Masculinities

The concept of masculinity is complex, having various definitions, historical roots, and logical approaches. Robert Connell, one of the key theorists of Western masculinities, argued that commonsense definitions of the term tend to fall into one of four approaches: essentialist, positivist, normative, or semiotic. [Page 297]Essentialist definitions single out a core characteristic, usually a biological trait such as sex, and develop their account of masculinity based on this essential characteristic. Positivist social science attempts to provide an objective account of masculinity based on what men actually “are.” Normative definitions recognize some of the internal contradictions found in various forms of masculinity and instead posit a standard for men to attain—what men ought to be. Semiotic approaches focus on symbolic understandings of masculinity and place it in relation to femininity, in effect defining it as not femininity.

All four types of definition suffer from flaws. Essentialist approaches are problematic because the choice of what characteristic is essential to masculinity is arbitrary (and is not essential at all). Positivist approaches, while claiming to be neutral and objective, nevertheless assume that people already have been sorted into the categories “men” and “women” and then proceed to measure the differences between these putatively distinct groups. In so doing, they never ask the really important questions about how gender itself is constituted in and through gendered social relations. Normative approaches tend to think of masculinity as a role to which men aspire. However, men rarely meet the complex restrictions of such roles. Semiotic approaches are the most sophisticated and often form the basis for important works in feminist geography and cultural studies, but they still tend to focus too heavily on the textual and discursive aspects of social life.

In response to the pitfalls in these definitions, social theorists who study gender have developed a more critical definition of masculinity. Connell, for example, suggested that masculinity should be understood more broadly as a set of practices by which men and women locate themselves in gender relations, articulate with that place in gender, and produce gendered effects on others and themselves. This kind of definition is important because it allows us to understand the temporal contingency of masculinity. However, it fails to account for the geographic specificity of different masculinities.

Here is where geographers have made important contributions to understanding the concept. Indeed, given the importance of context in the construction of masculinity, it should be very clear that masculinity is both temporally and geographically contingent. In other words, time and space make for different masculinities.

Thus, given the many possible gendered practices, relationships, and contexts that come together in the making of identities in different times and spaces, it is much more helpful to think not of a singular masculinity but rather of multiple masculinities. In addition, any one masculinity, as a product of practice, can be simultaneously positioned in differently structured relationships. Accordingly, masculinities always are complex and contradictory; they are highly contingent, unstable contested spaces within gender relations. This is why we speak of hegemonic and subordinate masculinities. Hegemonic masculinities are constituted through and meet the restrictions of dominant social relations. Hegemony works to control individual actions, even when doing so is not in people's own best interest; for example, consider how the hierarchies of business are not in the interests of most men, yet men not only go along with them but also often defend the very practices that disempower men. Subordinate masculinities do not meet the strict codes of dominant ideals, and some even subvert and contest dominant ideologies. Media such as movies and television provide useful examples of hegemonic gender identities because to be popular with a large audience, they often reproduce the dominant ideals of society. Accordingly, current Hollywood “hunks” such as Brad Pitt and Colin Farrell can be seen to exemplify hegemonic masculinity. Socially constructed characteristics such as their strength, decisiveness, handsome features, muscular bodies, and obvious (hetero) sexuality both constitute and are constituted by hegemonic masculinity. Nevertheless, such masculinities always are under threat; their strength and beauty can be turned on their head such that these “manly” men also become objects of homosexual desire.

...