Connells Notion of Hegemonic Masculinity - Essay Example

Contemporary masculinity is, according to some, in crisis and, to others, in a of redefinition and reformulation. The previous, or earlier, images of masculinity are somewhat outdated insofar as they placed tremendous emphasis upon the dominance of the male, the male as the breadwinner, the male as the unquestioned authority, and the male as the heterosexual. A critical and honest review of contemporary masculinity indicates that the male is no longer the primary breadwinner, is not necessarily heterosexual, is hardly the unquestioned authority and power-holder and is, within the context of Western societies, not necessarily dominant. It is, thus, that images of masculinity and the implications of the concept are a topic of debate and academic research, questioning and exploration. Despite the stated, however, there remains a persistent tendency towards the maintenance of earlier images of hegemonic masculinity. Indeed, a review of Connell's notion of hegemonic masculinity will reveal the extent to which contemporary images of masculinity are being overtly countered and contested by the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Following a review of Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity, this essay will argue that Connell's concept serves to shed invaluable light on the extent to which contemporary masculinity is experiencing crisis. This crisis, as briefly touched upon in the preceding, is a direct outcome of the dominant culture's refusal to accept changing notions of masculinity and its determination to maintain the gender status quo. Hegemonic masculinity is predicated on the longstanding notion that distinct gender differences exist between men and women.1 Hegemonic norms are accepted because "mass culture generally assumes there is a fixed, true masculinity beneath the ebb and flow of daily life,"2 where men are expected to be strong, independent, competitive, risk-taking, aggressive, powerful, display sexual prowess, be emotionally distant, and be dominant over women in both the private and public spheres.3 Gender differences underpin an unequal system of power relations where "men, as a group, enjoy [access to certain] institutional privileges"4 not afforded to women. Although this is not a recently constituted ideology, Connell holds that the dominance of hegemonic masculinity represents an endeavour to maintain this system of inequality through efforts to quell challenges to its institution. He states, "Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy."5 The social prescription for western hegemonic masculinity, aimed at preserving the legitimacy of patriarchy, thus includes elements of heterosexism, homophobia, and male-dominant gender roles. Connell stresses that hegemonic masculinity is a "historically mobile relation" noting that when "conditions for the defence of patriarchy change," such as with economic or political pressures like the global movement for women's emancipation, "the bases for the dominance of a particular masculinity are eroded."6 In fact, the institutional and cultural features that give rise to any one form of masculinity also create alternate versions of masculinity that support or conflict with core assumptions. For example, dominant conceptualizations of masculinity portray adult males as family breadwinners. This conceptualization, alongside dominant discourse and practices perpetuate this belief, irrespective of evidence to the contrary and, in so doing, affirm a gender based division of labour. As may be inferred from the aforementioned, despite the fact that the concept of hegemonic masculinity is increasingly being questioned by contemporary economic realities, not to mention socio-political ones, the tenacious hold that this concept has on mass culture is such that alternative realities are labeled exceptions to the rule. Connell does not only acknowledge the veracity of the above-stated but emphasizes the extent to which the said assumption and complementary practices and discourse perpetuate the ideality of a gender-based division of labour. Even when it is increasingly difficult to maintain that division in the public sphere, it is upheld within the home, even in cases where breadwinning men become temporarily unemployed. Alternate contemporary practices support gender-equal relations, where it is acceptable for wives to maintain equal responsibility for the economic support of the family income. Within the parameters of contemporary reality, therefore, there is no single type of masculinity which withstands generalization and arguably includes all men.7 Indeed, as Donovan points out, "masculinity is not a monolithic entity."8 However, Connell's theory presents the notion of hegemonic masculinity as an over-arching masculine principle which in itself incorporates many distinct versions of masculinity, all of which in some way serve to differentiate men from women. For instance, hegemonic assumptions that men are stoic, physically tough, and competitive are contrasted against the dominant image of women being emotional, soft, and supportive. Brian Donovan, in his interpretation of Connell's theory, notes that "multiple masculinities span the gender system and power relationships affect which masculinities are legitimated, arraying masculinities into dominant and subordinate categories."9 Popular western examples of this hierarchy of masculinities may include images of successful businessmen or of men in sport, which often subordinate images of men struggling with unemployment or of those who are not interested in athletics. Connell reinforces this notion, stating that it is not sufficient simply to recognize differences among masculinities, but that "we must also recognize the relations between the different kinds of masculinity: relations of alliance, dominance, and subordination" that are "constructed through practices that exclude and include, that intimidate and exploit."10 Thus, images of masculinity that deviate from the dominant image may be considered acceptable as long as they do not challenge or threaten the dominant conceptualizations of masculinity. Theories of hegemonic masculinity show that "despite the range of masculinities hegemonic masculinity forms a coherent structure because of the relatively stable collective interests of men.. . in maintaining the patriarchal status quo."11 By assuming that all historical expressions of masculinity are informed and influenced by the "patriarchal dividend," 12Connell contrasts masculinity against femininity, stating that "a gender order where men dominate women cannot avoid constituting men as an interest group concerned with defence, and women as an interest group concerned with change.13 He states that even those 'backbencher' masculinities that have not experienced "the tensions and risks of being the frontline troops of patriarchy" are allies in the defence of "traditional" masculinity and the pursuit of maintaining the legitimacy of patriarchy.14 Even though relatively few men may strictly adhere to the hegemonic image, throughout history men have benefited from patriarchal hegemony, which provides an image of ideal masculinity from which other types of masculinities derive. In other words, although the concept of a singular 'masculinity' is not sufficient to explain the variations of masculine identities existing at any point in time, hegemonic masculinity, as an overarching ideal that "guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women" provides a starting point from which to define masculinities.15 According to Connell's theory, then, the core of hegemonic masculinity is the differentiation from definitions of femininity. Connell theorizes that challenges to the norms of hegemonic masculinity, or 'crisis tendencies,' come from a complex interplay between various modern social, ideological, institutional, and economic changes which he categorizes into three main areas: relations of production, relations of power, and relations of sexuality. These crisis tendencies can be briefly summarized as "economic exploitation, political struggle, and emotional contradiction."16 First, as hegemonic masculinity is based upon a gender-based division of labour and the dominance of men in both the private and public spheres, Connell holds that changes to the relations of production have led to deviations in the construction of hegemonic masculinity, primarily as a result of the changing structure of the workforce. Increasing numbers of working women and racial minorities have created a more heterogeneous workplace; independence in work has been reduced through automation and mechanization, which, together with rising levels of unemployment and underemployment, challenge the masculine 'breadwinner' identity.17 As Kimmel and Kaufman state, Our traditional definitions of masculinity had rested on economic autonomy: control over one's labor, control over the product of that labor, and manly self reliance in the workplace. The public arena, the space in which men habitually had demonstrated and proved their manhood, was racially and sexually homogenous, a homosocial world in which straight, white men could be themselves, without fear of the 'other'. . . That world is gone now.18 Second, Connell theorizes that the relations of power, the structural and personal power of men as a group over women as a group, no longer supports the construction of hegemonic masculinity. Thus reduction of male power is primarily represented by "a global movement for the emancipation of women."19 Over the past 30 years, hegemonic masculinity has been confronted by women's liberation movements on a number of fronts, both inside and outside of the home, as gendered divisions in both public life and care of households and children have been challenged.20 Women are increasingly participating in traditionally all-male organizations and activities, including higher-ranking occupational, religious, and governmental positions, and taking part in traditionally masculine social activities. Such changes within the relations of power upset the gender-segregated balance of male breadwinner and female-homemaker necessary to maintain masculine authority in the home.21 Hegemonic masculinity is affected because women's participation in paid employment challenges men's right to the head of household status on the basis of being the breadwinner. Third, Connell holds that the changing relations of sexuality have also created difficulties for the maintenance of hegemonic masculine identities. Increased acceptance of gay and lesbian sexuality along with other alternatives to mainstream Western heterosexuality, increased acceptance of women's sexual desires, and women's demands for control over their own bodies have all served to open up discussion regarding the traditional structure. Gay and lesbian sexuality also poses a threat to the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity and all-male institutions because, as Connell states, this masculinity necessitates male control over women in both the public and familial spheres. Homosexual relationships challenge the male-female relationship. Messner affirms that The very existence of gay and lesbian communities, public debates about gays in the military and gay and lesbian marriages tends to destabilize the previously taken-for-granted assumptions about the relationship between sexual orientation and cultural notions about gender, families, and masculine institutions.22 Together, these three arenas of crisis tendencies have been theorized by Connell to contribute to a change in the maintenance and legitimation of a patriarchal, homosocial hegemonic masculinity. With declining structural support for the foundation of hegemonic masculinity, the patriarchal social order must find other means to maintain a heterosexual, gender-based division of labour in both the private and public spheres. The consequences of the above-stated are a 'crisis of masculinity,' or an uncertainty regarding male and female roles and relations within the parameters of an ever-changing and fluid world. Connell holds that "the incapacity of the institutions of civil society, notably the family, to resolve this tension provokes broad but incoherent state action (from family law to population policy)."23 In order to adjust to such change, "masculinities are reconfigured around [the crisis tendencies] both through conflict over strategies of legitimation, and through men's divergent responses to feminism."24" Thus, the 'crisis of masculinity' exists in many forms and is experienced differently by men in relation to other aspects of social life that influence the construction of identity. According to Connell, the 'crisis of masculinity' depicted by the above pressures and challenges should not be considered a complete breakdown of hegemonic masculinity so much as a challenge to the legitimacy of the 'traditional' gender order. He states that "As a theoretical term "crisis presupposes a coherent system of some kind, which is destroyed or restored by the outcome of the crisis. Masculinityis not a system in that sense. It is, rather, a configuration of practice within a system of gender relations. We cannot logically speak of its disruption or its transformation. We can, however, logically speak of the crisis of a gender order as a whole and of its tendencies towards crisis."25 Thus, "any one masculinity, as a configuration of practice, is simultaneously positioned in a number of structures of relationship, which may be following different historical trajectories. Accordingly, masculinity, like femininity, is always liable to internal contradiction and historical disruption."26 The 'crisis of masculinity' can be understood as any contradiction or disruption to the legitimacy of hegemonic masculinity and prescribed gender roles, either structural, behavioural, or ideological. Thus, if hegemonic masculinity inherently makes room for challenges to its legitimacy, "hegemony, then, does not mean total control. It is not automatic, and may be disrupted - or even disrupt itself."27 On the basis of the above stated, one can affirm the continued validity of Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity. As several researchers have pointed out, amongst whom one may mention Lorber,28 Luff,29 Rogers30 and Lockhart31 Connell concedes to the presence of several definitions of masculinity. This means that he recognizes alternatives to the culturally hegemonic definition of masculinity. Added to that, it can further be argued that his conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity is reflective of the contemporary status of masculinity, insofar as it provides an explanatory framework for the crisis which masculinity is currently undergoing. Quite simply stated, the hegemonic cultural definition of masculinity is being challenged by alternatives and the said alternatives are increasingly imposing themselves upon society, exposing dominant understandings of the said as limited and increasingly non-representative of the entire reality. Therefore, and within the context of the aforementioned, Connell's conceptualization of the masculine construct is relevant to contemporary reality. Bibliography Connell, R.W. (1995) Masculinities. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Connell, R.W. (1997) Comment on Hawkesworth's confounding gender: restructuring gender, Signs, 22(3), 702-707. Donovan, B. (1998) Political consequences of private authority: Promise keepers and the transformation of hegemonic masculinity.' Theory and Society, 27, 817-843. Kimmel, M. and Kaufman, M. (1995) Weekend warriors: The New men's movement.' In Politics of Manhood: Profeminist Men Respond to the Mythopoetic Men's Movement (And the Mythopoetic Leaders Answer), Michael S. Kimmel, Ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lockhart, W. H. (2000) 'We are One Life,' but not of one gender ideology: Unity, ambiguity, and the promise keepers.' Sociology of Religion, 61(1): 73-92. Lorber, J. (1998) Symposium on R. W. Connell's masculinities: Men's gender Politics.' Gender and Society, 12(4): 469-477. Luff, D. (1999) Dialog across the divides: 'Moments of rapport' and power in feminist research with anti-feminist women.' Sociology, 33(4): 687-703. Messner, M. Changing men and feminist politics in the United States.' In Politics of Manhood: Profeminist Men Respond to the Mythopoetic Men's Movement (And the Mythopoetic Leaders Answer), Michael S. Kimmel, Ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rogers, M. (1999) Barbie Culture. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press. Read More