Views and Critiques Offered of R.W. Connells Conception of Hegemonic Masculinity - Research Paper Example

? Views and Critiques Offered of R.W. Connell’s Conception of “Hegemonic Masculinity” Views and Critiques Offered of R.W. Connell’s Conception of “Hegemonic Masculinity” Before the term “hegemonic masculinity” was widely used in gender studies, it was widely accepted that males are biologically and socially established as the dominant gender over females (Carrigan, et al., 1985, p. 551). All aspects of the society of mankind were tied to the notion that men are always dominant and the women are seen as subordinates. However, in the 1980’s the concept that men were socially raised to be dominant over women was explored further in detail, as well as the effects of gender relations in keeping male dominance prevalent mostly during the world’s written history (Levy, 2007, p. 253). Connell and colleagues (1985, p. 552) were the first to break the ice by introducing the idea that men and masculinity were all produced by the relationship that the women enabled them to, which in turn gave rise to the patriarchal system of society, politics, and family organisation. While their idea was met with either insightful or defensive criticisms, the work was very influential in the sense that many other authors were also able to create input in the study of masculinity and gender studies. The revolutionary idea that in order for the feminist movement to become truly successful, there must also be changes for the men’s part as well is now even more relevant than ever, and by bringing in the focus on how to tame the prevailing patriarchal culture, the proper changes in the societal definition of masculinity can possibly be challenged and renovated along with the change in the gender roles of modern society. The main questions that challenge the idea that hegemonic masculinity is normal are: how the collective actions and ideas of most men were able to make dominance over women and other men seem normal and enjoyable; why these same men and women allow such dominance to exist; and how can gender equality be achieved by initiating resistance to the prevailing norm of hegemonic masculinity (Levy, 2007, p. 253). A possible idea for this is that hegemonic masculinity was a concept, created as a culturally idealised subject on how a man should think or act in the society (Donaldson, 1993, p. 645). Over a period of several generations, this kind of thinking incorporated other elements such as being highly-differentiated in most societal classes, brutality and violence, as well as being tough and unemotional. These traits became the large set of ideals that men follow in order to become the role model male, which basically did not change for several thousands of years. The family with the breadwinner status becomes the head of the household due to the additional input and exertion given to support the family. This gives him or her greater control over other members of the family despite having supposed equal rights with the spouse. This became the norm for most men in earlier societies due to them having greater strength than the women. Because of the rising dominance of manual labour in many societies, it eventually created a culture where men are seen mostly as those that have greater edge over women that mostly stay at home. When particular groups of men were able to inhabit positions of wealth and power due to the rise in social classes, they were also able to legitimise other aspects that would further give them greater dominance not just to other males and females, but to the greater part of the society as a whole (Carrigan, et al., 1985, p. 554). This particular group of dominant males become even more well-known within the society, thus exuding greater influence over other males as well. By observing rulers or other leaders of some sort, they become people that other males look up to, and wish to be, and the innate characteristics that these leader-figures have become the idealised characteristics that males are supposed to have. However, despite being the collective concept of what the ideal male must be, not all males are required to practice hegemonic masculinity, and may or may not get apprehended for it. Also, the concept of hegemony among males excludes the working class as well as other minorities such as the black men. Thus it is noticeable that most of the people that shaped the concept of hegemony of males are highly-influential people such as priests, artisans, writers, musicians, academics, coaches and sportsmen. Unfortunately, because of the predominance of males and how their work was able to greatly influence society, the contributions that females were able to give became undermined and unnoticed (Carrigan, et al., 1985, p. 556). There was greater emphasis on male-oriented work, which was mostly heavy manual work that shows the strength and prowess of the male worker. Less importance was given to the work employed by females even though there is greater use of thinking and communication skills in their field, such as cooking and budgeting resources. It did not help that females are partially to blame for letting this happen due to instilling values unconsciously in children that there are widely separated roles between the male and the female members, for example, female roles are actions such as childbirth and rearing, and male roles are actions such as being the breadwinner and leader of the household (Kimmel, 2004, p. 504). By not employing both parents in the rearing of children, these same children imbibe the culture that their parents also grew up in, thus keeping the concept of hegemony alive in the succeeding generations. The rise of criminalising homosexuality among males further cemented the concept of male dominance due to the dismissing of female traits being displayed among males as very inappropriate and unbecoming (Carrigan, et al., 1985, p. 556). This repression was also theorised to have constructed the predominating forms of masculinity that are still present up to now, including the ambivalent treatment of homosexuality in society. The proliferation of the idealised male being embodied in every man within a society, as well as the undermining of the female contributions in its growth were able to fuel the further spread of hegemonic masculinity in most cultures across the globe, and its deep roots that intertwined with the rise of human civilisations make it harder to remove from the psyche of many people. This posed challenges to the reformation as well as the revision of how society treats women and homosexuality in this modern era. Why the Concept of Masculinity must be Modernised Connell and colleagues (1985, p. 552) argue that the differences between the gender roles of males and females were brought upon by the interaction between the patterns of emotional attachment, division of labour and the interplay of power relations between the men and women. The establishment of the male as a macho and tough figure was borne out of the necessity of working hard labour, feeding the household and being an important and recognized member of the society. Also, the contribution and influence in males with regards to the political stability of a nation as well as the structure of schools and academies were mostly recorded as the success of male dominance. Connell questioned the issue of theoretical ideology of the influence of males, questioning the legitimacy of the sex role of males as being biologically, psychologically and culturally-ingrained within the human race (Demetriou, 2001, p. 338). Capitalism was shown to have been influenced with the pre-conceived masculine norm of dominance, but for Connell, the question of how power (and resistance to it) and change is a result of the dynamic interaction between the two genders was not properly addressed. The lack of the ability of the sex role theory to address the issue with power and change in relation to the field of biology further added to the instability of the idea of masculine hegemony as something that is naturally-occurring. Even though the social structures of a society are known openly, there is not much study with regards as to how both genders were interacting with each other as well as to those of their own gender. Because of the lack of an actual power relationship between the male and the female, the sex role theory was not able to acknowledge the interactions that happen within and between genders, but rather only focuses on even more reasons as to why men always have greater power over women (Demetriou, 2001, p. 338). In relation to the lack of an in-depth analysis on the dynamics of the formation of masculine and feminine concepts within cultures, society tended to have chosen the greater influence of normative over standard behaviour, creating the majority of the accepted roles that males are expected to play. There is failure of recognising the presence and acceptance of both the female and male roles within a single person. This is being further influenced by the rigid structure as well as the delineation of sex roles that were prevalent in earlier societies, undermining the capacity of individuals to be able to do more roles aside from those dictated by the society. This strict way of thinking with regards to sex roles of the male and female made it easier to dismiss or apprehend individuals that show signs of being effeminate or emasculate. However, with the coming of modernisation, it cannot be helped that the rigid structure dictated by sex roles would be challenged for a change. Profeminist men are able to come in terms with the foreseen changes in the patriarchal structure of society, as well as seeing the harmful effects of male-dominant privileges to women (Pease, 2002, p. 3). The technological advancement gave way for other members of the society to participate in jobs that were formerly predominantly male (Carrigan, et al., 1985, p. 556). Learning and knowledge has become a part of the lives of all genders, and is no longer limited to just the males. While the process of letting in females in the structure of the educational system was rather slow, it was gradual as well as influential in changing their mindset. This gives additional insight for women to fight for their rights of being recognised as valuable members of the public as well. With regards to the emancipation of the females, their need to assert their roles as well as their own strengths in being able to compete with males in many fields gave rise to a new revolution that would not have been possible in the previous generations. With the formation of women’s rights movements, females and males being able to perform jobs that were formerly done by the other gender, as well as the growth of the acceptance of homosexuality in public, there is a need to change the idea that the only gender or sex capable of shaping the world is the male species or men in general. The advancement of the Women’s Liberation around the 1960’s, the growth of feminist research on sex and gender roles, the advancement of Gay Liberation and the developing interest or critique with regards to heterosexuality of lesbians and gay men prompted the reformation of the idea of masculinity, its dominance and relevance in modern society (Connell, 1993, p. 593). Since the start of the participation of women as well as homosexuals in the formation of society, the role of the purely hegemonic male dominance has started to decline and become obsolete. It seems that the women’s movement would bring threat to the overall concept of masculinity among men by putting them in a perceived situation of having everything to lose when it comes to opportunities, wealth and material advantage. In Connell’s view however, masculinity itself has everything to gain by accepting the roles that femininity also played, especially with regards to males becoming more empathetic, having better emotional well-being, and cultivating quality relationships (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p. 3). In relation to the increase in the involvement of women in the social order, a new form of masculinity is also being cultivated by the modernisation of society. While the idealised hegemonic masculine male is being predominantly portrayed in numerous films, advertisements, and other forms of media, many men are actually fine with just identifying themselves with, but not acting like these male role models (Carrigan, et al., 1985, p. 554). This kind of change in the men’s side was collectively called “men’s liberation”, which can be seen as a chance that would give way to the acceptance of giving dual roles to both males and females, and making the change from a predominantly-male society to a society that can be governed with the combination of both female and male traits. Connell and colleagues brought even more focus on the growing problems that were emerging due to the conflicts that emerged with the rise of the interest in feminist and gay movements as well as the challenges that hegemonic masculinity were facing. Major Influences in Connell’s Works Personal factors such as Connell’s identification with women, his lack of comfort in the conventional roles of males, as well as his and his wife’s involvement with feminist projects, were triggers that prompted his studies focusing on questioning the legitimacy of male dominance in the society (Wedgwood, 2009, p.331). Even before the time that the women’s movement has been active, there has been perceived possibilities that the roles males were playing for a very long time would be radically changed (Hacker, 1957, cited in Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 831). There is also the increase in the criticism of the oppressive behaviour of men, which further attacks the validity of violence as one of the key concepts of being masculine. The increasing number of studies that were debunking the soundness of male dominance also added to the tension and contradiction of conventional and accepted masculine roles. In blurring the line between behaviour and norm, the legality of hegemony becomes diluted, and the concept of multiple variants of masculinity was able to address such differences in the expression of masculinity within the male population. This lead to Connell’s argument that gender is really not biologically-inherent, but is a learned trait that can be changed to fit the inevitable changes that society might undergo in the long run. Gender must be reformed as a concept that is based on what people do, not on what society expect them to do. It should also be remodelled to reflect the changing times, race, class, generations, as well as the historic-cultural concepts associated with it. Connell expressed his discontentment with the prevailing notion that popular psychologists see the feminist movement as just a waste of time and energy (Wedgwood, 2009, p. 333). His efforts in trying to change the idea that men are biologically, sociologically, and psychologically superior over women lead to his reforming the perspectives on gender studies. This radical reconstruction of the prevailing roles that men and women in society have been playing for so long was able to address behaviours that were previously thought of as deviant, and Connell was able to define fully the extent of the meaning of hegemonic masculinity, which is described by the achievement of power through force, culture, persuasion, and the institutionalising of these three under a patriarchal system (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). Other Critiques on Connell’s Hegemonic Masculinity The extent of the roles that both men and women play were mostly dictated by gender differences that the public attributes to both sexes, and the strong wall that divides the actions that both sexes are expected to perform fail to answer why some needs are not met, despite meeting the criteria for the ideal man or woman (Kimmel, 2004, p. 505). Connell’s proposed duality of the nature of both the male and female gender was expected to address these unmet needs. However, the nature of hegemonic masculinity in hybridising with other concepts were not fully recognised, which could cause problems such as masking the usurpation of women’s rights (Demetriou, 2001, p. 355). It is suggested that aside from the closed and coherent appearance of masculine hegemony, other aspects of masculinity such as the gay culture must also be observed and analysed. Some of the theoretical problems that other sex and gender role theories were proposing were being critiqued due to their lack of backing up the reasons as to why masculinity and femininity have so many divergent qualities (Demetriou, 2001, p. 340). In a sense, instead of gender addressing reasons as to why there were certain actions that are limited to either male or female, it has become a rigid code of conduct that was solely based on biological characteristics. While the dualism that is perpetuated by Connell is able to address some issues regarding the processes of hegemony, it seems rather incomplete due to a limit with regards to the types of associations related to patriarchy and masculinity (Demetriou, 2001, p. 348). It is suggested that the diversity of masculinity be also addressed, as well as the changes that may occur due to adapting to different historical conjunctures. With regards to Connell’s idea of the psychological basis of masculine hegemony, by studying the life histories of males, it uncovers the relationships that constitute a person, as well as the prohibitions, possibilities, and eventually realising that a generation has been cultivated as a step higher than their predecessors (Wedgwood, 2009, p. 334). By treating males and females not as blank slates that are readily influenced, but as dynamic minds that are able to shift and be open with changes in the social processes, it can be shown that the relationship between the individual and the society is a simultaneous and two-way method of cultivating gender roles. While the use of life history method brings a greater insight in the construction of the masculinity of males, it is a time-consuming method that prevents the output of a large number of publications, which in turn would not be able to produce a broader picture of the whole process of the formation of the concepts of masculinity and femininity. In a way, Connell’s effective method is also its downfall due to the slow process that it takes to be able to map the formation of gender roles in his subjects. Conclusions Connell’s pioneering work with regards to the mapping of the formation and the prevalence of hegemonic masculinity in the society has a profound influence in the advancement of gender studies across the globe. Due to the need to address the issues that were left by the predominant masculine culture, there is much to be done in order for the idea of remodelling the concept of the ideal male figure to be able to harmoniously survive in an era that also welcomes the presence of women as well as homosexuals in cultivating modern society. While it is possible that gradual introduction of additional roles in both men and women would be helpful in the long run, there is a need to not only stick to the prevailing concept of hegemonic masculinity such as the one set by Connell, but also to look at other ideas that deviate from it. Failure to do so could bring feminism back to the background by putting less focus on the growth of women in building the society, and believing in the false hope that patriarchy is gone just because of the openness not just of gays, but of straight males in the concept of femininity. Bibliography Carrigan, T., Connell, B. & Lee, J., 1985. Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society, 14(5), pp. 551-604. Connell, R., 1993. The big picture: masculinities in recent world history. Theory and Society, 22(5), pp. 597-623. Connell, R. & Messerschmidt, J., 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), pp. 829-859. Demetriou, D., 2001. Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: a critique. Theory and Society, 30(3), pp. 337-361. Donaldson, M., 1993. What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5), pp. 643-657. Kimmel, M., 2004. Masculinities. In: M. Kimmel & A. Aronson, eds. Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, pp. 503-507. Levy, D. P., 2007. Hegemonic masculinity. In: M. Flood, ed. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 253-255. Pease, B., 2002. The politics of studying men. In: B. Pease, ed. Men and Gender Relations. Croydon, Victoria: Tertiary Press, pp. 1-10. Wedgwood, N., 2009. Connell's theory of masculinity - its origins and influences on the study of gender. Journal of Gender Studies, 18(4), pp. 329-339. Whitehead, B. & Barrett, F., 2001. The sociology of masculinity. In: B. Whitehead & F. Barrett, eds. The Masculinities Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1-26. Read More

 

Read More