A Good Cultural Artifact Analysis

Good cultural artifact topic because sunglasses are an example of an item from our past that once and still can be used to describe ones gender identity. However, this just doesn’t apply to Ray-Ban. Reflecting on past TV shows and movies such as CHiPs, Magnum P.I., Smokey and the Bandit, and Top Gun in which the male characters exerted a sense of machismo by hiding behind sunglasses. Even dictators like Muammar Gaddafi used sunglasses to build his identity. In both cases we can see how gender rigidity may originate from an item as common as sunglasses. For some males, sunglasses were symbolic; they represented masculinity, power, authority and social status. Kids on the other may use sunglasses to solidify their gender type. Under cognitive

development theory it was discovered that children go through several gender socialization stages starting at age of two (Ryle, 2015, p.120-122). I think until a child reaches adulthood his or her identity is deeply rooted in those sunglasses because of socialization. For instance in my family, my wife and I both have several pairs of sunglasses, which consist mostly of unisex Ray-Bans and Oakley. My 8-year-old stepson will not wear his mother sunglasses even though they are unisex. In a study by Halim et al (2014, p.1100) it was supported that young children active self-socializing agents who pickup clues about their sex-type and stubbornly follow their reasoning. Therefore, according to cognitive development he has achieved gender constancy. By the process of socialization he associates the glasses his mother wears with girls. As you mentioned in your presentation he has swayed in his decision to wear unisex sunglasses based on his perception that they are women and by doing so would violate some type of gender norm set by society. Even though he thinks his mom’s sport Ray-Ban are cool.