MASCULINITIESANOTHER PIECE OF GENDER JIGSAW OLGA GARNOVA

MASCULINITYA THEORETICAL CONSTRUCT

“In human beings pure masculinity or femininity is not to be found either in a psychological or biological sense.”

– Sigmund Freud Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905)

Defining Masculinity Empirical meaning

usually used as an adjective: ‘masculine’, ’manly’, ‘manlike’, ‘mannish’, etc.

essentially a label for things, activities, events, qualities and traits, attitudes and behaviours that a given culture associates with males more often than females

frequently seen as something positive for men and negative for women (compare ‘a masculine/manly man’ and ‘a masculine/manly woman’)

Theoretical construct

an important aspect of the individual self-image

a gender identity

R.W. Connell, a founder of the masculinity studies, defines masculinity as a collection of practices within a system of gender relationships (Raewyn Connell. Masculinities. 1995)

According to Connell, masculinity is always defined and perceived in opposition to femininity

Masculinity does not exist in isolation and cannot be understood and studied outside of other social power relation systems such as race, ethnicity, and class (which in turn cannot be fully examined if gender system is ignored)

Masculinities, it is pluralMost of us think of masculinity and manhood as singular, i.e. there is the ‘right’ way to be a man, which is reflected in expressions like ‘real man’ and ‘proper man’

Yet, psychological, sociological, anthropological, gender, and history studies identified multiple patterns of masculinity varying by countries, cultures, institutions, etc.

Some of these masculinities are more mainstream or more associated with authority and social power

Masculinities form hierarchies, where hegemonic masculinity emerges at the top.

While it is easy to think that there is one and only one way to be a man, when we really look at it, each man constructs his own masculinity

Hegemonic MasculinityHegemonic masculinity is a cultural ideal promoted and supported by society and media, for example through creation and production of exemplary masculinities (e.g. professional sports stars, cowboys in Westerns, samurai, or salarymen).

It presents itself as ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ (Cheng, C. (1999)) and exists in tandem with emphasised femininity, i.e. hegemonic femininity (Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005))

The superiority of hegemonic masculinity is based on cultural hegemony rather than simple domination based on force.

‘Cultural consent, discursive centrality, institutionalisation, and the marginalisation or delegitimisation of alternatives are widely documented features of socially dominant masculinities.’ (Ibid., p.846)

While normative, hegemonic masculinity is very uncommon. Only a handful of men can enact it fully. The majority is not capable of living up to its standards.

Hegemonic masculinity, and all other masculinities as well, are fluid and open to challenge from women and from men bearing alternative masculinities.

As the social, economic, historical conditions change masculinities are being renegotiated and redefined. New gender strategies are formed and incorporated in gender systems. Today’s dominant masculinities are very different from those of Middle Ages or even a century ago.

Non-hegemonic MasculinitiesNon-hegemonic masculinities are often unacknowledged, rendered invisible, or even unconscious since one of the aims of hegemonic masculinity is to prevent their cultural recognition.

Connell suggests three types of non-hegemonic masculinities:

Complicit

most but not all characteristics of hegemonic masculinity are present

men who enact these masculinities does no challenge the hegemony and frequently admire it

Marginalised

important characteristics of hegemonic masculinity are absent, for example race or physical health (racial or ethnic minority men, disabled men)

men who enact these masculinities tend to ascribe to norms of hegemonic masculinity

sometimes these men can be turned into symbols of hegemonic masculinity, e.g. black athletes in the USA

these masculinities can manifest as ‘protest masculinities’ which embody claims to power similar to hegemonic but lack resources and institutional authority (usually local masculinities of marginalised groups)

Subordinate

exhibit qualities and traits opposite or stigmatised by norms of hegemonic masculinity

gay or effeminate men are one of the most prominent examples

Non-hegemonic masculinities can be very durable and survive for a long time. They are often created as tactical alternatives when enacting hegemonic masculinity is impossible.

These masculinities can be incorporated into existing gender system or actively oppressed, often both processes happen simultaneously .

MASCULINITYIN THE REAL WORLD

Manhood in the MakingAnthropologist David D. Gilmore takes a ‘zoo approach’ to masculinity.

He describes how masculinities are performed in various types of cultures and societies and come to conclusion that in the majority of them manhood is an achieved status regardless of their gender ideals.

‘[R]eal manhood […] is not a natural condition […] but rather is a precarious or artificial state that boys must win against powerful odds.’ (Gilmore, D. D. (1990), p.11) Men are constantly and rigorously tested, and there are always those who fail.

There are very few exceptions. Gilmore names the peoples of Tahiti in French Polynesia and the Semai of Malaysia. He notes that their societies are almost genderless. He calls them ‘virtually androgynous’ (Ibid., p.201). Men exhibit no anxiety related to manhood and easily assume female identities.

Wherever ‘real’ manhood is emphasised, it is accompanied by three moral injunctions: impregnating women, protecting dependents, and provision kith and kin. Gilmore also points out acceptance of the fact that men are expendable.

‘The harsher the environment and the scarcer the resources, the more manhood is stressed as inspiration and goal.’ (Ibid., p.224)

Masculinity and PatriarchyPatriarchy is the most frequent form of society in the world. However, its relationship with masculinities and corresponding ideologies is not clear.

The emphasis on masculinity, initiation rituals, and tests of manhood exist in egalitarian societies such as African Bushmen, the Fox and the Tewa of North America. It suggests that the idea of hegemonic masculinity always aiming to oppress and subjugate women is not correct. And it also proves that gender equity is possible in societies with emphasised gender identities.

Moreover, the domination of men is not a self-reproducing system. Connell insists that patriarchal order ‘requires considerable effort to maintain’ (Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005), p.844). The common tactics of maintaining the status quo are:

exclusion or discrediting of women;

homosociality (social bonds between persons of the same sex; ‘male bonding’ and homosexual panic in case of masculinity; ‘the old boys club’);

policing of men by men and women.

Connell argues that hegemonic masculinities are significantly affected by interactions between genders. Life-history research shows that women are central for many aspects of masculinities as mothers, schoolmates, romantic and sexual interests, wives, workers in the gender division of labour, etc.

Her concept of emphasised femininity focused on compliance to patriarchy. Yet emerging new female identities and practices create femininities opposed to existing gender system and demanding renegotiation and reconstruction of hegemonic masculinities.

From this point of view, patriarchy is a gender system supported by both hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity. But it can be challenged and dismantled by new hegemonic masculinities and femininities.

Numerous studies showed that patriarchal masculinities are connected to negative health outcomes for men.

For example, a recently published meta-study of conformity to masculine gender norms (on the right) and mental health suggests that the latter decreases well-being (Wong, Y. J. et al. (2017)):

higher conformity correlates with poorer mental health, e.g., depression, substance use, body image problems, etc.;

Gender conforming men tend to avoid psychological help and feel lonelier.

Norms of playboy and power over women (the most closely associated with sexist attitudes) have the strongest and most negative association with mental health. ’[S]exism is not merely a social injustice, but also has deleterious mental health-related consequences’ (Ibid., p.88)

Only norms of primacy of work and risk-taking do not predict decreased well-being. The former does not show any robust correlations, and the latter is positively associated with both improvement and deterioration of mental health.The authors caution against labelling men, who highly value primacy of work, as ‘workaholics’ and encourage to explore how it can add meaning to one’s life.

Masculine Gender Norms

Disdain for homosexuals Dominance Emotional control Playboy Power over women Primacy of work Pursuit of status Risk-taking Self-reliance Violence Winning

“The American man, an endangered species? Absolutely! The male has paid a heavy price for his masculine ‘privilege’ and power. He is out of touch with his emotions and his body. He is playing by the rules of the male game plan and with lemming-like purpose he is destroying himself—emotionally, psychologically, and physically.”

– Dr. Herb Goldberg, a psychologist and author of The Hazards of Being Male (1976)

The Cost of Manhood‘Without treating privileged men as objects of pity, we should recognize that hegemonic masculinity does not necessarily translate into a satisfying experience of life.’ (Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005), p.852)

Apart from negative health effects patriarchal hegemonic masculinities leave huge negative social, cultural, and even political impact.

Michael S. Kimmel, a famous masculinity scholar and a feminist, talks about the privilege of invisible gender. In Western societies, e.g. US or European, white middle-class able-bodied men enjoy the privilege of being ‘normal’ and not being forced to examine their position in society. The shortcoming of this invisibility is lack of gender discourse concerning men, especially those who represent the hegemonic masculinity.

One of the common complaints about patriarchy is that everything is white- and ‘male’-washed. However, there are very few books that ‘explore how the experience of being a man structured the men’s lives, or the organizations and institutions they created, the events in which they participated’ (Kimmel, M. S. (1993), p.28). Unless they are a minority (and a really small and vocal one) men are not seen as having gendered selves.

When masculinity enters public discourse as gender identity it is frequently examined from a negative perspective:

The media talks almost exclusively about ‘toxic masculinity’, rape culture, and male violence, and rarely mentions on positive aspects of hegemonic masculinities.

The university campuses launch talks and workshops condemning abusive and violent attitudes, and offering help with ‘getting in touch with one’s emotions’.

Academic papers focus on patriarchy, destructive behaviours, and negative health effects associated with hegemonic masculinities and issues involved in non-hegemonic masculinities, which are often intertwined with minority issues.

The lack of productive and positive masculinities in public and academic discourses results in scarcity of positive role models, demonisation of men, and stigmatisation of all aspects of traditional masculinities, including healthy.

Some researchers argue that hegemonic masculinities akin to the US one are anti-democratic in nature (Lawrence, J. S., & Jewett, R. (2002)) and lead to policies, and political acts and decisions undermining democracies and destabilising the world.

For example, The Myth of American Superhero, a comprehensive overview of an evolution of the US hero myth, argues that President Bush’s rhetoric and decisions after 9/11 were influenced by images of heroes propagated by media and Hollywood.

Oliver Stone’s documentary The Untold History of the United States (2012), which focuses on the US foreign policy in the past 100 years, comes to similar conclusions but does not state it openly.

Stone shows how throughout US history less aggressive and violent, more productive and cooperative masculinities were marginalised or even physically disposed of. He brings Henry A. Wallace and John F. Kennedy as examples.

The Myth of American Superhero does not stress positive masculinities. However, it makes an important notion of men enacting hegemonic masculinities as disposable and lonely. This idea agrees with Gilmore’s anthropological observations.

Being expendable is the ultimate price of manhood. Hegemonic masculinities, especially similar to Western, indeed privilege man, but at the same time they demand their preparedness to die at any time to protect women, children, and elders.

ReferencesBederman, G. (2011). Why Study “Masculinity,” Anyway? Perspectives from the Old Days. Culture, Society & Masculinities, 3(1), 13–25. http://doi.org/10.3149/CSM.0301.13

Cheng, C. (1999). Marginalized Masculinities and Hegemonic Masculinity. The Journal of Men's Studies, 7(3), 295–315. http://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0703.295

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. http://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being: a theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385–1401. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00390-1

Demetriou, D. Z. (2001). Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society, 30(3), 337–361. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017596718715

Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. Yale University Press.

Kiesling, S. F. (2005). Homosocial desire in men's talk: Balancing and re-creating cultural discourses of masculinity. Language in Society, 34(05), 197–726. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404505050268

Kimmel, M. S. (1993). Invisible masculinity. Society, 30(6), 28–35. http://doi.org/10.1007/bf02700272

Kimmel, M. S. (May 2015).Why Gender Equality is Good for Everyone —Men Included. TEDWomen 2015. https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_kimmel_why_gender_equality_is_good_for_everyone_men_included

Lawrence, J. S., & Jewett, R. (2002). The Myth of the American Superhero. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Miniter, F. (18 Jan 2017). The Hard, Adrenaline-Soaked Truth About 'Toxic Masculinity’. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2017/01/18/the-hard-adrenaline-soaked-truth-about-toxic-masculinity

Wong, Y. J., Ho, M.-H. R., Wang, S.-Y., & Miller, I. S. K. (2017). Meta-Analyses of the Relationship Between Conformity to Masculine Norms and Mental Health-Related Outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 80–93. http://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000176