One of the key themes that emerged from the data was the notion that men’s spectrum of behaviours do not all constitute demonstrations of masculinity. However, when feeling a social pressure to demonstrate their masculinity, men tend to do this by gravitating to a dominant masculine norm. This section will look at how the data implied that the dominant masculine norm revolves around the transcendence of vulnerability, resulting in common patterns of men’s behaviour.
Analysis of the data suggested that men, during relations between men, tend to demonstrate their masculinity via the transcendence of vulnerability. This was regardless of a respondent’s social class, or whether the data were gathered during focus group or one to one interviews. Vulnerability seemed to be identified by all of the respondents as belonging to the realm of the feminine, not the masculine. In a majority of accounts, notions of successful masculinity and femininity were suggested to be informed by socially pre-established representations of reality. Such explanations took precedence over accounts indicative of an essentialist notion of masculinity.
Both working and middle-class respondents suggested that men suppress natural urges to express vulnerability through concerns that their masculinity will be perceived by others as inadequate. Accounts of this kind emerged during every interview. The respondents implied that men try hard to resist instincts to show pain and emotions, and to transcend vulnerability via shows of strength, despite knowledge of it conflicting with their best interests as individuals. For instance, respondents Jed and James made the following statements:
JED: Even if I did need to cry and I was at the point when I was going to crack, I wouldn’t want to cry in front of anyone because I’d definitely feel less masculine (Middle-Class Interview)
JAMES: Generally, most men don’t want to show that they’re scared and again, you’re coming back to this bit where it would be a dent in your masculinity (Working-Class Interview)
Often, the respondents provided long, detailed descriptions, arguably presenting the transcendence of vulnerability as being at the heart of what constitutes ‘masculinity’. Continuous links were also made between femininity and the overt embracing of vulnerability. The respondents referred to a socially pre-defined gender binary, with two opposing poles based on prescribed differences in how men and women should deal with vulnerability. This implies that two distinct gender identities emerge through the differing
social practices of men and women. Examples of this were common throughout the data and will be presented within chapters seven, eight and nine. The example below was provided in response to the question: ‘Do you think that men and women exhibit similar emotions?’:
JACK: Men obviously do cry…∗
Accounts of this nature were often volunteered after very little probing of the subject, and on a number of occasions respondents provided this information after no probing
but I think they tend to do it when no one else is around
JED: … But women are always booing… they’ll cry at anything… But it’s like, even if something was really upsetting me… I’d hate to cry in front of anyone else INTERVIEWER: Why is that then? Why don’t men like crying?
JACK: I think that they see it as a weakness PAUL: It’s not the masculine thing to do, is it
INTERVIEWER: And if you did cry, say in front of your mates, how would that make you feel?
JED: Less masculine, I suppose
INTERVIEWER: Right. So you’d feel less masculine… why would that be then? PAUL: Well, I think it’s one of those things where… generally a man’s seen as soft if he cries in public… That’s what you’d expect a woman to do
JED: Yeah. A man’s expected to be dependable… You’re supposed to be strong and able to endure stress (Middle-Class Focus Group 1)
In this sense, masculinity and femininity emerged as antitheses of one another, but also identities that are each identifiable in the other’s absence. This means that: (i) masculinity can be observed during exclusive male relations, and: (ii) can be viewed as a construct that is separate from men rather than a feature of their every practice. This notion contrasts the perspective of some authors adopting a post-structural approach to masculinity, as critiqued within chapter two (see Allen, 2005; Kane, 2006; Swain, 2006).
whatsoever. In other words, they would introduce it to the interview themselves, for instance, after providing responses to questions asking about men’s friendships with other men and women. As such, it could be argued that these verbal practices reflected representations they harboured prior to the interviews. Furthermore, the transcendence of vulnerability emerged as a common pattern despite the men’s differing class backgrounds, the differing interview dynamics, and the different focus groups having never met. One explanation is that these notions were influenced by the same dominant social representation of masculinity, or ‘dominant masculine norm’. Otherwise, each of the men would arguably harbour different ideas regarding what constitutes successful masculinity.
The literature can be used to suggest that the notion of a dominant masculine norm can be contrasted with the social constructionist notion that versions of reality are negotiated during the context of a discussion, therefore, not reflecting an agent’s cognitions (Wetherell et al., 2003). Thus, interlocutors are suggested to play a role in constructing one another’s gendered identities during the meaning making process (Moita-Lopes, 2003; Wetherell & Edley, 2003). As such, these identities are viewed to be incomplete, inconsistent and in constant flux (Speer, 2001; Moita-Lopes, 2003; Wetherell & Edley, 2003; Allen, 2005; Paechter, 2006). However, the consistencies identified in the respondents’ accounts suggested otherwise. Across the data, masculinity emerged as a specific socially constructed notion regarding what constitutes appropriate male-typical behaviour, learned through men’s interactions with the social environment. During relations between men, the transcendence of vulnerability was repeatedly suggested to have an influence over men’s behaviour. It, therefore, seems appropriate to refer to it as the dominant masculine norm.
Being described as a socially pre-established representation of reality, the dominant masculine norm – revolving around the transcendence of vulnerability – could be viewed to constitute a transitive structure (Zembylas, 2006; Bergin et al., 2008). In critical realist terms, the transitive dimension of knowledge refers to the social and cultural meanings that, through construction and reconstruction, are dominant within society (Pilgrima,
2000; McEvoy & Richards, 2003; Stewart & Usher, 2007; Sayer, 2008; Bhaskar, 2009). These relatively stable dominant representations of reality are suggested to influence agents own understandings of the world (Holmes & Smyth, 2005; Averill, 2006) and, therefore, manifest themselves in their social behaviours. As such, agents are viewed to perpetuate the transitive dimension of knowledge (Brown et al., 2002; Madison, 2005; Stewart & Usher, 2007; Sayer, 2008). In this sense, socially pre-established notions of masculinity and femininity are likely to persist as transitive realities for as long as they continue to be reproduced through intentional human agency (Brown et al., 2002; Madison, 2005; Stewart & Usher, 2007).
Through its potential to influence men’s social practices, the dominant masculine norm – as a transitive dimension of knowledge – could be viewed to materialise as a form of reality via the common patterns of men’s behaviour (Wilson & McCormack, 2006; Bergin et al., 2008). This conception starkly contrasts the essentialist notion of masculinity having origins in the intransitive (physical) dimension; masculinity, as a social construction, would remain separate from the essential nature of men Nevertheless, though not fixed, the transitive dimension is arguably enduring through its constraining effect over novel ways of viewing the world (Cabezali et al., 1990; Madison, 2005; Stewart & Usher, 2007), and social pressures to conform to behavioural norms (Archer, 1995; Dobson, 2001). Therefore, transient temporal and contextual pressures residing within differing social dynamics are unlikely to alter agents’ underlying beliefs and understandings about the world, provided these are perpetuated within dominant social forums (Wilson & McCormack, 2006; Bergin et al., 2008; Bhaskar, 2008 [1975]). This might explain why the respondents’ accounts were consistent across the different focus groups and the two interview dynamics in which they were produced.
Following the literature, the transitive dimension of knowledge is not assumed to dictate agents’ behaviours but, instead, merely constitute potentialities to act (Carspecken, 1996; Zembylas, 2006). Thus, the activation of transitive structures is suggested to be brought about by a transactional relationship between these generative mechanisms and the contextual influences of the social environment (Wilson & McCormack, 2006). In this
sense, men would not be expected to demonstrate consistent behaviours at all times and in all places (Bergin et al., 2008). Moreover, in different contexts, and with differing resources, the transcendence of vulnerability is likely to be demonstrated through various social practices (Archer et al., 2001; Demetriou, 2001; Gorman, 2003). Based on the data, men’s relations between men and their age are two factors that impact on their behaviour regarding the transcendence of vulnerability. As such, these will receive discussion in the following section of this chapter.
Additional to the influence of context, men’s numerous social identities are unlikely to all be activated by the dominant masculine norm, as constituting a transitive dimension of knowledge. Some authors have argued that men are only likely to demonstrate their masculinity when perceiving threats to their masculine status (Maccoby, 2000; McHale et al., 2003; Vogel et al., 2003; Whitehead, 2005). This is consistent with the notion that socialisation pressures predominantly arise when boys and men demonstrate behaviours that are perceived to compromise their masculinity (McHale et al., 2003). Furthermore, such socialisation pressures have been documented as being enforced by fathers (Kane, 2006) and male peers (Kehily & Nayak, 1997; Light & Kirk, 2000; Reay, 2002; Phillips, 2005 & 2007). As such, men might perceive less threat to their masculine status and, therefore, less need to demonstrate their masculinity during relations between themselves and women (Hearn & Whitehead, 2006). Consistent with this notion, very few of the respondents’ accounts implied that masculinity is demonstrated through identities such as husband, fatherhood and/or provider. In fact, none of the respondents seemed to view the maintenance of a masculine identity as a priority or even a conscious objective when reporting a range of social behaviours.
Although the men distinguished the roles of ‘husband’, ‘father’ and ‘breadwinner’ as being separate to men’s demonstrations of masculinity, they still presented them as being male identities. In other words, these roles were not seen to interfere with men’s attempts to appear masculine. According to the data, they are generally regarded as male-typical roles but, in themselves, neither challenge nor enhance a man’s masculine status in the eyes of other men. It emerged that hard-working, married fathers face the same threat of
losing masculine status as non-working, non-married men. For instance, despite being married and having two children, I lost masculine status in the eyes of the men from the first working-class focus group for wearing what they perceived as being feminine- typical clothing (see chapter eight). In other examples, as will be featured in chapter eight, Richard and Grant spoke of married fathers facing ostracism and homophobic abuse in the workplace for appearing non-masculine.
Being the main breadwinner for one’s family was seldom brought up as an identity through which respondents suggested deriving a personal sense of masculinity. Relative to the transcendence of vulnerability, very little data made a direct connection between providing for one’s family and masculinity. Respondents, such as Paul and Stan, spoke of viewing their role as main breadwinner as an important aspect of being a good husband and father but, again, specified that it did not enable them a sense of being ‘masculine’. According to Paul, this emanated from ‘being one of the lads and playing sport’. Arguably, it is likely that before the restructuring of the workplace the respondents might have derived a greater sense of masculinity through being the main breadwinner. If so, their notions of masculinity might have evolved with the changing norms of society.
Those respondents whose interviews led to discussions about husband and fatherhood rejected the notion that they derived any sense of masculinity through these identities. For instance, when discussing fatherhood during his one to one interview, middle-class respondent, Paul, stated: ‘I think that it’s nothing to do with being masculine… it’s just a different role’. Working-class respondent, Stan, also suggested this, and implied that the roles of father and mother are indistinguishable in that they constitute the same forms of care and devotion: ‘I don’t necessarily think that that makes me masculine. I think that just makes me a parent… Whether it’s masculine or feminine, I don’t think you can really put that in any one box’.
Rather than deriving a sense of masculinity through fatherhood, working-class respondent, Grant, suggested the reverse. During his one to one account of having a daughter, he implied feeling a pressure to navigate away from his usual ‘masculine-
typical’ behaviour and attempt to adopt behaviours he considered more ‘feminine- typical’. This might suggest that he harbours a notion of what behaviours constitute the socially pre-established realms of the masculine and feminine; and, when assuming the role of father, consciously attempts to gravitate to realm of the feminine:
GRANT: You can spend a day with your daughter and be feminine… have some feminine ways with her because you’ve got to adjust to her […] It’s hard, I found it very hard… to adjust from being a dominant-ish… to not dominant… To have been living in a dominant world and then going to see my daughter and trying to adjust… to a kinder… more caring world… you know, I found that hard to adjust (Working-Class Interview)
Because Grant discusses shifting into femininity, these data contrast with literature suggesting that the varied identities of men, at all times and within all settings, constitute a multiplicity of contradictory masculinities (Goodey, 1997; Benjamin, 2001; Hood- Williams, 2001; Moita-Lopes, 2003; Smiler, 2004; Kane, 2006; Sheff, 2006; Whitehead, 2006). Instead, data from all the interviews suggested that men have a tendency to gravitate to the dominant masculine norm (indicative of the transcendence of vulnerability) during relations between men; as will be explored in the next section.
Consistent with the above account, a majority of the respondents seemed to harbour the notion that men’s and women’s gravitations to the socially pre-established gender binary are deliberate social performances. Such accounts were overwhelming in comparison to suggestions implying a biological essentialist understanding. Middle-class respondent, Richard, suggested that men have the ability to gravitate to either masculine or feminine typical behavioural norms. In order for this to be possible, Richard implied that he and those around him are aware of which specific behaviours have been socially allocated to the realms of the masculine and the feminine. As such, he conveyed the notion that agents have a common, socially influenced representation of masculinity and femininity, and a biological ability to gravitate to either:
RICHARD: I think masculinity and femininity are kind of fluid enough for those kind of transitions to happen. I mean… In my life, at times, I’ve certainly been treated as one of the girls… and one of the boys, and you can kind of slot in loosely to that… although it’s never a comfortable fit, I don’t think
INTERVIEWER: And so, when you say you’ve been treated as one of the girls, is that when you’re with purely girls? [Yeah. Yeah] And what happens if, say, you get used to mixing with this group of girls and then suddenly the men that you mix with also arrive –
RICHARD: Oh, well you’d gravitate back to your own group then… So if I’ve been sat with a group of women and been a couple of hours in their company, and then the guys arrive… It’s like [coughs] ‘I’ll just go to the loo’, and then when you come back, it’s like you go for a wee and then come back as a man [Everyone laughs]… or go to the bar, ‘I’ll go get myself a drink’, and you come back and you’ve changed to a man
INTERVIEWER: And is that trying to be courteous to the women?
RICHARD: No, I think it is to do with the switch… You know, I think it is about consciously… making the decision to change, to behave differently… or just feel different (Middle-Class Focus Group 2)
Many of the respondents spoke of gay men often making deliberate attempts to be perceived as ‘feminine’. This will receive a more in-depth analysis and discussion during the ‘Sexuality’ chapter. Nevertheless, such data conveyed the notion that social agents are aware of very distinct masculine and feminine-typical behavioural norms. For instance, Paul suggested that men behaving in feminine-typical ways stand out as unusual among those with whom they interact. This ‘obvious’ traversing of the gender boundaries can, according to Paul, be demonstrated with the aim of amusing others. Alternatively, however, he expressed knowledge that many men view with disdain those men who behaviourally gravitate to the socially pre-established realm of the feminine. During his interview, Graham also stated: ‘For a guy… if anybody comments that he has characteristics that are feminine… they’re almost invariably perceived as… and intended
to be… perceived in a negative way… If you’re a man… it’s not considered good to have feminine characteristics’.
This disdain was expressed first-hand by a number of the respondents. One example of this was provided by Ben, when he stated: ‘It’s up to you. You can either stand up and be a man or be stupid and mince about like a girl’. In similar ways, many of the respondents spoke of men actively transcending vulnerability in order to avoid appearing feminine; and expressing a common dislike of men who frequently demonstrate behaviours indicative of vulnerability. As such, there might be some connection between this negative viewpoint and accounts characterising the concept of femininity as an embracing of vulnerability.
In summary, the data, regardless of whether it was gathered during focus group or one to one interviews, suggested that heterosexual, working and middle-class men demonstrate their masculinity by gravitating to a dominant masculine norm. Moreover, that the dominant masculine norm revolves around the transcendence of vulnerability, and its embodiment in men’s behaviour is commonly recognised as such among groups of heterosexual men. Within certain social contexts, men were suggested to experience pressure to mask their vulnerability in order to appear ‘masculine’ and avoid appearing ‘feminine’. However, the data implied that not all social contexts give rise to this pressure. For instance, men’s identities as fathers and husbands did not emerge as examples of masculinity. In particular, it was relations between men that emerged as the main forum in which men demonstrate their masculinity. This will be the focus of the following section.