Downloads/Gbagendabooklet.Pdf 93-103
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
58 The Open Psychology Journal, 2009, 2, 58-70 Open Access Androgyny in the Mirror of Self-Actualisation and Spiritual Health Itai Ivtzan* and Rita Conneely Department of Psychology, UCL (University College London), 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, Office 413 Abstract: This study evaluates issues concerning the potential relationship between androgyny (incorporating both male and female features) and Self-Actualisation (fulfilment of one’s fullest potential) while evaluating their role in feminine and non-feminine occupations. 119 participants (half employed in Traditionally-Feminine occupations and the other half in Non-Feminine jobs) answered the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI). Those deemed to possess an Androgynous Gender Role, by the BSRI, were found to be significantly more Self-Actualised across almost the entire range (ten out of twelve) of the POI scales, than those of Non-Androgynous Gender Identities. Thus, the long argued and conflicting assertion for the Self-Actualising benefits of an Androgynous Gender Identity are supported by the current study. No differences were found between the prevalence of Androgyny or achievement of Self- Actualisation between the Experimental (those employed in typically-female fields) and Control (those engaged in traditional-gender or gender-non-specific work) occupation groups; although significant lower numbers of Masculine Men in the Experimental group do verify that Gender Roles continue to be an influential occupational factor. INTRODUCTION A New Gender Role: The Theory of Androgyny Gender is so imperative to our self-image it is allowed to Gender has always been known as a bi-polar construct; as determine everything from behaviours, appearances and early as 1387-8, Thomas Usk stated ‘No [more] genders even occupational choices [1]. Maslow (1968) [2] argued been there but masculine, and feminine’ [6]. However, that we are motivated by a wide variety of factors, depending despite Freud’s assertion that ‘Anatomy is Destiny’ [7], the on our current mind-set, the demands placed upon us and the factors which actually contribute to an individual’s Gender goals we wish to achieve. Within this framework, people can Identity encapsulate all aspects of humanity; from perspec- move ‘beyond’ restrictive identities (for example, from an tives and behaviours in the home, workplace and throughout exclusive gender to a more integrated sense of Androgyny) society [8, 9]. Thus, while the term ‘Sex’ has been com- to make decisions based on self-determined values and monly used, Gender Role is now generally deemed more characteristics; thereby progressing towards the pinnacle of appropriate, reflecting the variety of features, beyond mere Maslow’s (1943) [3] ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ - Self-Actuali- biology, which are perceived to be gender-specific. Histori- sation. Consequently, our behaviours would reflect this cally though, there is no doubt that the gender stereotyping internalised fundamental attitude, demonstrating to others of characteristics arose from physically salient differences; our greater social competence. men being the stronger and therefore the ‘conqueror’ in Occupational choice is just one example of how our primitive hunter-gather societies, while women, as the child actions are often assumed to be somehow indicative of our bearers, developed skills focused on nurturance and respon- personalities (for example, an artist is considered to be sibility [10, 11]. This basic distinction remains common creative, a lawyer is considered shrewd), despite historically throughout all trait theories; whether Parson and Bales’ being more often determined by socio-economic requisites (1955) [12] Instrumental and Expressive dimensions influenced by norms [4]. This remains the case for female- Guttmann’s (1965) [13] Impersonal and Personal orienta- gender occupations in particular - the care of children and tions or Bakan’s (1966) [14] modalities of Agency and the household being perceived as the domain of women Communion. A meta-analysis conducted by Feingold (1994) alone [5]. Perhaps then it is amongst those who pursue [15] supported the gender differences shown by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) [16] in adult personality traits, illustrating careers which still possess such highly gendered connota- that women score lower than men on assertiveness tions (for example, men in feminine-type jobs) that the and higher on extroversion, anxiety, trust and nurturance. acceptance of a non-stereotyped Gender Concept (Andro- Similarly, in Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001) [17] gyny) and an appreciation for a wider scope of personal higher rates of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and motivational issues, aside from mere societal conventions Openness to Feelings were found for women, while men (as found in the Self-Actualised), will most frequently arise. were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas. Accordingly, typically masculine characteristics include achievement, assertiveness and independence, whereas *Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Psychology, femininity is ideally manifested through conscientiousness, UCL (University College London), 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, Office 413; E-mail: [email protected] docility and co-operation [10]. These highly sex-typed 1874-3501/09 2009 Bentham Open Androgyny in the Mirror of Self-Actualisation and Spiritual Health The Open Psychology Journal, 2009, Volume 2 59 Gender Ideals are reinforced through socialisation, with and social pressure experiments, and more effeminate success and psychological well-being ensured by emulating playfulness under different circumstances. Similarly, Bem, the appropriate Gender Role; that is, performing the behav- Martyna and Watson (1976) [28] found Feminine individuals iours attributed to one’s own anatomical gender and reject- to be the most nurturing in response to lonely fellow ing those credited to the opposite sex [18, 19]. students, babies and kittens, but in the Androgynous this nurturing tendency was matched by their strong sense of However, in 1973, Block suggested that successful moral independence, when under pressure to conform. Research is advancement, and therefore psychological maturity, was best also associating androgyny with more satisfaction with life enabled not by a strict adherence to traditional Gender Roles, [29], subjective feelings of wellbeing [30], higher levels of but in the recognition of a Gender Identity secure enough to creativity [31], more adaptive or flexible behaviour [32] and express both Agency (primarily an ego-centric, assertive, and so, more masculine personality) and Communion (a higher levels of optimal mental health [9]. more feminine perspective which understands and appreci- Despite the advantages, the incidence of Androgyny is ates the individual as part of a larger system). Block identi- relatively low; accounting for only 21% of males and 29% of fied this behavioural pattern as an androgynous sex role, females in Bem’s [23] sample. However, this is unsurprising emphasising its non-partisan nature, as it incorporated both when one considers the strength of the Gender Roles usually male and female features. Psychological Androgyny there- propagated by society; namely, the Masculine male and fore can be applied to describe individuals with both stereo- Feminine female. Bem and Lenney (1976) [33] clearly typic masculine and feminine behavioural traits [8, 20]. demonstrated this; when highly sex-typed individuals were presented with an array of supposedly gender-specific activ- Subsequently, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, ities to be photographed performing, women preferred to 1974) [21] was developed to specifically identify Androgy- ‘prepare a baby bottle…’ while men chose to ‘… oil squeaky nous individuals; a characteristic overlooked by all Gender Role measures at the time. Bem argued that established hinges…’ (pp. 50). This persisted even when they were offered significantly higher payments for the gender ‘inap- Gender Role measures treated ‘paired’ traits, for example, propriate’ option. Furthermore, they reported feeling greater Forceful and Soft-Spoken, as mutually exclusive, thereby ‘psychological discomfort’ (pp. 53) and negative self- inherently propagating a divisive view of gender. Bem’s appraisal when non-typical activities were insisted upon. inventory was swiftly followed by Spence, Helmreich and This also validates the BSRI as a true reflection of actual Stapp’s (1974) [22] Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ); illustrating that the existence of an alternative more behaviours, confirming that there is consistency between the gender characteristics people attribute to themselves and the integrated Gender Identity was becoming accepted. It is likelihood of them being displayed. Supporting the same therefore the manifestation of a high number of masculine idea, Vogel, Wester, Heesacker, and Madon (2003) [34] alongside a high number of feminine traits that these scales have since shown that when discussing an emotionally classify as Androgyny. According to Bem [1, 8, 21, 23], this difficult topic, even those in a very close romantic rela- integration and active expression of both gender’s character- istics equips the individual with a greater repertoire of skills tionship revert to traditional behaviour styles (confirming gender stereotypes) to ease their sense of vulnerability. and enhanced behavioural flexibility with which to respond Therefore, it appears that stereotypical