When asking questions about gender and sex Anne Fausto-Sterling offers us a few reminders and calls. First, in her piece titled “The Bare Bones of Sex: Part 1- Sex and Gender” (2005)[i] she investigates the study of bones and tells us that “the sex-gender or nature nurture accounts of difference fail to appreciate the degree to which culture is a partner in producing body systems commonly referred to as biology- something apart from the social” (Fausto-Sterling, 2005, p. 1516). Second, that: “We need to ask old questions in new ways so that we can think systematically about the interweaving of bodies and culture” (Fausto-Sterling, 2005, p. 1517). These claims include culture(s) as something to consider in the study of bodies, as well as sex and gender, which is a development in her work and something to consider.
In an earlier work by Fausto-Sterling[ii] she also suggested that we study the body, and sex and gender, beyond just biology- however, in this piece she has yet to emphasize culture. Additionally, this piece was not focused on bones, but like the first it was also intensely focused on how we understand sex and gender, including their embodiment. She concluded from this piece that “successful investigations of the process of gender embodiment must use three basic principles. First, nature/nurture is indivisible. Second, organisms- human and otherwise- are active processes, moving targets, from fertilization until death. Third, no single academic or clinical discipline provides us with the true or best way to understand human sexuality” (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 235).
Ultimately, beyond the three above mentioned principles, she argued that “I want us never, in the process, to lose sight of the fact that our debates about the body’s biology are always simultaneously moral, ethical, and political debates about social and political equality and the possibilities for change. Nothing less is at stake” (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 255).
Overall, her works suggest a development systems approach to the study of, and those that include, sex and gender, which denies that there are two processes, ie: nature and nurture; and instead suggests that we can learn more about sex and gender by considering development (and dynamic) systems. For example, she suggests “development within a social system is the sine qua non of human sexual complexity. Form and behavior emerge only via a dynamic system of development. Our psyches connect the outside to the inside (and visa versa) because our multi-year development occurs integrated within a social system” (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 243).
Finally, these works by Fausto-Sterling (2000 & 2005) are important contributions to feminist inquiry, theory, and practice. Her works acknowledges biology, as well as social constructionism, but posit that we can’t isolate the study of gender and sex within just one of these areas and to do so would be problematic because (to simplify, at the risk of oversimplification) it would either be biologically deterministic or would ignore the role that biology plays in sex and gender. Additionally, both her works offer examples of development systems theory in practice as she applies it to the study of sex and gender (2000), and the study of bones (2005). I propose that these scholarly examples can offer future researchers ways to think about their own research.
No comments:
Post a Comment