Dissolving the Lines of Binary Opposition: An Alternative Construction

“There is a powerful argument to be made that a primary (or the primary) issue in gender differentiation and gender struggle is the question of who is to have control of women’s (biologically) distinctive reproductive capability.  Indeed, the intimacy of the association between several of the most signal forms of gender oppression and “the facts” of women’s bodies and women’s reproductive activity has led some radical feminist to question, more or less explicitly, the usefulness of insisting on a sex/ gender distinction. For these reasons, even usages involving the “sex/gender system” within feminist theory are able to use sex/gender only to delineate a problematical space rather than a crisp distinction.” (Sedgwick 2439-2440)

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick touches on a controversial issue.  While some feminists argue that the conflict comes from the dichotomy of men and woman placing men inherently as the dominant force (and in western patriarchal society this is the case), Sedgwick proposes that the placement of sex/gender (or male/female) as binary opposites is itself problematic. 

            The argument she presents about such binary oppositions is only foundational for a discussion of historical differences between feminist theory and anti-homophobic movements.  “Epistemology of the Closet” is aimed at a discussion of how homosexual authors are represented in literature.  While they recently have been more oppressed in society than women, historically speaking, homosexuals (specifically male) found no difficulty in being published, or considered good writers, while women are extremely underrepresented in literature (Watkins, lecture).  This topic is an interesting one to approach, but her most important point is not about the actual representation of these groups, but about the existence of group differentiation at all.

            The typical distinctions in western society are as such: sex/gender, male/female, heterosexual/homosexual, and nature/culture.  The nature of language as described by Saussure is that each signifier is bound (somewhat loosely) to a signified, but that terms are susceptible to slippage.  The easiest way to keep consistency of meaning and allow continuous, uninhibited communication is to assign terms definitions in a binary opposition setup.  Each term is defined not specifically by what it is, but more rigidly by what it is not.  An easier explanation involves a specific example: nature/culture.  Nature can be seen as that which is biological, natural, or untouched by man, but more easily it is defined as anything that is not culture.  The reverse is true as well; culture is simply everything that is not nature, or natural.   The binary explanation lends each a solid definition, less susceptible to slippage -- but Sedgwick points out that bias is inherent in such systems. 

            The bias Sedgwick is most concerned about is that associated with sex/gender.  Sex as Sedgwick describes it is “biological differentiations between members of the species Homo sapiens who have XX or those who have XY chromosomes” and all differences associated with said distinction (2439).  Simplistically, she is referring to the physical differences of males and females in the human species.  Gender refers to the more complicated social constructions assigned to each individual.  In the world of sexism, this simple definition scheme provides ample opportunity for prejudice.  The system places importance on the biological aspects of humans over the cultural ones.  In western society for example, nature/culture differentiations place preference on physical sciences versus the humanities.  Sex is by the same token, more important than gender.  This leads directly then to male/female distinctions, where again the term male takes precedence over the term female.  It is an inescapable path placing women below men at every step.

            The solution to this dilemma then, is to remove the constructions entirely; trying to reverse the constructions (by placing females above males etc.) will fail miserably, because every opposition is setup precisely to reinforce and maintain the hierarchy. While it is nice to think that the dissolution of such constructions will provide an answer to the feminists and any other group that finds themselves victim to binary oppositions, the necessity for definitions remains.  Communication is essential to human survival, and all concepts worth talking about need terms to define them.  However, the concepts need to be redefined by this new logic to help alleviate the strain of priority. I propose my own notion of how gender and sex may be defined in terms of nature and culture (biological and societal determinations) in the chart below:

            If this chart seems confusing, that’s because the entire system of terms is intricate and complicated.  The notions of sex and gender as well as those of nature and culture are not strictly dichotomous terms; they are flexible and vague descriptions at best.  The chart attempts to put some shape to this concept.  The outer circles are all encompassing terms.  While nature is listed on top, it takes no precedence over culture, as there is much overlap.  Nature may be referring to the biological, or physical sciences, but it also may refer to a deeply harmonious, transcendental nature like that which Emerson suggests.  Culture by the same reasoning could be the complex architecture and conquering of a great city, or the soothing tones of Celtic music.  In the overlap of nature and culture there lay behaviors of Bedouins in the Middle East, or farmers in colonial America, both behaviors stem from survival instincts, but also are bound tightly to ancestral tradition and culture imperatives.

            While sex and gender both logically must tie in to nature and culture, where do they sit?  In my theory, both overlap each other and reside inside and outside where nature and culture combine. Sex can be seen as physical traits and behaviors influenced by instinct and gender may be seen as behavior people associate with their sexes, but there are many items which to not fall in either category.  Homosexuality for instance, can be seen as both sex and gender.  Is a man gay because his genetics make him such, or because society has influenced him to be this way?  A boy who grows up in ancient Greece will tell you that homosexual behavior is natural, but anthropologists of course will argue it’s a part of culture.  In modern times, gay sex is taboo and while religious conservatives argue it is a personal choice (resulting in damnation or the like), biologists will tell you that is the way homosexual’s brains are wired.  The reality is that sexual constructions of all sorts fall into both gender and sex.  A transvestite may tell you that nature has made him want to be a woman, and at the same time, he may tell you that he simply likes the female gender.  The lines at this point become so fuzzy, that the distinction between gender and sex becomes unimportant.  Vicariously, the dissolution of bonds between sex and gender alleviates the male/female sex conflict.  If gender and sex are both flexible, then the male and female lines also are non-existent.

            Biologically speaking the male/female dichotomy has been proven false for many years.  There are individuals in our species that may have any of the following sex gene arrangements: X, XX, XXY, XY, or XYY.  With all these possibilities, there is proof that a rigid sex construction is impossible.  With doubt in biology, we turn to gender.  Gender behaviors such as women wearing dresses, or men being the breadwinners are not necessarily consistent as cultural norms:  at the beginning of the 20^th century it was considered perfectly normal for boys to wear dresses and at the end of the 20^th century, a large percentage of women had entered the workforce.  Gender assignments are as flexible as sexual ones. 

            With the sex and gender lines dissolved both in theory, the question becomes how do we dissolve the lines in practice?  The answer in truth is that the lines are constantly in process of dissolution.  It remains only for people to accept this fact and change their mindset. [1]

Works Cited: