From the author: Response to a topic on the forum about the gender approach. Answer to the question WHAT IS GENDER. Guseva Yu.E. The influence of socio-historical changes in society on the transformation of gender ideas in the popular press: Dis. for the job application scientist step. Ph.D. psychol. Sciences: spec. 19.00.05 – social. psychology - St. Petersburg, 2007. The category “gender” in modern scientific knowledge The term “gender” does not have an adequate translation into Russian and is a “tracing copy” from the English word “gender”. N.I. Abubikirova, exploring the origin of the term, gave one of the first definitions of the concept of “gender” in Russian science: “gender is a social relationship; not biological sex, but the representation (representation) of each individuality in terms of specific social relations" [Abubikirova N.I., 1996. P. 124]. The American reference book on philosophy offers the following definition: "gender is a sociocultural definition of the concept of woman and man, presupposing an initially established difference in their social status” [Hornsby J., 1995. P.305]. Teresa de Lauretis, turning to the American Hieritage Dictionary of English Language, found out that the first meaning of the word “gender” is “grammatical gender”, the second is “classification of sex; gender” [Lauretis T. de, 1987]. For the first time in an extra-grammatical context, the term “gender” was used by the American psychologist R. Stoller in 1968 in the book “Sex and Gender” [Stoller R., 1968]. Following R. Stoller, the American feminist anthropologist Gayle Rubin contrasted the concepts of “sex” and “gender” in the mid-1970s. She drew attention to the sociocultural context of the definition of “gender”, contrasting it with biological sex (“sex”). The reason for designating the “sex/gender” system was that the author, having analyzed the works of S. Freud and C. Lévi-Strauss, noted that, firstly, the social experience of men and women is radically different, and secondly, sexuality, understood in this context, as sexual behavior, is determined socioculturally. Gail Rubin, having examined kinship systems and various rituals in which women are always commodities and men are exchange partners, introduced the concept of “exchange of women.” The author considers the “sex/gender” system as ideological, and the “sex/gender” category as “a set of mechanisms by which society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity” [Rubin G., 2000. P. 91]. Gender, being only a biological characteristic, receives social content in society and becomes the cause of stratification. In the second half of the 20th century, the term “gender” began to be used in philosophy, linguistics, history, sociology, psychology, first in foreign and subsequently in domestic science. In the 1970s, the category of gender was predominantly used to describe "feminine" versus "masculine." This approach was created in contrast to traditional, “male” science, where a man was a normotypical example. The emphasis was on the interpretation of women's history, women's psychology, which resulted in special women's practices and specific women's experiences. This understanding of gender dominated predominantly in women's studies, which preceded gender studies. In the 1980s, the understanding of the concept of “gender” was transformed, in scientific knowledge there was no emphasis on either the male or female sex, but femininity, masculinity and the sociocultural expectations associated with them were studied. Each scientific discipline, based on the basic dichotomy “sex-gender”, brings its own connotation to the category “gender”, reflecting the specifics and objectives of science. In classical philosophy, the category “gender” is understood as a set of social constructs and representations, and not a given fact fixed nature [Modern Philosophical Dictionary, 1998. P. 177]. Feminist philosophy, which includes authors such as Judith Butler [2000], Rosi Braidotti[2000], Luce Irigary [1985], mainly aimed at studying the mechanisms of reproduction and functioning of female subjectivity, moves away from the “sex/gender” dichotomy, detailing the concept. Thus, Lucie Irigaray [Irigaray L., 1985], analyzing female subjectivity, does not consider sex to be biologically given, and gender to be socially constructed, since she overcomes the dichotomy of the social and biological in her concept of sexual difference. For Luce Irigary, sex is not a biological category, and sexual differences are not reducible to anatomical differences between men and women. Modern feminist philosophy refuses the practices of binary philosophical thinking, justifying the diversity of types of subjectivity (genders) in modern culture (for example, queer identities, homosexual and transsexual identities) [Zherebkin S., 2001. P. 425]. Judith Butler defines gender as a process of identity construction and a way of life that is subject to manifestation. Gender determines the social status of men and women and carries a political connotation [Butler D., 2000]. For Judith Butler, not only gender, but also sex is a social, cultural construct. The works of Gail Rubin [2000], Judith Butler [2000], Rosi Braidotti [2000], Luce Irigary [1985] are of particular importance for social psychological theory, since how, in the complex structure of social relations, a new component (gender) is included in the system of analysis, which is the basis of many social changes. These works allow us not only to see the hierarchy of status positions of men and women in society, but also to understand the reasons for its occurrence. According to the authors, it is the “sex/gender” system that is the reason for the emergence of the existing hierarchy in society, when men have a higher status than women. A special view of the concept of “gender”, conditioned and somewhat narrowed by the specifics of scientific knowledge, exists in linguistics, which is not needs such a large-scale definition of the field of gender as philosophy. For linguistics, the most important thing is that gender is culturally determined and manifested in language and communication [Kirillina A.V., 1999. P. 24]. Rather, from the standpoint of the sex-role approach [1], sociopsycholinguistics turns to the category of gender, “scientifically reducing “female” and “male” language to the characteristics of the linguistic behavior of the sexes” [Goroshko E., 2001. P. 509]. The concept of “gender” occupies a significant place. in history. Until the early 1980s, in the historical sciences there was such a branch of knowledge as women's history (historical feminology), which was opposed to traditional, “male” history. American historian Joan Scott proposed a more adequate concept - gender history. Joan Scott sees gender as a network of power, “a special field on which power relations and collective illusions are articulated” [op. according to Pushkareva N.L., 2001. P. 294]. In this problematic field of gender, the author examines the complexes of symbols that characterize men and women in culture, social norms, social institutions that characterize social relations; gender identity as a problem of self-expression. Thus, the main object of attention of Joan Scott becomes the system of social relations: “awareness of gender is a constitutive element of social relations, based on the perceived differences between the sexes, and gender is a priority way of expressing power relations” [cit. according to Lorber J., 2000. P. 76]. Joan Scott views categories such as sex, race, class and age as forming the gender system. In sociology, gender is defined as “a social division, often based on anatomical sex, but not necessarily coinciding with it” [Big Explanatory Dictionary of Sociology, 1999. P. 109-110]. The emphasis is on the fact that the division between male and female is a socially constructed division, and men and women are seen as two large social groups. English sociologist E. Giddens [1999] draws attention to the fact that genderis not associated with biological differences between men and women, but it is the basis for the formation of masculinity and femininity as social characteristics. E.A. Zdravomyslova and A.A. Temkina [2001] note that gender is the basis for the reproduction of gender inequality. The term “gender” entered psychological science relatively recently, and the emergence of a new concept led to the emergence and development of such a new field of knowledge as gender psychology. We can name some works of domestic and foreign authors on this topic: S. Bem [2004]; S. Bern [2001]; M.V. Burakova [2000]; E.F. Ivanova [2001]; I.S. Kletsina [2004]; L.N. Ozhigova [2000]; Workshop on Gender Psychology [2003]; N.K. Radina [1999]; G.V. Turkish [1998]; N.V. Khodyreva [1998]. In the last decade, gender issues in the social sciences have been developing within the framework of social constructionism by K. Gergen [1995]. This theory is a recognized socio-psychological concept and is developed by leading Russian psychologists (see: G.M. Andreeva [2002, 2005], V.F. Petrenko [2002]). Constructionism is based on the following ideas and theoretical postulates: 1) knowledge cannot belong to one person, it is a product of joint activity of people; 2) knowledge is constructed in a situation of discourse, in the process of interaction between groups of people and society as a whole; 3) any explanation of the world is an agreement (convention), which is significant only in the context where it was constructed; 4) the stability of forms of understanding the world depends on the characteristics of the social situation; 5) these forms are included in social activity and begin to determine it. Thus, theory becomes a means of “transforming reality” [Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N., Petrovskaya L.A., 2001; Shikhirev P.N., 1999; Gergen K., 1995]. Within the framework of the theory of social constructionism, categories such as social class, ethnicity, gender and, accordingly, the statuses that an individual achieves by joining one of these categories are socially constructed. Proponents of social construction (P. Berger, G. Garfinkel, I. Goffman, D. Zimmerman, Judith Lorber, T. Luckman, Candace West) consider the gender order of society as a social construct. Let us consider the definitions of the category “gender” and the main views of authors who adhere to ideas of social construction of gender. American sociologist Judith Lorber defines gender as a social institution [Lorber J., 1994]. She believes that religion, language, and culture set certain norms that are based on gender differences. The hierarchical structure of all social institutions is built on gender differences. Thus, gender determines not only such private processes as interpersonal communication or interaction in the family, but it determines social relationships and is the cause of social stratification, which determines hierarchy in society. Gender as a social institution, as “an organized model of social relations between men and women” [Lorber D., 2000. P. 75] exists and functions before the birth of an individual. In turn, the individual, while socializing, reproduces and maintains the existing gender structure, which, thus, begins to be reproduced at the level of interpersonal relationships. Judith Lorber and Susan Farrell [2000] note that it is possible to find societies that are racially and ethnically homogeneous, but it is impossible to find a society that is gender homogeneous.I. Goffman, G. Garfinkel, Candace West and D. Zimmerman consider gender as a system of interpersonal interaction. I. Goffman, as a representative of interactionism, does not limit gender to a set of roles learned in the process of interaction, introducing the concept of “gender display” [Goffman E., 1976]. “Gender display - diversity of representation and manifestation of masculine and feminine in interaction” [Zdravomyslova E.A., Temkina A.A., 2001. P. 162-163]. Gender display is considered by I. Hoffmanas the main mechanism for creating gender at the level of interpersonal relationships, it is socially conditioned and supports existing gender relations, reproducing dichotomous models of polytypical behavior.G. Garfinkel [Garfinkel H., 1984] draws attention to the fact that gender (gender identity) is created in practice, in the process of interpersonal interaction. At the same time, biological sex does not necessarily determine the process and result of gender creation. The work of G. Garfinkel allowed Candace West and D. Zimmerman to rethink the dichotomous “sex/gender” system by adding an intermediate component to it - “categorization by sex” (attribution of gender). Gender is interpreted by the authors as “a determination based on the use of socially accepted biological criteria to classify individuals as women or men” [West K., Zimmerman D., 2000. P. 195]. The criteria for classification may be genitalia or chromosomal type. Gender categorization is social in origin because the presence of male or female genitalia does not mean that an individual will be categorized according to it. Gender is considered as something created (doing gender), achieved, including “a complex of socially controlled actions, the purpose of which is the expression of male and female “nature” [Ibid., P. 194]. So, the sociological approach connects the category of gender with social stratification and sees in gender the basis for constructing masculinity/femininity (E. Giddens), the reason for the reproduction of gender inequality (E.A. Zdravomyslova, A.A. Temkina). The same idea is adhered to by supporters of the social construction of gender (P. Berger, G. Garfinkel, I. Goffman, D. Zimmerman, Judith Lorber, T. Luckman, Candace West), who understand gender as a social construct. Feminist theory (Gail Rubin, Judith Butler, Rosi Braidotti, Luce Irigary, Joan Scott) focuses on the political component of the concept of “gender”, drawing attention to the fact that gender creates a system of social hierarchy of roles and statuses of men and women. The ideas of American sociologists (Judith Butler, G. Garfinkel, I. Goffman, D. Zimmerman, Judith Lorber, Candace West, Susan Farrell) that we considered within the framework of social constructionism had a great influence on the development of domestic and foreign social psychology. Proponents of social constructionism primarily identify the problem of social determination of interpersonal and intergroup interaction, as well as interaction at the level of society, where sex and gender determine the differentiation of the roles of men and women. The concept of “gender” entered social psychology quite recently, and it cannot be said that that within the framework of this science a special understanding of gender has been formed. Social psychologists most often use definitions of the concept of “gender” proposed by proponents of social constructionism. Thus, American social psychologist Sean Burn notes that gender in psychology is understood as a social characteristic that allows people to define the concepts of “man” and “woman” [Bern. Sh., 2001. P. 21]. Psychologist Sandra Bem defines gender as follows: “Gender is a set of social and cultural norms that in society, through power and dominance, people are ordered to fulfill depending on their gender” [Bem S., 2004, p. 281]. Domestic social psychologist I.S. Kletsina offers the following definition: “Gender is a specific set of cultural characteristics that determine the social behavior of women and men and their relationships with each other. Gender, then, refers not simply to women or men, but to the relationships between them, and to the way these relationships are socially constructed, i.e. to how society “builds” these relationships and interactions between the sexes in society” [Kletsina I.S., 2004. P. 71]. All proposed definitions reflect the ideas of social constructionism, which are that all social reality (including gender) is created and constructed by members.