Gender, Identity and Lorber

I'm sure Judith Lorber defined "gender" in her Paradoxes of Gender and this assignment would probably be much easier had I had the opportunity to read it first. I have already taken a similar class in which we had countless discourses about the meaning of sexuality and sexual identity (thanks to Foucault) and I hope that it is acceptable that I share my insights from that class here:

Gender:
I agree with Lorber's observations of society's dichotomization of gender. I will further discuss that later. On a more personal level however, I believe that gender is not divided into two mutually exclusive entities where an individual has to be one or the other. Rather, I believe that gender exists as an infinite spectrum in which the the boundaries are defined by the extremes of these "traditional" social constructs i.e. male/masculine and female/feminine; individuals are merely points in this spectrum.

Identity:
This is seemingly more straightforward as I believe there to exist a more transparent dichotomy when it comes to identity. This dichotomy exists between "you" and "not you." There is who/what you internally believe who/what you are, versus who/what the world perceives you to be. These two "identities" are not necessarily mutually exclusive; the identity of an individual is shaped by the interplay of outside stimuli and social influences as well as how the individual chooses to associate themselves within their society. Similarly, the identity of the individual, defines the overall identity of their society. In short, there is a dynamic interplay between the "you" and the "not you."

One of the most profound insights I have acquired from the classes that I have taken that examine issues surrounding gender, race, and identity is the necessary establishment of the "norm." (Lorber touches upon this same idea with her A and not-A example.) Once this "norm" is established is when the "others" can exist. This "norm" is the ideal social construct of what "it" is supposed to be, and what each individual in society strives to become. When an individual’s character includes a trait that differs, and potentially challenges the socially acceptable norm, it is that trait that defines the individual’s whole identity. From what I have gathered, the "norm" in Western societies is the stereotypical Caucasian heterosexual middle aged male. They would also have to be Christian, college educated, hold an executive position at their workplace, and be head of a perfect nuclear family living comfortably in the suburbs. Excluding the current, the previous presidents of the United States of America could be considered a physical manifestation of this ideal "norm."


Given that I already understand (I hope) the basics of how gender and identity issues work, I am comfortable with my awareness regarding the problems that these dynamics create. If I considered this course to be redundant, that would be completely arrogant and ignorant on my part. Instead, I remain optimistic with the possibility of deepening my understanding of these issues and I hope to realize other aspects by actively thinking/discoursing about them in some way.


Whew. An academic journal/blog is a lot more difficult to produce than I expected.