Dse212

Psychologists can study the same topic from different perspectives, enabling them to focus their enquiry in different ways. These perspectives ask different questions, use different methods and produce different evidence. They can be seen as complementary, co-existing or conflicting. This essay aims to examine the perspectives psychologists pursue when studying the topics of “sex and gender” and “language and meaning”, looking at the questions they ask, their methods and the knowledge they produce. Psychologists working within their perspective can be limited when conducting their research because of their particular focus of enquiry so perhaps for more knowledge to be gained on the same topic; more than one perspective must be studied. The perspectives chosen for the above topics will be discussed and will show how they may work together to give a clearer understanding of the topic, co-exist or conflict. The study of “sex and “gender” is concerned with the complex interaction of nature and nurture in shaping the similarities and differences between men and women (as cited in Hollway, Cooper, Johnston and Stevens, 2007). Biological psychologists ask questions about differences between men and women at the level of hormones, genetic inheritance and brain structure (as cited in Hollway et al., 2007). The biological perspective is concerned with the nature aspect and its contribution to the male/female behaviours. Biological processes and their effects on behavioural differences between men and women are investigated through scientific procedures, including brain imaging techniques. The scientific methods used in the biological perspective can sometimes be unreliable. The genetic sex testing at the Sydney Olympics in 2000 was abandoned due to several cases beforehand where female athletes were found to have a male chromosome. Testing for hormone levels through blood samples do show that the levels fall into the normal range for one sex. However, it has been seen in some testing that some hormones lack the necessary receptors to send and receive messages through the body. The most commonly cited example of this is androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) (as cited in Hollway et al., 2007). Female athletes with AIS were disqualified from competing in the Olympics and other competitions because they had high levels of testosterone and it was felt they had an unfair advantage over their other female competitors. This example shows that it is not just genes and hormones that make an individual male or female. This perspective can be informative, gaining knowledge about biological processes and its claims that individuals’ bodies and brains become engendered over their lifetime. To give a fuller understanding on the topic of sex and gender, it has been argued that the biological perspective needs to focus on the biological processes influenced by external factors and not only on the contribution of nature. The social constructionist perspective does not see sex and gender as a set of characteristics within an individual but as being constructed within particular historical and cultural contexts (as cited in Hollway et al., 2007). Its focus of enquiry is these social constructions and their influences and it uses evidence largely taken from what people say and write (as cited in Hollway et al., 2007). Social constructionists see gender as one of the most important and powerful of categories by which individuals define themselves . They suggest that masculine and feminine discourses are socially produced through media and social relationships and interaction. Bem’s Gender Schema Theory (as cited in Hollway et al., 2007) proposed that individuals learn to make sense of themselves and their behaviour by taking in the information available to them through socially produced understandings of gender. Bem suggested that individuals learn, as children to see the world through the “cultural lenses” of femininity and masculinity (as cited in Hollway et al., 2007). Bem saw individuals as being conditioned to construct the world as a gendered place. Haywood and Mac An Ghaill (as cited in Hollway et al., 2007) used observational techniques and discourse analysis to explore how boys and young men view their activities and achievements in school in relation to their gendered identity. School boys attending UK primary schools tend to be less academic than girls and are less likely to abide by school rules. It was argued that boys tend to rebel in classrooms because most primary school teachers are female and the boys find it difficult to identify with this female authority figure. This rebellious classroom behaviour and lower academic results are thought to help boys form a masculine identity, which will be continually produced throughout their lifetime. Social constructionists examine humans and their unique capacity for meaning making and communication, however, evolutionary psychologists would ask them to explain how the cultural lenses of gender came to construct differences in men and women in the first place. The two perspectives mentioned above seem to conflict, challenging each other’s ideas. An example of when they can be combined to give a fuller understanding and become theoretically compatible can be seen in the experience of a girl’s menarche (as cited in Hollway et al., 2007). This bio-psycho-social explanation takes into account the bodily and hormonal changes taking place in the girl’s body and also the social implications of these changes and what it means to the girl and her unique experience of becoming a woman. Evolutionary psychologists, considering the topic of language and meaning, claim that language is a uniquely human ability. They are interested in the origin of language and how it may have evolved. Researchers’ methodology involves scientific testing and behavioural observations, enabling them to compare the human ability to create meaning with those of non-human animals (as cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007). Findings from studies show that although non-human animals can communicate with each other, communication is very different from that of humans. Non-human animals can alert others of a predator approaching or having found a source of food but it is believed they cannot communicate the “here and now” (as cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007). Attempts to teach language to apes have resulted in some success with the apes achieving levels of competence similar to a two-three year old child. The evolutionary perspective looks at the kinds of adaptational pressures that could have produced the species-specific characteristics of human language (as cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007). If the theory of language is an evolved characteristic, psychologists had to find evidence of physical differences between human and non-human animals that would have been produced through natural selection (as cited in Cooper and Kaye. 2007). The human vocal chords sit lower in the larynx compared to non-human animals and this allows for more freedom of the tongue and facilitates speech. The drawback however is that there is more of a likelihood of choking when eating and breathing may be compromised. The ability to speak came at a cost but must have been considered to be of adaptational benefit. While both evolutionary and social constructionist perspectives agree that language is a unique human ability, evolutionary psychologists are only interested in how language evolved. The social constructionist perspective believes that language is social, takes place between two or more people and that it is through this social interaction that the meaning of language is made (as cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007). It is based on analysis of everyday conversations, watching TV programmes and interviews. Harold Garfinkel (as cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007) was a sociologist who developed a method called ethno methodology, a study of how people do things. Wieder (as cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007), another sociologist, using this method, went to stay in a half-way house for newly released prisoners. He lived there, taking part in all the resident’s routines and interviewed some of them. Wieder identified the fact that although the half-way house had its own set of rules, the residents actually had an informal set of rules by which they lived. He called this informal set of rules “The Code” and saw it not as an explanation for the residents’ behaviour, but as a resource that allowed them to interpret their world and construct what they and others did. These two perspectives, studying the topic of language and meaning, offer different explanations of language based on their level of analysis. The evolutionary perspective sees language as a uniquely human ability and an adaptive characteristic, however a good understanding of unique human characteristics must be learned before comparisons can be made to non-human animals. This perspective is often criticised for being unable to provide “real” evidence. The social constructionist perspective also sees language as a uniquely human ability and as a vehicle for individuals to construct their world and interact with others. The different focus of their enquiries means that these perspectives produce very different knowledge and can co-exist in psychology. In conclusion, there is more knowledge to be gained by studying the same topic from more than one perspective. One perspective cannot provide a full explanation for a complex topic. Studying the same topic, using a different focus of enquiry allows for a wider breadth of knowledge on the subject. When studying sex and gender, biological and social factors must be acknowledged. It can be seen that the perspectives, at first seem to be conflicting but actually are complementary giving a fuller understanding of the topic. Language and meaning is a diverse topic. The two perspectives discussed can be seen only to co-exist but they make valuable points and taken together can help to give a fuller understanding of the topic. 1577 words. References Cooper T. and Kaye H. (2007). Language and meaning. In T Cooper and I Roth (Eds). Challenging Psychological Issues (2nd ed; pp. 73-111) Milton Keynes. The Open University. Cooper T. and Kaye H. (2007). The psychology of sex and gender. In T. Cooper and I. Roth (Eds). Challenging Psychological Issues (2nd ed; pp.127-153) Milton Keynes. The Open University.