In what ways can the self be understood as ‘socially constructed’?
Conversation, more than any other phenomenon, is thought to create a social world. We live our lives immersed in conversation telling others of our life experiences and how such experiences are interpreted by the self, thus playing a major role in moulding our identity as individuals and how as individuals, we relate to others in society. In this paper, I will firstly outline three topic areas of social construction (childhood, gender/gender relations and adult life) that I intend to use in order to address the question, ‘In what ways can the self be understood as socially constructed?’ Secondly, I will discuss some of the key claims pertaining to the above-mentioned by referencing using at least ten sources. Social constructionism involves looking at ways social phenomena are created, institutionalized, and made into tradition by human-beings. Socially constructed reality is seen as an ongoing, dynamic process; reality is reproduced by people acting on their interpretations and knowledge of it (Burr 2001, pp. 28-29).
James & Prout (2001, p. 8) states ‘childhood is understood as a social construction. As such it provides an interpretive framework for contextualising the early years of human life. Childhood, as distinct from biological immaturity, is neither a natural nor universal feature of human groups but rather assumes a specific structural and cultural component of society’. Childhood is widely accepted as a period of growth, both mentally and physically, and is characterised by immaturity, weakness, vulnerability and instability. Our childhood experiences profoundly influence and determine how we engage and behave during adulthood (James & James 2004, p. 13). Social constructionism thus begins from the moment a child is born into a hierarchical structure commonly known as ‘the family’. Hence, the social constructionism perspective begins with an insistence that childhood is a social construction that varies with time and place (Oberg & Ellis 2006, p. 107).
Childhood as a social space does remain and is both a constant and a universal, however in terms of generational history, its character can be observed to change over time according to the influences of policies, laws, discourse and social practices through which childhood is defined (James & James 2004, p. 20). During the course of the last three centuries, the State has adopted a thesis recognising the need to produce and promote the development of children who represent a vital and significant resource in terms of the future development of nations. Hence, the emerging industrialised nations developed public policy and infrastructure that specifically addressed the needs and welfare of children and the best example of this was the implementation in 1880 of the ‘education act’ which preceded the 1908 ‘children act’, an act that consolidated all previous legislation (James & James 2004, p. 21).
Within the framework of western society, a child’s daily experience is very much shaped by two social settings, the home (considered the first social environment) and the school. The ability of children to negotiate an acceptable daily experience is usually dependent on an adult’s understanding of childhood and the ensuing activities that a child engages within the context of both settings. The two settings present different understandings of childhood and as a result, the programs of activities usually differ from one of structure to one of non-structure between school and home. The experience of most children is that life at home is usually more negotiable than life at school, however, both settings profoundly influence what children learn and the resultant value they place on their acquired knowledge and this in turn is interrelated with the quality of character of a child’s interactions both with adults and peers. As children begin to engage in social interaction, both at school and home, they soon become concerned with anticipating how others will respond to them and in doing so, children develop an awareness of the self as being different from others which in itself constitutes a significant step in early childhood social development (Swann, p.34). Ideally, as children develop a concept of themselves, they develop a sense of self-esteem and attachment to others. Cognitive and social changes that occur as a child develops do not occur in isolation, as a child is influenced by the nature of his or her early attachments, by cultural surroundings, by family and society’s child-rearing practices and finally, by how a child is taught about the notion of ‘cause and effect’ in the world that encapsulates their daily lives. The construction of an identity – the self – in childhood occurs slowly and gradually and is arguably affected by a myriad set of variables that ultimately influence and determine how we engage and behave in adulthood.
The term ‘gender’ was developed and is still often used as a contrasting term to ‘sex’, hence focusing more on socially constructed personality and behavioural traits in lieu of the biological driven act of sex. However, the term gender is increasingly being used to refer to any social construction that distinguishes males from females e.g. genitalia (Nicholson & Seidman 1995). Gender roles arguably begin to take shape from the moment of conception and thence proceed throughout childhood development, whereby many parents are inclined to tenaciously encourage masculine traits such as athletic prowess in their sons and feminine traits such as popularity and desirability in their daughters. Hence, parents generally accept, promote and vigorously reinforce gender-based social environments. Due to the power of advertising women are taught to be desirable and passive, while men on the other hand are taught to appear hard and dominant by not displaying their emotions, at least not in public (Connell 2002, pp. 2-3). Men are thus more likely to be recruited into vocations that require physical force, where as women are more likely to occupy positions that effectively and ironically repair the consequences of violence (Connell 2002, p. 3).
In the pursuit of the body beautiful, many women are prepared to endure pain and suffering in spite of the work of feminists throughout the 1970s and while much is written about the abuse of women in developing countries, in contrast, little is spoken or written about western beauty practices, some of which can be extremely harmful and even life threatening (silicon breast implants). Women of the west are slaves to consumer capitalism in their quest for obtaining the perfect body image and thus the demand for cosmetic and or plastic surgery has increased exponentially, especially over the last decade. The closer one’s body approximates to the ideal, the higher its exchange rate, not least in the labour market, as the self is usually judged according to one’s gender performance on the outside.
It is in the interests of men to maintain gender categories, which in turn sustains the very inequalities they produce (Connell 2002, p. 5). This is particularly evident in relation to public positions of power and pay disparity. Hence, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful men and although men generally benefit from the inequalities of gender order, it is also the case that men who depart from the ‘dominant definition of masculinity’ often become victims too of verbal abuse, discrimination and violence (Connell 2002, p. 6). However, men who do conform to dominant definitions of masculinity are often at higher risk of becoming involved in fatal industrial accidents, motor transport accidents, or incurring severe sporting injuries (Connell 2002, p. 6). The all powerful marketplace describes the normative definition of masculinity as being characterised by aggression, competition, anxiety – and the arena in which the above-mentioned characteristics are to preserve and claim their manhood (Kimmel 2004). It is essentially all about the power of these definitions that serve to maintain the real-life power that men exercise over women and other man who don’t fit the socially constructed idea of what constitutes being a so-called man of men. Masculinity is a relentless test of the male character and whatever the variations as depicted by race, age, class, ethnicity or even dare I say it, sexual orientation, being a male encapsulates the idea of not being a woman (Kimmel 2004). Hence, the notion of misogyny lies at the heart of historical and postmodern conceptions of manhood. Thus, masculinity is defined more by what one is rather than by whom one is (Kimmel 2004).
Given we spend a large proportion of our lives working, our identity as an adult is predominantly constructed around the type of work we engage in, as one of the first questions often asked by a stranger at a social function is, ‘what do you do for a job?’ The response thence provides the inquirer, rightly or wrongly, with an immediate perception about who we are and how we are defined as members of society. Work not only provides us with an identity, but it also provides capital which in turn provides freedom and choice in a market-based economy. In addition, paid employment also has the real potential to provide one with a sense of achievement, satisfaction and recognition. Work therefore shapes and constructs our personal lives and in doing so, our personal life encapsulates our work. The lack of engagement in the labour market also shapes personal identities; however, such identities are often aligned with negative attitudes in relation to one’s self-worth. A lack of employment can also lead to serious social and health issues e.g. homelessness and various forms of mental illness. Therefore work is central to our experience, identity, dignity and well-being as individuals.
In spite of the magnitude of the sexual revolution that took place throughout the 1960s and the women’s liberation movement synonymous with the 1970s and the apparent shift to gender equality, current studies indicate that male and female patterns of work and employment opportunities reveal significant continuities and persistent inequalities (Woodhead 2008, p. 189). The labour market to this day remains heavily segmented along gender lines, which implies that some work is distinctly women’s work and some work is distinctly men’s work. Women continue to carry out traditional duties of unpaid domestic labour and care as well as taking on new duties of paid employment. Despite a higher participation rate of women engaged in higher education and or the labour market, pay disparity between men and women remains an issue even today in spite of the women’s liberation movement and thence the introduction of legislation specifically designed to address the issue of pay disparity. Women are also far more likely to work on a part-time or casual basis in order to combine motherhood with paid employment. The nature of work has also undergone profound change over the last two and a half decades with the advent of globalisation and deregulation in the market place. Employment is far more transient compared to past generations and as a consequence, employees display much less loyalty towards their employer (Sennett 2000, pp. 183-184). Hence, many companies, both large and small, encounter a great deal of trouble creating viable and meaningful work narratives, or recasting these discourses as their circumstances continue to change in an ever changing world of deregulation. Jobs have essentially replaced careers; therefore a current undergraduate can expect to work for at least twelve employers in addition to updating his or her ‘skills base’ at least three times during the course of their working life (Sennett 2000, pp. 183-184).
In conclusion, this paper has demonstrated how one can be socially constructed from childhood through to adulthood and in doing so, it has highlighted how social constructionism involves looking at ways social phenomena are created, institutionalized and made into tradition by human-beings.
Word count: 1,924
References
Burr, V 2001, ‘The case for social constructionism’ in Social constructionism, London: Routledge, pp. 28-46.
Connell, RW 2002, Gender, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1–11.
James, A & James, A 2004, Constructing children, childhood and the child, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 10–28.
James, A & Prout, A 2001, ‘A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems’, Constructing and reconstructing childhood, 2nd edn, Routledge, viewed 19 October 2008, < >.
Kimmel, MS 2004, ‘Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity’, in Murphy, PF, Feminism and masculinities, Oxford University Press, viewed 19 October 2008 < >.
Nicholson, LJ & Seidman, S 1995, ‘Interpreting gender’, Social postmodernism, Cambridge University Press, viewed 19 October 2008 < >.
Oberg, D & Ellis, J 2006, ‘Theme: Researching With Children and Youth’, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 107-110.
Sennett, R 2000, ‘Street and Office: two sources of identity’ in Hutton, Will & Giddens, Anthony (Eds) Global Capitalism, New York: The New York Press, pp. 175-190.
Swann, WB, Self-Verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self, University of Texas, viewed 19 October 2008, < http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Faculty/swann/docu/swBSRHS83.pdf >.
Woodhead, L 2008, ‘Gendering Secularization Theory’, Social Compass, vol. 55, no. 2, p. 187.
1