Towards a Sociology of Gender Diversity: the Indian and UK Cases
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
12 Towards a Sociology of Gender Diversity The Indian and UK Cases Surya Monro Western transgender (trans) and intersex scholarly engagement with post- structuralism has mushroomed in recent years, including accounts by Fein- berg (1996, 1998), Bornstein (1994, 1998), Whittle (2002) and Stryker and Whittle (2006). More recently, Western feminists and sociologists who draw on poststructuralism, such as Monro (2000, 2005, 2007a, 2007b), Hird (2000, 2002, 2006), Hines (2006, 2007), and Sanger (2008) have begun to explore the implications of affi rmative trans and intersex identities for gen- der theory. There is recognition amongst these authors that poststructural- ist accounts, whilst crucial to theorising gender diversity, require framing in such a way as to be mindful of the social, material, and corporeal formation of gendered experiences. These approaches are arguably sociological in that they address the structuring of human experience within both public and private realms, as opposed to, for instance, the focus on the discursive con- struction of social life favoured by cultural studies. Structural approaches fi t well with broader developments within the fi eld of gender and women’s stud- ies, in particular those associated with intersectionality, in which the mutu- ally constitutive nature of social characteristics is interrogated. Recent trends within the fi eld of intersectionality point to a need for attention to structural inequalities and power relations (Grabham et al. 2009). This chapter aims to provide a snapshot of developments leading up to the formation of a sociology of trans and intersex, to provide an empirical- ly-driven overview of one approach to the sociological theorisation of gen- der diversity, and to indicate future directions for the development of the fi eld. The chapter draws on intersectionality theory to a degree, but space precludes a full exploration. To some extent it also speaks to Roen’s (2001) important critique of the ethnocentrism of much trans theorising. The chap- ter is set within the context of the considerable body of cross-cultural work concerning gender diversity, including that of Herdt (1994), Masequesmay (2003), Boellstorff (2004), Blackburn (2005), and Peletz, (2006). By taking two localities as comparative sites, and ensuring that complexity in both sites is made evident, the author hopes to avoid ‘idealising’ a non-Western ‘primordial location’ where gender diversity fl ourished before the ‘Fall into Western Modernity’ (Towle and Morgan 2006: 666). Towards a Sociology of Gender Diversity 243 The chapter begins by providing an outline of developments of rel- evance to the sociology of transgender, in rough chronological order, and the three ways of conceptualising gender diversity that emerged from my empirical work. I conclude with a discussion of possible future directions for the sociology of gender diversity. Whilst I focus on trans and inter- sex subjects, following McCall’s (2005) intracategorical intersectional- ity approach (in which a marginalised social group is taken as a point of departure for the development of analysis) I recognise that a fuller sociological account would require a broader problematisation of the gender binary system and related homosexual/heterosexual divide and interrogation of the raced, classed, aged, and able-bodied nature of this. Defi nitions and a description of the methodology are described elsewhere (Monro 2007a); space limitations prevent inclusion.1 However, diversity is of importance across the trans and intersex communities, and it is impor- tant to point out that many trans and intersex people identify as male or female and would not necessarily relate to the theories of gender diversity that I outline in the following section. THE SOCIOLOGY OF TRANSGENDER: SETTING THE SCENE Western sociological and poststructuralist thought regarding gender vari- ance has been preceded by developments in Indian scholarship, which I shall outline briefl y before discussing Western approaches. Vanita and Kid- wai (2000) describe the long tradition of Indian philosophical enquiry into gender diversity. Sex and gender are questioned in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain traditions, and: The philosophical basis of this questioning closely resembles the deconstruction of gender in our own times by such thinkers as Mo- nique Wittig and Judith Butler. What these thinkers would call the social construction of gender that only appears to be ‘natural’, an- cient Indian philosophers would call ‘illusion’ that only appears to be ‘real’. (Vanita and Kidwai 2000: 23) Vanita and Kidwai also argue that There is a direct connection between the nonreality of gender and the nonabsoluteness of heterosexuality. If the two categories, “man” and “woman” are not ultimate categories but are merely created by society to foster certain social roles and uphold institutions such as marriage, parenthood and patrilineal inheritance, then the heterosexual relation ceases to be the most important one. (2000: 23) 244 Surya Monro Importantly, they note that the notion of reincarnation renders categorisa- tion, including sex/gender2 and species categorisation, fl uid and mutable. For Vanita and Kidwai, then, sex, gender, and sexual orientation categories are constructed; as with Western social constructionist approaches, this does not necessarily mean that sex/gender and sexuality categories are easily mallea- ble, or that corporeality and social structuring factors are unimportant. Western sociological theories of gender diversity draw on the interaction- ist accounts of early sociologists such as Garfi nkel (1967) and Kessler and McKenna (1978), the scholarship of trans and intersex theorists, and the new wave of feminist sociologists engaging with the fi eld. Ekins and King (2006) discuss the way in which pioneering books by transgender theorists such as Feinberg (1996, 1998), Bornstein (1994, 1998) and Wilchins (1997) ‘established what was effectively a new paradigm for the conceptualisa- tion and study of transgender phenomenon’ (2006: 21). These books, and the work of other transgender and intersex authors such as Stone (1991), Prosser (1998), Chase (1998) and Halberstam (2002), engaged with, and informed, poststructuralist theory. Poststructuralist and interactionist accounts of trans and intersex share an ontological foundation in which both sex and gender have socially constructed components. Another development in the fi eld of trans studies has been the recent emergence of UK feminist and sociological accounts of trans and intersex that are grounded in research with trans and intersex people. These authors include Hird (2000, 2002, 2006), Monro (2000, 2005, 2007a, 2007b), Roen (2001, 2002), Tauchert (2002), Hines (2005, 2006, 2007) and Sanger (2008). The work of these authors stands in contrast to that of most of the earlier feminist work on trans, which stigmatises trans people and demon- strates an inability to deal with people who move beyond or between sex/ gender and sexual orientation binaries (see for instance Raymond 1994). This new wave of writing shows greater acknowledgement of the differ- ences within the trans and intersex populations. It complements other lit- erature on trans, including the work of Namaste (2000), Dreger (2000) and Ekins and King (2006). Overall, it can be argued that poststructuralism, and Indian philoso- phies that share common ground with poststructuralist thinking, provide important tools for understanding sex/gender diversity (Monro 2001, 2005). Notions such as sex/gender as being illusory, and understandings of the discursive construction of sexed/gendered subjectivity, are impor- tant for unpicking how people are normatively conditioned into binaried sexual and gender identities. The conceptual disassociation of sex/gender identities (and for some Indian theorists, core identities) and bodies also allows theorisation of more complex forms of gender. However, a num- ber of problems with poststructuralist approaches have also been raised, pointing to the need for a more sociological position, which accounts for corporeal, material, and social structures. Diffi culties with poststructural- ism have included a tendency to overlook the importance of the body (Hird Towards a Sociology of Gender Diversity 245 2000; Monro 2000, 2005), a focus on performativity and transgression as opposed to the lived experiences of many trans people (Hines 2006), and the deconstruction of sex/gender categories as a basis of political organi- sation (Wilchins 1997). Another issue is that some transgender and other people experience themselves as having an essential self, or gender iden- tity, that is ‘other’ than their body or social conditioning (Monro 2007b), although this issue could be dealt with using Vanita and Kidwai’s (2000) approach, which models subjects as having a core self or ‘soul’ that does not have to be embodied to exist. It is important to point out that notions of the body and social structures as illusionary can be interpreted in differ- ent ways; Govender (2007) describes the way in which some Hindus see the doctrine of reincarnation as legitimising complacency or fatalistic attitudes towards social structures, whereas others actively work to address social and material inequalities. It is therefore possible to argue that understand- ings of sex/gender as illusory need to be informed by attention to the struc- turing of embodied experience. To summarise, a sociological approach to sex/gender diversity acknowl- edges corporeality, and material and social