The previous section looked at affordances and discursive scripts as the possibilities for action – that is, as the range of possible actions and identities afforded by a particular context. In this section, I will explore what we can do with these affordances, in terms of using our agency to choose between them or resist them, as well as the broader factors that influence and restrict our choices. First I will discuss masculinity theory’s description of the hegemonic system and the implications for agency and resistance. Then I will discuss critiques and limitations to this concept and will suggest an alternative which draws from the theoretical perspective argued for above.
2.3.3.1. Masculinity theory: The irresistibility of hegemony
Connell and colleagues have argued that a key reason to study gender identities lies in the argument that these are not rooted in biology, therefore they can and do change over time; and that individuals in local contexts are able to resist the hegemonic gender system (Connell, 1987; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). An important goal of
70 gender research is therefore to explore under what conditions hegemonic forms of gender identity can be resisted and re-envisioned. However, while it has been argued that the forms that hegemonic masculinity takes can be contested and change over time, local and global patriarchal structures have been found to entrench the privilege associated with hegemonic masculinity. Thus, the patriarchal order as a whole has proved stubbornly resistant to change.
As described above, gender hegemony is a hierarchical system which privileges the forms of masculinity (and to a lesser extent, femininity) which are at the top of this hierarchy (Connell, 1987; Schippers, 2007). This gender order is, by its nature, a system of subjugation. Hegemonic masculinity is a structure for subordination, where those who can enact hegemonic masculinity (or emphasised femininity) successfully can better subordinate those below them in the hierarchy. This links to patriarchal privilege, and also to the notion of the patriarchal dividend (Connell, 1987, 2005; Jewkes et al., 2015;
Lindegger & Quayle, 2009; Martin & Govender, 2013; Morrell, 2003; Schippers, 2007), where even men who are not particularly good at hegemonic masculinity reap a dividend because of the patriarchy embedded in the gender order.
Just as there are substantial benefits up for grabs, there are also substantial risks (physical; economic; cultural) to rejecting the hegemonic gender order. These serve as enticements for participation in the hegemonic gender order and may help to explain why the broader system is resistant to change. It has been suggested that we have a (limited) choice in how (if at all) we take up the gender positions available to us, or whether we choose to resist them (Connell, 1987; Jewkes et al., 2015). We are constrained by a number of things: the limitations of our own bodies (e.g. Connell, 2000; Martin & Govender, 2013); our socio-economic-political context (e.g. Blackbeard, 2011); the culturally acceptable variations of gender positions available to us; and the consequences, repercussions or “social costs” for these choices (e.g. Mthatyana & Vincent, 2015, p. 52). Some authors have focused on this aspect of choice as the ‘leverage point’ for intervention, by making
individuals aware of their choices and providing alternatives such as in the Macho Project in Sweden (cf. Jewkes et al., 2015).
71 However, it has also been argued that resistance can be limited by the
normative pressure of these hegemonic gender identities and the way that power is exerted to punish individual norm-breakers or exclude them from benefits (Demetriou, 2001; Kadir & Tidy, 2011; Kandiyoti, 1988; Schippers, 2007). Sometimes individual resistance is achieved not by direct resistance, but by linking-in to and capitalizing on features of the hegemony that created the subjugation in the first place. For example, Edley and Wetherell (1997, as cited in Wetherell & Edley, 2014) discuss a participant with the pseudonym ‘Neil’, who was struggling to position himself as a ‘man’ in a way which resisted the hegemonic masculine identity of the ‘alpha’ group in school, the rugby jocks. In an interview with Edley, he first positioned himself as a ‘wimp’, as physically weak and afraid to get into physical fights. Then he re-interpreted ‘wimp’ as someone who is also ‘mentally weak’ - as someone who cannot defend themselves verbally, and he distanced himself from this type of ‘wimpishness’. He then identified the alpha group as having many attractive qualities (good-looking, strong, and so forth), but as being mentally weak – followers, unable to think for themselves. Thus, he resisted hegemonic masculinity and simultaneously differentiated himself from
alternative, subordinate masculinity, by positioning himself as independent. However the authors argued that independence is often characterised as one of the hallmarks of hegemonic masculinity. Thus, Neil’s resistance re-appropriated one of the hallmarks of hegemonic masculinity therefore reinforcing the hegemony as much as resisting it.
This example illustrates the importance of studying individual-level strategies of resistance. However, it has also been argued that we need to also account for collective strategies for resistance, as these may be the most effective at engendering long-term change.
2.3.3.1.1. Individual versus collective strategies for change
It is important to clarify the difference between individual strategies for producing identities within the hegemony and structural/collective resistance. As described above in Section 2.3.2, individuals’ range of possible actions are shaped and limited by the contexts they find themselves in – therefore, they have limited ability to change the system;
72 and opportunities for resistance, while present, may be deterred by the consequences of non-conformity. In other words, individual success within a context often requires authentic enactment of “acceptable” gender identity within narrow parameters (as discussed in the previous section). Therefore it has been argued that, while interventions targeting
individuals can be useful resources for engendering change (cf. Jewkes et al., 2015),
broader, long-lasting societal-level change requires more than individual resistance. Indeed, this was one of Connell’s core arguments in Gender and Power (1987): that the structure of the gender system makes it particularly resilient to individual-level resistance.
Collective resistance, on the other hand, seems to offer a more effective means of stimulating broader societal change (Haslam & Reicher, 2012; Wright, 2009). Wright (2009, p. 860) defines collective action as individuals acting as representatives of a particular group in order to resist dominant discourses and therefore to improve “the conditions of the group as a whole”. Further distinctions between individual and collective level resistance will be explored in detail in Chapter 7.
2.3.3.2. Critique: Resistance and the mechanisms of hegemonic change in masculinity
It has been suggested that masculinity theory has not been nuanced enough in its conceptualisation of change, particularly in the way that hegemonic masculinity was conceptualised as dealing with competing masculinities (Demetriou, 2001). Connell argued that hegemonic masculinity is flexible and adaptive, and accounted for shifts in the
preferred content of hegemonic masculinity over time while still maintaining its patriarchal power base. However, the problem is that the dualistic formulation of
masculinity/femininity and a dualistic formulation of hegemonic and subordinate/
marginalised masculinities, can be said to have obscured the way that pockets of resistance easily become subverted in support of the broader patriarchal gender structure.
In other words, where it was assumed that resistance to hegemonic masculinity could lead to more egalitarian ways-of-being (cf. Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), Demetriou (2001) has argued that, when faced with resistance, hegemonic
73 ‘look better’, without really changing substantially or relinquishing much of its power base. This helps to understand why hegemonic patriarchy is so resilient resistant to change, and will be discussed further in the section that follows.
2.3.3.3 Proposed theoretical framework: The hybrid bloc of hegemonic gender identities Demetriou (2001, p. 348) offered a re-formulation of hegemonic masculinity as a “hybrid bloc that unites various and diverse practices in order to construct the best possible strategy for the reproduction of patriarchy”, and demonstrated this through an analysis of the interaction between homosexual and heterosexual masculinities. According to Demetriou (2001, p. 351), hybridization can be conceptualised as “a strategy for the reproduction of patriarchy”, as it enables hegemonic masculinity to strategically orientate to and incorporate pockets of resistance, thus reaffirming its overall domination over women. This process of hybridization, Demetriou (2001, p. 351) argued, involves a process of “appropriation… re-articulation and translation” of the practices or signifiers of the resistant, subordinated masculinity as they are incorporated into this hegemonic bloc.
For example, it could be suggested that the rise of the ‘metrosexual’ (the heterosexual man who is concerned with being well-groomed and consuming luxury products) makes hegemonic masculinity more ‘gay friendly’ while still maintaining its position of privilege and power over homosexual masculinities (Demetriou, 2001). In other words, by appropriating elements of what is seen as a more feminized homosexual culture, the incorporation of ‘metrosexual” identity into the fringes of heterosexual hegemonic masculinity is able to “blur gender difference, to render the patriarchal dividend invisible… thus [absolve] any responsibility for it” (Demetriou, 2001, p. 353).
Demetriou (2001) suggests that this process of cultural appropriation occurs both ways, as subordinated/ marginalised masculinities can also take from the hegemonic form, for example as can be seen with the rise of ‘bears’ in gay culture11 (see also Manley, Levitt, & MCoun, 2007). Using this conception to analyse the relationship between hetero-
11 A ‘bear’ refers to a homosexual man who fits the classic image of rugged masculinity and tends to be large,
74 and homosexual masculinities, Demetriou (2001) argues that this re- or cross-appropriation allows the ‘masculine bloc’ as a whole to reaffirm its domination over women.
Thus, Demetriou argues that his conception of the “hegemonic masculine bloc” (2001, p. 355) overcomes the difficulties posed by Connell’s dualistic formulation of the relationship between hegemonic and subordinate/ marginalised masculinities. Not only does this formulation assist in unveiling the processes of “negotiation, translation,
hybridization and reconfiguration” that form the reproduction of patriarchy; it also reveals the ways in which these processes camouflage patriarchy by rendering it as something “new and unrecognisable” (Demetriou, 2001, p. 355). Thus, Demetriou (2001) argues that this formulation accounts for shifts in the preferred content of hegemonic masculinity over time while still maintaining its power base.
This concept of the ‘hybrid bloc’ is interesting and useful, but it does insinuate some shadowy Moriarty pulling strings behind the scenes to manipulate the development and maintenance of hegemony masculinity. It is important to note the systemic resilience is decentralized; a property of the system rather than intentional conspiracy. Considering situated agency and resistance (as in the present study) may help to show how this decentralized coercion occurs. For example, Allen (2007) and Redman (2001) highlighted how teenaged boys used romantic masculinity as a means of performing hegemonic masculinity. So, by reconceptualising these patterns of masculinity as discursive tools, one can argue that these ‘different masculinities’ served as discursive identity
resources within their interview contexts for participants to perform a situationally-
appropriate identity and maximise the benefits they could accrue from these performances. Thus, I would suggest that re-appropriation happens in local contexts, but that with enough collective force it can lead to shifts/ affirmations of power at the regional and global levels.
2.3.3.4. Proposed theoretical framework: Balancing conceptualisations of agency and context As a final comment on agency and power, I would like to briefly discuss the importance of including a broader, contextualised, historico-political perspective in one’s analysis. I have argued across the literature review that it is important to acknowledge the
75 agency of individuals in determining how to take up masculinity and femininity; and indeed, in the theoretical framework selected for the study, agency is prioritised and envisioned in more extensive ways than ever before.
However, it has been argued that it is important “not to… responsibilise” – that is, hold women accountable – for their oppression (Francis et al., 2016, p. 4). This may occur when men and women are described as drawing from identity resources in a similar and equivalent way (Ball, 2011; Theilade, 2011), with the result that “structural accounts of inequality” are submerged (Francis et al., 2016, p. 6) within a neo-liberalistic discourse (Theilade, 2011; Thoma, 2009).
As mentioned briefly in Section 1.1.3.1, the neo-liberalistic discourse presents women as equal to men and empowered to make free choices within a de-patriarchalised society. However, Farvid and Braun (2006, p. 306) argue that women “remain embedded within a heterosexist imperative”, where women’s choices are implicitly constructed as ‘free’ so long as they conform to the imperatives of hetero-sexuality. Where women are discriminated against, the neo-liberalist discourse would present these women as ‘failing to make correct choices’, rather than being victims of broader discriminatory attitudes. Thus, one could argue that this discourse repositions the blame for inequalities from the
structural level to an individual level.
As Thoma (2009) argues, this neo-liberalistic discourse of equality de- emphasises the social and cultural context in which these choices are made, and conceals potential limitations of agency (such as age, status and gender). I suggest we need to carefully evaluate how we theorise gender, to ensure we do not unconsciously perpetuate the discriminatory practices/ideas we are aiming to critique. When one theorises about the relationships between groups, particularly the agency of a subordinated group, one needs to ensure there is no undue insinuation of blame or responsibilising for their subordinated positions.
I suggest we need to be reflexive about how we present those we study: recognising the contextual factors that might constrain ‘freedom’ of choice; studying identity performances in context where possible; and being cautious in the conclusions we
76 make or blame we attribute to those disempowered by structural discourses which reward them for compliance.
Thus, in this study I draw from a definition of agency as a “contextually negotiated, socially motivated, dynamic process” (Korhonen, 2014, p. 78). That is, I conceive of agency as being mediated by our social context and the affordances available to us, rather than as an innate “property or a competence of the individual” (Korhonen, 2014, p. 67).
I would argue that the theoretical framework developed above will assist me in this task. Firstly, I will explicitly consider context, and the kinds of affordances and
identity resources it provides within a particular situation (being-romantic). Secondly, by considering not just affordances, but discursive performative scripts as well, I aim to show the inducements that may exist that encourage, entice or coerce us into particular forms of identity production. This will hopefully mediate my interpretations of the content of
masculinities and femininities available while being-romantic, in recognition that these may not be completely ‘free’ choices and there may be different consequences for how
gendered identities are drawn from. Thus, my goal is to investigate and appreciate where identity production may be troubling for men and for women, while balancing this with an understanding of how the starting blocks for identity production within patriarchal societies are not equivalent for men and for women. Since men and women are located differently within the patriarchal system, the consequences, costs and rewards for resistance or compliance are not the same either.