In the name of a biological and historical urgency, it justified the racisms of the state, which at the time were on the horizon. It grounded them in “truth." (Foucault, 1990, p. 54) Sexuality gained a connection to the truth. This results into the idea that sexuality is a part of identity and a key aspect in understating who we are individual. And all of this is only possible due to the discourse of sexuality, which is determined by social culture and time.
Discourse of Sex and the Creation of Docile Bodies Subjection is a process that operates in society, and according to sociologist Michel Foucault, can be applied to a multiplicity of discourses. Foucault explains that the beginning of the nineteenth century marked the age of sexual repression and censorship, which became a time of subjection through exerting disciplinary control over a docile population. In his The Introduction to the History of Sexuality, Foucault explains how the scientification of sex came about. Specifically, it was an attempt to obtain a uniform truth about sex. However, there is no truth to it, but rather it is merely a vehicle for social control.
Then I will discuss sexuality as a form of desire (transgression of heteronormative ideal) and how the women’s movement in India is conceptualizing it. Sexuality as a Historical Concept : Normative vs Cultural Sexuality is a contested terrain in a country like India where only one form of sexuality is legitimate, Upper class and Male. All other forms of sexualities are swept under the carpet and often seen as taboos, deviant, illegitimate and harming the ‘Indian Culture.’ To understand social relations in any society in any given historical point, discussion of sexuality/sexualities remain important. Historically, there have been many approaches taken to understand the processes which define the ‘how and why’ of sexuality. Freud relegated sexuality to the realm of biology whereas Radical Feminism by critiquing Freud took it out of the interior, private space and juxtaposed it with other institutions to show how it is socially constructed, exposed it’s ‘gendered reality’ and identified Patriarchal structure as the root cause ￼￼￼￼ ￼of it’s hierarchical dimensions.
Homosexuals were viewed as suffering from gender disorders; they were not criminals, but abnormal and in need of a cure (Mottier, 39). What do all of these developments have to do with sexual behaviors becoming known as sexual identities? These changes of thought through time referenced in Mottier’s book serve as evidence towards her thesis that an understanding of sexuality develops from moral, biological, and social models of sexuality that can all be interpreted culturally (Mottier, 47). Mottier believes that understanding contemporary sexuality depends on understanding historical developments, and that from this understanding, we can precipitate change (Duncan, 2017). In short, ways in which sexual behaviors become known as sexual identities depend upon cultural and historical
And as a man or female it is believed that one must act and behave completely heterosexual and stay in line with these socialized gender stereotypes. Heterosexuality and homosexuality depend on sex and gender as concepts. Gender typing and social stigmas around sexuality are two things that are very prevalent in society today. Sociologists have argued that people learn gender roles and gender stereotypes through socialization. Gender role socialization often reinforces gender inequality because men and women are expected to fulfill their specific “gender roles”.
Social Status and Sexual Orientation There are inequities in all societies in regards to sexual orientation and gender, due to perceived notions of what normal sexual behavior and gender roles are. The belief that the nuclear family is the only normal or natural form of family has had profound influence on social views, public policy, and research. The purpose of this paper is to examine the social views behind discrimination that surrounds lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, and intersex individuals in a dominantly heteronormative American society. As lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals fight for their rights, particularly the rights to marry and raise children, they often face opposition due to heteronormative status views that dominate American societies. Status generally describes an individual’s social position in a community or society, and is used to describe one’s social identity.
The body is a conglomerate of culturally constituted meanings, and sex is an “imaginary point” (CITE)- the mere result of a materiality. Nonetheless, sex and gender are primary ways in which societies organize and police people’s bodies. The body is constituted through sex and gender- there is no core self that isn’t constructed by power and social relations. We discipline ourselves into outwardly performing our gender. When we are born we become a “docile body” (CITE) that takes on gender characteristics given by society; our bodies are produced through gender and sex
An example of one’s... ... middle of paper ... ...egarded to be biologically attached to forming an individual’s gender and sexuality in the western world, if multiple sociologists, cultures and individuals prove this to be false? Examples of theories from Cooley and Goffman highlight how easily transferrable the ideals relate to humans being influenced by the largest factor of all; socialisation. They describe separately how the gender of an individual is developed, not assigned to them through their sex and of sexuality not set in heterosexual tendencies. Views of gender and sexuality through different cultures help to further cement the outlook of characteristics being social implemented regardless of sex. While socialisation theories have been at the fore front of describing an ever changing society, biological determinism provides a little amount of truth and gives few answers to describing such occurrences.
The creation of gender expectations by society creates a restricting definition of gender roles and sexuality that vary from culture to culture. Society created the role of gender and created an emphasis on the differences between the two genders. Alma Gottlieb states: “biological inevitability of the sex organs comes to stand for a perceived inevitability of social roles, expectations, and meanings” (Gottlieb, 167). Sex is the scientific acknowledgment that men and women are biologically different; gender stems from society’s formation of roles assigned to each sex and the emphasis of the differences between the two sexes. The creation of meanings centers on the expectations of the roles each sex should fill; society creates cultural norms that perpetuate these creations.
The Berdache of Early American Conquest Methodological Introduction This paper attempts to link the facet of queer theory that explains gender and sexuality as culturally constructed identities, with the presence of the berdache in the New World at the time of the Spanish conquest. By analyzing the construction of gender and sexuality among the native peoples, in contrast to the ideologies of the Spanish, I found a clash arose which explained, in some sense, the incompatibility of the two cultures. The differences between the two cultures' gender construction established support for the very "un'natural'" or "in'essential'" nature of gender, sexuality, and the body as a means of self-identity. By realizing the issue of power and where it lies within individuals and societies, hierarchical social constructions are revealed to be connected with sexual roles. This dominant/subordinate relationship present in both cultures defines and substantiates the role that power plays in the cultural context.