Click here to read part -1 of the essay
Click here to read part-2 of the essay
Significant Critiques
Tendency to dichotomize(divide into two) the experiences of men and men. Tendency in the men's studies field to presume "separate spheres," to proceed as if women were not a relevant part of the analysis, and therefore to analyze masculinities by looking only at men and relations among men.
Ambiguity and overlap in defining hegemonic masculinity
The Problem of reductionism that occurs to hegemonic masculinity when applied into concrete situations(Reification). This means that HM constructs masculine power from the direct experience of women. In other words, hierarchy of masculinities constructed within gender relations should not be linked with patriarchal subversion of women.
hegemonic masculinity came to be associated solely with negative characteristics that depict men as unemotional, independent, non nurturing, aggressive, and dispassionate which are seen as the causes of criminal behavior.
Responses to significant critiques
Solution is to take a consistently relational approach to gender. Abandoning the concept of masculinity or gender will not offer any solution.
Social power and ideal forms of masculinity represent hegemonic masculinity. This problem arises because Hegemonic Masculinity is often mistakenly thought as a fixed and beyond historical model. Masculinity is a product of history but often the massive evidence of change in social definitions of masculinity is ignored. At the social level, there is a circulation of admired masculine conduct which distorts everyday social practices. Though Hegemonic masculinities do not correspond closely to the lives of any actual man, they express widespread ideals, fantasies, and desires. They provide models of relations with women and solutions to problems of gender relations. They also articulate loosely with the practical constitution of masculinities as ways of living in every day local circumstances. In this process, they contribute to hegemony in the society-wide gender order as a whole.A degree of overlap or blurring between hegemonic and complicit masculinities is extremely likely if hegemony is effective.
The author agrees that masculinities are to be studied within the wider context of the institutionalisation of gender inequalities, the role of cultural constructions, and the interplay of gender dynamics with race, class and region. He also testifies that HM studies do bring out the hierarchies in masculinity and they are not solely relied on personal experience of women.
It is true that HM is associated with negative traits in its popular use and it is also valid that men use violence to exercise power over women. But in HM, masculinity is not always associated with negative traits which is a contribution of rigid trait theory of personality. The author asserts that if HM is purely domination with violence, it can not be described as hegemonic as hegemony requires consent and participation of the dominated. Boys’ and men’s practical relationship to collective images or models of masculinity is the key in understanding the gendered consequences in violence, health and education.
The Masculine Subject
Here are some other criticisms raised against Hegemonic masculinity theory.
One of the key contestations made against the theory of Hegemonic Masculinity is that it is based on an unsatisfactory theory of the subject.
Discursive psychologists argue that HM can not be understood as the settled character type of any men, hence it is hard to believe that men conform to an ideal and turn to become resistant or subservient types to it without ever managing to embody that ideal.They also theorise HM as a discursive subject position which people embody at times and distance themselves strategically at other times. In this view, HM is not a character type, but discursive positions people assume in different contexts.
Whitehead criticises that HM studies is reduced to structures and it has erased the subject.
The critique of Psychoanalysis is HM assumes a unitary subject whereas in reality, the subject is multilayered or divided.
&2. Among the three criticisms made against HM, the second one, ie, the position taken by discursive psychologists is valid and it has been integrated into hegemonic Masculinity studies. Research in the field also testifies that masculinities are constructed and used in discourse. At the same time, HM is formulated within multidimensional understanding of gender, hence it can not be limited to a discursive/symbolic dimension. Acknowledging the role of non discursive practices in theorising masculinity limits the scope of discursive psychoanalysis.
The authors flatly disagree with Whitehead’s criticism that HM is reduced to structuralist determinism and underscores the role of life history studies in exploring subjective variations in HM. Masculinity is defined as a configuration of practice organized in relation to the structure of gender relations. Human social practice creates gender relations in history. The concept of hegemonic masculinity embeds a historically dynamic view of gender in which it is impossible to erase the subject.
The author reiterates that the theory of masculinity is formulated with a strong awareness of psychoanalytic argument about layered and contradictory character of personality, everyday contestation in social life and the strategies required to sustain hegemony, hence the psychoanalyst criticism is not relevant especially the arguments raised by Jefferson is problematic.
The Pattern of Gender relations
The authors dismiss functionalism in HM studies, ie, seeing gender relations as a self-contained, self-reproducing system and explaining every element in terms of its function in reproducing the whole. The domination of men and the subordination of women constitute a historical process not a self reproducing system and masculine domination is open to challenge and requires considerable efforts to maintain.
Demetriou has pointed out two forms of hegemony - internal and external. The first one refers to the domination of one group of men over all other groups of men and the latter -External- refers to institutionalisation of men’s domination over women. He argues that the relation between the two is not well defined as a result, the dynamic relation between internal and external hegemony is not explored. He argues that hegemonic masculinity appropriates whatever practical resources available to it from other masculinities and this hybridisation ensures the continuity of hegemony. The authors agree with this point but is not fully convinced of how far hybridisation is hegemonic.
Review and Formulations
What is Retained?
The fundamental feature of the concept remains the combination of the plurality of masculinities and the hierarchy of masculinities.
Certain masculinities are more socially central, or more associated with authority and social power, than others.
The concept of hegemonic masculinity presumes the subordination of non hegemonic masculinities.
the hierarchy of masculinities is a pattern of hegemony, not a pattern of simple domination based on force
Cultural consent, discursive centrality, institutionalization, and the marginalization or delegitimation of alternatives are widely documented features of socially dominant masculinities
hegemonic masculinity need not be the commonest pattern in the everyday lives of boys and men. Rather, hegemony works in part through the production of exemplars of masculinity (e.g., professional sports stars), symbols that have authority despite the fact that most men and boys do not fully live up to them.
the dominant pattern of masculinity was open to challenge? from women's resistance to patriarchy, and from men as bearers of alternative masculinities.
f the historical construction and reconstruction of hegemonic masculinities and the situations in which masculinities were formed change over time.
These changes call forth new strategies in gender relations (e.g., companionate marriage) and result in redefinitions of socially admired masculinity.
What is dropped?
The formulation in Gender and Power attempted to locate all masculinities (and all femininities) in terms of a single pattern of power, the "global dominance" of men over women.
Early formulations of Hegemonic masculinity were supported by trait psychology which treat masculinity as fixed character type. This is view is to be rejected.
What Should be Reformulated?
Reformulation is needed in four areas
the nature of gender hierarchy
the geography of masculine configurations
the process of social embodiment
the dynamics of masculinitie
the nature of gender hierarchy
Contemporary research has brought out the complexity among different constructions of masculinity and the role of local context in making certain versions of masculinity desirable. In addition, insights from the studies on masculinity by Demetriou points at the interaction between internal and external hegemony and HM may change by incorporating elements from others. Another development in the field is the recognition of the agency of subordinated and marginalised groups; protest masculinity is an example for this.
Research has also documented the durability or survivability of non hegemonic patterns of masculinity, which may represent well-crafted responses to race/ethnic marginalization, physical disability, class inequality, or stigmatized sexuality. Hegemony may be accomplished by the incorporation of such masculinities into a functioning gender order rather than by active oppression in the form of discredit or violence.
HM studies emerged in contrast to emphasised femininity and later on this was dropped from HM studies. The role of femininity in the construction and practice of masculinity is to be incorporated into contemporary research. Gender can be only in relation to the historical interplay of femininities and masculinities.
The Geography of Masculinities
In the early stage, masculinity studies dealt with change in locally specific constructions of hegemonic masculinity. At present masculinity studies encompasses studies at the local, regional and global level. This is particularly relevant as the emergence of globalization and transnational relations have become crucial in the present order and they do influence regional and local varieties of masculinities.
Social Embodiment
Earlier, embodiment was understood as a process of social construction. In present research, embodiment is conceptualized as a participating agent in the construction of gender and the relation between embodiment and social context is worth analysing. It is also important to study the circuit of social practice linking bodily processes and social structures which add up to the historical process in which society is embodied.
The Dynamics of masculinities
Research in the present recognises the layering, the potential internal contradictions within all practices that construct masculinities. Another dynamics of masculinity is the structure of a project. Masculinities are configurations of practice that are constructed, unfold, and change through time. Though changes in masculinity emerge from internal contradictions, they may also be intentional. Hegemonic masculinity is open to contestation and may be challenged by various factors such as women’s movement, managerial masculinity etc...and there is possibility of democratisation of gender relations and abolishing power differentials. In this sense, HM is positive to reform, though it is hard to attain.
