Construction and deconstruction of gender in the contemporary humanities
Philosophy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2019-1-5-16Keywords:
binary matrix, power, gender, deconstruction, discourse, identity, queer, constructivism, culture, performative theory, postmodernism, body, feminism, philosophyAbstract
The purpose of this article is to analyze the evolution of the concept of gender in social knowledge and the humanities. The term «gender» encompasses biological (sexual), psychological, social, cultural, symbolic aspects of human life. Even before the introduction of this term into scientific publications in the 1960s, the phenomenon itself was discovered in three types of knowledge: in psychology and psychiatry when studying various forms of sexuality and sexual identity, in anthropological and ethnographic studies, and in the feminist philosophy of culture. This largely determined the main directions in the study and understanding of gender for several decades. The theory of socio-cultural construction of gender played the main role. It developed in parallel with other critical and constructivist scientific concepts, which in no small part led to its adoption by «academics» and the inclusion of the gender perspective in the body of scientific research. However, along with the development of postmodern feminist philosophy, the concept of gender undergoes redefinition. The constructivist model of gender is displaced by the performative concept of Judith Butler. She argues that not only gender but the biological sex does not exist outside the cultural framework and power discourse. The binary matrix of gender, gender identity and heterosexuality is approved within the framework of the dominant discourse with the help of various regulatory actions (performatives). Butler rejects this model because she claims that bodies, sex and gender identity have different configurations. The performative concept of sex was actively used in the queer project, as it provided justification for rejecting the normative binary concept of femininity and masculinity and the corresponding heterosexuality. Today, queer includes political movement, research, art, and discursive deconstruction of normative heterosexuality. The variant of mosaic nature, hybridity and relativism of identity proposed in the queer project destroys the possibility of social and political transformations in the sphere of gender equality. Instead, queer activists advocate an elusive equality of opportunity to try on different identities at one’s own discretion. At the present stage, the theoretical radicalism of queer makes the development of new social programs unlikely, while they appear to be necessary. In contrast, gender theory (in its feminist, constructivist, and cultural-symbolic modes) has had a significant scientific and social impact. The use of the gender perspective in social knowledge and the humanities has provided better understanding of the individual and society. The principle of achieving gender equality has been accepted by the world community and has become part of many programs at the international and national levels. However, the problems in the understanding of the relation between sex and gender, discovered in performative and queer theory, become significant against a background of spreading biotechnologies (from sex reassignment surgeries to assisted reproduction). This requires wider research and further discussion among different schools.References
Батлер Дж. Гендерное беспокойство // Антология гендерной теории / под ред. Е. Гаповой. Минск: Пропилеи, 2000. С. 297–346.
Бахман-Медик Д. Культурные повороты. Новые ориентиры в науках о культуре / пер с нем. М.: Новое литературное обозрение. 2017. 504 с.
Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности / пер. с англ. М.: Медиум, 1995. 323 с.
Воронина О.А. Основные идеи и концепты феминистской социальной эпистемологии // Вестник Пермского университета. Философия. Психология. Социология. 2017. Вып. 2. С. 141–151. DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2017-2-141-151.
Воронина О.А., Клименкова Т.А. Гендер и культура // Женщины и социальная политика (гендерный аспект) / под ред. З.А. Хоткиной. М., 1992. С. 10–22.
Гендерное равенство в современном мире: роль национальных механизмов / отв. ред. О.А. Воронина. М.: Макс-Пресс. 2008. 768 с.
Гонтермахер Б. ОНН включила смену пола в список базовых прав человека // Панорама. 2018. 11 апр. URL: https://panorama.pub/2792-oon-vklyuchila-smenu-pola.html (дата обращения: 16.09.2018).
Зидер Р. Социальная история семьи в Западной и Центральной Европе (конец XVIII–XX вв.) / пер. с нем. М.: ВЛАДОС, 1997. 301 c.
Лауретис де Т. Американский Фрейд // Гендерные исследования. Харьков, 1998. № 1. С. 136–137.
Номеровская А.Д. Исследование гендерной идентичности в философско-антропологической перспективе: дис. … канд. филос. наук. СПб., 2015. 168 с.
Пулькинен Т. О перформативной теории пола. Проблематизация категории пола Юдит Батлер // Герменевтика и деконструкция. СПб., 1999. С. 167–181.
Рабжаева М.В. Гендерная антропология: концептуальная и институциональная характеристика // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2002. Т. 5, № 2. С. 133–147.
Райбман Н., Смирнов С. Facebook предложила пользователям 58 полов на выбор // Ведомости. 2014. 14 февр. URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2014/02/14/facebook-rasshiryaet-profil-polzovatelej (дата обращения: 16.09.2018).
Современный философский словарь / под ред. В.Е. Кемерова. Лондон и др.: Панпринт, 1998. 1064 с.
Техника «косого взгляда». Критика гетеронормативного порядка / под ред. И. Градинари. М.: Изд-во Ин-та Гайдара, 2015. 352 с.
Труфанова Е.О. Субъект и познание в мире социальных конструкций. М.: Канон+: РООИ «Реабилитация», 2018. 320 с.
Уэст К., Зиммерман Д. Создание гендера / пер. с англ. Е. Здравомысловой // Гендерные тетради. Вып. 1: Труды СПб-филиала ИС РАН. СПб., 1997. С. 94–120.
Butler J. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. N.Y., L.: Routledge, 1990, 256 p.
Heywood L., Drake J. Third-Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. 280 p.
Levi-Strauss C. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press, 1969. 524 p.
Mead M. Sex and Temperament in three Primitive Societies. N.Y.: W. Morrow & Company, 1935. 335 p.
Moore H.L. Feminism and Anthropology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988. 320 p.
Ortner S.B. Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture? // Woman, Culture & Society / ed. by M. Rosaldo, L. Lamphere. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974. P. 67–88.
Rubin G. The Traffic in Women: Notes on the «Political Economy» of Sex // Toward an Anthropology of Women / ed. by R.R. Reiter. N.Y.: Monthly Review Press, 1975. P. 157–210.
Sapiro E. Women in American Society: an Introduction to Women’s Studies. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1986. 511 p.
Stoller R. Sex and gender: on the development of masculinity and femininity. N.Y.: Science House, 1968. 383 p.
References
Bachmann-Medik, D. (2017). Kult’urnye povoroty. Novye orientiry v naukakh o kulture. [Cultural turns. New landmarks in the sciences of culture]. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie Publ., 504 p.
Berger, P. and Lukman, T. (1995). Sotsial’noe konstruirovanie real’nosti [Social construction of reality]. Moscow: Medium Publ., 323 p.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, London: Routledge, 256 p.
Butler, J. (2000). Gendernoe bespokoystvo [Gender Trouble]. Antologiya gendernoy teorii [Anthology of gender theory]. Minsk: Propilei Publ., pp. 297–346.
De Lauretis, T. (1998). Amerikanskiy Freud [American Freud]. Gendernye issledovaniya [Gender Studies]. Kharkov, no. 1, pp. 136–137.
Gontermakher, B. (2018). OON vklyuchila smenu pola v spisok bazovykh prav cheloveka [The United Nations has included gender transition in the list of basic human rights]. Panorama. Apr. 11. Available at: https://panorama.pub/2792-oon-vklyuchila-smenu-pola.html (accessed 16.09.2018).
Gradinari, I. (ed.) (2015). Tekhnika «kosogo vzglyada». Kritika geteronormativnogo poryadka [Technique Oblique view. Criticism of heteronormative order]. Moscow: The Gaidar Institute Publ., 352 p.
Heywood, L. and Drake, J. (1997). Third-Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 280 p.
Kemerov, E.V. (ed.) (1998). Sovremennyy filosofskiy slovar’ [Modern philosophical dictionary]. London et al.: Panprint Publ., 1064 p.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press, 524 p.
Mead, M. (1935). Sex and Temperament in three Primitive Societies. New York: W. Morrow & Company, 335 p.
Moore, H.L. (1988). Feminism and Anthropology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 320 p.
Nomerovskaya, A.D. (2015). Issledovanie gendernoy identichnosti v filosofsko-antropologicheskoy perspective: dis. … kand. filos. nauk [The research of gender identity in the philosophical and anthropological perspective: dissertation]. Saint-Petersburg, 168 p.
Ortner, S.B. (1974). Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture? Woman, Culture & Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 67–88.
Pulkinen, T. (1999). O performativnoy teorii pola. Problematizatsiya kategorii pola Judith Butler [On the performative theory of sex. The problematization of the categories of sex by Judith Butler]. Germenevtika i dekonstruktsiya [Hermeneutics and deconstruction]. Saint-Petersburg, pp. 167–181.
Rabzhaeva, M.V. (2002). Gendernaya antropologiya: kontseptualnaya i institutsionalnaya kharakteristika [Gender anthropology: conceptual and institutional characteristics]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noy antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology]. Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 133–147.
Raibman, N., Smirnov, S. (2014). Facebook predlozhila pol’zovatelyam 58 polov na vybor [Facebook offered users 58 sexes to choose from]. Vedomosti. Feb. 14. Available at: https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2014/02/14/facebook-rasshiryaet-profil-polzovatelej (accessed 16.09.2018).
Rubin, G. (1975). The Traffic in Women: Notes on the «Political Economy» of Sex. Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 157–210.
Sapiro, E. (1986). Women in American Society: an Introduction to Women’s Studies. Mountain View CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 511 p.
Stoller, R. (1968). Sex and gender: on the development of masculinity and femininity. New York: Science House, 383 p.
Trufanova, E.O. (2018). Sub’ect i poznanie v mire sotsialnykh konstruktsiy. [Subject and knowledge in the world of social constructions]. Moscow: Canon+ Publ., ROOI «Rehabilitation» Publ., 320 p.
Voronina, O.A. (ed.) (2008). Gendernoe ravenstvo v sovremennom mire [Gender equality in the modern world: the role of national machinery]. Moscow: Max-Press Publ., 768 p.
Voronina, O.A. (2017). Osnovnye idei i kontsepty feministskoy sotsial’noy epistemologii [Main ideas and concepts feminist social epistemology]. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Filosophiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya [Perm University Herald. Series «Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology»]. Vol. 2, pp. 141–151. DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2017-2-141-151.
Voronina, O.A. and Klimenkova, T.A. (1992). Gender i kul’tura [Gender and culture]. Zhenschiny i sotsial’naya politika [Women and social politics (gender aspect)]. Moscow: ISEPN Publ., pp. 10–22.
West, K. and Zimmerman, D. (1997). Sozdanie gendera [Doing gender]. Gendernye tetradi [Gender Notebooks]. Iss. 1: Proceedings of St. Petersburg Branch of Inst. Of Sociology of RAS, Saint Petersburg, pp. 94–120.
Zider, R. (1997). Sotsial’naya istoriya sem’i v zapadnoy i tsentralnoy Evrope (konets XVIII–XX veka) [Social history of the family in Western and Central Europe (late 18th and 19th centuries)]. Moscow: VLADOS Publ., 301 p.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.