Hegemonic Masculinity Concept - Article Example

Hegemonic Masculinity In the last decade, there has been an increased interest on the issues pertaining to men and boys. Publicly, there have been social movements focussed on the reform or restoration of masculinity, such as the ‘mythopoetic’ movement, the Million Man March and the Promise Keepers (Messner 1997). In education, there has been much talk of boys failure in school and the need for special education for boys (Connell 1996, Gilbert and Gilbert 1998). In health, there has been increased debates regarding mens health (Sabo and Gordon 1995, Schofield et al. 2000). A popular movement addresses mens problems in relationships, sexuality and identity (Connell, 2000). Ironically, men remain the principal holders of economic and political power. Men make up a large majority of corporate executives, top professionals, and holders of public office. Worldwide, men held 93% of cabinet-level posts in 1996, and most top positions in international agencies (Gierycz 1999). Men continue to control most technology and most weaponry; with only limited exceptions it is men who staff and control the agencies of force such as armies, police and judicial systems (Connell 2000). Hegemonic masculinity The form of masculinity which is culturally dominant in a given setting is called ‘hegemonic masculinity’. ‘Hegemonic’ denotes a position of cultural authority and leadership, not total dominance; other forms of masculinity persist alongside. The hegemonic form need not be the most common form of masculinity. (This is familiar in school peer groups, for instance, where a small number of highly influential boys are admired by many others who cannot reproduce their performance.) Hegemonic masculinity is, however, highly visible. It is likely to be what casual commentators have noticed when they speak of ‘the male role’. Hegemonic masculinity is hegemonic not just in relation to other masculinities, but in relation to the gender order as a whole. It is an expression of the privilege men collectively have over women. The hierarchy of masculinities is an expression of the unequal shares in that privilege held by different groups of men (Connell 2000). In contemporary western cultures, hegemonic masculinity is defined by physical strength and bravado, exclusive heterosexuality, denial of ‘vulnerable’ emotions such as repentance and indecision, economic independence, authority over women and other men, and intense interest in sexual ‘conquest’. Whilst most men do not have all of these qualities, society supports hegemonic masculinity within all its institutions (Trigiani 1998). Hegemonic masculinity undergirds the division of labor between males and females. Much has been written about sexual harassment, the glass ceiling and the devaluing of women’s unpaid work as homemakers, mothers, and societal caretakers. Major sociological work has been done on men’s domestic and emotional exploitation of their wives, which occurs when they don’t take equal responsibility for homemaking and relationship tasks. However, there is another side to this discrimination. Much research shows that when men do ‘womens work’, they are treated better than their female co-workers (Trigiani 1998). Concept of hegemonic masculinity Hegemonic masculinity is harmful to men and to women as well, it leads to destructive, uneven relationships between women and men. Hegemonic masculinity is the dominant cultural norm of being male to which men are held accountable, despite the fact that individual men depart, or try to depart, from this norm (Bird, 1996). This norm defines being male as emotionally detached, competitive, & aggressive, as associating intimacy only with sex, & masculinity with the viewing of women as sexual objects. The dominant cultural norm of masculinity defines being male as being ‘not –female’. In other words, if a straight guy in western culture, the worst thing that could happen into his gender identity is to be associated with anything feminine. In male peer groups, anti-female shame & homophobia are used to keep other men conforming to masculine norms – in other words, if man fail to conform to this toxic, hegemonic norm, he will be called a pussy or a fag (Kilmartin, 2000, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2005). There are numerous ways that hegemonic masculinity gets perpetuated & maintained. One of these ways is through men’s contact with other male peers. There are 3 major components of hegemonic masculinity that are perpetuated through this ‘manly’ ritual (Memorial University of Newfoundland2005): 1. Emotional detachment One theory regarding male sex-role socialisation is that at a very young age, boys relate most significantly to their mothers, due to the fact that their mothers are their primary caretakers. Whereas girls develop their gender identity by emulating themselves after their primary caretaker, their mother, boys must separate themselves from their mothers in order to become ‘men’. So, men develop their gender identities in relation to that which they are not -- e.g. not nurturing/ not sensitive/ not vulnerable, etc (Bird, 1996; Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2005). 2. Competition Competition sets the stage for establishing what’s appropriately masculine and thus contributes to the perpetuation of hegemonic masculinity. And since part of the hegemonic masculine norm is competitiveness, actual competition between males often takes the form of outdoing one another so that the ‘best man wins’ (Bird, 1996; Memorial University of Newfoundland 2005). 3. Sexual Objectification of Women Through the sexual objectification of women by men in all-male groups, male individuality becomes conceptualised not only as distinct from female but as superior than female. The sexual objectification of women in all-male groups often involves a competition -- men will compete with one another by boasting about their sexual exploits & by trying to gain the attention & affection of women (Memorial University of Newfoundland 2005). Negative effects of hegemonic masculinity In emphasizing competition among men, dominant norms of masculinity made men reluctant to exposed their weaknesses or admitting to problems – to do so would mean being ‘less than a man’. This destroys relationships between men due to lack of intimacy (Lehne, 1998). In emphasizing masculinity as everything that’s not female, and by associating the feminine with women and/ or homosexuality, men become reluctant to admit the presence of love in their relationships with other men. Even though they’ll describe their best male friends in ways that are indicative of love, when love is suggested to exist, they’ll deny its presence (Lehne, 1998). Hegemonic masculinity perpetuates homophobia and develops attitudes that could lead to gay bashing. Studies have revealed that a man’s status is actually improved in social situations merely by labeling someone as gay. Men who are incorrectly labeled as gay immediately become more stereotypically male – i.e. they conform more to the hegemonic norm (Lehne, 1998). It limits male interests by forcing them to defend their masculinity through male-stereotyped pursuits. Areas of interest & occupations that are considered more appropriate for women or gays may be avoided (Lehne, 1998). Emotional detachment among men allows them to express only 2 emotions publicly, which are anger and lust, not sensitivity and sympathy. In addition, the open expression of emotion and affection through touch is allowed only by women and athletes. Men learn not to touch other men because touching is only a prelude to sex and the implications of this for the problems of sexual harassment and assault are enormous (Lehne, 1998; Memorial University of Newfoundland 2005). The following characteristics of masculinity made it dangerous for mens health (Memorial University of Newfoundland 2005): Men who conform most to dominant cultural norms of masculinity suffer more from heart attacks & ulcers and are more likely to develop testicular cancer (Sabo, 1998). In many occupational contexts, expectations surrounding masculinity encourage heavy drinking - predominantly male occupational groups have higher rates of substance abuse & thus chronic liver disease & cirrhosis (Sabo, 1998). Masculine stereotypes about male sexual prowess, phallic power, or being in charge of sex put too much pressure to perform on some men who subsequently suffer from erectile disorders (Sabo, 1998). Stereotypically masculine men die more...& often violently. (Sabo, 1998) Because men are supposed to succeed at everything, their likelihood of surviving a suicide attempt is actually decreased by this traditionally masculine expectation (Sabo, 1998). The association of masculinity with aggression & risk-taking mean that stereotypically masculine men are more likely to die from accidents. Their higher likelihood of causing automobile accidents results in higher rates of car insurance for young men (Memorial University of Newfoundland 2005). The traditional masculine stereotype calls on men to be aggressive & tough. Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among 15 to 19 year old males. Women are victimized by mens anger & violence in the form of rape, date rape, wife beating, assault, sexual & verbal harassment (Sabo, 1998). The characteristics of hegemonic masculinity have been found to contribute to society being rape prone. In rape-prone societies, becoming a man is often gained by controlling, dominating, and objectifying girls & women. Rape-prone societies are characterised by militarism, the glorification of violence, an ideology of male toughness, and distant father-child relationships. In rape-free societies, women & men have equal roles that are equally valued; male involvement in child rearing is encouraged as is female leadership (Hood, 1998; Memorial University of Newfoundland 2005). Hegemonic masculinity and power Power is the method by which masculine hierarchies, and other social complexes, operate. "Power must be understood in the first instance as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organisation." Power is omnipresent because it comes from social activity, which is constant and global. These are the activities of individual people within and without institutions. Power in masculinist hierarchies is therefore not just "top-down" from a central institution or exemplar because power is always in constant flux, struggle and entanglement, expressed in social relations, which are always subject to change and unevenly spread (Exiles, 2004). Thus, power permeates structures and changes hierarchies. Because social relations are a form of power, nothing is outside of power, because no one is asocial. Therefore power is not an object, it cannot be acquired as such, and it is ineliminable. Power is not simply an institution, domination or repression, it is the unequal struggle between all people and all institutions who are striving toward their own disparate or united ends; "it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategically situation is a particular society". This results in the multiplicity of masculine hierarchies (Exiles, 2004). Hegemonic masculinity and offending behaviour The issue of masculinity and its link to criminal behavior in men has been identified in both past and present discussions of criminological thought. An early attempt to link masculinity with crime came from Parsons (1964). Parsons purported masculinity was developed during adolescence, which led to boys to engage in delinquent behaviour than girls (Parsons, 1964). In a more current examination, Miedzian (1991) examines the socialization, peer pressure, media, and military influences that lead to violence being an acceptable behaviour in men. Taking a similar route, in a qualitative examination of dating violence, Thompson (1991:275) found that men with more masculine gender orientations were more likely to be involved in violent exchanges. Additional research linking violence and masculinity includes an analysis of episodes of violence found in film and media, as well as in sporting events (Wilson and Daly, 1985; Gruneau and Whitson, 1993; Weinstein, et al., 1995; Krienert, 2003). Effects of hegemonic masculinity concept on crime management Criminology has been marked by a lengthy history of masculine bias, however, men as men and boys as boys have never been the object of criminological enterprise. While criminological theory and research have concentrated on men and boys as the normal subjects, the gendered man and boy like women, has been relatively hidden (Messerschmidt 1997:14-15; Yates, 2003). Criminology has ever since focused its analysis on working-class men and boys and their involvement in criminality (Box, 1983). However, despite this focus, criminology has failed to consider men and boys as gendered subjects but rather has taken for granted that crime is a ‘male’ activity. This has served to ensure that the highly gendered nature of criminality has been rendered invisible and that the gendered nature of criminal action has been taken for granted. This can be clearly identified when we critically analyse the traditional criminological approaches of early Positivism and Marxism (Yates, 2003). Impact of hegemonic masculinity concept on criminal justice system IN the criminal justice system, masculinity is at the centre of the construction of a corporate police identity as well as that of individual officers. Masculinity has been associated with law enforcement whilst femininity is associated with a service orientation. There has traditionally been a series of ritual arguments describing the physical inferiority and emotional instability of women officers which were deployed to limit their integration within mainstream policing. The present discursive practices derive from a belief that women can’t be both a woman and a police officer. This attitude represents a transformation of ritual argument in the aftermath of equality legislation and introduction of performance management in policing. New rituals operate to diminish women’s contribution and related to physical fitness standards, policewomen and parenting and policewomen as victims of crime (Brown, 2002). In UK, US and Australia, women make up about 17% of the police workforce which means 8 out of 10 of police officers are male. Women enjoy only a limited share of senior rank (in Britain just 8% of women officers hold supervisory rank compared to 25% of men). This means about 9 out of 10 of supervisory officers are men. Britain presently has four women chief constables out of a complement of 51 forces. In Australia there is one woman Commissioner. So there has not been a radical shift in gender disposition of police leadership. The police remains an essentially a dysfunctional organisation. Certainly, disabling women in the workforce is not conducive to encouraging officers to achieve their potential. The American Psychological Society (1993) identifies technological communication, greater diversity in the workforce and the growing importance of workplace health and safety as key issues. Patterns of worker organisation and interaction are changing, as in self directed teams. This leads to changes in skill requirements. Maddock (1999) proposed ‘gone are the days when women could succeed by learning to play men’s games’. Instead the time has come for men on the move to adopt a more feminist approach to management games (Brown, 2002). Future examinations of masculinity and violence should move towards a better operationalisation of the concept of masculinity. Past research, especially in the areas of crime and violence rarely use an empirical measure of masculinity. Without a strong operational definition, interactions between masculinity and other variables are impossible. More elaboration on both positive and negative outlets that exist to assert masculinity is necessary. Future efforts need to include both men and women in the sample. Masculinity is too often only examined in relation to men. Masculinity is a characteristic of gender, not sex; therefore the addition of women to the sample may greatly increase the current knowledge base. Although Messerschmidt (1993) only discussed men in his masculinity hypothesis, the appropriate and less appropriate outlets that women have to assert their gender may lead to a better conceptualisation of Messerschmidt’s original idea (Krienert, 2003). Reference List Bird, Sharon R. (1996).Welcome to the Mens Club: Homosociality & the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity. Gender & Society, Vol. 10, No. 2, 120-132. Box, S. (1983) Power, Crime and Mystification, Tavistock, London. Brown, Jennifer. (2002). u can’t have it both ways; being an officer and a lady (woman) in a male dominated occupation. Paper presented to Women and Policing Globally, Canberra, Australia. Connell, Robert. (2000). Understanding Men: Gender Sociology and the New International Research on Masculinities. Clark Lecture, Department of Sociology, University of Kansas, R.W.Connell, University of Sydney. Available from: [25 Dec. 2005]. Connell, R. W. (1996). Teaching the Boys: New Research on Masculinity, and Gender Strategies for Schools. Teachers College Record, vol. 98 no. 2, 206-235. Exiles. (2004). Chapter 3 - Hierarchic and Hegemonic Masculinities. http://noumenal.net/exiles/. Available from: http://noumenal.net/exiles/hierarchic.html [25 Dec. 2005]. Gilbert, Rob and Pam Gilbert. (1998). Masculinity Goes to School. Sydney, Allen & Unwin. Gierycz, Dorota. (1999). Women in Decision-Making: Can We Change the Status Quo? Pp. 19-30 in Ingeborg Breines, Gruneau, R. and D. Witson. (1993). Hockey night in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Garamond Press. Hood, Jane C. (1998). Lets Get a Girl. Men’s Lives. Ed. Michael S. Kimmel & Michael A. Messner. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kilmartin, Christopher. (2000). Sexual Assault in Context: Teaching College Men About Gender. Plenary Address, International Conference on Sexual Harassment & Assault on Campus, Kissimmee, Florida. Lehne, Gregory K. (1998). Homophobia Among Men: Supporting & Defining the Male Role. Men’s Lives. Ed. Michael S. Kimmel & Michael A. Messner. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Maddock, S. (1999) Challenging women; gender culture and organisation. London; Sage. Memorial University of Newfoundland. (2005). Sexual harassment page Introduction to the Gender Awareness Pages [online]. Lori Yetman, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Available from: [25 Dec. 2005]. Messerschmidt, James W. (1993). Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptuatlization of Theory: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Messerschmidt, J. (1997) Crime as Structure Action: Gender, Race, Class, and Crime in the Making, Sage, London. Miedzian, Myriam. (1991). Boys will be boys: breaking the link between masculinity and violence. New York: Doubleday. Krienert, Jessie L. (2003). Masculinity and Crime: A Quantitative Exploration of Messerschmidt’s Hypothesis [online]. Illinois State University. Available from: [25 Dec. 2005]. Messner, Michael A. (1997). The Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Parsons, Talcott. (1964). Social Structure and Personality. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Schofield, Toni, Connell, R.W., Walker, Linley, Wood, Julian F. and Butland, Dianne L. (2000). "Understanding mens health and illness: a gender relations approach to policy, research and practice." Journal of American College Health, vol. 48 no. 6, 247-256. Sabo, Donald and Gordon, David Frederick, ed. (1995). Mens Health and Illness: Gender, Power, and the Body. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Sabo, Don. (1998). Masculinities & Mens Health: Moving Toward Post-Superman Era Prevention. Men’s Lives. Ed. Michael S. Kimmel & Michael A. Messner. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey. (1924). Criminology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lipencott. Thompson, Edward H., Jr. (1991). “The Maleness of Violence in Dating Relationships: An Appraisal of Stereotypes”. Sex Roles 24, 5-6, 261-278. The American Psychological Society. (1993). Human capital initial; the changing nature of work. Observer Special Issue October . Trigiani, Kathleen. (1998). Masculinity-Femininity: Societys Difference Dividend [online]. Kathleen Trigiani. Available from: [25 Dec. 2005]. Weinstein, Marc D., Michael D. Smith, and David L. Wiesenthal. (1995). Masculinity and hockey violence. Sex Roles 33:831-847. Wilson, Margo and Martin Daly. (1985). “Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: the young male syndrome.” Ethology and Sociobiology 6:59-73. Yates, Joe. (2003). Adolescent Males: Masculinity and Offending. BSU/IUC Journal of Social Work Theory & Practice. JOURNAL ISSUE 8, 2003/2004. Available from: [25 Dec. 2005]. Read More