theory I realized that some of the traits are true about be and my siblings and I find it to be funny it makes you want to stop and take a good look at the type of person that you are. Ezinearticles.com states that “Most of us have a dominant birth order personality that matches our birth position.

But that personality is influenced by variables such as temperament, gender and other family circumstances. So it is not so much where you are born in your family but how you function that counts. How a person functions generally correlates with birth position”. When you have a good understanding of who you are, what makes you strong what your weaknesses are, what you like what you dislike then and only then will you be in a position to maximize your strengths. This will allow you to be able to make up for any weaknesses that you may have by changing the things that you can and be able to accept what you can’t change.

Works Cited
http://www.ciadvertising.org/SA/spring_03/382J/kjoco/conclusions.htm
http://ezinearticles.com/?Birth-Order—Understand-How-It-Affects-Your- Personality&id=45481
Leman, Kevin. The New Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are. Minnesota: Baker Book House Company, 2000.

THE SOCIOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE BIOMEDICAL MODEL OF HEALTH AND HOW IT AFFECTS WOMEN’S HEALTH

Biomedicine has been around since the middle of the nineteenth century as the major model used by health practitioners to detect diseases (Nettleton, 1995).This biomedical model of health have centred on how the human body functions and how diseases can be stopped, or healed through medical intervention(Taylor and field 2003). This model continues to be the bedrock in which foundation of health care system is based in the western societies, but there has being a lot of queries concerning its influence on the general pattern of health, since majority of health determinant are social and environmental. Arkinson (1988 p.180)claimed that the biomedical model, which as taken over the formal health care system in the West since the last two centuries view health along the reductionist approach. In this approach illness is said to be caused by injury or infections and there is neglect to the psychological, socio-economic and environmental influences (Taylor and field 2003).

Over the last two centuries the biomedical model has being greatly challenged by scholars in the medical (Engel, 1981) and sociological field. This criticism was brought about by the drastic increase in the medical expenses. Engel (1981) stated that the effectiveness of the medical model has been over emphasized. Mc Keown (1976) also argued that the reduction in the death rate which happened some years back within the developed world was influenced by good eating habit and proper hygiene than it was with immunisation, and other health care intervention. This view was supported by Powles (1973) by re-emphasizing that spending money on health care system had led to nothing but wastage. Illich (1990) also argued that instead of medicine providing a curative assistance to the populace, it added more to their problem by introducing what is called iatrogenesis which means “Doctor-caused illness”,for example, the aftermath effect of using drug and some harmful effect of surgery. Illich(1990) blamed the health care providers and the pharmaceutical companies of inventing the social iatrogenesis .This brought into limelight consumption of health care product which was caused by increase health need. He also testified that the system of medicalisation also brought about what we call cultural iatrogenesis, which means that the medical industry has robbed people off the ability to cope with pains and illness .Illich (1990) argued that human being should try to avoid the control of medicine over their lives. He claimed that the monopoly of medicine over cure should be stopped, so that people can make decision on their way of life.

Stryer and Clancy (2005) reported that in Britain it was estimated that around 10% of people hospitalised undergo some kind of iatrogenisis, which is equivalent to roughly 850.000 occurrence per year. Health is said to be highly medicalised in this model which led to a general view of human beings (Illich, 1976).Oakley, 1976 and Donnison, 1977 reported this fact about medical jurisdiction by citing an example of childbirth. This was taken away from women by the institute of medicine by ensuring that by the 1970s all child delivery took place in the hospital (Tew, i990).This action made pregnant women to be handled like a sick person. In this respect a normal life experience was turned into a medical problem, which requires the assistance of the medical team (Martin, 1989).

The model focuses mainly on the healing process which is at a disadvantage to prevention and health promotion care closer to the populace (Taylor and field 2003). Engel (1981) stated that biomedicine has refused to acknowledge the fact that the human body is linked with the social environment. Nettleton (1995) reiterated that the biomedical model neglected the presence of the social inequalities in health. He also argued that for effective treatment, the lay people experience about health and illness must be acknowledged.

According to the perspective of Marxists, he argued that doctors encourage the production rate of the society by explaining health as the potential to work, he also disseminated that “working is better than idleness”(Waitzkin, 1989).It was emphasized that the health professionals are blamed of medicalisation if they consider the societal influence of patient and if they ignore, the accusation still holds (Nettleton, 1995).

The gender bias within the biomedical domain was clearly emphasized from the conflict perspective (Nettleton,1995).It was cited by Nettleton from the feminist point of view that sexist ideologies of the medical profession present women as a second class citizen, compared to the men folks(Scully and Bart,1978;Martin,1989).For example, it was related by (Nettleton,1995)that the frequent female visit to the hospital and clinics compared to their male counterpart is because of the way their body is designed for childbearing and also for the care they provide for other family members.

Foster (1989) stated that there are many ways in which the feminist criticize how the medical practitioners interact with patient. She reiterated that most of the female problems from the medical point of view need to be questioned. She supported are evidence by citing an example of menstrual pain among women. She said that some female overstretch the severity of the pain, while most ignores it(Foster,1989 p.339).She also mentioned that the medical practitioners considers male as first class citizen in the ways they interact with them compared to their female folks.

Gendered nature of power in biomedical research and clinical practice was related in the US Public Health Service Task Force (Patricia and Chiloe 1999).This was written in 1985 on women’s health issue. It was stated in it that there was neglect in the way women’s health was being handled .They argued that the biomedical research laid more emphasis on diseases that can cause high risk of mortality in men compared to the women despite that the diseases were not sex-specific like “breast cancer”. Robert (1990, 1992) also supported this fact by accepting that male gender still stands as a measure to evaluate the status of health of both sexes, despite the clamour to broaden people’s knowledge about women’s health. Patricia and Chiloe (1999) reported that a social policy was promulgated by the Federal Food and Drug Administration in 1993.This was brought about to put a stop to the incessant use of women as research animals and to decrease the problem that could occur if foetus is exposed to research.

Women’s health was endangered through abortion brought about by the biomedical model. This view was supported by Foster (1989)by relating that the doctors assist the male by encouraging the female to undergo tuba ligation which is a form of family planning that make women sterile forever. This action favours the male, but detrimental to the female forever because of inability to get pregnant. This shows that the men has really dominated the world and do not care about the well being of women. The radical feminist cited by Nettleton (1995) accepted that the western medicine have given men too much opportunity compared to the women. This has allowed men to take over the women’s bodies. It was suggested that this process can be controlled by ensuring that women doctors treat the sick women within the society that is antiracist, anti-sexist, and anti-heterosexist (Williams,1989;Abbott and Wallance,1990).This idea was also argued from another point of view by the reformist that the health system need to be changed from within .This is to ensure that female doctors are also employed in greater number and also enforcing accountability by the medical practitioners.

The bio-medical and social models of health offer different views of health and disease. Outline the main characteristics of each model and assess their strengths and weakness in explaining health and disease.”

Health can be viewed as the state of being fit and well, as well as a state of mental sanity (WHO 2005). According to Blaxter (2004), if a person can perform daily functions such as going to work, taking care of the household, etc he/she is healthy. Many studies have found that lay people define health as the absence of illness (Williams 1983, Calnan 1987, Hughner & Kleine 2004). However being healthy means different things to different people as much have been said and written about people’s varying concepts of health. Some lay perceptions are based on pragmatism where health is regarded as a relative phenomenon, experienced and evaluated according to what an individual finds reasonable to expect, given their age, medical condition and social status. For them being healthy, may just mean not having a health problem, which interferes with their everyday lives (Bury 2005).

Some taxonomies have evolved in attempt to define health. In this work, health has been considered from the perspective of biomedical and social models.

According to Baggott (2004) the biomedical model of health looks at individual physical functioning and describes bad health as the presence of disease and illness symptoms as a result of physical cause such as injury or infections and attempts to ignore social and psychological factors. Baggott (2004) states that the features of biomedical model rest mainly on biomedical changes, which can be defined, measured and isolated. In effect this is directed towards the dysfunction of the organs and tissues of the body rather than the overall condition of the patient.

Biomedical treatments often involve the removal of the cause, for instance the virus or bacteria. The biomedical model is based on the belief that there is always a cure and the idea that illness is temporary, episodic and a physical condition.

The basic values of the biomedical model of health consist of the theory called doctrine of specific aetiology, which is the idea that all disease is caused by theoretically identifiable agents such as germs, bacteria or parasites (Naidoo & Wills 2004).

The advantage of biomedical model shows disease as representing a major public health problem facing our society. This model sees disease state as an issue that needs to be treated, and that disease can be readily diagnosed and quantified (Ewles & Simnett 2003 & 2010). This approach appears narrow, negative and reductionist. In an extreme case, it implies that people with disabilities are unhealthy and that health is only about the absence of morbidity. Further, this model is limited in its approach by its omission of a time dimension.

Modern biomedicine rests upon two major developments, both of which remain influential to this day. It is first important to consider the Cartesian revolution after the seventh century French philosophy Rene’ Descarts. The Cartesian revolution encouraged the idea that the body and mind are independent or not closely related (NRC 1985). In this mechanistic view, the body is perceived to function like a machine with its various parts individually treatable, and those that treat them considered engineers (Naidoo & Wills 2004). Biomedical also concentrates on the individual unlike the social model. Biological model adopts a negative perspective on health as it views health more in terms of the absence of disease than the possession of healthy attributes (Baggott 2004). This model stresses the importance of advancing technology both in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, an approach that has undoubtedly improved both the knowledge and understanding of numerous diseases. Biomedical model has led to the improvements in the treatment of patients, which has favoured gains both in the length and quality of life of people. Despite the aforementioned feats, the biomedical model has received considerable criticism, as many writers have argued that it was inappropriate to modern, complex health problems (Inglis 1981).

The medical model, in terms of specific health risks, does not encompass all of what health means to an individual. For instance, a physician speculating on what, based on current knowledge at the time, would be the composite picture of an individual with a low risk of developing coronary artery disease.

Further criticisms of this theory focused principally on the suggestion that it over simplified biological processes now known to be very intricate. For many diseases there are multiple and interacting causes. Moreover, such a theory looks only to the agent of disease, and ignores the host, and the possibilities of biological adaptation. The theory is much more easily applicable to acute conditions than to chronic ill-health and is difficult to apply to mental disorders.

The second theory of the biomedical model is called the assumption of generic disease. This is when each disease has its own distinguishing features that are universal, at least within the human species. These will be the same in different cultures and at different times, unless the disease-producing agent itself changes. Criticisms of this focus on the rather obvious point that diseases are differently defined in different cultures and that medical definitions of disease have clearly changed over time. Each new advance in knowledge of physiology and each new wave of technology have added new definitions of ill health to the accepted canon. Despite the doctrine of specific aetiology many conditions, which are still only symptoms or syndromes, are recognized within medicine as diseases. Generally, it can be seen that what is viewed as illness in any particular society and at any historical time depends on cultural norms and social values (Naidoo & Wills 2004).

Thus new diagnoses such as alcohol, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue syndromes are born through an interaction of new knowledge about both their possible causes and how they might possibly be helped. As a definition of disease what doctors treat has obvious problems, however, it implies that no one can be ill until recognised as such and leaves the concept at the mercy of idiosyncratic individual medical decisions.

The third theory is the scientific biomedicine, which accepts the model of all ill-health as deviation from the normal especially the normal range of measurable biological variables. There is an association with the definition of health as equilibrium and disease as a disturbance of the body’s function, with the purpose of medical technology the restoration to equilibrium. The immune or endocrine, or neuropsychological systems attempt to restore the normal and the purpose of medicine is to instigate or assist this process. But medical science now realizes that the human organism has no set pattern for structure and function, and it is often unclear where normal variation ends and abnormality begins.

The fourth theory of medical model is based on the principles of scientific neutrality. Medicine adopts not only the rational method of science but also its values – objectivity and neutrality on the part of the observer, and the view of the human organism as simply the product of biological processes over which the individuals themselves have little control. The reply to this is that the practice of medicine, whatever its theory, is always deeply embedded in the larger society. It cannot be neutral, for there are wider social, political and cultural forces dictating how it does its work and how the unhealthy are dealt with.

Biomedicine now admits multiple and interactive causes, and that the whole may be more than simply the sum of the parts. Social and psychological causes of ill health- stress, unhappiness, life events- are admitted as agents of disease or contributing factors, but they are not themselves defined as ill health. Modern medicine has moved on, to incorporate elaborate ideas about the various and interrelated causes of ill health. Studies of the way in which doctors make diagnoses demonstrate this, while at the same time lip service is paid to the importance of the social. Moreover, even when social and psychological influences are admitted this is still a very negatively oriented approach to health.

The social model came about in mid twentieth century when there was increasing dissatisfaction with the dominant model of health offered by biomedicine. The preoccupation with disease and illness made it less able to deal with any positive concept of health. The ideology, which viewed the individual in mechanistic ways justified ever-increasing use of medical technologies, precluding the exercise of other therapies and diminishing the importance attached to positive health or preventive medicine.

Since the last decade medical professional practice has become a major threat to health. Depression, infection, disability and other specific estrogenic disease now cause more suffering than all accidents from traffic or industry by transforming pain, illness and death from a personal challenge into a technical problem, medical practice expropriates the potential of people to deal with their human condition in an autonomous way and becomes the sources of a new kind of un-health. The emphasis on health as simply the absence of disease encouraged thinking about only two categories the health and the disease. As we are meant to believe that science can produce a utopia of disease free and lengthy life meaning scientists only look for their magic bullet. There is a feeling that the most angry critiques of the biomedical model was wilfully ignoring the contributions of modern science to human welfare. But claims to the unique truth of biomedicine were weakened by some loss of faith in scientific objectivity and a distrust of a Frankenstein technology that could run out of control, and this was part of the modern movement towards a new model usually called social health.

Social model of health imbibes social constructs and relativity in its approach to health. It tends to define and redefine health in a continuous manner, and views health differently between individuals, groups, times and cultures. Some supporters of Social model have written extensively about sickness having a role to play in various societies (Parsons 1951) as this helps to determine the structure of and functionality of the society.

The concept of social health incorporates many differences of emphasis though it has to be noted that it is more than simply the recognition that social factors such as poverty have to be included in a model of the causes of ill health. The social model is a different construction, locating biological processes within their social contexts and considering the person as a whole rather than a series of distinct bodily systems.

The social model is organic and holistic rather than reductionist mechanical method. A mechanical system acts according to its programming, its instructions, or natural laws.

The social model allows for mental as well as physical health and wider sphere of taking part in active life. This model also allows for more subtle discrimination of individuals who succeed in leading productive lives in spite of a physical impairment. Another disadvantage of this model is that the conception runs the risk of excessive breadth and of incorporating all of life. Thus they do not distinguish clearly between the state of being healthy the consequences of being healthy nor do they distinguish between health and the determinants of health (Ewles & Simnett 2010).

The medical profession is a social institution, which cannot be separated from the values, pressures and influences of the society in which it practices. As health has been defined in various ways, most part rests on the ideas of the normal and of seeing health as opposed to disease or illness. In practice, the definition of health has always been the territory of those who define its opposite: healers, or practitioners of medicine as a science or a body of practical knowledge. Since medicine is one of society’s major systems, it is obvious that it is these definitions which will be institutionalised and embodied in law and administration, though the extent to which lay models adds to or diverge from this body of ideas is significant to the individual in respect of their perception of health.

Whilst the medical model built on the Cartesian theory of the body as a machine disorders can be corrected by repairing or replacing parts of the organism, holism describes the view that the whole cannot be explained simply by the sum of the parts, just as healthiness cannot be explained by a list of risk factors. Every disturbance in a system involves the whole system. Human beings are living networks formed by cognitive processes, values, and purposive intentions, not simply interacting components (Blaxter 2004). The development of this social model has been accompanied among the public, by a growing enthusiasm for alternative therapies, which tend to rest on holistic theories. Gradually, these too have been integrated to some extent into the mainstream model.

In order to have a comprehensive understanding of health, one has to look at the phenomenon from various premise of health definition, as just one aspect may not provide complete answer to the enquiry about our health at a particular given time. It is therefore important to consider the various aspects of health when making judgement and decision about the health status of an individual.

In summary, the biomedical model of health is obviously most easily defined by the absence of disease, though the model is also compatible with more positive definitions in terms of equilibrium of normal functioning. In the social model health is a positive state of wholeness and well being associated with but not entirely explained by the absence of disease, illness or physical and mental impairment. The concepts of health and ill-health are unbalanced. The absence of disease may be part of health but health is more than the absence of disease.

When a baby is born, the main question asked is, “Is it a boy or a girl?” As the baby develops, the ways in which it is treated are influenced by its sex. In time, the growing child’s thoughts about himself/herself and his/her place in the world are likely to depend, in part, on its biological sex. However they may also depend on other environmental factors that play a part in determining his/her gender.

This research paper has sought to explore: to what extent does biological nature determine gender identity formation? Three theories of gender development i.e. sociobiological, biosocial and social learning were analysed and evaluated in order to establish how gender identity differences are initiated and to what extent each variable, biological nature or nurture environment, drives and influences the cognitive development of a child.

In summary, it is the interaction of these variables that helps shape a child’s cognitive development. While biological nature does certainly determine some aspects of gender, gender identity itself is produced in the interaction of biological sex and the environmental and cultural circumstances in which psychological development occurs. So, biological nature only determines gender identity formation to a certain extent as the theories give multiple explanations as to the cause of gender identity formation, not just one.

Word Count: 213

Table of Contents

Title Pageaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦………………….1

Abstractaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.aˆ¦..2

Table of Contentsaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.aˆ¦……3

Introductionaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.aˆ¦…aˆ¦4

Extended Essayaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦……..5-12

Gender Roles and Differencesaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.5-6

Sociobiological Theoryaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..6-7

Biosocial Theoryaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.7-9

Psychoanalytic Feminism and Abnormal Psychologyaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦9-10

Social Learning Theoryaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..10-11

Concluding Commentsaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.aˆ¦11-12

Works Citedaˆ¦………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13

Introduction

For decades the nature-nurture debate has raged among the policy-makers, educationalists and scientists of our time. Each raises the question about how a child’s gender identity is formed. Most theorists do not see biological nature and the nurture environment as being independent of one another, but choose to focus on the interaction between these variables and how this manifests in the formation of gender identity. To what extent biological factors determine gender formation and development differs however, and forms the basis from which most research is undertaken.

In order to examine the interaction between these variables and gender identity, we first need to take a look at what they actually mean:

Biological nature represents an individual’s biological status and refers to their biological sex (i.e., sexual characteristics, female or male) and their genetic makeup (i.e., inherited characteristics such as academic intelligence, physical traits and a propensity for illness whether physical or mental). The nurture environment is the sum of environmental factors that influence a person’s traits and behaviours. An individual’s gender identity refers to the psychological characteristics associated with feeling male or female (i.e., femininity, masculinity and androgyny) expressed as an active, cognitive process that is defined as a person’s internal experience of gender.

This interaction of biology and environment on an individual’s internal experience of gender is therefore significant and worthy of investigation. We have been witnessing a worldwide shift in social attitudes to the question of gender stereotyping, with previous assumptions of gender identity now under review, the current dichotomy between the sexes could one day become a relic of the past. However, in order to generate a paradigm shift within all levels of society toward a more neutral standpoint where all gender roles are seen as equally valid, we must first ask the question: to what extent does biological nature determine gender identity formation?

Extended Essay

The ‘nature-nurture’ debate is of consequence to developmental psychology. That is, to what extent is behavioural development influenced or controlled by biological factors or experiential factors, and how do these factors interact with each other? The approaches to gender development can be summarized as the biological (nature) and socialization (nurture) (Ruble et al., 2006).

This psychological approach suggests that young children become increasingly aware of the standard characteristics and behaviours associated with each sex, they begin to form gender schemas with are self-constructed schemas about the traits and behaviours of males or females. As these schemas are self-constructed, their content varies considerably from individual to individual.

Gender development is very complex, and there are no simple relationships among its various components. The several theoretical perspectives highlight different parts of the process of gender development: how they influence and drive a child’s cognitive development and how they interact with one another, sometimes amplifying each other’s effects.

In order to come to its conclusions, the essay examines the two approaches to gender development. The first approach is biological, whereby two theories will be examined: sociobiological theory and biosocial theory. The second approach is socialization, whereby one theory will be examined: social learning theory.

The biological approach of gender development examines the influence of genes and chromosomes, sex hormones, and brain organization on sex differences in physical functioning and behaviour (Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1993); it including the evolutionary theory, which examines the influence of human beings’ evolutionary history on sex differences in behaviour (Buss & Kenrick, 1998; Kenrick & Luce, 2000).

The socialization approach emphasizes the differential treatment of children by parents, family members, peers, teachers and others (Fagot, Rodgers, & Leinbach, 2000; Ruble et al., 2006). The socialization approach is rooted in the tradition of learning theory, which examines the influence of reinforcements, punishments, and observational learning on behaviour (Bandura, 1977).

Gender Roles and Differences

Physical development, as a male or female is merely one aspect of sexual development, it should be noted that social development is likewise important. Gender roles are “cultural expectations about the way in which men and women should think and behave” [1] , and relating to this, gender stereotypes are “beliefs about differences in the behaviours, abilities and personality traits of males and females” [2] .

The origin and nature of gender differences has been a controversial topic in psychology (Eagly, 1995; Shibley Hyde and Plant, 1995). Part of this stems from the way the differences between males and females are measured, how great those differences appear to be, and part of it from the socio-political implications of these differences; for instance, sexism.

Sociobiological Theory

Sociobiologists argue that gender has gradually evolved over the course of human development, as part of our broader adaptation to the environment (Lumsden & Wilson, 1983). Both sexes have developed different roles as a function of their respective contributions to reproduction and domestic labour (Wilson, 1978; Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1979).

More precisely, according to this school of thought, traditional gender roles provide the basis for the forming of an individuals’ gender identity. A male, due to his larger and stronger physique was regarded apt for hunting and defending; whereas a female, due to her child-rearing obligations, pregnancy and menstruation, was seen as being better suited to taking on domestic responsibilities (Betz, 1993). This distinctive division of labour has resulted in higher rates of survival, according to Murdock (1937) and hence maximised reproductive potential.

According to the parental investment theory (Kenrick, 1994) in sociobiological approaches, females invest considerably more into reproduction than males do. Society evolved to be organised in sexually exclusive domestic partnerships as a way of meeting both sexes’ needs. The consequence of this was the evolution of different courtship displays and corresponding gender roles.

We draw upon the work of anthropologists of gender relation such as Mead (1935) (who’s book ‘Sex and Temperament: In Three Primitive Societies’ became a cornerstone of the feminist movement, discussed later on) to consider this tension in sociobiological approaches. Cross-cultural studies have supplied evidence that there are universal similarities in gender behaviour, which supports the sociobiological theory. For example, Mead’s (1935) study of three cultural groups in New Guinea indicated that while some differences between the genders remained constant across cultures, in many ways gender roles differed widely in different cultures.

According to Margaret Mead [3] , among the Arapesh, both sexes were “peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war”, but that amongst the Mundugumor, “the opposite was true: both men and women were warlike in temperament” and that the Tchambuli gender roles were the opposite of roles in Mead’s own home culture – early 20th century America. We might understand from this evidence, that there are genders which could be explained by experiential factors as opposed to biological, inherited ones.

However, Mead herself reported higher levels of aggression among males within each cultural group. Even in the Tchambuli, where gender roles were seemingly reversed to the Western eye, it was the males who fought primarily in war. In addition, the findings lack consistency. Deborah Gewertz (1981) studied the Tchambuli (1974-1975), and found no evidence of such reversed gender roles; stating that all the historical evidence available (dating back to the 1850s) suggests that Tchambuli males dominated over females. Her study supports the idea of inherited gender role behaviours.

However, in contrast to this, Williams and Best (1992) found that such consensus was strongest in collectivist societies and weaker in individualist societies where gender equality is more influential. This again, suggests a cultural difference – the effect of different socialisation practises.

The overt, naturalistic observations conducted by Mead took an etic approach to studying the natives; the researcher utilised her distinct Western background to investigate other cultures i.e. notions of masculinity and femininity prevalent in the West, to document gender roles in Non-Western cultures. When describing the Arapesh as feminine, she attaches a western construct to their set of behaviours; this may be unique to the Arapesh.

It has strong ecological validity, as the research was not conducted in an artificial environment i.e. the conditions were not controlled and extraneous variables (potentially confounding) were not eliminated; so the participants’ behaviours were less likely to change.

But it lacks in population validity, a type of external validity, i.e. the results were not representative of the general population, at the time. Meaning she looked at a discrete tribal hierarchy, in a fixed, isolated location. This acts as a limitation, when trying to generalize the sample.

The study might also lack in internal validity, i.e. there could be other cause that explains her observations such as social influences. Since all the tribal women assumed the same role, and there were no deviations noted, this suggests that their behaviour might have been as a result of conforming to a defined social construct.

This could be explained by Piaget’s theory of moral development. Moral behaviour is behaviour that “conforms to a generally accepted set of rules”, which in this case is gender identity. He suggests that children got through two stages: moral realism and morality of cooperation. Of particular interest is the first stage, mortal realism, consisting of egocentrism and blind adherence to the rules i.e. assuming gender roles in accordance with that culture. Children have not yet understood that many of these rules are social conventions that may be altered by mutual consent.

In addition, Mead was criticized for reporting findings that seemed custom-built for her theory; whereby she assumed each culture represented a different type within her theory, and she disregarded or downplayed information that might have made her classifications untenable.

So, one could argue, in accordance with Mead’s study, that some aspects of gender identity formation are biologically induced, such as the differing levels of aggression in both sexes. One could also note that biological nature may not be the sole factor influencing gender identity formation and that any differences between the sexes are more complex than simple biological make-up, as suggested by Williams and Best.

However, due to the lack of internal and external validity and Gewertz and Bamberger’s contradictive findings, the evidence appears to support gender identity formation as a biological process, which is represented across every culture.

Biosocial Theory

Biosocial theory, in contrast to Sociobiological theory, attempts to combine elements of biological and socialization approaches. It maintains that the biological traits are the basis of gender identity differences and that they have a significant impact upon its formation. The theory argues that both sexes are ‘genetically programmed’ for particular gender-roles, consistent with conventional sex-roles.

An ideal way of testing this approach would be to study individuals in whom there is a clear distinction between sexual identities i.e. male or female and the way in which they were treated socially. Thus, for example, if an individual was born a boy but was treated as a girl, would biological or social factors be more important in their gender identity formation?

The categorisation of both sexes as having their own masculine and feminine behaviours is so heavily laden with value judgments and stereotyping that considering cross-gender behavioural patterns in children, as abnormal may seem unjustified. But some data suggests suggest that these patterns can come from a physical disturbance. Specifically, evidence indicates that gender identity is influenced by hormones.

One study demonstrating this point was conducted by John Money [4] , and the subject was the sex reassignment of David Reimer. Born a healthy male, Reimer was sexually reassigned and raised as a female after his genitals were severely damaged during circumcision. Dr Money oversaw the case and described the gender reassignment as successful; using it to evidence gender identity formation as primarily learned, not an innate process.

Dr Diamond later stated that Reimer had failed to identify as a female since the age of nine, and had begun living as a male by age fifteen. Later, Reimer went public with his story in order to discourage comparable medical practices in the future. In 2004 he committed suicide, after suffering years of depression.

Clearly, this case demonstrates a strong biological underpinning for gender identity; despite undergoing gender reassignment surgery, being encouraged to behave in a feminine way, and developing breasts as a result of hormone therapy, John never developed a female gender identity (Colapinto, 1997). The case was fundamentally flawed.

It can be criticized on several ethical grounds. According to the British and American Psychological Associations, informed consent must be obtained from all those who wish to participate and deception must be avoided. Neither of these guidelines were followed; Reimer was only told the truth about his actual biological sex at age fifteen, and suffered psychological harm as a result.

However, the importance of this controversial study cannot go unmentioned; it has increased our knowledge of processes relating to development and the biological significance of behaviour. The research has also benefitted the scientific community in terms of humane treatment of human participants inside the context of research.

Of particular interest is the fairly direct conflict between biological and social factors; it seems as if biological nature outweighs environmental nurture. However, evidence in support of the biological approach to gender development has been obtained from animal studies.

For instance, Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964) gave doses of testosterone to pregnant monkeys; this male sex hormone produced greater aggressiveness and higher frequency of rough-and-tumble play in the mothers’ female offspring

It needs to be remembered that, similar to Mead’s (1035) study, the relevant evidence supporting the socialization approach (Dr Money) has been obtained from a very unusual case, with sample size being so small, unreliable conclusions might be drawn as the findings can be generalised to the average population.

In addition, the research carried out on animals (Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964)) was done so because it was considered unethical to conduct the same research on humans; for the reason that, there is an assertion that animals and humans are fundamentally different in terms of consciousness or ability to feel pain. So surely, due to the difference, it is not valid to generalise from animals to humans.

The biological approach thus links any sex differences (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) to genetics. In this instance, one can conclude that, according to the biosocial theory and as evidenced by Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964), biological nature has a significant impact upon gender identity differences.

Due to the lack of ecological validity and reliability in Imperato-McGinley et al.’s (1979) study, one could argue that, on average, nurture environment has very little or no effect on gender identity formation.

However, it is important to note that biological theories cannot provide more than a partial explanation. Such theories do not explain the impact of social factors on gender identity formation and they do not account for the substantial changes in gender roles that have occurred in Western societies in recent decades.

Psychoanalytic Feminism and Abnormal Psychology

As part of normal sexual functioning, each individual has sexual preferences and fantasies. However, when our desires begin affecting us and/or others in unwanted and/or harmful ways, they qualify as abnormal. A range of human sexual thoughts, feeling, and actions are considered dysfunctional and listed by DSM-IV [5] as sexual and gender identity disorders.

A point that contradicts the social learning theory relates to sexual identity. Paraphilia [6] such as fetishism, voyeurism and exhibitionism, are not socially constructed and are therefore not considered normative behaviour. Thus, it implies a hereditary influence.

However, feminist interpretations (e.g. Unger, 1979) of sex differences share the belief that social, political, economic and cultural factors determine gender, our awareness and understanding of the differences of distinguishing males from females. This view is directly opposed to sociobiological theory.

In 1979, Rhoda Unger published ‘Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender in Psychology’, a paper that formally introduced psychologists to distinction between biological sex and gender identity. Feminist psychologists argue that gender is socially constructed within a culture of patriarchy, and is hence deeply political, rather than individual or personal. This contributed to the argument that gender identity is not biologically determined by gender per se, but is socially produced.

It has roots in Sigmund Freud’s work, whereby gender is not a biologically determined phenomenon. This psychosexual development leads to the gender role adoption. Childhood experiences are accountable for making males believe that they are masculine and females believe that they are feminine; this subsequently leads to gender inequality. The situation is a result of a male dominated society.

It strives to explain how socio-political structures interrupt the engendering process, whereby we become more complicit with and resistant to cultural norms. It argues that sexual differences are not biological ‘givens’ or social roles, but that they occur as a result of the contested terrain of human subjectivity.

Social Learning Theory

According to social learning theory, the development of gender occurs as a result of the child’s social experiences; suggesting that the sexes behave differently as a result of direct tuition (sex typing) by their parents, while young (Smith & Lloyd, 1978). It emphasises the roles of observational learning and reinforcement (Bandura, 1997) and attempts to explain how social structures, raised by psychoanalytic feminism, influences gender identity formation.

In the ‘Baby X’ study (Smith & Lloyd, 1978), babies were dressed in unisex outfits and given names which, at times matched their correct sex and at other times didn’t. When adults played with them, they treated the babies according to the sex they believed them to be. This indicates that a person’s (perceived) biological make-up becomes part of his/her social environment through others’ reactions.

Sears et al (1957) found that parents allowed sons to be more aggressive in their relationships than with their daughters. Although parents believe that they respond in the same way to aggressive acts committed by both sexes, they actually intervene more frequently and quickly with girls.

In contrast, Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) suggest there are no consistent differences in the extent to which both sexes are reinforced for aggressiveness. Rather, there appears to be remarkable consistency in the sexes’ socialisation.

Boys are more likely to imitate aggressive male models than are girls (Bandura et al., 1961, 1963). Children are also more likely to imitate a same-sex model than an opposite-sex model, even if the behaviour is ‘sex-appropriate’.

However, the evidence concerning imitation and modelling is actually inconclusive, and some studies have failed to find that children are more likely to imitate same-sex models than opposite-sex models. Indeed, children have been shown to prefer imitating behaviour that is ‘appropriate’ to their own sex regardless of that of their models’ (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).

Further, Sears et al (1957) and Bandura et al (1961, 1963) conducted laboratory experiments, whereby there was a lack of internal and ecological validity. It may have been inappropriate to generalise from the artificial environment to the real-life one, where the results apply.

For instance, the parents (Sears et al) may have changed their behaviour, as a result of the situation and this may have resulted in the Hawthorne effect whereby participants act in a way they think meets the expectations of the researcher.

One of the strengths of the social learning theory is that it takes into account the social context in which the development occurs. However, the theory has several limitations. Durkin (1995) stated that research has “not lead led consistently to the conclusion that they have a major influence”. Secondly, far from children passively acquiring through reward and punishment, they are actively involved in their development (Bandura, 1986). And finally, it also assumes learning processes are the same across all age groups, which is incorrect as they vary (Kohlberg, 1966).

We can see that a child’s behaviour, environment, and personal qualities all reciprocally influence each other. The findings support the role of environmental nurture, in the form of reinforcement, in gender identity formation. However, it somewhat dismisses the influence of biologically nature by not addressing it.

Concluding Statements

In conclusion, in accordance with the sociobiological theory, biosocial theory and abnormal psychology, there appears to be a fundamental biological component to gender identity formation that underpins gender development. However, the social learning theory and psychoanalytic feminism suggests that there are alternative factors that play crucial roles in this developmental process such as social, political, economic and cultural experiences.

There is evidence of extensive theory, data and researcher triangulation; whereby different theoretical approaches, researchers and different sources of data, are used to address a single situation, in this case, to what extent biological nature determines gender identity formation. These multidimensional perspectives enhance the credibility of the conclusions, the trustworthiness of the claims and eliminates threats of bias.

This knowledge could benefit the education system and help improve cognitive development in young children; for instance, it could assist educators in promoting equality in the classroom environment, by being attentive to their own stereotyping, by presenting non-stereotypical instructional material and by constructing learning activities that allow both genders to flourish.

All of these theoretical approaches have an important role to play in understanding the roots of children’s gender development. We should not regard one as right, or better than the others, nor should they be seen as necessarily in conflict with one another (Maccoby, 2000). However, to what extent cognition itself, impacts upon gender identity formation has not been addressed; this is an unresolved question and would form future research to address this void.

It may be the case that some aspects of gender development have their roots in evolutionary processes, some in the effect of hormones on the developing brain, some in the reinforcement provided by others, and some in the observation and imitation of gendered behaviour. There is no reason to think that biological nature and environmental nurture are not both involved in the process of a child’s gender identity development.

Overall, one can see that gender identity formation is not solely caused by biological nature, another non-biological variable impacts on the forming of an individual’s gender identity, environmental nurture. All of these explanations help shape our understanding of gender identity formation; they are all equally valid, and show us that it is the interaction of these variables that helps form gender identity.

It is the opinion of the author that biological factors establish the foundations upon which the gender identity is formed; whether this is as a result of extraneous environmental factors or social and cultural influences; it remains to be demonstrated with any conviction.

While biological factors do certainly determine some aspects of gender, gender identity itself is produced in the interaction of biological sex and the environmental and cultural circumstances in which psychological development occurs.

From this, I conclude that biological nature only determines gender identity formation to a limited extent as the theories explored above have given us multiple explanations as to the ultimate formation of gender identity formation, not just one.

The ‘nature-nurture’ debate is of consequence to developmental psychology. That is, to what extent is behavioural development influenced or controlled by biological factors or experiential factors, and how do these factors interact with each other? The approaches to gender development can be summarized as the biological (nature) and socialization (nurture) (Ruble et al., 2006).

This psychological approach suggests that young children become increasingly aware of the standard characteristics and behaviours associated with each sex, they begin to form gender schemas with are self-constructed schemas about the traits and behaviours of males or females. As these schemas are self-constructed, their content varies considerably from individual to individual.

Gender development is very complex, and there are no simple relationships among its various components. The several theoretical perspectives highlight different parts of the process of gender development: how they influence and drive a child’s cognitive development and how they interact with one another, sometimes amplifying each other’s effects.

In order to come to its conclusions, the essay examines the two approaches to gender development. The first approach is biological, whereby two theories will be examined: sociobiological theory and biosocial theory. The second approach is socialization, whereby one theory will be examined: social learning theory.

The biological approach of gender development examines the influence of genes and chromosomes, sex hormones, and brain organization on sex differences in physical functioning and behaviour (Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1993); it including the evolutionary theory, which examines the influence of human beings’ evolutionary history on sex differences in behaviour (Buss & Kenrick, 1998; Kenrick & Luce, 2000).

The socialization approach emphasizes the differential treatment of children by parents, family members, peers, teachers and others (Fagot, Rodgers, & Leinbach, 2000; Ruble et al., 2006). The socialization approach is rooted in the tradition of learning theory, which examines the influence of reinforcements, punishments, and observational learning on behaviour (Bandura, 1977).

Gender Roles and Differences

Physical development, as a male or female is merely one aspect of sexual development, it should be noted that social development is likewise important. Gender roles are “cultural expectations about the way in which men and women should think and behave” , and relating to this, gender stereotypes are “beliefs about differences in the behaviours, abilities and personality traits of males and females” .

The origin and nature of gender differences has been a controversial topic in psychology (Eagly, 1995; Shibley Hyde and Plant, 1995). Part of this stems from the way the differences between males and females are measured, how great those differences appear to be, and part of it from the socio-political implications of these differences; for instance, sexism.

Sociobiological Theory

Sociobiologists argue that gender has gradually evolved over the course of human development, as part of our broader adaptation to the environment (Lumsden & Wilson, 1983). Both sexes have developed different roles as a function of their respective contributions to reproduction and domestic labour (Wilson, 1978; Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1979).

More precisely, according to this school of thought, traditional gender roles provide the basis for the forming of an individuals’ gender identity. A male, due to his larger and stronger physique was regarded apt for hunting and defending; whereas a female, due to her child-rearing obligations, pregnancy and menstruation, was seen as being better suited to taking on domestic responsibilities (Betz, 1993). This distinctive division of labour has resulted in higher rates of survival, according to Murdock (1937) and hence maximised reproductive potential.

According to the parental investment theory (Kenrick, 1994) in sociobiological approaches, females invest considerably more into reproduction than males do. Society evolved to be organised in sexually exclusive domestic partnerships as a way of meeting both sexes’ needs. The consequence of this was the evolution of different courtship displays and corresponding gender roles.

We draw upon the work of anthropologists of gender relation such as Mead (1935) (who’s book ‘Sex and Temperament: In Three Primitive Societies’ became a cornerstone of the feminist movement, discussed later on) to consider this tension in sociobiological approaches. Cross-cultural studies have supplied evidence that there are universal similarities in gender behaviour, which supports the sociobiological theory. For example, Mead’s (1935) study of three cultural groups in New Guinea indicated that while some differences between the genders remained constant across cultures, in many ways gender roles differed widely in different cultures.

According to Margaret Mead , among the Arapesh, both sexes were “peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war”, but that amongst the Mundugumor, “the opposite was true: both men and women were warlike in temperament” and that the Tchambuli gender roles were the opposite of roles in Mead’s own home culture – early 20th century America. We might understand from this evidence, that there are genders which could be explained by experiential factors as opposed to biological, inherited ones.

However, Mead herself reported higher levels of aggression among males within each cultural group. Even in the Tchambuli, where gender roles were seemingly reversed to the Western eye, it was the males who fought primarily in war. In addition, the findings lack consistency. Deborah Gewertz (1981) studied the Tchambuli (1974-1975), and found no evidence of such reversed gender roles; stating that all the historical evidence available (dating back to the 1850s) suggests that Tchambuli males dominated over females. Her study supports the idea of inherited gender role behaviours.

However, in contrast to this, Williams and Best (1992) found that such consensus was strongest in collectivist societies and weaker in individualist societies where gender equality is more influential. This again, suggests a cultural difference – the effect of different socialisation practises.

The overt, naturalistic observations conducted by Mead took an etic approach to studying the natives; the researcher utilised her distinct Western background to investigate other cultures i.e. notions of masculinity and femininity prevalent in the West, to document gender roles in Non-Western cultures. When describing the Arapesh as feminine, she attaches a western construct to their set of behaviours; this may be unique to the Arapesh.

It has strong ecological validity, as the research was not conducted in an artificial environment i.e. the conditions were not controlled and extraneous variables (potentially confounding) were not eliminated; so the participants’ behaviours were less likely to change.

But it lacks in population validity, a type of external validity, i.e. the results were not representative of the general population, at the time. Meaning she looked at a discrete tribal hierarchy, in a fixed, isolated location. This acts as a limitation, when trying to generalize the sample.

The study might also lack in internal validity, i.e. there could be other cause that explains her observations such as social influences. Since all the tribal women assumed the same role, and there were no deviations noted, this suggests that their behaviour might have been as a result of conforming to a defined social construct.

This could be explained by Piaget’s theory of moral development. Moral behaviour is behaviour that “conforms to a generally accepted set of rules”, which in this case is gender identity. He suggests that children got through two stages: moral realism and morality of cooperation. Of particular interest is the first stage, mortal realism, consisting of egocentrism and blind adherence to the rules i.e. assuming gender roles in accordance with that culture. Children have not yet understood that many of these rules are social conventions that may be altered by mutual consent.

In addition, Mead was criticized for reporting findings that seemed custom-built for her theory; whereby she assumed each culture represented a different type within her theory, and she disregarded or downplayed information that might have made her classifications untenable.

So, one could argue, in accordance with Mead’s study, that some aspects of gender identity formation are biologically induced, such as the differing levels of aggression in both sexes. One could also note that biological nature may not be the sole factor influencing gender identity formation and that any differences between the sexes are more complex than simple biological make-up, as suggested by Williams and Best.

However, due to the lack of internal and external validity and Gewertz and Bamberger’s contradictive findings, the evidence appears to support gender identity formation as a biological process, which is represented across every culture.

Biosocial Theory

Biosocial theory, in contrast to Sociobiological theory, attempts to combine elements of biological and socialization approaches. It maintains that the biological traits are the basis of gender identity differences and that they have a significant impact upon its formation. The theory argues that both sexes are ‘genetically programmed’ for particular gender-roles, consistent with conventional sex-roles.

An ideal way of testing this approach would be to study individuals in whom there is a clear distinction between sexual identities i.e. male or female and the way in which they were treated socially. Thus, for example, if an individual was born a boy but was treated as a girl, would biological or social factors be more important in their gender identity formation?

The categorisation of both sexes as having their own masculine and feminine behaviours is so heavily laden with value judgments and stereotyping that considering cross-gender behavioural patterns in children, as abnormal may seem unjustified. But some data suggests suggest that these patterns can come from a physical disturbance. Specifically, evidence indicates that gender identity is influenced by hormones.

One study demonstrating this point was conducted by John Money , and the subject was the sex reassignment of David Reimer. Born a healthy male, Reimer was sexually reassigned and raised as a female after his genitals were severely damaged during circumcision. Dr Money oversaw the case and described the gender reassignment as successful; using it to evidence gender identity formation as primarily learned, not an innate process.

Dr Diamond later stated that Reimer had failed to identify as a female since the age of nine, and had begun living as a male by age fifteen. Later, Reimer went public with his story in order to discourage comparable medical practices in the future. In 2004 he committed suicide, after suffering years of depression.

Clearly, this case demonstrates a strong biological underpinning for gender identity; despite undergoing gender reassignment surgery, being encouraged to behave in a feminine way, and developing breasts as a result of hormone therapy, John never developed a female gender identity (Colapinto, 1997). The case was fundamentally flawed.

It can be criticized on several ethical grounds. According to the British and American Psychological Associations, informed consent must be obtained from all those who wish to participate and deception must be avoided. Neither of these guidelines were followed; Reimer was only told the truth about his actual biological sex at age fifteen, and suffered psychological harm as a result.

However, the importance of this controversial study cannot go unmentioned; it has increased our knowledge of processes relating to development and the biological significance of behaviour. The research has also benefitted the scientific community in terms of humane treatment of human participants inside the context of research.

Of particular interest is the fairly direct conflict between biological and social factors; it seems as if biological nature outweighs environmental nurture. However, evidence in support of the biological approach to gender development has been obtained from animal studies.

For instance, Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964) gave doses of testosterone to pregnant monkeys; this male sex hormone produced greater aggressiveness and higher frequency of rough-and-tumble play in the mothers’ female offspring

It needs to be remembered that, similar to Mead’s (1035) study, the relevant evidence supporting the socialization approach (Dr Money) has been obtained from a very unusual case, with sample size being so small, unreliable conclusions might be drawn as the findings can be generalised to the average population.

In addition, the research carried out on animals (Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964)) was done so because it was considered unethical to conduct the same research on humans; for the reason that, there is an assertion that animals and humans are fundamentally different in terms of consciousness or ability to feel pain. So surely, due to the difference, it is not valid to generalise from animals to humans.

The biological approach thus links any sex differences (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) to genetics. In this instance, one can conclude that, according to the biosocial theory and as evidenced by Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964), biological nature has a significant impact upon gender identity differences.

Due to the lack of ecological validity and reliability in Imperato-McGinley et al.’s (1979) study, one could argue that, on average, nurture environment has very little or no effect on gender identity formation.

However, it is important to note that biological theories cannot provide more than a partial explanation. Such theories do not explain the impact of social factors on gender identity formation and they do not account for the substantial changes in gender roles that have occurred in Western societies in recent decades.

Psychoanalytic Feminism and Abnormal Psychology

As part of normal sexual functioning, each individual has sexual preferences and fantasies. However, when our desires begin affecting us and/or others in unwanted and/or harmful ways, they qualify as abnormal. A range of human sexual thoughts, feeling, and actions are considered dysfunctional and listed by DSM-IV as sexual and gender identity disorders.

A point that contradicts the social learning theory relates to sexual identity. Paraphilia such as fetishism, voyeurism and exhibitionism, are not socially constructed and are therefore not considered normative behaviour. Thus, it implies a hereditary influence.

However, feminist interpretations (e.g. Unger, 1979) of sex differences share the belief that social, political, economic and cultural factors determine gender, our awareness and understanding of the differences of distinguishing males from females. This view is directly opposed to sociobiological theory.

In 1979, Rhoda Unger published ‘Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender in Psychology’, a paper that formally introduced psychologists to distinction between biological sex and gender identity. Feminist psychologists argue that gender is socially constructed within a culture of patriarchy, and is hence deeply political, rather than individual or personal. This contributed to the argument that gender identity is not biologically determined by gender per se, but is socially produced.

It has roots in Sigmund Freud’s work, whereby gender is not a biologically determined phenomenon. This psychosexual development leads to the gender role adoption. Childhood experiences are accountable for making males believe that they are masculine and females believe that they are feminine; this subsequently leads to gender inequality. The situation is a result of a male dominated society.

It strives to explain how socio-political structures interrupt the engendering process, whereby we become more complicit with and resistant to cultural norms. It argues that sexual differences are not biological ‘givens’ or social roles, but that they occur as a result of the contested terrain of human subjectivity.

Social Learning Theory

According to social learning theory, the development of gender occurs as a result of the child’s social experiences; suggesting that the sexes behave differently as a result of direct tuition (sex typing) by their parents, while young (Smith & Lloyd, 1978). It emphasises the roles of observational learning and reinforcement (Bandura, 1997) and attempts to explain how social structures, raised by psychoanalytic feminism, influences gender identity formation.

In the ‘Baby X’ study (Smith & Lloyd, 1978), babies were dressed in unisex outfits and given names which, at times matched their correct sex and at other times didn’t. When adults played with them, they treated the babies according to the sex they believed them to be. This indicates that a person’s (perceived) biological make-up becomes part of his/her social environment through others’ reactions.

Sears et al (1957) found that parents allowed sons to be more aggressive in their relationships than with their daughters. Although parents believe that they respond in the same way to aggressive acts committed by both sexes, they actually intervene more frequently and quickly with girls.

In contrast, Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) suggest there are no consistent differences in the extent to which both sexes are reinforced for aggressiveness. Rather, there appears to be remarkable consistency in the sexes’ socialisation.

Boys are more likely to imitate aggressive male models than are girls (Bandura et al., 1961, 1963). Children are also more likely to imitate a same-sex model than an opposite-sex model, even if the behaviour is ‘sex-appropriate’.

However, the evidence concerning imitation and modelling is actually inconclusive, and some studies have failed to find that children are more likely to imitate same-sex models than opposite-sex models. Indeed, children have been shown to prefer imitating behaviour that is ‘appropriate’ to their own sex regardless of that of their models’ (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).

Further, Sears et al (1957) and Bandura et al (1961, 1963) conducted laboratory experiments, whereby there was a lack of internal and ecological validity. It may have been inappropriate to generalise from the artificial environment to the real-life one, where the results apply.

For instance, the parents (Sears et al) may have changed their behaviour, as a result of the situation and this may have resulted in the Hawthorne effect whereby participants act in a way they think meets the expectations of the researcher.

One of the strengths of the social learning theory is that it takes into account the social context in which the development occurs. However, the theory has several limitations. Durkin (1995) stated that research has “not lead led consistently to the conclusion that they have a major influence”. Secondly, far from children passively acquiring through reward and punishment, they are actively involved in their development (Bandura, 1986). And finally, it also assumes learning processes are the same across all age groups, which is incorrect as they vary (Kohlberg, 1966).

We can see that a child’s behaviour, environment, and personal qualities all reciprocally influence each other. The findings support the role of environmental nurture, in the form of reinforcement, in gender identity formation. However, it somewhat dismisses the influence of biologically nature by not addressing it.

Concluding Statements

In conclusion, in accordance with the sociobiological theory, biosocial theory and abnormal psychology, there appears to be a fundamental biological component to gender identity formation that underpins gender development. However, the social learning theory and psychoanalytic feminism suggests that there are alternative factors that play crucial roles in this developmental process such as social, political, economic and cultural experiences.

There is evidence of extensive theory, data and researcher triangulation; whereby different theoretical approaches, researchers and different sources of data, are used to address a single situation, in this case, to what extent biological nature determines gender identity formation. These multidimensional perspectives enhance the credibility of the conclusions, the trustworthiness of the claims and eliminates threats of bias.

This knowledge could benefit the education system and help improve cognitive development in young children; for instance, it could assist educators in promoting equality in the classroom environment, by being attentive to their own stereotyping, by presenting non-stereotypical instructional material and by constructing learning activities that allow both genders to flourish.

All of these theoretical approaches have an important role to play in understanding the roots of children’s gender development. We should not regard one as right, or better than the others, nor should they be seen as necessarily in conflict with one another (Maccoby, 2000). However, to what extent cognition itself, impacts upon gender identity formation has not been addressed; this is an unresolved question and would form future research to address this void.

It may be the case that some aspects of gender development have their roots in evolutionary processes, some in the effect of hormones on the developing brain, some in the reinforcement provided by others, and some in the observation and imitation of gendered behaviour. There is no reason to think that biological nature and environmental nurture are not both involved in the process of a child’s gender identity development.

Overall, one can see that gender identity formation is not solely caused by biological nature, another non-biological variable impacts on the forming of an individual’s gender identity, environmental nurture. All of these explanations help shape our understanding of gender identity formation; they are all equally valid, and show us that it is the interaction of these variables that helps form gender identity.

It is the opinion of the author that biological factors establish the foundations upon which the gender identity is formed; whether this is as a result of extraneous environmental factors or social and cultural influences; it remains to be demonstrated with any conviction.

While biological factors do certainly determine some aspects of gender, gender identity itself is produced in the interaction of biological sex and the environmental and cultural circumstances in which psychological development occurs.

From this, I conclude that biological nature only determines gender identity formation to a limited extent as the theories explored above have given us multiple explanations as to the ultimate formation of gender identity formation, not just one.