Volume 3, Number 1
Hipatia Press
www.hipatiapress.com
h
Looking at Men: An Approach to the Perception that Male and Female
University Students of Primary and Nursery Education Have about Men
- Alejandro Martínez-González, Andrea Rodríguez Fernández-Cuevas &
Lars Bonell-García ……………………………………………………………….1
Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity in Transnational
Context -Richard Howson………………..…………………….………….....18
Articles
Disabled Masculinities: A Review and Suggestions for Further
Research – Timothy Barrett ……………………….…...……………………..36
Framing the Involvement of Men in Gender Equality in Europe: Between
Institutionalised and Non-Institutionalised Politics - Nadja Bergmann,
Elli Scambor & Katarzyna Wojnicka…………….………………….………..62
Global Masculinities and Manhood – Fernando
Macías……………………………………………………………………………..83
Reviews
Rethinking Transnational Men: Beyond, between and within Nations –
Lena de Botton…………………...……...………………………………………85
List of 2013 Reviewers………………………………………………………….87
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
Looking to Men: An Approach to the Perception that Male and
Female Universitary Students of Primary and Nursery Teaching
have about men
Alejandro Martínez-González; Andrea Rodríguez Fernández-Cuevas
& Lars Bonell-García1
1) Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios la Salle- UAM, Spain
th
Date of publication: February 21 , 2014
Edition period: February 2014-June 2014
To cite this article: Martínez-González, A., Rodríguez Fernández-Cuevas, A.,
Bonell-García, L. (2014). Looking to Men: An Approach to the Perception that Male
and Female Universitary Students of Primary and Nursery Teaching have about men.
Masculinities and Social Change, 3 (1), 1-17. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014.39
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/MCS.2014.39
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 1-17
Looking at Men: An Approach to the
Perception that Male and Female
University Students of Primary and
Nursery Education Have about Men
Alejandro Martínez-González
Centro Superior de Estudios
Universitarios la Salle- UAM
Andrea Rodríguez Fernández-Cuevas
Centro Superior de Estudios
Universitarios la Salle- UAM
Lars Bonell-García
Centro Superior de Estudios
Universitarios la Salle- UAM
Abstract
The latest studies and researches highlight the important role that teachers play in school in
addressing and contributing to reach gender equality. Their own perceptions about masculinity and
femininity are critical. This article presents the results from a research that was carried out with
university students of Primary and Nursery Education of the Educational Center La Salle
University-UAM. The students had been choosen specifically because of their future role as
references in the children’s socialization as well as for the construction of their gender identity. The
article presents three important issues: the maintenance of certain hegemonic notions about
masculinity, the positive and negative evaluations of these concepts by men and women, and ways
and possibilities to overcome hegemonic masculine positions that cause most rejection.
Keywords: masculinities, gender, education, critical communicative methodology
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.39
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 1-17
Mirando a los Hombres: Una Aproximación a
la Percepción que Tienen de los Hombres las
Estudiantes y los Estudiantes Universitarios de
Educación Infantil y Primaria
Alejandro Martínez-González
Centro Superior de Estudios
Universitarios la Salle- UAM
Andrea Rodríguez Fernández-Cuevas
Centro Superior de Estudios
Universitarios la Salle- UAM
Lars Bonell-García
Centro Superior de Estudios
Universitarios la Salle- UAM
Resumen
Los últimos estudios e investigaciones ponen en evidencia el importante papel que el personal
docente desempeña desde el ámbito escolar a la hora de abordar y contribuir a la consecución de la
equidad de género, para lo cual resultan determinantes sus propias percepciones sobre masculinidad
y feminidad. En este artículo se presentan los resultados de un trabajo de investigación que, en
torno a esta cuestión, se ha realizado con alumnado universitario de Educación Infantil y
Educación Primaria del Centro Universitario La Salle-UAM, por su condición de futuros referentes
en la socialización de la infancia así como en la construcción de su identidad de género, en el que
se ha podido indagar acerca de tres cuestiones relevantes: el mantenimiento de determinadas
concepciones hegemónicas acerca de la masculinidad, las valoraciones tanto positivas como
negativas que de estas concepciones hacen tanto mujeres como hombres, y las vías y posibilidades
para la superación de las posiciones masculinas hegemónicas que causan más rechazo tienen
mucho que aportar.
Palabras clave: masculinidades, género, educación, metodología comunicativa crítica
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.39
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 3
E
n las conclusiones que el último estudio realizado por la Agencia
Ejecutiva en el Ámbito Educativo, Audiovisual y Cultural (EACEA
- Eurydice, 2011 p.9) sobre las diferencias de género en los
resultados educativos a nivel europeo, se destaca el hecho de que “las
percepciones de los docentes sobre la masculinidad y la feminidad son
cruciales para su relación con los alumnos y pueden convertirse en un factor
clave para generar un clima de igualdad de género en los centros”
(Eurydice, 2011, p.11). Un aspecto referido en su momento por Bordieu
(2000) , en el que inciden también otros estudios recientes (Lang, Greig &
Connell, 2009; Sánchez Sáinz, 2009; Penna, 2012; García, Larena & Miró,
2012) y cuya relevancia nos llevó a interesarnos por procurar dilucidar en
concreto cuáles eran las percepciones que tenía hoy el alumnado
universitario de Educación Infantil y Primaria, por su condición de futuros
y futuras docentes, en concreto sobre los hombres y la masculinidad, al
entender que es en el ejercicio hegemónico de ésta última donde reside un
importante riesgo para la integridad e inequidad de las mujeres, y también
de los hombres, y cuya superación supondría un paso fundamental para
conseguir la igualdad en las diferencias entre todas las personas (Aubert,
Duque, Fisas & Valls, 2004).
Para ello un equipo de cuatro investigadores vinculados al Centro
Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle desarrollamos un trabajo de
investigación a lo largo de los años 2011 y 2012, de carácter cualitativo y a
través de la metodología comunicativa-crítica, con alumnado matriculado
en tercer curso de Diplomatura de Magisterio en la especialidad de
Educación Primaria y en primer curso de Grado de Educación Primaria y de
Educación Infantil, del que se presentan en este artículo los datos obtenidos,
primero en torno a la acotación del concepto de masculinidad y de
masculinidad hegemónica desde la perspectiva de género, para detallar
después las características básicas de la metodología empleada en el trabajo
de campo, y finalmente dar cuenta de los resultados obtenidos más
relevantes, así como de las conclusiones que se pudieron extraer del mismo.
Marco Teórico. Masculinidad Hegemónica y Educación
Abordar la percepción que el futuro personal docente tiene sobre la
masculinidad nos obliga a comenzar acotando el término. Cuando hablamos
4 Martínez, Rodríguez & Bonell – Looking to Men
de masculinidad, igual que de feminidad, lo hacemos desde la premisa de
que entendemos que las personas están sujetas a un modo de ordenamiento
de su práctica social que va más allá del sexo, en la que hombres y mujeres
difieren entre ellos y ellas, y que se entiende conceptualmente como género.
Un concepto que, como subraya Connell (1997, p.37), “existe precisamente
en la medida en que la biología no determina lo social”, y que interactúa
como condicionante de la vida social con otros factores como la etnia, la
clase social, la edad, la orientación sexual, el padecimiento de una
discapacidad e incluso la posición en el orden mundial de la nacionalidad.
En este sentido, la masculinidad es la práctica por la que los hombres se
comprometen con esa posición de género y los efectos de esa práctica en la
experiencia corporal, en la personalidad y en la cultura que, asociada
siempre a contradicciones internas y rupturas históricas, se ve reflejada
fundamentalmente en tres dimensiones: las relaciones de poder, las
relaciones de producción y el vínculo emocional (Connell, 1997).
Dimensiones todas ellas en las que, en nuestro sistema social, el hombre
ostenta una posición dominante (Bordieu, 2000) que hace prevalecer una
masculinidad no igualitaria conceptualizada como hegemónica.
Así, esta masculinidad hegemónica alude a la construcción de un modo
de posicionamiento de los varones, como hombres, socialmente reconocido,
formado por la tradición y el sistema político, social y cultural, y aprendido
en los principales entornos socializadores, como son la familia, el grupo de
iguales, la escuela o los medios de comunicación, que subordina a otras
masculinidades, y cuyas características fundamentales serían las de ser
proveedor, trabajador, responsable, racional, emocionalmente controlado,
heterosexual activo, jefe del hogar, padre, fuerte y blanco, con dominio
sobre otros hombres (Sipión, 2008). En palabras de Lomas (2007), un
modo de actuar donde prevalece “el vigor y la fuerza, la indiferencia ante el
dolor físico, el afán de aventura, la ostentación heterosexual, la ocultación
de los sentimientos y de las emociones, la competencia y el enfrentamiento,
o el espíritu de conquista y de seducción del otro sexo” (p. 95). Y así, un
ejercicio de la masculinidad que, como subraya Mª Lucero Jiménez (2009),
se mide a través del éxito, el poder y la admiración que los hombres son
capaces de generar en los otros, poniéndose especialmente en valor ser
independientes, contar solamente consigo mismos, ser siempre fuertes, o ser
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 5
capaces de recurrir a la violencia si es necesario: “el varón ejemplar es
duro, solitario, no necesita de nadie, es impasible y es viril” (p.36).
Este modo de “ser hombre” no es un tipo de carácter fijo, el mismo
siempre y en todas partes, sino más bien, “la masculinidad que ocupa la
posición hegemónica en un modelo dado de relaciones de género, una
posición siempre disputable” (Connell, 1997, p.11), que se desarrolla y
consolida través de los procesos de socialización y que, como sostiene la
teoría del posicionamiento, llega a ser cambiante y rebatido y, por tanto,
más complejo que el mero desempeño de un rol fijo (Phoenix, 2002). Es,
así, “un conjunto de significados siempre cambiantes, que construimos a
través de nuestras relaciones con nosotros mismos y con nuestro mundo
(…) y que se crea por la cultura” (Kimmel, 1997, p.49), hasta el punto de
que más que de masculinidad hegemónica, podríamos hablar de
masculinidades hegemónicas, con sus respectivos matices en función de los
entornos y culturas en las que se desarrollen. A pesar de lo cual, la mayor
parte de ellas se encuentran especialmente próximas al patrón descrito, en la
medida en que, como sostiene Kimmel, está emergiendo hoy, fruto de la
creciente globalización, una versión hegemónica global (Carabí &
Armengol, 2008) que, paradójicamente, continúa manteniendo múltiples
rasgos comunes con la definición de virilidad que ya en 1976 Robert
Brannon sintetizaba en cuatro frases coloquiales breves (Kimmel, 1997,
p.51):
- ¡Nada con asuntos de mujeres! Uno no debe hacer nunca algo que
remotamente sugiera feminidad. La masculinidad es el repudio implacable
de lo femenino.
- ¡Sea el timón principal! La masculinidad se mide por el poder, el
éxito, la riqueza y la posición social.
- ¡Sea fuerte como un roble! La masculinidad depende de permanecer
calmado y confiable en una crisis, con las emociones bajo control. De
hecho, la prueba de que se es hombre consiste en no mostrar nunca
emociones.
- ¡Mándelos al infierno! Exude un aura de osadía varonil y
agresividad.
Lo que parece por tanto es que este arquetipo tradicional de
masculinidad, lejos de estar en declive, se ve hoy reforzado en los entornos
económicos de riqueza y privilegio (Connell, 2012), y sigue inspirando la
6 Martínez, Rodríguez & Bonell – Looking to Men
conducta de los adolescentes y jóvenes, reproduciéndose en los centros
educativos (Lomas, 2007; Peña & Ríos, 2011), que se constituyen en uno
de los sitios principales de formación de masculinidad (Connell, 2001). Así,
uno de los nuevos retos de la coeducación se sitúa ya no solo en la
superación de los arquetipos impuestos femeninos, sino en añadir la
superación de los arquetipos y estereotipos masculinos (Aubert et al. 2004)
y el deseo que generan, pues parecen seguir dotados en nuestra sociedad
de un peligroso atractivo (Gómez, 2004; Flecha, Puigvert, & Redondo,
2005; Duque, 2006; Padrós, 2012; Flecha, Puigvert, & Ríos, 2013). Algo
que, a nuestro juicio, debería abordar el sistema educativo con inexcusable
prioridad, pues, como sabemos, trae asociado, además de efectos en la vida
académica del alumnado específicamente masculino (Marrs, Sigler, &
Brammer, 2012) que le conducen al fracaso o a la mediocridad escolar: “ser
inteligente o aplicado académicamente no es considerado realmente
masculino y genera impopularidad entre los chicos” (Phoenix, 2002, p.23);
importantes consecuencias sociales negativas, entre las que destaca el
sexismo, la perpetuación de la homofobia (Penna, 2012) y la violencia de
género y la criminalidad (Peña & Ríos, 2011).
Metodología del Trabajo de Campo
Objetivo
Como consecuencia de lo anteriormente descrito y coincidiendo con Lomas
en que es hora de trabajar “en favor de otras maneras de entender la
identidad masculina que excluyan el ejercicio de la violencia y el
menosprecio de las mujeres, y favorezcan la equidad entre los sexos”
(Lomas, 2007, p.92), nos hemos querido centrar en conocer en qué medida
las personas que serán futuros maestros y maestras siguen atribuyendo y
asociando a los hombres rasgos o actitudes propios de la masculinidad
hegemónica en nuestro contexto sociocultural y el modo en que los
refrendan como buenos o positivos, los subrayan sin más, o los critican y
rechazan. Pues, constituyendo ellas y ellos importantes factores de influencia
y cambio de la población escolar (Eurydice, 2011), los resultados obtenidos
nos pueden ayudar a vislumbrar las posibles transformaciones que están en
posición de promover.
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 7
Enfoque Metodológico
Para este trabajo se ha optado por realizar un estudio cualitativo desde la
metodología comunicativa crítica (Gómez, Latorre, Sánchez, & Flecha,
2006), a través de diez entrevistas en profundidad y cuatro grupos de
discusión comunicativos con alumnos y alumnas que cursan estudios
universitarios de Educación Primaria e Infantil en el Centro Superior de
Estudios Universitarios La Salle, adscrito a la Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, que se llevaron a cabo entre julio de 2011 y febrero de 2012.
En concreto las entrevistas se realizaron a cinco mujeres y a cinco
hombres estudiantes de tercer curso de la Diplomatura de Educación
Primaria, con edades comprendidas entre los 21 y los 25 años, mientras que
en los grupos de discusión participaron, por una parte cinco hombres
estudiantes de primer curso de Grado en Educación Primaria y por otra
ocho mujeres estudiantes de primer curso de Educación Infantil, todos ellos
con edades comprendidas entre los 19 y los 21 años.
Tras la realización y transcripción de las diez entrevistas y dos grupos de
discusión, compartimos los resultados obtenidos con dos nuevos grupos de
discusión de alumnos y alumnas considerados como consejo asesor (Gómez
et al., 2006), para que valorasen los resultados obtenidos en torno a tópicos
más o menos sistemáticos relacionados con los hombres, e identificasen los
aspectos que se presentan como barreras para la superación de dichos
tópicos, así como las vías para el avance hacia la igualdad y la equidad
entre sexos.
Resultados Obtenidos sobre los Atributos, Rasgos y/o Actitudes
Asociados a los Hombres
Tanto en las entrevistas en profundidad como en los grupos de discusión
iniciales planteamos un mismo cuestionario que pretendía abordar el
análisis sobre la visión del posicionamiento de los hombres, refiriéndonos a
ellos como un conjunto social indiferenciado y homogéneo, susceptible por
tanto de ser descrito por las personas participantes en la investigación desde
miradas estereotipadas, sujetas a generalizaciones, pero donde éstas podrían
haber introducido matizaciones en pro de la particularidad de los sujetos,
que apenas se produjeron, no encontrando dificultad aparente para atribuir
8 Martínez, Rodríguez & Bonell – Looking to Men
conductas o actitudes características de los hombres como colectivo, lo que
en sí mismo puede destacarse como un aspecto relevante.
Las preguntas fueron organizadas en dos pares. El primer par giraba
alrededor de lo que los y las estudiantes participantes consideraban típico
de los hombres y lo que les parecía que les hacía diferentes a las mujeres.
Con él se pretendía obtener datos acerca de las atribuciones predominantes
para poder contrastarlas con los rasgos propios de la masculinidad
hegemónica. En segundo lugar, para poder identificar las valoraciones
acerca de los diferentes rasgos, se planteó un nuevo par de preguntas, a
saber, qué les gustaba especialmente de los hombres y qué aspectos de su
forma de actuar les causaba rechazo. A continuación presentamos los datos
obtenidos.
Con respecto a lo que el alumnado participante en el estudio considera
que es típico de los hombres, hemos podido observar como las alumnas en
concreto destacan aspectos relacionados con el carácter y la forma de
encarar la vida y las relaciones. Los hombres aparecen como personas
menos reflexivas en el sentido de que “le dan menos vueltas a las cosas”, de
que “no se complican tanto la vida”, rasgo asociado a una mentalidad más
práctica y directa que la de las mujeres. Los alumnos coinciden con las
alumnas en caracterizar a los hombres como más directos y simples -en el
sentido de menos reflexivos-. Este aspecto está muy bien valorado tanto
entre las alumnas como entre los alumnos. La capacidad para no
preocuparse excesivamente es vivida como de gran utilidad para aliviar
sobrecargas reflexivas:
A mí me gusta, que a lo mejor tú te has comido mogollón el tarro por un
problema y él llega con su simpleza y te dice: no, si esto es así, y punto, no
le des más vueltas. Y cómo que te lo da, y es como si estuvieras en un
bosque y no ves nada, y él te lleva a la luz (…) Esa simpleza a mí me alivia.
(Nuria)
Si la pregunta es si nos gusta ser directos. Yo creo que sí. Mejor que darle
vueltas a las cosas. Yo creo que sí. (Alberto)
Cuando las alumnas proyectan este aspecto hacia las relaciones con
otras personas, tanto en términos de colaboración como de amistad, emerge
una imagen de los hombres caracterizada por una nobleza inocente y franca
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 9
que les lleva a ser menos rencorosos y “retorcidos” y más fieles en las
relaciones de amistad, aspecto valorado positivamente tanto por las alumnas
como por los alumnos: “A mí también me parecen más nobles, yo he
trabajado con hombres y con mujeres, y llevo seis años trabajando solo con
mujeres, y soy mujer y os digo, que no tiene nada que ver trabajar con
hombres (Inés)”. “Los hombre solemos estar siempre muy unidos y siempre
nos solemos ayudar unos entre otros y no solemos criticar a otro hombre
por otras cosas, siempre solemos estar bastante unidos (Juan Luís)”.
Alumnas y alumnos relacionan la falta de reflexividad con una
personalidad más impulsiva, orientada a la acción. Para las alumnas este
aspecto tiene como lado oscuro la dificultad para resistir o tolerar la
frustración de no conseguir lo que se quiere en el momento en que se
quiere. Ello denota cierta inmadurez y desapego que les genera dificultades
para sostener el compromiso y el entusiasmo a lo largo del tiempo. En ese
sentido, los alumnos ven como rasgo negativo en los hombres el ser más
irresponsables: “Una diferencia es que tienen mucha menos tolerancia a la
frustración, una mujer sabe enseguida tirar para adelante, un hombre
enseguida se le cae el mundo encima (Victoria)”.
La falta de compromiso también queda vinculada a las relaciones
afectivas. Las alumnas manifiestan que los hombres no se comprometen de
la misma forma que las mujeres en los “temas sentimentales”. Además
coinciden en que los hombres tienen muchas dificultades para expresar sus
sentimientos, puntualizando que la causa principal de esa dificultad es el
miedo a que la gente, especialmente otros hombres, piensen que son
débiles, o bien que son homosexuales: “Entonces entre ellos se crea eso y
tienen miedo de mostrar sus sentimientos porque su amigo diga que es gay
o calzonazos, es el miedo que tienen (Sofía).”
También los alumnos destacan el miedo a expresar sus sentimientos
porque eso supone mostrarse como personas débiles:
A ver, lo que parece es que tenemos miedo a que nos vean débiles.
Entonces, todo el tema de los sentimientos, o todo el tema de los… parece
que lo tenemos un poco vetado. ¿Por qué? Porque entonces no eres fuerte si
lloras. Claro, porque se te ve más débil. Porque de cara al resto, parece un
síntoma de debilidad (Pedro).
10 Martínez, Rodríguez & Bonell – Looking to Men
Este aspecto está valorado como negativo tanto por las alumnas como
por los alumnos. Ellas centran la valoración negativa en las dificultades con
las que se encuentran para establecer diálogos fructíferos acerca de los
sentimientos que cada uno y cada una tiene y que acaban dejando la
sensación de que los hombres se comprometen menos en los vínculos
sentimentales y afectivos:
Es el hecho de que estás mal, vale, pero dime qué te pasa. Me pone de los
nervios, la típica frase de: no me pasa nada, estoy desganado. Es el
problema darte contra una pared. Les cuesta expresar sus sentimientos
(Paula).
Los alumnos achacan esta dificultad al papel fundamental de los agentes
de socialización, como la familia, la escuela o los medios de comunicación,
que contribuyen a generar una imagen de lo que es ser hombre que dificulta
la emergencia de un abanico más amplio de opciones identitarias ligadas a
la masculinidad. Consideran que es un aspecto negativo porque reduce su
libertad de elección:
Realmente, no me gusta nada el prototipo que hay de hombre. O sea, yo
puedo ser un chico sentimental o que pueda demostrar sentimientos, sin ver
que eres más débil…Y realmente poder ser tú en la sociedad ¿Sabes? Sin
tener miedo a ser juzgado, a que ninguna persona me diga que no eres un
hombre… ¿Sabes? Porque realmente cada uno es como es, ya sea menos
fuerte, más fuerte, o más listo,…No sé. No me gusta (Alberto).
Para ellos, la imagen de hombre que no expresa sus sentimientos porque
es fuerte, es adoptada como referente por sus grupos de iguales, que acaban
presionando a los individuos para que no se alejen del patrón establecido,
so pena de quedar excluidos:
Yo creo que a muchos les gustaría ser diferentes pero el miedo al rechazo, la
soledad, la presión de grupo…eso es lo que en realidad te hace aceptar que
eres así, aunque no seas así. Porque creo que si esa presión de grupo no
existiese o no fuese tan fuerte, muchos serían de una manera totalmente
distinta y haría muchísimas cosas distintas de las que hacen (Luís).
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 11
Para los alumnos, la sociedad establece una clara distinción entre
mujeres y hombres en la que el rasgo distintivo de las primeras es el tacto y
el de los segundos es la fuerza. Esta distinción cala en los individuos que
acaban reproduciéndola en sus interacciones cotidianas, interacciones que
influyen en las decisiones que toman las personas en cuanto a qué es lo que
les gusta y cómo quieren ser:
Es como separarlo: fuerza y tacto. Por así decirlo. Por ejemplo nosotros
estudiantes de magisterio, educación y trabajo social, somos dos, tres,
chicos por clase y quince o veinte chicas. Y no es porque nosotros no
podamos hacer estas carreras, es porque nadie…un hombre no quiere. Es
porque ya. ¿Por qué te metes ahí tío? Métete a una ingeniería, vete a ganar
dinero y ese tipo de comentarios (Juan Luís).
Para las alumnas esta distinción también afecta a la manera en que los
hombres se relacionan con las mujeres, especialmente cuando están frente a
otros hombres. La consecuencia negativa es que los hombres tienden a
querer mostrarse como superiores haciendo sentirse inferiores a las
mujeres:
No me gusta de los hombres la capacidad que tienen de intentar hacerte
sentirte inferior a ellos en determinadas ocasiones, como por ejemplo
cuando están con su grupo de amigos y a lo mejor se sienten intimidados
por ti o quieren intentar mostrar que son mejores que tú y entonces sacan su
lado más chulo (Montserrat).
Cuando esta necesidad de mostrarse fuertes se vincula al ejercicio del
poder y de la violencia física o simbólica emerge una actitud agresiva y
machista, definida por los alumnos como “chulería”, que se manifiesta tanto
en las relaciones entre hombres como entre hombres y mujeres, siendo este
aspecto el valorado como más negativo tanto por las alumnas como por los
alumnos:
Ante cualquier cosa que sea un motivo de disputa, que se llegue a más, pues
que se acabe en una pelea. Pues en vez de resolverlo de una forma más
civilizada, pues nos metemos más en la violencia que en el diálogo (Luís).
12 Martínez, Rodríguez & Bonell – Looking to Men
El abuso. El abuso de fuerza o el abuso de poder, eso en un hombre es lo
que más detesto, es lo que me llevaría a rebelarme contra uno, aunque no
llevaría a nada porque evidentemente tendría más fuerza. Pero creo que es la
situación más difícil que puede haber entre un hombre y una mujer (María).
Por otra parte, las alumnas manifiestan como rasgo positivo la sensación
de seguridad y protección que los hombres pueden brindar, aun cuando
reconocen que en muchas ocasiones esa sensación no se corresponde con la
realidad:
A mí me pasa muchísimo con mi padre, con él me siento súper protegida, yo
estoy con mi padre al lado y pasa cualquier cosa y sé que quedándome a su
lado estoy protegida, no me pasa lo mismo con mi madre y eso que mi
madre transmite muchísima seguridad y probablemente en momentos
caóticos reaccione mejor que mi padre, pero estoy con mi padre y me siento
muchísimo más protegida (Alicia).
Para los alumnos ese rol protector está relacionado con un rasgo
distintivo del prototipo de hombre: “la fuerza, saber defenderse”. Ese rol
está muy presente en la sociedad y se concreta en que en el ámbito familiar
los hombres jóvenes cuentan con una mayor libertad de horarios que las
mujeres jóvenes, las cuales tienen más limitaciones fruto de la presión
familiar y social y del miedo a sufrir agresiones por parte de los hombres.
Es también un poco lo que decíamos antes. Es un poco impuesto por la
sociedad. Porque yo el otro día lo hablaba con unas de mi clase que ellas
cuando salen de fiesta o lo que sea, a la hora de volver a casa siempre están
pendientes de que si un tío les sigue a ver, de que si tengo que llevar las
llaves en la mano… Yo cuando vuelvo a mi casa si me sigue un hombre,
pues… será por casualidad que me está siguiendo. Pero no me pienso que
me vaya a hacer nada. ¿Sabes? Es también un poco impuesto por los padres.
Cuando salgas llámame, mándame un mensaje de donde estés (Javier).
El tradicional rol proveedor de los hombres aparece como rasgo
distintivo en el discurso de los alumnos que, aunque reconocen que la
realidad social ha cambiado mucho en este sentido, afirman que es la fuente
de un rasgo masculino característico, “saber buscarse la vida”, y es lo que
hace que los hombres quieran entrar antes en el mundo laboral. Por otra
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 13
parte rechazan el hecho de que los hombres tengan que ganar más dinero
que las mujeres “porque sí”:“En la empresa, en un mismo puesto, cobra
más un hombre que una mujer. Porque sí. No me parece justo la verdad
(Alfonso)”.
Para las alumnas, la actitud en cuanto a las tareas domésticas queda
marcada por la falta de compromiso y la dependencia hacia la capacidad
organizativa de las mujeres estableciendo como causa la educación
recibida:
Se nos ha quedado la coletilla de ayúdame, parece que continúa siendo la
responsabilidad de la mujer, por mucho que nos modernicemos, yo he
tenido novio y nos hemos puesto a comer y a la hora de recoger la mesa, la
cocina… yo se lo he dicho, por mucho que quieras intentarlo, a veces se nos
escapa por la manera que nos han educado (Sofía).
En relación con los gustos, las alumnas caracterizan a los hombres por
su afición a ámbitos típicamente asociados al género masculino como el
fútbol y los deportes en general o la informática y los videojuegos. Los
alumnos, por su parte, también caracterizan a los hombres por su atracción
hacia ese tipo de ámbitos añadiendo espacios tradicionalmente masculinos
como los bares y enfatizando la dimensión tecnológica entendida como algo
alejado del mundo de los sentimientos: “Todo lo que no implique
sentimientos tiernos y cosas así (Luís)”.
La lectura de estos datos por los propios participantes en la investigación
abrió también la posibilidad de reflexionar en torno a ellos, tomar
conciencia de la vigencia de roles propios de la masculinidad tradicional
hegemónica y pensar en la necesidad y posibilidades de afrontar su
superación.
De este modo se identificaron algunos aspectos que se presentan como
barreras para la transformación y el avance hacia la igualdad, a saber, el
miedo de los hombres a no ser aceptados por su grupo de iguales al no
seguir los estereotipos marcados; la vigencia de la inculcación de los
estereotipos de masculinidad hegemónica en la educación de los niños y
niñas; y el hecho de que se reclame y demande la toma de conciencia a las
mujeres, pero no a los hombres.
Unas barreras para cuya superación se sugieren tres posibles líneas de
acción. Por un lado, potenciar la comunicación y el diálogo entre hombres y
14 Martínez, Rodríguez & Bonell – Looking to Men
mujeres y entre hombres y hombres sobre los estereotipos como vía para
superarlos, aspecto en el que también se incide desde Naciones Unidas
(Lang, Greig, & Connell, 2009) y que ya se reclamó hace casi dos décadas
en la Conferencia Internacional sobre Población y Desarrollo de El Cairo
(1994) y la IV Conferencia Mundial sobre Mujeres en Beijín (1995) cuando
enfatizaron la importancia de incluir a los hombres en los esfuerzos por
mejorar el status social de las mujeres.
Por otro, generar espacios de reflexión en la formación del profesorado
sobre la equidad de género, en la misma línea que ya concluía Connell
(2001, p.169) cuando subrayaba que “las escuelas contribuirán realmente a
un futuro de relaciones de género más justas y más civilizadas, si se
abordan estos temas de forma reflexiva”.
Y, en tercer lugar, procurar fomentar que se dé más importancia en las
relaciones a los argumentos que a la fuerza y el poder, en coincidencia con
los resultados obtenidos en otros estudios (Ríos & Christou, 2010).
Conclusiones
La literatura referenciada en el marco teórico del estudio realizado pone de
manifiesto que el arquetipo tradicional de masculinidad continúa estando
vigente e inspirando la conducta de adolescentes y jóvenes, lo que supone
una importante barrera para la superación de la desigualdad y la violencia
de género. En este sentido, los resultados obtenidos no hacen más que
refrendar dichos datos al poner en evidencia que buena parte de los
atributos, rasgos y actitudes que las y los futuros profesionales de la
educación participantes han señalado en su discurso como identitarios de
los hombres, coinciden con los que los estudios sobre masculinidades
atribuyen a la masculinidad hegemónica.
No obstante, el hecho de que lo consideren así, no supone
necesariamente que los alumnos y las alumnas participantes lo aprueben o
lo acepten. Es más, en sus discursos parecen coincidir en mostrar un
importante rechazo, al menos en el plano ético, a la idea de superioridad del
hombre frente a la mujer y a la práctica de la violencia física o simbólica,
al tiempo que hacen especial hincapié en las consecuencias limitadoras y/o
negativas que la asunción del rol de la masculinidad tradicional entraña
para los propios hombres.
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 15
Junto con estas constataciones, podemos destacar como aportaciones del
trabajo realizado para la consecución de una sociedad más igualitaria y la
superación de inequidad de género, la identificación de la necesidad de
incorporar a los hombres, junto a las mujeres, en el debate y la reflexión en
torno a las cuestiones de género, apelando así a su corresponsabilidad.
También se pone en evidencia, en la línea señalada ya por Gómez (2004) y
Flecha, Puigvert y Ríos (2013), que se hace necesario fomentar la creación
de espacios de interacción y diálogo igualitario en la formación inicial del
profesorado de Educación Infantil y Primaria, donde se puedan analizar y
cuestionar los procesos de socialización que mujeres y hombres estamos
teniendo en torno a los roles de género para la superación del modelo de
masculinidad tradicional dominante.
Referencias
Aubert, A.; Duque, E.; Fisas, M. & Valls, R. (2004). Dialogar y
Transformar. Pedagogía crítica del siglo XXI. Barcelona: Graó.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). La dominación masculina. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Carabí, A., & Armengol, J.M. (Eds.) (2008). La masculinidad a debate.
Barcelona: Icaria.
Connell, R. W. (1997). La organización social de la masculinidad. En T.
Valdés & J. Olavarría. Masculinidad/es: Poder y crisis (pp.31-48).
Chile: Isis Internacional.
Connell, R. W. (2001). Educando a los muchachos: Nuevas investigaciones
sobre masculinidad y estrategias de género para las escuelas.
Nómadas, 14, 156-171.
Connell, R. (2012). Masculinity research and global change. Masculinities
and Social Change, 1(1), 4­18. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2012.0
Duque, E. (2006). Aprendiendo para el amor o para la violencia. Las
relaciones en las discotecas. Barcelona: El Roure.
EURYDICE (2011). Diferencias de género en los resultados educativos:
medidas adoptadas y situación actual en Europa. Madrid: Ministerio
de Educación.
Flecha, A., Puigvert, L., & Redondo, G. (2005). Socialización preventiva de
la violencia de género. Revista Feminismo/s, 6, 107-120.
16 Martínez, Rodríguez & Bonell – Looking to Men
Flecha, R., Puigvert, L., & Ríos, O. (2013). The new alternative
masculinities and the overcoming of gender violence. International
and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 2 (1), 88­113. doi:
10.4471/rimcis.2013.14
García, C., Larena, R., & Miró, I. (2012). Participación de las "Otras
Mujeres" en las escuelas: Superando estereotipos de género y
mejorando el aprendizaje. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational
Research, 2(1), 37-55. doi: 10.4471/remie.2012.02
Gómez, J. (2004). El amor en la sociedad del riesgo. Una tentativa
educativa. Barcelona: El Roure.
Gómez, J., Latorre, A., Sánchez, M., & Flecha, R. (2006). Metodología
comunicativa crítica. Barcelona: El Roure.
Jiménez, M.L. (2009). Transformaciones en el mundo del trabajo: Sus
efectos en las subjetividades masculinas y en las relaciones entre los
géneros. Revista Científica de UCES, 13(2), 27-50.
Kimmel, M.S. (1997). Homofobia, temor, vergüenza y silencio en la
identidad masculina. En T. Valdés & J. Olavarría. Masculinidad/es:
poder y crisis (pp.49-61). Chile: Isis Internacional.
Lang, J., Greig, A. & Connell, R. (2009). El papel de los hombres y los
niños en el logro de la igualdad entre los géneros. En la mujer en el
2000 y después. Nueva York: Naciones Unidas. División para el
adelanto de la mujer.
Lomas, C. (2007). ¿La escuela es un infierno? Violencia escolar y
construcción cultural de la masculinidad. Revista de Educación, 342,
83-101.
Marrs, H., Sigler. E.A., & Brammer, R.D. (2012). Gender, masculinity,
feminity and help seeking in college. Masculinities and Social
Change, 1(3), 267-292. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2012.16
Padrós, M. (2012). Modelos de atractivo masculinos en la adolescencia.
Masculinities and Social Change, 1 (2),165­183. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2012.10
Peña, J.C., & Ríos, O. (2011). Actos comunicativos que promueven nuevas
masculinidades en los centros educativos. Comunicación presentada
en I Congreso Iberoamericano de Masculinidades y Equidad:
Investigación y Activismo- CIME, Barcelona, España, 7-8 de
Octubre. Recuperado de
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 17
http://www.cime2011.org/home/panel4/cime2011_P4_OriolRios_Jua
nCarlosPena.pdf
Penna, M. (2012). Formación del profesorado en la atención a la
diversidad afectivo-sexual. Tesis doctoral no publicada. Universidad
Complutense de Madrid. Recuperada de
http://eprints.ucm.es/16718/1/T34011.pdf
Phoenix, A. (2002). Cómo se negocia una posición de sujeto intermedia:
Muchachos entre once y catorce años, masculinidades y educación
escolar. Nómadas, 16, 28.39.
Ríos, O., & Christou, M. (2010). Más allá del lenguaje sexista. Actos
comunicativos en las relaciones afectivo-sexuales de los y las
adolescentes. Revista Signos, 43 (2), 311-326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342010000400004
Sánchez Sainz, M. (Coord.) (2009). Cómo educar en la diversidad afectivosexual en los centros escolares. Madrid: Catarata.
Seidler, V. J. (2006). Masculinidades. Culturas globales y vidas íntimas.
Barcelona: Montesinos.
Sipión, C. (2008). Patriarcado, masculinidad y violencia. Posibles
relaciones conceptuales. Magenta, Revista sobre masculinidades y
género, 1,10-15.
Alejandro Martínez-González, es profesor titular del Centro
Superior de Estudios Universitarios la Salle- UAM.
Andrea Rodríguez Fernández-Cuevas, es profesora titular del
Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios la Salle- UAM.
Lars Bonell García, es profesor titular del Centro Superior de
Estudios Universitarios la Salle- UAM.
Dirección de contacto: Correspondencia directa con Alejandro
Martínez-González en el Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios la
Salle- UAM, c./La Salle, 10, 28023 Madrid, España, email:
[email protected].
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity in
Transnational Context
Richard Howson1
1) University of Wollongong, Australia
th
Date of publication: February 21 , 2014
Edition period: February 2014-June 2014
To cite this article: Howson, R. (2014). Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic
Masculinity in Transnational. Masculinities and Social Change, 3 (1), 18-35. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2014.40
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/MCS.2014.40
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 18-35
Re-Thinking Aspiration and
Hegemonic Masculinity in
Transnational Context
Richard Howson
University of Wollongong, Australia
Abstract
This article offers a contribution to the on-going critical analysis of the concept
hegemonic masculinity. However, not in a way that seeks the demise or
supersession of the concept but rather to offer a theoretical development that brings
into focus certain important and specific claims: (1) that masculinity is something
men do yet, (2) hegemonic masculinity requires all men to position themselves in
relation to it. In trying to build some connection between these two claims as well
as, thinking through some of the key issues that have challenged hegemonic
masculinity over the last two to three decades this article re-introduces and develops
the concept of aspiration as one important way to articulate the contemporary
importance of hegemonic masculinity in the field of masculinity theory. Further it
offers a brief application of aspiration and hegemonic masculinity in the field of the
transnational.
Keywords: hegemonic masculinity, masculinity, aspiration, hegemony,
transnational
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.40
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 18-35
Repensando la Ambición y la
Masculinidad Hegemónica en
Contextos Transnacionales
Richard Howson
University of Wollongong, Australia
Resumen
Este artículo ofrece una contribución al actual análisis crítico alrededor del concepto
de masculinidad hegemónica. Sin embargo, no en una forma que pretende hacer
desaparecer o superar dicho concepto, sino que en una que ofrece un desarrollo
teórico que pone de relieve ciertas reclamaciones importantes y específicas: (1) que
la masculinidad es algo que los hombres todavía articulan, (2) la masculinidad
hegemónica exige que todos los hombres se posicionen al respecto. Al tratar de
construir algún tipo de conexión entre estas dos afirmaciones, así como reflexionar
acerca de algunos de los temas clave que han desafiado la hegemonía masculina en
las últimas dos o tres décadas, este artículo re-introduce y desarrolla el concepto de
la ambición como una forma importante de articular la importancia contemporánea
de la masculinidad hegemónica en el ámbito de la teoría de la masculinidad.
Además se ofrece una breve aplicación sobre la ambición y la masculinidad
hegemónica en el ámbito transnacional.
Palabras clave: masculinidad hegemónica, masculinidad, ambición, hegemonía,
transnacional
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.40
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 20
O
ne of the very real problems confronting the field of masculinities
theory today is: what to do with hegemonic masculinity? There is
no doubt that over the last two to three decades, hegemonic
masculinity has become axiomatic and ubiquitous within the field of
masculinities theory as an explanatory concept. I use the term axiom for a
particular reason, that is, to emphasise the point that in much of the work
that uses hegemonic masculinity now, it is treated as a self-evident principle
that requires no proof of its existence or importance. Perhaps even more
telling is that there remains very little engagement within the masculinity
theory with the concept’s foundation that is, the theory of hegemony.
Further, like so many other social scientific concepts such as, civil society
and social capital, the more they are applied to research, the more their hold
on explanatory power is questioned. It is no different for hegemonic
masculinity, whose popularity exists side by side with a very substantial
and on-going challenge to its formulation, thesis, application and ultimately
its value to the field.
The case for sustaining hegemonic masculinity’s explanatory efficacy is
somewhat hindered by a theoretical and methodological development that
began in the 1980’s (see Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p.830-832) and
focused primarily on developing a dominant form of masculinity as
practice-based: that is, men do masculinity and therefore, hegemonic
masculinity. At the same time the theoretical foundations of this
development drew ideas from a wide and complex array of theories located
in fields that included neo-Marxism, feminism, sexuality and
psychoanalysis. This interdisciplinarity was used as an attempt to address
an even more complex set of problems and issues about the way men do
masculinity. Nevertheless, from the mid 1980’s on-wards, as Connell and
Messerschmidt (2005, p.832) would later summarise, hegemonic
masculinity could, or perhaps should, be understood on the basis of a few
key claims:
[1] Hegemonic masculinity was understood as the pattern of practice (i.e.,
things done, not just a set of role expectations or an identity) that allowed
men’s dominance over women to continue…[2] hegemonic masculinity was
distinguished from other masculinities, especially subordinated
masculinities …[3] hegemonic masculinity was not assumed to be normal in
the statistical sense; only a minority of men might enact it. But it was
21 Howson – Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity
certainly normative. It embodied the currently most honored way of being a
man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it, and it
ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men” [my
emphases].
The aim of this article then, is to contribute to the on-going critical
analysis of the concept hegemonic masculinity. However, not in a way that
seeks the demise or supersession of the concept but rather to offer a critical
analysis of its theoretical operation that brings into focus these specific
claims: (1) that masculinity is something men do yet, (2) hegemonic
masculinity requires all men to position themselves in relation to it. In
trying to build some connection between these two claims as well as,
thinking through some of the key issues that have challenged hegemonic
masculinity over the last two to three decades this article re-introduces and
develops the concept of aspiration as one important way to re-articulate its
foundations as a practice-based concept and in so doing reinvigorate the
contemporary importance of hegemonic masculinity in the field of
masculinity theory.
From Practice to Position: Shifting the Focus of Hegemonic Masculinity
While each of these three claims that Connell and Messerschmidt make
remain important for how hegemonic masculinity is currently understood
and applied (critically or otherwise), the focus in this paper will be on the
two specific ideas identified above that is, that “[h]egemonic masculinity
was understood as the pattern of practice i.e., things done…[and hegemonic
masculinity] required all other men to position themselves in relation to it”.
These ideas expose two very different tasks for men in the construction of
their masculinity throughout their lives. Effectively, both relate to the idea
that hegemonic masculinity as it is expressed in a particular cultural1
situation is normative. Though for the vast majority of men, the patterns of
practice it expresses are largely unattainable or unachievable realities.
Therefore, even at a prima facie level the assumption that emerges
immediately is that rather than practicing the hegemonic form of masculinity
men alternatively “position themselves in relation to it” to gain whatever
advantages may flow from it. Now while it could be argued that positioning
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 22
oneself in relation to something else is itself a practice, to accept that this
can occur and is the practice that Connell refers to in the initial development
of the concept is complex and problematic. Not least because two crucial
questions remain unresolved in masculinities theory, for this author at least,
and at the same time go to the heart of understanding the importance of the
relationship between hegemonic masculinity and the concept of aspiration in
masculinity theory: [1] Does hegemonic masculinity exist, if so, where? [2]
How do men engage hegemonic masculinity?
To address these questions very briefly we could say that hegemonic
masculinity as an explanatory concept can really only be understood within
and through the theory of hegemony (its original framework) and for that,
we need to return to the work of Antonio Gramsci. Further, in the context of
this paper, two Gramscian concepts are of particular relevance and
importance: ‘commonsense’ and ‘good sense’ and the transformation of one
to the other. In the volume Hegemony it was shown, in the opening chapter,
why (following Gramsci 1971, p. 323-333) commonsense is crucial to how
we understand hegemony. In effect, it defines and describes the everyday
life and beliefs of a particular subaltern social group, it demands conformism
to the group’s particular traditional practices and beliefs, which in turn leads
to a fragmentation of civil society along the various and often competing
lines of commonsense. For Gramsci in the context of hegemony,
commonsense expressed a specific set of identities and configurations of
practice that are specific to that subaltern group and how they understand
their lives, practices and identities. It separated a subaltern group from the
broader community or what Gramsci referred to as the national popular
collective will. Commonsense cannot and does not reflect a hegemonic
consciousness or necessarily, hegemonic practices.
However, through the historical development of a particular hegemony it
is the case that a particular commonsense will emerge as both powerful and
legitimate in other words, it becomes the expression of authority. Through
this authority it is able to impose its commonsense across a cultural
situation. In so doing, it no longer becomes the set of configurations of
practice adhered to by a particular group but by all groups within a cultural
situation. It becomes the normative content of the national popular collective
will and as such, it assumes the expression of good sense. Good sense
becomes fundamentally linked to authority and provides the principles about
23 Howson – Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity
how all groups within the hegemony need to think and act. It is in other
words, the content of the hegemonic that contributes to the constitution of
the hegemony. Its task then, is to shift the nature of a cultural situation from
one of disunity where each subaltern group holds on to their own
commonsense, to one of unity where adherence to the configurations of
practice that articulate good sense are rewarded with inclusion while any
group that maintains their own commonsense consciousness and
configurations of practice are excluded. In the creation of the content of
good sense it is possible to identify particular hegemonic formations such as,
masculinity.
In the formulation of hegemonic masculinity as normative we see it
become and operate as a particular component of good sense because
ultimately its task is to build a ‘sense’ of unity within a gender order. If we
can accept that hegemonic masculinity is a characteristic of some hegemony
and further, that as such its aim is unification then it must engage the
national popular collective will of men and women and men and women
equally must engage it.
The claim that men engage hegemonic masculinity is not questioned in
masculinity theory. What becomes problematic is the claim, as Connell
makes clear, that the vast majority of men do not actually practice
hegemonic masculinity. This emphasis that men do not really practice
hegemonic masculinity, if it was to be taken as is, can only ever reduce
hegemonic masculinity to nothing more than an abstract concept operational
only in theoretical discussions. This is broadly the argument Michael Flood
(2002) made when he referred to “slippage” between concept and practice or
masculinity and men. That in turn sustains Alan Petersen’s (1999) critique of
the concept in which it is identified as the reification or the transcendence of
certain characteristics that in turn are always above or out of the reach of the
very complex realities of men’s actual lived identities and actions. This
underpins what in my own work is critically described as the over-simplified
emphasis on domination or the dominative nature of hegemonic masculinity.
Such critiques have resulted in the watering down of the importance of the
concept so that when it is used it becomes a descriptor for the pure
domination of men or masculine characteristics upon the whole of a cultural
situation. However, the use of hegemonic masculinity as a descriptor in this
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 24
way obfuscates its importance in the process of critically examining what
Jeff Hearn (2004) has referred to as the “hegemony of men”.
Returning to the nature of hegemony as the transformation of a particular
commonsense into the good sense that marks a national popular collective
will about gender within a cultural situation suggests that hegemonic
masculinity as a hegemonic component within a broad hegemony has a
significance beyond simple description. Hegemonic masculinity when
analysed through the theory of hegemony is a crucial concept in the
articulation of masculinities to hegemony. Effectively, it becomes the way
that men or at least the vast majority of men with all their differences align
to a normative and authoritative masculinity as re-presented in and through a
cultural situation. In an important reading of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony
the emphasis of understanding hegemony as an authoritative and normative
process as opposed to an authoritarian process is clarified by Joe Buttigieg
(2005) who argues that hegemony, or some aspect of hegemony, which we
might call a hegemonic, is not authoritarian and imposed dominatively upon
people, this would just be pure domination and in this context there could be
no hegemony. Rather, hegemony requires an environment where
authoritative leadership and persuasion can operate. It exposes the
importance for men to go beyond a particular commonsense to assume
alignment with the good sense of the hegemony. Most importantly, if
hegemonic masculinity exists as a component of hegemony whose ultimate
task is building a ‘sense’ of unification and that the unification process
begins, not at the level of practice but at the level of signification and
engagement, then the value of hegemonic masculinity is expressed not so
much on the basis of its domination but rather, on the basis of its
predominance. This is a subtle shift but one of some significance because it
emphasizes now not the direct and practical attribution of characteristics to
men. Characteristics that are themselves expressions of domination, for
example, all men are aggressive, all men will act as breadwinners etc. But
rather, hegemonic masculinity exposes the ascendancy, within a particular
hegemony, of certain broad ‘principles’ about how to be a man. These are
referred to as hegemonic principles (see Howson, 2006) and are:
heterosexuality, breadwinning and aggression to which I would now add:
whiteness.
25 Howson – Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity
Hegemonic principles play a central role in the operation of a ‘hegemonic’
within the hegemony. Their objective is twofold. First, they define and
describe an aspect of the hegemony by setting out the frames of the content
or in other words, the broad demands that then determine the identifications,
configurations of practices and relationships that in turn assume power
become legitimate and ultimately, normative. Second, these principles and
their content come to represent the desires, interests and values that the
hegemonic is able to extend into cultural life and thereby enable the
hegemony to expand around them. Because of this they are also the desires,
interests and values that emerge through authoritative processes of
persuasion and are protected so as to ensure the continuation of the nature,
operation and ultimately the reproduction of the hegemony. Hegemonic
principles though, are not given aprioristically and/or essentialistically. They
are, as is the case with hegemony itself, always the historical and
geographical product of the complex accumulation of contradictions
imposed on and being imposed by real social relations, practices and
consciousness upon a cultural situation. Therefore, they and the hegemony
they represent are never determined but always overdetermined (see
Althusser, 1969, p. 97–101; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985, p. 97–105).
While the case for hegemonic principles could be interpreted as simply
returning to an essentialist and attributional approach, the difference here is
that these principles are precisely that, principles and not specific
characteristics that are given to men simply because they are men. Rather,
they are cultural and how men (and women for that matter) engage these
principles will be different for individuals and particular groups. For
example, in the cultural situation marked by the Western hegemony of men
the content of the hegemonic principle: aggression, could be expressed as
domestic violence, public violence, competitiveness, sport, gay bashing, etc.
Therefore, different individual men and groups of men will align themselves
to aggression in their own way. This raises the additional problematic of
dealing with difference about men and masculinity and with difference
comes forms of inclusion and exclusion. Examples of legitimate and
therefore inclusive forms of aggression in the West may well appear as
competitiveness or even gay bashing in certain specific contexts while
terrorism on the other hand, is excluded.
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 26
So the question now for masculinity theory is not so much whether
hegemonic masculinity is a practice or even whether men position
themselves to hegemonic masculinity. In effect, hegemonic masculinity
enables and requires both. Instead, masculinities theory needs to consider
what mechanisms are available for men to enable this positioning and
alignment with hegemonic masculinity while allowing for the very real
differences in men? In this paper I want to suggest that a key mechanism is
aspiration.
Applying Aspiration to Masculinities Theory
Aspiration itself has had a long and somewhat ‘patchy’ history in the
humanities and social sciences. Within the latter, it has been the field of
social psychology that has seen most of the work to develop the concept.
However, what has been produced are varying approaches and definitions
that have in turn, seen aspiration linked to concepts such as, motivation,
expectations, drives and goals. Almost everything that masculinities theory,
organized around the concept of hegemonic masculinity has been trying to
critique and move beyond. Notwithstanding, Margaret Wetherell and Nigel
Edley’s (1999) social psychological work presented in the article
‘Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary Positions and PsychoDiscursive Practices’ has brought the concept of aspiration in direct
engagement with hegemonic masculinity. Very briefly, the aim of this work
by Wetherell and Edley can be interpreted as a unique as well as important
intervention into masculinity theory by presenting hegemonic masculinity
effectively as an “aspirational goal” (Wetherell & Edley, 1999, p. 337).
Therefore, it gives for the first time a way of recognizing hegemonic
masculinity not simply as configurations of practices that all men actually
engage in their everyday life but as a set of rules to which all men must try
to align to albeit in their own way. For this reason alone it becomes a
particularly important piece of work even though this idea has remained
undeveloped if not marginalized in the development of the broader
masculinity theory that followed.
For the purposes of this paper it is possible to draw a line through the
diversity of social psychological explanations about aspiration as well as,
draw ideas from other more sociological approaches. Further, aspiration
27 Howson – Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity
works closely with the operation of hegemony particularly in the context of
Buttigieg’s argument that hegemony is crucially about persuasion to and
therefore complicity. It can be argued then, that aspiration represents the
expression of the difference between what men can achieve and what men
should achieve. More importantly, within a cultural situation, aspiration
operates as a process (constituted by consciousness and practice) that
enables the alignment of men’s practices and identities to a goal that exposes
achievement as always already heterogeneous. In this context the notions of
attribution, practice and achievement need to be subordinated because by not
subordinating these notions there will remain a slippage within hegemonic
masculinity from it as configurations of practice to the description of what is
actually occurring. As a result all the old explanatory problems reemerge
that in, turn distracts analysis from the more important task, that of
examining the conditions for the existence and operation of hegemonic
masculinity.
But here I want to go a bit further and suggest that aspiration does not
operate as a purely subjective condition but that in line with the discussion
so far, and in particular with respect to the operation of hegemonic
principles, that aspiration reflects the enabling of men’s subjectivity about
their masculinity to be directed towards the objectivity2 of hegemony. The
idea here is to begin and continue the development of a careful definition of
aspiration that attempts to avoid the traps of psychologizing the whole thing
and then try to measure the aspiration gap, that is, the distance between what
men can and what men should achieve. I would argue that there may well be
some sort of aspiration gap but this can only be conceptualized within
hegemony and at the intersection of the historically and geographically
produced social, economic and political conditions that are prevalent.
An important starting point in the development of a social understanding
of aspiration within a hegemonic conceptual framework is the work of Arjun
Appadurai (2004, p.67) and particularly his chapter ‘The Capacity to Aspire’
in which he develops the idea of a “culture of aspiration”. Here there is a
particular focus on the poor, undeveloped peoples or as Gramsci would refer
to them, the subaltern groups and their situations in India. Appadurai is
correctly insistent that aspirations are socially determined, the consequence
of which is unevenness in the capacity to aspire between powerful and less
powerful people in society. He states:
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 28
[Aspirations] are always formed in interaction and in the thick of social life
...a poor Tamil peasant woman’s view of the good life may be as distant
from that of a cosmopolitan woman from Delhi, as from that of an equally
poor woman from Tanzania.
Appadurai sets “culture” as the frame for this understanding but I would
like to argue that there is value in understanding the cultural frame as
hegemonically produced. One justification for this movement is that culture
has its own problems when trying to explain the complexity of a cultural
situation. For example, does culture differ from the social or the
psychological, if so how? Does culture engage these two realms equally?
What do we do in a cultural situation where there are many competing
subaltern cultures all of whom are competing for space and scarce
resources? What we do know is that not all these subaltern cultures have
equal power to express themselves or to mobilise resources to ensure
attainment of hegemonic outcomes. This is why Appadurai applies to culture
the concepts of ‘terms of recognition’ as well as, ‘voice’ and ‘exit’. While
the meaning of voice and exit are perhaps obvious, for Appadurai terms of
recognition represent ways of being that are given to the poor and thereby
allow their poverty to take on a generalized autonomous form. The
“given[ness]” of these terms occur because the poor lack social and
economic capital, and thus have little to no influence on how they are
represented and/or perceived in the larger community. Of course
Appadurai’s use of the concept: terms of recognition can be seen as closely
related to the Gramscian concepts of commonsense and good sense
particularly as it applies to and is operationalised by subaltern groups.
Without these concepts, the use of culture lacks the explanatory social,
economic and political foci and as a result assumes a blandness that
struggles to effectively express the complexity of cultural and hegemonic
life itself.
Incorporating hegemony into this model takes us a little further into the
complexities of a cultural situation and gives increased explanatory power to
the concepts of culture, terms of recognition and exit and voice. It allows us
to think historically and dialectically across the most important aspects of
culture: power (politics), production (social and economic), cathexis
(emotions/attachments) and symbolism (signification). Most importantly,
29 Howson – Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity
examining the operation of aspiration in the context of hegemony enables an
understanding of how and why people struggle to achieve in their life, even
when achievement for some ensures failure and/or struggle for the other.
This is particularly evident in Appadurai’s discussion of poor people in
India. Regardless of the fact that poverty is the way of life for these people,
Appadurai makes the point that they are not simple dupes dominated and
forced to accept the certain principles as norms. Rather that they have a
“deeply ambivalent” relationship to these principles. For example, the
“untouchables” excluded from the strict Hindu Caste structure are
nevertheless complicit with the religious structure and aspire to its beliefs
and principles thereby supporting and even actively contributing to
sustaining the very same caste system that completely marginalises them
from society.
This broad approach to aspiration has a real resonance with the
discussion of hegemonic masculinity and in particular the claim that men
position themselves to it creating a system of complicity. More specifically,
we can begin to accept that the very system of persuasion and complicity
that ensures the vast majority of men will never achieve the hegemonic
‘prize’ is the very same system that contains precisely those things that men
continue to aspire towards. Further, and drawing from Appadurai, men who
are subordinated and marginalized within the gender system exercise an
ambivalence towards the system but nevertheless, regardless of the
difficulties continue to aspire to engage it and thereby position themselves
effectively towards the hegemonic. Complicity is not a simple process
particularly with a hegemonic masculinity whose principles exclude specific
content. As a result it will make it difficult for some men to achieve, unless
of course new and alternative strategies are put in place.
Men and Aspiration in Transnational Contexts
Transnational is a concept that since its introduction into the literature on
migration and settlement in the mid-1990s, is increasingly becoming an
important aspect of a wide range of feminist and gender-sensitive work that
examines global change (Hearn & Pringle, 2006, p.10). It can be understood
as people moving between countries and the actions they take that link
together the societies of origin and settlement (Basch, Glick Schiller, &
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 30
Blanc-Szanton, 1994, p.6). Therefore, transnationalisation may be
understood as a process in which operates a series of dynamic and unstable
identifications and practices through which complex conceptions of
membership are established in both the country of origin as well as, the
country of settlement (Baubock, 2003, p.700-701). From its introduction
gender has figured in the development of the concept. Hondagneu-Sotelo
(1994) for example, stressed the importance of gender not just to
identification in migration processes but also for effective settlement by
showing through her research that ‘[g]ender is not simply a variable to be
measured, but a set of social relations that organise immigration patterns’.
Smith and Guarnizo (2007, p.26) have more recently outlined the importance
and complexity of gender within transnationalisation and stress that gender
must be studied as part of a systematic analysis that includes meso and
macro-dimensions. The importance of analysing the dimensional
intersections (micro-meso-macro) in the transnationalisation process is that
this allows for a better understanding of the diversity of experiences
operating across and between the structural-subjective constraints of a
particular locality. Thus Mahler (2007, p.83) stresses that there needs to be
consistent examination of the degree to which participation in activities
within transnational social spaces in general is gendered and, most
importantly, examination of the consequences of this gendered participation.
Notwithstanding this important work, until recently scholarship that has
focused on the transnational has largely escaped scrutiny within the field of
masculinity theory3. As such there remains immense scope for ‘extending
critical analysis into national and cultural contextualisation of men’s
practices and masculinities, and their problematisation’ (Hearn & Pringle
2006, p.10-11). More importantly, examination of migrant men with a focus
on the transnational nature of their lives in their new cultural situations
offers the analyst a new clarity into the way aspiration operates with
hegemonic masculinity because of the need to be cognizant of the
complexities involved when crossing source and host cultural situations and
their hegemonic content. This complexity of transnationalisation as an
ongoing process and how it operationalises aspiration as an aspect of
migrant men’s development of their masculinity became particularly evident
in two recent events in Australia. Both events highlight and bring to the fore
the distance that exists between what men can do and what men should do
31 Howson – Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity
and even more important, how men existing in transnational contexts
negotiate these questions as part of their alignment to a particular hegemonic
masculinity.
In the first event, which took place between 2009 and 2010 Australians
became aware of a growing series of attacks on predominantly male
university students visiting from India but living and working, while
studying, in Australia. It is unclear from the media reports precisely who the
perpetrator/s were or what their motives could be. Nevertheless, it is clear
that it is males who are the target and in this situation males who have
exposed the existence of a new transnational identity that is, the international
student. As Forbes-Mewett and Nyland (2008) point out, international
students encounter difficulties seldom experienced by domestic students and
that these difficulties relate to academic and social aspects of their stay in the
host country. International students are particularly caught in a transnational
context because they need to adapt quickly to a foreign education system and
a foreign language and culture and then just like migrants, they also need to
adjust to being part of a social minority; that is, they encounter difficulties
associated with being different. Although some of the problems faced by
international students are related to adjustment in a foreign culture, “some of
the more serious challenges are due to inadequacies within the host society”.
With language and culture embedded in the social structures of the host
country, it is not surprising that international student groups such as, Asian
students often place great importance on informal networks as opposed to
utilising the host country’s formal structural procedures when in need. What
becomes evident through this research and the violent events against male
Indian students is that there was a lack of aspiration and thus alignment to
the Australian hegemonic masculinity and as a result of the compounding
effects of a maintenance of a commonsense amongst the male Indian
students and inadequacies in the Australian social structures that was unable
to incorporate the differences in practices operating in these new
transnational contexts, the result was violent reactions.
In a different way, violence also operated in the other event to be
discussed here. In October 2009 five Australian men, all Muslim, were
sentenced to substantial jail time for conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts as
part of Jihad against Australia. This followed the earlier arrest, charging and
sentencing of four other men. All these Muslim men were Australian citizens
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 32
who had immigrated earlier and lived and worked within Australian
communities. Yet they were willing to attack their new home country. These
events highlight the complexity of masculinity in transnational contexts in
terms of social exclusion. As discussed above aggression operates as a
hegemonic principle but as a principle its content becomes culturally
specific. The operationalisation of aggression is hegemonically masculine
but the specific practice that is, terrorism, through which aggression is
expressed in this event actually marginalizes these men and enables the
potential for social exclusion in the country of settlement. The exclusion of
this content from hegemonic masculinity is very often, and was the case in
the Australian context, generated by the host culture. It was a content that
these men could not or would not engage thus leaving what these men saw
as few options available to align to the hegemonic masculinity of the host
country. In the case of these Muslim Jihadists their actions operated at the
intersection of religious and gender at least, but nevertheless it reflected a
conscious intent to act as men and Muslims. This aspiration to enact
violence appears associated with full awareness of their current and future
exclusion. The latter instance is merely a specific particularly deliberate
example of migrants’ undertaking actions despite awareness of exclusionary
consequences. Other instances might include domestic violence or cultural
practices which are unacceptable to the host culture. The crucial point here is
that the examples of social exclusion both imposed and ‘chosen’,
specifically involve men as key players and expose a inability by
transnational men to align to the particular hegemonic masculinity.
Conclusion
Neither masculine nor transnational practices take place in imaginary ‘third
spaces’ (Bhabha, 1990). The notion that men operate in a space apart from
gender, or that transnationalisation is effectively a deterritorialising process
producing ‘liberatory’ and ‘boundless’ possibilities (to perhaps follow Jihad
or even complete a degree) in a new land, underestimates the imperatives
that ‘contextuality’ imposes (Smith & Guarnizo, 2007, p.11). This raises the
issue of the ways in which transnational men might be caught between the
local and the cosmopolitan, between supposedly bounded and unbounded
conceptions of hegemonic masculinities. What becomes evident even in this
33 Howson – Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity
brief examination of aspiration and hegemonic masculinity in transnational
contexts is that regardless of the fact that men will differ in the way they
practice certain aspects of masculinity such as aggression, men do align
themselves to certain broad principles. In turn this raises the question about
which conception of masculinity do these men align too? The emergence of
a return to liberal integrationist policy on migration in Australia (see Hearn
& Howson, 2009, p. 53) signals a new imperative to engage and re-examine
the ideas of aspiration and boundedness in relation to masculinities but also,
a new requirement to explore how men conduct themselves when bounded
by a given context.
Notes
1
A cultural situation is as a term that will be used here to refer to the synthesis of the social,
economic and political aspects of life in a particular geographic and historical context. It is a
term that follows what Gramsci referred to as the “historical bloc”.
2
I want to note that the use of the term objectivity to describe hegemony is always cognisant
that the objectivity of hegemony is problematic as described by Gramsci’s (1971, p. 137)
through the idea of ‘unstable equlibria’ and Laclau’s (1990) argument that hegemony is
always marked by ‘antagonism’ and ‘social dislocation’.
3
The recent volumes Migrant Men (2009) and Rethinking Transnational Men (2013) are of
course exceptions to this claim.
References
Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx. London: Allen Lane.
Appadurai, A. (2004). The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of
recognition. In R.Vijayendra & M.Walton. (Eds.), Culture and
Public Action (pp.59-84). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Basch, G., Glick Schiller, N., & Blanc-Szanton, C. (1994). Nations
unbound: Transnational projects, post-colonial predicaments and
deterritorialized Nation-States. Langhorne, PA: Gordon and Breach.
Bauböck, R. (2003). Towards a political theory of migrant transnationalism.
International Migration Review, 37, 3, 700-723.
Bhabha, K. (1990). Nation and narration. New York: Routledge
Buttigieg, J. (2005). The contemporary discourse on civil society: A
Gramscian critique. Boundary 2,32(1), 33-52.
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 34
Connell, R.W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity,
rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859. doi:
10.1177/0891243205278639
Donaldson, M & Howson, R. (2009). Men, migration and hegemonic
masculinity. In M.Donaldson, R.Hibbins, R.Howson, & B.Pease
(Ed.). Migrant Men: Critical Studies of Masculinities and the
Migration Experience (pp.210-217). New York: Routledge.
Flood, M. (2002). Between men and masculinity, An assessment of the
term masculinity in recent scholarship on men. In S.Pearce &
V.Muller (Eds.), Manning the next millennium: Studies in
masculinities (pp. 203-2013). Perth: Black Swan.
Forbes-Mewett, H., & Nyland, C. (2008). Cultural diversity, relocation, and
the security of international students at an internationalised
university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 181203. doi:10.1177/1028315307308136
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London:
Lawrence and Wishart.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men.
Feminist Theory, 5, 49. doi: 10.1177/1464700104040813
Hearn, J., & Pringle, K. (2006). European perspectives on men and
masculinities: National and transnational approaches. Palgrave
Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Hearn, J., & Howson, R. (2009). Policy, men and transnationalism. In M.
Donaldson, R. Hibbins, R. Howson & B. Pease (Eds.), Migrant men:
Critical studies of masculinities and the migration experience (pp41-59). New York: Routledge.
Hearn, J., Blagojevic, M., & Harrison, K. (2013). Rethinking transnational
men: Beyond, between and within nations. New York: Routledge.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences
of immigration. University of California Press: Berkeley.
Howson, R. (2006). Challenging Hegemonic Masculinity. London:
Routledge
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy:
Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
Laclau, E. (1990). New Reflections on the Revolution of our Time. London:
Verso.
35 Howson – Re-Thinking Aspiration and Hegemonic Masculinity
Mahler, S. J. (2007). Theoretical and empirical contributions toward a
research agenda for transnationalism. In M. P. Smith & L.E.
Guarnizo (Eds.), Transnationalism from below (pp.64-100).
Transaction Publishers: New Jersey.
Petersen, A. (1999). Unmasking the masculine, ‘Men’ and ‘Identity’ in a
sceptical age. London: Sage.
Smith, M. P., & Guarnizo, L. E. (2007). Locations of transnationalism. In
P.M. Smith & L.E. Guarnizo (Eds.), Transnationalism from below
(pp. 3-35). Transaction Publishers: New Jersey.
Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity:
Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism
Psychology, 9, 335.
Richard Howson is Senior Lecturer in the Sociology Program at the
University of Wollongong.
Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Richard Howson, School
of Humanities & Social Inquiry, Building 19, University of
Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia,
email: [email protected].
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
Disabled Masculinities: A Review and Suggestions for Further
Research
Timothy Barrett 1
1) Monash University, Australia
th
Date of publication: February 21 , 2014
Edition period: February 2014-June 2014
To cite this article: Barrett, T. (2014). Disabled Masculinities: A Review and
Suggestions for Further Research. Masculinities and Social Change, 3 (1), 36-61.
doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014.41
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/MCS.2014.41
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 36-61
Disabled Masculinities: A
Review and Suggestions for
Further Research
Timothy Barrett
Monash University, Australia
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the existing sociological literature relating to
disabled masculinities, a field of enquiry that has undergone substantial
development over the past two decades. I contend that previous studies have
insightfully uncovered the social forces that have established a “dilemma of disabled
masculinity” within contemporary Western societies, as well as the complex,
contextualised and multiple ways in which disabled men negotiate this dilemma. To
foster the further development of the field, I suggest three potentially productive
lines for future enquiry. Specifically, I support greater attention to the issue of
comparative diversity between impairment categories, a consideration of the
generative role that disability may have in relation to masculinity, and more
sustained enquiry into how changing constructions of masculinity inflect the lives of
disabled men.
Keywords: disability, masculinity, literature review, qualitative research, sociology
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.40
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 36-61
Masculinidades con
Discapacidad: Una Revisión y
Sugerencias para Ampliar la
Investigación
Timothy Barrett
Monash University, Australia
Resumen
Este artículo proporciona un sumario de la literatura sociológica existente
relacionada a la masculinidad discapacitada. Este campo de investigación ha tenido
un desarrollo substancial en las últimas dos décadas. Argumento que sin darse
cuenta los estudios anteriores han puesto al descubierto las fuerzas sociales que
establecen un “dilema de masculinidad discapacitada” dentro de las sociedades
occidentales, como también las múltiples, complejas y contextualizadas diversas
maneras con las que los hombres discapacitados tratan este dilema. Para promover
el desarrollo de este campo, sugiero tres líneas potencialmente productivas para
mayor investigación. Específicamente, apoyo la cuestión de la diversidad
comparativa entre categorías de discapacidad, una consideración al rol generativo
que la discapacidad pudiera tener en relación a la masculinidad y una investigación
mayor de cómo las construcciones cambiantes de la masculinidad influyen en las
vidas de los hombres discapacitados.
Palabras clave: discapacidad, masculinidad, revisión de literatura, investigación
cualitativa, sociología
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.40
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 38
T
he decentring of a singular “masculinity” produced through the
employment of anthropological and historical material (Herdt,
1981; Kersten, 1996), the increasing scholarly influence of the
concept of “intersectionality” (Crenshaw, 1991; Nash, 2011), and the
recognition of the patriarchal role of struggles and inequalities between
distinct groups of men (Connell, 1995), have meant that it has become
orthodoxy within the sociology of men and masculinities to talk not of a
static, singular male gender identity, but rather in the plural form of
“masculinities” (Connell, 1995; Segal, 2007, p. xxxiv). The purpose of this
term is to recognise that the notion of masculinity cannot be adequately
conceptualised using quantitative measures of differentiation, popular
within socio-psychological studies that “calculate” masculinity through the
deployment of standardised surveys (Carrigan et al., 1985, p. 566); but,
rather, that the qualitative understandings, practices and outcomes of
masculinity are inflected by, and shift according to, both distinct group
memberships and historical/spatial contexts (Connell, 1995; Messner, 1997,
p.7).
Scholarly deployments of the concept of intersectionality have,
according to Jennifer Nash (2011), undergone a recent shift. Whereas
previously, as exemplified in the work of African-American feminists
(Collins, 1990), priority was accorded to mutually reinforcing and
compounding forms of exclusion, recent engagements with intersectionality
have examined interactions between distinct components of selfhood,
without an a priori determination regarding their position within the binary
of privilege/oppression. The opportunities such a shift presents are
significant, allowing for a scholarly examination of how experiences of
privilege are tempered by, or negotiated according to, alternate patterns of
exclusion. It is within this ethic that the common contention that male
gender, instantiated as the default position of humanity, is accorded a
privileged invisibility (e.g. Kimmel, 1993), can be problematised; while
such a claim may reflect the experiences of white, middle-class,
nondisabled heterosexual men (although even this is debated, see Robinson,
2000), its veracity becomes more complex with regards to subaltern groups.
It is often substantially (although not exclusively) through the
“visibilisation” of a problematic male gender identity that patterns of
homophobia, racism, and classism are expressed (Coston & Kimmel, 2012).
39 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
We may think, for instance, of the cultural distaste for the excessive
femininity ascribed to gay men (Kimmel, 1994), the passivity and
diminished phallic power socially projected onto Asian men (Han, 2000), or
the uncivilised and homophobic hypermasculinity attached to AfricanAmerican (Schmitt, 2002) and working class (Embrick et al., 2007) men.
In this article, I pursue a consideration of the extant literature within the
field of disabled masculinities. In recent decades, a burgeoning interest has
emerged in this area, inspired by the growing prominence of both the
critical study of men and masculinities and disability studies. I begin the
body of the paper by discussing the two themes that have dominated
previous discussions of this issue – particularly focusing on, firstly, the
social forces that seemingly establish an inverse relationship between
masculinity and disability, and, secondly, how disabled men negotiate this.
I will contend that this literature remains limited in three ways, relating to
the problems of what I term comparative diversity, generativity and
historicity. This paper intends to encourage further research in this area, by
provoking questions that have hitherto remained at the margins of
sociological inquiry. In conclusion, I stress the importance of maintaining a
strong emphasis on feminist modes of analysis within this scholarly
context, by maintaining an awareness of the complex patterns of privilege
and disadvantage that disabled men negotiate.
The Dilemma of Disabled Masculinity
As noted by Rosemary Garland-Thomson (1997, p.6), cultural
representations of disabled characters have characteristically been
strategically deployed as narrative devices, designed not to offer insight
into the experience of disability, or everyday realities of inequality and
exclusion, but rather as symbols designed to evoke broader cultural
anxieties surrounding mortality, vulnerability and weakness (see also
Mitchell, 2002). It is perhaps within the realm of filmic representation that
the relationship between disability and masculinity within contemporary
Western contexts has historically been most unambiguously expressed:
disability, these texts imply, is antithetical to, or mutually exclusive with,
masculinity – they are oppositional (Morris, 1991; Shakespeare, 1996;
Longmore, 2003). The central character of the 1981 film Whose Life Is It
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 40
Anyway?, played by Richard Dreyfuss, who is paralysed from the neck
down in the aftermath of an automotive accident, describes himself as
“dead already”, “a vegetable” and “not a man anymore”. Paralysed during
the Vietnam War in Born on the Fourth of July (1989), Tom Cruise’s
character talks of his “dead penis”, crying with anguish “Who will love
me?”. More recently, in the high grossing Avatar (2009), Jack Sully (played
by Sam Worthington), has his manhood “sullied” by spinal cord injury,
which can only be reclaimed through the virtual resumption of a normative,
able-bodied selfhood, and the salvaged corporeal power and sexual virility
that this implies.
The scholarly literature is replete with theoretical material and empirical
evidence demonstrating conflict between “disability” and “masculinity”
within contemporary Western contexts. Disability has been described as a
form of “symbolic castration” (Shakespeare, 1999, p.57), setting in motion
the “dilemma of disabled masculinity” (Shuttleworth et al., 2012, p.175),
and threatening “all the cultural values of masculinity” (Murphy, 1990, p.
94). Disabled men, it has been contended, are, alongside a whole raft of
social groups, positioned as “others” against which the norms of hegemonic
masculinity are defined and legitimated, coming to signify everything
which “real men” must repudiate in their quest to approximate culturally
legitimated modes of manhood (Morris, 1991; Shakespeare, 1999;
Gerschick & Miller, 2000, p. 125-6). The scope and variety of this literature
render summation somewhat difficult, however five interrelated themes (as
identified in the qualitative research of Gerschick, 1998, p. 193-203) appear
to possess particular significance in understanding the tension between
disability and masculinity within contemporary Western cultures: access to
the labour market, independence, sexuality, embodiment, and sport. Each of
these will be briefly considered in turn.
Firstly, a range of social forces have problematised disabled men’s
access to the role of breadwinner. Two broadly coterminous historical
trends associated with the advent of modernity are significant here. The
emergence of the modern gendered division of labour positioned
masculinity as defined and authenticated within the realm of the workplace,
where one’s capacities to compete against (male) others, and provide for
one’s family, were tested and valorised (Landes, 2003; Kimmel, 2010).
Concurrently, the emergence of capitalism developed alongside the
41 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
materialisation of a factory system that required particular, standardised
incarnations of embodiment in regards to size, capacity, shape and mobility,
that often excluded disabled men (Finkelstein, 1980; Oliver, 1990).
Disabled men were simultaneously both required to participate in the labour
market by virtue of their gender, and excluded from it by virtue of their
disability. While “post-Fordist” developments within contemporary
Western labour markets relating to the decline of manufacturing,
technological diversification, the growth of non-standard, flexible and/or
risky work arrangements, and a growing emphasis on symbolic labour
(Beck, 1992, p.139-50; Jessop, 1995), as well as the widespread entry of
women into the workforce (Thévenon, 2013), have destabilised the
foundations of this narrative, disabled men remain marginalised within the
labour market. Contemporary evidence suggests that disabled men
experience higher rates of unemployment, underemployment, precarious
employment and poverty, and lower labour force participation rates and
incomes, than nondisabled men – although, significantly, disabled men
continue to accrue privilege over disabled women according to these
indicators (Kidd, et al., 2000; Wilkins, 2004).
Closely linked to the exclusion of disabled men within the labour market
have been historical associations between disability and dependency.
Feminist psychoanalysts have contended that the construction of a male
gender identity is centrally dependent upon the establishment of strong
psychic and social boundaries around the self; to be masculine is to be a
self-reliant, independent, separate “individual” (Gilligan, 1993; Chodorow,
1999). Social barriers that inhibit the accomplishment of daily activities
may render disabled men dependent upon others for the fulfilment of their
needs. This is evident within the context of social policy, which has
conventionally defined disability in terms of a legitimate incapacity to
work, rendering disabled people a group that can justifiably claim welfare
without the stigma of mendicancy (Stone, 1984; Longmore, 2003). Yet, as
Paul Longmore (2003) contends, this “privilege” comes at a cost, defining
disabled people as categorically incapable, dependent and incompetent.
Qualitative research has demonstrated the anxieties disabled men
experience within the context of caring relationships: of feeling
emasculated, not wanting to be a burden on others, and expressing
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 42
frustration at perceptions of powerlessness (Valentine, 1999, p.172-4;
Joseph & Lindegger, 2007; Ostrander, 2008a, 2008b).
The performance of masculine gender identities is centrally bound up
with the realm of sexuality, and in particular social expectations that require
men to “prove” their manhood through (hetero)sexual conquest (Kimmel,
1994; Connell, 1995). Hegemonic constructions of male sexuality
emphasise the rejection of homosexuality (Sedgwick, 1985; Butler, 1993;
Pascoe, 2007) the corporeal performance of dominance over women (Rich,
1980),
and
affirm
simultaneous
patterns
of
homosocial
connection/competition between men (Sedgwick, 1985). Recent
sociological scholarship engaging with the intersection between disability
and sexuality has moved beyond the medical model contention that disabled
men simply cannot do “it” (although this may sometimes be the case, when
sex is defined in narrowly heterosexist, penetrative and reproductive terms),
to examine the panoply of social forces that establish barriers towards full
sexual citizenship (Hahn, 1981; Weeks, 1998; Shakespeare, 2000).
Disabled people are commonly represented as either asexual, or as existing
in a child-like state of innocence, uninterested, or unable to participate, in
sexual life (Shakespeare, 1999, p.55-8; Lindemann, 2010b, p. 436-8). The
disabling barriers that inhibit disabled people from participation in
mainstream educational institutions, workplaces, and leisure venues, render
it difficult to meet potential partners, as does the discomfort that many
personal carers and medical professionals have in terms of facilitating
sexual encounters for disabled clients (Mairs, 2002, p.157-64; Shuttleworth,
2004).
The replication of male gender norms is further problematised by
disabled embodiment. As noted by R. W. Connell (1995, p.45), “(t)rue
masculinity is always thought to proceed from men’s bodies – to be
inherent in a male body or to express something about a male body”.
Historically, men’s bodies have been idealised through a series of gendered
polarities – they are strong (not weak), active (not passive), subjects (not
objects), competent (not ineffectual), productive (not redundant),
invulnerable (not vulnerable), and hard (not soft) (Jefferson, 1998; Meeuf,
2009). Disabled men have historically represented the abject repository of
all that has been expelled from traditional accounts of male embodiment
(Morris, 1991; Gerschick & Miller, 2000, p.125-6). Recent developments
43 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
within the realms of consumer capitalism, and the formation of male beauty
industries, have destabilised the edifice of this “hard” male body, inducing
men to treat the physical form as (in part) ornamental (Lingis, 1994, p.30-3;
Bordo, 1999). Yet, while this has troubled some of the static binary
oppositions of gendered embodiment noted above, the construction of the
“beautiful male body” remains problematic, in terms of its consumerist
elitism, and its solid foundation within (white, middle-class) nondisabled
corporeal norms (e.g. Taleporos & McCabe, 2002). Disabled embodiment,
within our culture, is associated with neither masculine productivity (Stone,
1984; Longmore, 2003), nor masculine beauty (c/f Hahn, 1988).
Associations between disability and embodied lack are further
legitimated within the realm of competitive sports. Sportsmen are
exemplars of contemporary Western manhood because of their
competitiveness, embodied skill, expertise in physical domination, and their
inclusion in homosocial networks (Connell, 1995; Spencer, 2013).
Sociologists have documented the function of sporting contexts as central
locales for the routinised expression, regulation and development of
masculine personal identities (Mangan, 1981; Messner & Sabo, 1994).
Disability sports have grown in size and prominence over the past three
decades, exemplified by the emergence of the Paralympic movement since
1988 (Thomas & Smith, 2003). However, disabled sportsmen tend to be
positioned in an implicit hierarchy with their nondisabled counterparts, as
evidenced by limited levels of media coverage, spectatorship and access to
sponsorships. There is, further, a tendency to regard disabled athletes as
inspirational “supercrips”, whose primary contribution is to inspire a nondisabled audience, rather than being valued as exemplars of athletic
prowess (Thomas & Smith, 2003; Hardin & Hardin, 2004; Purdue & Howe,
2012). Disabled men who are unable (whether because of physical ability,
social exclusion, or a combination of the two) to engage in mainstream
sporting contexts may subsequently be denied access to a central arena
associated with the production of masculine selves.
Disabled Men Negotiating Masculinity
The “dilemma of disabled masculinity” (Shuttleworth et al., 2012), or the
“status inconsistency” (Gerschick, 2000, p.1265), associated with
identification as both male and disabled, has been perhaps the most
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 44
significant and consistent finding of the existing literature (e.g. Morris,
1991; Gerschick, 1998; Shakespeare, 1999). There has equally, however,
been a recognition that the ways disabled men manage this dilemma is not
static or straightforward, but rather reflects active and tactical patterns of
identity construction that implicate a variety of social norms, resources,
relationships and contexts (e.g. Charmaz, 1994; Valentine, 1999; Rapala &
Manderson, 2005). In a classic, and widely referenced, paper, Thomas
Gerschick and Adam Miller (2000) conducted in-depth qualitative
interviews with ten physically impaired men, designed to interrogate their
psychosocial experience and negotiation of gender. They proposed three
distinct categories through which disabled men’s responses to hegemonic
masculinity could be framed. These categories, they note, are not static
labels, but rather heuristic devices designed to capture contextually
grounded social logics. Individual men may strategically shift between
approaches depending upon a range of factors, including access to
resources, institutional situation, life course position, and impairment
type/severity/stage (Gerschick & Miller, 2000; Wilson, 2004).
The first strategy, reliance, involves a continued commitment to
conventional ideals of strength, sexual virility, independence, selfsufficiency, athleticism and competence (Gerschick & Miller, 2000, p.303). Researchers have documented how disabled men may deploy tropes
relating to sport, sexual prowess, sexism, homosocial bonding and
homophobia in the pursuit of a culturally legitimated masculine identity
(Wilson, 2004; Jeffreys, 2008, p.331-4; Lindemann, 2010a, 2010b). This
tactic is somewhat compensatory, aiming to undermine associations
between disability and emasculation (Lindemann, 2010a); yet, by
privileging existing conceptions of hegemonic masculinity, disabled men
can become complicit in the social hierarchies characteristic of the existing
gender order, attaining privilege through the rejection of women,
homosexuality and “other” (non-masculine) disabled men (Hutchinson &
Kleiber, 2000; Gibson et al., 2007, p.510; Lindemann, 2010a). The strategy
of reliance, further, fails to challenge the structural contradiction embedded
within the dilemma of disabled masculinity, potentially generating feelings
of inadequacy when the performance of idealised (ableist) conceptions of
manhood is rendered unachievable due to an impairment (Gerschick &
45 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
Miller, 2000, p.30-1; Huchinson & Kleiber, 2000; Sparkes & Smith, 2002;
Good et al., 2008).
Secondly, rejecting hegemonic masculinity is the most radical approach
identified by Gerschick and Miller (2000, p.133-5), involving an eschewal
of the gendered expectations and practices that embed a structural
contradiction at the intersection between masculinity and disability within
contemporary Western cultures. The way disabled men may reconstruct
their sexual identities offers an insightful example of this strategy; Michael
Tepper (1999), for instance, in the aftermath of a spinal cord injury,
discusses the importance of “letting go” of masculine conceptions of
sexuality centred around phallic penetration, spontaneity, control, the
rejection of intimacy and the objectification of women (see also
Shakesepeare, 1999, p.58; Gerschick & Miller, 2000, p.134-5). This stance
may also be evident in Paul Abbsersley’s (1996, p.68-74) theoretical
rejection of labour market participation as the ultimate determinant of
human value. This strategy may be the most politically progressive when
judged from a feminist standpoint, but is nevertheless difficult, both in
terms of the practical possibility of the wholesale rejection of masculine
norms (Coston & Kimmel, 2012), and the social regulation and censure that
may result from this rejection (e.g. Hutchinson & Kleiber, 2000).
Reformulation, finally, involves a pragmatic recalculation of the norms
associated with masculinity. Rather than uncritically relying on
conventional gender ideologies, or absolutely eschewing them, the strategy
of reformulation involves the tactical development of an understanding of
masculinity that is consistent with the specific resources and life-course
situation that an individual confronts (Gerschick & Miller, 2000, 127-30).
Tony Coles (2008, p.238) figuratively associates reformulation with mosaic
art forms, involving individuals “drawing upon fragments or pieces of
hegemonic masculinity which they have the capacity to perform and
piecing them together to reformulate what masculinity means to them”.
Daniel Wilson (2004, p.128-31), for instance, in his narrative analysis of
the memoirs of polio survivors, notes how male authors came to reject the
deployment of figurative discourses of war, violence and sport to represent
their “battle” against disability as they grew older, increasingly accepting
their bodies as mortal and fallible, while simultaneously maintaining a
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 46
narrative investment in the identity of a wizened, experienced form of elder
masculinity (see also Smith, 2013).
Developing the Study of Disabled Masculinities
The structural contradictions embedded between disability and masculinity
within contemporary Western societies, and the diverse, creative and
contextually specific ways in which disabled men negotiate these
contradictions, have been the pivotal insights emerging from the existing
literature. In this section, I will critically identify three aporias or
limitations characteristic of sociological representations of the intersection
between disability and masculinity. In particular, I complicate narratives of
the “dilemma of disabled masculinity” by highlighting the interrelated
issues of what I term comparative diversity, generativity and historicity.
The substance of each of these limitations will be demonstrated by drawing
upon insights that emerge at the periphery of the scholarly nexus between
disability and gender, but each, I will contend, requires further and more
sustained development within the context of sociology.
Firstly, the field of disabled masculinities could benefit from more
thorough engagement with the implications of the corporeal, sensory and
cognitive forms of comparative diversity that exist within the category of
“disability”. Russell Shuttleworth, Nikki Wedgwood and Nathan Wilson
(2012, p.182-6) note that the extant literature expresses a consistent
tendency to examine how “masculinity” interacts with “disability” as
generic categories. However, the term “disability” as a generic singular
concept can problematically reproduce the historical processes that have
rendered conditions as diverse as visual impairment, autism, dwarfism and
cerebral palsy, as somehow “naturally” similar or related phenomena
(Garland-Thomson, 1997, p.13). Shuttleworth, Wedgwood and Wilson
(2012, p.179-80) specifically critique the articulation of a (seemingly)
universal “disabled masculinity” on the basis of research examining men’s
experiences of acquired physical disabilities, particularly spinal cord
injuries. They subsequently call for future research highlighting the
gendered experiences of men with degenerative, cognitive and early-onset
impairments. Recognition of the gendered differences between disabled
men has been affirmed in the past. Tom Shakespeare (1999, p.62), for
instance, notes the importance of examining “differences between disabled
47 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
men, due to sexuality, ethnicity, class, as well as factors such as the type of
impairment - visible, invisible, congenital, acquired”. However,
Shakespeare (1999) never substantively discusses how specific impairment
categories inflect men’s experiences of gender, instead reverting to the
generic class of “disabled men”.
Somewhat homogenous accounts of “disabled masculinity”, and the
prevailing bias towards men with acquired physical impairments, remain
problematic. Recently, however, researchers have begun working towards
the rectification of this problem by situating an increasingly diverse array of
disabilities within the context of sex/gender. In a series of articles, research
teams led by Nathan Wilson have examined masculinity within the lives of
Australian men with intellectual disabilities. This research has documented
the problematic tendency for intellectually impaired men to be represented
within existing scholarship primarily in terms of a pathological propensity
for violence, sexual aggression and crime (Wilson et al., 2010). They note
that the conflation of cognitive deficits with the status of “diminished men”
has tended to neglect the positive experiences that men with learning
disabilities may derive from homosocial camaraderie, physical activity and
sexual expression (Wilson et al., 2011, 2012, 2013). Using qualitative
interviews with twelve visually impaired South African male school
students, Lee Joseph and Graham Lindegger (2007, p.79-82) noted a
persistent investment in hegemonic constructions of masculinity centred on
heterosexuality, homophobia, toughness, aggression and competence. They
further this argument by drawing upon Victor Seidler’s work to examine
the personal anxieties and limitations prompted by a commitment to
hegemonic gender ideals, and the ways that visual impairment both
informed, and restrained, contextually grounded enactments and
understandings of idealised masculinities (Joseph & Lindegger, 2007, p.825). As a final example of the diversification of scholarship within the field
of disabled masculinities, Gibson et al. (2007) have drawn upon
Bourdieusian social theory to interpret the experiences of ten Canadian men
living with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. They provide an analysis of the
contradictory gendered implications of medical technology, that both
enabled participants in terms of control and agency, while simultaneously
marking them as “other” within interpersonal interactions, and signalling a
form of embodied deficiency (Gibson et al., 2007, p.509-10).
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 48
While analyses of the gendered implications of diverse forms of
impairment have been increasingly common, the different contributions
remain somewhat fragmented, without much of an attempt to elucidate how
different corporeal, sensory, and cognitive forms of functioning create
distinct, socially contextualised “pathways” with regards to masculinity.
The literature would benefit, in my view, from the emergence of
comparative sociologies of disabled masculinity. Such research might
interrogate how the gendered experiences of an individual with an acquired
injury, who had previously had access to a nondisabled identity, differ from
those of an individual with a congenital disability (Gerschick, 2000, p.
1265). Are there different forms, or “levels”, of gendered “otherness”
ascribed to individuals with distinct styles of physical, sensory or cognitive
functioning (Boyle, 2005)? Do gendered hierarchies relating to disability
operate within the perceptions and performances of disabled people
themselves? Might some forms of impairment render the notion of “gender”
itself problematic, due to particular levels of cognitive or social awareness
(Gerschick, 2000, p.1265; Wilson et al., 2012)? The purpose of asking these
questions is not to revive a crude form of biological determinism, whereby
aspects of individual functioning “determine” gendered performance; as we
have seen, disabled men themselves negotiate gender identities in complex
and creative ways – biology is categorically not destiny. However,
comparative engagements between different forms of disabled masculinity
offer the opportunity to more fully inspect the complex and multi-layered
interactions between gender and disability, and to challenge the historical
production of “the disabled” as a homogenous group.
Secondly, while the dilemma of disabled masculinity undoubtedly
continues to exert substantial influence over the lives of many disabled
men, the scholarly dominance of approaches that stress the structural
tension between hegemonic gender identities and non-normative forms of
corporeal functioning can engender its own limitations. The persistent
iteration of the dilemma of disabled masculinity, I would suggest, needs to
be supplemented by scholarship that engages with the interactional
generativity of disability with regards to masculinity. The term
“generativity” is morally neutral here; it signifies the possibility, in
particular spatial contexts and historical moments, of disability contributing
towards a sense of masculinity, rather than inevitably detracting from it.
49 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
This amounts to what Arthur Frank (2000, p.360) describes as a provisional
reversal of normal priorities, strategically designed to render visible what
dominant sociological conceptualisations of disabled masculinity may hide.
Previous scholarship has recognised that disabled men may respond to the
dilemma of disabled masculinity by pursuing ruggedly masculine personal
styles (what Gerschick & Miller (2000, p.30-3) term strategies of reliance),
however, this strategy has almost universally been framed in compensatory
terms; masculinity has been diminished by disability, and must be
reclaimed, whether through a commitment to new forms of physicality,
sport and/or sexual virility (Huchinson & Kleiber, 2000; Sparkes & Smith,
2002; Good et al., 2008).
The potential “productivity” of disability within the field of
masculinities has been insufficiently recognised within the context of
sociology; however, both historical and anthropological researchers,
attuned to the radical specificities of time, space and culture, have offered
constructive insights towards redressing this limitation. Historical work
examining the aftermath of military conflicts, for instance, has documented
how particular visible, physical disabilities could act as corporeal evidence
of fortitude, as “war wounds” that viscerally exhibited the heroic selfsacrifice of the returned serviceman. Physical disabilities, within these
contexts, could establish gendered hierarchies both over those who had
“shirked” their patriotic duty by avoiding combat (Gagen, 2007), as well as
those who had acquired mental illnesses as a consequence of their wartime
experiences, which were commonly interpreted as revealing personal
weakness, rather than valiant heroism (Boyle, 2005). In a very different
context, anthropologist James Staples (2011) recently conducted
ethnographic research designed to capture the gendered meanings of
disability within particular regions of contemporary India. While
recognising the potentially “feminising” implications of disability within
this context, he notes a number of contextually specific, countervailing
potentialities. For instance, men with leprosy were commonly regarded as
possessing a dangerously aggressive libido (Staples, 2011, p.551);
“deformities”, alternatively, could be used to inspire a sense of fear by
strategically deploying ideological connections between disability and
monstrosity within the context of interpersonal confrontations (Staples,
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 50
2011, p.548). Staples (2011, p.557) subsequently stresses that “particular
masculinities might be highlighted through a focus on disability”.
A further layer of complexity emerges through the consideration of what
some have termed the “medicalisation of masculinity”, or the use of
biomedical categories to legitimate the social regulation of particular
constructions of “excessive maleness” (Shuttleworth et al., 2012, p. 187).
Bioethicist Ilina Singh (2002; 2005), for instance, has documented concerns
about the increasingly widespread prescription of Ritalin to male school
students diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
These interventions have been interpreted by some as reflecting the
anxieties of teachers about (disproportionately male) students who do not
conform to the ideals of middle-class pedagogical boyhood, characterised
by self-discipline, composure, rationality, sedateness and compliance. The
prescription of ADHD medication may be regarded (particularly by fathers)
as involving the unwarranted suppression of boys’ “authentic” selves,
characterised by a certain masculine rambunctiousness, defiance, activity
and energy (Singh, 2005). Autism Spectrum Disorder, a condition also
disproportionately diagnosed in males, has likewise been constructed as the
consequence of what Simon Baron-Cohen (2004) has termed the “extreme
male brain”. Autism, according to Baron-Cohen, is an extreme
manifestation of male interpersonal difficulties with expressing emotions
and verbal communication, and men’s preference for engaging with
rationalised, routinised systems. These “medicalised masculinities” sit very
uneasily with dominant narrations of the “dilemma of disabled
masculinity”, reflecting less the feminising implications of a disability
identity, than (what some regard as) the disabling consequences of
masculine excess.
Thirdly, the implications of recent historical changes in the field of men
and masculinity, and how these influence, inform, and are negotiated by
disabled men, require further consideration. Previous scholarship in the area
has not been unaware of, or insensitive to, the historical dynamism
embedded within socially dominant conceptions of both masculinity and
disability; indeed researchers have often provided insightful analyses of
how the localised experiences of disabled men are implicated in broader
networks of temporally shifting social matrixes (e.g. Wilson, 2004; Gagen,
2007; Staples, 2011). However, at present, disabled masculinities have not
51 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
been adequately situated within the context of scholarly debates relating to
recent historical developments. Central elements in the construction of
Western masculinities have arguably been substantially unsettled (although
not eliminated) by historical changes over the past four decades. For
instance, the decline of manufacturing industries, the increasingly
fragmented and casualised labour market, the entry of women into the
workforce, the diversification of household types, newfound emphases
upon male beauty and appearance, changing social attitudes wrought by
feminist, disability, GLBTQ and anti-racist movements, declining levels of
homophobia, greater access to information, and globalisation, have all
drastically altered the gendered social landscape that all men encounter
(Connell, 1995; Bordo, 1999; Anderson, 2009; Kimmel, 2010). While each
of these changes has been widely debated within the context of men and
masculinity in general, their implications have not been sufficiently
examined for disabled men in particular.
To take one example of a scholarly approach that could be productively
applied and/or interrogated within considerations of disabled masculinities,
a number of scholars working under the paradigm of “inclusive masculinity
theory” have documented the historical emergence of a “softened”
masculinity within a variety of youth cultures across the United Kingdom,
the United States and Australia (Anderson, 2008, 2009; Anderson &
McCormack, 2010; Adams, 2011; Barrett, 2013). These studies have
examined the implications of declining levels of what Eric Anderson (2009)
terms “cultural homophobia” amongst young men. This decline, it is
contended, has engendered an increased willingness to engage in, and
acceptance of, historically feminising endeavours due to the lessened
stigma attached to the “fag” label (Pascoe, 2007), with researchers noting
the prevalence of affectionate touching between young straight men
(Anderson & McCormack, 2010), less rigid investments in (hetero)sexual
identity (Anderson, 2008) and greater freedom to engage in non-hegemonic
aesthetic presentations of the self (Adams, 2011). These studies are
suggestive of an increasing investment in the production of “tolerant” social
identities amongst particular groups of young men. However, due to this
literature’s emphasis on the relationship between gender and sexuality, the
question of whether the posited emergence of a “softer” masculinity, less
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 52
invested in the tropes of domination, aggression, and inequality, is also
promoting the social inclusion of disabled men requires further exploration.
Other developments could have equally ambiguous consequences for
disabled men. Two examples will be briefly noted here. Firstly, and as
already noted above, while male beauty and fashion industries have enabled
men to manipulate their appearances with lessened accompanying stigma
(Bordo, 1999), they may further marginalise those with disabilities by
consistently portraying nondisabled selves as aesthetic ideals, and by
fostering a connection between beauty and consumption that is exclusive to
all but the relatively wealthy (Shakespeare, 1999, 2000). Secondly, within
the context of the labour market, the declining significance of “blue-collar”
manual labour centred upon physical exertion, and the simultaneous
growing complexity, affordability and ubiquity of information and
communication technologies, have commonly been touted as panaceas to
disablist social exclusion (Finkelstein, 1980, p.1-10). Yet, these
technologies remain inaccessible or unusable for many people with
disabilities, consequently reinforcing patterns of exclusion from
masculinised public spheres of competition and achievement, rather than
challenging them (Roulstone, 1998; Schartz et al., 2002). Examining how
contemporary changes in the institutional structures, understandings and
performances of masculinity are inflecting the lives of disabled men is a
task requiring further consideration.
Conclusion
This article has identified and discussed the centrality of two themes within
discussions of the relationship between disability and masculinity – namely,
the social forces that establish a “status inconsistency” or “dilemma” in the
relationship between disability and masculinity, and the complex and
differentiated ways that disabled men negotiate this tension. The research
that has been conducted within these frameworks has undoubtedly mapped
important social terrain, and these logics will remain substantial and
progressive bases for academic enquiry into the future. However, I have
contended that accounts of the relationship between disability and
masculinity could be rendered more complex by pursuing sustained
53 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
engagements with the generativity, comparative diversity, and historicity of
disabled masculinities.
I would like to briefly conclude by asserting the continued importance of
situating scholarly examinations of disabled masculinities within feminist
frameworks. Commentators have noted that the sociology of men and
masculinity, by recognising multiple, hierarchically related masculinities
(Connell, 1995; Segal, 2007), can seemingly position men as the “true”
victims of the existing gender order, and, subsequently, fall into the trap of
advocating for the restorative reclamation of a legitimated manhood
(Schacht & Ewing, 1998). This problematic tendency is perhaps most
evident within the research conducted by Wilson et al. (2011, 2012, 2013),
which has insightfully engaged with the gendered experiences of males with
intellectual disabilities. These researchers have critiqued what they regard as
the “misandrous” pathologisation of men with intellectual disabilities within
the existing literature, which overwhelmingly emphasises tropes relating to
sexual violence, aggression and criminality, rather than engaging with the
particular problems or exclusions that these men experience (Wilson et al.,
2010, p.2). In their empirical qualitative research, they suggest that men with
intellectual disabilities often appreciate certain opportunities offered by male
caring staff - such as homosocial camaraderie, physical forms of play, and a
greater degree of openness with regards to masturbation – which female
carers are understood as not being able/willing to offer (Wilson, et al., 2011,
2012, 2013). These studies, out of sympathy for the research participants and
as an acknowledgement of their real investments in constructions of
masculinity, tend to ultimately validate these gendered meanings and
desires, rather than critically evaluating the historically situated and
contingent norms that they reflect.
As Derek Nystrom (2002, p.41) puts it, “(it) is important […] to keep
reminding ourselves that we shouldn’t just do studies of masculinity, but
specifically feminist studies of masculinity – that is, studies that take as their
project the creation of a world of gender equality”. The marginalisation of
particular groups of men does not, by necessity, generate any inclination
towards feminism. Indeed, as Lynne Segal (2007, p.xxv) contends, it may be
that “the very men who might seem to have the most to gain by distancing
themselves from masculinity’s conformist competitive strivings for
dominance are the very individuals whose daily indignities make the
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 54
unreliable promises of manhood the more seductively compulsive”. The
objective, then, is to recognise the broad social dominance of men within the
gender order, alongside the diversity that exists within this broad social
dominance, and to examine how patterns of marginalisation within the
“subfield of masculinity” generates both historical opportunities for the
contestation of patriarchal social formations, as well as patterns of
complicity with them (Coston & Kimmel, 2012).
References
Adams, A. (2011). “Josh wears pink cleats”: Inclusive masculinity on the
soccer field. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5), 579-96. doi:
10.1080/00918369.2011.563654
Anderson, E. (2008). “Being masculine is not about who you sleep with...”
Heterosexual athletes contesting masculinity and the one-time rule of
homosexuality. Sex Roles, 58, 104-15. doi: 10.1007/s11199-0079337-7
Anderson, E. (2009). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of
masculinities. New York, Oxon: Routledge.
Anderson, E. & McCormack, M. (2010). ‘It’s just not acceptable anymore’:
The erosion of homophobia and the softening of masculinity at an
English sixth form. Sociology, 44(5), 843-59. doi: 10.1007/s11199007-9337-7
Barrett, T. (2013). Friendships between men across sexual orientation: The
importance of (others) being intolerant. The Journal of Men’s
Studies, 21(1), 62-77. doi: 10.3149/jms.2101.62
Baron-Cohen, S. (2004). The essential difference: Men, women and the
extreme male brain. London: Penguin.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Bordo, S. (1999). The male body: A new look at men in public and in
private. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Boyle, B. M. (2005). Phantom pains: Disability, masculinity and the normal
in Vietnam War representations. Prose Studies, 27(1-2), 93-107. doi:
10.1080/01440350500068965
55 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New
York: Routledge.
Carrigan, T., Connell, B. & Lee, J. (1985). Towards a new sociology of
masculinity. Theory and Society, 14(2), 551-64. doi:
10.1007/BF00160017
Charmaz, K. (1994). Identity dilemmas of chronically ill men. The
Sociological Quarterly, 35(2), 269-88. doi: 10.1111/j.15338525.1994.tb00410.x
Chodorow, N. (1999). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and
the sociology of gender. Berkley, London: University of California
Press.
Coles, T. (2008). Finding space in the field of masculinity. Journal of
Sociology, 44(3), 233-48. doi: 10.1177/1440783308092882
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination.
Boston: Unwyn Hyman.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Coston, B. & Kimmel, M. (2012). Seeing privilege where it isn’t:
Marginalised masculinities and the intersectionality of privilege.
Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 97-111. doi: 10.1111/j.15404560.2011.01738.x
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity
politics and violence against women of colour. Stanford Law Review,
43(6), 1241-99.
Embrick, D., Walther, C. and Wickens, C. (2007). Working class
masculinity: Keeping gay men and lesbians out of the workplace. Sex
Roles, 56(11-2), 757-66. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9234-0
Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people: Issues for discussion.
New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
Frank, A. (2000). The standpoint of a storyteller. Qualitative Health
Research, 10(3), 354-65. doi: 10.1177/104973200129118499
Gagen, W. J. (2007). Remastering the body, renegotiating gender: Physical
disability and masculinity during the First World War, the case of J.
B. Middlebrook. European Review of History, 14(4), 525-41. doi:
10.1080/13507480701752169
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 56
Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical
disability in american culture and literature. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Gerschick, T. J. (1998). Sisyphus in a wheelchair: Men with physical
disabilities confront gender domination. In J. O’Brien & J. A.
Howard (Eds.), Everyday inequalities: Critical inquiries (pp. 189211). Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.
Gerschick, T. J. (2000). Toward a theory of disability and gender. Signs,
25(4), 1263-8.
Gerschick, T. J. & Miller, A. S. (2000). Coming to terms: Masculinity and
physical disability. In T. E. Ore (Eds.), The social construction of
difference and inequality: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (pp. 12537). Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing.
Gibson, B. E., Young, N. L., Upshur, R. E. G., & McKeever, P. (2007). Men
on the margin: A Bourdieusian examination of living into adulthood
with muscular dystrophy. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 505-17.
doi: 10.1016/03.043
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Good, G. E., Schopp, L. H., Thomson, D., Hathaway, S. L., Mazurek, M. O.,
& Sanford-Martens, M. O. (2008). Men with serious injuries:
Relations among masculinity, age, and alcohol use. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 53(1), 39-45. doi: 10.1037/0090-5550.53.1.39
Hahn, H. (1988). Can disability be beautiful? Social Policy, 18(3), 26-33.
Hahn, H. (1981). The social component of sexuality and disability: Some
problems and proposals. Sexuality and Disability, 4(4), 220-33. doi:
10.1007/BF01103307
Han, S. (2000). Asian american gay men’s (dis)claim on masculinity. In P.
Nardi (Eds.), Gay masculinities (pp. 206-223). Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi: Sage.
Hardin, M. M., & Hardin, B. (2004). The ‘Supercrip’ in sports media:
Wheelchair athlete’s discuss hegemony’s disabled hero. Sociology of
Sport Online, 7(1), Retrived from
http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v7i1/v7i1_1.html.
Herdt, G. (1981). Guardians of the flute: Idioms of masculinity. New York:
McGraw Hill.
57 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
Hutchinson, S. L. & Kleiber, D. (2000). Heroic masculinity following spinal
cord injury: Implications for therapeutic recreation practice.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 34(1), 42-54.
Jefferson, T. (1998). Muscle, ‘hard men’ and ‘iron’ Mike Tyson: Reflections
on desire, anxiety and the embodiment of masculinity. Body and
Society, 4(1), 77-98. doi: 10.1177/1357034X98004001005
Jeffreys, S. (2008). Disability and the male sex right. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 31, 327-35. doi: 10.1016/2008.08.001
Jessop, B. (1995). Towards a Schumpeterian workfare regime in Britain?
Reflections on regulation, governance, and welfare state. Environment
and Planning A, 27(10), 1613-26. doi: 10.1068/a271613
Joseph, L., & Lindegger, G. (2007). The construction of adolescent
masculinity by visually impaired adolescents. Psychology in Society,
35, 73-90, Retrieved from
http://www.pins.org.za/pins35/pins35_article08_Joseph_Lindegger.pd
f
Kersten, J. (1996). Culture, masculinities and violence against women.
British Journal of Criminology, 36(3), 381-95. doi:
GALE|A18570058
Kidd, M. P., Sloane, J. P., & Ferko, I. (2000). Disability and the labour
market: An analysis of british males. Journal of Health Economics,
19, 961-81. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(00)00043-6
Kimmel, M. (1993). Invisible masculinity. Society, 30(6), 28-35. doi:
10.1007/BF02700272
Kimmel, M. (1994). Masculinities as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence
in the construction of gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman
(Eds.), Theorising masculinities (pp. 119-141). Newbury Park: Sage.
Kimmel, M. (2010). Misframing men: The politics of contemporary
masculinities. New Brunswick, New Jersey, London: Rutgers
University Press.
Landes, J. B. (2003). Further thoughts on the public/private distinction.
Journal of Women’s History, 15(2), 28-39. doi:
10.1353/jowh.2003.0051
Lindemann, K. (2010a). Cleaning up my (father’s) mess: Narrative
containments of “leaky” masculinities. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(1), 2938. doi: 10.1177/1077800409350060
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 58
Lindemann, K. (2010b). Masculinity, disability and access-ability:
Ethnography as alternative practice in the study of disabled
sexualities. Southern Communication Journal, 75(4), 433-51. doi:
10.1080/1041794x.2010.504454
Lingis, A. (1994). Foreign bodies. New York: Routledge.
Longmore, P. (2003). Why I burned my book: And other essays on disability.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mairs, N. (2002). Sex and death and the crippled body: A meditation. In S.
Snyder, B., J. Brueggemann & R. Garland-Thomson (Eds.), Disability
studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 156-70). New York: Modern
Language Association of America.
Mangan, J. (1981). Athleticism in the victorian and edwardian public
school: The emergence of an educational Ideology. London: Frank
Cass.
Meeuf, R. (2008). John Wayne as “Supercrip”: Disabled bodies and the
construction of “hard” masculinity.The Wings of Eagles. Cinema
Journal, 48(2), 88-113.
Messner, M. (1997). Politics of masculinities: Men in movements. Thousand
Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
Messner, M. & Sabo, D. (1994). Sex, power and violence in sports:
Rethinking masculinity. Freedom: Crossing Press.
Mitchell, D. (2002). Narrative prosthesis and the materiality of metaphor. In
S. Snyder, B. J. Brueggemann & R. Garland-Thomson (Eds.),
Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 15-30). New York:
Modern Language Association of America.
Morris, J. (1991). Pride against prejudice: Transforming attitudes to
disability. London: The Women’s Press.
Murphy, R. (1990). The body silent. New York: Norton.
Nash, J. C. (2011). ‘Home truths’ on intersectionality. Yale Journal of Law
and Feminism, 23, 445-70.
Nystrom, D. (2000). The perils of masculinity studies. Iris: A Journal About
Women, 44, 41-4.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan
Education.
59 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
Ostrander, R. N. (2008a). Meditations on a bullet: Violently injured young
men discuss masculinity, disability and blame. Child and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 25, 71-84. doi: 10.1007/s10560-008-0113-5
Ostrander, R. N. (2008b). When identities collide: Masculinity, disability,
and race. Disability and Society, 23(6), 585-97. doi:
10.1080/09687590802328451
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag. Berkley, Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
Purdue, D. E. J., & Howe, P. D. (2012). See the sport, not the disability:
Exploring the paralympic paradox. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 4(2), 189-205. doi:
10.1080/2159676X.2012.685102
Rapala, S., & Manderson, L. (2005). Recovering in-validated adulthood,
masculinity and sexuality. Sexuality and Disability, 23(3), 161-80.
doi: 10.1007/s11195-005-6731-3
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs,
5(4), 631-60.
Robinson, S. (2000). Marked men: Masculinity in crisis. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Roulstone, A. (1998). Enabling technology: Disabled people, work and new
technology. Bristol: Taylor and Francis.
Schacht, S., & Ewing, D. (1998). The many paths of feminism: Can men
travel any of them? In S. Schacht & D. Ewing (Eds.), Feminism and
men: Reconstructing gender relations (pp. 67−85). New York: New
York University Press.
Schartz, K., Schartz, H. A., & Blanck, P. (2002). Employment of persons
with disabilities in information technology jobs: Literature review for
“IT works”. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 20(6), 637-57. doi:
10.1002/bsl.510
Schmitt, R. (2002). Large propagators: Racism and the domination of
women. In N. Tuana, W. Cowling, M. Hamington, G. Johnson & T.
Macmullan (Eds.), Revealing Male Bodies (pp. 38-54). Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Sedgwick, E. (1985). Between men: English literature and male homosocial
desire. New York: Columbia Press.
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 60
Segal, L. (2007). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changing men.
Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shakespeare, T. (2000). Disabled sexuality: Towards rights and recognition.
Sexuality and Disability, 18(3), 159-66. doi:
10.1023/A:1026409613684
Shakespeare, T. (1996). Disability, identity and difference. In. C. Barnes &
G. Mercer (Eds.), Exploring the divide (pp. 94-113). Leeds: The
Disability Press.
Shakespeare, T. (1999). The sexual politics of disabled masculinity.
Sexuality and Disability, 17(1), 53-64. doi:
10.1023/A:1021403829826
Shuttleworth, R. (2004). Disabled masculinity: Expanding the masculine
repertoire. In B. G. Smith & B. Hutchison (Eds.), Gendering disability
(pp. 166-77). New Brunswick, New Jersey, London: Rutgers
University Press.
Shuttleworth, R., Wedgwood, N. & Wilson, N. J. (2012). The dilemma of
disabled masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 15(2), 174-94. doi:
10.1177/1097184X12439879
Singh, I. (2002). Biology in context: Social and cultural perspectives on
ADHD. Children and Society, 16(5), 360-7. doi: 10.1002/chi.746
Singh, I. (2005). Will the “real boy” please behave: Dosing dilemmas for
parents of boys with ADHD. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(3), 3447. doi: 10.1080/15265160590945129
Smith, B. (2013). Disability, sport and men’s narratives of health: A
qualitative study. Health Psychology, 32(1), 110-9. doi:
10.1037/a0029187
Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2002). Sport, spinal cord injury, embodied
masculinities, and the dilemma of narrative identity. Men and
Masculinities, 4(3), 258-85. doi: 10.1177/1097184X02004003003
Spencer, D. C. (2013). ‘Eating clean’ for a violent body: Mixed martial arts,
diet and masculinities. Women’s Studies International Forum Online
First, Available Online 14 June 2013, Retrived from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.05.018.
Staples, J. (2011). At the intersection of disability and masculinity:
Exploring gender and bodily difference in India. Journal of the Royal
61 Barrett – Disabled Masculinities
Anthropological Institute, 17, 545-62. doi: 10.1111/j.14679655.2011.01706.x
Stone, D. A. (1984). The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Talepros, G. & McCabe, M. P. (2002). The impact of sexual esteem, body
esteem and sexual satisfaction on psychological well-being in people
with physical disability. Sexuality and Disability, 20(3), 177-83. doi:
10.1023/A:1021493615456
Tepper, M. (1999). Letting go of restrictive notions of manhood: Male
sexuality, disability and chronic illness. Sexuality and Disability,
17(1), 37-52. doi: 10.1023/A:1021451712988
Thévenon, O. (2013). Drivers of female labour force participation in the
OECD. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers
145, Paris: OECD Publishing.
Thomas, T., & Smith, A. (2003). Preoccupied with able-bodiedness? An
analysis of the british media coverage of the 2000 Paralympic Games.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 166-81.
Valentine, G. (1999). What it means to be a man: The body, masculinities,
disability. In R. Butler & H. Parr (Eds.), Mind and Body Spaces:
Geographies of Illness, Impairment and Disability (pp. 167-80).
London, New York: Routledge.
Weeks, J. (1998). The sexual citizen. Theory, culture and society, 15(3), 3552. doi: 10.1177/0263276498015003003
Wilkins, R. (2004). The effects of disability on labour force status in
Australia. Australian Economic Review, 37(4), 359-82. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8462.2004.00338.x
Wilson, D. J. (2004). Fighting polio like a man: Intersections of masculinity,
disability, and aging. In B. G. Smith & B. Hutchison (Eds.),
Gendering Disability (pp. 119-33). New Brunswick, New Jersey,
London: Rutgers University Press.
Wilson, N. J., Parmenter, T. R., Stancliffe, R. J. & Shuttleworth, R. P.
(2013). From diminished men to conditionally masculine: Sexuality
and Australian men and adolescent boys with intellectual disability.
Culture, Health and Sexuality, 15(6), 738-51. doi:
10.1080/13691058.2013.780262
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 62
Wilson, N. J., Parmenter, T. R., Stancliffe, R. J., & Shuttleworth, R. P.
(2011). Gendered service delivery: A masculine and feminine
perspective on staff gender. Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 49(5), 341-51. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-49.5.341
Wilson, N. J., Parmenter, T. R., Stancliffe, R. J., & Shuttleworth, R. P.
(2012). Masculinity theory in applied research with men and boys
with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 50(3), 261-72. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.261
Wilson, N. J., Parmenter, T. R., Stancliffe, R. J., Shuttleworth, R. P., &
Parker, D. (2010). A masculine perspective of gendered topics in the
research literature on males and females with intellectual disability.
Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 35(1), 1-8. doi:
10.3109/13668250903496351
Tim Barrett is a Research Assistant in the Sociology Department at
Monash University.
Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Tim Barrett, Department
of Sociology, Monash University, School of Social Sciences, Victoria
3800, Australia, email: [email protected].
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
Framing the Involvement of Men in Gender Equality in Europe:
Between Institutionalised and Non-Institutionalised Politics
Nadja Bergmann1, Elli Scambor2, Katarzyna Wojnicka3
1) L&R Social Research, Austria
2) Institute for Men’s Studies and Gender Research, Austria
3) Dissens e.V. – Institut für Bildung und Forschung, Germany
th
Date of publication: February 21 , 2014
Edition period: February 2014-June 2014
To cite this article: Bergmann, N., Scambor, E., & Wojnicka, K. (2014). Framing the
Involvement of Men in Gender Equality in Europe: Between Institutionalised and
Non-Institutionalised Politics. Masculinities and Social Change, 3 (1), 62-82. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2014.42
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/MCS.2014.42
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 62-82
Framing the Involvement of Men
in Gender Equality in Europe:
Between Institutionalised and
Non-Institutionalised Politics
Nadja Bergmann
L&R Social Research
Elli Scambor
Institute for Men’s Studies and Gender Research
Katarzyna Wojnicka
Dissens e.V. – Institut für Bildung und Forschung
Abstract
In order to reach the main goal of the paper, the identification of the impact and
effectiveness of strategies and measures which promote gender equality not only in
connection to women but also men, an overview of institutionalised practices, men’s
involvement in gender equality strategies like gender mainstreaming, as well as
men’s participation in international and national networks, organisations and groups
are presented. The identification of specific forms of institutionalised and noninstitutionalised practices and politics is based on the theoretical model proposed by
Michael Messner (2000) and concerns the situation in the European Union.
Keywords: men and masculinities, gender equality, politics, Europe
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.42
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 62-82
Enmarcando la Participación de
los Hombres en la Igualdad de
Género en Europa: Entre Política
Institucionalizada y No
Institucionalizada
Nadja Bergmann
L&R Social Research
Elli Scambor
Institute for Men’s Studies and Gender Research
Katarzyna Wojnicka
Dissens e.V. – Institut für Bildung und Forschung
Resumen
Con el propósito de alcanzar el objetivo principal de este artículo, se presenta el
análisis de cómo se han identificado los efectos y la eficacia de las estrategias y
medidas que promuevan la igualdad de género, no sólo en relación a las mujeres
sino también con los hombres. A la vez también se presenta una visión general de
las prácticas institucionalizadas relacionadas con la participación de los hombres en
la igualdad de género, como por ejemplo la integración de la perspectiva transveral
de género, la participación de los hombres en redes nacionales e internacionales.
Dicha identificación de formas específicas de política institucionalizada y no
institucionalizada tienen su fundamento en el modelo teórico propuesto por Michael
Messner (2000), el cual se refiere a la situación en la Unión Europea.
Palabras clave: hombres y masculinidades, igualdad de género, política, Europa
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.42
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 64
F
or many years, the commitment to promoting gender equality in
society has focused on women’s issues and has been driven largely
by women. This is connected to the fact that women are still the
ones mainly disadvantaged by the patterns of gender inequality and thus,
the relevance of focusing on this particular social category is undisputed.
Nevertheless, this situation has resulted in the assumption that gender issues
are only about women and do not concern men. Fortunately, these beliefs
have begun to change, and there is a growing interest in the role of men in
relation to gender equality. Over the last 50 years the role of men in
reconstructing gender relations has been changing, and recently men have
been increasingly addressed and named in the process of gender equality
policy development. Therefore, an overview of institutionalised practices
and men’s involvement in gender equality strategies should be analysed as
they are important in the process of engaging men in gender equality. This
type of analysis is crucial in order to reach the main aim of the paper which
is the identification of the impact and effectiveness of strategies and
measures promoting gender equality not only in connection to women but
also men. Consequently, we place special attention on men’s involvement
in gender equality policies and the political representation of men, as men
are not only more theoretically interested in gender equality but are also
increasingly addressed and named as subjects and active actors of the
gender equality policy development process. Therefore, the involvement of
men in gender equality across Europe will be discussed with a special focus
on institutionalised men’s politics (such as governmental committees,
special (sub-)departments in ministries, boards appointed by governments,
informal counselling structures, etc.), non-institutionalised men’s networks
and groups as well as gender mainstreaming strategies and quota systems
which have been implemented in some European countries in order to
foster an equal representation of women and men in politics1.
Privileges, Costs and Differences of Masculinities: The Three Sides of a
Coin2
In order to identify specific forms of institutionalised and noninstitutionalised practices and politics regarding men’s role in gender
equality, choosing an appropriate theoretical framework seems to be
65 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
crucial. An appropriate framing of facts, figures and policy is necessary in
order to address gender related disparities in an adequate way, to include
men in gender equality policies and to find good ways of public
communication regarding men and gender equality. A model that can be
used for these purposes is outlined below. (Hearn & Holmgren, 2009)
American sociologist Michael Messner, one of the founders of critical
studies on men and masculinities, has developed a model to classify and
assess men’s groups and initiatives in the United States (2000). This model
consists of a triangle with the corner points ‘negative sides/costs of
masculinity’, ‘tackling men’s privileges’ and ‘differences among men’
(2000). Institutionalised men’s policy, men’s movements and men’s
organisations, their positions and arguments, their orientation, mission
statements and activities can be related to this model. Messner points out
that progressive men’s politics has to relate to all three aspects in order to
develop constructive arguments and to foster coalition building with other
political forces.
Institutionalized
privileges
costs of
masculinity
differences/
inequalities
among men
Figure 1. Triangle model: Terrain of the politics of masculinities (Messner 2000,
p.12).
As Holmgren and Hearn have shown, the triangle model can be used
“for locating men’s diverse gender-conscious positioning in gender
debates” (2009, p.404). It will be outlined that men’s organisations,
networks, initiatives and men’s groups put a differing emphasis on each of
the three aspects. Therefore Messner has differentiated men’s groups in the
US in relation to their positions within the triangle model. In the same way,
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 66
the corner points of classification can serve as a structure for
systematisation of men’s groups and movements in Europe.
A balanced politics of masculinities is located in the middle of the
triangle. This means that a special approach, a discourse, or institutionalised
work tackling men’s issues would take all three aspects into consideration.
Balanced approaches focus on gender disparities and men’s privileges and
try to minimise costs and disadvantages for men (e.g. concerning health) at
the same time. Consequently, communication becomes more complex
because so many pros and cons, arguments and aspects come into play;
however, links, connections and alliances to other political actors (or
discourses) are enabled. The differences between men become clear by
specifying subgroups according to other social categories (e.g. men’s health
is strongly influenced by education and social class). In this view, it may be
in the interest of not all, but of many men to change the existing gender
regimes and the dominating masculinity concepts. Alliances of these
subgroups of men with other political forces that are interested in changes
are meaningful, but the idea of a general men’s movement has been
discussed controversially, as such a movement:
(…) Is shot through with danger, contradiction, and paradox. Whiteidentified people who want to oppose racism do not form a ‘white peoples’
movement. Heterosexually identified people who want to oppose
heterosexism and homophobia do not form a ‘straight peoples’ movement’.
However, to end racism and heterosexism, white people and heterosexuals
will have to stand up, speak out, and act...Similarly, Connell asserts,
profeminist men do need to educate, counsel, and work with other men to
bring about an end to institutionalized sexism. (Messner, 2000, p.101)
On the other hand, Kimmel has argued that there is a positive impact
and a political statement if there are organisations of men “who do support
feminism as men, who support gays and lesbians as straight people, who
support people of color as white people” (Messner, 2000, p.102).
The fathers’ rights movements in various countries are interesting
examples of how difficult it is to find appropriate positions in order to
improve the lives of all people involved in divorce cases: children, women
and men. In many European countries (Scambor, Wojnicka, & Bergmann,
2013), child custody is a terrain of conflict, political struggle and public
67 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
debate. Sometimes the situation seems quite polarised, and fathers’
initiatives have emerged that oscillate between arguments about children’s
rights, gender equality and anti-feminism. Political actors are called to solve
problems by legal regulations that are often strongly related to personal
conflict and escalation. Some of the fathers’ rights groups generalise
personally difficult situations and argue that feminism had gone too far,
resulting in structural disadvantages for men in general (Wojnicka, 2011).
In Messner’s terms, such arguments emphasise costs/disadvantages for
men in an isolated way. In this kind of public discourse, various actual
problems are combined to prove that men are discriminated against in
general and that women are over-privileged. The arguments are unbalanced,
as neither men’s privileges on a structural level nor differences among men
are taken into consideration (but men in general are seen as victims of
discrimination in society). According to Bob Pease (2006) an
“overwhelming evidence of men’s resistance to gender equality” is to be
noticed “reflected in men’s rights and fathers’ rights movements and
backlash responses by men worldwide” (2006, p.4).
The reason for men’s resistance seems clear: the material benefits provided
by the patriarchal dividend, the ideological belief in male supremacy, the
deeply embedded psychological fear of change and the resentment by those
men who seem not to have benefited from the patriarchal dividend.
(Connell, 2003, p.10)
Thus, there are times when the potential for men and women to work in
partnership does seem small (White, 1994) and many feminists are sceptical
about the possibility for real alliances. However, the point is often made
that men are not only representatives of fixed and monolithic structures of
power (Hearn, 2001), and that some men do respond positively to
feminism. “We need to remind ourselves of situations where men have
acted in solidarity with women” (Pease, 2006, p.4).
In fact, the topics and problems that appear in these examples must be
framed by adequate theoretical positions of how the genders are organised
in a society before adequate measures can be developed. These positions
must enter public discourses as well. With reference to men’s groups,
Messner states:
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 68
The closer a group’s worldview is to the center of the triad, the more
complex – even contradictory – its internal debates about the social structure
of power, inequality, and oppression are likely to be. As a result, these
groups have a far more difficult task developing coherent and focused
strategies for action. (2000, p.100)
Institutional Privileges: Political Representation
In connection to Messner’s model, the most visible example of men’s
privileges is the case of political representation. Across Europe (and any
other region of the world), institutionalised policy is predominantly
managed by men. In regard to data, privileges of men can be seen in many
areas throughout many countries. One example of these privileges, data on
political participation, is given below: throughout all countries, men’s
participation is higher than women’s. Although slight changes can be noted
in most of the countries, political participation is still far from being gender
equal. In 2013 on average still nearly three-quarters (74%) of EU members
of parliament are men (see Figure 1). Only the Nordic region, as well as
France, Spain, Belgium and Iceland, are examples of a more genderbalanced distribution of parliament seats. Despite the relatively high male
participation rate of around 70%, Germany and Austria as well as
Switzerland show a more ‘favourable’ position than the EU-average.
Figure 2. Male members (%) of parliament single/lower house and upper house,
2003*, 2008 and 2013
Source: European Commission, DG Justice, Database on women and decisionmaking
69 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
Not only national data, but also regional data, reflects institutionalised
privileges of men in the field of political representation. Figure 2 combines
the proportion of male members of national assemblies with those of
regional assemblies. It becomes quite evident that in European countries
male representatives dominate at different levels of the political system.
Additionally, the variety between European countries becomes evident:
Again northern European countries as well as Belgium, Spain and France
are situated amongst those with more gender parity, Germany, Austria and
Switzerland are situated slightly below average and southern and eastern
European countries tend to be amongst those with the most unequal
distribution of women and men in the political system.
Figure 3. Male members (%) of parliaments and representative assemblies of
regional authorities 2012
Source: European Commission, DG Justice, Database on women and decisionmaking
Many countries which hold a more favourable position concerning
gender parity have established different quota systems to support a more
equal representation of women and men: France, Finland, Spain, Belgium
and also Poland have to be mentioned in this regard, as well as Norway
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 70
where almost all political parties practice gender quotas on a voluntary
basis (Scambor, Wojnicka, & Bergmann, 2013).
How to Engage Men in Gender Equality?
The main issue regarding the role of men in gender equality is connected to
finding the answer to the question How to engage men? According to
Michael Meuser (2000) one of the serious barriers to men’s engagement in
the gender equality process is the possibility of losing male privileges. This
‘danger’ may lead to high pressure towards conformity and passivity among
men and against men’s involvement in gender equality issues. (Scambor,
Wojnicka, & Bergmann, 2013). Therefore, the task is not only to indicate
male benefits of gender equality which can minimise the costs of traditional
masculinity, but also to convince men that resignation of gender privileges
is in fact a win-win situation and the risk is worth it. This might be achieved
through ‘men sensitive’ gender mainstreaming strategy as well as through
conducting institutionalised and non-institutionalised male politics.
Gender Mainstreaming
Gender mainstreaming, the current, main European strategy towards gender
equality, was introduced and implemented to change gender disparities like
the unequal distribution of privileges. In contrast to former equality politics
with the focus on the promotion of women, gender mainstreaming
explicitly includes women and men. Additionally, all kinds of policy fields
should be embraced. (Bergmann & Pimminger, 2004)
Although gender mainstreaming – or an integrated gender equality
approach – should be implemented in European countries, the actual
implementation varies between countries. A recent report (European
Commission, 2012) has identified four country groups in this respect:
• The most advanced group is characterised by a strong and lengthy
history in approaching gender equality and in introducing gender
mainstreaming supported by strong institutionalisation and dedicated
commitment. This group consists of the Nordic/Scandinavian countries.
• A second group of central European countries, consisting of Austria,
Germany and France for example and, to some extent, the UK, is
71 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
characterised by a rather early approach to gender mainstreaming in an
institutionalised way and the diffusion of several tools and practical
instruments3. However, gender mainstreaming seems now to need further
implementation and a new impetus to capitalise on efforts made in the past.
• In a third group EU Structural Funds constituted the driving force to
start implementing gender mainstreaming. Equality legislation was started
in a limited number of policy areas and is mainly confined to labour market
issues. This group is composed of mostly southern countries like Italy,
Greece, Portugal and Spain but also Ireland.
• Countries which are in the first phase of gender mainstreaming
implementation, which are mainly ‘new member’ states including the
Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus,
are in another group. They have started to implement gender mainstreaming
in strict relation to EU equal treatment directives and have little
infrastructure for the implementation of gender mainstreaming. The
integration of gender equality issues within national policies is mainly
associated with membership in the EU.
Although the concept of gender mainstreaming actively emphasises the
involvement of ‘both genders’ and various relational gender concepts, men
were often left out and the strategies were contextualised mainly as
‘women’s issues’. (Holter, 2003; Scambor & Scambor, 2008) However, at
least an initial awareness of the issue of men in gender equality can be seen
as a result of discussing and implementing strategies like gender
mainstreaming. Some countries additionally support the integration of
institutionalised practices of men’s active involvement in gender equality
structures in strategies.
Institutionalisation of Men’s Politics
The most evidence for institutionalised men’s involvement can again be
found in the Nordic countries and some central European countries –
countries with a longer tradition of gender equality approaches and/or a
stronger institutionalisation of gender equality machinery (countries within
the above-mentioned more ‘advanced’ country groups regarding gender
equality). As a consequence, different practices of how institutionalised
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 72
men’s politics are structured throughout Europe on national levels can be
elaborated.
Governmental committees or subcommittees as part of the national
governmental gender equality machinery
The most prominent example of this kind of institutionalised practice can
be found in Finland, which has a long tradition of men’s involvement in
state and governmental gender policy development. The European-wide
first “Subcommittee on Men” under the Council for Gender Equality was
established in 1988. The role of the subcommittee is to act as a specialist
group and to serve the Council. (Varanka, Närhinen, & Siukola, 2006)
Other important examples are the Men’s Committee as a part of the Council
for Gender Equality in Iceland (1994-2000 and started again in 2011) and
the Working Group on Men’s Equality as a part of the Government Council
for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in the Czech Republic which
started its work in 2010.
(Sub-)departments for men’s politics situated in units other tan
equal opportunity units
One example is the Department for Men’s Politics in Austria, which is, in
contrast to the former examples, not part of the overall national equal
opportunity structure but is rather situated in another ministry (the Federal
Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, and Consumer Protection). In 2000 it
was formed under a conservative/right-wing government and was very
controversial. (Brem, 2012) Although its policy is now orientated to a
gender equality approach it is not part of the overall national equality
strategy also due to its location in another ministry.
Boards appointed by governments
The Panel of Men in Denmark is one important example in this regard. It is
a kind of governmental advisory board which was established in 2011 by
the Danish Minister of Equality Opportunities. The panel consists of 19
73 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
men from top Danish businesses and universities. Their goal is to add new
perspectives and solutions to the gender equality debate.
(Informal) counselling structures on the national level
This includes examples like the Gender Dialogue in Switzerland as a
regular but informal meeting of women’s and men’s organisations with the
Federal Gender Equality Office (Theunert, 2012) and the Federal Forum of
Men in Germany (Schölper, 2012) which was established as an official
contact of the federal government to illustrate that men’s politics can be
integrated into gender equality strategies in very different settings.
In addition to the examples of institutionalising men’s involvement in
gender equality at national levels, strategies can be also found at regional
levels. In some European regions, cities and communities different
approaches have emerged, such as the reporting on gender equality from the
male perspective (e.g. the report ‘Gleichstellungsanliegen aus Männersicht’
in Bern) or the establishment of counselling structures at the community
level such as the ‘Männerbeauftragten’ in Zürich. (Theunert, 2012) All in
all however, the inclusion of male perspectives in gender equality
discourses and structures seems, up until now, to be quite limited in the
European context. Those countries with longer traditions of this provide
indications of the importance of an active governmental policy in this
respect but also an active civil society (bottom-up). Additionally, men’s
institutionalised involvement in gender equality strategies – in a pro-active
and profeminist sense – seems to be linked to a specific stage of gender
equality development. A certain belief in the necessity of gender equality in
society seems to be an important prerequisite, as is the case in Nordic
countries. Or, as Holmgren and Hearn put it, “a qualified consensus on the
value of gender equality as a political goal and general norm, which tends
to generate a broadly positive place for men in and around feminism”
(2009, p.404).
Non-Institutional Politics
Although institutional politics and formalised structures such as
committees, boards and governmental departments play a highly important
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 74
role in creating a gendered social change, phenomena like social
movements, grass-roots groups and other non-formalised social activities
seem to be equally important agents of the gender equality development
process.
International networks
Men’s groups and organisations with a focus on gender equality and men
and masculinities issues have developed within the last decades in Europe,
especially international networks and initiatives characterised by balanced
and profeminist approaches. According to Hearn and Pringle, since “the
early 1970s there have been in various Western countries anti-sexist men
and profeminist men followed in the 1980s, by the media creation of ‘new
men’” (2006, p.4). These men, organised in national groups, are part of
global alliances and international networks such as the European Men
Profeminist Network4 and MenEngage. MenEngage, a global network of
NGOs and UN agencies founded in 2004, promotes gender equality and
activism connected to the issue among men and boys. In the context of
MenEngage, an international meeting of more than 40 delegates from 25
European countries was organised in 2009, aiming “(…) to take forward the
initial development and formal formation process of MenEngage Europe”.
(http://www.menengage.org). Simultaneously, organisations and initiatives
in Europe have increasingly engaged in the White Ribbon Campaign, a
global initiative of men and women combating violence against women
founded in Canada in 1991. Members of the network educate young men
and boys and try to raise public awareness about the problem. The
campaign is conducted in cooperation with the women’s movement, the
corporate sector, the media and other social partners who are interested in
ending violence against women. Last but not least, in research and
academic institutions, scholars have organised themselves in research
networks focused on men and masculinities issues in Europe. CROME, an
international research network for Critical Research on Men in Europe, was
founded in 2002. The idea of this network was to provide data resources
and other information about critical research on men and masculinities as
well as to develop theoretical and empirical outcomes on men.
75 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
National networks and men’s groups – ‘balanced’ approach
The international networks on men and masculinities – mentioned above mainly consist of national groups and organisations with an integrated and
balanced perspective on privileges, costs and differences among men
towards gender equality. Initiatives on men and masculinities on the
European member state level can be outlined and divided into a
balanced/profeminist-approach or a distorted/antifeminist-approach. Some
of the initiatives are cooperating with each other on the international level
while some act mainly in their local or regional surroundings. Among them
one can find foundations, associations and informal groups, as well as
networks and umbrella alliances dedicated to widely understood men’s
issues. It should not go unmentioned that groups and networks with a
balanced approach to gender equality that are very often connected to the
profeminist perspective and cooperate with the women’s movement, are
mostly visible in countries which can be called ‘old EU member states’. For
example, in Austria some of the relevant actors in the field of men and
gender equality can be found in counselling centres and men’s initiatives
that emerged in the mid 80s. AMOE, a working platform of men’s
counselling centres and men’s centres in Austria is a non-formal umbrella
organisation and a country-wide network of centres that offer counselling,
personal development/education and contact/communication. AMOE rejects
any form of violence and gives special attention to men taking
responsibility for their behaviour and sharing power with women. Their
mission statement is focused on mutual respect for men and women and
aims for gender justice and gender democracy in all fields of life. In
Germany, a Federal Association of Men (Bundesforum Männer) has
recently been founded in close relation to the new Department on Gender
Equality Policy for Boys and Men in the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs,
Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. Bundesforum Männer concentrates on
issues of boys, men and fathers based on gender equality as a basic
principle of work. This means it pays attention to discrimination based on
gender and supports the development of diversity according to gender and
other social belongings. In the new EU member states, another pattern of
men’s initiatives appears. Men interested in activism for gender equality in
countries like Bulgaria, Romania or Poland are often engaged in women’s
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 76
movement activity due to a lack of profeminist men’s organisations.
(Scambor, Wojnicka, & Bergmann, 2013)
National networks and men’s groups - between balanced and
unbalanced approaches
While a profeminist, balanced approach characterises many men’s groups
and initiatives in old EU member countries, fathers’ rights movements seem
to be more meaningful in new member states. This statement does not mean
that in old EU member countries fathers’ rights movements do not exist.
They do appear as part of a rather complex mosaic of men’s movements
and can be placed among many profeminist, religious or therapeutic groups
of/for men, while in the new member states (e.g. Poland, Estonia, Malta),
fathers’ rights movements seem to dominate. In many post-socialist
European countries that suffer from a lack of profeminist movements, two
types of fathers’ rights initiatives can be found:
• progressive fathers movements strengthen a balanced approach to
gender equality policy by promoting men’s engagement in family life,
fighting against gender stereotypes and promoting the idea of shared
parenthood;
• unbalanced and antifeminist approaches focus on divorced, single
fathers and portray them as victims of women and policy based on gender
equality ideology (Wojnicka & Struzik, 2011).
It is important to underline that some of the initiatives undertaken by
national fathers’ rights groups have influenced policy and legislation in
their countries. In Slovakia, where traditionally custody after divorce was
mostly granted to mothers, recent changes in family law, initiated by actors
of fathers movements, allow for ordering joint custody (Scambor, Wojnicka
& Bergmann, 2013). A current study about the involvement of men in
gender equality in the European Union (Ruxton & Van der Gaag, 2012)
shows that higher numbers of balanced organisations exist mainly in
Northern and Central European countries, while new member states have
fewer organisations active in the field of men and gender equality. However
it must be mentioned that the number of balanced organisations and
initiatives in a country is only a rough indicator of the national situation
concerning men and gender equality. Full-time-equivalents in such
77 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
organisations per million inhabitants in each country or similar indicators
would be more meaningful indicators for comparative analysis across
European countries. However firstly, these numbers do not exist, and
secondly, the existence/non-existence of balanced types of initiatives does
not allow any conclusion towards a more or less gender equal society. The
difference is how men who are promoting gender equality are organised –
either affiliated with women’s groups or within balanced organisations.
Conclusions
Is an impact of men’s movements on institutionalised policy on men and
gender equality to be expected? Or do gender equality strategies on
international or national levels meet the issue of men and gender equality?
And how are these issues addressed? In many countries, gender
mainstreaming seems to have created an opening for the issue of men in
gender equality, an opening in the discussion and some pathways towards
institutional practices. But can we automatically expect a balanced equality
approach as soon as the role of men in gender equality policy is addressed?
How is gender framed and understood in the political context?
While we should not lose sight of the potential of engaging men in gender
equality, we have to be very careful in how we frame the strategies and the
ends to ensure that the feminist vision of gender democracy is not
compromised or co-opted. (Pease 2006, p.45)
Men’s involvement in gender equality strategies, especially in gender
mainstreaming, has also been discussed quite critically. Focusing on men
within gender equality strategies might include the danger that resources
actually designated for promoting women’s interests are re-allocated to
promote men’s interests. (Scambor & Scambor, 2008; Pease, 2006) Some
authors also suggest that the feminist orientation of gender equality might
be weakened and that it might be distinguished into separate male-femaleissues and not be within a gender equality framework. (Pease, 2006)
Therefore it is very important that the topic men and gender equality is
embedded in gender equality strategies and developed with close exchange
between feminist theory, gender equality and critical men’s studies in order
to avoid simplifications. Progressive men’s policies may tackle ‘men’s
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 78
privileges’, ‘costs of masculinity’ and ‘differences among men’ (Messner,
2000) at the same time, in order to develop a balanced approach on men
and gender equality. Therefore, unmasking men’s privileges, focussing on
relations in the gender system instead of focussing solely on men,
recognising social divisions among men, developing alliances between
women and men, maintaining affirmative actions and connecting the issue
of men with social justice are relevant principles on the way to men and
gender equality policies. (Pease, 2006) In addition, involving men via
institutionalised policies in gender equality strategies and the incorporation
of gender equality into a broader framework can be discussed as
possibilities for strengthening men’s involvement.
In Europe a shifting to a broader equality framework can be observed,
which focuses not on single aspects of discrimination, but rather combines
different aspects (for example gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation etc.).
The ongoing discussion about establishing a single anti-discrimination
directive, as proposed by the European Commission 2008, which includes
protection against all forms of discrimination can be interpreted as one step
in this direction. The new directive would come on top of four other
directives: one on discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, one on
discrimination in the labour market, one on equal treatment of men and
women regarding access to employment and one on equal treatment of men
and women regarding access to and supply of goods and services5.
Another indicator can be observed in a European-wide trend where
previous different equality bodies (dealing with different forms of
discrimination) merged into a single institution which covers different
forms of discrimination like gender, disability, age, ethnic origin, sexual
orientation etcetera. (Equinet, 2009, 2011) While this development has also
been criticised because it includes the risk of diluting gender equality in
other priorities, there are also many arguments in favour of this shift;
broadening the concept includes a stronger alliance against discrimination
and the possibility to incorporate a gender perspective regarding the other
above-mentioned inequalities.
Working on several grounds also makes it easier to argue from a position of
equal rights for all in society and makes it more difficult to frame equality
body in terms of only working for the benefit of a specific group in society”
(Equinet, 2009, p.52).
79 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
It is still an open question that has not yet been researched whether a
broader equality framework has the potential to engage more men in gender
equality issues. At least the possibility exists.
Notes
1
It must be mentioned that the paper’s findings are based on the analysis conducted during
the realisation of the project “Study on the role of men in gender equality”. The project has
been prepared for the European Commission, DG Justice - Unit D2 Gender equality
(contract ref. no. VC/2010/0592) and supported by the European Union Programme for
Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS (2007-2013).
2
See Scambor & Scambor (2012).
3
As Switzerland is not a member of the European Union it is not covered in the report, but
taking into account Switzerland’s focus on an “integrated gender equality strategy” (Durrer,
2013) it would have been classified in this group together with Austria and Germany.
4
The project was founded in 1998 by the European Union and for several years was one of
the most active networks for promoting gender equality among men. After some years of
activity EuroPRO-Fem was extinguished (http://www.europrofem.org).
5
See
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fdad/cms/stopdiscrimination/fighting_discrimination/Rights_and_
Responsibilities
References
Bergmann, N., & Pimminger, I. (2004). Praxishandbuch gender
mainstreaming. Konzept. Umsetzung. Erfahrung. Wien:
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit. Retrieved from
http://www.lrsocialresearch.at/sozialforschung/archiv-de/261Praxishandbuch+Gender+Mainstreaming
Brem, J. (2012). Zur Theraphie der Männlichkeit – Männerpolitik in
Österreich. In M.Theunert (Ed.), Männerpolitik. Was Jungen,
Männer und Väter stark macht (pp. 385-402). Zürich: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaft.
Connell, R.W. (2003). The role of men and boys in achieving gender
equality. Keynote paper presented at the United Nations Expert
Group Meeting on The role of men and boys in achieving gender
equality, Brasilia, Brazil, 21-24th October. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/men-boys2003/Connellbp.pdf
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 80
Durrer, S. (2012). Die schweizer gleichstellungspolitik und die männer. In
M.Theunert (Ed.), Männerpolitik. Was jungen, männer und väter
stark macht (pp. 403-422). Zürich: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft.
Equinet. (2009). Strategic role of equality bodies. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/experts/index_en.htm
Equinet. (2011). Providing independent assistance to victims of
discrimination. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/experts/index_en.htm
European Commission. (2012). Exchange of good practices on gender
equality. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/genderequality/tools/good-practices/index_en.htm
Hearn, J. (2001). Men and gender equality policy. In J.Varanka,
A.Närhinen & R.Siukola (Eds.), Men and gender equality: Towards
progressive policies (pp.24-31). Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs
and Health. Retrived from
http://pre20090115.stm.fi/hu1168255554694/passthru.pdf
Hearn, J., & Pringle, K. (2006). Studying men in europe in european
perspectives on men and masculinities. National and Transnational
approaches. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hearn, J., & Holmgren, L. (2009). Framing “men in feminism”: Theoretical
locations, local contexts and practical passings in men's genderconscious positionings on gender equality and feminism. Journal of
Gender Studies, 18 (4), 403 – 418. doi: 10.1080/09589230903260076
Holter, Ø.G. (2003). Can men do it? Men and gender equality - The Nordic
experience. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Messner, M.A. (2000). Politics of masculinities. Men in movements.
Lanham: Altamira Press.
Meuser, M. (2000). Perspektiven einer soziologie der männlichkeit. In
D.Janshen (Ed.), Blickwechsel. Der neue dialog zwischen frauenund männerforschung (pp. 47-79). Frankfurt: Campus.
Offe, C. (1985). New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of
institutional politics. Social Research, 52 (4), 817-868.
Pease, B. (2006). Gendering men: Implications for gender equality. In
J.Varanka, A.Närhinen & R.Siukola (Eds.), Men and gender
equality: Towards progressive policies (pp.38-46). Helsinki:
81 Bergmann et al. – Framing the involvement of men
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Retrived from
http://pre20090115.stm.fi/hu1168255554694/passthru.pdf
Ruxton, S., & Van der Gaag, N. (2012). The involvement of men in gender
equality in the European Union. Vilnius: European Institute for
Gender Equality.
Scambor, C., & Scambor, E. (2008). Men and gender mainstreaming.
prospects and pitfalls of a European strategy. Journal of Men’s
Studies, 16 (3), 301-315. doi: 10.3149/jms.1603.301
Scambor, C., & Scambor. E. (2012). Men’s involvement in gender equality
- Three sides of a coin. Working paper presented at the Workshop 3
in Study on the role of men in gender equality: Involving Men in
Gender Equality. Brussels, Belgium, 13rd January. Retrieved from
http://vmg-steiermark.at/forschung/publikation/mens-involvementgender-equality-three-sides-coin
Scambor, E., Wojnicka, K., and Bergmann, N. (Eds.). (2013). The role of
men in gender equality – European strategies & insights. . Brussels:
European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity.
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/genderequality/files/gender_pay_gap/130424_final_report_role_of_men_en.
pdf
Schölper, D. (2012). Zivilgesellschaftliche männerpolitik in Deutschland.
In M.Theunert (Ed.), Männerpolitik. Was jungen, männer und väter
stark macht (pp. 351-372). Zürich: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft.
Theunert, M. (2012). Männerpolitik in der Schweiz. In M.Theunert (Ed.).
Männerpolitik. Was jungen, männer und väter stark macht (pp. 423445). Zürich: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft.
Varanka, J., Närhinen, A., & Siukola, R. (Eds.)(2006). Men and gender
equality. Towards progressive policies. Helsinki: Ministry of Social
Affairs and Health.
Wojnicka, K. (2011). (Re)constructing masculinity a la polonaise. In E.
Ruspini, J.Hearn, B. Pease & K.Pringle (Eds.), Men and masculinity
around the world. Transforming men’s practices (pp. 71-84). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wojnicka, K., & Struzik, J. (2011). Mężczyźni w działaniu. In K.Wojnicka
& C. Ewelina (Eds.), Karuzela mężczyznami. Problematyka
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1) 82
męskości w polskich badaniach społecznych (pp. 257-278). Kraków:
Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
Nadja Bergmann is researcher at L&R Social Research, Vienna.
Elli Scambor is research coordinator at the Institute for Men’s Studies
and Gender Research, Graz.
Katarzyna Wojnicka is project manager and researcher at the Dissens
– Institut für Bildung und Forschung e.V., Berlin.
Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Elli Scambor, Institute for
Men’s Studies and Gender Research, Dietrichsteinplatz 15/8, 8010
Graz, Austria, email: [email protected]
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
Global Masculinities and Manhood
Fernando Macías1
1) Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
th
Date of publication: February 21 , 2014
Edition period: February 2014-June 2014
To cite this article: Macías, F. (2014) Global Masculinities and Manhood.
Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1), 83-84. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014.43
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/MCS.2014.43
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
MSC– Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 83-84
Reviews (I)
Jackson, R.L., & Balaji, M.(Eds.).(2011). Global Masculinities and
Manhood. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-25203651-4
En las Ciencias Sociales actuales es ineludible hablar de globalización.
Autores como Beck, Touraine, Sen o Burawoy, han puesto de manifiesto los
cambios que este proceso ha conllevado en las grandes relaciones
internacionales entre gobiernos, así como en aspectos ligados a la economía,
la cultura, la educación, etc. Sin embargo, existe un vacío importante
alrededor de la influencia qué han tenido todas estas transformaciones
mundiales en la construcción de la masculinidad. Los autores que han
participado en el libro Global Masculinities and Manhood aportan
conocimiento relevante alrededor del peso de la globalización en la
definición de las masculinidades. En este sentido, parten de la premisa de
que en la actualidad la masculinidad está cada vez más influenciada por las
interacciones globales que se van articulando en todo el planeta. Ello lleva a
constatar a sus editores, Roland L.Jackson y Murali Balaji, que se puede
corroborar la existencia de multiplicidad de masculinidades, algo que ya se
había identificado previamente en la literatura científica, pero que en este
caso se subraya sobre todo en Occidente. Atendiendo a esta cuestión,
Jackson y Balaji apoyan la idea de que no existe en ningún lugar del mundo
una identidad masculina estática. De hecho plantean que la diversidad está
cada vez más presente en multitud de espacios.
Según los editores, uno de los hechos que en Occidente ha contribuido a
fortalecer el debate sobre las masculinidades es la llegada de Barack Obama
a la Casa Blanca. El primer presidente afro-americano del país ha abierto la
caja de pandora sobre el modelo hegemónico de masculinidad: blanca y
conservadora. A parte de su origen y su color de piel, Obama ha mostrado
unas actitudes alejadas al modelo hegemónico de masculinidad, apoyando
por ejemplo políticas a favor de los colectivos más desfavorecidos, como el
homosexual. Este ejemplo permite introducirnos en una serie de análisis de
diferentes modelos de masculinidad que se concretan en los diferentes
capítulos. En esta review queremos señalar algunas de ellas por el interés
84 Macías - Global Masculinities and Manhood [Book Review]
que me han despertado como investigador gitano, y sobre todo porque, tal y
como se puede constatar a través de la lectura del libro, la etnia, la cultura y
la religión son elementos que interfieren en la construcción de la
masculinidad en los diferentes países dónde ésta ha sido estudiada.
Quería señalar el capítulo centrado en el análisis de la masculinidad en
Istanbul, elaborado por Nil Mutluer. En esta parte del libro se pone de
manifiesto la existencia de un discurso estatal en Turquía que asocia
aquellos hombres que no responden al estereotipo básico del país, como los
hombres kurdos y los hombres gitanos, con hombres terroristas. Aunque la
multiculturalidad es ya un hecho claro en este país, la diferencia aún es
vivida desde la deslegitimación de posibles modelos de masculinidad
igualitarios. Por otro lado, en el capítulo dedicado a los aborígenes
australianos, Shiro Konishi presenta un análisis novedoso sobre la debacle
aborigen en ese país. Para el autor, esa situación también significó una
pérdida de autoridad de los hombres aborígenes que se vieron derrotados por
los australianos.
A parte de estas aportaciones, el libro está integrado por diferentes
estudios sobre la definición de la masculinidad en zonas como América
Latina (Perú), Centro América (Jamaica) y África (Kenia), además de
considerar otros grupos sociales y culturales minoritarios como los NativeAmerican en Estados Unidos o las masculinidades queer. En definitiva, todo
ello supone una muestra clara e innovadora sobre la influencia de la
Globalización en la construcción de las masculinidades, es decir, sobre cómo
el mundo está cambiando con este proceso y cómo las identidades de los
hombres también se están viendo influenciadas por todos estos cambios.
Fernando Macías Aranda, Universitat de Barcelona
[email protected]
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
Rethinking Transnational Men: Beyond, between and within
Nations
Lena de Botton1
1) Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
th
Date of publication: February 21 , 2014
Edition period: February 2014-June 2014
To cite this article: De Botton, L. (2014) Rethinking Transnational Men:
Beyond, between and within Nations. Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1),
85-86. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014.44
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/MCS.2014.44
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
MSC– Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 85-86
Reviews (II)
Hearn, J., Blagojević, M., & Harrison, K. (Eds.).(2013). Rethinking
Transnational Men: Beyond, between and within Nations. Champaign, IL:
New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-52418-6
La Globalización viene siendo una temática de gran interés para las Ciencias
Sociales actuales, autores tan referenciados como Chomsky, Touraine,
Wallerstein, Robertson, Sen, Beck entre otros han profundizado sobre los
cambios que en los últimos años las sociedades y las relaciones entre países
han manifestado. Sin embargo, no existía hasta hoy un estudio detallado de
cómo está influenciando la globalización y la transnacionalidad en la
construcción de las identidades de género masculinas. El libro Rethinking
transnational men aporta una recopilación de ensayos e investigaciones que
abordan directamente esta temática de forma innovadora, además lo hace
desde una perspectiva también muy transnacional. En este sentido cabe
destacar que el libro lo firman autores y autoras de muy diferentes
nacionalidades como por ejemplo Australia, EEUU, Turquía, Ucrania,
Finlandia, Dinamarca, India, Irán, etc. Otro aspecto a subrayar es que autores
y autoras de gran relevancia internacional firman alguno de sus capítulos
como Connell, Messerschmidt y Howson, hecho que pone de relieve aún
más la calidad y prestigio del análisis efectuado.
De forma inicial el libro constata la existencia de culturas particulares y/o
locales, las cuales no están exentas de los actuales procesos de globalización,
de modo que los cambios locales están también condicionados por estas
circunstancias de índole global. Este contexto permite a los autores y autoras
del libro introducir el concepto de hombre transnacional que significa
incorporar la transversalidad del proceso globalizador y migratorio en la
construcción de la masculinidad. De hecho a lo largo del libro se redefine el
concepto de masculinidad hegemónica planteado por Connell hace más de
20 años, planteando que se debe reconsiderar la deconstrucción de este
modelo desde la singularidad de los procesos de transnacionalización que
viven las sociedades actuales. Es aquí donde el libro hace hincapié en la
interseccionalidad, elemento que en los estudios de género ha tenido una
86 De Botton – Rethinking Transnational Men [Book Review]
gran utilidad para dotar de explicaciones amplias y profundas sobre las
variables que pueden conducir a la violencia de género.
Existen dos elementos más dentro del análisis efectuado dentro del libro
que resulta de gran interés para los estudios de masculinidad. Por un lado la
importancia del contexto social actual que incide aunque sea de forma
indirecta. Así, se apunta que aunque haya lugares donde la investigación en
masculinidad no se ha desarrollado ampliamente, sobretodo porque tienen un
carácter eminentemente local, su difusión es cada vez más global e
internacional. De modo que aspectos como la colectividad y el cambio social
se convierten en elementos que contribuyen a que formas de masculinidad,
muy dispares y alejadas del modelo occidental, se visibilicen. Por otro lado,
esta simbiosis entre lo global y lo local también intercede positiva y
negativamente en la transformación del patriarcado. De forma negativa en la
perpetuación de conductas agresivas, de forma positiva en la redefinición de
las emociones masculinas a través de procesos como el migratorio.
Otro de los componentes que hacen del libro una aportación interesante e
innovadora en el campo del estudio de las masculinidades es la presentación
de las diferentes temáticas desde planteamientos teóricos distintos. Por
ejemplo el planteamiento crítico que propone ir más allá del enfoque de la
masculinidad hegemónica e introducir la multiplicidad de masculinidades.
Desde el ya mencionado enfoque de la hegemonía que tiene su fundamento
en las obras de Gramsci y Connell, pero que en este caso incorpora la
variabilidad de la globalización. De hecho esta es una de las últimas
preocupaciones y focos de interés de Connell en sus más recientes trabajos,
como los publicados en el número inaugural de la presente revisa. También
se da gran importancia a la interseccionalidad previamente mencionada.
Entender que pertenecer a una etnia y a una cultura no hegemónica puede
condicionar la construcción de la masculinidad. Desde los estudios culturales
y de la religión en los que está fundamentada mi experiencia investigadora
este libro también aporta nuevas consideraciones a tener en cuenta. En este
sentido la literatura científica ya había constatado la influencia del factor
racial en las desigualdades de género, pero en el libro se introduce de forma
diferente con el discurso teórico de la masculinidad como telón de fondo.
Lena de Botton Fernández, Universitat de Barcelona
[email protected]
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
List of Reviewers
th
Date of publication: February 21 , 2014
Edition period: February 2014-June 2014
To cite this article: (2014). List of Reviewers. Masculinities and Social
Change, 3(1), 87. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014.45
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/MCS.2014.45
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
MSC– Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2014
pp. 87
List of Reviewers
I would like to thank all the scholars who served as reviewers in 2013. As
the editor of the journal Masculinities and Social Change I am very grateful
for the evaluations realized which have contributed to the quality of this
journal.
Oriol Ríos
Editor
Serrano, Maria Ángeles
López, Laura
Fuller, Norma
Schubert, Tinka
Moliner, Lindon
González de Garay, Beatriz
Ramis, Mimar
Mondejar, Eduard
Carrillo, Anna
Yuste, Montse
Klein, Jessie
Burgués, Ana
Ruiz, Laura
Luengo, Rosa
Macías, Fernando
Íñiguez, Tatiana
Ramírez, Juan Carlos
de Botton, Lena
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.45
Melgar, Patricia
Rodríguez, Francesc
Villarejo, Beatriz
Vergés, Núria
Portell, David