dis

Home Read Sign

in

INTRODUCTION TO WOMEN, GENDER, SEXUALITY STUDIES

CONTENTS

Search in book …

Unit I: An Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies: Grounding Theoretical Frameworks and Concepts

Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is a theory of knowledge that holds that characteristics typically thought to be im-

mutable and solely biological—such as gender, race, class, ability, and sexuality—are products of human de�-

nition and interpretation shaped by cultural and historical contexts (Subramaniam 2010). As such, social

constructionism highlights the ways in which cultural categories—like “men,” “women,” “black,” “white”—are

concepts created, changed, and reproduced through historical processes within institutions and culture. We

do not mean to say that bodily variation among individuals does not exist, but that we construct categories

based on certain bodily features, we attach meanings to these categories, and then we place people into the

categories by considering their bodies or bodily aspects. For example, by the one-drop rule (see also page

35), regardless of their appearance, individuals with any African ancestor are considered black. In contrast,

racial conceptualization and thus racial categories are different in Brazil, where many individuals with

African ancestry are considered to be white. This shows how identity categories are not based on strict bio-

logical characteristics, but on the social perceptions and meanings that are assumed. Categories are not

“natural” or �xed and the boundaries around them are always shifting—they are contested and rede�ned in

different historical periods and across different societies. Therefore , the social constructionist perspective

is concerned with the meaning created through de�ning and categorizing groups of people, experience, and

reality in cultural contexts.

The Social Construction of Heterosexuality

What does it mean to be “heterosexual” in contemporary US society? Did it mean the same thing

in the late 19th century? As historian of human sexuality Jonathon Ned Katz shows in The

Invention of Heterosexuality (1999), the word “heterosexual” was originally coined by Dr. James

Kiernan in 1892, but its meaning and usage differed drastically from contemporary understand-

Previous: Conceptualizing Structures of Power

Next: Intersectionality

8/7/24, 11:28 AM Social Constructionism – Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies

https://openbooks.library.umass.edu/introwgss/chapter/social-constructionism/ 1/4

ings of the term. Kiernan thought of “hetero-sexuals” as not de�ned by their attraction to the op-

posite sex, but by their “inclinations to both sexes.” Furthermore, Kiernan thought of the hetero-

sexual as someone who “betrayed inclinations to ‘abnormal methods of grati�cation’” (Katz 1995).

In other words, heterosexuals were those who were attracted to both sexes and engaged in sex

for pleasure, not for reproduction. Katz further points out that this de�nition of the heterosexual

lasted within middle-class cultures in the United States until the 1920s, and then went through

various radical reformulations up to the current usage.

Looking at this historical example makes visible the process of the social construction of hetero-

sexuality. First of all, the example shows how social construction occurs within institutions—in

this case, a medical doctor created a new category to describe a particular type of sexuality,

based on existing medical knowledge at the time. “Hetero-sexuality” was initially a medical term

that de�ned a deviant type of sexuality. Second, by seeing how Kiernan—and middle class culture,

more broadly—de�ned “hetero-sexuality” in the 19th century, it is possible to see how drastically

the meanings of the concept have changed over time. Typically, in the United States in contem-

porary usage, “heterosexuality” is thought to mean “normal” or “good”—it is usually the invisible

term de�ned by what is thought to be its opposite, homosexuality. However, in its initial usage,

“hetero-sexuality” was thought to counter the norm of reproductive sexuality and be, therefore,

deviant. This gets to the third aspect of social constructionism. That is, cultural and historical

contexts shape our de�nition and understanding of concepts. In this case, the norm of reproduc-

tive sexuality—having sex not for pleasure, but to have children—de�nes what types of sexuality

are regarded as “normal” or “deviant.” Fourth, this case illustrates how categorization shapes hu-

man experience, behavior, and interpretation of reality. To be a “heterosexual” in middle class

culture in the US in the early 1900s was not something desirable to be—it was not an identity that

most people would have wanted to inhabit. The very de�nition of “hetero-sexual” as deviant, be-

cause it violated reproductive sexuality, de�ned “proper” sexual behavior as that which was re-

productive and not pleasure-centered.

Social constructionist approaches to understanding the world challenge the essentialist or biological deter-

minist understandings that typically underpin the “common sense” ways in which we think about race, gen-

der, and sexuality. Essentialism is the idea that the characteristics of persons or groups are signi�cantly in-

�uenced by biological factors, and are therefore largely similar in all human cultures and historical periods.

A key assumption of essentialism is that “a given truth is a necessary natural part of the individual and object

in question” (Gordon and Abbott 2002). In other words, an essentialist understanding of sexuality would ar-

gue that not only do all people have a sexual orientation, but that an individual’s sexual orientation does not

vary across time or place. In this example, “sexual orientation” is a given “truth” to individuals—it is thought

to be inherent, biologically determined, and essential to their being.

Essentialism typically relies on a biological determinist theory of identity. Biological determinism can be

de�ned as a general theory, which holds that a group’s biological or genetic makeup shapes its social, politi-

cal, and economic destiny (Subramaniam 2014). For example, “sex” is typically thought to be a biological

“fact,” where bodies are classi�ed into two categories, male and female. Bodies in these categories are as-

sumed to have “sex”-distinct chromosomes, reproductive systems, hormones, and sex characteristics.

However, “sex” has been de�ned in many different ways, depending on the context within which it is de-

Previous: Conceptualizing Structures of Power

Next: Intersectionality

8/7/24, 11:28 AM Social Constructionism – Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies

https://openbooks.library.umass.edu/introwgss/chapter/social-constructionism/ 2/4

LICENSE SHARE THIS BOOK

�ned. For example, feminist law professor Julie Greenberg (2002) writes that in the late 19th century and

early 20th century, “when reproductive function was considered one of a woman’s essential characteristics,

the medical community decided that the presence or absence of ovaries was the ultimate criterion of sex”

(Greenberg 2002� 113). Thus, sexual difference was produced through the heteronormative assumption that

women are de�ned by their ability to have children. Instead of assigning sex based on the presence or ab-

sence of ovaries, medical practitioners in the contemporary US typically assign sex based on the appearance

of genitalia.

Differential de�nitions of sex point to two other primary aspects of the social construction of reality. First, it

makes apparent how even the things commonly thought to be “natural” or “essential” in the world are so-

cially constructed. Understandings of “nature” change through history and across place according to sys-

tems of human knowledge. Second, the social construction of difference occurs within relations of power

and privilege. Sociologist Abby Ferber (2009) argues that these two aspects of the social construction of dif-

ference cannot be separated, but must be understood together. Discussing the construction of racial differ-

ence, she argues that inequality and oppression actually produce ideas of essential racial difference.

Therefore, racial categories that are thought to be “natural” or “essential” are created within the context of

racialized power relations—in the case of African-Americans, that includes slavery, laws regulating interra-

cial sexual relationships, lynching, and white supremacist discourse. Social constructionist analyses seek to

better understand the processes through which racialized, gendered, or sexualized differentiations occur, in

order to untangle the power relations within them.

Notions of disability are similarly socially constructed within the context of ableist power relations. The

medical model of disability frames body and mind differences and perceived challenges as �aws that need

�xing at the individual level. The social model of disability shifts the focus to the disabling aspects of society

for individuals with impairments (physical, sensory or mental differences), where the society disables those

with impairments (Shakespeare 2006). Disability, then, refers to a form of oppression where individuals un-

derstood as having impairments are imagined to be inferior to those without impairments, and impairments

are devalued and unwanted. This perspective manifests in structural arrangements that limit access for

those with impairments. A critical disability perspective critiques the idea that nondisability is natural and

normal—an ableist sentiment, which frames the person rather than the society as the problem.

What are the implications of a social constructionist approach to understanding the world? Because social

constructionist analyses examine categories of difference as �uid, dynamic, and changing according to his-

torical and geographical context, a social constructionist perspective suggests that existing inequalities are

neither inevitable nor immutable. This perspective is especially useful for the activist and emancipatory aims

of feminist movements and theories. By centering the processes through which inequality and power rela-

tions produce racialized, sexualized, and gendered difference, social constructionist analyses challenge the

pathologization of minorities who have been thought to be essentially or inherently inferior to privileged

groups. Additionally, social constructionist analyses destabilize the categories that organize people into hi-

erarchically ordered groups through uncovering the historical, cultural, and/or institutional origins of the

groups under study. In this way, social constructionist analyses challenge the categorical underpinnings of

inequalities by revealing their production and reproduction through unequal systems of knowledge and

power.

Previous: Conceptualizing Structures of Power

Next: Intersectionality

8/7/24, 11:28 AM Social Constructionism – Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies

https://openbooks.library.umass.edu/introwgss/chapter/social-constructionism/ 3/4

Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies

by Miliann Kang, Donovan Lessard, Laura Heston,

Sonny Nordmarken is licensed under a Creative

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,

except where otherwise noted.

Powered by Pressbooks

Guides and Tutorials | Contact

Previous: Conceptualizing Structures of Power

Next: Intersectionality

8/7/24, 11:28 AM Social Constructionism – Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies

https://openbooks.library.umass.edu/introwgss/chapter/social-constructionism/ 4/4