Historically, an individual’s sex was critical to his or her socialization into society. Laws, customs, traditions, beliefs relating to an individual’s biological sex determined the induction process, the ultimate goal was to socialize and induct the individual to take his or her place in society. The key agents identified in this socialization process are the family, the school, peers, media, and religion. In the following discussion, I focus on the family and the school to discuss the ways in which children were conceptualized in terms of their sex which was further conceptualized in terms of binaries.
2.3.1. The socialization of sex and gender
Socialization theorists advocate that behaviours are learnt through the intergenerational passing down of norms and values into socializing agencies such as the family, the school and society (Giddens, 1993). From the onset of birth, the domestic space emerged as key to the induction of the child into his or her social world. Core to the socialisation process is identity construction in relation to one’s sex and gender, thus values, norms and beliefs
25
espoused in a particular society are indoctrinated into the child from the onset of birth. The family groomed the child into a gendered role through the differentiation of clothing choices, colours, toys playmates, tasks and later in life, even career choices. Prescriptive language was also deployed as a tool, to both reinforce biological [sex] differences and police gendered behaviour to reconcile with gender norms. Binary characteristics for example, quiet girl, rough boy, weak girl and tough boy, clean girl and untidy boy become markers of both sexes at an early age that develop into more restrictive boundaries as children grow (Doyle &
Paludi, 1991). However, despite these binaries, the socialization process worked on a complimentary relationship between male and female. An important aspect of the
socialisation process was therefore to ensure gender as a stable construct which meant that both males and females abided with the socialisation process. Conformity or respect for gendered expectations was key to the success of socialisation hence non-conformity was judged as disrespectful, rebellious and therefore a punishable offence.
Since the schools functions as an extension of the family it worked as an intermediary to extend the socialisation process. Given that children spend long hours at school, teachers and peers have been identified as important agents to shape and if necessary, reshape the young child [learner] according to the values and attitudes in keeping with society’s expectations.
Since schools are expected to contribute to the overall development of the child, the school is also expected to groom the child to become a valuable contributor to society. Importantly, teachers are supposed to be role models to facilitate and enrich the socialization process.
Connell explains that the emphasis on adherence to gender roles throughout the socializing process cultivates psychological mechanisms within the individual that inadvertently policed the self (Connell, 1985). Thus the agents of socialization are seen as reinforcing gender differences, and proliferating gender stereotypes. Connell recognizes that whilst some children do adhere with the socialization process and eventually assume roles that they are groomed for, Connell sees this as a superficial process. She explains that this superficiality is underpinned by a false sense of accuracy since contestations within the social agencies [family, school, and society] are unrecognized, giving the impression the socialization process is a smooth one. As a result power relations that surfaces between relationships such as those parents and child, teacher and learner, husband and wife remain silenced. In the next discussion I focus on the deficiency of the socialization theory in theorisng gender and sexuality. I draw mostly on Connell (1985; 1987) to discuss and show how the shortfalls render this theory incompatible to examine gender and sexuality and violence.
26 2.3.2. A critique of the socialization theory
Connell argues that the norms and values passed into society via the socialisation process raises the questions of whose behaviour is deemed appropriate to organize society given that societies and cultures are diverse. According to Connell, the socialization process, in
appearing universal, fails to acknowledge the particularities of each and every country and therefore different societies. This raises the concern that since people are socialized according to the most dominant understanding of accepted roles in society, diversity in gender,
sexuality and culture is rendered invisible. Furthermore Connell argues that norms and values given to individual roles in society are actually norms and values espoused by and
‘old- school’ beliefs, therefore does not cohere with reality and are therefore not universal.
Rather, in questioning the socialization process, Connell contends that the socialization process is driven by socio-political structures that actually benefit populations in society claiming that normative ideologies are actually perpetuated by those in power to maintain a social cohesion and to restrict alternate forms of behaviour.
Connell disagrees with social theorists analysis that individuals who resist the socialization process and who resist normative roles are in conflict with their purported role, arguing instead that non-conformity or maladaptiveness must be recognised and accepted as a sign of resistance. Connell notes that within the socialization process, individuals that display or engage in maladaptive behaviours are judged to be in conflict with a specific role thus interventions, such as therapy is prescribed to reshape the individual into his or her
designated role in society. Since maladaptive behaviours are seen as a result of insufficient or incorrect socialization into a role, it is seen as an individual problem that can be reshaped through support and intervention. Another criticism of the socializing theory regards the static and segmented description of human activity. Women have multilayered customary occupations that overlap for example, caring, domestic chores, working outside the home part time or full time whilst children’s roles remain largely undefined. Such segment activity is often evidenced in schools. Learners are usually engaged in differentiated tasks, with boys taking on more arduous tasks, whilst girls wash dishes or assist in cleaning the kitchen and other domestic related tasks.
According to Carrigan, Connell and Lee (1987) within the family, masculinity was treated as a social construct, meaning that it was awarded powers socially through meanings assigned to gender roles as opposed to one of power. According to Connell, the socialization process
27
reinforces a hegemonic masculinity and an emphasized femininity. Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe and Thomson (1998) also contend that heterosexuality is actually about masculinity.
Girls and women are expected to adhere to heterosexuality and live their sexuality in the service of the male gaze. Girls and women are urged to be passive, in their dress, their demeanor, their character and in their sexuality, all of which reinforce them as physically weak, altruistic, caring and subdued.
The socialization theory thus attributes violence in society to non-conforming or
maladapative behaviours and therefore fails to recognize how gender sterotypes become implicated in gender violence. It does not recognize that gender roles are designed to police females rather than men, hence violence against women who stray from gender roles. The stereotypes are harmful as they incite violence. People who don’t conform are punished. It is worthy to note that although new theories have been developed to understand and explain gender and sexual violence in society, stereotypes persist. Women are blamed for the violence perpetrated against them and children endure corporal punishment at home and in school for daring to challenge their roles. The truth that emerges from socialisation theory is one that demonstrates middle-class power over the working class. Its main goal was to socialize men, women and children into their respective roles to create and maintain a superficial society. I have demonstrated this point by drawing on Connell to show the shadows that operate within the socialisation process to create hierarchies of power.
Today, we find that gendered expectations are still shaped by gendered social and cultural norms and values attributed to gender and sexuality. The ‘male in the head’ still exists in society (Holland et al., 1998). Holland et al explain that women [girls] who express their sexual desires are seen as resisting gender and sexual norms, face discipline since female sexuality is supposed to be restrained. Hence Connell maintains that if the ideology of masculinity is unmasked, then one would see that the ideology is masked by power. Men are given that power. The idea of masculinity endows men with power which subordinates women. Connell therefore argues that power relations that circulate within the socialization structure remains undertheorized because it is underpinned by biological essentialism rather than gender relations. In doing so, the socialization theory tends to assume a relationship of complementarity between the men and women as opposed to one of power.
28
Within the socialization theory, an individual’s resistance to oppression is unrecognized, and therefore does not account for agency. It instead addresses opposition to social norms as deviance rather than resistance on the part of the individual. Thus how human agency works is ignored therefore how people engage in creative ways to adapt to their situations or environments and how they improve to reach their goals given their constraints becomes invisible. Thus in socialization theory, discussion is missing on how human agency comes to the fore as individuals negotiate and shape their actions and behaviours against a patriarchy and traditional society. Socialization theory does not provide a framework to analyse this.
In this study, it was necessary for me to draw on social constructivism theory which
challenges the child as devoid of constructive thought. Social constructionists argue for the positioning of children as active social beings who have the capacity to think and do. My study challenges passivity or sexual innocence in young girls. Rather than simply viewing girls (and boys) as empty vessels waiting to be filled, my study authenticates the girls (my respondents) as active sexual beings. The next discussion focus on the social constructionist theory and its relevance for my study.