The Body, Its Nature, and Gender

"Nature is not the origin, source, or designer of instincts; nature is a destination, product, or effect. In man [sic] there is nothing natural, if by nature is understood what is inert, transhistorical, governed by law, conquerable [. . .]" (Grosz 129).

Above are two very complicated quotes. Their complexity is fitting considering the subject matter we are to apply these quotes to, for there is little in our studies of biology, communication, sociology, or performances so enrapturing and confusing as the topic of Gender.

The word alone is a source of concertation for many. It is used interchangeably with "sex" although one indicates biology and the other the performance that is societal constructed to be associated with certain biological characteristics. While the two issues are intertwined, they are by no means interchangeable. Just as the terms nature and body are linked, one is not a substitute for the other.

Let's begin by looking at the first quote. The initial thing that strikes me is to determine whether the body it speaks of is a literal human body or a more metaphorical one. For the purposes of this (and considering the article from which it came) we will consider the body to be a literal human form.

This of course complicates matters. If the literal body is a competing and complimentary forces, then we must determine what these forces are. Certainly the first thing that comes to mind is hormones. Hormones are cited as the source of our sexes. It is the introduction of testosterone in a fetus that makes it a biological male. But just because one has distinct genitalia does not mean that one "is" necessarily male or female.

This is where the competing forces of the body come into play because we are much more than chemicals and bones and blood. We are all these things, but we are also more than the sum of our parts. It is the brain that interprets the signals that the body sends to it, and the brain is part of the human body.

It is caught by the deluge of chemicals sent to it to interpret and it ultimately decides which traits will gain ascendancy and form our perspectives. This indicates that our gender is in a state of constant flux. It may be for no other reason than the ways in which the brain is reading and decoding/encoding chemicals at that stage in life, but I do not believe that this is so.

And that brings us to the second quote. The nature of "nature" is called into question. We expect this term to mean the instincts or inherent tendencies directing our conduct. But in this quote, the usual notion of nature is obsolete.

Instead, we are confronted with the idea that nature originates not from within, but from without. If nature is a destination, product, or effect, how then do we make the journey to our natures?

From the outside in, would appear to be the answer. Our natures are a complex system of societal and cultural cues. The quote states that these cues are not inherent to humans but rather are the work of others. We "buy" our natures; be are sold our genders.

If this is true, then once again, gender is in flux. What society wants today, it may not want tomorrow. There is no stability within or outside of us. Gender is as much a living thing as we allow or make it be. I like the notion that gender isn't stable. At least life isn't boring and stagnant that way.