Gal discusses the ideas of power and domination in her work “Language,
Gender, and Power: An Anthropological Review”. She links gender to the idea of
power and domination. She says that “The control of representations of reality
occur in social, verbal interaction, located in institutions. Control of such
representations, and control of the means by which they are communicated and
reproduced, are equally sources of social power.” (Gal 319). Basically gender is socially reproduced
through power dynamics, social idealizations, and communication. Society has
defined the gender roles for both males and females through things like advertisements
that reinforce how a woman or man should look and dress.
I am going to apply Gal’s Idea of power and domination, and
the way that gender normal are reproduced in society through female athletes. Female athletes today face a dilemma; they
are expected to succeed in their sport while maintaining hegemonic femininity.
Female athletes go against societies assertions about the
body and how females should look, act, and dress. Stereotypical females use their bodies as a symbol for
femininity with revealing clothing, long hair, emphasis on sex organs, and make
up. Female athletes, on the other hand, have their bodies seen as a symbol for
masculinity with large muscles, no emphasis on sex organs, hair pulled back,
and covering their bodies through the use of uniforms. Athletics have been primarily
male dominated, and are characterized by aggression, strength, and competition.
Due to the intense training that professional female athletes must undergo,
their bodies transform to large and heavily muscled. The construction of the
female athlete bodies and their dress opposes the societal definition of the
female gender, and as Gal would say they showing resistance. Resistance can be
defined one of two ways by Gal, but this particular type of resistance is
practice because the women “embody alternate models of the social world” (Gal
319). The resistance is seen through their ritual. Female soccer players
begin to embody the male gender through many different avenues: they work out,
pull their hair back or even cut their hair short as a way to keep it out of
their eyes, and they eat high calorie foods; all of which are stereotypical
seen as male rituals. The rituals are then incorporated onto their bodies, and
the masculine features are apparent—large muscles.
These women show
resistance to the gender norms in place by society they are considered
masculine. They are no longer defined by the female gender. The rigid gender roles imposed onto society
has led to a dichotomy for female athletes. The dichotomy of the
masculinization on the field and the sexualization off the field. Female
athletes allow themselves to be oversexualized through things like photo shoots,
because they are forced, by society, to be a part of their gender. Gal would
consider the women allowing themselves to be oversexualized as a type of complacence.
We see symbolic domination of gender norms is seen linguistically
as well. When a person sees an extremely buff male athlete they may comment “He
looks so strong”. When a person sees an extremely buff female athlete they
usually respond with “that is unnatural” or “She looks so masculine”. Gal concludes by saying “The notions of
domination and resistance alert us to the idea that the strongest form of power
may well be the ability to define social reality, to impose visions of the
world” (Gal 320). The true power lies in the ability to define the genders, and
how people believe most people should look and act. The only way to change
things like the masculization and sexualization of female athletes is to gain
the power to redefine gender norms.
I really liked how you applied the use of ritual in our gender norms to female athletes. I like to think that I am a pretty feminine girl in many ways, but as an athlete in high school I certainly encountered the ritualistic experiences that you discuss in your post. By keeping short hair, eating a lot, and exercising frequently I was engaging in what our society would consider masculine practices, but I did those almost subconsciously.
ReplyDeleteIn Leegans post above he raises an interesting critique to Slocum that I think is applicable to your post as well. He said that by juxtaposing these two notions of gender identity we have created what Levi-Strauss would readily describe as binary oppositions. The notion of gender has become so ground into our society and identity that we cannot conduct an action without considering it to be "male" or "female." This, in my opinion, has become particularly problematic for certain reasons.
I am in PREPARE at Wake and we have done several activities to try to unravel how our society has structured gender norms, and how those relate to societal problems such as rape and sexual assault.
I also particularly liked how you describe the "resistance," in relation to Gal's theory. I think many people would be hesitant to define exploring new gender roles as "resistant," but I totally think it is now that you have made this point! And I completely agree with you when you say that our best strength would be to figure out how to redefine gender norms. While we have done much to break down certain barriers, we still have a long way to go!
Nice exchange. As you get into practice theory, there will be some useful tools there as well.
ReplyDeletePractice theory lends itself to this discussion about female athletes. Though I myself have not been a female athlete since before puberty, Bourdieu's theory can be effectively applied by utilizing his triangle of ideology, structure, and practice. The base interpretation of practice theory says that, "[ideology] affects practice at the unconscious as well as at the conscious level, thus reproducing structure; i.e. underlying cultural presuppositions (structural) inform everyday behavior (practice). Specifically gender is constructed through practice in regular social interactions, behaviors that build and reinforce ideas of what is feminine and masculine.
DeleteFemale athletes were first allowed to compete in the Olympic Games in 1900. While many other points can be used to discuss changes in female athletics, this move towards attempted equality with men provides a decent starting point. This event in female athletics occurred during a period in time when women's roles were structured in particular ways. The underlying cultural assumptions about women being weak, physically and mentally, and dependent upon men were confronted with this image of the strong, independent female athlete that defied categorization within the gender binary that existed of male and female. Because these women could not be classified as female within the existing ideology, they were classified as masculine or male. These stereotypes still exist today perhaps because we have yet to change our ideology. Our everyday behavior is shaped by and also shapes ideology, so changing the ideology to more of a gender continuum rather than binary might then alter the structures that hinder female athletes.
More on specific habitual practices that (re) produce categories of gender?
Delete