The Androgyny Debate

Atlantis Vol. 9 No. 1 Fall/Automne 1983 118-126 The Androgyny Debate Thelma McCormack York University In The Left Hand of Darkness Ursula K. Psychological androgyny is another matter, LeGuin described a species in which the same an idea that is at once more intuitively credible. persons functioned as both male and female.1 Many persons who are uncomfortable with con• Most of the time they were neither, but for a brief ventional definitions of masculinity and femi• period in a regular twenty-eight day cycle, ninity feel that a description of themselves which LeGuin's "sci-fi" Gethenians became, through incorporates both is closer to the emotional pat• casual sexual foreplay and chance, one sex or the terns and cognitive styles of both sexes. The term other, carrying out their love-making in hetero• "androgyny" is anything but clear. It can mean sexual pairs or groups. After two or three days of that masculine and feminine characteristics serve intense concentrated erotic activity, they returned as a dual resource to be drawn on according to to an asexual state—inactive, unconcerned and whichever one is appropriate to a particular undifferentiated. No one was pre-programmed, situation, or, it can mean that the two sets of destined by nature to become male or female in characteristics modify each other in all situa• that all adult Gethenians had been both. The tions. Sandra L. Bern who has done pioneering children produced by their unions reckoned des• work in the field uses it both ways: cent through mothers who had been, and would be, fathers of other children. [It] is possible, in principle, for an individ• ual to be both masculine and feminine, This ambisexuality, LeGuin says, "has little both instrumental and expressive, both or no adaptive value," but, it has important agentic and communal, depending upon social implications: no restrictions on the type of the situational appropriateness of these work people do, no rape, no sexual hierarchy, no various modalities; and even for an indi• sex-role stereotypes. Indirectly, LeGuin specu• vidual to blend these complementary modal• lates, it could be related in I he absence of wars, ities in a single act....2 and, more generally, of all forms of aggression. Androgyny can also mean that the duality is LeGuin's vision of sexual equality and its integrated and synthesized to form a new and consequences for a peaceful world and harmon• different repertoire of behavioral predispositions. ious social organization have given the book a Most people who write about androgyny assume cherished place in feminist literature. But since it is a single type with variations branching out. genital endowment is normally fixed for life and However, in practice and in various studies, we sexual activity is non-cyclical, and since we can• often find two types: androgynous men and not provide both sperm and ova, the concept of androgynous women for whom the mix is not biological androgyny belongs to the domain of the same. ancient myth and contemporary science fiction. Despite the differences and inconsistencies of Does equality require or presuppose a certain use, all scholars agree that androgyny does not type (or range) of personality? alter in any fundamental sense established socie• tal norms. It is, as we shall see later, a fairly What is interesting about the debate is that it is conservative goal. Heterosexual coupling re• not between feminists and anti-feminists, but mains the dominant form of marriage. No among feminists, an in-house controversy car• woman is called upon to repudiate child-bearing ried on within a common ideological frame• functions; socialization veers only marginally work. Yet, the issues are divisive and capable of from the familiar and familial paths. Androgyny generating both heat and light. Some criticize challenges the more traditional models of social the concept of androgyny because it does not go life in both private and public places. Yet, it does far enough; others think it goes too far. Some not redraw or change the private/public bound• regard it as a long overdue adaptation to modern aries, nor does it communalize or expropriate the social organization, but still within a patriarchal private household. Other ideas have been more social order flexible enough to accommodate the threatening to our institutions, and more cap• new psychological pattern; others regard it as a able of evoking primal fears. Why, then, should radical salvation tranforming patriarchal insti• this compromise, this modest idea be a matter of tutions and humanizing the impersonal forms such contention? of bureaucratic organization. To some feminists, it is a step forward in the development of non- Is it, as one psychiatrist suggests, a deep sexist thought; others, a step backward, and still unconscious envy of the "Other," a universal others see it as neither, a lateral move. To some, and, incidentally, infantile wish to deny our real it is a short transitional stage, limited in dura• differences and to avoid the pain of a more tion, while for others, it is the final stage in the mature recognition of the ineluctable biological long social evolution of male-female conscious• fact?3 Or, is it nothing more momentous than an ness. honest difference among scholars about the heur• istic advantages of a concept? Between these The clarification and resolution of these and extremes of subjectivity and objectivity is a polit• related issues is made more interesting but more ical scenario which holds that the oppression of difficult to disentangle by the fact that the women is, in part, sustained by an ideal of androgyny debate cuts across both the humani• feminity which disadvantages women for almost ties and the social sciences, each with their dif• all positions in public life. At the same time, the ferent sensibilities, vocabularies and measures of ideal legitimizes male dominance in the most validity. The tensions between positivist science important areas of decision-making. Thus, the and the normative disciplines, between quantit• subordinate status of women is a combination of ative measurement and qualitative insight, be• role content and "learned helplessness"—in tween an immediate and an historical orienta• short, dependency. Liberation, then, demands as tion are enacted in the debate. As usual in such a minimum a broader definition of what is situations, the ecumenical spirit survives after appropriate behaviour for women, with the the faithful have returned to their parochial burden of proof being placed on those who hold exclusivity. Psychologists tend to know only that biological differences, not social discrimi• what their colleagues write. Within that forum nation, account for the non-random character of they generate more refined aspects of the original participation in all areas of social life. Finally, problem, while philosophers and literary critics there is a question feminists raise but which is, as withdraw to follow their own discourses based we shall see, not often dealt with in the literature: on their own agendas. Our purpose here, then, is not to review the capitalism. But that era has passed. Despite its literature in each of these intellectual disciplines lingering traces, there is relatively little stigma nor to assess the state of the art, but rather to attached to behaviour that merely mimics tradi• provide a more comprehensive view of the range tional masculinity and femininity or, goes fur• of issues and the shape of the argument. For that ther, and departs from it significantly. Modern reason, the material has been arranged themati- capitalism, based on monopolistic markets, bur• cally rather than by special disciplines. First, we eaucratic organization, and the production of will consider the concept itself and its place in services, has led to family constellations as well our knowledge. Then, we will examine the con• as to new patterns of child-rearing and educa• troversy about personality or social roles, which tion. All of these together and in combination is followed by discussions of androgyny and with other factors have made the older constructs mental health, androgynous persons or androgy• of masculine and feminine obsolete, and, with nous relationships, androgyny and feminist few exceptions, dysfunctional for institutional ideology, moral and historical issues. In the con• participation beyond ritualistic conformity. cluding section, we will discuss the larger issue of androgyny and/or equality. There does appear to be some evidence that a change has taken place within the past two 1. How useful is the concept of androgyny in decades, with the rate of change being greater for advancing knowledge? Eichler is not a strong men than women.6 Caution should be exercised advocate of androgyny, but does acknowledge in interpreting these results since we still do not that it is a "necessary step in the evolution of have long-term studies nor large sample popula• non-sexist thought."4 Others who are more sup• tion surveys. If it is true that a change has been portive hold that androgyny is simply a better occuring, and that it has been occurring at a way of describing a reality which presently differential rate favouring men, it confirms indir• exists, that the evolution in behavior has already ectly that persons located in roles where the taken place, and that it remains only for our organizational changes are most rapid—indus• ideas to catch up.5 This reasoning is sufficient trial structures—are adapting to a social reality. justification to incorporate androgyny into our However, what is more significant is that these paradigms of psychology and sociology. differential rates suggest that a new form of inequality may be emerging, inequality between The assumption here is that there is an ideal the more and the less androgynous, between the personality type (or a limited number of person• fast-track leaders and the slow-track followers.

Load more