Introductory Chapter: Contributions to Masculinity Studies

*Feyza Bhatti*

## **1. Introduction**

The (critical) studies of men and masculinities is a relatively new academic field that has grown rapidly over the last two decades. The field, which initially fed from sociology, psychology, history and anthropology, considers masculinity as a historical, cultural and social construct and aims to provide insights into the sources and manifestations of masculine power and domination, explore how masculine identities are constructed and performed and elucidate the differences and similarities between man as individuals or as a group around the issues of sex, sexuality, identity, culture and other persistent social issues within a wide range of academic fields. This introductory chapter aims at providing a brief historical context of the development of men or masculinity studies and a summary of central conceptual developments in the area.

## **2. Development of masculinity studies**

Although men have held a prominent place in academia for a long time, this was an 'absent presence' as they have not been studied as 'gendered beings' until 1970s ([1], p. 1; [2]). While the women's movement gained momentum with the second wave of feminism in 1960s, men did not feel the need to question the legitimacy of their power till 1970s.

It was the feminist movements, and the interest arising from women's desire to understand patriarchal structures and masculine domination that steered men towards studying 'the men' in 1970s. Firstly, feminist movements have threatened men's 'privileged' status. With the gains of liberal feminism, and increasing women's visibility in the economic and public life, men and the male identity faced with a crisis situation. As the women's economic participation increased, the struggle of women for gender equality in a patriarchal world was perceived as a success of women over men. Men were 'losing' their good provider role [3, 4], and the traditional gender roles were challenged. The initial studies, therefore, were an effort to regain the lost status of men against women. This was an antifeminist yet non-political movement that argues that men are victimized as a result of the gains of the feminist movements [5]. A group of academics, on the other hand, followed a pro-feminist approach and supported feminism and discontented patriarchy. Instead of defending existing patriarchal structures, they accepted that men must transform in order to have a more egalitarian world.

Secondly, by studying patriarchy structures and oppression of women by men, the feminist studies have increased the need for studies on men. Since 1950s, women and gender studies have frequently portrayed men as the perpetrator of the repression of women and the embodiment of masculine power and domination. Although women themselves could also nourish the existing patriarchal structures [6, 7], men were assumed to be the group most resistant to change, unwilling to give up their privileges, and therefore, they were seen as an impediment to gender equality and reproduction of unequal gender-based power relations. Discussing gender inequality or relations only on the basis of women's oppression and suppression therefore was not sufficient on its own to analyse the gender roles, their mutual interaction and power relations within the existing patriarchal structures [8]. It became necessary to focus not only the women who make up the 'less privileged' but also the men constitute the 'privileged' [5, 9]. It was also imperative to understand not only how women experience oppression but also how men maintain their masculine power or build masculine domination within the existing gender systems.

Initially masculinity was seen as an internalized sex role identity that was shaped by cultural ideals and role models. It was relational to femininity, hence redefined as the definitions of femininity transformed [10]. The first wave in masculinity studies focused on the pros and cons of being a man, superiority of men in the social hierarchy and the difficulties faced by men. In 1980s, masculinity was explored as a social construction, and focus was on describing masculinity practices in specific settings such as schools, workplaces and sports. Men and masculinity studies have expanded notably since 1980s and have been accepted as an academic field of its own by the 1990s. Since 1990s, with the contribution of queer theory and multicultural studies, masculinity studies lost its predisposition to focus on men's power over women and other genders and has started approaching the area with a broader perspective. Last two decades have been characterized by an increased empirical diversity and development of new theoretical perspectives spread into a variety of social sciences and humanities disciplines. A growing number of masculinity scholars have integrated theoretical insights from third wave feminism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, queer and sexuality studies as well as the intersections of gender, class, ethnicity, race, disability and age. The field, which was primarily developed in United States, United Kingdom and Australia, has also spread to all parts of the world exploring regional, national or local masculinities.

Masculinity studies mainly examine how masculine power is constructed and represented. It collaborates and debates with feminism and queer studies to reach a full equality where gender is no longer inherent to social structures. It tries to move men away from being a subject to be blamed by highlighting the pressures of masculine dominance that impact all genders. Thus, it urges that the fight should not be against the men but against the unequal structures that make all genders a victim [5].

### **3. Hegemonic masculinity**

One of the key theoretical developments, which has been the 'central pillar' ([11], p. 25) and 'travelling theory' ([1], p. 6) that contributed prominently to the field of masculinity studies across the world, has been the concept of Hegemonic Masculinity [9, 12, 13].

Grounded from the concept of 'hegemony' of Gramsci and developed as a critique to sex role theory, hegemonic masculinity focuses on how dominant group, i.e. men,

establishes and protects its domination on women and other gender identities within the social hierarchy [14]. Hegemonic Masculinity is defined as '…the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women'. ([9], p. 77). Hegemonic masculinity is 'always constructed in relation to various subordinate masculinities as well as in relation to women' ([15], p. 183), so it can be understood as external hegemony, i.e. hegemony over women, and internal hegemony, i.e. hegemony over subordinate masculinities such as gay men [16]. Hegemonic practices, however, do not necessarily correspond to the actions of most men and can remain as cultural ideals.

Connell suggests four types of masculinities: hegemonic, complicit, subordinate and marginalized as positions to one another. Hegemonic masculinity is the ideal masculinity that is accepted within a certain culture at a certain time. As an ideology it provides a defence mechanism in which patriarchy is legitimized and maintained and defines the ways people experience and learn their world. It can also change according to time and place depending on the struggle that will take place in a certain culture. Hegemonic masculinity, therefore, is different from patriarchal masculinity as it constantly requires new strategies and performances to stay in power and rebuild power. It is not necessarily that all men promote the hegemonic masculinity, but most men would be complicit in sustaining it [5, 17]. Complicit men accept and participate in the hegemonic system to benefit from its advantages and prevent subordination. Men face subordination when they are not men 'enough' as they are not performing within the boundaries of heterosexual hegemonic systems and ideologies such as gay and trans men. Marginalized masculinities, although they share heterosexuality with the hegemonic men and are not as subordinated, are in a disadvantaged position due to their class, race, ethnicity, disability, etc., and they depend on the hegemonic masculinity for authorization [18].

The concept of hegemonic masculinity has received criticism that challenged the earlier foundations of the concept of hegemonic masculinity in a changing globalized world [16, 19, 20]. The theory has been reformulated to be more holistic and the idea of global dominance of men over women and assumption that masculinity is an assemblage of trait approaches were discarded as they were no more sufficient for the understanding of masculinities [13].

## **4. Masculinities are precarious**

The concept of gender refers to the roles and responsibilities that are socially imposed on women and men in different cultures and at different times in history. In addition to the biological nature, gender also denotes the societal perceptions and performances of sexes 'in light of normative conceptions of attitudes and activities appropriate for one's sex category' ([21], p. 127). The attributes, behaviours and roles of womanhood and manhood are learned and internalized during the process of gender socialization starting by birth, and resisting gender roles and going beyond the expected behavioural patterns might lead to subordination. According to precarious manhood theory, manhood is a precarious social status. In contrast to womanhood, it must be earned and maintained through publicly manifest actions. It is hard to be earned but easy to be lost. In other words, a biological man has to assert that he is a man, he must act in a manly manner to gain and protect his superior status in the eyes of others, which might create individual anxiety and by causing various destructive behaviours towards other individuals and groups (women and gays) might perpetuate violence [22, 23].

## **5. Recent developments: hybrid masculinities and inclusive masculinity theory**

The increasing criticisms on sufficiency of hegemonic masculinities as a framework to study masculinity in gender egalitarian and LGBTI+ friendly countries, new conceptual and theoretical frameworks have emerged over the last decade. Hybrid masculinities and Inclusive Masculinity Theory among others, perhaps, have been the most commonly used in empirical and theoretical studies.

'Hybrid masculinity refers to men's selective incorporation of performances and identity elements associated with marginalized and subordinated masculinities and femininities.' ([24], p. 246). Hybrid masculinities distance themselves from hegemonic masculinity, position the experiences of subordinate and marginalized men to more significant place than the experiences of white heterosexual men and explore the interplay between men's social identities and social settings and how it shapes its enactment in constantly evolving cultural contexts [24–27].

Considering the increasing involvement of gay men in young men's peer groups and increasing inclusive behaviours of heterosexual men in these groups, particularly in sports, Anderson developed the Inclusive Masculinity Theory to understand the changing relationships between young men and their masculinities and how homophobia shapes the construction and regulation of masculinities in settings where a decline in homophobia is sustained [28, 29]. Anderson creates the concept of *homohysteria* to define the 'fear of being socially perceived as gay', which becomes central to the theory. The theory posits that men's activities are severely constrained, masculinity is hierarchically stratified and one hegemonic masculinity is overvalued in homohysteric societies [29].

In addition to these, a number of other approaches/concepts are being employed to define the contemporary forms masculinities. Some of these can be listed as female masculinities [30, 31], business masculinities [13], medicalized masculinities [32], metrosexual masculinities [33], caring masculinities [34], ecological masculinities [35] and chameleon masculinities [36, 37].

### **6. Conclusion**

As shown in this introductory chapter, masculinity studies are concerned with a perpetually evolving multifaceted phenomenon that has received significant attention of scholars from various disciplines over the last decades. Being able to better understand the men and masculinities would not only contribute to the equality of genders but also aid in addressing the issues related to men who have been traditionally invisible in academic studies for a long time.

*Introductory Chapter: Contributions to Masculinity Studies DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107381*

## **Author details**

Feyza Bhatti Girne American University, North Cyprus

\*Address all correspondence to: feyzabhatti@gau.edu.tr

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Gottzén L, Mellström U, Shefer T. Introduction: Mapping the Field of Masculinity Studies Routledge International Handbook of Masculinity Studies. London: Routledge; 2019. pp. 1-16

[2] Hearn J, Howson R. The Institutionalization of (critical) Studies on Men and Masculinities: Geopolitical Perspectives Routledge International Handbook of Masculinity Studies. London: Routledge; 2019. pp. 19-30

[3] Faludi S. Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man. New York: William Morrow and Company; 1999

[4] Levant RF. The masculinity crisis. The Journal of Men's Studies. 1997;**5**(3):221- 231. DOI: 10.1177/106082659700500302

[5] Connell RW. Masculinities. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2005

[6] Kandiyoti D. Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society. 1988;**2**(3):274-290

[7] Kandiyoti D. Cariyeler, bacılar, yurttaşlar. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları; 1997

[8] Akca EB, Tönel E, editors. Erkek (lik) çalışmalarına teorik bir çerçeve: feminist çalışmalardan hegemonik erkekliğe. İstanbul: Kalkedon; 2011

[9] Connell RW. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity; 1995

[10] Kimmel MS. The contemporary "crisis" of masculinity in historical perspective. In: Brod H, editor. The Making of Masculinities (Routledge Revivals): The New Men's Studies. New York: Routledge; 2018. pp. 121-153

[11] Hearn J. Two challenges for critical studies on men and masculinities: The

hegemony of men, and trans (national) patriarchies. Casopis za Kritiko Znanosti. 2017;**267**:23-34

[12] Carrigan T, Connell B, Lee J. Toward a new sociology of masculinity. In: Brod H, editor. The Making of Masculinities: The New Men's Studies. Boston: Allen & Unwin; 1987. pp. 63-100

[13] Connell RW, Messerschmidt JW. Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society. 2005;**19**(6):829-859

[14] Donaldson M. What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society. 1993:643-657

[15] Connell RW. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1987

[16] Demetriou DZ. Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society. 2001;**30**(3):337-361

[17] Robinson V, editor. Masculinity Studies, Gender Relations and Feminism. London: Palgrave; 2015

[18] Reeser TW. Concepts of masculinity and masculinity studies. In: Horlacher S, editor. Configuring Masculinity in Theory and Literary Practice. Leden: Brill; 2020. pp. 11-38

[19] McCormack M. The Declining Significance of Homophobia: How Teenage Boys are Redefining Masculinity and Heterosexuality. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013

[20] Wetherell M, Edley N. Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive

*Introductory Chapter: Contributions to Masculinity Studies DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107381*

practices. Feminism & Psychology. 1999;**9**(3):335-356

[21] West C, Zimmerman DH. Doing gender. Gender & Society. 1987;**1**(2):125-151

[22] Vandello JA, Bosson JK. Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2013;**14**(2):101

[23] Vandello JA, Bosson JK, Cohen D, Burnaford RM, Weaver JR. Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;**95**(6):1325

[24] Bridges T, Pascoe CJ. Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of men and masculinities. Sociology Compass. 2014;**8**(3):246-258

[25] Barry B. (RE)FASHIONING MASCULINITY: Social identity and context in men's hybrid masculinities through dress. Gender & Society. 2018;**32**(5):638-662. DOI: 10.1177/0891243218774495

[26] Bridges T. A VERY "GAY" STRAIGHT?: Hybrid masculinities, sexual aesthetics, and the changing relationship between masculinity and homophobia. Gender & Society. 2014;**28**(1):58-82. DOI: 10.1177/0891243213503901

[27] Greenebaum J, Dexter B. Vegan men and hybrid masculinity. Journal of Gender Studies. 2018;**27**(6):637-648. DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2017.1287064

[28] Anderson E. Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities. New York: Routledge; 2010

[29] Anderson E, McCormack M. Inclusive masculinity theory: Overview, reflection and refinement. Journal of Gender Studies. 2018;**27**(5):547-561. DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2016.1245605

[30] Gardiner JK. Female masculinities: A review essay. Men and Masculinities. 2009;**11**(5):622-633

[31] Halberstam J. Global female masculinities. Sexualities. 2012;**15**(3-4):336-354

[32] Rosenfeld D, Faircloth C. Medicalized Masculinities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2006

[33] Hall M. Metrosexual Masculinities. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan; 2014

[34] Elliott K. Caring masculinities: Theorizing an emerging concept. Men and Masculinities. 2016;**19**(3):240-259

[35] Hultman M, Pulé PM. Ecological Masculinities: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Guidance. London: Routledge; 2018

[36] Greenwood L. Chameleon masculinity: Developing the British 'population-centred'soldier. Critical Military Studies. 2016;**2**(1-2):84-102

[37] Ward MR. Jimmy the Chameleon: Multiple Performances of Self from Labouring to Learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. pp. 129-148

## **Chapter 2**
