CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER AND HOUSEHOLD CHORES
ABSTRACT
This work is about the
Yoruba construction of
gender and household
chores, how the Yoruba
share the chores within the
house; by gender or age, to
ascertain if the construction of gender of the Yoruba people is related to the way they allocate chores within the
household. Social construction is an invention of the society and it is expected that the Yoruba people have such in
relation to gender and household chores. A qualitative research with the aid of in-depth interview, key informant
interview and focus group discussion was carried out. Content analysis and ethnographic summary was used to
analyze the work. It was found that the Yoruba do not really have a basic construction of gender because their believe
centers around seniority instead. Household chores, according to my research, are mostly allocated based on age
rather than gender but sometimes it is based on both. These days, children do not do chores again, the domestic help
does them. The Yoruba people allocate chores to their children to train them in handling responsibilities. It is
suggested that parents should keep the culture of the Yoruba alive by still allocating chores to their children. This was
a research conducted among the Yoruba people of some local government areas in Lagos state, it might not apply to
all Yoruba people because even among the Yoruba there are different cultures and the fact that it was carried out in an urban center.
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND OF STUDY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A social construction (also called a social construct) is a concept or practice that is the construct (or artifact) of a
particular group (Hacking, 1999). When we say that something is socially constructed, we are focusing on its
dependence on contingent variables of our social selves rather than any inherent quality that it possesses in itself. It
is to say: This thing could not have existed had we not built it; and we need not have built it at all, at least not in its
present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different needs, values, or interests, we might well
have built a different kind of thing, or built this one differently. The inevitable contrast is with a naturally existing object,
something that exists independently of us and which we did not have a hand in shaping. There are certainly many
things, and facts about them, that are socially constructed in the sense specified by this core idea: money, citizenship
and newspapers, for example. None of these things could have existed without society; and each of them could have
been constructed differently had we so chosen (Boghossian, 2006). Social construction talk is often applied not only
to worldly items – things, kinds and facts – but to our beliefs about them (Hacking, 1999).
Harvard psychologist Pinker (2002) writes that “some categories really are social constructions: they exist only
because people tacitly agree to act as if they exist. Examples include money, tenure, citizenship, decorations for
bravery, and the presidency of the United States.” Social constructionism moves away from socialization as the origin
of gender differences; people do not merely internalize gender roles as they grow up but they respond to changing
norms in the society. As our culture changes, so do our constructs. Some constructs come into being and then fall
into disuse and thus go out of existence. Others remain but change from one culture and historical period to another
(Pinker, 2002). Gender is one such construct. The traits and behaviors that are thought to be “masculine” and
“feminine” differ dramatically from one culture and time period to another. For example, in Europe, during the Middle
Ages, women were commonly associated with roles related to medicine and healing. Due to the rise of witch-hunts
across Europe and the institutionalization of medicine, these roles eventually came to be monopolized by men
(Ehrenreich and Deirdre; 2010). In the last few decades, however, these roles have become largely gender-neutral in
Western society (Boulis and Jacobs; 2010). Children learn to categorize themselves by gender very early on in life. A
part of this is learning how to display and perform gendered identities as masculine or feminine. Boys learn to
manipulate their physical and social environment through physical strength or other skills, while girls learn to present
themselves as objects to be viewed. Children monitor their own and others’ gendered behaviour. Gender-segregated
children’s activities create the appearance that gender differences in behaviour reflect an essential nature of male and
female behavior (Fenstermaker and West, 2002). The intent is not to insist on the obvious fact that certain women come to be refugees as a consequence of social events rather, the idea is to expose the way in which a particular
belief has been shaped by social forces: the belief that there is a particular kind of person – the woman refugee –
deserving of being singled out for special attention (Moussa, 1992).
Butler (2007) contends that being female is not “natural” and that it appears natural only through repeated
performances of gender; these gender performances in turn, reproduce and define the traditional categories of sex
and or gender. A social constructionist view looks beyond categories and examines the intersection of multiple
identities, the blurring of the boundaries of essentialist categories. Thus a claim that gender is socially constructed
probably means that gender, as currently understood, is not an inevitable result of biology, but highly contingent on
social and historical processes. In addition, depending on who is making the claim, it may mean that our current
understanding of gender is harmful, and should be modified or eliminated, to the extent possible.
Hacking (1999), claims that social constructions are not always clear about exactly what isn’t inevitable, or exactly
what should be done away with. Consider a hypothetical claim that quarks are “socially constructed”. On one reading,
this means that quarks themselves are not “inevitable” or “determined by the nature of things.” On another reading,
this means that our idea (or conceptualization, or understanding) of quarks is not inevitable or determined by the
nature of things. The distinction between “quarks themselves” and “our idea (or conceptualization, or understanding)
of quarks” will undoubtedly troublesome with a philosophical bent. Hacking’s distinction is based on an intuitive
metaphysics, with a split between things out in the world, on one hand, and ideas thereof in our minds, on the other.
Hacking is less advocating a serious, particular metaphysics than suggesting a useful way to analyze claims about
“social construction”. Hacking (1999) is much more sympathetic to the second reading than the first. Furthermore, he
argues that, if the second reading is taken, there need not always be a conflict between saying that quarks are
“socially constructed” and saying that they are “real”. In our gender example, this means that while a legitimate
biological basis for gender may exist, some of society’s perceptions of gender may be socially constructed. It is
crucial, therefore, to distinguish between a constructionist claim that’s directed at things and facts, on the one hand,
and one that’s directed at beliefs on the other, for they are distinct sorts of claim and require distinct forms of vindication (Boghassian, 2006)
CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER AND HOUSEHOLD CHORES