Reiner (2010) doesn’t emphasize that ‘cop culture’ is puritanical; instead he argues that ‘cop culture’ is dominated by ‘machismo’ (p. 129) (i.e. exaggerated masculinity). Notably, masculinity has always been an issue in research within policing, either explicitly or implied. At a basic level, masculinity is simultaneously a place in gender relations which is practised through the way men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture (Connell, 1995). Karen Horney (1932) theorised that masculinity is built on overreactions to femininity, and there exists a connection to the construct of masculinity through the subordination of women. There still exist questions in respect to how the overreactions to femininity interact with males who appear to be effeminate, a stereotypical gay male or a transsexual individual.
Connell (1995) states that patriarchal culture interprets gay men as lacking masculinity; this interpretation is linked to the assumption that American and British culture makes
Police
Culture
Management Attitudes Young (1993) Heidensohn (1992, 2003) Westmarland (1999, 2002) Racist Attitudes Van Mannen (1978) Fitzgerald (2000) Bullock and Gunning (2007) McLaughlin (2007) MacPherson (1999) Rowe (2007) Sexist Attitudes Reiner (2000) Smith and Gray (1985) Fielding (1994) Westmarland (2001) Brown and Heidensohn (2000) Status Attitudes Hobbs (1991) Young (1991) Innes (2003) Homophobic Attitudes Leinen (1993) Buhrke (1996) Burke (1993, 1994) Colvin (2012) Jones and Williams (2013) Transphobic Attitudes ?42
about the mystery of sexuality that opposites attract. Connell (1995) further states that gay men present the dilemma about masculinity for men who are attracted to other men. It should be noted that hegemonic (i.e. exaggerated masculinity) masculine police ideology typically defines gay men as effeminate (Connell, 1995). As such, gay masculinity is a contradiction for a gender order structured by the way cultural systems exist, much like those who challenge gender roles within the transgender realm.
It could be argued that LGBT+ identities are the repository of whatever is symbolically expelled from hegemonic masculinity in patriarchal ideology within policing. Modern societies view heterosexual men as dominant and gay men as subordinate (Connell, 1995). Gay theorists and feminists share the perception that mainstream masculinity is fundamentally linked to power, organised for domination and resistant to change because of power relations (Connell, 1995). As such, the occupation of policing brandishes a tremendous amount of power over the citizens they are sworn to protect. With the increase in the feelings of empowerment, the groundwork for a negative macho culture magnifies, and those who display any signs of perceived femininity could face conflict when integrating into police culture.
Contemporary British and American societies view sexuality as dichotomised and perceive bisexuality as demonstrating that sexuality is unstable (Connell, 1995). This dilemma has grown to encompass and conflict with lesbianism and those who are transgender or refuse to be classified in stereotypical gender binaries. Further, bisexuality is viewed as an alternation between heterosexuals and gay connections (Connell, 1995). As with bisexuality, there exists psychological conflict with understanding and the classification of transsexuality. This conflict and polarity exists between the binary sexes, since society catalogues individuals as ‘male’ or ‘female’; this can help to explain why some individuals have conflicting feelings about understanding and accepting transgender individuals, arguably within police ideology.
As discussed in chapter two, heterosexism within policing is closely connected with dominant forms of masculinity within policing. The boundary between straight and gay is blurred with the boundary between masculine and feminine in heterosexist ideology (Connell, 1995) and genderist ideology. Gay men are viewed as feminised men and lesbians as masculinised women (Connell, 1995). Consequently, the infusion of hegemonic masculinity within policing may provide a compelling explanation as to why lesbians are more likely to be accepted by their police colleagues. Furthermore, it also helps explain why FTM transgender individuals are much more likely to be accepted compared to gay officers or MTF transgender officers45. While gay sexuality itself was considered the repressed truth of conventional masculinity, those that are transgender can be viewed as further leading to conflict with the social ideology of dichotomous gender roles.
45 This is explored in Chapters Five and Six.
43
Due to social influences of heteronormativity, policing as an occupational culture is still heavily influenced by hegemonic masculinity, with a distinction drawn between the men’s work of crime-fighting and the women’s work of social service activities (Fielding, 1994). Policing, as a masculine profession, reflects “socially gendered perceptual, interactional, and micro-political activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and feminine ‘natures’” (West and Zimmerman, 1987, p. 126). This creates a very binary gendered division between the expectations of those who wear the uniform and police performance abilities. These entrenched binary gender-role stereotypes and assumptions of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ have been used to exclude women and those who associate with ‘femininity’ from job assignments to upper management positions. Some researchers even state that the mere presence of women (i.e. femininity) can symbolically undermine the traditional masculine ethos of policing and be perceived as a threat to masculinity itself (Fielding and Fielding, 1992). With the police ethos of masculinity, danger and authority are interdependent elements in policing where individuals must conform to the adoptive culture. Martin (1980) found that women adapt to policing by either emphasising their femininity or portraying themselves as weak and passive in the presence of male officers, or they may emphasise masculinity. This ethos of masculinity creates a dichotomous relationship between men and women within policing (Fielding, 1994; Garcia, 2003); therefore, it is essential for this research to explore gender construction and masculinity specifically, rather than pointing out the hierarchical relationship by which binary differences between men and women are only reinforced.
The job of policing itself is regarded as one of the few remaining non-military occupations where there is a requirement for physical violence, bodily power and the possibility of mortal danger. Hobbs (1998) suggested that “violence is an enduring, emphatically masculine resource” (p. 29) which may draw individuals who wish to assert their masculinity into an environment where violence is acceptable and even to a lesser extent encouraged. In reference to the usage of acceptable physical violence in policing, police ideologies and the profession itself requires officers to handle themselves (example: Fielding, 1988; Uildriks and Mastrigt; 1991, Heidenson, 1994), and they must be able to be perceived as having the physical ability to do so.
Westmarland (2001) stated that police work is reliant upon physical abilities like running, jumping over fences, climbing buildings, crawling through overturned cars and fighting; these activities serve as a legitimate outlet for masculine aggression at work. Doran and Chan (2003) argued that traditional policing takes the crime-fighting and coercive nature of police work for granted and equates policing with masculinity. This in turn leads to stereotypical assumptions that policing is more fitted to a male existence (Heidensohn, 1992; Appier, 1998; Crank, 1998).
Blumfield (1992) argued that men overemphasise masculinity in certain cultures because any suggestion of displaying traditionally ‘feminine’ traits like gentleness or sensitivity
44
encourages colleagues to brand themselves as feminine acting or non-heterosexual; whereas heterosexual women within policing feel pressured to demonstrate masculine traits to prove their abilities (Zimmer, 1987), and in contrast lesbians may feel the need to assert their femininity (Miller et al., 2003). Schneider (1989) and Martin (1980) stated that lesbians may feel the need to display their femininity in order to avoid hostile homophobic confrontations at work. Female officers, straight and gay, recognise that policing requires ‘masculine’ characteristics like assertiveness, strength and supposed competitiveness, and that acting in this way might confirm suspicions that they are lesbian (Burke, 1993; Pharr, 1988).
Miller et al. (2003) contend that because policing entails homosociality – which is gendered social interactions between males in police culture – any display of any ‘feminine’ characteristics is perceived as threatening masculinity. This threat towards masculinity causes male officers to conform to macho models to compensate for any questions about their sexuality or gender presentation (Miller et al., 2003). These threats can be validated through the subordination of women, heterosexism, genderism, authority, control, competitive individualism, independence, aggressiveness and the capacity for violence (Connell, 1995; Messerschmidt, 1996), as illustrated by the lack of social acceptance of trans feminine, effeminate gay male identities and femininity in general.
Constant themes of masculinity, often called hegemonic masculinity, exist that are pervasive to police ideologies (Kappeler et al., 1998). Hegemonic masculinity describes the idealised form of masculinity in the dominant form of male reinforcement of power in a cultural and collective domain (Connell, 1995; Messerschmidt, 1996), and the maintenance of it involves engaging in certain practices that validate one’s masculinity. The concept of hegemonic masculinity draws upon the Gramscian concept of hegemony, which states that those in dominant positions in society work through ideological means: a consensus of values based on how the dominant group positions it, which is known and understood by those in subordinate groups. Therefore, hegemonic masculinity can only be practised by the few men who exist in a dominant position. When existing in this dominant position, during social construction, influence is exerted upon those in subordinate masculinities, like gay men, who are typically equated with femininity, and those who do not conform to gender ideologies of heteronormativity.
In the United States and the United Kingdom, hegemonic masculinity through social construction can take different forms and can be validated through the subordination of women, heterosexism, genderism, uncontrollable sexuality, authority, control, competitive individualism, independence, aggressiveness and the capacity for violence (Connell, 1995; Messerschmidt, 1996). Hegemonic masculinity’s social construction and manifestation in policing can be seen in the division of police work, which relegates female officers to ‘women’s issues’ (Barlow and Barlow, 2000; Merlo and Pollack, 1995; Schulz, 1995), and in administrative policies that value competitiveness, aggressiveness,
45
persistence and emotional detachment (Epstein, 1971). As such, it is a significant construct within policing. Additionally, hegemonic masculinity has a solidarity theme that is instilled within policing, which unfortunately can make it problematic to change attitudes and perceptions.