Theories of masculinity in which hegemony is important take a more critical approach in acknowledging inequalities in the power relations between men and women. The concept of hegemonic masculinity, as used by Connell (1983) and Carrigan et al. (1985), is based on the notion that men maintain and legitimate the subordination of women and marginalised groups of men on a global basis. Hegemonic masculinity is suggested to involve a strategy of behaviours, identities and role expectations which are continually constructed and adapted to perpetuate supremacy within developing social structures (Carrigan et al., 1985). Thus, rather than it being implied to function automatically, Carrigan et al. (1985) spoke of hegemony being the product of a constant struggle met by the contestation and resistance of those groups it subordinates.
The early development of hegemonic masculinity emerged from a number of theoretical influences. One key influence was the concept of ‘hegemony’, as developed by Antonio Gramsci (Hearn, 2004). Hegemony, in Gramsci’s theory, referred to the power one social class exercises over others, in terms of coercive and consensual control (Jones, 2006). The latter of these pertains to the way the ideology of the ruling class obscures other ways of viewing the world, creating the illusion it is justified and inevitable (Stewart & Usher, 2007). In failing to recognise the artificial nature of this worldview, the other classes are viewed to be complicit in their own subordination (Jones, 2006). Nevertheless, the theory recognises that subordination is often met with resistance, hegemony requiring continuous renegotiation and construction in order to maintain social consent (Jones, 2006).
It is this notion of consensual control that resonates throughout the conception of hegemonic masculinity, as documented by Carrigan et al. (1985) and Connell (1995/2008). The state, the labour market and the family are argued to be structured in ways that favour men over women, granting and legitimating their social and material advantages (Connell (2008 [1995]). Configuring social practice, therefore, does not refer to the coercive control of women through violence, although this can be applied by individual men to impose their dominance (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
Other influences on hegemonic masculinity include ‘Socialist Feminism, Bourdieu, Practice Theory, Psychoanalysis, Pluralism, and Intersectionality’ (Hearn, 2012). Moreover, regardless of links being forged through recent reinterpretations and adaptations of hegemonic masculinity, ‘Foucault, Discourse Theory, and Queer Theory’ were not an influence on Connell (Hearn, 2012). The concept of hegemonic masculinity, as developed by Connell (1983) and Carrigan et al. (1985), was more structuralist than post-structuralist (post-structuralist adaptations of the concept will be discussed within the following section).
In contrast to an essentialist model of masculinity, hegemonic models refer to a number of prescriptive social norms that men adhere to, to varying degrees (Demetriou, 2001; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Hearn (2004), however, drew attention to some confusion here, with Connell sometimes referring to hegemonic and other varieties of masculinity as ‘types’ of masculinity and at other times as ‘processes’. According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), hegemonic masculinity does not refer to specific men within society, but rather the ideas, fantasies and aspirations of large numbers of men. In this sense, all men are viewed to situate themselves in relation to it, as it represents the most honoured way of demonstrating masculinity at a given time in history (Gadd and Jefferson, 2007; Connell, 2008 [1995]). Even those men not enacting high levels of masculine dominance are still viewed to benefit from the subordination of women and, by allowing the patriarchal order to continue, are considered to be displaying a complicit masculinity (Connell, 2008 [1995]).
Hegemonic masculinity places emphasis on the existence of a complex masculine hierarchy, with some groups of men having dominance over others (Demetriou, 2001). Such a hierarchical relationship between masculinities is established through strategies that exploit, oppress, exclude and include (Connell, 2008 [1995]). At the bottom of this hierarchy are subordinated and marginalised masculinities (Sheff, 2006). The men constituting marginalised groups are distinguishable from dominant groups owing to factors that are external to gender (Demetriou, 2001; Connell, 2008 [1995]). For instance, Connell (2000) referred to men whose social class, ethnicity, age or limited mobility render them less able to practice the configurations of behaviour which grant patriarchal privilege to the dominant group at a given point in history (Connell, 2008 [1995]).
Subordinate masculinities are found amongst groups of men whose sexuality or gender practices are ‘seen’ to place them outside of hegemonic groups for which heterosexuality is seen as pivotal (Sheff, 2006). Additional to non-heterosexual men, those who are unsuccessful in demonstrating a ‘recognisable’ common standard of masculinity are argued to be subordinated by dominant groups (Connell, 2008 [1995]). Rather than these groups of men being inferior, the hegemonic subordination of them is theorised to derive from the dominant group’s policing of social practices that could undermine the structures of heterosexual patriarchy (Forrest, 2000; Demetriou, 2001; Connell, 2008 [1995]). Nevertheless, this conception of hegemonic masculinity can be seen to offer little explanation regarding common patterns of dominance and subordination that have been identified during relations between white, heterosexual men with similar social and material resources (New, 2001; Hall, 2002). Rather than being motivated by the aim of perpetuating patriarchy, these common patterns can be seen as the result of men, as individuals, attempting to maintain masculine status during relations with perceived rivals (Whitehead, 2005). In the literature, there are various examples of the strategies men use to achieve this, which will be addressed in the following chapter.
From perspectives using hegemonic masculinity (Carrigan et al., 1985), common patterns of men’s behaviour might be viewed as those practices helping men to perpetuate patriarchal dominance at a specific point in history. However, rather than fixed, these
practices are theorised to be subject to a continuous process of re-negotiation by way of legitimating patriarchy in the face of re-emerging opposition (Hearn, 2004). As such, few attempts have been made in the literature to identify or define specific common patterns of men’s behaviour (Connell, 2008 [1995]). Instead, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) very loosely define masculinities as:
‘Configurations of gender practice that are constructed, unfold and change through time’ (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, P. 852).
However, such definitions have lead to ambiguity regarding what configurations of practice actually constitute hegemonic masculinity, and whether it refers to a cultural representation, general behaviours, or institutional structures (Hearn, 2004). Moreover, as suggested within chapter one, researchers continue to identify common patterns among the behaviours of men (Anderson, 2001; Plummer, 2006; Bennett, 2007; Phillips, 2007; Bishop et al., 2009), for which this theory provides no explanation.
Though the concept of hegemonic masculinity refers to a form of masculinity which subordinates certain other aforementioned forms, masculinity in general is still linked to the behaviours of men and not women (Connell, 2008 [1995]). Thus, men’s behaviours tend to be seen as configurations of masculinity and women’s behaviours as configurations of femininity (Carrigan et al., 1985; Connell, 2008 [1995]). Moreover, masculinity and femininity are often simply regarded as antitheses of one another∗
∗
The conception of a sex and gender binary is challenged by transgender theorists (see: Halberstam, 1998)
(Allen, 2005; Kane, 2006; Swain, 2006; Connell, 2008 [1995]). This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to refer to a man as demonstrating feminine-typical behaviour or a woman as demonstrating masculine-typical behaviour. From this perspective, men demonstrate masculinity regardless of whatever form their behaviour takes. Hence, the constructs of men and masculinity are seen as inextricably linked, as are the constructs of women and femininity, despite identified overlaps in the social practices of men and women (Palan et al., 1999; Vogel et al., 2003).
One way of avoiding such confusion would be to clarify the concept of masculinity and focus instead on the hegemony of men, as suggested by Hearn (2004 & 2006). Another way might be to view masculinity and femininity as dominant social representations which press definitions of sex-specific conduct, but also view social agents as autonomous entities. In this way, men’s and women’s behaviours are not necessarily indicative of gendered practice at all times and within all social contexts (Maccoby, 2000; McHale et al., 2003; Vogel et al., 2003; Whitehead, 2005). Furthermore, men could be viewed to demonstrate feminine behaviour, and women masculine behaviour.
Over recent years, there has been a shift towards discourse approaches to masculinity which, in part, appears to have reflected a wider post-structuralist turn. Many of these theorists have argued that men demonstrate a multiplicity of masculinities, with different masculinities being demonstrated by the same man (Wetherell & Edley, 1999; Demetriou, 2001; Speer, 2001; Moita-Lopes, 2003; Smiler, 2004; Allen, 2005; Kane, 2006; Sheff, 2006), and masculinities being formed intersectionally with sexuality, class, age, and so on (See: Hearn, 2011). As many of these are concerned with the power men exert over women within society, there is a tendency for such authors to align themselves with hegemonic masculinity approaches. This has resulted in post-structuralist and social constructionist adaptations of the theory (Hearn, 2006). The notion of multiple masculinities will be discussed within the following section.