Brill
Chapter Title: Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies
Chapter Author(s): Todd W. Reeser
Book Title: Configuring Masculinity in Theory and Literary Practice
Book Editor(s): Stefan Horlacher
Published by: Brill. (2015)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwt1m.5
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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Configuring
Masculinity in Theory and Literary Practice
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONCEPTS OF MASCULINITY AND MASCULINITY STUDIES
TODD W. REESER
Abstract
This essay provides a conceptual history of the study of masculinity in
the English-speaking academy from the birth of “men’s studies” in the
1980s to current work on global masculinities. With a move away
from masculinity as singular toward a focus on multiple masculinities,
the influential system of theoretical types of masculinities largely attributed
to the work of sociologist R.W. Connell – including especially
the concept of “hegemonic masculinity” – set the stage for later work
that extended or critiqued the relation between power and categories
of masculinities. During this period, sociologists and historians such
as Michael Kimmel demonstrated that there was a history of men and
masculinity, and that historical crises of masculinity were possible
and worthy objects of study. The importance accorded to questions of
identities led to a large body of work on the relations between masculinity
and homosexuality, women, transgender, race, colonialism, and
ethnicity. In what might be considered a branch of masculinity studies
that came of age under the influence of Eve Sedgwick, scholars invested
in post-structuralist thought or in questions of literary/cultural
representation, increasingly considered how masculinity is a complex
phenomenon often or always defined by movement and change.
As Stefan Horlacher discusses in his introductory article to this volume,
literature and masculinity go hand in hand. As a kind of conscious
or unconscious fantasy or projection of other worlds, literature
can reveal aspects of masculinity that might not come out or be visible
in daily life or in other types of cultural artifacts. While it is true that
film, painting, sculpture, performance art, and music channel and
© Todd W. Reeser, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004299009_003
This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 Todd W. Reeser
question masculinity and while it is true that literature is in no way the
only purveyor of gendered representation, literary form necessarily
produces its own unique representation of masculinity, and for this
reason, literary analysis in the twenty-first century constitutes a crucial
and vibrant wing of masculinity studies. Consequently, many academics
and graduate students in the US take it for granted that literary representations
of masculinity are a viable and desirable object of intellectual
inquiry. In hindsight, it seems inevitable that literary scholars,
with their interest in textual subjectivities more broadly, would take
up questions around this type of subjectivity too.
But it was not always so. Early work on literary masculinity such
as Coppélia Kahn’s Man’s Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare
(1981) and Peter Schwenger’s Phallic Critiques: Masculinity and
Twentieth-century Literature (1984) broke new ground, proving by
example that masculinity could be a viable object of inquiry in the
analysis of fiction.1
It was, however, Eve Sedgwick’s Between Men
(1985) that radically changed the terms of both literary studies and
gender studies, as “homosocial” became a staple term in the acade-
my.2
Despite this important work in literary criticism, the birth of the
study of masculinity in the 1980s can be characterized as largely nonliterary
in nature, with the social sciences taking the most visible lead
in what was then a new and sometimes controversial approach to gen-
der.
Meant to complement Horlacher’s Introduction, this article focuses
not on the question of the relation between literature and masculinity
in theoretical terms, but rather on the actual trajectory of the study of
men and masculinity in the English-speaking academy. It traces the
trajectory of academic work among both literary scholars and social
scientists, revealing both overlaps and disjunctions between the two
sets of scholars. As a kind of introduction to the field of masculinity
studies, it is intended especially for readers interested in the genealogy
of the field of inquiry and in the concomitant history of the articulation
of conceptual or theoretical elements around men and masculini-
1
Coppélia Kahn, Man’s Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare, Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1981; Peter Schwenger, Phallic Critiques: Masculinity and
Twentieth-century Literature, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.
2
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial
Desire, New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 13
ty, most of which come to inflect readings of literary masculinity to-
day.
In nearly all cases, questions of identity – whether cultural or individual
– are central to masculinity studies, meaning that approaches to
flesh-and-blood human beings and approaches to literary representations
are not fully distinct. Sociological or anthropological understandings
of masculinity can be and were in many ways imported to
literary studies: literary constructs of masculinity may validate conceptions
of gender in the social sciences, but literariness may also
transform such conceptions in ways that only take place within the
fictional text.
The birth of “men’s studies”
Work on masculinity in the 1980s was often responding, directly or
indirectly, to the idea that masculinity was natural or essential, or, in
the social sciences, was responding to sex role theory, in which the
male sex role was taken as a uniform, stable, and normative configuration
to which actual males do or do not conform. In his pioneering
book The Myth of Masculinity, the psychologist Joseph Pleck explained
that there was at the time no systematic formulation of the
male sex role identity paradigm (MSRI).3
Although his book aimed to
critique that approach to gender, he provided a comprehensive overview
of the paradigm in a series of eleven propositions.
The first and most important proposition was: “Sex role identity is
operationally defined by measures of psychological sex typing, conceptualized
in terms of psychological masculinity and/or femininity
dimensions.”4
A man might be measured as falling along a continuum
defined by traits or characteristics considered appropriate for his sex,
with male traits at one end female traits at the other.5
In more complex
cases, the unconscious might be part of this measurement, so that a
man might be taken to have a conscious masculinity and an unconscious
femininity. Or, psychological masculinity and femininity might
be taken as independent of each other instead of as opposites on the
same continuum (the “dual-unipolar conception”, or the “androgynous
conception”). But in all of these cases, Pleck points out, “sex-typed
characteristics [are] organized along dimensions of psychological
3
Joseph H. Pleck, The Myth of Masculinity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.
4
Ibid., 16.
5
Ibid., 17.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 Todd W. Reeser
masculinity and/or femininity” and they “assume dimensions of the
personality experienced by the individual as masculine and/or femi-
nine”.6
Sex role identity was considered “necessary for good psychological
adjustment because of an inner psychological need for it”, with
homosexuality considered a disturbance of an appropriate identity.7
Despite the seeming normativity of the propositions, sex role identity
was not natural or God-given, but rather learned behavior (in particular,
from adults, parents, and, especially, a parent of the same sex).8
Appropriate identity was seen as difficult to develop, especially for
black males, and this difficulty could explain boys’ trouble in school.
Against an intellectual background that tended to consider gender
as singular, scholars increasingly moved to treating masculinity as
plural, while not forgetting that it tends to manifest certain recurring
characteristics such as homophobia, power, and dominance over
women. After presenting the MSRI paradigm, for instance, Pleck took
the approach to task, positing an alternative approach to the study of
masculinity, termed the sex role strain (SRS) paradigm. His fundamental
proposition in this paradigm was: “Sex roles are operationally defined
by sex role stereotypes and norms.”9
The male sex role is problematic
in the sense that traits or qualities taken to define that role are
based on shared ideas about what a man is or ought to be. Those definitions
are not simple, Pleck explains, but are based in contradiction
and inconsistency, and the percentage of men who violate such roles is
high.10
Since roles change over time, this is another cause of sex role
strain.11
Pleck’s new model thus rejects simple notions of what a man
is or should be as definitional of gender, and helps move the study of
psychological masculinity toward the idea that the male sex role needs
to be imagined as complicated and multiple. For if violation of the
male sex role is normal, then that role cannot in fact define any single
norm.
As new approaches came to be articulated, gender (even if culturally
defined) was not assumed simply to precede human acts, but to be
created by them. Consequently, revisioning masculinity as a critical
enterprise meant that new types of masculinity could be created aca-
6
Ibid., 18.
7
Ibid., 21.
8
Ibid., 19-20.
9
Ibid., 135.
10
Ibid., 143-44.
11
Ibid., 152-53.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 15
demically and pedagogically. A defining moment – perhaps the defining
moment – in the move toward multiplicity was the publication of
the collection of essays The Making of Masculinities: The New Men’s
Studies (1987). In his Introduction, the editor Harry Brod (a humanities-based
scholar) wrote that the volume is critical of the idea that “all
too often, scholars have tended to write too simplistically of the male
sex role, rather than the multiplicity of male roles”.12
As the first
chapter of the volume, Joseph Pleck’s own essay offered a history of
male sex-role identity since 1936,13
which other authors played off as
an outdated approach. Following Pleck’s essay, Brod’s own essay in
the volume, “The Case for Men’s Studies”, articulated what this new
approach to gender might mean. For him, one of the problems in the
academy is that “while women’s studies corrects the exclusion of
women from the traditional canon caused by androcentric scholarship’s
elevation of man as male to man as generic human, the implications
of this fallacy for our understanding of men have gone largely
unrecognized”.
Brod’s volume, then, called for – but also put into practice – an approach
to men as gendered beings, and positioned an emerging field of
study as “a necessary complement to women’s studies”. Toward these
ends, Brod defined the new men’s studies in general terms as “the
study of masculinities and male experiences as specific and varying
social-historical-cultural formations”.14
During this time, generally
viewed as a second stage in men’s studies, scholars increasingly
thought through the specificity of masculinities – in time, place, and
culture. The volume included essays on a wide variety of topics (for
instance, race, athletics, career, myth, biology, male bonding) and
from a variety of disciplines (especially sociology, history, literature).
Brod’s volume can be taken as a beacon of a new body of research,
which included new journals, conferences, and a growing number of
publications in the social sciences and humanities on men and masculinities.
As a sign that men’s studies was reaching a wider audience,
an article penned by Brod appeared in 1990 in the American mainstream
academic publication The Chronicle of Higher Education un-
12
Harry Brod, Introduction, in The Making of Masculinities: The New Men’s Studies,
ed. Harry Brod, Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1987, 7 (emphasis in the original).
13
Joseph H. Pleck, “The Theory of Male Sex-Role Identity: Its Rise and Fall, 1936 to
the Present”, in ibid., 21-38.
14
Harry Brod, “The Case for Men’s Studies”, in ibid., 40 (emphasis in the original).
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
16 Todd W. Reeser
in the media.
der the title “Scholarly Studies of Men: An Essential Complement to
Women’s Studies”.15
One element of the coming of age of men’s studies was the idea
that masculinity had to be made visible, to be brought out as an object
of study, and to not be considered an unmarked category (in the way
that woman or homosexuality as categories were marked and could
not easily be ignored or forgotten). Masculinity’s traditional invisibility,
it was widely thought, was one way in which it maintained its
power: by denying implicitly or explicitly that men were gendered,
they could escape close scrutiny and resist critique or the need to
change. As Antony Easthope wrote: “Social change is necessary and a
precondition of such change is an attempt to understand masculinity,
to make it visible.”16
For this to take place, various questions about
masculinity would have to be explicitly asked, including questions
about the male body, history, and cultural images. As Michael Kimmel
asked in his essay “Invisible Masculinity”: “If the pursuit of manhood
has been a dominant theme in American history, at least rhetorically
and metaphorically, why do American men still have no
history?” For him, the response was: “In part because they do not even
know what questions to ask.”17
Of particular importance in making
the male body visible as a gendered body was the presence of
masculinity on screen, which, consequently, led to an increase in
studies of masculinity in film and 18
During the period of transition in the 1980s, the study of men and
masculinity remained in close dialogue with feminism. In fact, in
some cases the line between feminism and masculinity studies was not
entirely clear, with volumes such as Alice Jardine and Paul Smith’s
Men in Feminism (1987) and Joseph Boone and Michael Cadden’s
15
Harry Brod, “Scholarly Studies of Men: An Essential Complement to Women’s
Studies”, Chronicle of Higher Education, 21 March 1990: http://chronicle.com/article/
Scholarly-Studies-of-Men-an/70081/.
16
Antony Easthope, What a Man’s Gotta Do: The Masculine Myth in Popular Culture,
Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990, 7 (emphasis in the original).
17
Michael S. Kimmel, “Invisible Masculinity”, in The History of Men: Essays in the
History of American and British Masculinities, ed. Michael S. Kimmel, Albany: State
University of New York Press, 2005, 4.
18
See e.g. Steve Neale, “Masculinity as Spectacle”, Screen, XXIV/6 (November
1983), 2-16; Screening the Male: Exploring Masculinities in Hollywood Cinema, eds
Steven Cohan and Ina Rae Hark, London: Routledge, 1993; Susan Bordo, “Reading
the Male Body”, Michigan Quarterly, XXXII/4 (Fall 1993), 696-737.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 17
Engendering Men: The Question of Male Feminist Criticism (1990).19
It was considered crucial that the study of men and masculinity be
articulated as part of a feminist project, or as “male feminist criticism”.
At the same time, an explicit element of the study of men and
masculinity came to be a consideration of whether men were in fact
co-opting women or feminine positions as a way to outdo or outwit
women and, in this sense, issuing a backlash against feminism and the
gains of women. Elaine Showalter’s essay, titled “Critical CrossDressing:
Male Feminists and the Woman of the Year”, asks whether
male feminism is “a form of critical cross-dressing, a fashion risk of
the 1980s that is both radical chic and power play”, and considers the
question of male appropriation of power in texts such as the film Tootsie,
in which a male character cross-dresses and becomes a better
woman than the women characters.20
Considerations of whether a man
who “becomes” a woman (by cross-dressing, by reading as a woman,
by appropriating birth, etc.) was re-empowering men were feminist in
origin, but this critical approach provided what became (and remains)
a current of masculinity studies in which similar critical questions can
be asked in configurations in which a man takes on characteristics not
generally attributed to him.
The continuing relation between feminism and masculinity meant
that, in other cases, scholars were suspicious of mythopoetic or
Jungian-influenced attempts to reposition masculinity as essential or
natural, to the point that such suspiciousness helped define men’s
studies in the 1990s. Most famously in an American context, the 1990
publication of Robert Bly’s best-selling book Iron John: A Book about
Men provoked scholarly discourse that was largely critical of the
book. Bly posited some basic myths of manhood through ancient
stories and legends, to give birth to a new, vigorous manhood
simultaneously centered on emotion. Bly wrote in his Preface that his
book “does not seek to turn men against women, not to return men to
the domineering mode that has led to repression of women and their
values for centuries”. He viewed the men’s movement as operating
“on a separate timetable” from the women’s movement, and as not
19
Men in Feminism, eds Alice Jardine and Paul Smith, New York: Methuen, 1987;
Engendering Men: The Question of Male Feminist Criticism, eds Joseph A. Boone
and Michael Cadden, New York: Routledge, 1990.
20
Elaine Showalter, “Critical Cross-Dressing: Male Feminists and the Woman of the
Year”, in Men in Feminism, 120; see also Tania Modleski, Feminism Without Women:
Culture and Criticism in a ‘Postfeminist’ Age, New York: Routledge, 1991.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
18 Todd W. Reeser
excluding gay men.21
Scholars in men’s studies from the early 1990s,
however, often responded rather negatively to the book, the book’s
popularity, and the mythopoetic approach in a larger sense, viewing
the book as a challenge to many of the presuppositions about the study
of men that they had worked to popularize and as perhaps
symptomatic of the continuing need or desire to view masculinity as
natural or essential.
Several of the essays in the important volume Theorizing Masculinities
were specific in their critiques.22
Scott Coltrane, for instance,
commented on the “misogynist overtones” of the community conjured
up by Bly and critiqued such approaches to gender as reducing “historically
and culturally specific myths and practices to universal psychological
or biological truths, thereby ignoring the social structural
conditions that produced them”.23
Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo and
Michael Messner concluded that “the mythopoetic men’s movement
may be seen as facilitating the reconstruction of a new form of hegemonic
masculinity – a masculinity that is less self-destructive, that has
revalued and reconstructed men’s emotional bonds with each other,
and that has learned to feel good about its own Zeus power”.24
The
popularity of these kinds of mythopoetic approaches challenged the
profeminist men’s movement, and for scholars engaged in men’s studies,
brought concern that these two movements might be viewed as
one and the same. However the mythopoetic movement helped men’s
studies define itself as an academic movement based not on an essential
core of masculinity, but on an assumption of multiple masculini-
ties.
As Brod had suggested in his call for a new men’s studies, one element
of a paradigm shift was to consider how masculinity had
changed over time. To study historical changes of masculinity was to
show its plurality. The historian-sociologist Michael Kimmel, one of
21
Robert Bly, Preface, in Iron John: A Book about Men, New York: Random House,
1990, x.
22
See Scott Coltrane, “Theorizing Masculinities in Contemporary Social Science”, in
Theorizing Masculinities, eds Harry Brod and Michael Kaufman, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 1994, 39-60; Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo and Michael A. Messner, “Gender
Displays and Men’s Power: The ‘New Man’ and the Mexican Immigrant Man”, in
ibid., 200-18; Michael S. Kimmel and Michael Kaufman, “Weekend Warriors: The
New Men’s Movement”, in ibid., 259-88.
23
Coltrane, “Theorizing Masculinities in Contemporary Social Science”, 45.
24
Hondagneu-Sotelo and Messner, “Gender Displays and Men’s Power”, 204.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 19
the best known and prolific scholars of men and masculinity, has published
extensively on ways in which masculinity is constructed culturally
and historically, especially in the US. In the Introduction to his
comprehensive historical study Manhood in America, Kimmel defined
the two key elements of writing about men as men: “first, to chart how
the definition of masculinity has changed over time; second, to explore
how the experience of manhood has shaped the activities of
American men.”25
His approach allowed for examinations of key aspects
or morphologies of masculinity, such as “the self-made man”.
Whereas traditionally women’s history was taken as reacting to men’s
history, the direction of the influence could be reversed, since, in his
words, “definitions of masculinity are historically reactive to changing
definitions of femininity”.26
Historians in British history who have
worked on men and masculinity include John Tosh, whose work on
Victorian England traces key shifts in what it meant to be a man, and
in Australian history, Martin Crotty who traces shifts in ideal middleclass
masculinity in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century Aus-
tralia.27
While this kind of diachronic change might be taken as the domain
of history, literary representation, too, charts changing definitions of
masculinity. Moderation, for instance, was a key definitional element
of early-modern European masculinity, but today in much of the West
may be seen quite differently.28
A key component of the study of the
history of masculinity or of the representation of masculinity is the
definition of cultural morphologies that change over time (for example,
the courtier, the dandy, the gentleman, the metrosexual), and the
question of the unstable relation among similar morphologies across
time periods.29
The history of masculinity does not have to be studied,
however, as morphologies or as a series of traits culturally associated
25
Michael Kimmel, Introduction, in Manhood in America: A Cultural History, New
York: Free Press, 1996, 2.
26
Michael Kimmel, “The Contemporary ‘Crisis’ of Masculinity in Historical Perspective”,
in The Making of Masculinities, 123 (emphasis in the original).
27
John Tosh, A Man’s Place: Masculinity and the Middle-class Home in Victorian
England, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999; Martin Crotty, Making the
Australian Male: Middle-Class Masculinity, 1870-1920, Carlton South: Melbourne
University Press, 2001.
28
See Todd W. Reeser, Moderating Masculinity in Early Modern Culture, Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.
29
See Todd W. Reeser, Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction, Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell, 2010, 216-26.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
20 Todd W. Reeser
with men, but can also be studied as a series of tensions or contradictions
within definitions of what a man means, mirroring Pleck’s psychological
ideas on masculinity as inherently contradictory.
One key strain of approaches to masculinity considers when and
why men are in a state of crisis, or considers the socio-historical moments
in which definitions of what a man is or should be change. The
idea that masculinities change over time, and that certain historical
moments are more stressful for men than others became canonical in
thinking about historicity. While some took certain historical moments
as more crisis-filled than other ones, other scholars viewed masculinity
as always, in a certain sense, in a state of crisis and considered that
labeling a given period as a crisis assumes that there are other periods
when masculinity is somehow free of anxiety or crisis. Crises might
be provoked by changes in the status or women or homosexuality, or
by cultural shifts in labor, capital, or the nation. Within the area of
American cultural studies, Bryce Traister isolated a crisis theory
“rooted in a new historiography of American masculinity that locates
instability at the base of all masculine identities constructed within
American cultural matrices”.30
As Traister’s article suggests, the crisis
model of masculinity has inflected historical studies as well as literary
criticism. Consequently, what happens in a literary text might be taken
to signify not a character’s own crisis, but embody a larger cultural
crisis resulting from shifts in what masculinity is taken to mean.
Hegemonic masculinity
Often considered the most influential theoretical concept in the history
of the study of men and masculinity, “hegemonic masculinity” is
widely attributed to R.W. Connell’s seminal book Masculinities
(1995).31
Tim Carrigan, Bob Connell, and John Lee’s earlier essay,
“Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity” (1987), however, also
discussed the concept at length. Responding to assumptions of masculinity
as stable, the three authors defined hegemonic masculinity as “a
question of how particular groups of men inhabit positions of power
and wealth, and how they legitimate and reproduce the social relation-
30
Bryce Traister, “Academic Viagra: The Rise of American Masculinity Studies”,
American Quarterly, LII/2 (June 2000), 276.
31
R.W. Connell, Masculinities, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. But
see also R.W. Connell, Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics,
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987; and R.W. Connell, Which Way Is Up?
Essays on Sex, Class and Culture, Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1983.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 21
fac
everywhere the same”, but rather as “the masculinity that occupies the
ships that generate their dominance”. In a given culture, even if hegemonic
masculinity may not be so common but “may only correspond
to the actual characters of a small number of men”, nonetheless “large
numbers of men are complicit in sustaining the hegemonic model”.32
Men’s dominance over women was central to this definition, but so
was the heterosexuality of hegemonic masculinity, at least in most
modern cultures. One advantage of this approach to gender, then, was
that it married “the gay movement’s” and feminist approaches to masculinity
by considering that hegemonic masculinity usually situates
itself negatively vis-à-vis both gay men and women. The model also
helped make historicity central to de-essentializing masculinity: “‘Hegemony’
... always refers to a historical situation, a set of circumstances
in which power is won and held. The construction of hegemony
is not a matter of pushing and pulling between ready-formed
groupings but is partly a matter of the formation of those
groupings.”33
In particular, that construction takes place, the authors
suggested, through commercial mass media, the gendered division of
labor, and the state. These social relations are inextricably linked to
the gendered psyche, meaning that the study of hegemonic
masculinity should take both socio-historical as well as psychological
tors into account.
To study hegemonic masculinity is essentially to employ a relational
model predicated on power as the central organizing element of
gender. In his book Masculinities, Connell called for considerations
not only of diversity in considering masculinities, but also of “the
relations between the different kinds of masculinity: relations of alliance,
dominance and subordination”.34
Such relations between types
of masculinity are dynamic, not static, and a shift or change with respect
to gender entails a corresponding shift or change in definitions
of hegemonic masculinity. This approach transformed the study of
masculinity in part by disbanding the idea that to study masculinity
was to study types or static characteristics of men. Hegemonic masculinity
should not be seen, then, as “a fixed character type, always and
32
Tim Carrigan, Bob Connell and John Lee, “Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity”,
in The Making of Masculinities, 92.
33
Ibid., 94 (emphasis in the original).
34
R.W. Connell, Masculinities, 37 (emphasis in the original).
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
22 Todd W. Reeser
hegemonic position in a given pattern of gender relations, a position
always contestable”.35
In order to sketch out the key relations in the model, Connell famously
lays out four categories: hegemony, subordination, complicity,
and marginalization. Taking the idea of hegemony from the Italian
political theorist Antonio Gramsci, Connell defines a gendered revision
of Gramsci’s concept as “the configuration of gender practice
which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the
legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee)
the dominant position of men and the subordination of women”.36
Hegemonic masculinity in a given context establishes subordinate
masculinities, especially but not exclusively male homosexuality. Men
who may benefit from gender hegemony, but may not actually meet
its criteria, fall into the category of complicity: “Masculinities constructed
in ways that realize the patriarchal dividend, without the tensions
or risks of being the frontline troops of patriarchy, are complicit
in this sense.”37
Marginalized masculinities are not so much subordinate
as much as they are dependent on hegemonic masculinity for
authorization. Connell’s examples in this category pertain largely to
race: “in the United States, particular black athletes may be exemplars
for hegemonic masculinity. But the fame and wealth of individual
stars has no trickle-down effect; it does not yield social authority to
black men generally.” While these categories of analysis became
widespread in academic studies, they were nonetheless sketchy and
meant to be what Connell herself calls “a sparse framework” intended
to bring about further study.38
The large scope of the concept of hegemonic masculinity meant
that it was widely employed as a theoretical model, but also that it was
criticized, often because of what it left out. Michael Flood studies the
slippage in Connell’s own use of the term. It is unclear, he writes,
whether hegemonic masculinity represents “a particular configuration
of gender practice related to patriarchal authority, or describes whatever
type of masculinity is dominant in a given social order”.39
For
35
Ibid., 76.
36
Ibid., 77.
37
Ibid., 79.
38
Ibid., 81.
39
Michael Flood, “Between Men and Masculinity: An Assessment of the Term ‘Masculinity’
in Recent Scholarship on Men”, in Manning the Next Millennium: Studies in
Masculinities, eds Sharyn Pearce and Vivienne Muller, Bentley, WA: Black Swan
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 23
Flood, Connell’s linkage between hegemonic masculinity as “cultural
ideal” and as “patriarchal gender practice” is problematic since influential
representations of masculinity circulating in culture may or may
not correspond to practices of masculinity.40
Margaret Wetherell and Nigel Edley criticized the model because it
does not treat the question of how the four categories “actually prescribe
or regulate men’s lives”.41
Taking a discourse-centered approach,
they articulate the concepts of “imaginary positions” and
“psycho-discursive practices” as linguistic techniques whereby individual
men create relations to hegemonic masculinity in everyday
interactions with other people. Another recurring critique resided in
the idea that the model does not suggest the possibility that a minority
or subordinate position can come to influence the hegemonic, but assumes
discrete relations between types of masculinities.
For Demetrakis Demetriou, hegemonic masculinity should be taken
not as pure, but as hybrid: by virtue of appropriating nonhegemonic
elements, it can transform itself “in a very deceptive and
unrecognizable way” by appropriating and transforming “what appears
counter-hegemonic and progressive into an instrument of backwardness
and patriarchal reproduction”.42
While a man may seek to
subordinate women, for instance, he may also incorporate elements of
women or femininity into his own hegemonic identity. As was the
case in the feminist work discussed earlier, men who cross-dress as
women, for instance, may not become subordinate or marginal men at
all, but rather reaffirm their status as hegemonic.
Connell’s model could be taken as not creating sufficient space for
resistance to masculine hegemony by subordinate groups. While Connell
emphasizes the constant contestation of hegemonic masculinity,
the question of how that contestation takes place or what its results
might be is not articulated at much length. Conversely, the question of
how women might in fact function as part of hegemonic masculinity
Press 2002, 208; see also Patricia Yancey Martin, “Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a
Woman? Reflections on Connell’s Masculinities”, Gender and Society, XII/4 (August
1998), 473.
40
Flood, “Between Men and Masculinity”, 208.
41
Margaret Wetherell and Nigel Edley, “Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary
Positions and Psycho-Discursive Practices”, Feminism and Psychology, IX/3
(August 1999), 336.
42
Demetrakis Z. Demetriou, “Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique”,
Theory and Society, XXX/3 (June 2001), 355 (emphasis in the original).
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
24 Todd W. Reeser
except as subordinate is not a major concern in the model, as the male
dominance of women is taken as a stable given. Could, for instance, a
woman leader or businesswoman in fact be more hegemonic than a
man? Challenging the theoretical hegemony of hegemonic masculinity,
Eric Anderson allows for the concept of “inclusive masculinity” in
contexts in which cultural homophobia is diminished or diminishing.43
In a recent essay, Connell and Messerschmidt responded to the
lengthy reception of the concept of hegemonic masculinity. For them,
two aspects of the early discussion of hegemonic masculinity should
be rejected: first, “a single pattern of power, the ‘global dominance’ of
men over women” and, second, the idea that masculinity is “an assemblage
of traits”.44
In their article, they defend the continuing use of
hegemonic masculinity in academic work, but they also suggest ways
to update and reformulate the concept through expanded thinking
about gender hierarchy, geography (including the local, regional, and
global), embodiment, and the dynamics of the concept itself.
Race and masculinity
Hegemonic masculinity relates not only to women and homosexuality,
but also to race. Connell had labeled black masculinity in the US as
marginal, because, while it may exemplify certain elements of hegemonic
masculinity, it is still not recognized, nor can it remain as such,
meaning that the whiteness of hegemonic masculinity cannot be ignored.
Predating the publication of Connell’s Masculinities by more
than a decade, Robert Staples’ landmark Black Masculinity: The Black
Male’s Role in American Society, took a conflict theory perspective,
positioning black masculinity as inherently oppositional: “As a starting
point, I see the black male as being in conflict with the normative
definition of masculinity.”45
Staples defined black men’s “dual dilemma”:
“their subordination as a racial minority has more than cancelled
out their advantages as males in the larger society.”46
Importing
43
Eric Anderson, Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities, New
York: Routledge, 2009; see also Mark McCormack, The Declining Significance of
Homophobia: How Teenage Boys Are Redefining Masculinity and Heterosexuality,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
44
R.W. Connell and James W. Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking
the Concept”, Gender and Society, XIX/6 (December 2005), 846-47.
45
Robert Staples, Black Masculinity: The Black Male’s Role in American Society, San
Francisco, CA: Black Scholar Press, 1982, 2.
46
Ibid., 7.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 25
the Francophone theorist Frantz Fanon’s model of blackness and colonialism
in an innovative way, Staples considered African American
masculinity as a form of gender colonized through the history of slavery
in the US. Yet, his study does not consider masculinity solely as a
black man-white man conflict, as it takes homosexuality and relations
with women into account as well.
Despite Staples’ ground-breaking book, the role of blackness was
far from a major concern of work in the 1980s, but since then black or
African American masculinity has come to play an increasingly important
role in the field. Majors and Billson treat a specific form of
black masculinity – the cool pose, “a ritualized form of masculinity
that entails behaviors, scripts, physical posturing, impression management,
and carefully crafted performances that deliver a single,
critical message: pride, strength, and control”.47
Maurice Wallace’s
Constructing the Black Masculine participates in a new wave of work
post-1994, with the express aim of “bringing race to bear on a crisis
theory in order precisely to deny the normativity of those erstwhile
deployments”.48
Part of such a de-normatizing process is to focus not
simply on how the black man is represented or relates to hegemonic
masculinity, but on the question of how racialized bodies are framed
visually. As Wallace explains his subject matter: “enframement ... is
the ur-trope of black male specularity for this study.”49
While blackness might be the most widely considered racial configuration,
scholars focusing on race and ethnicity in the Anglophone
world have considered how given masculinities are analogically
linked with the feminine or with effeminacy, how they relate to hypermasculinity
or machismo, and how such analogies break down or do
not function. Extending parallels between the primitive and castration
in Freud, David Eng analyzes cultural representations of Asian American
masculinity as symbolically castrated. His approach, however, is
dual as he identifies “not only textual moments in which the Asian
American male subject is coerced and held to certain (de)idealized
sexual and racial identifications but also instances when these identifi-
47
Richard Majors and Janet Mancini Billson, Cool Pose: The Dilemmas of Black
Manhood in America, New York: Macmillan, 1992, 4.
48
Maurice O. Wallace, Constructing the Black Masculine: Identity and Ideality in
African American Men’s Literature and Culture, 1775-1995, Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2002, 6.
49
Ibid., 8.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26 Todd W. Reeser
cations fail or threaten to break down”.50
Asian American masculinity
has provoked a fair amount of discussion in American studies.51
In a
different context, Mrinalini Sinha studies gender constructs of Asian
men as effeminate during the British empire.52
Under the influence of
Said’s Orientalism, representations of a lacking masculinity in nonwestern
men are often taken as viewed through an orientalizing lens
by which European hegemony is established via gender. In addition,
work on Jewish masculinity treats a variety of questions related to
culture, ethnicity, and religion, including its perceived effeminacy and
its status as marginalized.53
While Latino and Native American masculinity
in the US have been discussed with less frequency than black
masculinity, Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo and Michael Messner put
Connell’s model of hegemonic/marginalized/subordinated masculinities
into dialogue with Mexican immigrant men, Alfredo Mirandé
made a case for a profeminist Chicano/Latino men’s studies, Richard
Rogers studies visual representations of Native American masculinity
in the figure of the Kokopelli, and Kathleen Glenister Roberts studied
Native Americans and masculinity within the context of war.54
Shino
50
David L. Eng, Racial Castration: Managing Masculinity in Asian America,
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001, 29.
51
See, for instance, King-Kok Cheung, “Of Men and Men: Reconstructing Chinese
American Masculinity”, in Other Sisterhoods: Literary Theory and U.S. Women of
Color, ed. Sandra Kumamoto Stanley, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998, 173-
99; Jinqi Ling, “Identity Crisis and Gender Politics: Reappropriating Asian American
Masculinity”, in An Interethnic Companion to Asian American Literature, ed. KingKok
Cheung, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 312-37; Joon Oluchi
Lee, “The Joy of the Castrated Boy”, Social Text, XXIII/3-4 (Fall-Winter 2005), 35-
56.
52
Mrinalini Sinha, Colonial Masculinity: The “Manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate
Bengali” in the Late Nineteenth Century, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1995.
53
See e.g. A Mensch Among Men: Explorations in Jewish Masculinity, ed. Harry
Brod, Freedom, CA: Crossing Press, 1988; Harry Brod, “Some Thoughts on Some
Histories of Some Masculinities: Jews and Other Others”, in Theorizing Masculinities,
82-96.
54
Hondagneu-Sotelo and Messner, “Gender Displays and Men’s Power”; Alfredo
Mirandé, Hombres y Machos: Masculinity and Latino Culture, Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 1997; Richard A. Rogers, “Deciphering Kokopelli: Masculinity in
Commodified Appropriations of Native American Imagery”, Communication and
Critical/Cultural Studies, IV/3 (September 2007), 233-55; Kathleen Glenister
Roberts, “War, Masculinity, and Native Americans”, in Global Masculinities and
Manhood, eds Ronald Jackson II and Murali Balaji, Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 2011, 141-60.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 27
Konishi engages with the question of the whiteness of hegemonic
masculinity within the context of Australian Aboriginal masculinity.55
If masculinity should no longer be taken to be invisible, the same
should be said of whiteness as a racial construct. To study white masculinity
as racialized and as gendered, then, is to render visible two
types of identities often invisible. Analogies between race and gender
that privilege white masculinity include muscularity,56
and explain,
for instance, why bodybuilding may be imagined as a white sport or
why muscular heroes such as Tarzan, Hercules, or Rambo are so often
white, or perceived as white. Work on race and masculinity grew in
other directions as well, as evidenced for instance by the essays collected
in Stecopoulos and Uebel.57
Discussions of interracial masculinity
show, too, how connections or relations between men of diverse
races are gendered. With an American tradition of white-black males
who love each other – as represented most famously by Huckleberry
Finn and the slave Jim – interracial masculinities in US film have been
a particular focus of this kind of work.58
Complicating masculinity
Over the course of the 1990s, “masculinity” or “masculinities” as
terms increasingly came to replace “men’s studies”. To take one example,
the name of the Men’s Studies Review was changed to masculinities
in 1993, a change implying that “men’s studies” is not a direct
reaction against “women’s studies”. Often, the phrase “men and masculinities”
is employed in English to simultaneously allow for links
and disjunctures between sex and gender. But the increasing use of the
terms “masculinity” or “masculinities” is often thought to suggest that
they do not have to be directly or naturally linked with the male body
or with men, and that they are complicated and unstable phenomena,
not easily pinned down and not necessarily what they appear to be,
thus much more than simply the lives of actual men. Many scholars in
55
Shino Konishi, “Aboriginal Masculinity in Howard’s Australia”, in ibid., 161-85.
56
See Richard Dyer, White, New York: Routledge, 1997.
57
Race and the Subject of Masculinities, eds Harry Stecopoulos and Michael Uebel,
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997.
58
See Donald Bogle, Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks: An Interpretive
History of Blacks in American Films, New York: Continuum, 2001; Melvin Donalson,
Masculinity in the Interracial Buddy Film, Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006; Brian
Locke, Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present: The
Orientalist Buddy Film, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
28 Todd W. Reeser
humanities fields such as literature, film, or cultural studies prefer the
terms, possibly rejecting “men’s studies” altogether, because they
suggest a focus on questions of representation. This semantic shift is
indicative, too, of other changes in the field, including the move away
from an almost exclusive focus on male bodies and the move toward
approaches inflected with post-structuralist thought.
The term “masculinity” may emphasize its social-constructedness,
and consequently, that it is open to reconstruction. The plural “masculinities”
is taken to reflect multiplicity, including those related to race
and nation. While some scholars consider the vagueness and expansiveness
of masculinity as a positive because it reflects the fact that
gender itself is difficult to pin down, for others the shift creates confusion
around the seemingly nebulous term or diverts attention from
men’s gendered practices.59
Clatterbaugh suggests some specific semantic
confusions in this regard, including incoherencies produced by
taking masculinity as discursively constructed.60
One way to study how masculinity is not what it appears to be is
not to separate masculinity and homosexuality as two separate elements
(as hegemonic and marginal for instance), but to consider them
as overlapping identities. Men may not make direct reference to homosexuality,
but it may nonetheless subtend masculine relations.
While homophobia and the objectification of women were both often
taken as central defining elements of masculinity in the 1980s, Eve
Sedgwick’s Between Men (1985) articulated a widely influential model
of homosociality that brought together feminist and gay approaches
to the study of literary representations of masculinity. Some scholars
in literary studies consider it an inaugural book in the move from feminism
to gender studies. Sedgwick herself writes that she is “assimilating
‘French’ feminist – deconstructive and/or Lacanian-oriented feminism
– to the radical-feminist end of this spectrum”.61
While Sedgwick’s ground-breaking book made its way into some
contemporaneous work in social-science work in men’s studies, it is
rarely cited or discussed, suggesting a rather strict separation between
59
Jeff Hearn, “Is Masculinity Dead? A Critique of the Concept of Masculinity/masculinities”,
in Understanding Masculinities: Social Relations and Cultural
Arenas, ed. Máirtín Mac an Ghaill, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996, 202-
17.
60
Kenneth Clatterbaugh, “What Is Problematic about Masculinities?”, Men and Masculinities,
I/1 (July 1998), 24-45.
61
Sedgwick, Between Men, 11.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 29
more literary/cultural approaches and social science ones, even as
Sedgwick’s work resembled that of other scholars in that it aimed to
incorporate both feminist and gay approaches. Based partially on anthropological
theory, Sedgwick’s study posits that the relation between
two seemingly heterosexual men and certain relations of desire
between men and women should not be considered separate. Two men
might desire the same woman as a way to displace the possibility of
homoerotic desire for each other, meaning that the stronger interpersonal
relation is not the heterosexual one, but that between the two
men. That male-male relation, with patriarchal undertones, suggests
that men are sharing power as much as desire through the objectification
of the women mutually desired. Behind the triangular model of
desire lies the presupposition that male-male relations are located on a
continuum of desire that ultimately cannot locate or cannot stabilize
male-male relations as strictly “heterosexual”. As she writes: “To
draw the ‘homosocial’ back into the orbit of ‘desire,’ of the potentially
erotic ... is to hypothesize the potential unbrokenness of a continuum
between homosocial and homosexual.”62
Her notion of a continuum of
desire mirrored previous work in feminist thought that considered
women’s relation with women on a continuum of desire, and disbanded
the over-simple idea that women’s sexuality is fluid while men’s is
not.
As a result of Sedgwick’s book, the words “homosocial” and “homosociality”
became widely used in the study of men and masculinity,
as male-male interactions – even when two men do not specifically
desire the same women – are taken to fall on a continuum of male
homosocial desire and as the instability of men’s interactions makes it
difficult to term them purely heterosexual. The role of female homosociality
is hardly discussed in Between Men, and Sedgwick herself
calls for more work on “the relations between female-homosocial and
male-homosocial structures”.63
In addition, the question of whether
her model could be taken to apply to non-European cultures is one that
she raises: “any attempt to treat [this book’s formulations] as crosscultural
or (far more) as universal ought to involve the most searching
and particular analysis.”64
In terms of the analytic practice of masculinity,
Sedgwick makes a case for thinking in sophisticated ways about
62
Ibid., 1.
63
Ibid., 18.
64
Ibid., 19.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
30 Todd W. Reeser
representation as integral to the way in which power functions: “Before
we can fully achieve and use our intuitive grasp of the leverage
that sexual relations seem to offer on the relations of oppression, we
need more – more different, more complicated, more diachronically
apt, more off-centered – more daring and prehensile applications of
our present understanding of what it may mean for one thing to signify
another.”65
From her first textual reading of Shakespeare’s Sonnets to
her last one on Charles Dickens’ The Mystery of Edwin Drood, historicity
and contextualization are central to reading homosociality, leaving
open the adaption of her approach to other time periods that she
does not specifically treat.
With her focus on interpretive complexity in the representation of
gender relations, Sedgwick sets the stage to consider movementcentered
approaches to masculinity, including the queerness within
heterosexual masculinity. If one of the presuppositions of queer theory
is that male homophobia is attempting to expel the abject queer from
within, then there is necessarily something queer about or within masculinity
in the first place. Or, alternately, excessive forms of masculinity
may point to an instability of masculinity that contains something
queer. An anti-normative gender presentation, the hypersexual man,
for instance, may act the way he does because he is attempting to expel,
or is responding to, an anxiety of queerness within.
If heterosexual masculinity can be taken as queer in some sense, it
can also be taken as “performative”. Judith Butler famously articulates
the idea that gender is performative in her ground-breaking Gender
Trouble.66
While the book focuses on gender and not masculinity specifically,
her theoretical concepts can be brought to bear on masculinity
in productive ways,67
and have had an immense influence on masculinity
studies, particularly in the humanities. Butler famously
suggests that the traditional distinction between sex and gender is no
distinction at all, but that gender should be taken as “the very apparatus
of production whereby the sexes themselves are established”.68
In this sense, then, “maleness” or “manhood” in its biological configuration
(as influenced by testosterone, the male sex drive, or the penis,
65
Ibid., 11.
66
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New
York: Routledge, 1990.
67
See Reeser, Masculinities in Theory, Chapter 3.
68
Butler, Gender Trouble, 7.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 31
for instance) can be understood as elements of gender as constructed
through the medium of language. It is not testosterone itself that
makes a man, but how we understand this element of biology or what
we make of it. The male body (like the sexed body in a larger sense)
does not have inherent meaning, except as we ascribe meaning to it. In
this sense, as per Butler’s ideas in Bodies that Matter,69
men have to
“assume” their maleness. They both take it on and take it for granted.
In addition, men are not acting masculine because of something in
their genes or in their blood, but by virtue of the fact that their gendered
acts implicitly refer to or cite innumerable actions that others
have already undertaken – actions that provide authority, meaning,
and stability for the current act. So the masculinity of a given cowboy
in a film is supported and made possible by an entire host of links
between masculinity and space, the frontier, guns, etc. that have been
previously made and repeated. From a Butlerian approach, masculinity
can be considered as a “corporeal style”,70
not unchanging and open
to change over an individual’s life or over a historical time period.
In parallel with the post-structuralist commonplace that signifier
and signified do not naturally correspond, the term “masculinity” no
longer has to be taken with respect to its supposedly natural receptacle,
the male body. While almost all early work on masculinity focused
on masculinity and the male body, American studies scholar
Judith “Jack” Halberstam’s influential book Female Masculinity broke
new ground by arguing that a full understanding of masculinity requires
that we include considerations of it as separate from the male
body: “far from being an imitation of maleness, female masculinity
actually affords us a glimpse of how masculinity is constructed as
masculinity.”71
This argument is part of a larger claim that
masculinity “becomes legible as masculinity where and when it leaves
the white male middle-class body”.72
For Halberstam, then, it is
necessary to maintain “a degree of indifference to the whiteness of the
male and the masculinity of the white male and the project of naming
his power” and to consider male masculinity as a “counterexample to
69
Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter, New York: Routledge, 1993.
70
Butler, Gender Trouble, 139.
71
Judith Halberstam, Female Masculinity, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998,
1.
72
Ibid., 2.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
32 Todd W. Reeser
l change”.
the kinds of masculinity that seem most informative about gender
relations and most generative of socia 73
But if female masculinity should be integral to the study of gender,
Halberstam is asking, then why has female masculinity not been an
object of study? In the same way that cultural discourses may render
female masculinity a non-ideal gender presentation that should not
exist, scholars of (male) masculinity may have been participating in an
academic discourse in which masculinity can only be male. While
Halberstam’s book begins to fill the lacuna in the field, this lack in
masculinity studies has still not been sufficiently filled,74
particularly
with respect to heterosexual female masculinities. Aiming to position
female masculinity as a diachronic phenomenon that should be integrated
into histories of masculinity, Halberstam also established a
methodology (termed “perverse presentism”) by which previous morphologies
of female masculinity can be studied.
If a complete study of masculinity must consider the role of women,
the same must be said with respect to disabled, gay male, and
transgender subjects. Analogies might be made between disability and
lack of masculinity, or conversely between ability and masculinity,
but more complicated relations between disability and masculinity
might also obtain.75
Similarly, gay male masculinities have a varying
relation to masculinity, and should be taken in their plurality.76
The
historically recent notion that male homosexuality is closely connected
to effeminacy is challenged in part by considering a range of gender
presentations among gay men, including the rejection of effeminacy
in favor of gay hegemonic masculinity and racial homosexualities.
Gay male masculinity might also be taken as an oscillation between
hegemonic and non-hegemonic positions, as dependent on situation,
with the closet, passing, and “straight acting” as key elements of such
a consideration.
73
Ibid., 3.
74
But in the literary realm, see Jean Bobby Noble, Masculinities without Men? Female
Masculinity in Twentieth-Century Fictions, Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press, 2004.
75
See Gill Valentine, “What It Means to be a Man: The Body, Masculinities, Disability”,
in Mind and Body Spaces: Geographies of Disability, Illness, and Impairment,
eds Ruth Butler and Hester Parr, London: Routledge, 1999, 167-80; Nicole Markoti
and Robert McRuer, “Leading with Your Head: On the Borders of Disability, Sexuality,
and the Nation”, in Sex and Disability, eds Robert McRuer and Anna Mollow,
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012, 165-82.
76
See Peter M. Nardi, Gay Masculinities, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 33
Recent work in transgender studies rethinks masculinity from a
new perspective barely acknowledged in the 1980s and 1990s. One of
the major sections in the field-defining The Transgender Studies
Reader focuses of transgender masculinities.77
Taking transgender
into account means that masculinity cannot a priori be taken as natural
or as the strict province of men, at least in the traditional sense of the
word. That a woman can transition and be considered or pass as a man
implies that the signifier “masculinity” does not correspond in any
direct or natural way to a given signified. Perhaps more radically, if
transgender is taken as a transition toward movement itself, not as a
change from one discrete sex to another, then the trans body might
destabilize stable definitions of masculinity by inventing new gendered
configurations. Transgender as an analytic category forces a
reconsideration of hegemonic masculinity as well. To transition to
becoming a man might (re)affirm the desirability of hegemonic masculinity
or, on the other hand, might permit it to be destabilized from
within (as a man who challenges gender hegemony). Trans or drag
king performance may also question assumptions of male biology as
the basis of masculinity.78
Female-to-male transgender subjects may
or may not challenge masculine hegemony, and if they believe that
testosterone creates maleness, may envision sex in a non-Butlerian
way as biological. In short, as Henry Rubin writes: “Transgender men
have the potential to generate either alternative or hegemonic forms of
masculinity.”79
Jason Cromwell discusses the cases of transmen who
queer masculinity by revamping cultural discourses to construct a
transidentity that can be conveyed to or understood by others. Further,
the notion of a masculinity continuum (often thought of as masculinity
opposed to femininity, or homosocial opposed to homoerotic) can be
reconsidered in light of transgender.80
The sometimes very fluid borderline
between butch and female-to-male transgender permits con-
77
See The Transgender Studies Reader, eds Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle, New
York: Routledge, 2006.
78
See Diane Torr and Stephen Bottoms, Sex, Drag, and Male Roles: Investigating
Gender as Performance, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2010.
79
Henry Rubin, Self-Made Men: Identity and Embodiment among Transsexual Men,
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2003, 145.
80
Jason Cromwell, “Queering the Binaries: Transsituated Identities, Bodies, and
Sexualities”, in The Transgender Studies Reader, 509-20.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34 Todd W. Reeser
siderations of the fluidity of masculinity itself, and of the value attached
to sex and masculinity in butch and trans subjects.81
If some work takes for granted that the unstable signifier masculinity
has no natural referent, it may also assume that masculinity is constituted
through complicated forms of representation. Most of this
work comes not out of social sciences, but out of the humanities, and
is often directly or indirectly subtended by post-structuralist thought.
An early example of theoretically-informed work, Victor Seidler’s
Rediscovering Masculinity took a discourse-centered perspective to
masculinity and aimed in part to “reclaim language as a facet of expe-
rience”.82
Under the influence of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s
notions of deferral, some thinkers cast masculinity as an unending,
ultimately un-definable phenomenon, composed not so much of
social constructs per se but of an unending series of questions. As the
cultural critic Homi Bhabha writes in an essay on masculinity: “my
own masculinity is strangely separating from me, turning into my
shadow, the place of my filiation and my fading. My attempt to conceptualize
its conditionality becomes a compulsion to question it.”83
My own Masculinities in Theory takes a systematic and comprehensive
approach to masculinity as movement-centered, not as a fixed
object of inquiry, and discusses how select post-structuralist theories
that do not take masculinity as an object of inquiry can nonetheless be
brought to bear on its analysis. Although, for instance, the French
philosopher Michel Foucault’s theoretical models on power and discourse
do not refer to masculinity per se, and have been considered
with respect to women, homosexuality, and other non-hegemonic
categories, masculinity can be taken in Foucauldian terms as discursively
constructed.84
One can argue that there is no original form of
masculinity, and that its inherent diffuseness means that it cannot ultimately
be located in a single place and that it needs to be considered
as a fragmented phenomenon a priori. Work on masculine anxiety is
also, in a different way, part of a movement-centered approach since it
81
See Halberstam, Female Masculinity, Chapter 5; Gayle Rubin, “Of Catamites and
Kings: Reflections on Butch, Gender, and Boundaries”, in The Transgender Studies
Reader, 471-81.
82
Victor J. Seidler, Rediscovering Masculinity: Reason, Language, and Sexuality,
London: Routledge, 1989, 5.
83
Homi K. Bhabha, “Are You a Man or a Mouse?”, in Constructing Masculinity, eds
Maurice Berger, Brian Wallis and Simon Watson, New York: Routledge, 1995, 58.
84
See Reeser, Masculinities in Theory, 29-35.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 35
assumes masculinity has to respond, perhaps constantly, to anxiety in
order to be, or to give the impression of being, stable and static.85
While there is often an academic split between these kinds of
movement-centered approaches and social-science approaches in
men’s studies, the former approaches are politically engaged in the
sense that they attempt to upend the perception of masculinity as universal
and stable and allow for numerous other possibilities. If inherently
unstable, hegemonic masculinity cannot maintain its dominance
or the perception of dominance. As David S. Gutterman writes in his
outline of postmodern interrogations of masculinity: “Postmodern
theories of subjectivity, identity, and agency ... can be useful not only
for rethinking governing cultural values but also as a framework for
actively seeking social change.”86
In his discussion, Gutterman makes
a case for such approaches to be considered in political coalition
building, which depends on gathering fractured constituencies together
for a common goal: “the appreciation of difference enables a coalition
... not to try to figure out what a new cultural script for masculinity
ought to be. Instead, the coalition could focus on destabilizing and
denaturalizing the scripts in place and create the space for a variety of
different masculinities to be performed.”87
If stable or movement-centered approaches are, however, taken as
antithetical to each other, a possible compromise position between
them would be to consider that the experience of masculinity (and of
gender in a larger sense) is predicated on a movement between stability
or essentialism on the one hand, and free play on the other.88
While
masculinity itself may be essential or fluid, the experience of masculinity
on a daily basis likely oscillates between the sense that it has a
core or is natural, and the sense that it is fluid or fragmented. Or, as I
have discussed with respect to what I call “a moderate approach to
masculinity”: “The essentialism that I experience might also place me
85
See also Calvin Thomas who takes the writing of the male body as his topic, arguing
that “the mechanisms of assuagement are ideologically embedded in cultural
modes of representational containment that govern and restrict the visibility of male
bodies and male bodily productions” (Calvin Thomas, Male Matters: Masculinity,
Anxiety, and the Male Body on the Line, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996, 3).
86
David S. Gutterman, “Postmodernism and the Interrogation of Masculinity”, in
Theorizing Masculinities, 224.
87
Ibid., 234.
88
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “‘Gosh, Boy George, You Must Be Awfully Secure in
Your Masculinity!’”, in Constructing Masculinity, 18.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
36 Todd W. Reeser
in a position in which essentialism is not exactly opposed to free play
since essentialism might actually help me to understand that free play
better.” Or conversely, “because I focus on my masculinity as freefloating
and non-essential, I might have moments in which I feel masculinity
as a core”.89
While a substantial body of work that takes such
a moderate approach and seeks to destabilize the split between stability
or essentialism and free-play has yet to appear, this theoretical
approach gestures toward a theoretical apparatus that has the potential
better to link together humanities-based and other types of work.
Anthropology and the global turn
A recent, growing body of research gestures toward a key future direction
in the study of masculinity, namely the global and the transnational.
In 1990, patterns of masculinity within the context of cultural
difference were already the focus of anthropologist David Gilmore’s
Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. Taking
into account a number of western and non-western cultures, he studies
what it means to be a man or to be a “real man” in selected cultures.
The “regularity” that interests him “is the often dramatic ways in
which cultures construct an appropriate manhood – the presentation or
‘imaging’ of the male role”.90
Among his material-based conclusions
is the idea that “Manhood is the social barrier that societies must erect
against entropy, human enemies, the forces of nature, time, and all the
human weaknesses that endanger group life”.91
A groundbreaking and
innovative book at the time of its publication, Gilmore’s book was
subsequently viewed by some as lacking sufficient plurality in its view
of masculinity. In his survey of anthropological approaches to masculinity
up until the mid-1990s, Don Conway-Long, for instance, comments
on Gilmore’s failure to recognize “the plurality of masculinities
within any of the cultures he analyzed”.92
As Conway-Long also suggests,
the anthropological work of Gilbert Herdt from the 1980s on
South-Pacific-islander cultures and initiation ceremonies could be
taken as part of the history of anthropological approaches to masculin-
89
Reeser, Masculinities in Theory, 51.
90
David D. Gilmore, Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity, New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1990, 11.
91
Ibid., 226.
92
Don Conway-Long, “Ethnographies and Masculinities”, in Theorizing Masculinities,
61 (emphasis in the original).
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Concepts of Masculinity and Masculinity Studies 37
ity,93
even if Herdt’s work is not necessarily often imagined in that
trajectory.
Despite the growing body of work on non-western masculinities, as
Ronald Jackson II and Murali Balaji write, “masculinity studies has
generally been ghettoized by a Eurocentric paradigm of whiteness and
its Others, the latter most closely associated with the representations
and assumed practices of black masculinity”.94
Scholars are, however,
increasingly working on how masculinity is constructed in cultures
around the globe, but they are also increasingly interested in how
masculinities travel or transition from one cultural zone to another.
Connell calls for work on global masculinities, and sketches out
three major types of globalizing masculinity: masculinities of conquest
and settlement, masculinities of empire, and masculinities of
postcolonialism and neoliberalism.95
The small amount of work on the
topic largely relates to transnational business or corporate masculinity
or to global politics and militarism. Christine Beasley rethinks hegemonic
masculinity for consideration of a global context, one aspect of
her argument being that the term should focus “on its meaning as a
political mechanism involving the bonding together of different masculinities
in a hierarchical order”.96
One might consider what happens
to an Asian form of hegemonic masculinity when it encounters an
African form, for example. Beasley also calls for thinking about “plural
hegemonic masculinities” in a global context with “the language of
‘supra’ and ‘sub’ hegemonic” that allow for a range of masculinities
to be placed in global dialogue.97
Connell and Messerschmidt call for
hegemonic masculinities to be studied at the local, regional, and global
level, but also to take the links between the three levels into ac-
count.98
As the world continues to become increasingly global and as
the study of masculinity follows suit, scholars are likely to imagine
what specific interactions between spatially-defined masculinities will
93
Ibid., 66-70.
94
Ronald Jackson II and Murali Balaji, Introduction, in Global Masculinities and
Manhood, 21.
95
R.W. Connell, “Masculinties and Globalization”, Men and Masculinities, I/1 (July
1998), 12-16; see also Connell in this volume.
96
Christine Beasley, “Rethinking Hegemonic Masculinity in a Globalizing World”,
Men and Masculinities, XI/1 (October 2008), 99.
97
Ibid., 100.
98
Connell and Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity”, 849.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
38 Todd W. Reeser
take place, and in turn how those interactions will wash back onto the
study of gender itself.99
99
This article is a shortened and thoroughly reworked version of Todd Reeser,
“Englischsprachige Männlichkeitsforschung”, in Handbuch Männlichkeit, eds Stefan
Horlacher, Bettina Schötz and Wieland Schwanebeck, Stuttgart: Metzler, forthcom-
ing.
This content downloaded from 147.251.101.162 on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 08:35:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms