Gender and family identity: to construction of a theoretical scheme of typological correspondence

Размещено на http://allbest.ru

GENDER AND FAMILY IDENTITY: TO CONSTRUCTION OF A THEORETICAL SCHEME OF TYPOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE

I.A. Svyatnenko,

In the article build a descriptive theoretical scheme of the directions of mutual influence of family and gender identities.

It's stated that family identity associated with a certain type of family with the socio-cultural, psycho-social and socio-economic characteristics accompanying the latter creates micro-group prerequisites for the formation of a gender identity of one type or another. In general, in the interaction of family and gender identity, the constitution of the latter may depend on a number offactors, in particular, the quantitative components of the family, gender roles inherent in a particular type of family, the distribution of narcissistic resources, social capital, property and power. It's noted that gender roles are manifested in “binding” to the distribution of the basic narcissistic resource, on which the self-reference or external reference of certain subjects depends. Narcissistic investments (positive and negative) depend, in turn, on the institutional practices in which the subjects of gender inculturation and socialization are immersed.

It's specified that ultimately, gender identity determines the basic trust or distrust of an already formed mental system, causing a predisposition to one or another type of microcommunications, and hence social networks and mechanisms for the production and redistribution of social capital. Types of gender identities describe configurations of selective trust/distrust relationships that can affect both the sexual sphere and social relations isomorphic to sexual relations, which correspond to selectively authentic communication based on trust.

Key words: identity, gender identity, family identity, masculinity, feminity, monogamous family, polygamous family, androgyny.

Formulation of the problem. Each person has, in accordance with the experience of inculturation and socialization, an internalized set of identities that describe configurations of selectively acquired meanings and representations of groups that reproduce and maintain these meanings. At the same time, both the meanings and the groups associated with them reflect the personality's character, social scripts and norms that are being formed. The predisposition of a person to microcommunications of a certain content depends on two basic groups: family and gender. Family groups

as micro-group environments determine the development of gender culture and gender roles, which, in turn, have an inverse effect on the conscious and unconscious choice of belonging to small and large social groups.

Monogamy/polygamy, clustering/nuclearity, matriarchy/patriarchy and other attributes of the family can configure the features of narcissistic investment in oneself and a partner, affect sexual interactions, the accumulation of property and power/equality relationships that a person enters into as with other personalities, as well as social groups. Such configuration may in turn define masculinity/femininity, asexuality/androgyny, static/fluidity, and other characteristics of gender.

The construction of a theoretical model of the relationship between family and gender identity is actualized both in theoretical sociology and in a number of sectoral sociologies: sociology of culture, sociology of sexuality, sociology of gender, studies of social structure and stratification.

The subject of the research of the article is presented in a wide range of sources focused on the analysis of identity, gender and family as socio-cultural constructs and communities.

Analysis of recent research and publications. The emphasis of these studies relate to different aspects of understanding gender and family identities as a sphere of subjective and space of unique meanings (A. Maslow, K. Rogers, V. Frankl); a product of intergroup interaction, social categorization and stereotyping (G. Tejfel, J. Turner); features of social mirroring and the formation of a mirror image of the “I” (J.-G. Mead); gender and family identity as a cognitive scheme that sets the space for socio-cultural and mental stability/constancy (M. Berzonsky, G. Brickwell); gender and family identities as a complex construct represented in culture, society, psyche and body (Yu. Romanenko); gender and family identities as a tool for constructing gender and a construct of the media space (Yu. Soroka, S. Crowley, L. Nagornaya); gender and family identities as subject carriers of activities and practices (N. Lukashevich, N. Babenko, O. Goretskaya) [1-18].

Purpose of the article. The purpose of the article is to build a descriptive theoretical scheme of the directions of mutual influence of family and gender identities.

Statement of the main provisions. Family and gender identities are meso-level and micro-level identities. A society with one or another type of social structure corresponds to various forms of the family, which act as mesogroups that allow maintaining the conditions for the demographic reproduction of the population and intergenerational continuity or atomization, providing mutual economic and psychological support, socialization and social integration.

In the modern world, various types, types and forms of family organization are presented, which makes it possible to build a classification of various families and family identities.

Family identity allows you to determine what type of micro-level relationships a person identifies with, what scenarios of family life are internalized by the psychic system in terms of the transfer of social capital from one generation to another, what cultural values are subject to or not subject to selective reception, how it turns out or does not turn out to be psychological and economic support, what mechanisms of integration and socialization of the individual in society are institutionalized through the family.

According to the criterion of the form of marriage, family identities suggest a division into the identities of a single-partner marriage, or monogamous, and the identities of a multi-partner marriage, or polygamous. Monogamous family identities imply moral and/or legal restrictions on the number of marriage partners (their number is limited, most often, to one partner). Polygamous family identities suggest that there are no such restrictions on the number of partners.

Monogamous family identities theoretically correspond to the so-called pure gender identities, i.e. those that must match the biological sex of the individual. At the same time, in a monogamous family there is a certain “presumption of identity” of biological sex and gender. This suggests the habitual identification of the male biological sex with a masculine gender identity, and the female with a feminine one. Such a “primordialist” identification, on the one hand, exacerbates the moral and ethical pressure on the sexual sphere, on the other hand, it stimulates numerous forms of hiding real gender identity and avoiding coming-out.

Clearly polarized gender positioning associated with biological sex suggests a normative-stereotypical structure of gender consciousness with “male/female” (“masculine/feminine”) dichotomies. Such a gender polarity contributes to the formation of gender ideals and anti-ideals, which only reinforces the gender-sexual discrepancy observed in reality, and therefore creates the prerequisites for a wide range of gender deviations.

The established structure of the Oedipus Triangle implies inequality in both psychological and economic support for carriers of different sexes. Gender dependent scenarios of narcissistic investment affect the formation of social capital, which becomes more extensive and self-increasing in the case of a narcissistic-excessive gender identity. For the narcissistic-deficient gender pole, the poverty of social ties and relationships, the low level of their differentiation, becomes a typical possibility.

Monogamy corresponds to institutional family practices, which means institutional requirements for carriers of the biological sex that coincides with gender identity. The bearer of the biological sex has little freedom to choose gender identity, and his gender behavior deviating from the gender norm (stereotype-ideal) becomes the object of gender-social control and open or latent normalization.

Polygamous family identities theoretically correspond to multisexual (promiscuitary-polyandric or promiscuitar-polygynical) gender identities. Due to the plasticization of gender morality in the polygamous type of gender identity, an image of a partner-function is formed, which theoretically can correspond to androgyny.

Sexlessness/middle-genderness corresponding to androgyny best contributes to depersonalization/averagement, and hence, the transformation of the family into one or another type of institutional structure (economic or bureaucratic). Androgyny involves the transformation of the personality not so much into a non-plastic individuality, but into a highly adaptive multiple structure. In other conditions, gender identity can be formed as agender- ness (denial of gender), which is manifested in the denial of the connection between gender and cultural, social and mental components.

Gender inequality corresponding to such family identities is most often non-criteria or potestary (despotic).

Gender identities corresponding to this type of family can be characterized as genid (unexpressed), which means that they correspond not so much to families as to transitory microgroups with unstable mental ties. At the same time, the other pole of polygamy can be primitive and syncretic gender identities, which are the basis for families of the harem-societal (harem-promiscuitary) type.

According to the criterion of the type of social ties in the family, family identities can be classified into: a) the identities of a simple or nuclear family, consisting of one generation, represented by parents (father) with or without children. The nuclear family in modern society has become the most widespread. It, in turn, can be: a) complete (it includes both parents and at least one child); b) incomplete (a family consists of only one parent with children or only parents without children).

The nuclear family corresponds to the dyadic or triad scheme for the formation of gender identity as masculine, feminine, quasi-masculine, quasi-feminine.

Masculine gender identities form a group of rational, intentional, voluntarily, prone to activity rather than passivity, pragmatism than emotionality, impersonality rather than personality subjects. At the same time, the qualities transmitted in gender socialization correspond to the psyche of small groups with a pronounced corporate beginning.

The pole of masculinity corresponds to self-referentiality, a tendency to self-mirroring and self-evaluation. All of the above corresponds to authenticity and the desire for active construction of the social environment, alloplastic adaptations.

The masculine gender identity of the microgroup contains a moral, value and ideological component, which can correspond to microcommunitarianism and microfamilliarism. The propensity of a carrier of a nuclear family identity to various achievements in gender identity can be refracted in phallic narcissism or hyposocial psychopathism, which is expressed in moral limitations, manifestations of microgroup egoism.

In the sexual aspect, masculinity can be behaviorally correlated both with the poles of homophobia and morally legitimized homoeroticity/homo- sexuality. Markers of homophobia can be the toxic behavior of men towards each other, the use of various forms of verbal and non-verbal aggression, diving reactions in communication, unproductive competition and destructive competitiveness.

On the other hand, masculinity due to its corresponding rationality, instinctiveness, authenticity can be transformed into sublimated homoeroticism or homosexuality. In this case, carriers of a homosexual male identity can realize themselves in the space of both a nuclear and a promiscuous-homosexual family with changing or permanent partners.

Feminine gender identities form a group of emotional, flow-oriented, expressive, prone to passivity rather than activity, quietness rather than pragmatism, personal rather than impersonal subjects. The propensity to form relationships, inclusive communications, empathy and involvement corresponds to social altruism and a pronounced focus not so much on oneself as on the other.

The pole of femininity corresponds to heteroreference, a tendency to mirror others and dependence on external assessments of the environment. All of the above corresponds to imitativity and the desire to adapt in the social environment, autoplastic adaptations.

Quasi-masculine and quasi-feminine gender identities, which are described in the English lexicon as Two-spirit, or “people of the third gender”. Acting as representatives of one biological sex, they internalize and behaviorally actualize the gender identity of the other sex. As a result, gender identity can acquire features of splitting and gender-role duality. Such splitting implies that both masculine and feminine characteristics appear inconsistently and irrelevant to certain requirements and situations.

The identity of a complex (cluster) family, consisting of several biologically or socially related relatives, their generations and / or persons who are not related. It, in turn, can be: a) the identity of a complex (cluster) large family (a complete nuclear family in which several children are brought up). This family identity, where there are several children, should be considered as a combination of the identity of several elementary families; b) the identity of a complex (cluster) multi-generational - a large family of several generations.

This identity implies the inclusion in gender inculturation and socialization of grandparents, brothers and their wives, sisters and their husbands, nephews and nieces and other relatives; c) the identity of a complex cluster societal (family, which consists of persons who are not related to biological ties and carry out joint housekeeping, realize mutual assistance on professional, labor, ideological and other principles (kibbutzim, partner creative families, Swedish societal families ( consist of men and represent a certain form of group androcracy, etc.).

Gender identity in complex (cluster) families can be formed as unstable (Gender Fluid), that is, its bearer usually does not identify himself with male or female sex, but self-identifying himself with a man or a woman, sometimes shows agender / androgyny, then bigender which can be continued in how a person constructs himself, carries out expression and self-description.

According to the criterion of residence of the generation of parents, family identities are classified into the identities of matrilocal families (families living with the wife's parents); identities of patrilocal families (families living with the husband's parents); identities of neo-local families who move to housing that is far from where their parents live.

Both matrilocal and patrilocal families in gender identity can correspond, depending on specific socio-cultural and socio-economic conditions, to homogender-incestuous, quasi-masculine, quasi-feminine (split) or fluid gender identities. It all depends on the gender scripts of a particular family. Special attention from the presented list should be given to homogender (and often incestuous) identity.

This type of gender identity is formed in conditions of mental fusion with little physical and social distance between parents and children, usually of the same sex. Archaic manifestations of such behavior were previously nepotism and nepotism, which involved sexual intercourse between the husband's parents and daughters-in-law (patriarchal incest) or the wife's parents in the female line with their son-in-law (matriarchal incest).

According to the gender of partners, family identities are classified into same-sex family identities (corresponding to same-sex individuals who jointly raise adopted children or children from previous (heterosexual) marriages); identities of heterosexual families (corresponding to people of different sexes who jointly raise adopted children or children from previous (heterosexual) marriages. Within the indicated types of families, both homosexual, heterosexual, and asexual-societal (asexual-communitarian) gender identities can be set and reproduced, whose carriers allow and realize the sexual activity of persons of the same sex within the family, or consider the family as a partner microgroup intended for the implementation of any non-sexual goals.

According to the criterion of inheritance of property and separation of power, family identities are classified into patriarchal / patrilineal (the center of power, and therefore identification in the family, is the father; inheritance, which is realized through the parental line and means that children take the father's surname (and the father, who can act as a passport identifier) and property is usually inherited through the male line), matriarchal / matrilineal (the center of power, and therefore identification in the family is the mother; inheritance, which is realized through the maternal line and means that children take the mother's surname and have an individual name, which can act as a passport identifier. Property is usually inherited through the female line); biarchy (the center of power, which means identification in the family is a man and a woman. Most often, a biarchy family identity is dual and hides a patriarchal or matriarchal one), polyarchal families (there are several centers of power and identity formation in the family, derived from different relatives or persons, not related).

Ownership and power in the constitution of patriarchal and matriarchal gender identities determines their connection with the patriarchal or matriarchal state, which fragments the family as a microgroup and enhances the presence of both institutional behavioral and internalized social control. The spectrum of gender identities of patriarchal and matriarchal families can include masculine, feminine, quasi-masculine, quasi-feminine gender identities.

Conclusions. Family identity associated with a certain type of family with the socio-cultural, psycho-social and socio-economic characteristics accompanying the latter creates micro-group prerequisites for the formation of a gender identity of one type or another.

In general, in the interaction of family and gender identity, the constitution of the latter may depend on a number of factors, in particular, the quantitative components of the family, gender roles inherent in a particular type of family, the distribution of narcissistic resources, social capital, property and power.

Gender roles are manifested in “binding” to the distribution of the basic narcissistic resource, on which the self-reference or external reference of certain subjects depends. Narcissistic investments (positive and negative) depend, in turn, on the institutional practices in which the subjects of gender inculturation and socialization are immersed. Ultimately, gender identity determines the basic trust or distrust of an already formed mental system, causing a predisposition to one or another type of microcommunications, and hence social networks and mechanisms for the production and redistribution of social capital. Types of gender identities describe configurations of selective trust/distrust relationships that can affect both the sexual sphere and social relations isomorphic to sexual relations, which correspond to selectively authentic communication based on trust.

gender identities family psychosocial

Bibliography

1. Бабенко Н.Б. Соціологія сім'ї : навчальний посібник. Київ : ДАКККіМ, 2004.257 с

2. Горецька О.В. Психологія сім'ї : навчальний посібник для студентів спеціальності «Практична психологія», «Початкова освіта». Бердянськ : Видавець Ткачук О.В., 2015. 216 с.

3. Феномен гендерної ідентичності в психології / Т. В. Данильченко // Вісник Чернігівського національного педагогічного університету. Сер.: Психологічні науки. 2013. Вип. 114. С. 57-63.

4. Кроули С. Л. Конструирование пола и сексуальностей / Сара Л. Кроули, Кендал Л. Броуд // Гендерные исследования. 2010. № 20-21. С. 12-50.

5. Лукашевич М. П. Соціологія сім'ї : теорія і практики. Навчальний посібник. Київ : ІПК ДСЗУ 2012. 186 с.

6. Медіна Т. В. Соціологія сім'ї : навчальний посібник. Чернівці : Рута, 2006. 56 с.

7. Нагорна Л. «Війна ідентичностей»: сценарії і ризики. Політичний менеджмент. 2007. № 2. С. 47-54.

8. Романенко Ю. В., Святненко І. О., Поцелуйко А. О., Тащенко А. Ю., Медведева Ю.Ю. Етнічні ідентичності в дзеркалі тілесності та практик харчування.- Монографія 5-ти авторів / Ю. В, Романенко, І. О. Святненко, А. О. Поцелуйко, А. Ю.Тащенко, Ю. Ю. Медведева. К. : Вид-во ДУТ, 2015. 437 с.

9. Сорока Ю. Номінації колективних ідентичностей в блогосфері актуальних подій. Мінливості культури: соціологічні проекції / За ред. Н. Костенко. К. : Інститут соціології НАН України, 2015. С. 371-419

10. Этническая идентичность: социосистемологическое измерение геополитики/ ред.-коорд. Романенко Ю.В. [Я. В.Зоська, Ю. Ю. Медведева, Ю. В. Романенко, И. А. Святненко, Н. В. Туленков, Е. А. Хомерики]. Монография. К. : Меркьюри- Подолье, 2016. 368 с.

11. Berzonsky М. Identity formation: The role of identity processing style and cognitive processes. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008. Vol. 44. Р. 645-655.

12. Breakwell G.M. Resisting representations and identity processes. Papers on Social Representations. 2010. Vol. 19. Р. 6.1-6.11.

13. Jackson S. (2007) Interchanges: Gender, Sexuality and Heterosexuality // Feminist theory. Vol. 7(1). Р 105-121.

14. Mead G.H. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago : The Univ. of Chicago Press, 1946.

15. Tajfel H. Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982.

16. Tajfel H. (ed.) Social Categorization in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London : Academik Press, 1978.

17. Tajfel H., Turner J.C. The Social identity Theory of intergroup behavior // Worchel S. And Austin W.G. (Eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago : Nelson Hall, 1986. Pp. 7-24.

18. Turner J.C. Social Categorization and the Self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior // Lawler E.J. (ed.) Advances in group process. Theory and research. V. 2. Greenwich : Connect, 1985.

Святненко І.О.

Гендерна та сімейна ідентичність: до побудови теоретичної схеми типологічної відповідності

У статті побудовано описову теоретичну схему напрямків взаємовпливу сімейної та гендерної ідентичностей. Стверджується, що сімейна ідентичність, пов'язана з певним типом сім'ї, з соціокультурними, психосоціальними та соціально-економічними характеристиками, що супроводжують останні, створює мікрогрупові передумови для формування гендерної ідентичності того чи іншого типу. Загалом у взаємодії сім'ї та гендерної ідентичності конституція останньої може залежати від ряду факторів, зокрема, кількісних компонентів сім'ї, гендерних ролей, притаманних конкретному типу сім'ї, розподілу нарцисичних ресурсів. , соціальний капітал, власність і влада. Зазначається, що гендерні ролі проявляються у «прив'язці» до розподілу основного нарцисичного ресурсу, від якого залежить самореференція або зовнішня референція окремих суб'єктів. Нарцистичні інвестиції (позитивні та негативні) залежать, у свою чергу, від інституційних практик, в які занурені суб'єкти гендерної інкультурації та соціалізації.

Уточнюється, що в кінцевому підсумку гендерна ідентичність визначає базову довіру чи недовіру до вже сформованої психічної системи, спричиняючи схильність до того чи іншого типу мікрокомунікацій, а отже, до соціальних мереж та механізмів виробництва та перерозподілу соціального капіталу. Типи гендерних ідентичностей описують конфігурації вибіркових стосунків довіри/недовіри, які можуть впливати як на сексуальну сферу, так і на соціальні відносини, ізоморфні статевим стосункам, що відповідають вибірково автентичному спілкуванню на основі довіри.

Ключові слова: ідентичність, гендерна ідентичність

Размещено на Allbest.ru