Gender’s New Beginning

            It is not difficult to see that Marxist theories can serve as useful tools in the study of gender. While Marxist theory is concerned with relations between classes, much of gender theory is concerned with the relations between genders. Fundamentally, the two topics can both be seen as study of power relations. In this paper, we will examine the developments in gender studies over time while keeping in mind the fundamental connection between the two theories. From the understanding of gender as a non-essential concept to redefining gender and accepting multiple gender identities, there has been a great deal of development in the gender structure towards gender equality. However, just as Marxist theory argues that class struggle can only be ended when there is only one class in the society—effectively creating a society with no class system—I will argue that we must abolish the gender system and “undo” gender in order to end gender struggle and achieve gender equality.

            Before the discussion of gender hegemony, it is important to understand that the term “hegemony” mainly comes from Antonio Gramsci, a Marxist philosopher. While Gramsci was not the first to use this term, he was the one who developed the concept further. Building on the concept of base and superstructure, he argues that culture, in addition to politics and economy, also contributes to hegemony. Many scholars credit Gramsci for the concept of hegemony and, more specifically, cultural hegemony. The influence of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is apparent in the field of gender studies. When talking about the origin of his term “hegemonic masculinity”, the author R. W. Connell mentions that “the Gramscian term ‘hegemony’ was current at the time in attempts to understand the stabilization of class relations” (831). From this, the connection between gender and class is made further apparent.

            As previously mentioned by Connell, the concept of cultural hegemony (specifically, the idea that culture contributes to the hegemony of society) is very useful in understanding the relations between classes and different groups of people. Connell’s hegemonic masculinity is defined as “the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (quoted in Budgeon, 322). Additionally, this dynamic is maintained “not simply through the use of force but through ‘cultural consent’” (Budgeon, 322). Through methods such as institutionalization, hegemonic masculinity “ideologically legitimates the global subordination of women” (Connell and Messerschmidt, 832). Connell also notes that “hegemonic masculinity was distinguished from other masculinities, especially subordinated masculinities” (832). In other words, not only are women made subordinate to hegemonic masculinity, but other masculinities, such as homosexual masculinity, are also made subordinates. By marginalizing the alternative masculinities and placing other gender identities below itself, hegemonic masculinity is able to present itself as “normal” and “the most honored way of being a man”, despite the fact that “only a minority of men might enact it” (832).

            In addition to the concept of hegemonic masculinity, Mimi Schippers formulated the concept of hegemonic femininity in the context of hegemonic masculinity. She argues that hegemonic femininity “consists of the characteristics defined as womanly that establish and legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relationship to hegemonic masculinity” (94). While Connell did not expand on the possibility of hegemonic femininity that subordinates other femininity, Schippers argues that there is indeed “an ascendancy of hegemonic femininity over other femininities”, and it still “serve the interests of the gender order and male domination” (94). It is clear that the concept of gender hegemony takes into consideration the power struggle that arises from gender relations, and similarities can be drawn to the power struggle in class relations. It is important to note that the definition of hegemonic masculinity already takes into account the effects of culture on gender dynamics, as Connell defines hegemonic masculinity as a set of practices that is culturally accepted. This very much adheres to the concept of cultural hegemony and the idea that dominant groups within a society enforces their ideology as “normal”, just as hegemonic masculinity is able to present itself as the “normal” identity.

            Moving on with defining gender we have already encountered the idea that gender is defined through cultural practices in Connell’s formulation of hegemonic masculinity. The idea that gender is defined by practices rather than by essential means is further explored by other scholars. Judith Butler, in her book Gender Trouble (1990), describes gender as a dramatic “act” that represents “contingent construction of meaning”, arguing that our acts define our concept of gender (190). Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman describe this definition of gender with the phrase “doing gender” in an article of the same title. In their article, West and Zimmerman seek to propose an understanding of gender as “a routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment” (126). They argue that although gender is “done” and acted out by individuals, it is a “situated doing”, done only because the individuals of the society are hostage to the production of gender (126). In other words, gender is an emergent feature of social situations rather than a property of the individual. The social and cultural construction of gender enforces the act of doing gender, which in turn enforces the construction of gender. In the words of West and Zimmerman, “doing gender means creating differences between girls and boys and women and men, differences that are not natural, essential, or biological. Once the differences have been constructed, they are used to reinforce the ‘essentialness’ of gender” (137). Thus, it is evident that gender, along with qualities associated with gender, is not innate to an individual, but rather reinforced by society and made “essential” through the acts of individuals. Again, it must be made clear that the societal enforcement of gender norms is not done through active force, but rather done indirectly through the invisible spread of ideology and culture. Just as Marilyn Frye suggests: “for efficient subordination, what’s wanted is that the structure not appear to be a cultural artifact kept in place by human decision or custom, but that it appear natural” (quoted in West and Zimmerman, 146).

                        Going further with the concept of “doing gender”, Laurel Westbrook and Kristen Schilt explored the concept of “determining gender” as “the response to doing gender” (33). They claim that people “present information about their gender” while interacting with others, this information is then taken and interpreted by the others, who place “them in gender categories” (33). Westbrook and Kristen raise a very crucial point through the concept of determining gender. That is, the gender identity of a person is legitimized by “other people determining their gender” (33). This means that only gender identities legitimized by people are accepted as existing identities. In the analysis of three case studies that reflect conflicts in determining whether an individual is a man or woman, Westbrook and Kristen noticed that there are two ideologies in determining gender: biology-based and identity-based (34). They conclude that “in nonsexual gender-integrated spaces, identity can be used to determine gender, as long as that identity is a man or woman” (50). This reflects the idea that gender identities are legitimized by people, and as they only recognize the binary gender system, a transgendered person have to identify as either man or woman. Yet, the recognition of identity-based criteria of determining gender can still be seen as development, even if it is only considered legitimate in nonsexual gender-integrated spaces, as gender has long been defined through biology-based criteria. With the acceptance of transgendered identities (as long as it stays within the gender binary), it is possible to argue that there is an expansion in gender identities. However, as transgendered identities are inevitably placed back into the gender binary, there is no fundamental expansion in the binary gender categories. Understanding that, it is clear that the next step towards gender equality is the fundamental reconstruction of the gender system, namely: the construction of a non-binary gender system.

            Redoing gender and the expansion of gender identities. It is a common perception that the binary gender system causes many inequalities between people associated with different gender identities, as the hegemonic masculinity (and the later hegemonic femininity) is constructed and defined to guarantee the dominance of men and subordination of women. The concept of “doing gender” provides the framework to understanding that gender is a social construct that is not essential. With this new found understanding, further expansions of gender identities can be explored. In the article “Doing Gender Beyond The Binary”, Helana Darwin explores the possibility of “doing nonbinary gender” through virtual ethnography using the website Reddit (324). Darwin understands that doing gender requires the recognition of others, and that nonbinary identities can only be defined by being recognized and associated with their practices/acts. Therefore, she claims that the nonbinary community is not “doing nonbinary gender”, but rather “redoing gender to include options beyond man and woman” (330). The redoing of gender is done through “raising awareness and visibility of categories beyond transman and transwomen”, which presents as the transgender identities that still fall into the gender binary (325). However, complications in doing nonbinary genders arise with the expansion of gender identities, as Darwin observes that the nonbinary gender category is “an umbrella for a host of gender identities” (330). Those who wish to identify themselves as their desired binary gender does nonbinary gender “by strategically ‘doing binary gender’” (330). On the other hand, those who wish to be outside of binary gender identities does binary gender by “subverting normative scripts of gender display/linguistics and by educating the public about gender plurality”, which contributes towards the redoing of gender (330).

            The development of the nonbinary gender identities requires an expansion and reconstruction of the gender system. As we come to accept more non-traditional gender identities and see different identities as equals, we move closer towards gender equality. However, the process of redoing gender is not without flaws. As Judith points out, “scrupulous equality of categories of people considered essentially different needs constant monitoring” (quoted in West and Zimmerman, 146). With more and more gender identities becoming legitimized and set as equal, it will become increasingly more difficult to maintain the equality between each and all of the identities. The expansion in accepted gender identities also does not necessarily promote equality between each of the identities. As Connell’s hegemonic masculinity suggests, even within the binary gender system, there are multiple masculinities and femininities, but hegemonic masculinity nevertheless maintains its dominance. Fundamentally speaking, having multiple gender identities does not eliminate the hegemony that arises from gender relations.

                        There has been much progress made towards the goal of understanding gender and achieving gender equality. From the concept of “cultural hegemony”, formulated by Gramsci, to the later formulated terms “hegemonic masculinity” and “hegemonic femininity”, a general understanding of the relationship between gender and power is developed. The later paper “Doing Gender” by West and Zimmerman led to further understanding of gender, proposing that gender is defined by culturally accepted practices attributed to a gender. The understanding of gender as a social construct inspired the idea of “redoing gender”, a process of expanding the culturally accepted gender categories. Currently, much of the focus is put into redoing gender, as we accept a more and more diverse set of gender identities. However, it is crucial to understand the necessity of “undoing” gender in the process of achieving the goal of gender equality. After all, as West and Zimmerman suggests, the proposal for equality laws provides “the warrant for asking why, if we wish to treat women and men as equals, there needs to be two sex categories at all” (147).

Work Cited:

Budgeon, Shelley. “The Dynamics of Gender Hegemony: Femininities, Masculinities and Social Change.” Sociology, vol. 48, no. 2, 2014, pp. 317–334. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24433249.

Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender and Society, vol. 19, no. 6, 2005, pp. 829–859., www.jstor.org/stable/27640853.

West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society, vol. 1, no. 2, 1987, pp. 125–151. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/189945.

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Darwin, Helana. “Doing Gender Beyond the Binary: A Virtual Ethnography.” Symbolic Interaction, vol. 40, no. 3, 2017, pp. 317–334. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/90011687.

Westbrook, Laurel, and Kristen Schilt. “Doing Gender, Determining Gender: Transgender People, Gender Panics, and the Maintenance of the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System.” Gender and Society, vol. 28, no. 1, 2014, pp. 32–57., www.jstor.org/stable/43669855.

Schippers, Mimi. “Recovering the Feminine Other: Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Hegemony.” Theory and Society, vol. 36, no. 1, 2007, pp. 85–102. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4501776.

Kyrylo is a unique and passionate writer who credits or states his inspiration for his works and love of writing to author John Green. Specifically to Green’s book “the fault in our star” which Kirylo states was “the first book I’ve ever read”. He also takes inspiration and looks up to the author Alice Oseman, and her books “Heartstopper” and “Solitaire”, all of which he very much enjoyed reading. The reason for his inspiration from these two authors was due to their style of writing and the authors abilities to create a connection and attachment between the readers and the characters. Kirylo believes both the authors write “in a very descriptive and truly real feeling way” as from his past experiences with literature it can be incredibly difficult to create attachment to the characters, but both authors are able to do it very well.

When asked how he starts writing or what his process is he states that more likely than not, he will end up starting by writing down a topic sentence or a paragraph. Then after that he would then google the topic that prompted his inspiration or that he is writing about or instead he would go through his phone gallery to seek inspiration and as soon as inspiration strikes him, he goes with the flow and writes till his hands get tired. After the initial round of writing, It’s time to look back and reread what was written and possibly add on more details, fix unclear sentences and add more examples, analogies and metaphors in order to make the writing stronger and more enjoyable.

Even though Kyrylo has his process for writing he may sometimes deviate from it when a new idea jumps out at him while he’s still working on a specific writing piece. As he writes he claims it is “easy for me to get distracted as I have ADHD”, and because of this he has a difficult time trying to focus on one topic or goal for a long period of time and would end up doing so called “side quests” while working on any particular piece. Most of the time he starts one, gets  distracted, and then ends up finishing three or four other things and then gets back to the original.

Throughout his many experiences with writing, Kyrylo has had to overcome many hurdles and challenges. What he found to be the most challenging about writing is the starting sentence or two. He believes this to be the most challenging because you have to lure in the reader to be interested in what you have to say, you have to use specific word construction or an interesting topic for your work to even be considered read worthy. Additionally, as mentioned previously he finds it hard to keep the same narrative throughout the whole story, because a lot of the time his opinion shifts on things while he’s writing so in the end he usually ends up advocating for both sides of the argument in his writing piece.    

Continuing on with his experiences with literature Kyrylo has seen many different types of writing styles and techniques and naturally he has developed his own style or type of writing. When asked if he has any weird or odd writing habits he answered “Absolutely”.  Sometimes when he starts writing backwards, meaning instead of trying to think of an idea or an introduction he starts by making a conclusion paragraph. This is because he believes starting with a conclusion ends up giving him an outline for the whole piece and he also does it because it “just sounds right in my head for some reason” as he says. To add on, when he is unable to think of a word to describe something, instead of looking up descriptive adjectives or trying to find the specific word he just looks up images of the topic being written about and tries to make out a word to describe it himself. This process to him is more effective as opposed to simply looking up descriptions directly. He also tends to look for inspiration in articles about the topic in a language unknown to him, as later he ends up translating it into English, because he believes “country dialects and local sayings make up for a very creative and unique view on any given thing, which helps me come up with my own analogies and metaphors”. This habit helps to make him into the writer he is and contribute to the effort and passion he puts into his works.