2.8 The development of girls
2.8.4 Identity formation and the socialization of girls
Identity formation, as defined by Erikson (1963), is a psychosocial task which is attempted at adolescence, and links the individual to society. Josselson (1990) states that women define their identity in more complex ways than men, with connections to others being paramount. Traditionally, men are supposed to be „active‟ and women
„passive‟. Women therefore are often more receptive, they listen and process information in a more complex way than men, but they are unable to react directly and honestly; they avoid direct expression (Miller, 1986). Crothers, Field and Kolbert (2005) found support for the theory that adolescent girls who identify more with the traditional feminine gender role are more likely to utilize relational aggression:
…the use of more indirect forms of conflict management seems to allow these adolescent girls to pursue power and assert control in relationships and yet still meet the prevailing expectations of adults that girls are not supposed to
contribute to conflict or to have wants and needs within a relationship what
would result in emotional intensity and confrontation…this sample of
adolescent girls seemed to believe that femininity restricts options for conflict management either to the use of relational aggression or to the suppression of wants and feelings (p. 353).
In Erikson‟s (1963) theory: “Identity is the stable, consistent, and reliable sense of who one is and what one stands for in the world. It integrates one‟s meaning to oneself and one‟s meaning to others; it provides a match between what one regards as central to oneself and how one is viewed by significant others in one‟s life” (p. 10).
Our identity is fundamentally interwoven with the experiences of others – we often learn who we are by contrasting ourselves to others and working out what makes us unique, says Josselson (1990). As a result of such meaningful engagements, identity is continually refined and modified through the course of life. Josselson (1990)
concludes: “Identity, then, is a dynamic fitting together of parts of the personality with the realities of the social world so that a person has a sense both of internal coherence and meaningful relatedness to the real world” (pp. 12-13). If these do not match (e.g., a woman‟s need to express anger, versus the societal message about what is acceptable), she says, a crisis results. Hadley (2004) agrees, saying: “When
personal needs to assert, be autonomous, be vital, and be creative are repressed, negated or unrecognized, there is a threat to the self. The aggression in response to this kind of threat often takes the form of envious and mean behavior” (p. 346).
Is identity-formation therefore different for boys versus girls? Carol Gilligan (1982 ) argues that through gender socialization women come to conceptualize and
experience the world „in a different voice‟ to men; in relative terms, a women‟s voice is more person-centred, empathic and emotionally connected than the male voice. Women are more concerned about interconnectedness, whereas men are socialized to be more concerned about autonomy, goal-directed behaviour, hierarchy and competition (Letendre, 2007). The main fear for women is isolation, whereas for men their main fear is that others will „catch up‟ and thereby diminish their superior status. These authors are not stating that men do not value connection, but rather that for women, this is central to their psychological functioning. As Miller (1986) points out:
…women‟s sense of self becomes very much organized around being able to make and then to maintain affiliations and relationships. Eventually, for many women the threat of disruption of connections is perceived not as just a loss of a relationship but as something closer to a total loss of self (p. 83).
This lays the groundwork for many problems. The socialisation of girls leads them to a deep conviction that they are not worthwhile unless a significant other person affirms them and confirms them.
Cummings, Hollenbeck, Iannotti, Radke-Yarrow and Zahn-Waxler (1986) conducted a study on altruism and aggression amongst young children. One of their significant findings was that: “…young girls, more than boys, may attempt to undo their aggression with good behavior” (p. 180). They add:
…parents are likely to intervene and respond differentially to aggression in their boys and girls, even during the first years of life….overt aggression has traditionally been more strongly frowned upon in the behavior of girls.
Although the definitive research on the differential socialization of emotions in boys and girls remains to be done, there are many hints and suggestions in the literature that anger and aggression in girls faces a different fate than does hostility in boys…there is some evidence from experimental studies to
indicate that sex stereotyping of boys and girls with regard to affect begins at the moment of birth…If anger in girls is clearly not sanctioned, hence
redirected and reinterpreted, this is just one of many mechanisms that could suppress their aggressivity and create different patterns of organization of prosocial and antisocial behaviors in boys and girls (p. 185).
In their study, Underwood et al. (2004) found that: “…girls are socialized to refrain from overt expressions of anger and to be nice above all else” (p. 1550).
Bowie (2007) describes other means by which gender socialization in the domain of aggression occurs, such as stories and the media, peer groups (their reactions to different types of aggression as well as the type of aggression they use) and teachers.
She asserts that girls are reinforced for masking their anger and building relationships:
“…as girls are socialized in the expectations of the female gender, they are also socialized in acceptable approaches and management of their relationships with others and a part of this process includes the management of aggression” (p. 112).