One of the most important concepts in the discussion of men and power, and to this study, is that of hegemonic masculinity; one which owes much to critical structuralism and the neo-Marxist analysis of class struggle between different social entities. Originally introduced by Connell (1983), the concept was explored in her paper, ‘Men’s Bodies’ to highlight the hierarchical framework of masculinity. Connell drew on Gramsci’s understanding of class structure to develop the
concept which she described as ‘a social ascendancy achieved in a play of social forces that extends beyond brute power into the organisation of private life and cultural processes’ (1987:184). Hegemony does not, however, according to Connell, represent the experience of all men being one of ‘four patterns of masculinity in the current Western gender order which includes hegemony, subordination, complicity and marginalization’ (1995:77). Thus, whilst it is
applicable to only a minority of men its importance lies in that it is normative for a great many.
Since the introduction of the term, however, it has been criticized due to its focus on negative attributes (Jefferson, 2002) and its ‘one-dimensional’ approach
(Peterson, 1998, Demetriou, 2001). Demetriou in particular points to two different types of hegemony; one which exercises institutionalised hierarchy over women versus ‘internal hegemony’ which is expressed in a hierarchy amongst men. Such
84
a distinction is useful for this study in making sense of how young boys define themselves as distinct from girls as well as how they assess their status amongst their peers. The concept of hegemony offers the opportunity to explore how particular constructions of masculinity are of value to young boys and what types of rewards or ‘patriarchal dividends’ (Connell, 2002:143) make it worth defending. As Connell asserts, hegemony is not necessarily achieved through negative or violent means but relies on coercion and often, the complicity of subordinate groups. It is, therefore, critical to consider the ways in which others, who may not be hegemonic, benefit from the gender order.
The concept of hegemonic masculinity has been critiqued in a number of ways, notably in trying both to define it and decide on which version might be in practice (Beasley, 2008). Its use in research has also led to concerns that it may result in an oversimplified response to the complex process of the construction of
masculinity with the temptation to define fixed character types (Connell, 2000). In answer to criticisms, Connell (2005) offers a reformulation of the concept which demonstrates a more complex view of gender hierarchy with an explicit recognition of the influences of geography, privilege and power which lead to internal
contradictions. The concept has also been influenced by the notion of a discursive construction of reality which suggests than ‘men are not permanently committed to a particular pattern of masculinity but rather they make specific choices from a cultural repertoire of masculine behaviour’, (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005: xviii). Reeser also discusses the fluidity and instability of the concept of
85
hegemonic masculinity and how it ‘is never really simply in any one position in any relation, but often somewhere in between’ (2010:14). Thus, rather than being viewed as a static identity, it is rather more fluid and unstable and can possibly only be defined against subordination and how it employs this for various ends.
This post-structuralist view of masculinity as inherently unstable could perhaps be seen as problematic in any study which focuses on hegemony with all of its
tensions and contradictions. However, the critiques, as outlined above, point to problems in the application of the concept rather than the concept itself. I would therefore argue that, as described by Connell, this notion of a ‘culturally exalted masculinity’ is ‘still essential’ (2005:18). However, for the purposes of this study, the use of hegemony might be most effectively framed, as is masculinity itself, through its plurality. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) propose that in empirical research, three levels of hegemony can be analysed which are constructed locally, regionally and globally and each must be considered. The implication of this in school based research is not only to consider how boys construct or relate to hegemonic masculinity in face to face interaction but how both wider cultural
factors and even the pressures of increasing globalisation impact upon the choices they make or are able to make.
A further pitfall in the use of the concept of hegemonic masculinity can be the focus on this to the detriment of exploring alternative ways of ‘doing boy’ and, in particular, to ignore how these overlap or work together to uphold the gender order
86
(Connell, 2008). Gottzen (2011) suggests that by recognising and exploring this interplay, a much more complex picture can emerge of how other iterations of masculinity can use hegemony for its own purposes – often in maintaining the gender order between men and women. This is pertinent in a study of young boys who, whilst they may not achieve or even want hegemonic status ‘internally’, still wish to present themselves as being distinct from girls.
For the purposes of this study, it must also be considered that the construction of masculinity, being fraught with tensions and contradictions as it is, can be
exacerbated by age. Emergent masculinities may be more fluid and boys may fit into more than one ‘category’ (hegemonic, complicit, subordinate, marginalised) or move between them. Whilst this is acknowledged by Connell there is no
theorising as to how this might occur. In seeking to address this issue, Bartholomaeus outlines how hegemony might be perhaps be reframed as a
discourse of hegemonic masculinity which she describes as ‘that which is most
influential in defining what is most ‘masculine’ in a given setting’ (2012:227). Such an approach is taken in this study so that hegemonic practices can be explored at a local level and this provides a useful framework for considering the very
particular perspective and practices of young boys in their primary school setting. Furthermore, it allows for both Connell’s concept of hegemony and Foucault’s concept of discourse to be usefully combined to capture the fluid nature of the construction of gender. This study, therefore, also draws on Foucault’s ideas of
87
how the gender order is created and maintained discursively which is discussed in the next section.