Gendered adjectives 2 - human needs and traits

In Part 1 of this article, I explored why the words we use to refer to our gender - our traits, behaviours and social role -  make it such a difficult topic to write about. 

The problem is, we divide most human traits and behaviours according to a dichotomy of masculine or feminine.

The adjectives masculine and feminine are 'normative' - words that carry the concept of 'what is considered normal' and 'how a person should be'. Using them always implies the meaning of 'normal' or 'not normal'. 

But, how can we talk productively about gender if we have to use words that always carry a concept of normal or not normal.

Using feminine about a man's behaviour or masculine about a woman's traits implies they are not a 'real' man or a normal woman. The words can be threatening to our sense of being okay as a person. 

Many people simply cannot have a discussion about gender without feeling threatened or criticised.

I want to find other adjectives to think about and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.

What other adjectives could we use? How else could we talk about humans?

I have no intention to suggest we should just change the meanings of our gender adjectives: masculine and feminine - I'm no linguistic prescriptivist. The normative 'should be' aspect of the words we use for gender is inescapable. 'Norms' are part of being a member of society - gender is only one area in which society 'shapes' us to fit in. I also have no illusions I could overcome the gender police or the gender reactionaries. And possibly we want those words sometimes…

But can we give them a little less air space?

Let's shift the way we talk about human traits; shift away from a gender reference.

An answer lies in using words that refer to human traits and behaviours based on how they relate to meeting human needs and their function for the individual and for society, rather than to which biological sex they have been assigned 'traditionally'. Sound complicated? I think it could actually be easier than the current dichotomy we struggle with.

I found a useful theory of human psychological needs that looks promising for this task: Self-Determination Theory or SDT. According to SDT, human beings have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These three needs exist across all our daily activities and interactions in all tasks, work, family and social contexts. 

Autonomy means a sense of volition, endorsement, will and personal choice and expression; competence means a sense of mastering one’s environment through action and tools; and relatedness means a sense of connection to others and something bigger than the 'self'. 

Meeting these psychological needs is crucial to personal well-being and a sense of having a meaningful life. They correspond fairly closely to the well-known ideas of Martin Seligman that a sense of meaning comes from belonging to and serving something beyond yourself, and from developing something within you.

SDT is well researched across cultures. Its proponents say that while cultures may appear different when you observe how people behave, these underlying psychological needs exist in all people. (I'll accept this for now, but this discussion is not dependent on SDT being valid cross-culturally.)

If autonomy, competence and relatedness sound a bit familiar, yes, you read about them in the last post, The settings - they're all wrong, where I explored these concepts through a story. This post, I'm going with a Venn diagram.  

In this Venn diagram, I have mapped the three psychological needs identified by SDT. Then I have added what I think are the high level personal needs met through the areas of overlap of these three - the well-known human needs for role and sense of purpose, belonging and a sense of place, and identity and sense of agency.

Of course, there is more to well-being than meeting one's psychological needs - the physical environment, whether you live in safe area or a war zone, your health, your social and work opportunities, etc. are all very important. But the human need for autonomy, competence and relatedness is always there regardless of your material needs.

In this next Venn diagram, I have added the types of traits that each human requires in order to meet these psychological needs. I've called these expressive, instrumental and connective traits, borrowing from various frameworks on personality and traits. Below the Venn, I've listed examples of each of these types of traits.

This approach allows us to think about ourselves as human first and gendered second. We each have human needs, for which we require a wide range of traits, and these may be expressed in gendered ways. Or not.

Although using a Venn diagram might suggest the 'settings' across  autonomy, competence and relatedness are static and about equal, in real life, different stages of our lives, different contexts and different physical or other realities will necessitate the dynamic and varying expression of the different traits across the three areas. At one stage of their lives, a person might prioritise competence over relatedness, etc. But a range within all three expressive, instrument and connective traits is important for each person in order to meet our human needs.

However, if a person is ALWAYS prevented from exhibiting certain expressive, instrumental or connective traits and behaviours, it's hard to see how they can meet their human needs for autonomy, competence or relatedness. 

For many, the inability to express the traits and behaviours that are off limits for 'traditional' masculinity and femininity is preventing well-being and a sense of meaning and happiness.

The 'traditional' ideas of how we 'should be' masculine or feminine are potentially harmful because they limit the opportunities for men and women to meet fundamental psychological needs. For men, opportunities for relatedness are often pitted up against opportunities for competence. Expectations about 'real men' being workers and providers (competence) feed into expectations about long working hours which require a partner to assume all the responsibility for children and extended family (relatedness), which they, in turn, can only manage if they only take work outside the home which is undemanding or part time, and often limited in meeting needs for competence. As well as the lack of genuine control over decisions (autonomy) in many alienating workplaces, acceptable self-expression (autonomy) in men can be limited to a tiny range of behaviours that are often risky or self-destructive, e.g. excessive drinking. Similarly, for women, opportunities for meaningful autonomy and competence are pitted up against opportunities for relatedness. The caring role above is one example. In addition, the women who exhibit instrumental traits like goal orientation or analytical thinking (competence) are often socially punished with descriptions like 'aggressive bitch' or 'cold and calculating.' 

(As an aside, my Venn applies broadly to thinking about our human psychological needs, outside gender. It's also how I understand mindless over-consumption: Western neoliberal culture features limited options for genuine individual autonomy and connection, so these needs are met (short term) with buying things. It's also useful to understand the despair of elderly people in aged-care facilities: the need for competence and autonomy doesn't disappear as we get older, but opportunities to meet those needs very often do.) 

The Venn of human traits to meet universal human needs is useful to contrast with the dichotomy of human traits as gendered, either masculine and feminine, and therefore 'not normal' for a person of the opposite gender.  

The role of gender in our social identity is so strong that men cannot adopt what are described as 'feminine traits' without social consequences. Ditto, in reverse, for many women. The result is that most men and women learn to restrict themselves to fit into their gender role, but this can come at a cost of our well-being and our sense of meaning. For some it can be extremely painful, for some deadly, but for all of us it is at least a restriction.

What would happen if we had non-gendered adjectives to talk about types of human traits?

My alternative suggestion is that we start with the assumption that all humans have basic autonomy, competence and relatedness needs, which they meet with a range of various expressive, instrumental and connective traits and behaviours that are a result of their unique personal and experiential history.

From this starting point, men and women could perhaps talk more comfortably about how to express and combine instrumental and connective traits to allow a sense of purpose. Both men and women could discuss their unmet need for autonomy and how to develop their expressive traits. We could also talk more productively about how some traits within each category are limiting for the individual and not socially desirable (e.g. aggression), whether expressed by men or women.

Instead of endless and fruitless debates about gender and gender roles, we could talk about the central value of human needs and fostering a sense of well-being and meaning.

Most importantly, this approach provides a rationale for a person to consider changing, e.g. adopting traits, behaviours and roles, because they better meets their human needs, and because of criticism of the way they currently are.

With non-gendered words to describe human traits and behaviours, we could talk more productively about people, stereotypes, society, and about gender and gender roles.

We could discuss human traits and behaviours without undermining a person's sense of themselves as okay. Instead, we could talk about the benefits for men of developing and valuing positive connective traits, or of women balancing both autonomy with connection needs. Reframing one of the opening examples, we could say, 'People in business need both instrumental and connective traits.' No judgement about their gender.

We could avoid disputing gender itself, because all human beings need a sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness. We could stop talking about one sex being better than the other at certain things, and focus on how a variety of traits is necessary for a sense of well-being and meaning - the fundamental drive of each person.

If we adopted these SDT-based adjectives to describe human traits, we could stop talking about gender itself as a good or bad thing. We could keep masculine, feminine and androgynous if we want. There are still aspects of each sex (plus that tiny percentage of people who are intersex) that require gendered adjectives, especially when we want to talk about sexual attraction.

Adopting non-gendered adjectives for human traits is not a solution to restrictive gender roles, but it would provide a helpful and non-threatening way to talk about them. Something that is missing now.

We could also leave behind the words gender-fluid, gender-queer, non-binary, etc. Because gender is not invoked and not at stake when we talk about our shared human needs, neither is the person's social identity. Likewise, we would have less need for words like cis- and transgender. We could talk about prioritising human needs over gender role.

With non-gendered adjectives to describe human traits, a person's way of being a man or woman is not questioned or threatened merely by a discussion. Gender becomes less important to a person's identity and human development. Not unimportant or irrelevant, mind you, just not the first and only arbiter of a person's behaviour, decisions and choices.

It is your human wholeness - your full and balanced development as a person - that is of foremost importance in your well-being and sense of meaning.