dealing dualisms
Cultural Influences on Sexuality
The term “cultural influences model of sexuality” emphasizes the importance of culture and learning in shaping sexual behavior.
However, it assumes that there is a foundational, universal, biologically determined aspect to sexuality, often referred to as “sex drive” or “impulse.”
Social Construction of Sexuality
The second approach to sexuality interpretation is given by Vance, focusing entirely on social constructionism.
A moderate social constructionist asserts that the same physical act can possess different social meanings in various cultures.
A radical constructionist argues that “sexual desire is itself constructed by culture and history from the energies and capacities of the body.”
Cross-Cultural Similarities in Sexuality
Some social constructionists aim to uncover cross-cultural similarities in sexual practices.
Gil Herdt, an anthropologist, identifies four primary cultural approaches to sexuality:
Age-structured homosexuality: Previously seen in ancient Greece; modern examples include cultures where adolescent boys engage in sexual acts with older males, viewed as part of adult heterosexual development.
Gender-reversed homosexuality: Same-sex activity where normative gender roles are reversed; males act as females and vice versa.
Role-specialized homosexuality: Same-sex activity permissible only for individuals in specific social roles, such as shamans.
Contemporary gay identity: In contrast to the above, where declaring oneself as “gay” is an identity choice within a social and political context.
Critiques of Herdt's Work
While Herdt's typologies are appreciated for advancing the understanding of homosexuality, critiques emerge around ethnocentrism.
Deborah Elliston contends that terms like “homosexuality” impose Western frameworks on diverse societies and obscure their meanings.
Elliston argues that Herdt's category of “age-structured sexuality” fails to clarify the essential concept of “sexual.”
Challenges in Cross-Cultural Gender Analysis
During the 1970s, feminist activists sought anthropological evidence of egalitarian societies to bolster claims for gender equality.
A dilemma arose: if equality existed, it would imply that current inequalities were not inherent. Conversely, if female subordination appeared universal, it could be seen as biologically ordained.
Sherry Ortner, a feminist anthropologist, posits that “men were seen as somehow ‘the first sex.’”
Reassessing Feminist Anthropology
In the 1990s, critiques of early analyses prompted a reassessment of collecting data and establishing categories in anthropology.
Incorrigible propositions arise, such as the binary structure of sexes, suggesting critical biases in how anthropologists interpret cultural practices.
Ortner defends that every society is inconsistent, possessing axes of male and female prestige—but not strictly organized around gender.
Oyeronke Oyewumi, a Nigerian anthropologist, argues that many cultures are structured by seniority rather than gender, as seen in Yoruba society.
The Nature versus Nurture Debate
The nature/nurture debate remains persistent in discussions around human behavior and development. European and Euro-American cultures frequently utilize dualistic frameworks (e.g., sex/gender, nature/nurture).
There is a need to rethink the strict limits imposed by dualisms, which tend to highlight one aspect over the other, leading to skewed perspectives on societal constructs.
Concept of Dualism and Its Implications
Key dualisms discussed include:
Sex/Gender: The notion of gender excludes biological factors.
Real/Constructed: Scientific knowledge often conflates with socially constructed meanings, blurring distinctions.
Elizabeth Wilson, a feminist theorist, emphasizes the necessity of addressing both biological and sociocultural aspects to develop a nuanced understanding of gender.
Physiological and Psychological Perspectives on Identity
The body is seen as a system continuously shaped by cultural context—body and experience are inextricably linked.
Elizabeth Grosz introduces the metaphor of a Möbius strip to describe how bodies and cultures interact, suggesting a cycle where biological processes impact psychological and cultural phenomena.
Developmental Systems Theory (DST)
Developmental systems theory rejects the dichotomy of nature and nurture, proposing that both interact dynamically.
Susan Oyama, a pioneer in DST, argues that it offers clarity and consistency in understanding developmental processes.
Peter Taylor outlines how anatomical features can adapt based on unique interactions between an organism’s biology and its environment.
Recent discussions, such as those by Neuroscientist Simon LeVay, illustrate how biological differences impacting sexuality can prompt societal debates around nature versus nurture.
Political Implications of Nature/Nurture Framework
The political ramifications of this binary framework can lead to dangerous ideologies.
Concerns exist about the use of genetic information in assessing sexual orientation, emphasizing the ethical implications of such classifications.
Elisabeth Wilson critiques the traditional separation of biology and culture, advocating for a holistic understanding that recognizes the interconnectedness of both realms.