Question of Research

Reconstruction of Gender

“Part of the mystery of gender is how a pattern that on the surface appears so stark and rigid, on close examination turns out so complex and uncertain.”
Connell and Pearse, 2015

The mystery behind gender is indeed quite complex and uncertain. This reminds me of sudoko where the pattern is quite simple and straightforward yet when you try to solve it, its quite complex and takes a lot of brain power. (I’m assuming sudoko is complex because I’ve never got the hang of it. I don’t deal with numbers…its one of the reasons why I suck with money…)

Picture on the right: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/550916966920972208/

Now, I’m not the queen of gender who knows everything from left to right. I had to learn and I’m still learning about the different identification of gender. This website https://uniteuk1.com/2017/10/gender-101/ really helped me get an idea about different gender identification. Gender has changed a lot throughout the decades. There are not just male and female labels as different gender identities have been introduced and may still be on-going. Who knows! The ideal gender stereotypes of what’s masculine and what’s feminine is slowing breaking it’s barrier and being transformed.

https://media.giphy.com/media/31wVvW0sOur7O/source.gif
My spirit animal

“Women’s representation in politics has changed slowly over time, and with difficulty. French lawyer Christine Lagard was the first woman ever to head the international monetary fund in 2011, the world average number of women in parliament increased from 10 per cent in 1995 to 20 per ten in 2012.”
Connell and Pearse, 2015

https://media.giphy.com/media/OnKlrHN7Decko/source.gif

CAN I GET AN AMEN!

There has been changes in the issue of gender, like women being involved in politics, women having the right to vote, equal opportunities between men and women, LGBT rights, not conforming to the ideals of what’s masculine and what’s feminine, third gender, etc. What I’m trying to say is that we’ve come a long way since the invention of the internet. (I’m kinda curious about who invented the internet now…)

“There are women in love with other women, and men in love with other men. There are women who are heads of households, and men who bring up children. There are women who are soldiers and men who are nurses.”
Connell and Pearse, 2015

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/550916966920916679/
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/AYnqF9lhG_AISvS4syIVS59F7DqsbZ2WOweAAUeX4yqUpBPbf1FSGrU/
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/550916966920964627/
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/550916966920964543/

There has been so many changes for both men and women but the one change that I would like to point out is clothing. Yeah that’s right, let talk about clothes! Clothing has a major role in the issues of gender because what we wear defines our identity. And who does not like talking about clothes… (okay maybe only relatable to me then.)

“Clothing is unusual in artefactual terms because it allows us to play temporarily or permanently – with identity and self-image. It can fix us into the gendered space we occupy on a daily basis as we get dressed or, in the transition from male and female, it can function as the means by which gender is slipped on and off.”
Suthrell, 2014

Clothing can act as a confinement to gender norms or act as a rebellion. In the late 16th-19th century, women wore male attire to venture outside for an exciting lifestyle. (I mean talk about trust issues towards women.) Clothing is that one functional object that allows us to play with our identity and self-image, temporarily or permanently. I mean hey, you only got one life right so go ahead and experiment.(It sounds like sarcasm but trust me it’s not!)

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/550916966920975258/
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/550916966920916668/
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/550916966920975252/
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/550916966920975269/

“In terms if cross-dressing in a Western context, an example might be the wearing of clothes which are ‘almost’ gender neutral such as shirts/blouses, jeans and sweaters, for which the only difference might be the terms of labelling.”
Suthrell, 2004

Girls wearing dresses and boys wearing trousers because they had to be confided in the given stereotypes has changed. I mean thank the Lord for changes because I love wearing dresses once a while but I would still pick trousers because one, its comfy and two, I don’t have to worry about my dress flying about in the wind. “Ain’t nobody got time for that.” The changes are brought by designers and companies who have broken the rules of gender norms and caused a spark of rebellion by creating gender-neutral clothing. The idea of androgynous fashion comes to mind where both masculine and feminine traits could be expressed by anyone. Clothes lets you defy the gender norms.

So overall, going back to the question of How can materiality enhance the end user/ audience experience? Or how I now rephrased it to how can materiality in GENDER enhance the end user/audience experience? (I needed a change considering this post is about changes in gender.)

Gender has different meanings. For some it might be male or female (the biological sex) but for some it might be an issue about how they identify themselves, masculine or feminine or both. There are so many answers about gender that I think it’s still an ongoing issue. It’s definitely a conversation starter I’ll tell you that. Let’s just say a cup of tea or a bottle of wine would definitely be needed.

However, if I had to pin point on how materiality in gender CAN (emphasis on the CAN) enhance the audience experience, I would have to say by clothing. Creating a gender neutral clothing not only defies gender norms but increases the value of gender equality thus giving the audience (who might still be discovering their identity) a chance to discover themselves. Also, I would like to say educating about gender issues because there are still some cultures who don’t defy the gender norms simply because of society values. (*cough* rural parts of Nepal *cough*). Educating about changes in gender stereotypes and identification can improve the issues based on gender and increase the audience’s knowledge about gender norms thus enhancing their experience because at the end of the day, I would like to be asked about my future and ambitions not when I am going to get married. (Also, the amount of times I said gender in one sentence is shocking.)

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlCJI0HZZnmOgkU/source.gif

Bipana

Pearse, R. C. (2015). Gender: In World Perspective.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Suthrell, C. (2004). Unzipping Gender: Sex, Cross-dressing and Culture.Oxford: Berg.

Body + Gender = Materiality?

How can materiality enhance the end user/audience experience?

What is materiality? A question that has not been raised in my recent blog posts. Well, in the dictionary, the meaning is “the quality of being composed of matter.” Now the million dollar question is, How can I relate this definition to the research that I have been doing?

The way I see this definition is the quality is GENDER and the matter is the BODY meaning gender being composed by the body. I know its confusing…(I should get a £1 for every time I have used the word “confusing”.) Basically, what I am trying to say is that gender is difficult to define, an issue that is bursting with questions about things like gender norms and stereotypes (what’s masculine and what’s feminine) but is being composed by the body (the biological sex). So, the question is How can gender enhance the end user/audience experience?

Now, I’m not giving a direct answer to the question as there are so many possibilities behind it. It might have been because of society values or through gender practices that gender has become such a heavy discussion to talk about. Gender does not have the exact explanation.

https://media.giphy.com/media/1jajMAVf2vN9KxoFfw/source.gif
Ain’t nothin’ but a heartache

Well, let me give you an example that I found from a book called “Gender: in world perspective” by Raewyn Connell & Rebecca Pearce. In this book, there was a chapter called Gender Research: five examples where three examples focused on everyday life in local settings- school, community, workplace, personal life where as the other two examples focused on gender change and gender issues in the environment.

Out of those five examples, the one that was really interesting was called “Manhood and the mines.” (reminds me of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs…). It is by T. Dunbar Moodie who’s study was focused on South African mines. It was in the nineteenth century where the wealth of the largest gold began to be utilized by British Colonists and the Dutch in South Africa. They needed a large but low paid workforce for dangerous conditions underground. So, they hired black African men from many parts of South Africa and became the main labour force for the gold industry. Most of them lived in all-male compound near the mines.

When they signed contracts which lasted four months to two years, they did not take their family because their wages were too low to support their family and also because most of them came from areas with a smallholder agricultural economy like Pondoland.

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/541628292670155991/

“Being the wise and respected head of a self-sufficient homestead was the ideal of ‘manhood’ to which Mpondo migrant workers (alongside others) subscribed.”
Connell & Pearse, 2015

Being wise and respected head of the house was the “ideal manhood” which led to gender practices. Men working in mines had to provide their own domestic labours which created a sexual and domestic partnership known as “mine marriages” between the older and younger men. How mine marriages worked is that the older men would go to work in the mines whereas the younger men would do the domestic labours and provide sexual services in exchanges for gifts, money and protection. It was a custom that lasted for decades.

In an interview with an ex-miner, when asked “whether there was not also a sort of manhood displayed by strength in fighting” the response was…

“No, that is not manhood. Such person is called a killer.”
Connell & Pearse, 2015

In this culture settings, manhood meant competent and being kind-hearted. Since women could perform these skills, older Mpondo men emphasised that women had ubudoda (to help people).

“They were not denying that in a patriarchal society men ultimately have control. But they emphasized a conception of partnership between women and men in the building of homesteads, in which women could and often did perform masculine functions and thus participated in manhood.”
Connell & Pearse, 2015

However, during the twentieth century, gender practices and the gold mining industry started to change. Workers started to become more unionized and the working labours started to change as well. In the 1970s, incomes started to rise, making it possible to support households thus breaking gender practices. Younger Mpondo men no longer defined “manhood” as being kind-hearted and competent which divided the idea of masculinity and femininity. Women were no longer associated with “manhood”.

“Among the younger mineworkers-more unionized, more militant and much better paid than their fathers- masculinity is increasingly associated with toughness, physical dominance and aggressiveness. This pattern of masculinity requires no reciprocity with women, who are, increasingly, left in the position of housewives dependent on a male wage earner.”
Connell & Pearse, 2015

The gender practices of manhood being kind and running a household started changing and masculinity started associating with toughness, physical dominance and aggressiveness which did not link with women and left them in the position of housewives, dependent on a male wage earner. Its shocking to know that, back in the decades, masculinity linked with compassion and being wise, something that is mostly associated with femininity, which then took a drastic change and being masculine started relating to being tough and aggressive. In a sense, because of these values that has been passed down in society, might have been the reason to having a category of differences between male and female.

Gender, being the quality that is composed by the body could be defined as being masculine that has been linked with being compassionate but because of the body (the biological sex), we compose those ideals and associate masculine with what is acceptable in the society, being tough and aggressive.

Bipana

Materiality and the body: Part 2

How can materiality enhance the end user/ audience experience?

Keeping that question in mind, I’m still researching to find possible answers.

In the previous post, I mentioned about the body being the “material” and gender being the “materiality of the body”; gender being the drama behind the material (the body). I also mentioned in the precious post about reading a book called “Materiality// Documents of Contemporary Art” where one section of the book was called “Bodies That Matter”. The mini chapter had aspects of the book but the information was very vague so I decided to read the actual book “Bodies That Matter: On the discursive limits of “sex” by Judith Butler.

Firstly, let me make it clear that I did not read the whole book; only some chapters that might be a good asset to my research. Second, the chapters that I read were very informative and by that I mean I had to re-read some pages over and over in order to understand the theory. Honestly, there were times where I wanted to throw my laptop away or smash it..

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oJpyi7wBpo0sV9V9C/source.gif

My feelings summed up perfectly.

It was a very overwhelming book!

From the pages that I was reading, there was a lot of suggestions about materiality of sex and the body. Heterosexual gender norms were taken into consideration while exploring about materiality of the body.

“In other words, “sex” is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time. It is not a simple fact or static condition of a body, but a process whereby regulatory norms materialize “sex” and achieve this materialization through a forcible reiteration of those norms. That this reiteration is necessary is a sign that materialization is never quite complete, that bodies never quite comply with the norms by which their materialization is impelled.”
Butler, 1993

“Sex” (the biological differences) is an idea which is presented throughout time. It’s not a simple fact or a condition of a body, but a development where gender norms materialize “sex” and achieve this materialisation through a forceful representation of gender stereotypes that have been lurking throughout decades. The idea of these gender norms (what’s masculine and what’s feminine) has been repeating itself throughout society, which forces the bodies to comply with these norms or creates a diversion, never submitting to these gender norms based on what the “sex” of the body is.

“To claim that sex is already gendered, already constructed, is not yet to explain in which way the “materiality” of sex is forcibly produced.
Butler, 1993

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piF4YOiIYS0
Introduction to Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble

“Sex is already gendered, already constructed…”

Now I know the book that I was reading is different compared to the video but the analogy behind gender is quite similar. Yes, I know the author is the same but the video about gender issue is quite interesting. “Butler believes our definition of masculinity and femininity are constructed rather than inherent from within us but more controversially, Butler adds that our understanding of biological differences between men and women is socially constructed too.” This implies that gender norms and sex (differences between men and women) are already constructed within the society. It might have been possible that the idea of gender norms (the “role” of men and women in society) have been practised throughout the decades i.e: boys playing with soldiers or building things where as girls playing with dolls and domestic toys, leading to believing that masculinity and femininity are constructed.

The example shown in the video about two twins (one girl and one boy) are “already categorized based on their biological sex”. The video talks about how Hashem receives clothes that have spaceships and tractor and he gets a toy dinosaur where as Surya receives clothes that have butterflies and unicorns and she gets a doll. Hashem has his fist clenched and because of that, it is believed that in the future, he might become a fighter but the same is not said about the baby girl.

We categorize what’s masculine and what’s feminine based on the biological sex. Our responses and the way we treat a man might be different compared to a woman. But, the question is, is it because of society and the value that they have been passed down the reason that has led to catergorize what’s masculine and what’s feminine based on biological sex?

Another example that I would like to throw in the mix about gender perfomative is personal experience. I believe that society has catergorized the differences between masculinity and femininity based on biological sex. For example, boys were told to play outside where as girls were told to start leaning about domestic work. Boys were associated with the colour blue where as girls were associated with the colour pink. Now don’t get me wrong, I love the colour pink but why are there gender stereotypes in colours? Why wasn’t yellow involved, I mean it’s a nice colour! Men were asked about their future plans based on their careers where as women were asked if they have any plans for getting married. Girls were told to help with domestic work and when the question was being raised as to why they have to do it, the basic answer was “because you’re a girl!” There has been gender performative in everyday life but sometimes we just brush it off because of society and the values they have.

Now, this isn’t my hatred rant towards men (although if I was 10 years old, it would have been a whole different story), but the question is why? Why do men and women get treated differently? Is it because it’s socially acceptable? Why is being masculine and being feminine catergorized? Why is gender stereotyping a thing? Why is that because of of our biological sex, we have to conform to the ideal gender norms?

The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, ‘It’s a girl.’
Shirley Chisholm

Bipana

Materiality and the Body

During my last post, I wrote that I wanted to base my research on the human body. Now, I wasn’t very specific on which area I wanted to focus on because the idea behind the human body could go from researching about the actual human body to the personality behind the human body, etc.

I started my research by reading a book called “Materiality// Documents of Contemporary Art” edited by Petra Lange-Berndt. The book itself had so many ideas about materiality in art by different artists; looking at materials that interfere with social norms and unstable substances, exploring with variety of materials and examining the relationship between materiality and bodies. This book covers a variety of different topics but the one section of the book that was interesting was called “Bodies That Matter” which included a mixture of mini chapters about the body; from hints about gender hierarchies to using hair, urine and food as materials to create art and use it to revolt against dominant social orders.

The topics within that area that caught my eye was a chapter called “Bodies That Matter” by Judith Butler (the chapter itself are extracts from her book called “Bodies That Matter”) where she talks about materiality of sex. “How is gender constituted as and through a certain interpretation of sex? (a question that leaves the ‘matter’ of sex untheorized), but rather, through what regulatory norms is sex itself materialised?” (Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter, 1993; edited by Petra Lange-Berndt). The mini chapter in the book is not quite detailed as it only has a part of the actual book. But the chapter itself covers about materiality of sex (more about the form of men and women, “the matters of the body”) and that “materiality is constructed through a problematic gendered matrix, then the discursive practice by which matter is rendered irreducible simultaneously ontologies and fixes that gendered matrix in its place.” (Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter, 1993; edited by Petra Lange-Berndt).

I know. It’s a mouthful of words!

Honestly, it was really confusing so I decided to pick apart the paragraph and focused on the word GENDER. Since the book only had extracts of the actual book, I read through many other mini chapters/theory within the book. There was another theory within the book called “Aspects of Feminist Actionism” by Valie Export. First of all, what an amazing title! Secondly, what was so interesting about the theory was when she suggests that “Regardless of whether the material consisted of the body or objects, in reality the drama of material was a drama of meaning. Material was the stage for various meanings, not only processing and integrating people’s experiences, but also activating their ability to experience and sharpening their awareness of the meanings the material called forth.” (Valie Export, Aspects of Feminist Actionism, 1980, edited by Petra Lange-Berndt)

If I put my own spin on this; the way I see this suggestion is that the “material” is the body and the drama behind the “material” (which is the body) could imply the discussion about gender. Gender has various meanings, it could be from the differences between men and women to facing issues about gender identity. Not only does gender processes and combines people’s experiences but also activates their experience and gives them knowledge behind the meaning of gender thus exploring the “materiality” of the body.

In conclusion, my view about materiality has changed. When I first tried to mind map the idea about materiality, all I could think about was materials like lipsticks or shoes, never really thinking outside the box. But after reading some chapters from the book, it changed my views and made me look at the “materiality” in a different light. The word “materiality” has a meaning behind it; the body being the material and gender being the “materiality of the body”.

Bipana

ROUND 2 OF RESEARCH

Yes.

It’s been a long time and I’m still researching…

Researching into the topic of materiality is quite difficult because its such a broad topic. There are so many meanings behind the word “materiality”. The meaning could be from matter to materialistic things.

https://media.giphy.com/media/ZXwdJuk172dQwAqMGv/giphy.gif

*What could the meaning* *be?*

So, in order to find some answers, I looked through a thesaurus to find some context behind the word “materiality” and there was no meaning associated with said word so I looked into “material”. It had lots of definition so I decided to put those definitions through a mind map.

I know what you are thinking…it looks confusing! There are so many interesting ideas that the chain just grew even wider as the ideas came out. There were so many words that you could link with “materiality” like physical which branched off to concepts like “the material world”. Honestly, at first, it made me think about the song Material Girl by Madonna because “we are living in a material world.” Moreover, it also made me think about the material things we own; from shoes to jewellery, the “materialistic things” we need in order to blend in society. “As material civilisation has progressed, so has the material environment which human beings have created for themselves.” (Dant, 2005, pg 136). We live in material world where we need these material objects as a security blanket to feel safe and not be judged by the “materialistic society.” As the “civilisation” has increased, the need for materialistic things has expanded within the society. Maybe, having these material objects is a way to be accepted into society because we have built a “material environment.”

Furthermore, other things that linked with “materiality” were information that branched off to facts, details and work. “Work” made me think about this section in the book Materiality and Society where Christian Heath and his colleagues, who did a study of workplaces, analysed video data where material objects were part of work and looked into details of interaction between humans and objects. “Their focus of attention has primarily been on how material objects become incorporated onto interaction between humans and how attention to material objects is inserted into exchange of talk.” (Dant, 2005, pg 8).

However, the most interesting concept about “materiality” was substance as it branched out to options like elements, matter and body. Substance was also linked with “decomposition of organic material” which branched off to ideas about plants and the human body and if it’s possible, how certain fabrics might react if I leave them in different elements like leaving them in soil, etc. Sensual and the concept about “the renunciation of material pleasure” stared to become interesting because it was linked with the human body and how we feel about material objects.

Overall, there were so many ideas around “materiality” and creating the second mind map made it a bit clear on where I wanted to focus (which is about the human body). I’m not quite sure on how I want to carry the research as I don’t want to approach it directly but think more about what I want to research and what’s interesting to me.

Bipana

Dant, T. (2005). Materiality and Society .Maidenhead: Open University Press .

QUESTION OF RESEARCH: THE BEGINNING

“How can materiality enhance the end/user audience experience?”

At the beginning of this project, we were given a choice of choosing 1 question out of 5 and by “choosing” I mean picking a question out of a box and thus I ended up with the question of “How can materiality enhance the end/user audience experience?”. My initial reaction towards the question was “I don’t get it. Was I suppose to have an answer to this like I’m in an exam? What is the meaning of this question?”

https://media.giphy.com/media/do0DADKwjMQ6c/source.gif

After re-reading the question over and over again, I decided to use a mind-map (like any normal human being does) and brainstorm the question. They said there were “no right answers” so I was just started “spitballing” some ideas.

I started out by picking the words out (materiality and user) and started exploring those ideas by looking at the definition. I also thought about how I could re-word the question so that I could understand it better but I think I made it worse for myself by thinking about consumerism and the idea behind it. I thought about materiality and linked it to materials which led me to think about products, art and fabrics (“looking at it from a fashion and textiles point of view”).

In all honesty, looking at it from a “fashion point of view” and thinking about fabrics and the sense of touch (because we have to touch the fabrics, otherwise how are you going to know its the right one?) was not very helpful because it felt like I was “playing it safe”. I wasn’t thinking more about the question and the different outcomes it could have. So, I will continue to embark on this journey of research by searching for different results because there are no right answer.

Bipana