Sexuality must be considered as an emergent process involving bio logical processes and social constructions that evolve on both the individ ual and group level to form each person’s unique sexual identity (Anderson, 1993). Although the observations of cultural and experiential differences among women are noted in clinical and empirical literature, theories of gender role development typically are silent about these concerns. Psycho logical theories addressing sexual identity in girls and women appear to ignore individual circumstances and assume an essentialist position (i. e., the belief that there exists a basic female nature that remains relatively impervious to contextual factors).
Traditional psychoanalytic theorists proposed a universal explanation that tied gender-appropriate development to identification with the same sex parent (Beal, 1994). It was proposed that girls had difficulty identifying with their mothers because they held sexual desires for their fathers. In light of current incidents of family sexual abuse and reexaminations of Freud’s notes, researchers now give less credence to the notion of female gender emanating from penis envy or childhood feelings of female inferiority (Mason, 1984). Still, the connections to parents were established and are maintained as fundamental even in other theoretical approaches.
Social learning theorists suggested that children do more than observe parents. They found that children receive implicit and explicit incentives to adopt appropriate gender roles (Bussey & Bandura, 1984; Fagot & Ha gan, 1991). Further, children are rewarded for imitating same-sex models and at times reprimanded for gender-inappropriate behavior. Interestingly,
models may be found in the home (e. g., parents) (Bern, 1983; Block, 1983); or they may be teachers, friends (Carter, 1987; Wynn & Fletcher, 1987); or even characters on television (Lips, 1992). According to Beal (1994) the social learning theory does not explain variations among girls (e. g., why some girls are more feminine than others); it also does not explain why some discouraged behaviors are nevertheless exhibited or why some models are more salient than others.
Cognitive-developmental theorists also focus on components of gen der role learning; however, they propose an active role for the child (Ser bin, Powlishta, & Gulko, 1993). Theorists suggest that children create patterns or schemas to use in interpreting their world. These schemas, growing from repeated experience and observation, guide the child’s deci sions, choices, and behavior (Martin &. Halverson, 1981).
Each of these major theoretical explanations of the development of gender-typed behavior leaves little room for understanding the roles of class, culture, or ethnicity (Reid, 1982). Whether we adopt a psychoana lytic perspective, a social learning, or a cognitive-developmental approach, the underlying assumptions of sexual identity are assumed to be based on traditional (i. e., White, middle-class lifestyles and expectations). Even re cent versions of these standard explanations do little to dispel the notion that normal children are reared in a two-parent, heterosexual, nuclear fam ily. Other assumptions appear to include: (a) a limited number of siblings, (b) few contacts during the first few years with adults outside of the primary caregiver, (c) parents who encourage early independence, and (d) family as the sole agent of socialization. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to deconstruct these myths; however, to examine them further one may see little basis for accepting such family universals.