Micro-Sociology: Gender Bending
Carlos Fragoso
Studying social interactions through micro-sociology can be beneficial when relating to behavior that seems innate. Before analyzing societal reactions to the unfamiliar, it is important to be conscious of the stem of certain normality’s. A social construct is a shared understanding of the world and the following of this only reinforces what reality is perceived to be. Examples of such constructs include the categories of race and gender, or the following of norms placed by social institutions and reinforced through socialization. This is created and learned through interaction and upheld through our actions and how we follow such constructs. When thinking of social constructions, people interact based on their knowledge, which is harbored inside, creating the certainty that phenomenon are real. Reality, then, exists outside of individuals and our interactions with people are guided by what we believe to be true; social constructions are real in terms of its consequences and are very well alterable.
Gender and sex are commonly misinterpreted as interchangeable terms to describe people. Within the binary of American culture, gender has been constructed to describe what it means to be a “man or woman” and the knowledge of sex as a biological determination of whether you are a “male” or female.” Focusing on the social construct of gender and how we “do gender,” we can analyze how the bending and deviance from these accepted scripts tend to disturb society in such a way that allows for policing of what is perceived to be “wrong.” People act in accordance to what they understand and symbolic interactionism emphasizes the mutual construction and mutually understood symbols between people. These symbols can be abstract or concrete and are acknowledged differently by everyone. Reality in this sense is subjective, meaning there is room for change depending on the interaction and its social context.
To test these notions of microsociology, I took it upon myself to capture the reaction of a man not conforming to gender scripts. By mixing both “feminine” and “masculine” attire together, I was able to garner very mixed and alarming comments throughout a casual evening of grocery shopping and dining with friends. Taking precaution locations of travel, I decided to wear 6-inch heels in public for an entire night; this was an interesting and different approach to breach norms, to say the least. It is not likely you always run into a man wearing such high-heels at a restaurant or local Jewel-Osco. We maintain notions of what it means to be a “man” by following the gender scripts we have been taught from childhood. In order to successfully “do gender” in American society, an individual must adhere to the social construction of what it means to be their sex by sticking to the widely accepted gender cues. We have come to understand that clothing (a symbol) is an either-or category, relating to men or women, expecting everyone to follow the cultural attributes of “masculinity” or “femininity.”
There was nothing out of the ordinary as I walked with my partner and three close friends, each of us wearing clothing that “belonged” to our gender, except my shoes. The majority of the time people looked up at us (because of our height) with no special facial expressions, but as they heard a “click…click” and looked down, it was as if I was dragging a child across the floor and they were immediately slapped with horror. Expressions changed and some faces were in complete shock that a man would even dare walk out of the house in that way. What was more surprising was the confusion many had on their face; they saw a “boy” from the waist upward and a “girl” from waist down. It is no shock that derogatory terms, insults, and threats were made, but what concerned me the most was the interaction between strangers and I. At Jewel-Osco (on W. Roosevelt and S. State at around 7:30pm) I asked five associates for their assistance and a raise of the eyebrow was the very first thing each one did. One person actually stumbled with his words as he tried to gather himself after walking up to him. Other associates simply pointed to where I could “maybe” find an item and continued walking the other direction. Arriving at a local IHOP, it was almost immediately clear that the stay would be unwelcoming. There were smirks and giggles as I walked past tables, albeit cops were present they also contributed, and service came at snail-like speed; three 4-5 people sized groups who arrived after us were served sooner than our table. People interacted with me as though I was a different being; stumbling with words, poor articulation of phrases, and a sense of nervousness (or even repulsiveness).
Erving Goffman’s idea of dramaturgy could also be applied to this scenario. Interactions are seen as a performance in a theater, where the actors put on a specific behavior as they are in front of people, front stage behavior, and keep certain things hidden and away from the public eye, backstage behavior. Gender roles can be seen as “scripts,” something Goffman coins to be the expected lines of communication, something we perform at the forefront. Due to the dichotomy cultures have put gender into, a man wearing clothing that is not “designed” to be worn by him is seen as a violation of this social construct. We perform gender based on the expectations of society and define these performances as either right or wrong. If symbols are not mutually understood between the interactions, as seen with people who looked appalled at me wearing heels, then our actions are altered accordingly. Some choose to keep their personal appearance in relation to comfort, whether it is personal comfort or to the comfort of societal acceptance. Choosing to perform in such a way that was not common gave me greater insight of what it means to interact based on the socially constructed reality and everyone’s differing viewpoints.
Carlos Fragoso
Studying social interactions through micro-sociology can be beneficial when relating to behavior that seems innate. Before analyzing societal reactions to the unfamiliar, it is important to be conscious of the stem of certain normality’s. A social construct is a shared understanding of the world and the following of this only reinforces what reality is perceived to be. Examples of such constructs include the categories of race and gender, or the following of norms placed by social institutions and reinforced through socialization. This is created and learned through interaction and upheld through our actions and how we follow such constructs. When thinking of social constructions, people interact based on their knowledge, which is harbored inside, creating the certainty that phenomenon are real. Reality, then, exists outside of individuals and our interactions with people are guided by what we believe to be true; social constructions are real in terms of its consequences and are very well alterable.
Gender and sex are commonly misinterpreted as interchangeable terms to describe people. Within the binary of American culture, gender has been constructed to describe what it means to be a “man or woman” and the knowledge of sex as a biological determination of whether you are a “male” or female.” Focusing on the social construct of gender and how we “do gender,” we can analyze how the bending and deviance from these accepted scripts tend to disturb society in such a way that allows for policing of what is perceived to be “wrong.” People act in accordance to what they understand and symbolic interactionism emphasizes the mutual construction and mutually understood symbols between people. These symbols can be abstract or concrete and are acknowledged differently by everyone. Reality in this sense is subjective, meaning there is room for change depending on the interaction and its social context.
To test these notions of microsociology, I took it upon myself to capture the reaction of a man not conforming to gender scripts. By mixing both “feminine” and “masculine” attire together, I was able to garner very mixed and alarming comments throughout a casual evening of grocery shopping and dining with friends. Taking precaution locations of travel, I decided to wear 6-inch heels in public for an entire night; this was an interesting and different approach to breach norms, to say the least. It is not likely you always run into a man wearing such high-heels at a restaurant or local Jewel-Osco. We maintain notions of what it means to be a “man” by following the gender scripts we have been taught from childhood. In order to successfully “do gender” in American society, an individual must adhere to the social construction of what it means to be their sex by sticking to the widely accepted gender cues. We have come to understand that clothing (a symbol) is an either-or category, relating to men or women, expecting everyone to follow the cultural attributes of “masculinity” or “femininity.”
There was nothing out of the ordinary as I walked with my partner and three close friends, each of us wearing clothing that “belonged” to our gender, except my shoes. The majority of the time people looked up at us (because of our height) with no special facial expressions, but as they heard a “click…click” and looked down, it was as if I was dragging a child across the floor and they were immediately slapped with horror. Expressions changed and some faces were in complete shock that a man would even dare walk out of the house in that way. What was more surprising was the confusion many had on their face; they saw a “boy” from the waist upward and a “girl” from waist down. It is no shock that derogatory terms, insults, and threats were made, but what concerned me the most was the interaction between strangers and I. At Jewel-Osco (on W. Roosevelt and S. State at around 7:30pm) I asked five associates for their assistance and a raise of the eyebrow was the very first thing each one did. One person actually stumbled with his words as he tried to gather himself after walking up to him. Other associates simply pointed to where I could “maybe” find an item and continued walking the other direction. Arriving at a local IHOP, it was almost immediately clear that the stay would be unwelcoming. There were smirks and giggles as I walked past tables, albeit cops were present they also contributed, and service came at snail-like speed; three 4-5 people sized groups who arrived after us were served sooner than our table. People interacted with me as though I was a different being; stumbling with words, poor articulation of phrases, and a sense of nervousness (or even repulsiveness).
Erving Goffman’s idea of dramaturgy could also be applied to this scenario. Interactions are seen as a performance in a theater, where the actors put on a specific behavior as they are in front of people, front stage behavior, and keep certain things hidden and away from the public eye, backstage behavior. Gender roles can be seen as “scripts,” something Goffman coins to be the expected lines of communication, something we perform at the forefront. Due to the dichotomy cultures have put gender into, a man wearing clothing that is not “designed” to be worn by him is seen as a violation of this social construct. We perform gender based on the expectations of society and define these performances as either right or wrong. If symbols are not mutually understood between the interactions, as seen with people who looked appalled at me wearing heels, then our actions are altered accordingly. Some choose to keep their personal appearance in relation to comfort, whether it is personal comfort or to the comfort of societal acceptance. Choosing to perform in such a way that was not common gave me greater insight of what it means to interact based on the socially constructed reality and everyone’s differing viewpoints.