Health Care Industry
Industry: Email Alert RSS FeedEssentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality - The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality
Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 1998 by John D. DeLamater, Janet Shibley Hyde
Summary: Social Constructionism
Social constructionist analyses have several strengths (Miller, in press). First, the central role given language provides a concrete mechanism by which culture influences individual thought and behavior. In so doing, several writers follow the lead of George Herbert Mead (1934). Second, social constructionism can represent the complexity within a single culture; it does not assume uniformity. Third, it is consistent with variation across societies and over time.
Conclusion
- Most Popular Articles in Health
- Fuel your workout: exercisers who eat before they work out have more energy ...
- Soothe a dry, itchy scalp: 5 easy expert solutions
- Cocktails and calories: Beer, wine and liquor calories can really add up. ...
- The sour truth about apple cider vinegar - evaluation of therapeutic use
- The, six best supplements you've never heard of: these secret weapons can ...
- More »
In this article we defined the basic features of essentialism and social constructionism and then examined their applications to two topics in sex research, sexual orientation and attraction. Essentialist approaches to research on sexual orientation--whether they be evolutionary approaches or approaches that rely on hormones, genetics, or brain factors--rest on assumptions that (a) there are underlying true essences (homosexuality and heterosexuality), (b) there is a discontinuity between forms (homosexuality and heterosexuality are two distinct, separate categories, rather than points on a continuum), and (c) there is constancy of these true essences over time and across cultures (homosexuality and heterosexuality have the same form today in American culture as they have had for centuries and as they have in other cultures today). Modern essentialism is usually equated with biological determinism, although a strain of cultural essentialism also exists. In contrast, social constructionists argue that there are no true essences, but rather that reality is socially constructed, and therefore that phenomena such as homosexuality are social constructions, the product of a particular culture, its language, and institutions.
In regard to attraction, essentialist researchers (particularly evolutionary theorists) look for cross-cultural universals in patterns of attraction. They see these universal patterns--such as a preference for physically attractive persons, signaling healthiness--as the product of evolution and as having the function of maximizing the individual's fitness. Social constructionists focus not on the universal preference for an attractive mate, but on cultural variations in what is considered attractive, such as the preference, a century ago, for women with voluptuous bodies such as those sculpted by Rubens, which contrasts sharply with the preference today for lean or athletic bodies for women. In the sections that follow, we review criticisms of essentialism and social constructionism and then consider the possibility of a conjoint approach that integrates both essentialism and social constructionism.
Criticisms of Essentialism and Social Constructionism
Two basic assumptions of evolutionary psychology have been heavily criticized. The first is the assumption of constancy across time in mating preferences and practices. Several analyses have documented the changes that have occurred historically in mate selection, marriage, and the expression of sexuality outside marriage (Aries, 1993; Foucault, 1978).