Barrie Thorne Sparknotes
This paper summarizes and engages a discussion on Barrie Thorne's findings formulated in Gender Play in order to assess their power of conviction and confront her thesis to previous sociological theories. Barrie Thorne teaches Sociology and Women's Studies at UC Berkeley and was previously a Professor at Michigan State University. Her ethnographic methods and work on feminism and interactionism has been widely recognized as her 2002 American Sociological Association prize testifies. Gender Play written in 1993 marked her academic break-through and through the use of ethnography brought children and education to the center of feminist theory. The starting point of this book is to analyze how children and their interactions with each other
…show more content…
construct but nonetheless challenge the notion of gender. Gender is defined as “a sociological system which establishes a distinction and a hierarchy between the sexes and between the practices, values and representations associated to them.” (Revillard, Lecture 4). Gender is not natural nor biological but a social construct internalized through socialization as Thorne mentions early on “If boys and girls are different, they are not born but made that way” (2). She analyzes gender at the micro-level but also enhances the role of the cohort to shape individual self-identity. Relying on this book and theories studied in class, to what extent is gender a determinant which creates a dichotomy in children's activities and shapes their self-identity ? The first part argues that children through socialization, the reproduction of adult behavior and the institutional framework of school interiorize a notion of difference between the genders which impact the way they behave as individuals but also towards each other. Nonetheless, the second part more optimistically agrees with Thorne's rejection of the “different cultures” theory and proposes that gender is not fixed but fluid and thus children can adopt multiple behaviors and have several identities depending on the context. Thorne underlines in many chapters the importance of methodological rigorousness and adapts when she notices a flaw. Some aspects of her collection of qualitative data resemble those of social constructionism, interactionism and anthropology. She user the participant-observer method to analyze a 4th-5th grader class for 8 months (1976-77) at Oceanside, a public Californian elementary school and in 1980 a 2nd grade class for 3 months at Ashton, a suburban school in Michigan. In addition, Thorne used her own childhood memories and collected in 1983 data from interviews of 15 female and 10 male student from Michigan State University. An innovative twist is that Thorne focuses primarily on the individual and then on group life to investigate the impact of gender the interactions and identity of children. To gain access to the “intimacy” of the observed students, she put effort into distancing herself from institutionalized authority and from clingy students to have an the most objective and extensive perspective on the subject.
* *
*
Children are socialized to learn practices, norms, values of the society in which they will later be performing adults. This process is framed by social instances such as the family and school which exercise an authority on them. Nevertheless, Thorne also emphasizes that children self-socialize as well. Although, they learn from adults by imitating them and following rules as the author acknowledges that “children are socialized into existing arrangements” (2), they also develop their own identity through their interactions with peers and friends. School is thus a privileged and yet very structured environment to understand the dynamics of children's construction of identity. School is a social system and fits Bourdieu's notion of field as students evolve in an area organized by power relations between students, friends, aids and teachers and children aim to gain more freedom from rules. A small but interesting detail is that Thorne refuses to call students “kids” which sounds too condescending and alternates in her sentences the order of “boys” and “girls”. From their upbringing and what they are taught in school (some textbooks still have latent sexist examples), children acquire cultural perceptions of what it means to be a boy or a girl. Their behavior thus reflects an inculcated idea of how they should act, dress, speak based on their gender. This realization encourages them to differentiate each other and divide into two separate groups. Thorne notices through her observations and conversations with students that children are well aware of gender and know how to exploit this notion. She explains that “gender is a highly visible source of individual and social identity, clearly marked by dress and by language ; everyone is either a female or a male. In contrast, categories of race, ethnicity, religion and social class tend to be more ambiguous and complex” (34) and thus gender provides an easy criteria to self-identity and to understand the others with regard to the opposition or resemblance to their gender. Gender Play shows that children's acknowledgment of gender as a social category leads them to engage in gender-typed play,games, behaviors and vocabulary which in return limits interactions between boys and girls and creates a dichotomy. This antagonism is reinforced through the ongoing socialization, cultural practices, pressure from fellow students to conform to a certain idea of gender and reproduction of what is seen in the adult world. As a consequence girls and boys develop different styles of play, different interests and different ways of behaving which is usually prone to lead to same-gender friendships. Thorne provides the classical but veridic examples of girls playing the housewife or caretaker with dolls, conforming to the the idea of gentleness, care, motherhood whereas boys are often attracted by trucks, sports and construction conforming to the idea of toughness, being active and turbulent. By interiorizing this notion of gender as an essential component of social life and of identity, children engage in borderwork meaning that most cross-gender interactions tend to affirm gender boundaries rather than dissolving them. Thorne notices a pattern close to urban sociology which she refers to as a “sex segregation among children” (36) in the classroom where often the organization of seats is gender-based but more extensively and strikingly on the playground . The separation of boys and girls in activities, friendships and games seems to be for the most part accepted as natural. A hypothesis can be advanced that this situation is due to social pressure (teasing), gender-stereotypes (to play rope “you gotta be a girl” 46), teasing on possible love interests (the heterosexual norm is very strong). A frontier is thus established between the two genders. For Goffman (1977), boys and girls separate in space to play but also assemble in some settings therefore creating a “with-then-apart” dynamic. For example, children engage perfectly in some games such as tag but stay distant when it comes to sitting at the same lunch table. Therefore it seems that students usually first use gender as a marker to separate into two groups and then use race to create sub-groups. Even though Thorne notices effective efforts, teachers still use gender to create teams in the classroom, create queues and exert a social control by using gender-based appellations “You boys be quiet”, “Ladies, this isn't a tea party”, “Beastly Boys”, “Gossipy Girls” (34) (67). An interesting pattern is that when children have the choice to designate companions, they more often choose to “separate than integrate” (49). On the other hand adults more often mixed than separated girls and boys. These observations and analyzes seem to point towards a strong antagonism of the genders and yet Thorne rejects the “different culture theory” proposed by Tanner (1990) on the basis that gender is fluid and evolves depending on the context.
* *
*
According to Thorne, the two culture model is based on stereotypical beliefs, exaggerates gender tensions, oversees within same-gender groups variations and is inherently biased to fit certain conceptions of masculinity or femininity. There is notably the “Big Man Bias” which tend to only focus on popular jocks. Thorne argues that there are many ways to be a boy or a girl and also admits that borderwork may insinuate a too strong conflict and emphasize dualism. She notices in the beginning that she was biased by following popular students and thus adapted her methodology. Gender Play emphasizes a micro-level analysis and proposes that “within-gender variation is greater than differences between boys and girls taken as groups” (104). Therefore there is not a single way to represent the “boy's world” or the “girl's world” as individual can express their gender in diverse ways. Yet, an interesting gender-based pattern emerges, although it might be too overdrawn on certain aspects. Man (or boy) domination is omnipresent in schools : they speak more than girls, are more visible in class and cite invading and “teasing the girls” (76) as an activity. Thorne draws an interesting comparison to the structure of sexual harassment : “The harasser, nearly always male, often claims that verbal and physical intrusions into the target's personal space are all in fun, while the target, usually female, sees it as an unwanted and even coercive attention” (81). This could indicate a path where gender is used as a justification to domestic abuse (“Boys will be boys” excuse) and internalizing that when a boy is abusive, it is because of love. The distribution of space on the playground is the epitome of gender-segregation : “On school playgrounds boys control as much as ten times more space than girls” (83). Even though there have been improvements, school settings still involve an important degree of gender separation. Some structures, depending on the context, seems to lessen or enhance the likelihood of gender separation. Therefore Bourdieu's idea that inequalities are sustained by school seems to be valid to a certain extent. By organizing teams or letting boys and girls separate, a situation of gender antagonism is voluntarily or not created. However, there are many cases where gender is not salient and on the contrary is downplayed. Thorne makes the interesting finding that most cross-gender friendships happen underground or outside of school to avoid teasing or the rumors of “goin with” which rhythm school rumors. Girls and boys often play together for large games (kickball, dodgeball, chasing, tag) while other games remained heavily gender-marked. Children also actively challenged the idea of a fixed gender.
When they cross, take part in mixed-gender activities, cooperate in a classroom project, children share a common experience where gender is not relevant. Crossing designates a situation where a boy or more often a girl seeks access to activities of the other gender in spite of teasing by the same-gender groups. Furthermore, children perceive the notion of gender as a component of their identity in different ways depending on if they are alone, with friends or in large groups. Even though Thorne notices that many boys are tempted to cross, girls succeed more often. Crossing seems even harder for boys who are almost instantly stigmatized with homophobic insults. Crossing, daring to take part into what is not considered as “suitable” for your gender and suffering the teasing of others reminds of the process of deviance through labelling formulated by Goffman. Thus sexist insults of “sissies” or “tomboys” are used to designated the “deviants” as failed boys or failed girls. Yet, some children successfully interact with both girls and boys and embody the notion of gender fluidity such as Jessie, an African-American girl who plays ball with boys and sits at the girl's lunch table. These children act candidly without wondering if they are acting “as a girl” or “as a boy” depending on the situation, they seem to act spontaneously upon what feels natural to
them. Gender relations become more complex as children become teens. Early developing girls (height, breasts) become sexualized targets whereas early developed boys (height, muscles) enjoy social advantages. Thorne also notices the well-known fact of girls “dumbing down” to attract boys.
* *
*
Gender Play successfully reveals how “kids mark, cross, undermine, and challenge gender boundaries” (135). The book is pleasantly written using teen pop culture references and truly places children at the center of feminist theory. Gender is conceived not as inevitably leading to antagonism but as a fluid concept which each individual is free to interpret. Yet, some shortcomings are discernible notably concerning the methodology. The students predominantly came from white, working class demographics in similar schools. As Thorne acknowledges this fieldwork is already dated while gender relations and the study of gender constantly evolve. The question remains regarding if the findings can be transposed to non-American school systems and if the results would remain the same in different societies. Another possible bias is common to most participant- observer studies, Thorne admits that she sometimes was affected by her childhood memories and projected more with girls whereas she “generally felt more detached and less emotionally bound up with boys” (25). Still, Gender Play remains an acclaimed reference in sociology regarding feminism, gender, interactionism and education.
construct but nonetheless challenge the notion of gender. Gender is defined as “a sociological system which establishes a distinction and a hierarchy between the sexes and between the practices, values and representations associated to them.” (Revillard, Lecture 4). Gender is not natural nor biological but a social construct internalized through socialization as Thorne mentions early on “If boys and girls are different, they are not born but made that way” (2). She analyzes gender at the micro-level but also enhances the role of the cohort to shape individual self-identity. Relying on this book and theories studied in class, to what extent is gender a determinant which creates a dichotomy in children's activities and shapes their self-identity ? The first part argues that children through socialization, the reproduction of adult behavior and the institutional framework of school interiorize a notion of difference between the genders which impact the way they behave as individuals but also towards each other. Nonetheless, the second part more optimistically agrees with Thorne's rejection of the “different cultures” theory and proposes that gender is not fixed but fluid and thus children can adopt multiple behaviors and have several identities depending on the context. Thorne underlines in many chapters the importance of methodological rigorousness and adapts when she notices a flaw. Some aspects of her collection of qualitative data resemble those of social constructionism, interactionism and anthropology. She user the participant-observer method to analyze a 4th-5th grader class for 8 months (1976-77) at Oceanside, a public Californian elementary school and in 1980 a 2nd grade class for 3 months at Ashton, a suburban school in Michigan. In addition, Thorne used her own childhood memories and collected in 1983 data from interviews of 15 female and 10 male student from Michigan State University. An innovative twist is that Thorne focuses primarily on the individual and then on group life to investigate the impact of gender the interactions and identity of children. To gain access to the “intimacy” of the observed students, she put effort into distancing herself from institutionalized authority and from clingy students to have an the most objective and extensive perspective on the subject.
* *
*
Children are socialized to learn practices, norms, values of the society in which they will later be performing adults. This process is framed by social instances such as the family and school which exercise an authority on them. Nevertheless, Thorne also emphasizes that children self-socialize as well. Although, they learn from adults by imitating them and following rules as the author acknowledges that “children are socialized into existing arrangements” (2), they also develop their own identity through their interactions with peers and friends. School is thus a privileged and yet very structured environment to understand the dynamics of children's construction of identity. School is a social system and fits Bourdieu's notion of field as students evolve in an area organized by power relations between students, friends, aids and teachers and children aim to gain more freedom from rules. A small but interesting detail is that Thorne refuses to call students “kids” which sounds too condescending and alternates in her sentences the order of “boys” and “girls”. From their upbringing and what they are taught in school (some textbooks still have latent sexist examples), children acquire cultural perceptions of what it means to be a boy or a girl. Their behavior thus reflects an inculcated idea of how they should act, dress, speak based on their gender. This realization encourages them to differentiate each other and divide into two separate groups. Thorne notices through her observations and conversations with students that children are well aware of gender and know how to exploit this notion. She explains that “gender is a highly visible source of individual and social identity, clearly marked by dress and by language ; everyone is either a female or a male. In contrast, categories of race, ethnicity, religion and social class tend to be more ambiguous and complex” (34) and thus gender provides an easy criteria to self-identity and to understand the others with regard to the opposition or resemblance to their gender. Gender Play shows that children's acknowledgment of gender as a social category leads them to engage in gender-typed play,games, behaviors and vocabulary which in return limits interactions between boys and girls and creates a dichotomy. This antagonism is reinforced through the ongoing socialization, cultural practices, pressure from fellow students to conform to a certain idea of gender and reproduction of what is seen in the adult world. As a consequence girls and boys develop different styles of play, different interests and different ways of behaving which is usually prone to lead to same-gender friendships. Thorne provides the classical but veridic examples of girls playing the housewife or caretaker with dolls, conforming to the the idea of gentleness, care, motherhood whereas boys are often attracted by trucks, sports and construction conforming to the idea of toughness, being active and turbulent. By interiorizing this notion of gender as an essential component of social life and of identity, children engage in borderwork meaning that most cross-gender interactions tend to affirm gender boundaries rather than dissolving them. Thorne notices a pattern close to urban sociology which she refers to as a “sex segregation among children” (36) in the classroom where often the organization of seats is gender-based but more extensively and strikingly on the playground . The separation of boys and girls in activities, friendships and games seems to be for the most part accepted as natural. A hypothesis can be advanced that this situation is due to social pressure (teasing), gender-stereotypes (to play rope “you gotta be a girl” 46), teasing on possible love interests (the heterosexual norm is very strong). A frontier is thus established between the two genders. For Goffman (1977), boys and girls separate in space to play but also assemble in some settings therefore creating a “with-then-apart” dynamic. For example, children engage perfectly in some games such as tag but stay distant when it comes to sitting at the same lunch table. Therefore it seems that students usually first use gender as a marker to separate into two groups and then use race to create sub-groups. Even though Thorne notices effective efforts, teachers still use gender to create teams in the classroom, create queues and exert a social control by using gender-based appellations “You boys be quiet”, “Ladies, this isn't a tea party”, “Beastly Boys”, “Gossipy Girls” (34) (67). An interesting pattern is that when children have the choice to designate companions, they more often choose to “separate than integrate” (49). On the other hand adults more often mixed than separated girls and boys. These observations and analyzes seem to point towards a strong antagonism of the genders and yet Thorne rejects the “different culture theory” proposed by Tanner (1990) on the basis that gender is fluid and evolves depending on the context.
* *
*
According to Thorne, the two culture model is based on stereotypical beliefs, exaggerates gender tensions, oversees within same-gender groups variations and is inherently biased to fit certain conceptions of masculinity or femininity. There is notably the “Big Man Bias” which tend to only focus on popular jocks. Thorne argues that there are many ways to be a boy or a girl and also admits that borderwork may insinuate a too strong conflict and emphasize dualism. She notices in the beginning that she was biased by following popular students and thus adapted her methodology. Gender Play emphasizes a micro-level analysis and proposes that “within-gender variation is greater than differences between boys and girls taken as groups” (104). Therefore there is not a single way to represent the “boy's world” or the “girl's world” as individual can express their gender in diverse ways. Yet, an interesting gender-based pattern emerges, although it might be too overdrawn on certain aspects. Man (or boy) domination is omnipresent in schools : they speak more than girls, are more visible in class and cite invading and “teasing the girls” (76) as an activity. Thorne draws an interesting comparison to the structure of sexual harassment : “The harasser, nearly always male, often claims that verbal and physical intrusions into the target's personal space are all in fun, while the target, usually female, sees it as an unwanted and even coercive attention” (81). This could indicate a path where gender is used as a justification to domestic abuse (“Boys will be boys” excuse) and internalizing that when a boy is abusive, it is because of love. The distribution of space on the playground is the epitome of gender-segregation : “On school playgrounds boys control as much as ten times more space than girls” (83). Even though there have been improvements, school settings still involve an important degree of gender separation. Some structures, depending on the context, seems to lessen or enhance the likelihood of gender separation. Therefore Bourdieu's idea that inequalities are sustained by school seems to be valid to a certain extent. By organizing teams or letting boys and girls separate, a situation of gender antagonism is voluntarily or not created. However, there are many cases where gender is not salient and on the contrary is downplayed. Thorne makes the interesting finding that most cross-gender friendships happen underground or outside of school to avoid teasing or the rumors of “goin with” which rhythm school rumors. Girls and boys often play together for large games (kickball, dodgeball, chasing, tag) while other games remained heavily gender-marked. Children also actively challenged the idea of a fixed gender.
When they cross, take part in mixed-gender activities, cooperate in a classroom project, children share a common experience where gender is not relevant. Crossing designates a situation where a boy or more often a girl seeks access to activities of the other gender in spite of teasing by the same-gender groups. Furthermore, children perceive the notion of gender as a component of their identity in different ways depending on if they are alone, with friends or in large groups. Even though Thorne notices that many boys are tempted to cross, girls succeed more often. Crossing seems even harder for boys who are almost instantly stigmatized with homophobic insults. Crossing, daring to take part into what is not considered as “suitable” for your gender and suffering the teasing of others reminds of the process of deviance through labelling formulated by Goffman. Thus sexist insults of “sissies” or “tomboys” are used to designated the “deviants” as failed boys or failed girls. Yet, some children successfully interact with both girls and boys and embody the notion of gender fluidity such as Jessie, an African-American girl who plays ball with boys and sits at the girl's lunch table. These children act candidly without wondering if they are acting “as a girl” or “as a boy” depending on the situation, they seem to act spontaneously upon what feels natural to
them. Gender relations become more complex as children become teens. Early developing girls (height, breasts) become sexualized targets whereas early developed boys (height, muscles) enjoy social advantages. Thorne also notices the well-known fact of girls “dumbing down” to attract boys.
* *
*
Gender Play successfully reveals how “kids mark, cross, undermine, and challenge gender boundaries” (135). The book is pleasantly written using teen pop culture references and truly places children at the center of feminist theory. Gender is conceived not as inevitably leading to antagonism but as a fluid concept which each individual is free to interpret. Yet, some shortcomings are discernible notably concerning the methodology. The students predominantly came from white, working class demographics in similar schools. As Thorne acknowledges this fieldwork is already dated while gender relations and the study of gender constantly evolve. The question remains regarding if the findings can be transposed to non-American school systems and if the results would remain the same in different societies. Another possible bias is common to most participant- observer studies, Thorne admits that she sometimes was affected by her childhood memories and projected more with girls whereas she “generally felt more detached and less emotionally bound up with boys” (25). Still, Gender Play remains an acclaimed reference in sociology regarding feminism, gender, interactionism and education.