Gender, Social Exclusion and Technology - Essay Example

Gender, Social Exclusion and Technology Introduction Engendering refers to the process of allocation of different sets of roles to men and women respectively by society, and thereby socially categorizing them into two separate or distinct genders – male and female. Since it is a social process, this type of engendering is known social construction of gender. Gender is thus “a socially constructed category and the relation between the two genders are basically social relations” (Beall, 1993, pp. 131). Gendering creates social exclusion. Social Exclusion is defined by the European Union as a ‘process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in which they live’ (European Foundation 1995, p 4). Thesis Statement This paper postulates that though technology has to a very great extent been aligned to gender bias and social exclusion based on gender, the ICT revolution holds the potential to erase such biases and provide equal opportunity to both sexes. The process of Engendering Men and women play socially defined gender roles. Our ideas of appropriate gender are rooted in culture and cognitions which manifest themselves as social norms. The way we think and process information are also guided by societal influences and norms of gender. Stereotyping is a process by which people learn to identify gender in society. Sex stereotypes are “socially shared beliefs that certain qualities can be assigned to individuals, based on their membership in the female or male half of the human race” (Lips, 1993, pp. 2). Once a stereotype is defined or takes shape in the mind of a person, he or she tends to assign gender-specific roles not only to the self but also to every member of each gender he or she encounters. Conformity to the roles constructed or specified by the society becomes mandatory for the individual. The members of the society organize themselves according to the gender categories defined in that society. A woman, for example, will behave differently when speaking to women and when speaking to men i.e. to her own gender and to the other gender. This will also be manifest when the member of one socially defined gender is involved in any type of interaction with the own gender or another gender such as when a men works with men or with women. This happens because such types of differing behavior are learnt through stereotyping and modeling and reinforced again and again by the constant examples that an individual comes across in society. Two different perspectives suggested by Bohan (1993, pp.6) can be used to explain the differences between boys and girls – the theories of Essentialism and Constructionism. Essentialism is intrinsic to the individual and places the formation or origin of gender-specific attributes within the individual. Constructionism, on the other hand, looks at gender characteristics as a component of the actions and acts of the individual, extrinsic to the individual. Gender, in Constructionism, is therefore considered external to the self. From this perspective, the gender qualities cannot be said to be based on biological sex. According to Bohan, what the individual does when he interacts with others is gender, not what the individual possesses. Essentialism, however consider gender to be an intrinsic phenomenon -- a set of actions that individual possesses inherently. According to the constructionist perspective the social realm is where gender is located. Gender is defined in terms of ‘doing’. Gender itself is defined as a routine, methodical and recurring accomplishment. To fit into the roles of being competent members of the society, men and women convert the ‘doing’ of gender into action. When gender is viewed in this perspective, it is not some genetic traits or roles that we possess biologically, but is rather a output of social influence that is manifested by what we do or how we behave. Gender is therefore an active rather than a passive concept. Examples of ‘doing’ gender abound in common day-to-day experiences. When men and women dress differently, when the facilities for men and women are different – such as having different washrooms – when men have stag parties and women have bridal showers, when we frown at men crying but accept the same act as womanly – we are actually ‘doing’ gender. Social constructionists focus on interaction of people with one another when they define gender. Essentialists find gender essential to individuals. Inclusion and Exclusion Once the concept of engendering is established in society, the basic emotion of belonging and not belonging comes into play. This however is not exclusive to engendering only, it happens in the case of all groups that society defines be it class, caste or gender. This is where the concept of social exclusion or social inclusion comes in. If an individual is deemed not to belong to a particular group or class, he or she is restricted access to the resources that are thought to be the exclusive preserve of the group. Social Exclusion is a comparatively new concept which was developed in the industrialized countries, particularly in the European Union, to identify the process of deprivation and marginalization that can develop that can develop even in rich countries with considerable resources. This concept has then been gradually extended to developing countries to identify similar trends. Being engendered leads to creation of social constructs of male and female which can in turn lead to the exclusion of the group or class categorized as inferior. Women have thus faced exclusion not only in developing and poor countries such as India, but also in developed and well-to-do countries. The dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion Social exclusion is in itself a dynamic process passing through successive descending steps. “…some disadvantages lead to some exclusion, which in turn leads to more disadvantages and more exclusion and ends up with persistent multiple (deprivation) disadvantages.” (Eurostat Taskforce, 1998, p 24) Technology throughout history has promoted rather than discouraged exclusion and inclusion as far as women are concerned. This had lead to a snowballing effect due the inherent dynamics of social exclusion. Women have been at the wrong end of technology primarily because they have been viewed more as lay users of technology than as the creators or facilitators. The role of drivers or creators of technology has been almost the exclusive social preserve of men. Women have been deemed to lack the technical mantle or characteristics that could allow or enable them to dabble in technology development. A perspective known as the paradigm of production combined with gender bias to create this exclusive approach. This paradigm of production placed far greater importance on tangible products, objects, hard work and character rather than on knowledge, institutions, users, leisure and personality (Oldenziel, 2001, pp. 128). It emphasized design over use, gave more prominence to patent activity than on tacit knowledge, engineering products were always more important than non-engineering products so were capital-intensive technologies over labor-intensive technologies. It was a technology inclusive of men, putting them plumb at the center of things; and exclusive of women who the paradigm to the fringes as users who had no role in the making or shaping of the technology. The engineering backdrop of the history of technology complemented the perspective of the woman as the consumer and man as the developer of technology. There is a reason behind this: many amongst those who have written the history of technology themselves were men who taught at technical institutions, and were more influenced by the social concept of gender. For them technology and technical inventions fell strictly within the domain of engineers and the engineering profession. Since women were practically not represented in such engineering and allied fields they were considered to be exclusive bastions of the male. This to the extent that any new technical inventions in the fields in which women worked were not considered technical at all. They tended to follow the path of inclusion or exclusion. Women were and have been excluded from the domain of technology and technical development. Anything falling out of that specified domain of engineering did not qualify as technology or technological inventions. “This engineering genesis of the filed unwittingly excluded those historical actors operating outside its definitions of the engineering professions.” (Oldenziel, 2001, pp. 128) Innovative activities of women such as bonnet-making, sewing and bread-making were considered to be outside the purview of technology and technological inventions. Not only were women, but any genuine endeavors in technology on their part in were excluded from the very inclusive gender classification of the technical man. Let alone technology development, women were not even considered to be important as consumers or users of technology. Women were practically excluded from the domain of the technically savvy. They were deemed to lack the sophistication even to appreciate and use new technology in a befitting manner. Most technological innovations were originally designed for use by men. These include the some of the most ubiquitous products of today such as the bicycle, the combustion car, the radio and the telephone. It was only when women could demonstrate how the same products could be utilized in other different ways and for variety of other reasons pertaining more to women, and when it came to be realized that women could make up a large and profitable market for the producers, that the focus shifted to women – but as consumers. The inclusion and exclusion in this scenario comprise men being considered in the inclusive arena of technology as the active developers or creators and women being excluded from the same arena as passive consumers or users. This was in total oblivion to the fact that it was women who explored the various alternatives of the farm car engine and led to the invention of the refrigerator, that it was again women who devised different uses of the telephone and increased it market value from a simple contraption that could be use only for the communication of some terse messages to the multi-dimensional equipment that it turned out to be. The social construction of both women and the telephone was thus shaped by engineering-productionist paradigm. ICT and gender play Even with computer technology, the process of gendering persisted. A masculine image of computer technology took shape in the very early years. A masculine culture of computing refers to the social construction of computers and computing as male. So strong was the influence of social construct that in spite of the fact that before the coming of the digital computer in the 1940s, the term ‘computer’ implied a person, usually a woman, who did calculations with the help of mechanical computing machines or even by hand. Many women such as Grace Hooper and Jean Sammet made significant contributions to the early development of computers. It was perhaps because the initial development of computers had more or less coincided with the Second World War that women could take an active role in the early developments in computer technology. However, when the War came to an end, the men returned and took over, so did the process of social exclusion. Many of the first programmers of the ENIAC computer were women, and cite the reasons for their careers being disrupted by marriage and child bearing. Moreover, a masculine computing fraternity developed because men, or the society at large, were quick to realize that computing, unlike calculating was a challenging enterprise, both in terms of creativity and intellect. The returns in terms of earnings and reputation were also high. Besides, computing was then not ensconced in academic environment, but was imbibed with a vital frontier enthusiasm. Action, innovation and competition – all hallmarks of the socially constructed male gender, also marked the field of computers. Women were to be naturally excluded. “Recognition in the small programming fraternity was more likely to be accorded for a colourful personality, an extraordinary feat of coding, or the ability to hold a lot of liquor well than it was for an intellectual insight. Ideas flowed freely along with the liquor at innumerable meetings, as well as in sober private discussions and informally distributed papers.”(Backus, 1980) A Turning Point The scenario has however changed radically since the advent of the ICT revolution in the early 1980s. The unprecedented development and pervasiveness of the computer, the Internet and the World Wide Web has opened up many new avenues which could transcend gender barriers and open up new avenues for social inclusion of women. Initially, same patterns of gendered division of labour were visible in the ICT field also. A large majority of the women, especially in developing countries, were found on the wrong side of what came to be known as the Digital Divide. However, as ICT applications became more strategic, a turn around seemed possible. “…women are making inroads into higher levels of the IT workforce in Latin America, East and Central Europe, much of Western and South East Asia, and South Africa. Women comprise a significant percentage of software programmers in India and Brazil and at all levels of IT work in Malaysia” (Hafkin & Taggart, 2001, p. 4) More recent studies, specially in developed countries show that the gender bias has not been able deprive women of access to ICT use. Mulluzzo & Dwyer (2006), have found that though there are still some lingering cultural differences between male and female students, this does not in any way reflect on their ICT use or time they spend with computers on routine basis. Many developing countries have also adopted strategic implementation of ICT projects that targets the development of women, be it in education or in other sectors that help to augment their exposure as well as their economic well being. This has been possible because of the highly flexible nature of ICT. Conclusion Through the ages, technology has contributed to the engendering and social exclusion of women. The root of this lies in the social construct of genders wherein women are construed to be inherently incapable of not only developing or creating technology, but also putting technology to good and effective use. In many cases though, it had turned , as in the case of the telephone, that women had in many ways played crucial roles in putting technology to unforeseen uses thus increasing their market value and viability. In the case of computers also, things had gone much along the same lines. However, the coming of the ICT revolution has brought about a turning point in the process of gendering and social exclusion of women by the dint of its flexible nature. Studies indicate that in developed countries, the digital divide between men and women is gradually receding. In developing countries too, the trends indicate that the gender-based digital divide can be bridged by strategic applications of ICT. References -01 A. E. Beall, 1993, A social constructionist view of gender, in A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.) The Psychology of Gender, p 127-147, New York Guilford European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (1995), Public Welfare Services and Social Exclusion: the Development of Consumer Oriented Initiatives in the European Union, Dublin: European Foundation Eurostat Task Force, 1998, Recommendations on Social Exclusion and Poverty Statistics, Luxembourg: Eurostat Hillary M. Lips, 1993, Sex & Gender: An Introduction, Mayfield Publication Company J. Backus, 1980, Programming in America in the 1950s – Some Personal Impressions, In A History of Computing in the Twentieth Century, ed. N., Metropolis, et al. New York Academic Press. J. S. Bohan, 1993, Regarding Gender: Essentialism, constructionism, and feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, p 5-21 John C. Molluzzo and Catherine Dwyer, 2009, Gender and Technology Careers: The Gap Continues, Information Systems Pace University, New York. http://isedj.org/7/21/ISEDJ.7(21).Molluzzo.pdf Nancy Hafkin and Nancy Taggart, 2001, Gender, Information Technology and Developing Countries: An Analytical Study, Academy for Education Development, United States Agency for International Development, p 4. http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Hafkin-Taggart_Gender.pdf R. Oldenziel, 2001, Man the maker, woman the consumer. In A. Craeger, E. Lunbeck, & L. Schiebinger (Eds.), Feminism in twentieth-century science, technology, and medicine (pp. 128-148). Chicago: University of Chicago Topic: Gender, Social Exclusion and Technology Introduction: Gendering is a social construct that leads to social exclusion. Technology has largely contributed to gender bias and social exclusion. Argument/Thesis statement: Though technology has to a very great extent been aligned to gender bias and social exclusion based on gender, the ICT revolution holds the potential to erase such biases and provide equal opportunity to both sexes. Mainpoint 1: Gender is a social construct that is present in the minds of people but not in the biological makeup of human beings. Mainpoint 2: Gender bias leads to social exclusion depriving one group of the resources and services of society. Mainpoint 3: Throughout history, technology had contributed to gendering and social exclusion until the advent of the ICT revolution which holds the potential of overcoming gender bias. Concepts to define: Gender Bias, Social Exclusion, Social Inclusion, Digital Divide Scope: The paper seeks to prove that gender bias is a socially constructed phenomenon which leads to social exclusion. It thereby traces the history of technology vis-à-vis gender bias and seeks to establish that ICT holds the potential to surmount this malaise. Mainpoint 1 Gender is a social construct that is present in the minds of people but not in the biological makeup of human beings. Mainpoint 2 Gender bias leads to social exclusion depriving one group of the resources and services of society. Mainpoint 3 Throughout history, technology had contributed to gendering and social exclusion until the advent of the ICT revolution which holds the potential of overcoming gender bias. Conclusion: ICT is a technology that has the potential of eradicating the socially developed concepts of gender bias and social exclusion. It differs from earlier technologies which contributed to gender bias, in flexibility and scope of strategic application. Read More