The New Mutants
We live in a particular moment in history that is marked by the seemingly constant stream of new social symbols and a widespread loss of identity regarding sex and gender. Social medium like Facebook and YouTube have acted as a forum for people experiencing a lack of adequate self representational symbol to come together and establish an online community with people experiencing a similar crisis. While the symbols created are entirely new, this need for shared meanings is thought to be at the core of what it means to be human. This modern rejection of traditional social framings combined with the rise of people attempting to spread symbols to ease tensions with identity, particularly surrounding sex and gender, reinforces that there is psychological anguish that arises when individuals can’t associate with others through shared meanings. However, regardless of the obvious identity crisis that exists with those who lack a social frame, whenever people come together and attempt to spread a new symbol there will always be those fighting against it.
According to Genderlect theory, coined by Deborah Tannen, men and women have mutually alien communication tactics that results in miscommunication because of what the they desire most. The theory explains that women ultimately seek human connection through communication, and men seek status. While Tannen’s Genderlect theory elaborates on the foundational differences between male and female communication habits, it is too limiting and binary to explain the communication tactics used along the full gender spectrum that identifies individuals in society. While the Genderlect theory does make good initial steps to differentiate gender behaviors, it is still inadequate because it relies too heavily on the male and female dichotomy. Along with this traditional binary gender model, it is important to dispel the modern gender dichotomy of transgender, “denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex,” and cisgender, “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex; not transgender.”
Instead of relying on gender binaries and dichotomies, it’s crucial to keep in mind the idea of the gender spectrum, which “perceives gender as having many options; it is a linear model, ranging from 100% man to 100% woman, with various states of androgyny in between” (Understanding Gender). Individuals on this spectrum can define themselves using traditional and binary nomenclature, but they can also identify as nonbinary, “individuals that feel that they have an androgynous (both masculine and feminine) gender identity, such as androgyne; have an identity between male and female, such as intergender; or have a neutral or unrecognized gender identity, such as agender, neutrois, or most xeno genders,” or as genderqueer, “denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders” or any number of other identifications that exist within the gender spectrum. While gender may originate at an individual’s assigned sex at birth, through personal development one’s gender becomes the relationship between three elements unique to each individual: body, expression and identity. The body refers to the physicality of an individual, that individual’s own experience with the body, how society at large characterizes the body and the physical experiences with other people. The expression has to do with how an individual presents their gender to the world, “gender expression is also related to gender roles and how society uses those roles to try to enforce conformity to current gender norms” (Understanding Gender). Identity is the main concern of the New Mutants Theory, and has to do with who an individual senses themselves to be, whether that’s male, female, both or neither.
The New Mutants theory will explore this modern phenomenon of traditional symbol rejection and will offer a more all-encompassing set of symbols framed by Marvel Comics X-Men characters. Ultimately, this theory will help people understand the continuum of gender and identity. To explain how symbols come about, how they spread and how damaging to the self-esteem and personal identity when an individual doesn’t associate with a particular symbol; the New Mutants Theory will explore various pre-existing communication theories: Symbolic Interactionism Theory, Social Identity Theory and the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. These theories will help inform the construction of The New Mutants Theory because they have to do with identity, the creation of symbols and how meanings create communities within the grander society.
Origins
Symbolic Interactionism Theory
Herbert Blumer developed the term symbolic interactionism based on the teachings of his professor George Herbert Mead, an early social constructionist. Blumer asserts that communication is the root of what it means to be human and is the most humanizing activity that we can engage in. The theory begins with three important principles: First, he asserts that “… human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them,” second, “… the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows,” and lastly, “... these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters” (Littlejohn, 87). It can also be broken into meaning, language and thinking. The processes explain that once humans identify something as having meaning, that thing becomes real and has personal and social consequences rooted in reality. Secondly, language acts as the source of meaning and comes from the social interaction humans have with one another even though the meaning isn’t inherent in individual objects. Finally, and arguably the most humanizing aspect of the theory, is the notion of thinking in order to take on the role of the other person, or experiencing empathy.
The Symbolic Interactionism Theory exemplifies the importance of symbols on personal associations and to society as a whole. “Without language there would be no thought, no sense of self, and no socializing presence of society within the individual” (Griffin, Ch. 5) This means that language is at the basis of personal identity, social identity and how communities interact with one another. Using this logic, it can be said that without language there would be no means of things existing, because we wouldn’t have a means to rationalize and think about it. A desk would not be a desk because it could not be thought about, spoken about or rationalized about. The same thing can be said of people and their identities.
In regards to those existing on the gender spectrum who lack a socially accepted symbol like “male,” “female,” “transgender” or “cisgender;” the Social Interactionism Theory explains how damaging to the identity it is when society rejects a person’s symbol. The person not only doesn’t have a name for themselves, but they also lack a frame to think about their own identity and personhood. This is because the Social Interactionism Theory “presumes meaning to be an emergent property of human interactions, not something intrinsic to an individual or a situation” (Brickell, 417). And while individuals do have the capacity to define and manage symbols independently from the society at large, their identity can become untethered if they enter an interpersonal or social exchange with individuals who don’t accept or acknowledge them.
It is human nature to define who we are based upon pre-existing social norms and nomenclature. According to the Social Interactionism Theory, “the notion of a ‘true self ’ is a symbolic construction, itself developed within a matrix of social meanings and interactions” (Brickell, 419). Therefore, it is imperative for society at large to be more educated on the nuances of the gender spectrum and step away from the assumption that gender exists as a contrasting dichotomy, not only because it is true based on the numbers of people identifying as such, but also because it is necessary for the social identity of countless individuals existing in the world. Members of groups that are not widely accepted or are considered socially unacceptable (like members of the unnamed group existing within the gender spectrum) are faced with the daily struggle of being proud of themselves or even having a strong enough identity to communicate with others or even with themselves.
Social Identity Theory
One’s social identity is a sense of who they are on a psychological level in terms of which group they belong to in society, or their social membership. In 1979, Henri Tajifel proposed that “the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belong to [are] an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give [people] a sense of social identity, a sense of belonging to the social world” (McLeod). Tajifel, along with his colleague John Turner, developed the Social Identity Theory to explain this psychological phenomenon, which they divided into three distinct elements: categorization, identification, and comparison.
Categorization is essentially the tendency to cast people as either “us” or “them,” “alike” or “other.” At it’s core, “categorization consists of people’s inclination to put both themselves and others into categories, such as blacks, gays, feminists, or mutants” (Lyubansky, 82). This method of categorization is a result of subconscious cognitive functions that humans have adapted to process information. However, when this method of grouping people occurs, the individual will tend to exaggerate the similarities of things in the same in-group and the differences between out-groups. In order to celebrate the in-group, or the “alike” and enhance one’s self image, an individual will tend to discriminate against the out-group, or the people they have categorized as “other.” “The central hypothesis of Social Identity Theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image” (McLeod). When we consider gender, it’s easy to see this theory in action. Heterosexual and homosexual. Transgender and cis-gender. While it is more common and oppressive when the larger or majority group discriminates against the smaller minority group, it is undeniable that two contrasting groups can use negative nomenclature and slurs towards the other to improve their own self-worth and image.
Identity (or identification) is the next element of the Social Identity Theory. This occurs when people adopt the collective identity of the group with which they have categorized themselves into. This social identity is “presumed to be determined through an association with those groups that make people feel good about themselves, groups that are seen as good, strong, and positive. However, “good,” “strong,” and “positive” are relative terms” (Lyubansky, 82). People tend to align themselves with group stereotypes they find ideal, however, there will always be people who see that same stereotype as negative. This reinforces the ingroup and outgroup mutual discrimination and showcases that one’s self-esteem becomes intertwined within the group they have categorized themselves into and acts as a source of personal pride.
Comparison is the final element of the Social Identity Theory, and occurs after an individual categorizes people into groups and after they identify with one or more of those classifications. The individual will then compare various groups to each other, and to their own chosen kind. Because identity is so wrapped up in how people view their groups, it’s imperative that their chosen group compare favorably in order to maintain their self-esteem. “This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals, they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem. Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources, but also the result of competing identities” (McLeod). In today’s society, with heated political debates over same sex marriage and genderless restrooms, it’s clear to see the discriminative nature that the Social Identity Theory explains. It’s important to keep in mind, however, that prejudice exists just as much between the society at large (those who have concrete symbols with which to identify themselves, whether they be “gay,” “straight,” “transgender,” or “cisgender”) and the minority of the population who exist somewhere within the gender spectrum, living namelessly and without a group to categorize themselves into to establish personal meaning.
Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory
Communication is the foundation for people to create, organize and manage what things and people mean to them, the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory provides understanding of how and why people govern these meanings. When Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen decided to construct their Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory, instead of looking through communication, they decided to look directly at it (Garret, Ch. 6). Their ultimate goal was to create a multi-faceted tool that communicators could use to make situations better and create better realities for themselves. Barnett and Kim Pearce defined “better social realities” as “replete with caring, compassion, love, and grace among its inhabitants” (Garret, Ch. 6). To achieve this better world, the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory makes four major claims, the first being that our communication creates our social worlds.
They assert that our social interaction and communication with others constructs the worlds in which we live. It’s crucial to keep in mind that “meanings are individual constructions; in other words, persons impose meaning on experience” (Brenders, 333). According to the theory, social realities are individual to the person, but just because they are subjective to whomever is experiencing their own reality, it doesn’t mean that these realities are any less real. When an individual’s reality is combined with another’s through interpersonal communication, they create their new, shared reality with one another. The same can be said about societies at large. While one person experiences their reality entirely differently than another person, the two separate realities are still real to the corresponding individual, and combined they make the foundations of social reality at large. Not only do people impose their own meaning and construct their own reality, they are also affected by the worlds they create. There is a level of feedback and responding to external stimuli from the reality that the individual constructed. “Persons-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are shaped by the worlds they create. Communication is a two-sided process of making and managing meaning and coordinating our actions. What we say matters because we get what we make. If we get the pattern right, the best possible things will happen” (Griffin, Ch. 6). However, the second claim of the theory explains that the stories people tell are different from the stories they live, so it is difficult to have a completely honest and real reality because of people’s tendencies to skew the things they share with people.
Coordinated Management of Meaning theorists define “stories” as “what we say when we talk with others about our social worlds—ourselves, others, relationships, organizations, or the larger community” (Griffin, Ch. 6). The stories we tell people are not only intended to help explain the stories that we lived, but are also used to manage their personal meanings to other people. Interpersonal communication is incredibly complicated because there are seven different types of stories people tell: Lived, unknown, untold, unheard, untellable, story telling and story told. People are also in a constant state of tension between these seven different types of stories, meaning that there is almost always a discrepancy between the stories people have actually lived and the stories they tell other people. The theory asserts that it is human nature to coordinate our interpersonal communication, Pearce defined coordination as “the degree to which persons perceive that their actions have fitted together into some mutually intelligible sequence or pattern of actions” and occurs when two people involved in a conversation attempt to navigate one another’s sequencing of messages (Pearce).
The third claim that the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory makes is that people generally live the realities that they make. Because it is in our nature to create the best world possible for ourselves, Pearce urged communicators to ask themselves three questions: How did that get made? What are we making? What can we do to make better social worlds? (Garret, Ch. 6) And while he admitted that he didn’t have a concrete way to make social worlds better, Pearce made a fourth and final claim that said if people get the patterns of communication right as outlined in the theory, they will create better outcomes for themselves.
Because human nature demonstrates time and time again that group identity and categorization are intrinsic to an individual’s self-esteem and sense of realities, it’s crucial to keep in mind theories like the Coordinated Management of Meaning because they establish a set of guidelines for people to follow if they wish to attempt to integrate these contrasting group structures. The theory takes a particularly optimistic view on communication when Pearce explains that the goal is to make a better social world and a more idealistic and optimistic social reality. At the very least, if individuals keep in mind the foundations of this theory as they attempt to communicate with people they categorize as unlike them, it will lead to more constructive interpersonal conversations and interactions.
The New Mutants Theory
The New Mutants Theory will act as a means to categorize two groups: one who has symbols with which they can interact with and use to identify themselves, regardless of what those symbols or identifications are; and another group who lack symbols and identifications completely, and are therefore unable to generate self-esteem through their personal identity or a group with which they can relate to. The former group Humans, and the latter group New Mutants. X-Men is an ideal mechanism to frame this issue because of its main plot line of integrating ‘mutants’ into everyday human society. “Mutants, of course, are intended as an allegory for oppression in general. X-Men readers and viewers are intended to generalize Professor Xavier’s philosophy of tolerance and assimilation to other oppressed groups, including... the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgendered (LGBT) community” (Lyubansky, 77). X-Men is a widely accepted metaphor of oppression of a minority out-group clearly defined with contrasting symbols to the in-group majority.
In the California Law Review, Francisco Valdes explains that, “once upon a time, sex referred to people and gender referred to nouns… sex and gender now refer to people. The former relates physical while the latter relates social dimensions of personhood. In other words, sex denotes bio-physical aspects of personhood associated with “man” and “woman” while gender denotes the social constructions understood as “male” and “female” or “masculine” and “feminine.”’ This is an important distinction to highlight because of society’s tendency to view the two words as interchangeable and as synonyms of one another, although the word’s true meanings and connotations are altogether unrelated. He goes on to explain that “this physical and social distinction becomes confused when sex and gender are used carelessly or strategically as equivalents” (Valdes, 21). Ultimately, sexuality is who one wants to be with, gender identity is who one wants to be. These symbols, while unrelated, are both intrinsic to identity and a person’s sense of self. It’s important to understand the distinction between the two words as we move forward throughout this theory, as well as their implications on sexuality and gender identity.
For the purpose of this theory, the New Mutants will be an even smaller minority of the population who lived unnamed within the gender spectrum. People who identify themselves with a concrete symbol, “straight,” “gay,” “cisgender,” or “transgender,” will all be categorized into one group of Humans because they are connected by the foundational human characteristic of naming themselves and identifying with a group. This theory will be divided into three main parts to better understand the various communication and symbolic issues that various members of this new society experience. The first two parts will be based on the main antagonist and protagonist of the series. “At the center of this conflict are two mutants, Erik Lehnsherr (a.k.a. Magneto) and his old friend, Charles Xavier, each with a different explanation for the anti-mutant sentiments” (Lyubansky, 78).
Those who are X-Minded will be based upon Professor Xavier, a character who could easily blend into “cis”/ human society or the mutant society, but chooses to celebrate and support the blending of both groups using peaceful dialogue and positive casting and framing tactics. Those who are M-Minded are based upon Magneto; someone who, like Professor Xavier, could fit into both societies but instead chooses to block identification between the humans and mutants using inflammatory rhetoric to ignite anger and fear between them. It’s important to remember that all classifications used in this theory can exist in either societies, “cis”/human or mutant. As mentioned previously, individuals who fall into these two categories will be symbolized as Humans because of their ability to name themselves and associate with larger groups of like-minded individuals. This category is divided into two subcategories based on their willingness or unwillingness to try and find similarities between the two seemingly contrary groups, and the communication tactics they use to either integrate or divide the two groups.
Individuals who are My-Minded are the true New Mutants. They are based on the changeling Mystique, who has the ability to be human or mutant, which ultimately means she is both and neither. She exists somewhere between the two societies and struggles with her inability to align herself with them. Individuals in society who are My-Minded are altogether unnamed, living within the dichotomies of sex and gender and are unable to fulfill their human inclinations of grouping with like minded people because they lack a concrete symbol and, ultimately, an identity.
Application
Human nature demands the creation of symbols in response to a lack of identity because of negative psychological effects and social consequences when people don’t have a group to belong to. As of late, those who are My-Minded are attempting to spread new symbols to associate with. Names like “genderqueer” (denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders) and “nonbinary” (not relating to, composed of, or involving just two things) gender are important to explore because they aim to encompass a group of people who don’t affiliate with a traditional gender. While these symbols have gained traction with people who identify with them, it still remains to be seen if they have been adopted into society at large. The issue that arises after the nameless society adopts a symbol is if it catches on and becomes a part of the extended social reality, otherwise it wouldn’t aid in the communication or interpersonal relationships with the minority groups.
Because My-Minded individuals exist somewhere in between symbols, they are increasingly invested in establishing, adopting and spreading their own shared meanings. If they fail to do so, the damaging lack of association and identification can greatly inhibit their self-esteem and sense of personal identity. If the majority “human” group fails to accept the symbols that the New Mutants have attempted to spread, there could be both psychological ramifications to those who associate with the attempted symbol, but also social and cultural consequences as well.
“When it comes to discrimination, those who identify as a nonbinary gender experience various forms of discrimination differently than binary transfolk” (Sarfaty Mx, 15).
This is largely due to the fact that, while minority groups and the New Mutants group undergo prejudice, there is an added psychological component when the discriminator doesn’t understand, or attempt to understand, the discriminated. There is an added suffering when the person remains unnamed and therefore cannot turn to an ingroup for acceptance and support.
Especially in this day and age of social media, it’s crucial for this New Mutants group to define themselves through symbolic interactionism, with symbols that both inspire and empower them. Once the group is named and people begin to establish a social identity within their own ingroup, the responsibility turns to the outgroup to accept this new symbol into the collective social reality. The Coordinated Management of Meanings theory comes into play when the two groups begin to interact and understand one another.
The best possible outcome of the New Mutants theory would be to aid in the curating of new symbols and social groups that would encompass every member of the human population, so that everyone would be able to have a firm sense of self and a community of people with whom they identify with, regardless of their placement on the gender spectrum. Not only would this define a better social reality, one where everyone has a name and identity, but it would set the foundation for society at large to communicate more completely with one another. This could set the stage for seemingly unalike groups to find common ground and similarities that they may not have been able to see before because of a lack of a concrete symbol, and could even lead to a lessening of ignorance based prejudice and discrimination.
Optimistic. Yes.
But impossible? Absolutely not.
Work Cited
Ambrosino, Brandon. “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’.” BBC - Future, 16 Mar. 2017, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality Accessed 20 Mar. 2017
Brenders, A. David. “Fallacies in the Coordinated Management of Meaning: A Philosophy of Language Critique of the Hierarchical Organization of Coherent Conversation and Related Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 05. Jun. 2009, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335638709383812 Accessed 19 Feb. 2017
Brickell, Chris. “A Symbolic Interactionists History of Sexuality?” Rethinking History: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Sep. 2003, http://www.brickell.co.nz/docs/si_sexuality.pdf Accessed 03 April 2017
Dvorsky, George. Hughes Ph.D, James. “Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary.” Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Mar. 2008, http://ieet.org/archive/IEET-03-PostGender.pdf Accessed 22 Feb. 2017
Griffin, Em. Ledbetter, Andrew. Sparks, Glenn. “A First Look at Communication Theory, Vol. 9.” McGraw-Hill, April 2014. Print
Harrison, Jack. Grant, Jaime. Herman, L. Jody. “A Gender Not Listed Here: Genderqueers, Gender Rebels, and OtherWise in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey.” LGBTQ Policy Journal at the Harvard Kennedy School, Vol. II, 2011-2012, http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/gender_not_listed_here.pdf Accessed 23 Feb. 2017
Littlejohn, W. Stephen. “Symbolic interactionism as an approach to the study of human communication.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 05 Jun. 2009, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335637709383369 Accessed 20 Feb. 2017
McLeod, Saul. “Social Identity Theory.” Simply Psychology, 2008, https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html Accessed 06 April, 2017
Moya, M. L. Paula. Hames-Garcia, R. Michael. “Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism.” University of California Press, 2000, https://books.google.com/books/reclaiming/identity Accessed 26 Feb. 2017
Pearce, W. Barnett. Pearce, A. Kimberly. “Extending the Theory of the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) Through a Community Dialogue Process.” Communication Theory, Nov. 2000 https://learn.bu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4797594-dt-content-rid-16706424_1/courses/17sprgcomcm710_d1/Extending%20CCM.pdf Accessed 18 Feb. 2017
Lyubansky Ph.D., Mikhail. “Prejudice Lessons from the Xavier Institute.” The Psychology of Superheroes, An Unauthorized Exploration, https://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~lyubansk/xmen.pdf Accessed 19 Feb. 2017
Pearce, WB. “The Coordinated Management of Meaning.” The CMM Institute, 2004 http://www.cmminstitute.net/sites/default/files/documents/The-Coordinated-Management-of-Meaning-2004.pdf Accessed 10 April 2017
Sarfarty Mx, N. Allie. “Not Trans Enough: The Intersection of Whiteness & Nonbinary Gender Identity.” University of Colorado, Boulder, Spring 2016, http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2426&context=honr_theses Accessed 20 Feb. 2017
“Understanding Gender.” GenderSpectrum.com. 2017 https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/ Accessed 04 April 2017
Valdes, Francisco. “Queers, Sissies, Dykes and Tomboys: Deconstructing the Conflation of “Sex,” “Gender” and “Sexual Orientation” in Euro-American Law and Society.” California Law Review, 1995 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/calr83&div=11&g_sent=1&collection=journals Accessed 21 Feb. 2017
Xie, Jasmine. “Deconstructing and Developing Gender: The Nonbinary Search for Identity.” Carnegie Mellon University Research Showcase @CMU, Apr. 2015, http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=hsshonors Accessed 20. Feb. 2017
