SEXUAL IDENTITY
The view that sexual identity can be both socially constructed and biologically inherited however appears among the researchers and scholars. This paper reviews an article by Chris Brickell, “The sociological construction of gender and sexuality which unearths the underlying aspect of sexuality as one is both biological and socially constructed.
Firstly, the central focus of the paper is to provide an insightful understanding of the social construction of sexuality from various approaches. Basing his arguments on Historicism, ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism and material feminism, sexuality is viewed as meaningless until the interaction with the immediate social arrangements upon which the meaning is socially constructed (Brickell, 88). As such, it’s by understanding what the meaning of sexuality is in a particular society that orients specific individual behavior and amount to the interpretation of sexuality.
Next, to investigate the topic, the author explores secondary sources of data by looking at the past works of various scholars on the topic. Through this avenue, critical analysis can be given by viewing each proponent’s thought and how such views collided to give meaning to the topic of sexuality. For instance, Brickell (91), provides Foucault’s view of genealogical analysis for understanding the changing sexual configurations, it provides a useful interpretation of its shifting configuration rather than the belief that it remains unchanging over time. These insights provide a framework upon which the topic of sexuality can be understood.
Also, by looking at the four approaches namely Historicism, ethnomethodology, and symbolic interactionism and material feminism, the author concludes that sexuality is always a cultural creation. Brickell (93) reiterates that the language use and equivalent interaction with such constructions bring together the interpretation of one sex, define roles, and outlines the relationship between and toward each sex. For instance, ethnomethodologists and symbolic interactionist opine the Gagnon and Simon’s theory of sexual scripts as one channeled through three tiers of culture scenarios, the interpersonal and intrapsychic (Brickell, 95). In each tier, the interpretation given on sexuality is cannot be so much detached from culture. In the same vein, the Marxism feminist posits that the interpretation of sexuality is such that its arrangement is about certain social powers. Thus, Chris Brickell’s conclusion is on the significant role culture plays to give meaning to sexuality.
Moreover, the major strength of this article is that it provides four different spectra upon which the meaning of sexuality can be given. The revelation in each approach brings about convergence that sexuality is socially and culturally constructed. Therefore, through these approaches, one is enabled to identify the consistency and make a conclusion on the same.
On the other end, one weakness of the article is that it predominantly outlines how social forms contributes to the understanding of gender and sexuality while giving less emphasis on the “reality” nature of human being (Brickell, 100). It, therefore, presumes by giving less emphasis that the “reality” nature of man has little to constitute the definition of sexuality.
Besides, social construction refers to the process by which discourse brings about subjectivity and often than not, represented by linguistic determination. Social construction, therefore, entails how society gives meaning to the various subject that surrounds human existence. In the same premise, Brickell (94), posits that the subject of sexuality is only given life by social practices like naming, discourses that convey meaning to the biological references of sex such genitalia. In this viewpoint, before social interaction, such ‘biological’ identifiers holds no meaning to an individual child.
Lastly, social control refers to how social and cultural factors define how sexual behavior is expressed. Thus, each society will have some level of constraints on how sexual relationships should exist between people of the same or different sex (DeLamater, 263). In the article, we find the theory of sexual scripts which opines three levels of analysis. One of the levels is cultural scenarios which state how society prescribes sexual conduct in terms of who might one engage sexually, when and what gestures or cues should be acted upon among other instructions (Brickell, 95). For instance, each culture defines what exact age one can be sexually engaged without prohibition. Therefore, by giving such instructions, society provides control of sexual behavior.
In summary, through different approaches discussed, Brickell’s opines an acritical view of sexuality as one that is inseparable from society. However, this doesn’t mean that the biological orientation doesn’t constitute the view of sex. The conversation of nature and nurture in constituting behavior equally supports this article.