Despite his major contribution to masculinity studies, Connell‘s theory has been criticized for not being very specific on how men actually negotiate masculine identities. His theory focused mainly on macro-sociological issues rather than micro-psychological processes, the latter being the primary level of interest in the current research project. In other words, what are the discursive strategies that boys and men use on a daily basis in living out their masculinities? And do these strategies change from one context to another? According to Wetherrell and Edley (1999) the ‗hegemonic masculinity model‘ is not sufficient for understanding ‗the nitty- gritty of negotiating masculine identities‘ (p. 336). The main argument here is that Connell fails to look sufficiently at the discursive strategies that men employ to resist dominant voices of hegemonic masculinity and that the categories he describes (hegemonic, subordinated, marginalized, and complicit) may not always be easily distinguishable and may also be too limited in describing varieties of positioning and strategic engagement with hegemonic masculinity in context. Although these categories may be useful at a generic level and perhaps at a more sociological level of analysis, this explanation of forms of expression of masculinity fails to take into account the complexities of being a man in terms of his lived identity and experience.
Hegemonic masculinity is not a description of the characteristics of a ‗real‘ man or men, but rather of a set of ideals that many boys and men aspire towards. Many of these aspirations are impossible to achieve or elusive (Wetherell & Edley, 1999). It is argued that Connell‘s earlier
understanding of hegemonic masculinity does not sufficiently take into account the dialectical relationship between hegemonic masculinities and marginalized or counter-forms of masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is therefore represented as ―essentially powerful, strong, brave, violent, risk-taking and heterosexual that is never infected by non-hegemonic elements‖ (Demetriou, 2001, p. 347). However, returning to Gramsci‘s work, it is important to note that hegemonic ideologies preserve, legitimate, and naturalize the interests of the powerful at the expense of the powerless. It must be noted that hegemonic relations in any society involve a constant contest and struggle for power and visibility. Connell seems to miss some of these complexities in his early writings. Boys and men appear to be constantly acting to maintain or occupy multiple and even opposing positions often simultaneously in their lived experiences (Frosh et al., 2002; Wetherell & Edley, 1999), illustrating that hegemonic relationships in respect of masculinity are non-static. According to Demetriou (2001, p. 355) ―it is an illusion to think of hegemonic masculinity as a closed, coherent and unified identity‖. Hegemonic masculinity is characterized by the constant process of negotiation, translation and reconfiguration in order to adapt to the new historical time and context. Thus, both within groups and individuals shifts between hegemonic and counter hegemonic positions may take place very quickly, indicating co-existence and contestation. What versions of masculinity dominate or occupy a hegemonic position in any circumstance can also be subject to change. There is an appeal therefore not to reify the notion of a singular hegemonic masculinity.
Despite some of the criticisms, Connell should be given credit for his major contribution to the field of gender studies (especially masculinity studies). The concept of hegemonic masculinity arguably represents the most influential part of his work (Demetriou, 2001). It must be taken into account that Connell developed the notion of hegemonic masculinity while he was still rooted in understanding the class politics of the Australian capitalist economic system and its impact on men as partners and fathers. Since then, Connell has made substantial changes to the concept of hegemonic masculinity. He now recognizes the diversity, fluidity and multiplicity of masculinities including in respect of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions (Connell, 2000; 2005). Nevertheless the construct of hegemonic masculinity remains useful in understanding social positioning and the ways in which certain expressions of masculinity become dominant, legitimated and celebrated, and others, by virtue of this, become rendered
less legitimate.
3.6. Concluding remarks
In conclusion, it is clear that feminist and gender scholarship has provoked an interest in men, masculinity and gender relations between men and women. In addition, feminist and masculinity studies have also highlighted relations of dominance and oppression within the category of men. It is argued in this chapter that feminist and gender scholarship has also played a significant role in making men and masculinity more visible as the object/s of research.
While earlier radical feminist scholarship tended to depict all men as potentially abusive (Seidler, 1994; Segal, 1990), this view was found to be damaging as it over-generalized negative portrayals of men and discounted differences amongst them. This created a climate in which men began to ―feel inadequate about who they were as men, feeling that they were not ‗good enough‘ in many respects‖ (Seidler, 1994, p.115) and leading to some polarization in the study of women and men. Currently, there is greater recognition that the problematization of masculinity may be helpful in exploring gender relations and in attempting to challenge patriarchy. Connell‘s concept of a kind of ‗hegemonic form/s‘ of masculinity appeared to offer a useful way of understanding archetypal, dominant, idealized and socially sanctioned expressions of masculinity that then become the blueprint against which boys and men ‗s experiences and behaviours become assessed. While there has been some criticism of the way in which the construct has been employed and the possibility that ideas around this kind of hegemonic gender construction may over-simplify what it means to live out a masculine identity. Overall, Connell‘s notion of hegemonic and counter forms of masculinity has gained considerable purchase in masculinity studies and offers a useful lens through which to look at expressions of masculinity and relations both between men and women and men and men.
In the subsequent chapter, the researcher discusses the use of applied psychoanalysis as a theoretical approach to understanding masculine subjectivities, aiming to focus in on more experiential or subjective aspects of masculinity identity.