Social Construction Theory Analysis

Almost all of us live daily with the effects of social construction, whereby one is observed through their cultural or social practices. Society discriminates against us depending on skin colour and social class. Carole Vance in her article “Social Construction Theory”, has a unique approach to social construction of gender. She painstakingly points out that these cultural influences affect individuals on a personal basis, but society as a whole.

Carol Vance suggests that social construction theory shapes who we are as a society. However, it is not an evil plot by those in power. It just means that in order to understand why women have less power in society than men but more responsibility for childcare and domestic work like cleaning

and cooking. As well, women are automatically assumed to be emotional and caring, wanting to be mothers looking after children and the elderly. To comprehend these facets of feminism, o ne needs to look at the historical development of these roles, and we have to look critically at the dominant stories that we tell about women and men. Social construction theory opposes biological explanations for women's inequality. Biological arguments about sex and gender sometimes suggest, for example, that women earn less money than men because women are naturally emotional, irrational, and prefer to look after the home and family rather than work. Social construction arguments say women earn less money than men because historically during the industrial revolution women's role became exclusively domestic work and was at the same time devalued because it was unpaid. Social construction arguments say that women do domestic work, not so much because it is in their DNA, but because that is the social role assigned to women and we learn it from when we are children playing with dolls. Biological arguments say that gender roles are predetermined by our biology, social construction arguments say that gender roles are a product of history, culture and social arrangements perpetuated by institutions.

Anna Davin asserted in her work Imperialism and Motherhood that in early 20th Century; the British sought to increase the population by focusing on teaching women. This was done with a view to increasing the whites as the race to colonize the world. With this in mind, the lives and well being of infants took on new importance. A social constructionist feminist approach begins with the assertion that gender inequality is a result of social forces and not a consequence of universal, unchangeable natural or biological factors. So one important assertion of the feminist perspective is that there is no biological justification for men’s dominance. Instead, we assert that difference and inequality are socially constructed. This theory in Davin’s explanation of a change in women’s role, is still around. She cites that middle class convention in the early 20th century was that survival of infants and health of children was assumed to be the fault of mothers. Biological arguments about sex and gender sometimes suggest, for example, that women earn less money than men because women are naturally emotional, irrational, and prefer to look after the home

and family rather than work. Social construction arguments say women earn less money than men because historically during the industrial revolution women's role became exclusively domestic work and was at the same time devalued because it was unpaid. Social construction arguments say that women do domestic work, not so much because it is in their DNA, but because that is the social role assigned to women and we learn it from when we are children playing with dolls. Biological arguments say that gender roles are predetermined by our biology, social construction arguments say that gender roles are a product of history, culture, and social arrangements perpetuated by institutions and the state.
I do not necessarily believe that social construction theory is useful; in some cases it does not hold up because it is based off conformist hierarchical views.

I was confronted with an example recently when I was required to complete a form for a job application. The forms offered only two options for gender, but several choices for ethnicity. Clearly these forms are generic, although it caused to consider how distressing this could be for some people who do not fit the ‘normal’ gender roles. Another example of social construction theory can be found on pages 52 to 57. In the article by Ian F. Haney Lopez, “The Social Construction Theory of Race”, the writer cites that race is based socially and not scientifically. Social construction theory challenges a lot of notions especially about gender. It does not work in favor of the masses, because it is not an open theory. We have the ability to change it, but the negative images in social constructs are so ingrained in people’s mentalities that it would take years of re-education to transform. One glaring example of the negative effects of social construct is the horrific race wars in USA.

A powerful story that I grew up with was that men should be better compensated monetarily then women, because they are they are the breadwinners in the family unit. I know now that this is socially constructed, and the story has been disapproved and challenged many times over, with more women in the workplace earning more than males. Some women

achieve the role of main breadwinner while maintaining the role of caregiver and homemaker.
Stereotypical behavior is one product of social constructions of gender and all too often exists in the workplace and the home. This negative attitude creates partiality and does not work in favor of women, who are stuck in the multiple roles they must do well at in order to be considered “successful”. Commonly, women are expected to be a perfect caregiver for children and parents, a maid and cook for the home and sometime for the office. In addition, society expects them to be model partners and workers. Men on the other hand, are expected to be great at their jobs. It is still believed that men are more efficient and powerful in the workplace. In fact a woman who illustrates powerful managerial skills at work is less respected than a man illustrating the same work. Therefore, gender is a construct. On the other hand, with regard the effects of social construction theory, this is entirely contingent on culture and society. As our culture changes so should our values, but this is not always the case.