The debate about gendered differences in reading patterns has been rumbling around the blogosphere this summer and several of the commentators whose analysis I most respect – Dorothy, Bikeprof, Victoria and just recently, Kate. S – have contributed their thoughts to it. For what it’s worth I’d like to do the same, but from the point of view of encouraging us to accept that there are significant differences between the genders and that they need to be considered and evaluated. Looking back over the history of gender politics, it’s noticeable how the theoretical position on difference has altered since the 1960s. Initially the cry was for socio-economic equality – equal rights as citizens in relation to the legal, financial and commercial organisation of society. The next step was to embrace the notion of ‘Vive la difference!’, and it came in a number of forms – consciousness raising, the publication of women’s writings, and explorations into sexuality and psychoanalysis. By about the 1980s a new interrelational, constructivist position was emerging on gender. In an attempt to escape the polarities of either denying or celebrating difference (both of which risk a collapse into essentialism – the belief that biology is the fundamental determinant) the French theorist Julia Kristeva took up a stance I always admired. She suggested that we could understand femininity better as a position – a location in relationship to power. Historically speaking, the feminine was that which was marginalized in society. The debate has moved on somewhat from this proposition, but that notion of a relationship to power remains for me, in any case, the most significant point of the feminist movement. We can waste a lot of time arguing whether women like cats more than dogs and reading soppy romances and eating chocolate more than shooting wildfowl, but what matters is that you can do what you like: cry at sad films, enjoy cuddling babies, empathise with other’s pain – and it doesn’t prevent you from running for president. The point is that society cannot be allowed to dictate one’s access to power according to culturally influenced personality type.
Now, the currently correct understanding of gender difference privileges the exception to the rule. There may well be these superficial, old-fashioned concepts of gender difference, modern thinking goes, but you can always find people who’ll disprove them. Probably contentiously, I think that this is a position that is only really held by people who have been very thoroughly educated, and who have, therefore, explored their own reasoning and responsive capacities beyond the average level. I also think it’s a position that belongs to a very particular generation, and that whilst it is an admirable theoretical point of view to hold, it’s highly specific to the contemporary Western, highly civilised world. It seems to me that it’s a socio-economic reality (even if a regrettable one) that the less education an individual has, the less concerned he or she will be about conforming to stereotypical gender traits. So my position on gender is this: gender is a quality that is profoundly open to influence by education, social training, history, culture and biology. That means that yes, everyone’s relationship to their gender is unique, but no, I don’t think we can simply discard what we rather pejoratively term stereotypical gender difference because it’s a significant part of anyone’s gender construction. My preference would be, then, to attempt a sophisticated image of gender, not as a flat collection of adjectives and preferences, but as a form of architecture – a complex, three-dimensional structure.
Let’s look at it in a different way. I recognise this analogy won’t work for half the world, but here in the UK we often have days in Winter that are more like Spring, and we often have days in Summer that are more like Winter. Despite this no one has decided to abandon the seasons as useful climactic distinctions (and you don’t hear many people saying ‘I hate the way the seasons are so stereotyped!’). Instead it’s considered perfectly reasonable to compare any given day in summer to the abstract concept of a perfect summer’s day. The seasons become an imagistic yardstick against which we can make appropriate measurements. Can we not imagine something similar for the genders? I’ll turn it around again. What I’m suggesting is that we need a story or a fiction about the genders, a story that shapes and magnifies and coheres, the way that stories do in order to create their very particular kind of truth. But it must be a story that we have license to play with and reconsider and rearrange, in accordance with the dynamic, culturally-specific concept that gender difference undeniably is.
This matters to me for purely pragmatic reasons. Times have changed and the need to protect the uncertainty of gender for political reasons – that access to power – is no longer as pressing as it once was. However, for as long as we live in a democratic, market-driven society, important social and economic decisions will be taken according to statistical evidence of gender difference. Whilst statistics may point to gender difference they cannot accurately account for it, or explain it or even describe it. Good decisions can only be made if we can provide a good-enough understanding of the reality of gender difference. For instance, one place where gender really matters is in education. Schools are altering their policies all the time in order to account for the marked difference that exists between boys and girls when they learn to read and write. This carries on all the way up to university level – recently my own university has been altering its examination procedures in the light of studies carried out on gender difference. Three-hour long one-off exams are now understood to favour male candidates unfairly, and so new forms of assessment have been introduced, such as portfolios of coursework and prepared dissertations, in order to make the process more equal. Undoubtedly there will be children and students who disprove the general rule, but education is, unfortunately, not a system that can account for each individual. The best it can do is try its hardest to cater well for the greatest majority. The fact that men read different books (on the whole) to women, the fact that they read less (on the whole) to women is a reality that affects every level of the publishing industry and will become a significant factor in determining the development of the market over the next decade and beyond. I think we need to make knowingly rash statements like ‘men have a highly specific perspective on their own gender, and they write about men in a different way to women who write about men’, and it won’t be 100 percent accurate, but it might account for the fundamental trend which, given that the world is the way it is, we need to consider. I suppose what I’m saying is that I would rather make mistakes, and get the ball rolling on a gender debate, than abandon the model of gender difference because it’s impossible to create a perfect, test-proof hypothesis. I would prefer to abandon what I see as a rather scientific approach to gender difference (it cannot be proved) and replace it with an artistic approach (it is a complex reality), which I feel is more accurate and useful in the long run.