Gender Roles in Utopian Societies Essay - 1310 Words

Although Utopian societies create an ideal sense of what society should be like, not all Utopian societies share the same beliefs when it comes to overall gender roles. The male may come off as the stronger, wiser individual, whereas the female is the more fragile character in the background. We wonder if the roles could reverse or how can these roles differ in certain societies. In Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, males play the dominant role when it comes to society, whereas in Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy focuses on female-dominated aspects of society. Utopia by Sir Thomas More depicts men to be the deciders when it comes to creating a family of their own. In the section Of Their Slaves and Of Their Marriages, More begins the idea of†¦show more content†¦It is interesting though when More says â€Å"Yet if either of the injured persons cannot shake off the love of the married person, they may live with them still in that state, but they must follow them to that lab our to which the slaves are condemned† (92-93), meaning that if the person who was cheated still loves the cheater, they can go off and be a slave with them. More’s Utopia may give off the stigma of males being the typical person in charge, but Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward switches that idea around. Julian West wakes from a deep sleep to find out his society has completely changed; Doctor Leete, who found West in his sleep, updates him on all the changes. At one point, West asks if female roles have made any changes; Leete tells him that their roles have evolved. Leete tells West: â€Å"†¦Ã¢â‚¬ËœOur women, as well as our men, are members of the industrial army, and leave it only when maternal duties claim them. The result is that most women, at one time or another of their lives, serve industrially some five or ten or fifteen years, while those who have no children fill out the full term’† (Bellamy, 267). Women are now working and making t heir own decisions; they can still be mothers when they need to be. And if the woman does not want to get married, she doesn’t have to, whereas in Utopia, a woman or man was imprisonedShow MoreRelatedThe Utopian Society : A Utopian State1296 Words   |  6 Pages A utopian world is one that is different from person to person and given the ideology that one attains, the utopian state doesn’t fit all individuals. In my socially just utopian society, women have the same rights as every man that walks this earth. Differences and individuality would be embraced and not imposed; they would be respected and not ridiculed. There is no political correctness in my utopia; rather, it differs depending on a woman’s personal choices. In the past, women had few lifeRead MoreStanding Solider, Kneeling Slaves By Kirk Savage Essay1402 Words   |  6 Pagesthe monument and sculptures that were being built during this time. On the other hand Bellamy’s book â€Å"Looking Backwards† proposes the idea of a Utopian society where everyone is equal and works for one sole employer; the nation. I will be discussing how Bellamy’s principles on labor would help solve the problems Savage proposes of slavery, racism, and gender inequalit y. Savage touches on the basis that blackness was virtually equated with slavery so almost every African American was a slave in theRead MoreA Thin Layer Of Fiction Are Looking Backward By Edward Bellamy And Herland By Charlotte Perkins Gilman1613 Words   |  7 Pagespublicly speak out against the society of the time, the written word can act as a shield. Adding a mask of fiction to these novels allows the author to get their message out to the public who otherwise would not take the time for such issues. Two novels that exemplify this social critique behind a thin layer of fiction are Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy and Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Both of these novels offer a critique to certain aspects of American society during the time period, andRead More Utopia Essay1183 Words   |  5 Pagesit promoted a society dominated by the rich and unfair on everyone else. Further, they saw feudal society as irrational. Utopia was originally written in Latin, is a text that depicts what is claimed to be an ‘ideal’ human society through the eyes of the narrator Raphael Hythloday. It is also largely based on the voyages of More himself, specifically to the Netherlands. It was one such voyage — a diplomatic mission from England — that More invented his ideas about a Utopian society. HoweverRead MoreBelief in a Utopia795 Words   |  3 PagesWhat is an ideal society? What is your â€Å"perfect† world? We all have laid in bed late at night thinking of how if only we had some magic power to change the world how much better the world. Even thinking about what we would change about the world. Many have tried to achieve a perfect society or in other words a utopia. Possibly the most famous utopian civilization was the Oneida Society built solely for the purpose of everyone being equal. Ultimately though the Oneida people collapsed under the greedRead More`` Herland, By Charlotte Perkins Gilman1024 Words   |  5 Pagesrights, restricted access, and fixed gender roles. When it came to marriage everything was contingent upon the man’s discretion. As a result, women in American society could not function seamlessly through this system without support from her husband. In the novel, Herland, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, she depicts a successful society of women that thrives without men. Moreover, Gilman criticizes the gender discrimination of women, by creating this utopian society, that completely rejects the traditionalRead MoreWhy Has Utopian Literature Remained Popular Essay856 Words   |  4 PagesAll works of Utopian literature are designed to present ideologies and protest. Through this they have maintained their popularity whilst retaining the ability to reformulate. This ability to reformulate itself has created a way for authors to explore and investigate ideologies and protests whilst keeping the issues contextual to the time. More has done this extremely well, establishing the genre at the beginning of the 16th century, in his novella Utopia. By using Rafael as the narrator he successfullyRead MoreSecond Great Awakening954 Words   |  4 PagesWHAT WAYS DID THE SECOND GREAT AWAKENING INFLUENCE AMERICAN SOCIETY AND CULTURE?† In the thirty year span between 1830 and 1860, the Second Great Awakening did much to change the modern American mind by sparking the abolitionist movement, empowering women (in their domestic sphere) and forming the cult of domesticity, partially fixing the corrupt government through the temperance movement, and in the creation of many utopian societies by radical religious populations. Puritanism was kicked toRead MoreAn Analysis Of Charlotte Perkins Gilman s Novel Conceiving Herland 1603 Words   |  7 Pagesworks, specifically in Herland, along with her disappointment in the American educational system and possible changes to the institution that could better society as a whole. In conceiving Herland, written in 1915, Charlotte Perkins Gilman created her flawless utopian society: Herland was a paradise of only women were they thrived This utopian society was infinitely better than that of the American culture at the time – perhaps due to the absence of men. The many contrasts between Herland and the earlyRead MorePlatos Republic - Book V1232 Words   |  5 Pagesthat they cannot still be beneficial to the operation of the society. This idea will be the focus of this paper, specifically the question of whether or not Platos utopian society depends on the realization of equality between the sexes. In examining this question it must be kept in mind that notion of equality that is put forth in Book V is not in the modern day sense. Plato is exploring the possibility that women in ancient Greek society remained an untapped resource that was confined mainly to the

Different Perspectives in Psychology Coexist Rather Than Conflict Free Essays

string(155) " the potential for conflict between the cognitive and social constructionist perspectives is revealed in how they view meaning as the object of knowledge\." This paper approaches the topic from a consideration of psychological research in the fields of sex and gender and language. It does so in general terms and avoids discussion at levels of detail. Therefore where a reference is made to specific research the intention is to do no more than exemplify a general principle. We will write a custom essay sample on Different Perspectives in Psychology Coexist Rather Than Conflict or any similar topic only for you Order Now The paper will conclude that different perspectives in psychology do at times co-exist, though complement and conflict are frequent. It will suggest the lack of a decisive answer is a result of the relative immaturity of Psychology as a discipline and a concomitant lack of adequately powerful theories that might serve to unite otherwise disparate perspectives. A consideration of how psychology approaches the study of sex and gender reveals, amongst others, four significant theoretical perspectives that are for the most part quite distinct in terms of their objects of knowledge and consequent methods of analysis. Biological psychology is concerned with explaining the differences between male and female in terms of hormones, genes and brain structure. It is mechanistic, with a strong empirical tradition. Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain differences between sexes in terms of behavioural selection for reproductive fitness. Whilst in large part necessarily theoretical, it embraces empirical methods as a means of testing theories. Social constructionist psychology approaches sex and gender through the study of discourse in various historical, cultural and social contexts and so is hermeneutic. Finally psychoanalytic psychology primarily uses clinical observation and the study of infants to gather evidence of how humans acquire and develop a sense of sex and gender (cited in Holloway et al, 2007, pp. 127ff). (6) The immediate impression from the above is that the scope for complement, conflict or co-existence is not clear-cut. Given that they do not share common objects of knowledge, the hope might be for complementary theories that together contribute to a broad understanding. Certainly the biological and evolutionary perspectives appear complementary at the theoretical level n that both regard biological sex as the determinant of gender and view differences between sexes as biological features that have been selected for during evolution. However, biological psychology attempts to explain differences in male-female psychology in terms of selected physiological characteristics, for example dimorphism in brain structures (cf. Hofman and Swaab, 1991, cited in Holloway et al, 2007, p. 139). On the other hand the evolutionary psychologist would principally argue in favour of selected behavioural characteristics such as differences between male and female sexual attitudes (cf. Clark and Hatfield, 1989, cited in Holloway et al, 2007, p. 146). There is thus an apparent conflict at the level of analysis. It is therefore ironic that evolutionary psychology must perforce co-exist with biological psychology since, given the understandable constraints on its ability to conduct the sorts of empirical investigations that might be wished for (cf. Herrnstein-Smith, 2000, cited in Holloway et al, 2007, p. 173), it is dependent on a certain amount of corroboration from the biological perspective, amongst others (cited in Holloway et al, 2007, pp. 84). (22) Whereas the biological and evolutionary perspectives agree that biological sex lies at the heart of explaining gender, the social constructionist perspective explicitly rejects that view; sometimes for political reasons (cited in Holloway et al, 2007, pp. 185; see Spence, 1984 and Spender, 1980). Social constructionism regards both sex and gender as characteristics that are revealed only through discourse and action. They are a consequence of the individual’s behaviour and e xperience in a given cultural, social and historical context (ibid). The depth of the conflict is exemplified by a comparison of evolutionary studies that emphasise cross-cultural stability in particular sexual preferences (cf. Singh 1995, p. 148; Buss and Schmitt, 1993, p. 148, cited in Holloway et al, 2007) and social constructionist ideas such as Bem’s (1994, cited in Holloway et al, 2007, p. 153) Gender Schema Theory. Crucially, for the social constructionist gender is something that is continually re-established throughout the lifetime of the individual (cited in Holloway et al, 2007, pp. 153). From the biological and evolutionary perspectives, it is predetermined. 33) Whilst the psychodynamic perspective largely complements the social constructionist, in terms of its interpretive or hermeneutic methodology, its explanations largely focus on the unconscious given that its objects of study entail â€Å"the meaning of the biological differences between men and women and how these become internalised in the child’s mind† (cited in Holloway et al, 2007, pp. 184). Thus both the social constructionist and psychoanalytic perspectives conflict with the biological and evolutionary approaches at the methodological level. Uniquely however (ibid, p. 86) the psychodynamic perspective recognises both biological and cultural contributions to it’s theorising. It is not without its share of conflict however. Within the perspective, Freudian notions of the opposite sexed p arent as ‘sexual object of choice’ and ‘penis envy’ (ibid, p. 161f) quickly came under scrutiny of female and feminist psychologists (cf. Horney, 1926, cited in Holloway et al, 2007, p. 163). There is also conflict with evolutionary explanations of rape as an adaptive strategy (compare Thornhill and Palmer, 2000 and Rose and Rose, 2000 cited in Holloway et al, 2007, p. 71, p. 172). (26) Turning to a consideration of the study of language and meaning, one finds an equally intriguing mix of potential co-existence, complement and conflict when comparing the three principal perspectives. The evolutionary perspective sets out to explore the origins of language and its implications for the human species; the cognitive perspective adopts an information processing approach to the transmission of meaning; and the social constructionist perspective focuses on â€Å"meaning making† as a dynamic between interlocutors (cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007, p. 119). It is possible therefore to view the three perspectives as at least co-existent. Their objects of knowledge are different and one might expect their cumulative product to contribute to some sort of unified theory. Indeed, from the evolutionary perspective Deacon (1997, Cooper and Kaye, 2007, p. 115) suggests that language is a social phenomenon that defies explanation only in psychological, or only in neuro-biological terms. (9) However, the potential for conflict between the cognitive and social constructionist perspectives is revealed in how they view meaning as the object of knowledge. You read "Different Perspectives in Psychology Coexist Rather Than Conflict" in category "Papers" For the former it is something that is constructed internally by the individual prior to transmission, and subsequently reconstructed by the audience. For the latter it is negotiated as a result of discourse between individuals – meaning emerges as the result of a complex interplay of intentions, interpretations and power-relations. Thus, there is cause for disagreement as to what â€Å"meaning† is and where it comes from (cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007, p. 102). That this is adequate to justify a claim of conflict seems weak since the types of â€Å"meaning† espoused by the two perspectives are themselves different. Further, at the level of common sense they are mutually sustaining. The very notion of discourse requires at least two participants seeking, though perhaps not achieving, a consensus of meaning. This demands that at some level each participant is cognising about their intended meaning and how the other is construing it. The implication is that the two perspectives ought to complement the other, or at least co-exist. (6) A key social constructionist argument against a purist cognitive perspective is that linguistic (and other cognitive) processes cannot be â€Å"transparently reported† (cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007, p. 11). This argument is one that cognitive researchers have long acknowledged. Commenting on early research into the cognitive modelling of language Boden (1977, pp. 113ff, et passim) notes that a person’s understanding of language in a given instance is dependent, not simply on their knowledge of the world around them, but crucially on their understanding of their relationship with their interlocutors. Other researchers emphasise the point (cf. Sperber and Wilson, 1986, cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007, p. 99). For their part, social constructionists such as Edwards et al (1992, p. 42, cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007, p. 112) recognise the importance of the cognitive perspective and suggest only that theirs is a new perspective that offers different insights. Therefore, unless a researcher is determined to hold to one or the other perspective as a matter of purist dogma, it seems more reasonable given the disparate loci of the respective objects of knowledge and the statements that each perspective favourably acknowledges the other, then the cognitive and social constructionist perspectives are thus far co-existent. (32) Within the evolutionary perspective there is a debate as to whether language evolved as an adaptational advantage and was the foundation for other cognitive abilities (Pinker, 2000 cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007, p. 121), or as a consequence of selection for an ability to form and manipulate predictive metarepresentations (Sperber, 2000 cited in Cooper and Kaye, 2007, p. 121). These are polarised and conflicting views. Pinker’s would complement the cognitive perspective with its emphasis on information processing, whilst Sperber would complement the social constructionist. However, Deacon (1997) offers evidence that both capacities evolved in parallel. If he is correct, then there are substantial grounds for seeking a complementary accommodation between the cognitive and social constructionist paradigms. (6) Even from this scant evaluation, one is struck by the disparate objects of knowledge, types of theory and methodologies. The inevitable conclusion is that psychology is characterised by perspectives that at one or more of these levels conflict, co-exist or complement. One might wish for a parallel to the cosmologist’s search for a Unified Theory of Matter; where although theories might diverge cosmology has one over-arching object of study and one comprehensive methodology in computational empiricism. Psychologists do not stand on such substantial bedrock. The questions they pose are often difficult to formulate computationally without reducing the predictive power of any solution, or indeed are abstractions that cannot be treated computationally without trivialising them (see Sundem, 2006 for amusing examples). Whereas the history of physics can be measured in thousands of years, psychology as a recognisable discipline has existed for just over a century. A sense of internal conflict muted by convenient co-existence and fortunate complement should not therefore come as a disappointment. It is merely an acknowledgement that psychology is still an emerging and diverse field, and that whatever conflict exists can reasonably be attributed to a lack of sufficiently powerful theories with which to reconcile the different perspectives. This essay focuses on the social perspective of psychology referring Language nd Meaning and Gender and Sex. It deals with the relationship between psychological theory and method in a range of material in both chapters, with particular attention to how social influences shape human development and behaviour. Language and Meaning ‘Language and meaning’, is used to describe a social constructionist approach to language. There are several ways in which th e social perspective has promoted understanding in this area. There are primarily two different psychological perspectives on language: cognitive and social. These approaches take evidence from different research bodies, each of which have a different focus As social beings, we continuously interact with other people, thinking about our use of language and how it may best serve us. The social constructionist perspective sees language as a way of creating meaning between individuals as they interact. The social psychological perspective defines the human world as being created through language, making it one of its most powerful and important features. This approach to language sees people using language to take action and achieve objectives. Language is seen as a means by which goals might be achieved. The social psychological approaches to language therefore focuses on understanding language and its meanings as a social process. It sees language as an interactive process between people. It is seen as social because it involves this very interaction, and it is through this social interaction that meaning is created. Social psychology argues that there is more to language than the knowledge of syntax, semantics, phonics and coding and other rules of language, even if these are described as being interactive within a cognitive approach. This argument helps define the contrast between social psychological and cognitive approaches to language. In social psychological perspectives, the purpose of language is not to reflect thoughts and emotions and convey them neutrally to someone else. Instead, the motivation for language is defined by the desired action brought about by the use of language. Social psychological approaches to language do not place meaning inherently in the constructions of language such as lexicon, grammar or semantics in the same way as cognitive approaches do. One of the methodological complexities involved in researching language is that we must use language itself as the means by which we research it as a subject in its own right. This issue is at the centre of the tension that exists between cognitive and social approaches to language. The paradox here is that the necessity of responding in language may predetermine what is said about language. The cognitive perspective assumes that there are separate cognitive processes that language can represent in communication to others, or in dialogue with the self. The accuracy of this depends upon how closely language communicates the cognition behind it. Cognitive psychologists believe that the thinking that underlies language can be studied accurately and in social isolation. However, discursive psychology argues that, when people use language, they do so in a social context, with an audience and for a reason. The social constructionist approach views language as the means for the socially produced meaning. It is the means by which people construct their world, interact with others and set out to achieve their objectives. The cognitive approach sees language as the part of the cerebral information processing. It can be argued that meaning is generated by people as they communicate. There is therefore a tension between the social constructionist and cognitive perspectives with respect to meaning and whether it is communicated between people or constructed between them. The social constructionist perspective on language is that it is a tool for social interaction. These different views of language have different implications – the cognitive perspective is that language underpins human thought. The social constructionist approach has no particular implication for the relationship of language to thought as it places language firmly within a socially constructed context. Sex and Gender ‘The psychology of sex and gender’, is used to refer to the social constructionist approach to sex and gender. There are several ways in which the social perspective has promoted understanding this area. With respect to the two terms (sex and gender), there is a distinction between the biological and the social. However, biological sex may also be expressed in behaviour that is influenced by social factors and psychological meanings. Therefore, as labels, sex and gender may only be useful as theoretical constructs. However, gender is usually taken to refer to social constructs that pertain to biological differences. These sex differences can be the result of interactions between biological, psychological and social processes. Social constructionist psychology looks at how sex and gender have been constructed within particular social contexts. It examines these social constructions and their influences. The social constructionist perspective is based upon the theory that the construction of meaning through language and social practices as discussed in the section above has produced patterns of behaviour, cognition and emotions that are gender-differentiated. Social constructionism argues that behaviour cannot be directly explained solely by biological, reproductive sex. It also argues that the world is constructed to have two biological types (male and female) who have many diverse social and behavioural manifestations. This suggests that the many discourses of masculinity and femininity are socially produced. Social constructionism sees reproductive sex as being the visible difference between the sexes that provides the basis for a range of socially constructed gender differences. According to this perspective, biological sex is not central to explaining gender identity, but is a visible indicator to which a range of socially constructed gender differences are attached. Discourses about masculinity and femininity are therefore used by individuals to create their own gendered positionality. Gender is seen as being constructed throughout life, as behaviour and experience is defined through cultural manifestations of gender. Evolutionary psychologists also acknowledge social influences on sexual behaviour. However, they provide no systematic way explaining this in their experimental approach. The strength of the social constructionist approach to gender is its ability to take into account the social and cultural contexts of individuals. Evolutionary psychology however does offer some explanation of the origins of gender difference. The social constructionist perspective argues that sex is not central to explaining gender differences. Evolutionary and social constructionist perspectives have contrasting ideas about the relationship between sex and gender. Psychoanalytic psychology takes a different approach to social constructionism’s emphasis on external influences in determining people’s behaviour. However, both social constructionism and psychoanalysis are based upon the interpretation of meaning. Unlike evolutionary psychology, psychoanalysis, in common with social constructionist psychology, believe that the researcher’s positionality and subjectivity is inevitably involved in research. The onset of puberty is an example of the convergence of biological, psychoanalytic and social constructionist perspectives. The psychoanalytic and social constructionist approaches use methods that consider people’s beliefs and experiences, and focus on the interpretation of meaning by relying on the interpretation of symbolic data. The social constructionist perspective examines the importance of culture in the construction of gender. The psychoanalytic perspective acknowledges both the importance of biological difference and the social and cultural meanings inherent in this difference. The social constructionist and psychodynamic perspectives may be seen as complementary to each other in terms of methodology, as both use approaches are based on a hermeneutic theory to understand the meanings of gender. Conclusion The social constructionist perspective underpins discursive psychological theories of meaning as emerging from context and interaction. Although the social perspective goes some way to addressing the influences of language and gender issues, there are some aspects which are also given a different perspective by other approaches. This can be seen in the sometimes useful linguistics frameworks of syntax, phonics, semantics etc. which is adopted by cognitive psychologists. In some instances the social perspective complements other perspectives. Such an example is psychoanalysis in the area of sex and gender. However, in other instances it more commonly just co-exists, for example in the case of social constructivism and evolutionary psychology. Social constructivism is in clear conflict with the cognitive perspective in the area of language as illustrated and argued above. Cognitive and social constructionist perspectives make conflicting assumptions about communication. How to cite Different Perspectives in Psychology Coexist Rather Than Conflict, Papers

Composition of Hydrates Essay Example For Students

Composition of Hydrates Essay Abstract The purpose of this lab was to study the composition of hydrates. Hydrates are ionic compounds that are chemical compositions made of water and salt. A main objective was to remove water from the hydrate by heating, and determine the amount of water that was in the hydrate. After doing this, one had to predict the empirical formula for hydrated copper sulfate. In doing this lab, one was able to see the gradual change in the composition of a hydrate into an anhydrous salt. The lab was carried out with numerous steps. First, one had to safely prepare by putting on goggles. One then had to wash and heat the dish with the flame for about three minutes. After allowing the dish to cool, one had to weigh the evaporating dish and record the weight. Two to three grams of copper sulfate hydrate was then added to the dish and weighed. One then heated the dish until the copper sulfate hydrate’s blue color became an off-white color. After the dish cooled, one took the mass of the dish and recorded it. One then cleaned up the lab table and had their data sheet signed. There were three specific results to the lab. After completing the lab one found the percent of water in the hydrate. The percent water came out to be 36. 7%. One then proceeded to calculate the empirical formula. The empirical formula was CuSO4 * 5H2O. Lastly, one found the percent error of the lab. The percent error was 9%.