The purpose of this study aims to look at the representations of masculinity found in Destiny Man. These representations make available possible repertoires of desirable or valued masculinities to which individuals may ascribe. In order to contextualise these representations of elite black men I start with a discussion of what Connell calls hegemonic masculinity before moving on to outline the ways in which hegemonic masculinities have been theorised in South Africa pre- and post-apartheid.
2.4.1 Understanding the concepts: masculinity and hegemonic masculinity
Masculinities are arranged hierarchically and compete for power and legitimacy (Connell 1993). What Connell (1993, 2005) suggests here is that within masculinity there are relations of dominance, subordination and alliance, which include and exclude different types of men.
The dominant form of masculinity is hegemonic masculinity. In order to understand the concept(s) of (hegemonic) masculinity it is important to firstly explain and understand the different concept(s) of hegemony. First, “hegemony refers to the dominance of a group, achieved not through brute force but principally by means of winning the active consent of those groups who are subordinated within it” (Hall 1982:85). Second, “hegemony does not depend on complete cultural dominance or an elimination of alternative ideas but rather, it is achieved through finding a balance that subordinates certain groups and alternative ways of thinking” (Connell 1987). From these concept(s) and understanding(s) of hegemony, we can understand that hegemonic masculinity is:
“the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (Connell 2005:77).
26 So, hegemonic masculinity subordinates all forms of femininity and other forms of masculinity (Connell 1987). This is an important point. There exist other possible forms of masculinity which may not define men as primary breadwinners. However, these masculinities are subordinated under hegemonic masculinity. All kinds of femininity are subordinated to hegemonic masculinity but hegemonic masculinity favours a particular kind of femininity (Connell 1987). This, according to Connell (1987:187), is an “emphasised femininity” which depends on compliance with the dominance of men. While Connell (1995) suggests that there are multiple femininities, her focus is more on the relationship among masculinities. Although “emphasised femininity” is central to men’s dominance over women, it is not the only method ensuring men’s dominance over women (Connell 1995, 1987:187).
For Connell (1995:79), “the ascendancy of hegemonic masculinity over other subordinate and marginalised masculinities is equally important for gender hegemony”.
Such challenges ensure that, despite its power, hegemonic masculinity’s ascendency is precarious. It is this specific construction of its precarious ascendancy that Connell and Messerschmidt (2005; also Petersen 1998) argue must be interrogated in order to understand how its hegemony is maintained. This stance informs my examination of the construction of hegemonic masculinity within Destiny Man. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) have reformulated and provided a comprehensive re-examination of the concept of hegemonic masculinity addressing four key areas: the nature of gender hierarchy, the geography of masculine configurations, the process of social embodiment and the dynamics of masculinities. I discuss these four key areas in detail.
The first point is that “gender is always relational and patterns of masculinity are socially defined in opposition to some model of femininity” (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005:848).
Women are essential to many of the processes constructing masculinities. For example, woman act as mothers, wives, sexual partners and workers. Gender hierarchies – men and women being superior to one another – are affected by new configurations of women’s identity and practice. For this reason, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005:848) suggest that contemporary research on (hegemonic) masculinity needs to “pay closer attention to the practices of women and to the historical interplay of masculinities and femininities”. In order to achieve this, Connell & Messerschmidt (2005:848) suggests that:
“masculinity needs to incorporate a more holistic understanding of gender hierarchy, recognising the agency of subordinated groups as much as the power of dominant groups and the mutual conditioning of gender dynamics and other social dynamics”.
27 Secondly, given the growing attention to globalisation, “the significance of transnational arenas for the construction of masculinity” is an important point to discuss (Connell &
Messerschmidt 2005:849). Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) have suggested a framework where the existing concept of hegemonic masculinity can be analysed at three levels, namely, local, regional and global. Adapting this framework will enable one to “recognise the importance of place without making generalisations about independent cultures or discourses” (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005:849). With regard to this study, I examine a specific historical moment in a specific place in which a particular form of masculinity is ascendant and increasingly powerful. However, it is not totally idiosyncratic or unique as it draws on global discourses of masculinity and masculine success.
Third, the concept of hegemonic masculinity in relation to the representation of men’s bodies has been recognised since the earliest establishment of its concept and idea. Until now, the pattern and understanding of social embodiment involved in hegemony has not been persuasively theorised (Connell & Messerschmidt 2002). In order to understand this we need to understand that bodies are objects of social practice as well as agents in social practice (Connell 2002). Connell and Messerschmidt (2005:852) explain:
“there are circuits of social practice linking bodily process and social structures which add up to the historical process in which society is embodied. These circuits of social embodiment may be direct and simple, or long and complex, passing through institutions, economic relations and cultural symbols without ceasing to involve material bodies”.
This understanding of social embodiment is evident in the daily lives of elite masculinity or ruling-class men – for example – “in their sports, leisure and eating habits they deploy their wealth and establish relations of distance and dominance over other men’s bodies”
(Donaldson & Poynting 2004 cited in Connell & Messerschmidt 2005:852). This understanding is pertinent to my study, as the visual images and written representations found in Destiny Man depict this embodiment and rehearse the relations of power that they implicitly endorse.
Lastly, “masculinities are configurations of practice that are constructed, unfold, and change over time” (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005:852). As gender relations evolve and women’s involvement in society (socially, politically and economically) increases, the dynamics of masculinities may see a complete shift of power and a more equal relationship between men and women (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005). This is also an important point in my study as
28 the examination of the shifts in masculinity in this social context has revealed how different forms of masculinity come into ascendency at particular historical moments in specific social and cultural spaces. My research enables me to question to what extent and with what implications Destiny Man’s representations of masculinity enable such transformation given the current state of play.
Above I have discussed the boarder concept(s) of masculinity and hegemonic masculinity. I now turn to a more specific and relevant discussion on black masculinities in South Africa – pre- and post-apartheid.