What Should Historians Do with Masculinity? Reflections on Nineteenth-Century Britain
Author(s): John Tosh
Source: History Workshop, No. 38 (1994), pp. 179-202
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4289324
Accessed: 15/11/2009 15:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
Workshop.
http://www.jstor.org
ESSAYS
What Should Historiansdo with
Masculinity?
Reflections on Nineteenth-century
Britain
by John Tosh
Any call for historiansto take masculinityseriouslyis exposed to objection
on three fronts. It can be seen as an unwelcome take-over bid, as
unacceptablysubversive,or as a modishirrelevance.Thoughnone of these
objectionshas producedan articulatecritique,they are no less powerfulfor
that; together I suspect they account for most of the reluctance of the
historicalprofessionto explorethe potentialof this new perspective.
The firstpositionis takenby those who see the historyof masculinityas a
not-so-subtleattemptto infiltratewomen's historyand blunt its polemical
edge. The appropriateresponse was given as long ago as 1975 by Natalie
Zemon Davis. Addressinga feministaudience,she remarked
It seems to me that we shouldbe interestedin the historyof both women
and men, that we should not be workingonly on the subjectedsex any
morethanan historianof classcan focus entirelyon peasants.Ourgoal is
to understandthe significanceof the sexes, of gender groups in the
historicalpast.'
This analogyis not to do with symmetryor balance,but about the need to
understanda systemof socialrelationsas a whole- classin the firstinstance,
gender in the second. Davis was arguingthat unless the field of power in
which women have lived is studied, the realityof their historicalsituation
will alwaysbe obscured.On those groundsalone, the genderedstudyof men
must be indispensableto any seriousfeministhistoricalproject. There are
still no doubtstudentswho object to the inclusionof masculinityin women's
studies courses, but within academia Davis's point has been repeatedly
madeby feministhistoriansin recentyears.2
One reason why feministshave come to feel happierwith the study of
masculinityis that its full subversivepotentialis becomingvisible. It is this
realizationwhichshapes the second line of attack. One of the problemsof
women'shistoryhasbeen thatso muchof its outputhasconcernedareaslike
family, philanthropyand feminist politics which can be shruggedoff by
mainstreamhistoriansas a minoritypursuitwith no bearingon their work
(they are of course mistaken). But the history of masculinitycannot be
History Workshop Journal Issue 38
( History Workshop Journal 1994
180
HistoryWorkshopJournal
cordonedoff in thisway. It musteitherbe rejected,or incorporatedinto the
traditionalheartland. In an edited collection, Manful Assertions, which
appearedthree years ago, MichaelRoper and I broughttogetheressays on
labour, business, religion, educationand nationalidentity in Britainover
the past 200 years, and were we assemblingthe volume now we would be
able to include material on institutionalpolitics too.3 In other words,
historiansof masculinityare in a strongpositionto demonstrate(not merely
assert)thatgenderis inherentin all aspectsof sociallife, whetherwomenare
presentor not.
Perhapsthe commonestresponseamonghistoriansis an all-too-familiar
wearyscepticism.Masculinityaccordingto this view is merelythe latestin a
seriesof ideologicalred-herringswhichwill add nothingto whatwe already
knowaboutidentity,socialconsciousnessandsocialagencyin the past- and
indeed will probablyobscurewhat we do know. It's easy to write off this
attitudeas a symptomof intellectualfatigue.But in fact it relatesto a crucial
feature of masculinityin most societies that we know about, and certainly
modernWesternones, namelyits relativeinvisibility.Men were the norm
against which women and children should be measured. Women were
'carriers'of gender, becausetheirreproductiverole was held to definetheir
place in society and their character.Masculinityremainedlargely out of
sight since men as a sex were not confined in this or any other way: as
Rousseaubluntlyput it, 'The male is only a male at times; the female is a
female all her life and can never forget her sex'.4 This view proved
remarkablyenduring.Even in the late Victorianheydayof scientificbelief in
sexual difference, little was made of men's distinctive biology and the
charactertraits that might flow from it, compared with the volume of
comment on women.5Men's nature was vested in their reason not their
bodies. A profound dualismin Western thought has served to keep the
spotlightawayfrommen. In the historicalrecordit is as thoughmasculinity
is everywherebut nowhere.
Given this frustratingsituation, it is hardly surprisingthat historians
interestedin movingtowardsa genderedhistoryof men have seized upon
anything that looks like an explicit ideology of masculinity.Hence the
renewed interest in codes of chivalry and honour.6For the nineteenthcentury historian the situation is at first sight particularlyencouraging
becauseof the hundredsof volumeswrittenon the subjectof 'manliness'- a
high-profileideology of masculinity,if ever there was one. It was elaborated, reiterated,contestedand adapted- by preachers,school-mastersand
novelists. It was treatedas the essence of civic virtueand the root of heroic
achievement, while at the same time being scaled down to everyday
proportionsas a guide for the little man. As one of the key conceptsin the
moraluniverseof the Victorians,manlinesshas been well suitedto the skills
of the intellectualand culturalhistorian.Walter Houghton allows only a
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
181
brief discussionin his classicThe VictorianFrameof Mind(1957), but were
he writingtodaymanlinesswouldsurelyenjoy a higherprofile.DavidNewsome began the work of reclamationwith his fine pioneer studiesof publicschool culture. J. A. Manganhas chartedthe relationshipbetween manliness and athleticism.NormanVance and ClaudiaNelson have considered
the placeof manlinessin Victorianfiction,andStefanCollinihasweighedits
significancefor some of the heavy-weightliberalthinkersof the day.7
The outcome of all this work is not only to document a number of
importantstrandswithin manliness,but to identify a broad shift over the
Victorianera from the earnest, expressivemanlinessof the Evangelicalsto
the hearty,stiff-upper-lipvariantin the era of KitchenerandBaden-Powell.
Manlinessexpressesperfectlythe importanttruththat boys do not become
men just by growingup, but by acquiringa varietyof manlyqualitiesand
manly competencies as part of a conscious process which has no close
parallelin the traditionalexperienceof young women (try adapting'Be a
man!'for use by the other sex). If men are the sex at large in society, they
must live by a code which affirms their masculinity. As such a code,
Victorian manliness was not only taken very seriously by pundits and
preachers;it was also manifestin the lives of countlessyoungmen, who saw
it as an expression of their manhood in keeping with their religious
convictions, or their social aspirations,or both together. So for anyone
concernedto historicizemasculinity,manlinessis an obviousstartingpointand it is where I begantoo.8
The resultsof this emphasishave been distinctlymixed. The problemis
not thatmanlinesswas a culturalrepresentationof masculinityratherthana
description of actual life. Modern theorists of gender are correct in
attributinggreatpower to such representations,and their argumentis only
partlycontingenton the highprofileof the massmediatoday.9Case-studies
of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have shown how lived
masculineidentities drew on a repertoireof culturalforms- I'm thinking
here of GrahamDawson'sworkon the psychicmeaningof militaryheroes,
Joseph Bristow on adventure fiction, and Kelly Boyd on boys' story
papers.1oThe problemis ratherthatVictorianmanlinesswas an elitecultural
form, of an often crudelydidactickind. Thisis one reason,of course,why it
is sucha relief to move fromthe sermonizingof TomBrown'sSchooldaysor
John Halifax Gentlemanto the more relaxed adventurefiction of Rider
HaggardandG. W. Henty. But these late-Victorianbest-sellerauthorswere
permeatedby the valuesof the comingcode of imperialmanliness,andtheir
role in propagatingthese values to a mass audienceis clear. It would be a
great mistake to suppose that the cultural representationof Victorian
masculinitywas an entirely elite affair, but the mistake is easily made
becausescholarlyworkhasbeen so tiltedin this direction.We need to know
much more about the gender models conveyed by music-hallsong - like
PeterBailey'ssuggestiveaccountof 'ChampagneCharlie',the popularstage
swellof the late 1860s,withhis narcissism,his convivialconsumerismandhis
182
HistoryWorkshopJournal
assertivesexuality.11
And untilwe do, we shouldbe cautiousaboutassuming
much permeationby the dominantmanly values beyond the ranksof the
lower middleclass.
Another problemwith manlinessis its cerebraland bloodless qualityclosely related, of course, to its elite provenance.While manlinesscan in
theorybe definedas a minglingof the ethicalandthe physiological,12
a great
deal of the literature of the day left the overwhelmingimpressionthat
masculineidentificationresidedin the life of the mind (heavilyoverlaidby
conscience)ratherthan the body. This was certainlyno longer the case by
the end of the nineteenth century, when there was a growing tension
between the moraland physicalcriteriaof manliness.13But for most of the
Victorianera the highgroundwasheld by the moralists,who eitherbelieved
thatthe bodywouldtake careof itself, or else favoured'manlyexercises'for
their salutory moral effect. Even Thomas Hughes, creator of the highspirited Tom Brown and advocate of boxing for the working man,
maintainedthat manlinesswas about moral excellence, and as likely to be
found in a weak body as a strong.14The aristocracy,in keeping with its
traditionalclaim to be a militaryas well as a ruling caste, took sporting
prowess and physical hardinessmuch more seriously, but their code of
manlinesswas of declininginfluencefromthe 1830sonwards.Only at times
of popularalarmabout the nation'smilitaryreadiness,like the late 1850s
and 60s,15and the first decade of the twentieth century,16did vestiges of
aristocraticmanlinessreappearin the mainstream.For the most part, the
Victoriancode of manlinessmade scantacknowledgementof the body.17
Nowhere was this distortion more pronounced, of course, than with
regardto sexuality.Publicteachingon manlinesswas almostunanimousin
enjoining purity on young men, and in casting a veil over sex within
marriage.The eighteenth-centurytensionbetween manlinessas enjoyment
and manlinessas abstinencewas emphaticallyresolved.18The nearestthat
any variantof manlinesscame to acknowledgingthe reality of the sexual
impulse was CharlesKingsley'sspiriteddefense of the 'divinenessof the
whole manhood',19 but his influencein this regardwas slight.Yet alongside
this massive silence has to be placed the incontrovertibleevidence of
large-scaleprostitution.Wherethisconflictsmostdirectlywiththe pietiesof
manlydiscourseis not so muchthe sanctityof the marriagevow as the purity
of young men. These probably accounted for the vast majority of the
prostitutes'clients:bachelorspostponingmarriageuntiltheirprospectshad
improved, middle-classyouths who heeded their doctors' warningsabout
the dangerof complete continence, soldiersand sailors, young migrantor
transientworkers,andso on.20The implicationis that, exceptfor those men
who camefromdevoutor otherwisehighlyrespectablefamilies,commercial
sex wasa masculineriteof passage,andin manycasesa routineeroticoutlet.
Yet it is still extraordinarilydifficultto incorporatethis fact into our picture
of the Victorians.The 'gaylife' was verywidespread,but it remainedfirmly
out of sight.
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
183
So far as marriageis concerned, Peter Gay's attempt to rehabilitate
bourgeoisVictorianswould suggestthat theirmasculinitywas more at ease
with the erotic life than had been supposed.21Although too few of Gay's
case-studiesare drawnfromEnglandfor the case to be regardedas proven,I
cannot resist mentioningthe two middle-classmen whom I have studiedin
detail - EdwardBenson and Isaac Holden of Bradford.Both possessed a
strong and guilt-free desire for erotic satisfaction in marriage despite
profoundreligiousconvictionsin each case.22It is alsointerestingthatpublic
figureswho were widely believed to practiseabstinencein marriage,like
John StuartMill or John Ruskin, suffereda loss of masculinereputation.
But the point I wish to emphasize is that our ignorance in this area is
compoundedby the tendency in some quartersto equate manlinesswith
masculinity.Certainly,if we take nineteenth-centurydiscoursesof manliness at face value there is no scope for exploringthe meaningsgiven to
sexualidentityand sexualdesirewhichare fundamentalto masculinity.
But the key problemis that 'manliness'was only secondarilyaboutmen's
relationswithwomen. Of courseit embracednotionsof chivalry- thatis, the
protection due to sisters, then wives, and by extension any respectable
woman.23Anna Clarkis surelyrightto see the foregroundingof this ideal in
placeof libertinismas centralto earlyVictorianmanliness.24
But thiswasnot
the main thrustof public discourse.Writerson manlinesswere essentially
concernedwith the inner characterof man, and with the kind of behaviour
which displayedthis characterin the world at large. The dominantcode of
Victorian manliness, with its emphasis on self-control, hard work and
independence,was that of the professionaland businessclasses, and manly
behaviour was what (among other things) established a man's class
credentialsvis-a-vishis peers and his subordinates.Of course, as Leonore
DavidoffandCatherineHall havestressed,the labourandsupportof female
family members was essential to this public face,25but the tenets of
manlinessitself madeabsolutelyno acknowledgementof thisfact. Nor were
explicitcontrastsbetween the sexes muchemphasisedby the pundits.The
distinctionwhich exercised them (following the influentialDr Arnold of
Rugby)was that between men and boys; worriesaboutimmaturitycounted
for much more than the fear of effeminacy,at least until the 1880s.26That
perhapsis why so many recent historicalwritingson manlinesshave been
quiteinnocentof gender.They arecertainlyhelpfulin givingsome historical
particularityto notions of masculinity.But they also convey the decidedly
unfortunateimpressionthat men can be satisfactorilystudied in isolation
from women, thus obscuringthe crucialrelationalqualityof all masculinities. Manlinesspresents a convenient target for gender historians,but a
fundamentallymisleadingone. It certainlyisn't the masterconcept which
will unlockthe puzzleof Victorianmasculinity.
2
To a greateror lesser degree, the same limitationsapplyto most ideologies
184
HistoryWorkshopJournal
of masculinity,and the explanationis simple. For underlyingthem all was
the incontrovertiblefact of men's social power. As a general rule, those
aspects of masculinitywhich bear most directlyon the upholdingof that
power are least likely to be made explicit. More specifically,men have
seldom advertisedthe ways in which authorityover women has sustained
their sense of themselves as men. Even in areas of obvious contention
betweenthe sexes like the suffrage,men'soppositionto measuresof reform
was muchmorelikelyto cite women'smissionor women'sinferioritythanto
dwellon men'sstakein sexualpower.27But the factthatsuchthingswerenot
much spoken of is no reason to doubt their importance- in fact ratherthe
reverse. One explanationfor John Stuart Mill's intense unpopularityin
conservativecirclesis thathe voiced unpalatabletruthsin preciselythis area
- like his assertion in The Subjection of Women that 'the generality of the
male sex cannotyet toleratethe idea of livingwithan equal'.28The ragewith
which very modest reforms in the law on the custody of children were
greeted is some measureof the extent to whichmen felt theiridentityto be
vested in the exerciseof domesticauthority.29
What then is the historicalconnectionbetween patriarchy30
and masculinity?As I have shown, the answerofferedby recentworkon manlinessis:
not much. To move beyond that ratherbland disclaimer,we have to turn
from masculinityas a set of culturalattributesto considermasculinityas a
social status, demonstratedin specificsocial contexts. I say 'demonstrated'
becausepublic affirmationwas, and still is, absolutelycentralto masculine
status.Here it is worthtakingnote of some of the earlierfindingsof feminist
anthropology.MichelleRosaldopointedto a criticaldistinctionbetweenthe
upbringingof boys and girls in almost all societies. Whereas girls are
expected to graduateto womanhoodin a largelydomesticsetting under a
mother's tutelage, boys have to be preparedfor a more competitive and
demandingarena.Theirqualificationfor a man'slife amongmen - in short
for a role in the public sphere- depends on their masculinitybeing tested
againstthe recognitionof theirpeers duringpuberty,young adulthoodand
beyond. As Rosaldoput it,
A woman becomes a woman by following in her mother's footsteps,
whereas there must be a break in a man's experience. For a boy to
become an adult, he must prove himself - his masculinity - among his
peers. And althoughall boys maysucceedin reachingmanhood,cultures
treatthis developmentas somethingthat each individualhas achieved.31
What precisely has to be achieved varies a lot between cultures, but in
modernWesternsocietiesthe publicdemonstrationof masculinityoccursin
three linked arenas- home, work and all-maleassociations.I would like to
dwell on the gendered meaning of each of these contexts in nineteenthcenturyBritain,because I thinkthat togetherthey accountfor muchof the
reasonwhy masculinityshouldmatterto socialhistorians.
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
185
In most societies that we know of, setting up a new household is the
essential qualificationfor manhood. The man who speaks for familial
dependents and who can transmit his name and his assets to future
generations is fully masculine. The break is all the clearer when it is
recognizedthat marriagerequiressettingup a new household,not forminga
sub-unit within the parental home. In the nineteenth century this was a
governingconditionof the transitionto adultlife. Bachelorhoodwas always
an ambivalentstatus, thoughits culturalappeal was greaterat some times
than others - particularlyat the end of the century. Once established, a
household had to be sustainedby the man's productiveactivities. In the
eighteenth century this condition was met in many areas by household
production,with the man directingthe labourof familymembersand other
dependents.32As this pattern declined during the following century,
increasingemphasis was placed on the man's unaided labours. Notwithstandingthe prevalenceof women'semploymentin the workingclass, the
culturalweightattachedto the male breadwinnerwas overwhelming.It was
reflectedpositivelyin the demandfor a 'familywage', and negativelyin the
humiliation of the unemployed man obliged to depend on his wife's
earnings,and in the angerof the skilledartisandisplacedby female labour.
'Whatis the feeling of a manin this position?'askeda Kidderminstercarpet
weaverin 1894. 'Has it not a tendencyto reducehim and create a littleness
when he is no longerthe bread-winnerof the family?'(emphasisadded)33
The location of authority within the household was the other key
determinantof masculinestatushere. The powerof thepaterfamiliasis most
assuredwhen he controlsthe labourof householdmembers,which is why
householdproductionis usuallytaken to implya patriarchalfamily.By the
mid-nineteenthcentury economic organizationhad moved sharplyaway
from this pattern, but patriarchalvalues still held sway. The belief in the
household as a microcosmof the political order, vigorouslyre-stated by
Evangelicals,underlinedthe importanceof the manbeingmasterin his own
home.34The law remained pretty unyielding. The husband was legally
responsiblefor all membersof the household,includingservants,and only
in cases of extremecruelty(mentalor physical)was his authorityover wife
or childrenat risk. In culturalterms, up-to-datenotionsof domesticityand
companionatemarriagemayhavecarvedout a moreautonomousspherefor
the wife, especially in middle-classfamilies, but the ultimate location of
authoritywas seldom in doubt. Indeed, as Jim Hammertonhas recently
pointed out, companionatemarriageoften led the husband to be more
assertive and heavy-handed, not less.35 Home might be the 'woman's
sphere',butthe husbandwho abdicatedfromhis rightsin the causeof a quiet
life was in commonopinion less than a man, and he was a commonbutt of
music-hallhumour.36
Maintenanceof a household at a level of comfort appropriateto one's
socialstatuspresupposedan incomefromwork- the secondleg of masculine
reputation. But not just any work. It wasn't enough that the work be
186
HistoryWorkshopJournal
dependableor even lucrative- it had to be dignified,and the wide currency
of this notion is one of the most distinctivefeatures of the nineteenthcenturygender regime. For middle-classwork to be dignified,it had to be
absolutelyfree fromanysuggestionof servilityor dependenceon patronage.
'Look not for success to favour, to partiality,to friendship,or to what is
called interest', declaredWilliamCobbett;'writeit on your heart that you
will dependsolely on yourown meritandyourown exertions'.37Neitherthe
practiceof a professionnor the runningof a businesswas representedas a
mere burden. It might become so in particularinstances, - if one found
oneself in the wrong occupation, or wrecked one's constitutionthrough
overwork, but fundamentallya man's occupationin life was his 'calling',
often seen as subject to the workingsof Providence.The idea that what a
man did in his workinglife was an authenticexpressionof his individuality
was one of the most characteristic- and enduring- featuresof middle-class
masculinity.38
Inevitablythe scope for these valuesin the workingclasswas limited.But
the idea that the working man's property lay in his skill, acquired by
apprenticeshipor trainingunderhis father'seye, carrieda comparableload
of moral worth, and it was the basis on which craft unions demandedthe
continuation of traditional labour relations based on respect for the
masculineskills of the men.39Among the manualworkingclass, it seems
highly likely that the aggressive celebration of physical strength as an
exclusive badge of masculinity,described by Paul Willis in the 1970s,40
prevailedin Victoriantimes too. The haplessoffice clerk fell between two
stools: in middle-classtermshis occupationwas servile, while the labourer
despised his soft hands and poor physique.4' In each case masculine
self-respectdemandedthe exclusionof women. The gender coding of the
world of work could accept the realityof women's labourin the domestic
setting as servantsor home-workers.But the entry of women into formal
paidworkout of the home - whetherit was mill-girlsat the beginningof the
centuryor female office-clerksat the end - alwaysoccasionedstrain, not
only becausethere mightbe less work (or less well-paidwork)for men, but
becausetheirmasculineidentityas the workingsex was at stake.42
The thirdleg of men's social identityis less familiar,and certainlymuch
less developed in the theoreticalliterature.But all-male associationsare
integralto any notion of patriarchybeyond the household. They embody
men'sprivilegedaccessto the publicsphere,while simultaneouslyreinforcing women's confinementto household and neighbourhood.This perception has made little impacton historicalworkon modernWesternsocieties.
'Malebonding'wouldbe a handylabel, if it didnot suggestsomethingprimal
and trans-historical.43
For we are dealinghere with quite a wide varietyof
social forms. Some, like craft guilds or chambersof commerce or professional bodies, existed to promote the pursuit of business, and might
thereforebe subsumedundermy second headingof work. But there were
fartoo manymen'sassociationswhichhadlittleor nothingto do withwork.I
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
187
am thinkingof the voluntaryassociationsandpressuregroupswhose voices
together made up 'publicopinion', and the clubs, tavernsand bars which
oiled the wheels of friendship,politicsandleisure(as well as business).
The salience of these groupsis partlydeterminedby the life cycle. The
appealof all-maleconvivialityis probablygreatestamongyoungunmarried
men who are temporarilydenied the full privileges of masculinity:the
journeymen'sassociation,the street gang, the sportsclub. Schoolingoften
intensifiesit. In the second half of the nineteenthcenturythe publicschools
were patriarchalinstitutionsnot only because they excluded women, but
because they instilled an enduringpreferencefor all-malesociability.But
the appeal of associationallife goes well beyond youth. In the nineteenth
century this was most evident in the United States, where the hold of
fraternallodges over the leisure-timeand the purses of urbanmen of all
classesin the generationafterthe CivilWarwas trulyremarkable."Britain
boastedan arrayof institutionsfor men of all ages, rangingfromthe pub, the
friendly society and the working men's club through to the middle-class
voluntaryassociationand the West End club.45All of these arenaswere at
one time or another correctlyperceivedby women as contributingto the
edifice of male exclusionarypower. They sustainedthe powerfulmyththat
masculinityis aboutthe exclusivecompanyof men, andof coursemostwork
settingsreinforcedthis. What the literarycriticEve Sedgwickhas dubbed
the 'homosocialalliance'is fundamentalto masculineprivilege.At the same
time, as she points out, it operateswithinclear limits,for in the interestsof
protectingthe key patriarchalinstitutionof marriage,desirebetweenmales
is inadmissable;camaraderiemustremainjust that. So whilemalebondingis
prescribed,homosexualityis proscribed.46It was no coincidencethat the
firstmodernhomosexualpanicoccurredin the 1880s,whenthe clubabilityof
the propertiedclasseswasparticularlypronouncedandtheirage of marriage
(aroundthirtyfor men) unprecedentedlylate. Any hint of erotic chargeor
emotional excess between men, such as had been commonplacein polite
societya generationearlier,now arousedsuspicion.W. T. Stead'sremarkto
EdwardCarpenterin 1895that 'a few more cases like OscarWilde'sandwe
should find the freedom of comradeshipnow possible to men seriously
impaired'47
provedall too accurate.All-male associationssustainedgender
privilege,while at the same time imposinga disciplineon individualsin the
interestsof patriarchalstability.
3
In dwellingon the importanceof home, work and associationas minimal
componentsof masculineidentity, I have doubtlesslabouredthe obvious.
My reasonfor doing so is that I have wantedto preparethe groundfor the
more interestingclaimthat the precisecharacterof masculineformationat
any time is largely determinedby the balance struckbetweenthese three
components.I think it's now widely recognizedthat constantemphasison
the 'separationof spheres' is misleading,partlybecause men's privileged
188
HistoryWorkshopJournal
abilityto pass freely between the publicand the privatewas integralto the
socialorder. And some notion of complementarityis alwaysimpliedby that
key nineteenth-centuryindicatorof masculinityachieved, 'independence',
combiningas it did dignifiedwork, sole maintenanceof the family,andfree
associationon termsof equalitywith other men. But it's muchrarerto see
these elements consideredas a linked system- characterized,as any such
systemmustbe, by contradictionandinstability.Yet this, it seems to me, is
one of the most promisingways of pinning down the social dynamicsof
masculinity.
Consider,first of all, the Victorianmiddle class. Any notion of a solid
bourgeois masculinity is not tenable. The balance between my three
componentswas inherentlyunstableand often gave visible signs of strain.
Essentiallythis was becausethe ideologyof domesticityraisedthe profileof
home life far beyondits traditionalplace in men'slives, andhence posed in
an acute form the conflictbetween the private and public constituentsof
masculinity.Alreadyin Cobbett'swritingsone cansee the tensionsbetween
familylife and'thegabbleandbalderdashof a clubor pot-housecompany'.48
By mid-century,when middle-classmoresplaced the tavernoff-limits,this
conflictwas less stark.The decorousentertainmentof lecturesandconcerts,
not to mentioncollectiveactionin the publicinterest,appearedto be in less
conflictwithdomesticvalues, thoughrealdevotees of domesticcomforthad
to be remindedthat duty in the publicspheremightrequiresome personal
sacrifice.49More fundamentalwas the clash between work and home. In
whichspherewas a man reallyhimself?The implicationsof the workethic,
in its unyieldingVictorianform,wereclear, andin spellingthemout Carlyle
hadimmenseandenduringinfluence.But therewasa strongcurrentrunning
the other way. The adage 'an Englishman'shome is his castle', which
enjoyed wide currency by the 1850s,5?conveyed a double meaning of
possession against all comers, and of refuge or retreat from the world
beyond. This secondmeaningspoke withspecialforce to those middle-class
men who experiencedthe worldof workas alienatingor morallyundermining. FromFroudethroughDickensto WilliamHale White,Victorianfiction
propoundsthe notion that only at home can a man be truly himself; as
Froude put it in The Nemesisof Faith (1849), 'we lay aside our mask and
drop our tools, and are no longer lawyers, sailors, soldiers, statesmen,
clergymen,but only men'.51 And, lest you should suppose that historians
were above this alienation, CoventryPatmore (writingin the same vein)
specificallyincludedthe scholar'wearyinghis wits over aridparchments'.52
By the 1880sthe balancehad shifted. For the professionalclasses at least,
domesticitywas increasinglyassociatedwith ennui, routine and feminine
constraint.53The result was a higher rate of male celibacy, rising club
membership,and a vogue for 'adventure'- both in the real-lifehazardsof
mountaineeringand the rougher sports, and in what Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle admiringlycalled 'the modern masculine novel' of Robert Louis
Stevenson and Rider Haggard.s4For middle-classmen at the turn of the
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
189
centurythe respectivepulls of home and the homosocialworldwere much
more evenly matchedthanthey hadbeen for theirgrandfathers.Perhapsno
clearerevidence could be found than the enormousappeal of Scoutingto
boys and scout-masters alike: the camp-fire was all that the domestic hearth
was not.55
In the workingclass men's commitmentto home was more problematic
still. In mostcasestherewasof coursefarless to holdthe workingmanthere.
If his home servedalso as a workshopit wasunlikelyto boastthe modicumof
amenitieswhichmightdrawhim to his own fireside.If he was an employee
on averageearningsor less, hiswife'sworkat home combinedwithdomestic
overcrowdingwere likely to increasethe attractionsof the pub. Therewere
plenty of people withinthe workingclasswho deploredthis state of affairs.
Anna Clark has drawn attention to that strand within Chartismwhich
advocated a domesticated manhood, like the London Working Men's
Associationwhichdenied'the attributesandcharactersof men'to thosewho
were forgetfulof their duties as fathers and husbands.56By the 1870sthe
claim to a dignifiedhome life was part of the stock-in-tradeof trade union
leaders.57It seems clearthatin the late Victorianperiodtherewas a growing
minorityof comparativelywell-paidskilledworkerswho entirelysupported
the household and spent much of their leisure-timethere. Yet the reality
could be very differentoutside this privilegedgroup. Both Ellen Ross and
Carl Chinn describe an urban working-classworld from which private
patriarchyhad almost disappeared.The husbandwas often made to feel a
bull-in-a-china-shop,excluded from the emotional currentsof the family.
More likely than not, as a boy he would have developed domestic and
nurturingskills, but an importantpartof his growingup to manhoodwas to
'forget' these skills. The wife, on the other hand, was the one who
maintainedvital neighbourhoodsupport, who negotiated with landlords
and welfare workers, and who supervisedthe children'sschooling. Even
movinghouse was often her decision.Londonmagistratessometimesspoke
of the wife's 'headshipof the home'. This was in the context of domestic
assault- surelya symptomof the acutemasculineambivalenceexperienced
by men married to women who so effectively controlled the domestic
sphere.58One can argue whether workingmen's attachmentto convivial
drinkingwas cause or effect of their discomfortin the home, but cuttinga
figurein the pubwas clearlya farless equivocalsignof masculinestatusthan
presidingover the home. Chartingthe ebb andflowof men'scommitmentto
domesticlife, whetherin the workingclass or the bourgeoisie,has muchto
revealaboutthe dynamicsof masculinity- then andnow.
4
Althoughthis is far frombeing a comprehensiveaccount,it shouldbe clear
that in the nineteenth century masculinityhad multiple social meanings.
Citingthis kind of historicalmaterialhas become a standardprocedurefor
studentsof genderwho wish to emphasizemasculinityas multiform.59
It is
190
History Workshop Journal
obviously important to dispose once and for all of the argument that
masculinityis 'natural' and thus beyond history. But well-documented
diversity raises the opposite problem that masculinitymay be merely a
second-orderfeature, contingenton other social identities:teasingout the
play of masculinityin Chartismor the bourgeoisworkethic may add colour
to our understanding,but it does not introducea new dynamic.
There is some truth in this. For example, it is a fair inference from
Davidoff and Hall's Family Fortunes that domesticated manliness was
essentially the character-setof a more devout and materiallyconfident
middle class expressed in gender terms. Particularclasses are sometimes
associatedwitha distinctivemasculinity.In the nineteenthcenturyupwardly
mobile men had to adapt themselvesto differentmasculineexpectations,
like the artisanrisinginto 'respectability',60 or the young Thomas Carlyle
railingagainstthe enfeebledmasculinityof the Londonmen of letterswhose
rankshe soughtto join.61There is a sense, too, in whichrulingclassesmay
propagatetheir distinctivemasculinecodes to the society at large, just as
they disseminatetheir political values. It has often been pointed out, for
example,that Baden-Powell'sintentionin settingup the Boy Scoutswas to
introduceboys from the lower-middleand workingclassesto public-school
manliness, as the best basis for physical fitness, an ethic of service, and
patriotism.(It should be noted that the exercise was selective: while the
public schools aimed to train boys in obedience and then command, the
secondstagewas playeddownin the Scouts.)62
But genderstatuscannotbe reducedto class status. Even when the two
are runningin parallel,so to speak, interpretationof experienceand action
is likely to be significantlymodifiedby takingmasculinityinto account. It
makesa differenceto recognizethat unemploymentnot only impoverished
workers but gravely compromisedtheir masculineself-respect(including
their ability to demand respect from women). In late nineteenth-century
London the industrializationof traditionalworkshoptradesnot only made
earningsmore precarious;it also destroyedthe father'sabilityto endowhis
son with a craft or a job, and was resented for this reason.63Again, if
domesticviolence is placed in the context of a volatile power relationship
betweenthe sexes at home, we can move beyondtritecommonplacesabout
the power of cheap liquor. In short, considerationof masculinity(like
femininity)enlargesthe range of factorsrelevantto the historianof social
identityor socialchange.It is preciselybecauseDavidoffandHall structure
Family Fortunesaround masculinityand femininitythat we now have a
different view of the middle class in the early nineteenth century;their
achievementis not to fillout the genderattributesof a classwe alreadyknow
about, but to place genderat the centreof classformationitself.
But thereis a furtherreasonwhy masculinityis resistantto incorporation
within other social categories. It has its own pecking order which is
ultimatelyto do with upholdingpatriarchalpower ratherthan a particular
class order. Ruling groupsdo not only valorizeparticularfeaturesof their
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
191
own masculinecode; they often marginalizeor stigmatizeother masculine
traitsin a waywhichcutsacrossmorefamiliarsocialhierarchies.Thiswillbe
clearif we look at the two categoriesmost often repressed,youngbachelors
and homosexuals. In most societies the energy of young men who are
physicallymature but not yet in a position to assume the full duties or
privilegesof an adult is combustible,to say the least. Much of the offence
that they give is because they precociously affect fully adult modes of
masculinebehaviourin exaggeratedor distortedforms.Sincethe heydayof
the disorderlyapprentice,young men have been a by-wordfor brawling,
drunkenness,sexual experimentand misogyny(the last two being entirely
compatible of course). Lyndal Roper's recent work vividly evokes this
aspect of sixteenth-centuryAugsburg.' In the modern period, societies
have varied greatly in how they have approachedthis issue, sometimes
allowing the breathing-spaceof a Bohemian life-style as in France,
sometimes employing a combination of control and diversion as in
middle-classBritain.65
The targettingof socialcontrolat homosexualswas of coursehistorically
muchmore specific.Onlyin the late nineteenthcenturydid the now familiar
polarization between 'normal' heterosexual and 'deviant' homosexual
finallytake shape. Just when homosexuality(as distinctfrom homosexual
behaviour)'emerged'hasbecomea contentiousareaof scholarshipin recent
years. There can be little doubt that a vigorousgay sub-cultureexisted in
earlyeighteenth-centuryLondon,or that 'molly-houses'periodicallyattracted draconianrepression.66But the stigmatizationof homosexualsas an
aberrantcategoryof men set apartfrom the 'normal'seems only to have
fully developed at a highly specific conjuncturein the late nineteenth
century:when medicaltheoryidentifieda congenitallydefective'thirdsex',
when a strident Social Purity movement seized on homosexualityas a
metaphor for national decline, and when homosexuals themselves developed an emancipatory'Uranian'identity.Fromthen on the figureof the
homosexual was established as a patriarchalscapegoat - someone who
struckat the roots of the family, floutedthe work ethic, and subvertedthe
camaraderieof all-menassociation.67
One can say, therefore, that the dominantmasculinityis constructedin
oppositionto a numberof subordinatemasculinitieswhosecrimeis thatthey
underminepatriarchyfrom within or discreditit in the eyes of women.
Sometimesan entirepersonais demonized,as in the case of the homosexual;
sometimesspecificformsof malebehaviouraresingledout. A good example
of this second category is wife-beating. In the course of the nineteenthcentury domestic violence became increasinglyunacceptableto 'respectable' opinion. As is well known, the campaignwhich culminatedin the
MatrimonialCausesAct of 1878was headedby FrancesPowerCobbe. But
the fight in Parliament was led by Henry Labouchere who saw in
wife-beatinga damnablesluron the honourof the male sex.68
Both the discipliningof subordinatemasculinitiesandthe modificationof
192
HistoryWorkshopJournal
gender norms imposed on the majorityof men illustratethe workingsof
what is sometimes called 'hegemonicmasculinity'.This concept has been
developed by the sociologistR. W. Connellin order to explainthe gender
structureof contemporarysocieties. Connell maintainsthat one neglected
explanation for patriarchy'ssuccessful survival and adaptation is the
solidarityof men in upholdingit - in not 'rockingthe boat'. 'Hegemonic
masculinity' denotes those expressions of masculinity- like exclusive
heterosexualityor the doublestandardor the assumptionthatpaidworkis a
male birthright- whichserve most effectivelyto sustainmen's power over
women in society as a whole. Fromthis perspective,the dominantformsof
masculinityare those which marshallmen with very different interests
behind the defence of patriarchy.69
The historicalapplicationof Connell's
theory is limited by the centralrole he accordsto the powerfulimages of
mainstreammasculinityput out by the modernmassmedia, but it becomes
increasinglyrelevant from the 1880s, when the role of the stage and the
printed word in shaping gender identificationwas already in evidence.70
'Hegemonicmasculinity'is a convenientphrasebecause it remindsus that
masculinitycarriesa heavy ideological freight, and that it makes socially
crippling distinctions not only between men and women, but between
differentcategoriesof men - distinctionswhich have to be maintainedby
force, as well as validatedthroughculturalmeans.
5
Once we are clearaboutthe waysin whichmasculineidentitiesdivergefrom
- and in some contexts overlay- class identities, it is easier to understand
why masculineinsecurityhas had suchwide social ramificationsin the past,
as today. Masculinityis insecurein two senses:its socialrecognitiondepends
on materialaccomplishmentswhich may not be attainable;and its hegemonic form is exposed to resistancefrom both women and subordinated
masculinities. (There is a third sense in which masculinity tends to
insecurity,arisingout of its psychicconstitution,to whichI turnin the next
section.)
In discussingthe three foundationsof work, home and association, I
showed how the social definition of masculinitywas determinedby the
balance between them - and how that balance was inherentlyvariable.
However, my argumentneeds to be taken one stage further.Each of these
bases of masculineidentificationwas itself uncertain.This was particularly
true of the first two. A proper job and a viable household were highly
vulnerableto the vicissitudesof the economic cycle. Individualmen might
experienceacute loss of masculineself-respectthrougha lack of housing,a
shortageof apprenticeships,beingthrownout of work, andso on. It is to the
creditof recenthistorianslike SonyaRose andKeithMcClellandthatwe can
now graspthe genderimplicationsof these familiarvicissitudesof workingclass life.7"The argumenthere is not that masculinitywas always experienced as somethingcontingentand vulnerable.It is not difficultto thinkof
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
193
categories of men who never had any reason to doubt their social
qualificationsfor manhoodonce they had attainedadulthood.Nor should
one forget those men who were able to make a virtue of their gender
non-conformity- the Bohemian, the club habitue, the member of a
homosexualcoterie.72My point is ratherthat, for the majorityof men who
wielded comparativelylittle social and economicpower, loss of masculine
self-respectwas as muchan occupationalhazardas loss of income.
As for hegemonicmasculinity,any systemof hegemonyis by definition
liable to insecurity.Holding the line on forms of masculinityintended to
uphold patriarchyis always open to the danger of contestation and
subversion.This, after all, was the thrustof much action by women in the
publicsphere- notablysuccessivecampaignsfor marriage-lawreform,and
the crusadefor Social Purity.73The New Woman was, of course, widely
construedas a threatto the patriarchalorder. Of greatersubstanceperhaps
were the femaleplaintiffsin the post-1857Divorce Court,whose couragein
exposing their painful circumstancesto the glare of publicitybrought (as
Hammertonhas shown)the long-termbenefitof raisingsociallyacceptable
standardsof men'smaritalconduct.74At varioustimesduringthe nineteenth
centurythe subordinatedmasculinitieswhomI mentionedearlierwere also
seen as a threat.In his variousmanifestationsas the lout, the loafer and the
hooligan, the unmarriedyouth was consistentlycondemned- either as a
threatto patriarchalorderin the present,or (by the turnof the century)as a
degenerate who threatened the manly vigour of future generations.75
During the nineteenth centurythe ability of homosexualmen to achieve
changesin the organizationof patriarchywas much less than has been the
case in the lastthirtyyears,butit wasin the 1880sthatthe typecastingof gays
as everythingthatthe front-linetroopsof patriarchyarenot beganto assume
its modernshape.
Thisis the contextin whichto considerthe idea of a 'crisisin masculinity'.
As used by present-daytheorists,the term denotes a situationin whichthe
traditionallydominantforms of masculinityhave become so blurredthat
men no longer know what is requiredto be a 'realman'- eitherbecauseof
structuralchangesor becauseof challengingcritique,or both.76Thereis the
drawbackthat, if we speakof 'crisis',we implystabilitythe rest of the time.
But there is a difference between the individual'sinsecurity and the
underminingof masculinityacrossa swatheof society,especiallywhenthisis
articulatedand actedupon.
Elaine Showalterhas popularizedthe notion of a 'masculinecrisis'infin
de siecle Britain, mostly on the strengthof the culturalchallengeposed by
the New Womanand the visible homosexual.77I would like to offer a brief
examplewhichpays more attentionto shifts in the social underpinningsof
masculinityin the same period- namely, popularsupportfor imperialism.
This is a promisingcontext, because the empire's masculineassociations
were so strong, and so muchof its significanceto the Britishrepresenteda
displacementof domesticconcerns.An importantstrandof jingo sentiment
194
HistoryWorkshopJournal
was the male clerical workers of the lower middle class, noted for their
uninhibitedparticipationin Mafekingnight, their enlistmentin volunteer
army units - and also their taste for imperial adventure fiction.78They are of
coursea classicexampleof a marginalclass, balancedprecariouslybetween
the workersand the bourgeoisie, and hence likely to make a very public
avowalof whatthey perceivedto be respectableor patrioticvalues. But we
must also take note of their masculine job anxieties. From the 1880s
onwards,more and more clericalworkwas being given to women- up to a
quarter in some cities - and male clerks protested at this slur on their
manhood.79A hearty, and above all a physical identificationwith the
quintessentiallymasculineethos of empire was one very effective way in
whichthatslurcouldbe countered.On thisreading,maleclerkswere a class
fractionundergoingacute gender insecurityat this time, and they grasped
the mosteasilyimprovisedwayof reaffirmingtheirmasculinity.As a formof
politicalidentification(and also, it mightbe said, as a careerchoice)80the
empire served to underpinbeleagueredmasculinitiesat home. The components of masculinestatus have, I would argue, been too long taken for
grantedas a fixturelargelyoutside the narrativesof social change. As this
neglectis rectified,otherfeaturesof the historicallandscape,no less familiar
thanimperialism,are likely to changetheirconfigurationtoo.8'
6
So far, in treating masculinityas a social identity - as an aspect of the
structureof social relations- I have reflected the dominanttrend in this
countryin historicalwritingabout gender. But of coursethis is not the only
approach,nor the most challengingone. Masculinityis more than social
construction.It demands to be considered also as a subjectiveidentity,
usually the most deeply experiencedthat men have. And this bringsinto
playthe earlyformationof the genderedpersonalityin the intimaterelations
of familylife. Whatmen subsequentlyseek to validatethroughrecognition
of their peers has been shaped in infancy and childhood in relations of
nurture,desire and authority.It is thereforea mistaketo treat masculinity
merely as an outer garment or 'style', adjustable according to social
circumstances.82
Nor does it make muchsense baldlyto equate masculinity
with the reflexeswhichserve to maintaingenderinequality.Subjectivityis
the other, indispensablepartof the picture.This is where the problemsof
conceptualization and analysis are most acute. For all the gaps and
speculationsin my discussionof masculinityand patriarchy,the issues I
raisedwere at least issues of social and intellectualhistory,to be addressed
by well-triedresearchmethods. Masculinityas subjectiveidentity, on the
other hand, has received far less attention and raises much greater
scepticism in the profession. The quicksand of psychoanalytictheory,
combined with serious technical problems of sources and sampling, has
undoubtedlybeen a deterrentto historiansin Britain,where these matters
have tended to be left to culturalstudies.
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
195
This is not the place to enter a discussionof the subtletiesof competing
interpretationswithinthe psycho-analytictradition- for whichI am anyway
not qualified- butI do wantto stressthe key psycho-dynamicsof masculinity
which feature in most variantsof the tradition. All gender identities are
unstableand conflictualbecause the growinginfanthas to negotiate a path
througha dualidentification- with both parents(or theirsurrogates)- and
because so muchof his/heradultidentityis formedin this way (ratherthan
throughbiologicalendowment,or culturalinfluences).The outcomeof this
process of growth is that men have feminine bits of themselves (just as
women have masculinebits). Peer-grouppressureamongmen in the public
arenarequiresthemto disowntheirfeminineside, in the processsettingvery
rigid boundariesfor the self. And the unacknowledgedfemininewithinis
disposed of by being projected onto other categories of men, often with
sociallyrepressiveresults,as in the case of homosexuals.Men'sconflictwith
the femininewithinis sometimestreatedas a psychicuniversal,withthe kind
of baleful consequencesthat make it hard to have any optimismabout a
moreequitablegenderorderin the future.To the extentthatallboyshaveto
go througha separationfrominfantidentificationwiththe motherwhichcan
neverbe fully accomplished,there is a universalpatternhere. But whatthis
perspective loses sight of is that cultures vary immensely in how much
significancethey accordto mothering,how far they permitmen to express
feminine qualities, and how far they insist that masculinityshould, so to
speak, be all of a piece. These questionsare the realmof the historianpar
excellence.83
We are a long way fromapproachingthese questionsin a systematicway.
But I would like to discusstwo contrastedcontextswhere the benefitsof a
psychicallyinformedapproachare beginningto come into view. The first
takes me backto the subjectof manlinesswithwhichI began. Here we have
a code of masculinitywhichdemandsto be treatedas a public code - a guide
to masculineperformancein the publicsphere.The mistakeis to regardsuch
codes as pertainingto the publicspherealone. We need to ask the question,
who taughtyoungmen about manliness?- and to go furtherthan the more
obvious answers.There has been much emphasison the public schools.'
But whatis often forgottenis thatthe publicschool-boywasnot a tabula rasa
at thirteen;he was someone whose formativeyears had been spent in an
upper or middle-classhome, and who continued to spend considerable
stretches of each year there. His first and most enduring instructorsin
manlinesswere his parents.
A good deal turns on which parent took the lead. And here the vital
contextis the relativelyrecentelevationof the mother'srole. Whereasin the
eighteenth century mothers had been thought of as too indulgent to be
trustedwith their sons for long, by the 1830smoral motherhoodwas well
into its stride,at leastin middle-classcircles.Wiveswereincreasinglyseen as
morally superiorto their husbandsand as the conscience of the home.85
Their role as guide and teacher of the young, especially boys, was
196
HistoryWorkshopJournal
accordinglyextended. Fathers might continue to engage in 'serious talk'
with their sons on the quandariesof adult life, but mothers, particularly
those marriedto remote aristocratichusbandsor to over-workedmiddleclass ones, now had control over a large area of moraleducation, and it is
clear that this included'manliness'.MaryBenson was marriedto a bishop
who regarded himself as an expert on the subject (having been a
public-schoolheadmasterfor thirteenyears); but it was she who urged on
their twelve-yearold son in 1879with these words:'I wantyou to be manly
and all that we have ever talked of tends to this....
Stir yourself up then,
my boy, andbe a man'.86
Middle-classmalesin late VictorianBritainthustendedto face a difficult
transitionto an adultmasculineidentity.Not only did they have to deal with
an infant separation trauma enhanced by a pronounced emphasis on
maternalnurture;they also had the unsettlingawarenessthat what they
knew of manlinesshad, to some degree at least, been filtered througha
feminine sensibility. Their own code of manlinesswas accordinglymore
brittleandless tolerantof the 'feminine'within.87Thus,whereasyoungmen
earlierin the centurywereoften ableto expressintensefeelingsin public- in
tears, hugs and so forth - this became increasinglyrare in their sons and
grandsons. The dominant code of manliness in the 1890s, so hostile to
emotional expressionand so intolerantof both androgynyand homosexuality, can be interpretedas a by-productof a raisedimperialconsciousnessespecially with regard to the imperial frontier and the manly qualities
requiredthere.88But this is to see manlinessas rooted only in the public
sphere. I am suggestingthatits late nineteenth-centuryversionwas also the
outward symptom of a need to repress the feminine within, - a psychic
universal maybe, but one which had been greatly exacerbated by the
distinctive domestic regime of the middle and upper classes over the
previousgenerationor so. Psychicand social were inextricablyintertwined
in this, as in so manyother aspectsof gender.
My second exampletakes us beyond the worldof home and school and
considers some of the wide-rangingimplications of projection. I say
'wide-ranging'because it is this aspect which best explains why gender
identitiesrooted in intimateexperiencespill over into social consciousness
andsometimespoliticalaction.Any identity,andespeciallyan insecureone,
is partlyconstructedin juxtapositionto a demonized'other'- an imagined
identitycomposedof all the relevantnegatives,and pinnedonto its nearest
approximationin the real world. This aspect of masculineidentity is now
best recognizedin historicalstudiesof cultureconflictand colonialism,and
the explanationis straightforwardenough. Confrontedby forms of racism
whichstrikeus in retrospectas bizarrein the extreme,we are more likelyto
take seriouslya frameworkof explanationwhichmoves beyondinstrumental rationality.For it is clear that the deep investmentof Britishsociety in
empirearosenot just fromprofitandcareerbut fromcompellingfantasiesof
mastery. And these appealed not only to colonial whites who had
WhatShouldHistoriansdo withMasculinity?
197
face-to-facecontactwith other races, but to men in Britainwho had never
travelledbeyond Europe. Thomasde Quincey'sviolent racialfantasies(as
analyzedby John Barrell) are a telling instanceof this, and on a broader
canvas Catherine Hall's current work (though less psychoanalytic)is
intendedto show how Englishnationalidentitieswere constructedthrough
The productionof images
powerfulnotionsof sexualandracialdifference.89
of Africa, India or the Caribbeanshifted the meaningsattachedto being
white and male (andfemale too).
The psychicstructureof colonialdiscoursewas certainlynot uniform.On
one level, it was about idealized masculinitieslike those of the so-called
'martialraces'- embodyingdesirablequalitieswhichhadbeen 'lost'or marginalizedby the Britishandmightnow be repossessedthroughimperialcontrol - a theme which runs through Baden-Powell's Scouting for Boys (1908)
andwas to accountfor muchof T. E. Lawrence'spopularappeal.90Alternatively colonialsubjectswere viewed as children- a popularfantasywith paternalisticofficialsand missionaries,despite the long-termimplicationsof
equalityand displacement.But most powerfulof all was the projectionof
femininity,becausethiscombineddisparagementanddesirein a headymixture. Whatwhite men thoughtthey recognizedin the Other reflectedboth
the compulsionto disown their own feminineand their attractionto those
same femininequalities.Sometimesthe femininewas ascribedto whole regions, as in the allure of the Dark Continent awaitingpenetration and
mastery.More often it was attachedto colonizedmen specifically.Colonial
discoursewas full of the effeminateand devious Bengali, or the docile and
affectionateslave in the West Indies. Sexual expressionwas more relaxed
overseas, the work ethic often non-existent.Local life-styleswhichfor the
Englishmanin the tropicswere the road to a ruinedcareercould appealas
unrestrainedfantasyback home, one moment speakingto hidden desires,
and the next momentinformingviolentlypunitiveimpulses.91
Thisis the pointat whichto re-introducemasculinityas culturalrepresentation.For the powerof these imagesof the Otherto shapemasculineidentities in Britain itself (as distinct from the colonies) depended on their
presence in visual and literaryculture. By 'culture'here I don't of course
meanthe explicitandself-consciouscultureof manliness,butratherthe contingentand contradictorymeaningsinscribedin the cultureat large, where
gendered distinctionsabound in popularforms, rangingfrom missionary
magazinesthroughtravel writingand adventurefiction to popularballad
and musichall. Here one certainlyfindsthe portrayalof imperialparagons
and heroes, like Henty's boy adventurersor the figureof Allen Quartermain.But I suspectthatthe strongestholdwas exercisedby the evocationof
the Other, especially the negative racial stereotypesI've just mentioned.
The artisan,the clerkandthe shop-workerwere invitedto participatein imperialfantasiesof masteryandtherebyfindnew waysof expressing(andperhaps containing)the tensions in their own gender identity.92The popular
assumptionof superiorityover otherracesin the empireoperatedat a much
198
HistoryWorkshopJournal
deeper level than a complacentcomparisonof materialcircumstances.It
follows that the questionswe have to ask about the quickeningof imperial
consciousnessin late VictorianBritainincludenot only how it was affected
by changes in the social underpinningsof masculinityat home, but what
changes occurred in the imagined relationshipbetween masculinitiesin
Britainand the empireoverseas.
7
Masculinityas I have analyzedit in this paperis both a psychicand a social
identity:psychic, because it is integralto the subjectivityof every male as
this takes shape in infancy and childhood;social, because masculinityis
inseparablefrompeer recognition,whichin turndependson performancein
the social sphere. It is the uneasyand complexrelationbetween these two
elements which explains masculinity'spower to shape experience and
action,often in waysbeyondthe consciousgraspof the participants.At one
and the same time, men pursuepracticalgoals of gender aggrandizement
and are guided by unacknowledgedfantasies designed to defend the
psyche.93That, it seems to me, is what patriarchymeans. Most patriarchal
formsin historyhave arisenfrompsychicneeds combinedwith a perception
of the materialadvantageto be derivedfrom power over women. Tracing
the inter-connectionsandweighingtheirsocialimpactis clearlya majortask
for historians.The challengewas throwndown over a decade ago by Sally
Alexander and BarbaraTaylor,94and it must be said that only very slow
progresshas so farbeen made.
The other task which I would highlight relates to my discussion of
masculinehierarchies.It is certainlyvital to establishthat these hierarchies
had a life of their own, not reducibleto distinctionsof class, ethnicityor
religion. This is why, when we bringgender into social history, we aren't
simplycontextualizingpeople's reactionsmore richly- we are shiftingthe
weightof explanation.But that makesthe questionof determinationall the
more pressing. What was the dynamic behind the fluctuatingbalance
between work, home and associationwhich I have identified as the key
arenasof masculinerecognition?Whatshapedthe dominantor hegemonic
practicesof masculinityin any given society?And how shouldwe conceive
of the relation between the discursiveand the social when dealing with
structuresof power that often remainedhidden?All the resourcesof the
culturaland social historianwill surelybe needed in these endeavours.The
answers,I suggest, will not be the provinceof yet anothersub-specialism,
but will be centralto how we as historiansthinkaboutour subject.
NOTES
Thispaperoriginatedin a talkgivenat PollyO'Hanlon'sinvitationin Cambridge.I amgrateful
for hercomments.I havereceivedotherhelpfulsuggestionsfromNormaClarke,AnnaDavin,
KeithMcClelland,MichaelRoperandBarbaraTaylor.
What Should Historians do with Masculinity?
199
Placeof publicationis Londonunlessotherwisestated.
1 NatalieZemonDavis, "'Women'sHistory"inTransition:the EuropeanCase',Feminist
Studies3, 1975,p. 90.
2 See for example Jane Lewis, Labourand Love: Women'sExperienceof Home and
Family,1850-1940,Oxford,1986,editor'sintroduction,p. 4, GiselaBock, 'Women'sHistory
and GenderHistory:Aspectsof an InternationalDebate', GenderandHistory1, 1989,p. 18.
3 MichaelRoper and JohnTosh (eds), ManfulAssertions:Masculinitiesin Britainsince
1800, 1991.For masculinityandinstitutionalpolitics,see Jon Lawrence,'ClassandGenderin
the Makingof UrbanToryism,1880-1914',EnglishHistoricalReview108, 1993,pp. 629-52.
4 WilliamBoyd (ed. and trans),Emilefor Today:TheEmileof JeanJacquesRousseau,
1956,p. 132.
5 CynthiaEagle Russett, Sexual Science:The VictorianConstructionof Womanhood,
CambridgeMA, 1989.
6 RobertA. Nye, Masculinityand Male Codesof Honorin ModernFrance,New York,
1993.
7 DavidNewsome,Godlinessand Good Learning,1961;J. A. Mangan,Athleticismin the
Victorianand EdwardianPublicSchool, Cambridge,1981;NormanVance, TheSinewsof the
Spirit: The Ideal of ChristianManlinessin VictorianLiteratureand Religious Thought,
Cambridge,1985;StefanCollini,PublicMoralists,Oxford,1991;ClaudiaNelson, Boys WillBe
Girls:TheFeminineEthicandBritishChildren'sFiction1857-1917,New Brunswick,1991.For
a representativecollectionof work,see J. A. ManganandJamesWalvin(eds), Manlinessand
Morality:Middle-ClassMasculinityin BritainandAmerica,1800-1940,Manchester,1987.
8 John Tosh, 'Domesticityand Manlinessin the VictorianMiddleClass:the Familyof
EdwardWhiteBenson',in RoperandTosh, ManfulAssertions,pp. 44-73.
9 Antony Easthope, WhatA Man'sGottaDo: TheMasculineMythin PopularCulture,
1986;Peter Middleton, The InwardGaze: Masculinityand Subjectivityin ModernCulture,
1992.
10 GrahamDawson, 'SoldierHeroes and AdventureNarratives:Case-Studiesin English
Masculine Identities from the Victorian Empire to Post-ImperialBritain', Birmingham
UniversityPhD thesis, 1991:GrahamDawson, 'The Blond Bedouin:Lawrenceof Arabia,
ImperialAdventureand the Imaginingof English-BritishMasculinity',in Roper and Tosh,
ManfulAssertions,pp. 113-44;JosephBristow,EmpireBoys: Adventuresin a Man'sWorld,
1991;Kelly Boyd, 'Exemplarsand Ingrates:Imperialismand Masculinityin the Boys' Story
Paper,1880-1930',HistoricalResearch67, June1994,in press.
11 PeterBailey, 'ChampagneCharlie:PerformanceandIdeologyin the Music-HallSwell
Song', in J. S. Bratton (ed.), Music Hall: Performanceand Style, Milton Keynes, 1986,
pp. 49-69.
12 Collini,PublicMoralists,p. 113.
13 See especiallythe essaysin ManganandWalvin,ManlinessandMorality.
14 ThomasHughes, TheManlinessof Christ,1880,p. 25.
15 BruceHaley, TheHealthyBodyand VictorianCulture,CambridgeMA, 1978,ch. 6.
16 John Springhall,Youth, Empireand Society:BritishYouthMovements,1883-1940,
1977;TimJeal, Baden-Powell,1989.
17 The counterargumentto this generalizationis mosteffectivelymadein Haley, Healthy
Body.
18 JohnBarrell,TheBirthof PandoraandtheDivisionof Knowledge,1992,ch. 4.
19 CharlesKingsley,His Lettersand Memoriesof His Life, ed. F. Kingsley,1877,vol. II,
p. 186.
20 J. A. Banks,ProsperityandParenthood,1954;J. A. BanksandOliveBanks,Feminism
and FamilyPlanningin VictorianEngland,Liverpool,1964;J. A. Banks, VictorianValues,
Secularismand the Size of Families,1981;JudithR. Walkowitz,Prostitutionand Victorian
Society,Cambridge,1980.
21 Peter Gay, TheBourgeoisExperience:Victoriato Freud,vol. II, New York, 1986,esp.
pp. 14-21, 30-34, 297-311,419-22.
22 On Benson, see Tosh, 'Domesticity and Manliness'. On Holden, Tosh, work in
progress.
23 See MarkGirouard,TheReturnto Camelot:Chivalryand theEnglishGentleman,New
Haven, 1981.
200
History Workshop Journal
24 Anna Clark,Women'sSilence,Men'sViolence:SexualAssaultin England,1770-1845,
1987,pp. 23, 110-113.
25 LeonoreDavidoffandCatherineHall, FamilyFortunes:MenandWomenof theEnglish
MiddleClass,1780-1850,1987,esp. ch, 6 and8.
26 Newsome, Godlinessand Good Learning,esp. pp. 195-98, 207-11, and Nelson, Boys
WillBe Girls.
27 BrianHarrison,SeparateSpheres,1978,ch. 4.
28 JohnStuartMill, TheSubjectionof Women,(1869)1983,p. 91. Foranequallyforthright
view on men'spowerover children,see Mill'sOn Liberty,(1859)1974,p. 175.
29 John Killham, Tennysonand The Princess, 1958, pp. 150-66; Mary L. Shanley,
Feminism,MarriageandtheLaw in VictorianEngland,1850-1895,PrincetonNJ, 1989,ch. 5.
30 I use the term'patriarchy'awareof the misgivingswhichits use has recentlyaroused.I
characterof men's powerover
make no assumptionsabout the biologicalor trans-historical
women;nor amI concernedto identifya specificallypatriarchalmodeof productionat a given
time. I use the termdescriptivelyto indicatethoseareasof life wheremen'spoweroverwomen
and childrenconstitutesa significantform of stratification.The broaderdebate can still be
usefullyfollowedin the exchangebetweenSheilaRowbotham,SallyAlexanderand Barbara
Taylor,in RaphaelSamuel(ed.), People'sHistoryandSocialistTheory,1981.See alsoMichael
RoperandJohnTosh, 'Historiansandthe Politicsof Masculinity',in RoperandTosh, Manful
Assertions,pp. 8-11.
31 MichelleZ. Rosaldo,'Woman,CultureandSociety:a TheoreticalOverview',in M. Z.
Rosaldo and L. Lamphere(eds), Woman,Cultureand Society,Stamford,1974, p. 28. For a
plethoraof ethnographicexamples,see DavidD. Gilmore,Manhoodin theMaking:Cultural
Conceptsof Masculinity,New Haven, 1990.
32 MaxineBerg, TheAge of Manufactures,1700-1820, 1985, ch. 6 and 9; BridgetHill,
Women,WorkandSexualPoliticsin Eighteenth-Century
England,Oxford,1989.
33 Sonya Rose, LimitedLivelihoods:Genderand Classin Nineteenth-Century
England,
1992,p. 128.
34 DavidoffandHall, FamilyFortunes,ch. 1-2.
35 A. James Hammerton,Crueltyand Companionship:Conflictin Nineteenth-Century
MarriedLife, 1992,ch. 3-4.
36 J. S. Bratton,TheVictorianPopularBallad,1975,pp. 184-88.
37 WilliamCobbett,Adviceto YoungMen, (1830)1926,p. 10.
38 DavidoffandHall, FamilyFortunes,pp. 229-34.
39 KeithMcClelland,'SomeThoughtson Masculinityandthe "RepresentativeArtisan"in
Britain, 1850-1880',Genderand History1, 1989, pp. 164-77 (reprintedin Roper and Tosh,
ManfulAssertions,pp. 74-91).
40 Paul Willis, Learningto Labour:How Working-ClassKids Get Working-Class
Jobs,
1977,pp.52,148.
41 GregoryAnderson,VictorianClerks,Manchester,1976.
42 On the mill-girls,see Ivy Pinchbeck,WomenWorkersand the IndustrialRevolution,
1750-1850,1930,andJaneRendall,Womenin an Industrializing
Society,1750-1880,Oxford,
1990.On womenofficeclerks,see Anderson,VictorianClerks.
43 Merry E. Wiesner, 'Guilds, Male Bonding and Women's Work in Early Modern
Germany',GenderandHistory1, 1989,p. 125.
44 Mary Ann Clawson, ConstructingBrotherhood:Class, Gender and Fraternalism,
PrincetonNJ, 1989;MarkC. Carnes,SecretRitualand Manhoodin VictorianAmerica,New
Haven, 1989.
45 Not allof theseinstitutionsweretheexclusivepreserveof menthroughoutthe period:for
example,womendid appearin pubsandthey hadtheirownfriendlysocietylodgesin the early
nineteenthcentury.But by the secondhalfof the centurythe exceptionsto malecontrolwere
relativelyfew. See R. J. Morris,'Clubs,SocietiesandAssociations',inF. M. L. Thompson(ed.),
TheCambridgeSocialHistoryof Britain1750-1950,Cambridge1990,vol. 3, pp. 430-36.
46 Eve K. Sedgwick,BetweenMen:EnglishLiteratureandMaleHomosocialDesire,New
York, 1985,ch. 1.
47 Quoted in Jeffrey Weeks, Coming Out: HomosexualPolitics in Britain From the
NineteenthCenturyto thePresent,1977,p. 21.
48 Cobbett,Adviceto YoungMen,p. 170.
49 See for example, John Angell James, The Family Monitor,or a Help to Domestic
Happiness,Birmingham,1828,p. 22.
What Should Historians do with Masculinity?
201
50 FrancesArmstrong,Dickensandthe Conceptof Home, Ann Arbor, 1990,p. 155,fn. 1.
51 J. A. Froude, The Nemesisof Faith (1849), as quoted in WalterE. Houghton, The
VictorianFrameof Mind,1830-1870,New Haven, 1957,pp. 345-6.
52 [CoventryPatmore],'The SocialPositionof Women',NorthBritishReview14 (1851),
pp. 521-22.
53 For a preliminarysketch of this interpretation,see John Tosh, 'The Flight From
Domesticityand ImperialMasculinityin Britain, 1880-1914',in T. Foley and others (eds),
Genderand Colonialism,forthcoming.
54 A. ConanDoyle, quotedin J. A. Hammerton(ed.), Stevensoniana,1903,p. 243. On the
appealof adventureas a counterpointto domesticity,see MartinGreen,Dreamsof Adventure,
Deedsof Empire,New York, 1979.
55 This aspectof Scoutinghas yet to be analysed,but for analogousworkon Scoutingin
America, see JeffreyP. Hantover, 'The Boy Scouts and the Validationof Masculinity',in
ElizabethandJosephH. Pleck(eds), TheAmericanMan,EnglewoodCliffs,1980.
56 Anna Clark,'TheRhetoricof ChartistDomesticity:Gender,LanguageandClassin the
1830sand 1840s',Journalof BritishStudies31, 1992,pp. 70-71.
57 McClelland,'Masculinityandthe "RepresentativeArtisan".'
58 CarlChinn,TheyWorkedAllTheirLives,Manchester,1988;EllenRoss, Loveand Toil:
Motherhoodin OutcastLondon, 1870-1918, New York, 1993. See also Nancy Tomes, 'A
MenandWomenin London,
"Torrentof Abuse":Crimesof ViolenceBetweenWorking-Class
1840-1875',Journalof SocialHistory11, 1978,pp. 328-45. A strikingaccountof the twentieth
centuryis PatAyersandJanLambertz,'MarriageRelations,MoneyandDomesticViolencein
Liverpool,1919-39',in Lewis,Labourand Love, pp. 195-219.
Working-Class
59 E.g. LynneSegal, SlowMotion:ChangingMasculinities,ChangingMen, 1990.
60 Foranunusualandilluminatinginstance,see PamelaWalker,"'I LiveButNot Yet I For
ChristLiveth in Me": Men and Masculinityin the SalvationArmy, 1865-90', in Roper and
Tosh, ManfulAssertions,pp. 92-112.
61 NormaClarke,'StrenuousIdleness:ThomasCarlyleandthe Manof Lettersas Hero',in
RoperandTosh, ManfulAssertions,pp. 25-43.
Factory:Baden-PowellandtheOrigins
62 See especiallyMichaelRosenthal,TheCharacter
of the Boy Scout Movement,London, 1984, ch. 3. Also Robert H. MacDonald,Sons of the
Empire:TheFrontierandtheBoy ScoutMovement,1890-1918,Toronto,1993,pp. 159-62.
63 Ross, Love and Toil.
64 Lyndal Roper, 'Blood and Cod-pieces',in her Oedipusand the Devil: Witchcraft,
SexualityandReligionin EarlyModernEurope,1994.
65 JohnR. Gillis, Youthand History,2ndedn., New York, 1981.
66 Alan Bray,Homosexualityin RenaissanceEngland,1982,ch. 4; RictorNorton,Mother
Clap'sMollyHouse:GaySubculturein England1700-1830,1992,esp. ch. 3-5.
67 The notionof a distinctiveconstructionof homosexualityin the late nineteenthcentury
may have been overstatedby recent historiansfollowing in the wake of Foucault, but a
qualitativechange at that time seems undeniable.The evidence is marshalledin Weeks,
ComingOut,ch. 1-6, 10, andWeeks,Sex, PoliticsandSociety,2ndedition, 1989,ch. 6.
68 Hammerton,Crueltyand Companionship,pp. 65-67.
69 R. W. Connell,Genderand Power,Oxford,1987,esp. pp. 183-88;Tim Carrigan,Bob
Connelland John Lee, 'Towarda New Sociologyof Masculinity',in HarryBrod (ed.), The
Makingof Masculinities,Boston, 1987,pp. 63-100.
70 See especiallyJudithWalkowitz,Cityof DreadfulDelight:Narrativesof SexualDanger
in Late-Victorian
London,London,1992.
71 Rose, LimitedLivelihoods;McClelland,'Masculinityandthe "RespectableArtisan".'
72 These examplestend to presupposea good incomeand socialposition.Working-class
instancesare more difficultto find. We need to know muchmore about those communities
wherealmostall the availablepaidworkwas for womenandthe men performedthe domestic
labour. For suggestivecommenton the Potteriesat the turn of the century,see Margaret
Hewitt, Wivesand Mothersin VictorianIndustry,1958,p. 193.
73 Shanley, Feminism,Marriageand the Law; Sheila Jeffreys, The Spinsterand Her
Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality 1880-1930, 1985, pp. 6-26; Frank Mort, Dangerous
Sexualities:Medico-MoralPoliticssince1830, 1987,pp. 103-36.
74 Hammerton,Crueltyand Companionship,pp. 82-133.
75 GeoffreyPearson,Hooligan:A Historyof RespectableFears,1983.Moregenerally,see
Gillis, Youthand History.
202
History Workshop Journal
76 Connell, Genderand Power, pp. 158-63; Michael S. Kimmel, 'The Contemporary
"Crisis"of Masculinityin HistoricalPerspective',in Brod,Makingof Masculinities,
pp. 121-53;
ArthurBrittan,Masculinityand Power,Oxford,1989,pp. 25-35.
77 Elaine Showalter,SexualAnarchy:Genderand Cultureat the Fin de Siecle, 1991,esp.
pp. 9-15.
78 RichardN. Price,'Society,StatusandJingoism:the SocialRootsof LowerMiddle-Class
Patriotism,1870-1900',in GeoffreyCrossick(ed.), TheLowerMiddleClassin Britain,1977.
79 Anderson, VictorianClerks, pp. 56-60; Meta Zimmeck, 'Jobs for the Girls: The
Expansion of Clerical Work for Women, 1850-1914', in Angela John (ed.), Unequal
Opportunities,1986,pp. 153-77.
80 For the argumentthata reductionof sexualopportunityfor youngmenin late Victorian
Britainincreasedthe flowof recruitsto the colonies,see RonaldHyam,EmpireandSexuality:
TheBritishExperience,Manchester,1990.
81 Chartismis a good example.See Clark,'Rhetoricof ChartistDomesticity'.
82 This has been the tendencyin some recentAmericanwork. E.g. MarkC. Carnesand
Clyde Griffen (eds), Meaningsfor Manhood: Constructionsof Masculinityin Victorian
America,Chicago,1990.
83 A very influentialaccountof the psychicfoundationsof masculinityhas been Nancy
Chodorow, The Reproductionof Mothering:Psychoanalysisand the Sociology of Gender,
Berkeley,1978.For a generalsurvey,see Segal,SlowMotion,esp. ch. 4 and5.
84 See especiallyNewsome, Godlinessand Good Learning,and J. R. de S. Honey, Tom
Brown'sUniverse:TheDevelopmentof the VictorianPublicSchool, 1977.
85 Jane Rendall, The Originsof ModernFeminism,1985, esp. ch. 2-3. See also Ruth
Bloch, 'AmericanFeminineIdealsin Transition:the Rise of the MoralMother, 1785-1815',
FeministStudies4, 1978,pp. 101-26.
86 Quoted in GeoffreyPalmerand Noel Lloyd, E. F. BensonAs He Was, Luton, 1988,
p.22.
87 This aspect of nineteenth-centuryfamilyculturehas been particularlyemphasizedin
workon America.See especiallyE. AnthonyRotundo,AmericanManhood,New York, 1993.
It shouldbe noted that the argumenthere is not about 'blamingmother':the mid-Victorian
patternof middle-classupbringingwas as muchthe creationof fathersas mothers.
88 H. JohnField, Towarda Programmeof ImperialLife: TheBritishEmpireat the Turnof
theCentury,Oxford,1982.
89 JohnBarrell,TheInfectionof Thomasde Quincey:a Psychopathologyof Imperialism,
New Haven, 1991.CatherineHall, White,MaleandMiddleClass,Cambridge,1992,ch. 9-10,
and "'FromGreenland'sIcy Mountains. . . to Afric'sGolden Sand":Ethnicity,Race and
Nationin Mid-Nineteenth-Century
England',GenderandHistory5, 1993,pp. 212-43.
90 Dawson, 'TheBlondBedouin'.
91 Barrell,Infectionof Thomasde Quincey.
92 See Bristow,EmpireBoys, esp. pp. 130-46.
93 Or, as Joannade Groot has put it, men's power 'shouldbe understoodnot just as a
practicalfunctionbut alsoas a processof definingthe self andothers'.Joannade Groot,"'Sex"
and "Race":the Constructionof Languageand Imagein the NineteenthCentury',in Susan
MendusandJaneRendall(eds), SexualityandSubordination,1989,p. 100.
94 Sally Alexanderand BarbaraTaylor, 'In Defence of "Patriarchy"',in Samuel(ed.),
People'sHistoryandSocialistTheory,p. 372.