Kimmel Part I

FM-Kimmel.
qxd 3/5/2004 8:51 PM Page i
HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON
MEN AND MASCULINITIES
FM-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 8:51 PM Page ii
FM-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 8:51 PM Page iii
HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON
Edited by Michael Kimmel,
Jeff Hearn, and R.W. Connell
Sage Publications
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
FM-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 8:51 PM Page iv
Copyright © 2004 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
For information:
Sage Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: [email protected]
Sage Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
United Kingdom
Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B-42, Panchsheel Enclave
Post Box 4109
New Delhi 110 017 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
03 04 05 06 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acquisitions Editor:
Editorial Assistant:
Production Editor: Denise Santoyo
Copy Editors: Katherine Chilton
A.J. Sobczak
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Indexer:
Cover Designer:
FM-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 8:51 PM Page v
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
R. W. Connell, Jeff Hearn, and Michael Kimmel
PART I. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 13

2. Social Theories for Researching Men and Masculinities:
Direct Gender Hierarchy and Structural Inequality 15
Øystein Gullvåg Holter
3. Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory 35
Judith Kegan Gardiner
4. Queering the Pitch? Gay Masculinities 51
Tim Edwards
PART II. GLOBAL AND REGIONAL PATTERNS 69

5. Globalization, Imperialism, and Masculinities 71
R. W. Connell
6. Men in the Third World: Postcolonial Perspectives on Masculinity 90
Robert Morrell and Sandra Swart
7. Masculinities in Latin America 114
Matthew C. Gutmann and Mara Viveros Vigoya
8. East Asian Masculinities 129
Futoshi Taga
9. Men, Masculinities, and “Europe” 141
Critical Research on Men in Europe (CROME)
PART III. STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES 163

10. Class and Masculinity 165
David Morgan
11. Male Sexualities 178
Ken Plummer
12. Men, Masculinities, and Crime 196
James W. Messerschmidt
FM-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 8:51 PM Page vi
13. Masculinities in Education 213

Jon Swain
14. Boys and Men in Families: The Domestic Production
of Gender, Power, and Privilege 230
Michele Adams and Scott Coltrane
15. Fatherhood and Masculinities 249
William Marsiglio and Joseph H. Pleck
16. “Gentlemen, the Lunchbox Has Landed”: Representations of
Masculinities and Men’s Bodies in the Popular Media 270
Jim McKay, Janine Mikosza, and Brett Hutchins
17. Men and Masculinities in Work, Organizations, and Management 289
David L. Collinson and Jeff Hearn
PART IV. BODIES, SELVES, DISCOURSES 311

18. Still a Man’s World? Studying Masculinities and Sport 313
Michael A. Messner
19. Men’s Health Studies: An Overview 326
Don Sabo
20. Masculinities and Interpersonal Violence 353
Walter S. DeKeseredy and Martin D. Schwartz
21. Polysemous, Polymorphous Bodies: Masculinities and (Non)-Normativity 367
Thomas J. Gerschick
22. Transgendering, Men, and Masculinities 379
Richard Ekins and Dave King
PART V. POLITICS 395

23. Nation 397
Joane Nagel
24. Globalization and Its Mal(e)contents: The Gendered Moral and
Political Economy of Terrorism 414
Michael Kimmel
25. War, Militarism, and Masculinities 432
Paul Higate and John Hopton
26. Mullahs, Martyrs, and Men: Conceptualizing Masculinity
in the Islamic Republic of Iran 448
Shahin Gerami
27. Men’s Collective Struggles for Gender Justice: The Case of Antiviolence Activism 458
Michael Flood
Index 000
About the Editors 000
About the Contributors 000
01-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 4:01 PM Page 1
1
INTRODUCTION
R. W. CONNELL
JEFF HEARN
MICHAEL KIMMEL
I
n recent decades, the study of gender has of different masculinities is now recognized,
expanded rapidly and with it, studies of and their origins, structures, and dynamics are
gender issues about men and masculinities. investigated. This investigation has now been
Interest in these questions has developed across active for more than 20 years and has produced
the social sciences, the humanities, the bio- a large and interesting body of research.
logical sciences, and (to some extent) in other Monographs on masculinities appear in
sciences. This research interest reflects a grow- every social and behavioral science discipline
ing public interest in men’s and boys’ identities, and in every field of the humanities. As indica-
conduct, and problems, ranging from men’s tors of the active growth of this field, there are
violence to boys’ difficulties in school. now several scholarly journals specifically
The field of gender research has mainly devoted to it. The scholarly journal Men and
addressed questions about women and has Masculinities, published by Sage, is now in its
mainly been developed by women. The impulse seventh volume year. Other journals include
to develop gender studies has come mainly International Journal of Men’s Health, Journal
from contemporary feminism, and women of Men’s Studies, Psychology of Men and
have therefore mainly been the ones to make Masculinity, Working with Men, and the now
gender visible in contemporary scholarship and defunct Masculinities and IASOM Bulletin.
in public forums. Several publishers have launched book series
Revealing the dynamics of gender, however, devoted to studies of men and masculinities,
also makes masculinity visible and prob- including Beacon, Routledge, Unwin Hyman,
lematizes the position of men. Both women and Zed. One of the first, and perhaps the most
and men have addressed this problem. Where successful, series has been the Sage Series on
men’s outlooks and culturally defined charac- Men and Masculinities, which included 15 inde-
teristics were formerly the unexamined norm for pendently edited thematic volumes published
science, citizenship, and religion, the specificity from 1992 to 2002. There are also a number of
1
2 • HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON MEN AND MASCULINITIES
Web-based and other bibliographic resources recently organized an online discussion forum
available, including The Men’s Bibliography, and expert group meeting on “the role of men
constructed by Flood (2003), now in its 11th and boys in achieving gender equality” as part
edition. of its preparation for the 48th session of the
The global growth of research is shown by Commission on the Status of Women, with the
the fact that in the last 5 years, not just individ- following comments:
ual research reports but whole collections of
research have been published in Australia Over the last decade, there has been a growing
(Tomsen & Donaldson, 2003), Brazil (Arilha, interest in the role of men in promoting gender
equality, in particular as the achievement of
Ridenti, & Medrado, 1998), Canada (Haddad,
gender equality is now clearly seen as a societal
1993; Kaufman, 1987), France (Welzer-Lang, responsibility that concerns and should fully
2000), the former Soviet countries (Novikova & engage men as well as women. The global com-
Kambourov, 2003), Germany (Multioptionale mitment to gender equality in the Beijing Platform
Männlichkeiten?, 1998, Bosse & King, 2000), for Action and other major international confer-
Japan (Louie & Low, 2003), Latin America as ences and summits, and in the existing interna-
a whole (Olavarría & Moletto, 2002), the tional legal framework, including the Convention
Middle East (Ghoussoub & Sinclair-Webb, on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
2000), New Zealand (Law, Campbell, & Dolan, against Women and ILO Conventions, have
1999), the Nordic regions (Ervø & Johansson, encouraged and accelerated efforts in this regard.
To further develop efforts in this area, the United
2003a, 2003b), the postcolonial world (Ouz-
Nations Commission on the Status of Women
gane & Coleman, 1998), and Southern Africa (CSW) will consider the role of men and boys
(Morrell, 2001a), in addition to the work in achieving gender equality at its forty-eighth
published beginning in the late 1980s in the session in March 2004.
United Kingdom (Hearn & Morgan, 1990) and
the United States (Brod, 1987; Kimmel, 1987). We believe this is a propitious moment to
In addition, several works have appeared on stand back from this developing field, summa-
global perspectives more generally, in a series rize where we have got to, and think about future
called Global Masculinities (Cleaver, 2002; directions for the field. These are the tasks of this
Pease & Pringle, 2002). There are also a number handbook. We hope to make current scholarship
of collective publications from the 10-country available to a new generation of researchers and
European Union (EU)–funded European students and to a wider audience concerned with
Research Network on Men in Europe (see policy and with practical or cultural issues about
chapter 9). The global perspective on research men, boys, and gender.
on men and masculinities is discussed in more The authors of these chapters are among
detail below. the best-known experts in their particular fields
The research debate is closely paralleled today. Many have themselves undertaken the
by the global policy debate. Following the path-breaking research that defined and ener-
world conferences on women that began in gized a particular line of enquiry. Their com-
1975, there has been an increasing global debate mand of the field and their ability to convey it
on the implications of gender issues for men. in an accessible manner make each chapter both
Paragraph 3 of the Platform for Action, adopted an authoritative review of current knowledge
at the 1995 Fourth World Conference on and a stimulus to further enquiry.
Women, said: “The Platform for Action empha- We have named the subject matter of the
sises that women share common concerns book “studies of men and masculinities.” There
that can be addressed only by working together is some debate about what to call this field
and in partnership with men towards the com- of knowledge. Some scholars have called the
mon goal of gender equality around the world” field “men’s studies” by analogy with (or
(United Nations, 2001, p. 17). reaction against) “women’s studies,” and this
These issues are increasingly being taken certainly reflects the origins of the field. Other
up in the United Nations (UN), its various agen- scholars consider the symmetrical nomen-
cies, and other transgovernmental organizations clature misleading because of the asymmetry of
and policy discussions. For example, the UN’s gender relations that made the creation of
Division for the Advancement of Women (2003) “women’s studies” a project of self-knowledge
Introduction • 3
by a subordinated group. The editors of this • By spanning both the material and the discursive
volume fall into this latter camp and consider in analysis
terms such as “studies of men and masculinities” • By interrogating the intersecting of the gender
and “critical studies on men” to more accurately with other social divisions in the construction
reflect the nature of contemporary work, which of men and masculinities.
is inspired by, but not simply parallel to, feminist
research on women. This last point may need a little more
explanation. Although men and masculinities
are the explicit focus and are understood as
explicitly gendered, men and masculinities
SOCIAL SCIENCE APPROACHES TO are not formed by gender alone. Men are not
MEN AND MASCULINITIES simply men or simply about gender, and the
same applies to masculinities. Men and mas-
Although focused scholarship on men and culinities are shaped by differences of age, by
masculinities has expanded in the humanities class situation, by ethnicity and racialization,
and to some extent in some of the natural and and so on. The gendering of men only exists
technological sciences, it is the social sciences in the intersections with other social divisions
that have produced the greatest amount of and social differences. Indeed, paradoxically, it
research on men and masculinities. Similarly, might be argued that as studies of men and mas-
in this handbook, the contributions and almost culinities continue to deconstruct the gendering
all of the contributors can be located primarily of men and masculinities and assumptions about
within the social sciences, even though there them, other social divisions, such as age, class,
are important debates from the humanities and, and disability, come more to the fore and are
to a lesser extent, from the natural sciences that seen as more important. In this sense, part of
are taken up in some of the chapters. In partic- the long-term trajectory of gendered studies of
ular, there is now a substantial development of men could, paradoxically, be the deconstruction
studies on men and masculinities in literature, of gender (Lorber, 1994, 2000).
visual art, dance, music, and other cultural and The social science approaches to men
aesthetic fields. and masculinities, both in this handbook and in
The view of social science here in the hand- the field more generally, are certainly diverse.
book is a broad one. It necessarily draws on a They vary and range across different disciplines,
number of traditions. Although not wishing to theoretical perspectives, methodologies, con-
play down debates and differences between ceptualizations, and positionings. These varia-
traditions, this broad approach to men and tions are thus relevant here in at least three
masculinities in the handbook can be character- ways: in terms of the varied and uneven devel-
ized in a number of ways: opment of the field of studies on men and
masculinities, the range of material reviewed
• By a specific, rather than an implicit or in the individual chapters of the handbook, and
incidental, focus on the topic of men and the range of authors and authorships of the
masculinities chapters. We will now discuss these variations
• By taking account of feminist, gay, and other in a little more detail.
critical gender scholarship In the recent development of studies on men
• By recognizing men and masculinities as and masculinities, there have been significant
explicitly gendered rather than nongendered developments in almost all the principal social
• By understanding men and masculinities as science disciplines. Accordingly, the disciplines
socially constructed, produced, and reproduced represented in this handbook include most of
rather than as somehow just “naturally” one
the social sciences: sociology, social psychology,
way or another
• By seeing men and masculinities as variable
political science, cultural studies, education, and
and changing across time (history) and space social policy, as well as women’s studies, gender
(culture), within societies, and through life studies, gay studies, and postcolonial studies.
courses and biographies There are also major debates from psychology
• By emphasizing men’s relations, albeit differ- and history that are important influences in some
entially, to gendered power chapters. In addition, significant subdisciplines
include criminology; family studies; violence 20 years in widening the analysis of men and
studies; studies of ethnicity, race, and (anti-) masculinities within the gender order (Brod,
racism; and military studies. Many—perhaps 1987; Carrigan, Connell, & Lee, 1985; Connell,
most—of the contributions are multidisciplinary 1995). It has succeeded the concept of the “male
or interdisciplinary, but the most fully repre- sex role” and is generally preferred to, for exam-
sented disciplinary approach in this handbook ple, manhood or manliness (we will return to
is sociological. Two major disciplines that are this development in a little more detail in the
somewhat underrepresented here are economics next section). There is also a growing debate
and law, although economic and legal issues are and critique around the concepts of masculinities
discussed in some chapters. Of the largest and and hegemonic masculinity from a variety of
institutionally most developed social science methodological positions, including the histori-
disciplines, economics has probably been the cal (MacInnes, 1998), materialist (Donaldson,
most reluctant to contribute to studies on men 1993; Hearn, 1996, 2004; McMahon, 1993), and
and masculinities, even though economy and poststructuralist (Whitehead, 2002) perspectives.
economic considerations are absolutely fun- Another very important source of variation
damental aspects of gender relations and the is the positioning of the author in relation to
gendering of men and masculinities. the topic of men. This can be understood as a
There are as many theoretical social science personal, epistemological, and geopolitical
perspectives on men and masculinities as there relation. Researchers and analysts, men and
are theoretical perspectives in the social sciences women, may position themselves discursively in
more generally. These include positivism, cul- relation to the object of research, the topic of
tural relativism, psychoanalysis, interpretivism, men and masculinities, in a variety of ways—for
critical theory, neomarxism, feminism (of vari- example, in treating the topic nonproblemati-
ous forms and kinds), poststructuralism, post- cally (through taking for granted its absence
modernism, and postcolonialism. All of these or presence), through sympathetic alliance with
and other theoretical perspectives have been those men studied or the contrary subversion
influential in the development of studies on men of men, or with ambivalence, in terms of alterity
and masculinities and are represented to varying (the recognition of various forms of otherness
degrees in the contributions here. Indeed, it between and among men) or through a critical
could argued that social theory questions have relation to men (Hearn, 1998). This is partly a
been rather prominent throughout the develop- matter of individual political choices and
ments over the last 20 years or so (Brod & decisions in positioning, but increasingly the
Kaufman, 1994; Hearn & Morgan, 1990). Addi- importance of the more structural, geopolitical
tionally, nongendered traditions that are com- positioning of commentators is being recog-
mon within mainstream social theory need to be nized. Postcolonial theory has shown that it
both drawn on and critiqued in terms of their matters whether the analysis of men is being
implicit and explicit conceptualizations of conducted from within the West, the global
gender, women, and men. South, the former Soviet territories, the Middle
Similarly, we recognise the variety of East, or elsewhere. In that way, history, geogra-
methods and methodologies in studying men phy, and global politics matter in epistemologies
and masculinities. These include social surveys; and ontologies in studying men.
statistical analyses; ethnographies; interviews; Accordingly, it is to this increasingly global
and qualitative, discursive, and deconstructive nature of the field of study of men and mas-
approaches. Furthermore, an explicitly gendered culinities that we now turn in more substantive
focus on men and masculinities can lead to the detail.
rethinking of how particular research methods
are to be done. For example, Schwalbe and
Wolkomir (2002) have recently set out some THE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT OF MEN
of the key issues to be borne in mind when AND MASCULINITIES AS A RESEARCH FIELD
conducting research interviews with men.
Another key issue has been the state of All human cultures have ways of accounting
conceptualization. The concept of masculinities for the positions of women and men in society
has been extremely important over the last and have different ways of picturing the nature
Introduction • 5
of men and the patterns of practice we call Masculinity was then understood in psychology,
masculinities. Central Australian Aboriginal sociology, and anthropology as an internalized
communities, for instance, have Dreaming role or identity, reflecting a particular (in prac-
stories of legendary heroes crossing, and creat- tice often meaning United States or Western)
ing, the land. Through these narratives, the culture’s norms or values, acquired by social
rights and obligations of groups of men (and learning from agents of socialization such as
the different rights and obligations of groups family, school, and mass media.
of women) are taught and located in a specific Under the influence of women’s liberation
landscape that is part of the web of obligations and gay liberation, the “male role” was subject
(Sutton, 1988). Neo-Confucian clan rules in late to sharp criticism as oppressive and limiting
Qing-dynasty China also defined the obligations (Pleck & Sawyer, 1974). The “question of men”
of men, but not in relation to landscapes. Rather, was a significant item on feminist agendas
they offered abstract moral exhortation, advice (e.g., Friedman & Sarah, 1982). Hanmer (1990)
about occupations (devaluing the military), a lists 53 feminist publications “providing the
model of social hierarchy and personal char- ideas, the changed consciousness of women’s
acter for men (emphasising restraint), and an lives and their relationship to men—all available
idealized description of family life (Liu, 1975). by 1975” (pp. 39-41). Recent feminist initiatives
The distinctive combination of empirical have suggested various analyses of men and
description and secular explanation that we call ways forward for men (see, e.g., Gardiner,
social science took shape during the later 19th 2001). In the United States, the idea of “men’s
century, at the high tide of European impe- studies” as an academic field emerged out of
rialism. Gender issues were among its main debates sparked by this critique (Massachussets
concerns, and it is not surprising that its ideas Institute of Technology, 1979).
of gender were influenced by imperialism. In the social sciences, the concept of a “male
Stories from the colonial frontier were a major sex role” has become obsolete, rejected for its
source of data for European and North American ethnocentrism, lack of power perspective, and
social scientists writing about sexuality, the incipient positivism (Brittan, 1989; Eichler,
family, and the social position of women and 1980; Kimmel, 1987). In its place, a broader
men. The very idea of “race,” which became social constructionist perspective that highlights
a key concept in Western culture at this time, issues of social power has emerged (Carrigan
embedded sexuality and gender relations. The et al., 1985; Kaufman, 1987). In Anglophone
emancipation of women was seen by many social science, life history and ethnographic
social scientists as a measure of social progress, research provided close descriptions of multiple
and the supposed “backwardness” of the colo- and internally complex masculinities (Mac an
nized became a public justification of colonial Ghaill, 1994; Messner, 1992; Segal, 1997). In
rule. There was, then, a global dimension in European social science, pioneering survey
the Western social science of gender from its research (Holter, 1989; Metz-Göckel & Müller,
earliest stage (Connell, 2002). 1985) showed the diversity of men’s life patterns
However, the evolutionary framework was within a persisting gender system. Conceptual
discarded in the early 20th century. The first work emphasised social structure as the con-
steps toward the modern analysis of masculinity text for the formation of particular masculini-
are found in the depth psychology pioneered ties (Connell, 1987; Hearn, 1987; Holter, 1997),
in Austria by Freud and Adler. Psychoanalysis with some recent authors emphasizing that
demonstrated that adult character was not pre- masculinities are constructed within specific
determined by the body but was constructed, discourses (Petersen, 1998).
through emotional attachments to others, in a Historical research has traced the emergence
turbulent process of growth (see Connell, 1994). of new masculinities and the institutions in
In the next generation, anthropologists such as which they arise. These have included both
Malinowski and Mead emphasised cultural dif- dominant (e.g., Davidoff & Hall, 1990; Hall,
ferences in these processes and the importance 1992; Hearn, 1992; Kimmel, 1997; Tosh, 1999;
of social structures and norms. By the mid-20th Tosh & Roper, 1991) and resistant (e.g.,
century, these ideas had crystallized into the Kimmel & Mosmiller, 1992; Strauss, 1982)
concept of “sex roles.” forms of masculinity at home, in work, and in
political and cultural activities. Particularly regional history has led debates on men and
important and interesting historical work has masculinities to have a distinctive focus on race
been done from gay history (Mort, 2000; Weeks, relations and on violence, both domestic and
1990) and from colonies of settlement such as communal (Morrell, 2001a). In the Eastern
New Zealand and Natal on schools and military Mediterranean and Southwest Asia, the cultural
forces (Morrell, 2001b; Phillips, 1987). analysis of masculinity has particularly con-
Research, however, is only one dimension of cerned modernization and Islam, the legacy of
the new discussions of men and masculinities. colonialism, and the region’s relationship with
In the rich countries, including Japan, Germany, contemporary Western power (Ghoussoub &
and the United States, and in some less wealthy Sinclair-Webb, 2000).
countries, including Mexico and Brazil, the By the late 1990s, the question of men and
late 1980s and 1990s saw rising media interest masculinity was also emerging in international
and public debate about boys and men. Mainly forums, such as diplomacy and international
focussed on social problems such as unemploy- relations (Zalewski & Parpart, 1998), the peace-
ment, educational failure, domestic violence, keeping operations of the United Nations
and family breakdown, but also discussing (Breines, Connell, & Heide, 2000), and interna-
men’s changing identities, these debates have tional business (Hooper, 2000). Equally impor-
different local emphases. In Australia, the tant, there is research and debate about the
strongest focus has been on problems of boys’ impact of globalization on local gender patterns:
education (Lingard & Douglas, 1999). In the men’s employment, definitions of masculinity,
United States, more attention has been given and men’s sexuality (Altman, 2001).
to interpersonal relationships and to ethnic The analysis of masculinities, men, and
differences (Kimmel & Messner, 2001). In men’s place in the gender order has thus become
Japan, there has been a specific challenge to the a worldwide undertaking, with many local
“salaryman” model of middle-class masculinity differences of emphasis. Although most of the
(see chapter 8). In Scandinavia, there has been empirical research is still produced within the
more focus on gender equity policies and men’s developed countries and is especially rich in
responses to the changing position of women the United States, global perspectives are
(Lundberg, 2001). In Latin America, especially now possible. New conceptual approaches are
in Mexico, public debate has addressed the affecting the field, including poststructur-
broad cultural definition of masculinity in a long- alism from Europe (Wetherell & Edley, 1999)
standing discussion of “machismo,” its roots in and postcolonial perspectives from the global
colonialism, and its effects on development South (Ouzgane & Coleman, 1998). It therefore
(Adolph, 1971; see also chapter 7). seemed timely, two decades after the first state-
In most of the developing world, these ments of social constructionist perspectives
debates have not emerged, or have emerged on masculinity, to undertake an international
only intermittently. In the context of mass survey of the field. Hence this handbook: an
poverty, the problems of economic and social attempt to order the knowledge that has been
development have had priority. However, ques- produced, compare different regions of the
tions about men and masculinities emerged world, and address emerging themes and arenas.
in development studies in the 1990s, as feminist
concerns about women in development led
to discussion of “gender and development” and
the specific economic and political interests of OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
men (White, 2000). These debates also have
different emphases in different regions. In Latin This book is divided into six sections. These
America, particular concerns arose about the sections help organize both the global and the
effects of economic restructuring and with local studies of men and masculinities. They
men’s sexual behaviour and role in repro- center on several different themes that together
duction, in the context of population control compose the current understandings of men and
policies and sexual health issues, including masculinities and place the critical inquiries
HIV/AIDS prevention (Valdés & Olavarría, offered here in a more unified and coherent
1998; Vigoya, 1997). In Southern Africa, context.
Introduction • 7
We explore the construction of masculinities of gender, as well as the relationships between

in four different frames: (a) the social organi- women and men, institutionally; the latter
zation, or masculinities in their global and approaches the gender order through the prob-
regional iterations; (b) the institutional repro- lematization of sexuality and specifically, in
duction and articulation of masculinities; (c) the this context, relationships among men.
ways in which masculinities are organized and Gardiner shows that feminist theories over
practiced within a context of gender relations— the last 40 years have taken varied approaches to
that is, the ways in which interactions with other gender equality that are intertwined with their
men and with women express, challenge, and varied perspectives on men and masculinity:
reproduce gender inequalities; and (d) the ways They endorse some aspects of traditional mas-
in which individual men express and understand culinity, critique some, and ignore others.
their gendered identities. Edwards explores and critiques the relationship
In organizing this book, we move from the between masculinity and homosexuality both
larger global and institutional articulations of theoretically, in the light of sexual politics
masculinities to the more intimate and personal and the rise of postructural theory, and more
expressions. We do this because, as sociologists, politically.
we believe that these institutional arenas and The next section explores the shifting
processes form the framework in which masculin- dynamic of global and local as the national
ities are experienced and expressed. Gender iden- settings in which masculinities are construc-
tity is more than a simple psychological property ted. R. W. Connell explores the ways in which
belonging to a person, something one “has” as a certain dominant versions of masculinities are
result of socialization and that one consequently rearticulated in the global arena as part of the
inserts into all interactions. Gender identity is larger project of globalization. The next four
a constant process, always being reinvented and chapters detail the ways in which regional artic-
rearticulated in every setting, micro or macro. ulations in the constructions of masculinities
Gender identity is the codified aggregation of rely on local cultural formations as well as on
gendered interactions; its coherence depends on the collision of those local cultures with other
our understanding of those interactions. national cultures or with larger transnational
Locating gender identity does not, however, institutions, such as the global market. Robert
make it a simple derivative of gendered insti- Morrell and Sandra Swart examine how men
tutions and gendered processes. Gender rela- in postcolonial contexts construct their mas-
tions are constantly shifting; gender identities culinities. They note the salience of poverty
are always in motion, always dynamic. Such and underscore, more broadly, the signifi-
movement creates the seams by which political cance of context, as well as identifying some
transformations may take place. new approaches to understanding postcolonial
In the first section, “Theoretical Perspec- masculinity. The chapter by Matthew Gutmann
tives,” the authors ground contemporary and Mara Viveros Vigoya and that by Futoshi
inquiries in the study of men and masculinities Taga survey the variety of studies of men and
in the three theoretical traditions that seem to masculinities in Latin America and East Asia,
inform most social scientific thinking on the respectively, tracing the origins of the field,
subject. Øystein Gullvåg Holter locates the analyzing its accomplishments, and indicating
social scientific inquiry at the intersection of areas for future research.
several problematic concepts raised in the Finally, the chapter by the collaborators in
studies of social stratification and inequality: the European Union’s Social Problem of Men
domination, patriarchy, and sexism. He focuses research project (Critical Research on Men in
on the relationship between male dominance Europe [CROME]) indicates an effort to gener-
and patriarchal structures in society. Judith ate a comparative framework for understand-
Kegan Gardiner and Tim Edwards anchor these ing masculinities in the new Europe, one that
inquiries to the theoretical perspectives most remains sensitive to cultural differences among
cognizant of gender, gender relations, the the many countries of that continent and to
gender order, and the social construction of the ways in which all nations of the European
gender identity: feminist theory and queer Community are, to some extent, developing
theory. The former problematizes the dynamics convergent definitions of gender.
The chapters in section three explore groups of boys and men. Don Sabo outlines all
intersectionality—the intersection of gender the different epidemiological issues that certain
with the structural and institutional. David constructions of masculinities provoke. He dis-
Morgan explains how different classes exhibit cusses the history and development of men’s
different forms of masculinities and the ways in health studies, key theoretical models, and some
which these both challenge and reproduce gen- of men’s gender-specific health issues. Several
der relations among men and between women male groups with unique health needs are iden-
and men. Ken Plummer poses similar questions tified and, finally, some global frameworks for
around sexuality, and James Messerschmidt understanding men’s health are presented.
examines how the gendered practices of men Walter DeKeseredy and Martin Schwartz review
and boys may result in crime. He outlines initial and critique the sociological literature on the
approaches to masculinities and crime in the relationship between masculinities and varia-
early 1990s and critically scrutinizes several tions in interpersonal violence across different
new directions in the criminological literature. social classes and racial or ethnic backgrounds.
Masculinities do not exist in social and They pay special attention to violence against
cultural vacuums but rather are constructed women in heterosexual relationships, homicide,
within specific institutional settings. Gender, and youth gang violence.
in this sense, is as much a structure of relation- Among the most exciting developing areas in
ships within institutions as it is a property of gender studies is the exploration of the making
individual identity. Several other chapters in of the gendered body as a material object and
this section examine how masculinities shape, the making of its cultural representations. In his
and are shaped by, the major institutions chapter, Tom Gerschick examines the ways in
of modern society: the workplace (David which men with disabilities repair and restore
Collinson and Jeff Hearn), the media (Jim potentially “damaged” masculinities and in
McKay, Janine Mikosza, and Brett Hutchins), the process create new sources of resistance to
and education (Jon Swain.) embodied notions of masculinity. He offers a
Two additional chapters explore the con- critical review of the extant biographical, empir-
struction of masculinities in families. William ical, and theoretical literature on masculinities
Marsiglio and Joseph Pleck explore a wide range and the body, with particular attention to dis-
of fatherhood scholarship from a gendered and ability. The chapter summarizes and analyzes
critical perspective. They consider both how the key questions, themes, and debates in this liter-
style of men’s fathering contributes to gendered ature and concludes with suggestions for future
social inequalities within and outside families research. Richard Ekins and Dave King take this
and how men’s participation in systems of gen- one step further, examining the ways in which
dered social relations—both between and within transgendered people throw open the question
genders—shapes their fathering opportunities, of how and whether gender identity inheres in
attitudes, and behavior. Scott Coltrane and a corporeal body, and, if it does, what happens
Michele Adams examine the intersection of to that identity when that body is transformed.
family dynamics, paid work and housework, They consider the interrelations between trans-
and child care. genderedness, masculinity, and femininity in
The chapters in part four explore the ways in terms of transgendering as a social process
which men’s practices shape masculinities, as within which males “renounce” or “suspend”
well as assessing the impact of that construction the masculinity that is expected of them and
on ourselves and others. Michael Messner traces females (unexpectedly) embrace it. The chapter
the development of scholarship on men, mas- takes a historical and chronological approach,
culinities, and sport. His chapter describes the focuses on four very influential perspectives
contributions that this scholarship has made to on the topic, and discusses their conceptions of
the more general scholarly work on masculini- and implications for masculinity (and usually of
ties and bodies, health, and violence and closes and for femininity, as well).
by outlining new directions in work on men and Finally, the chapters in part five address the
sport—particularly studies that examine sport as politicization of masculinity and the masculinity
an institutional and cultural context for relations of politics. Joane Nagel examines the social,
between women and men and between various historical, and cultural spaces coinhabited by
Introduction • 9
men and nations, by manhoods and nationhoods, often in the past, and it reproduces, in the realm
and by masculinities and nationalisms. Michael of knowledge, the very relations of dominance
Kimmel uses this gendered framework to explore and subordination that are part of the problem.
the reactions and resistance among the groups It is a question of finding forms of coopera-
of men who are the “losers” in the globalization tive research that use international resources
project, specifically among the downwardly (including existing knowledge) to generate new
mobile lower middle classes of small farmers, knowledge of local relevance.
artisans, and small shopkeepers. Paul Higate Next, there are issues that seem to be grow-
and John Hopton explore the intersections ing in significance. The most obviously impor-
of war and the military with constructions tant is the relation of masculinities to those
of masculinity and the “gendered” nature of emerging dominant powers in the global capi-
political and military institutions. talist economy, the transnational corporations.
Shahin Gerami argues that a core component Organization research has already developed
of the Islamic Revolution’s ideology was refor- methods for studying men and masculinities
mulation of gender discourse around an Islamic in corporations (Collinson & Hearn, 1996,
hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity pro- Ogasawara, 1998). It is not difficult to see how
moted three ideals of manhood: mullahs, who this approach could be applied to transnational
are the interpreters of the Qur’an and Shari’at; operations, although again, it will call for some
martyrs, the young men who bide the dictates creative international cooperation.
of the mullahs and sacrifice themselves for the There are other problems of which the signif-
republic; and ordinary men, who are perceived icance has been known for some time but that
to have benefited from this hypermasculinity. have remained undeveloped. A notable example
Economic hardship and sociopolitical pressure is the development of masculinities in the course
assail all men. Additionally, they all pay for of growing up. How children were “socialized”
gender discrimination against women in general into gender was a major theme of “sex role” dis-
and women of their social group in particular. cussions, and when the male role literature went
Finally, Michael Flood provides a useful into a decline, this problem seems to have stag-
brief reminder that scholarly inquiries into nated with it. All the sound and fury about boys’
gender are always in dialogue with political education has produced very little original
movements for gender equality. research and no new developmental theorizing.
However, a variety of approaches to development
and social learning exist (ethnographic, psycho-
THE FUTURE OF THE FIELD analytic, cognitive) along with excellent models
of fieldwork (e.g., Thorne, 1993).
It is impossible to predict the future of a research Finally, there are new or underdeveloped
field accurately—if we could do that, the perspectives that may give new insight even
research would not need to be done. It may, how- into well-researched issues. The possibilities
ever, be possible to identify emerging problems of poststructuralist theory are now well dis-
and approaches that are likely to be fruitful. cussed, although there are doubtless new appli-
There is, first, the task of filling in the picture cations to be found. However, the possibilities
on a world scale. The social scientific record, as in postcolonial theory are still little explored
revealed even in the consciously international (see chapter 6), and they seem very relevant
perspective of this handbook, is very uneven; to the transformation of a research field his-
research on men and masculinities is still torically centred in the First World. Economic
mainly a First World enterprise. There is far analysis is also seriously underdeveloped. Most
more research in the United States than in any discussions of men and gender acknowledge the
other country. There are major regions of the importance of power and also the importance
world where research even partly relevant to of the world of work but do not carry them for-
these questions is scarce—among them China, ward into analysis of a gendered economy. As
the Indian subcontinent, and Central and West Godenzi (2000) points out, economic inequality
Africa. To respond to this scarcity is not a matter is crucial to understanding the link between
of sending First World researchers out with masculinity and violence, and the same may be
existing paradigms. That has happened all too argued for other issues about masculinity.
A research agenda on these issues would Division for the Advancement of Women, United
certainly move our understanding of men and Nations. (2003, September 24). Aide-memoire
masculinities a long way forward. Nevertheless, for the expert group meeting on the role of men
understanding is mainly worth having if we and boys in achieving gender equality. Retrieved
December 10, 2003, from http://www.un.
can do something with it. Therefore the uses
org/womenwatch/daw/egm/men-boys2003/
of knowledge, and the relationship between aide-memoire.html
research and practice, must be key issues for the Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculin-
development of this field. ity? Theory and Society, 22(5), 643-657.
Eichler, M. (1980). The double standard: A feminist
critique of feminist social science. London:
REFERENCES Croom Helm.
Ervø, S., & Johansson, T. (2003a). Among men:
Adolph, J. B. (1971). The South American macho: Moulding masculinities (Vol. 1). Aldershot,
Mythos and mystique. Impact of Science on England: Ashgate.
Society, 21(1), 83-92. Ervø, S., & Johansson, T. (2003b). Bending bodies:
Altman, D. (2001). Global sex. Chicago: University Moulding masculinities (Vol. 2). Aldershot,
of Chicago Press. England: Ashgate.
Arilha, M., Unbehaum Ridenti, S. G., & Medrado, B. Flood, M. (2003, May 30). The men’s bibliography:
(Eds.). (1998). Homens e masculinidades: Outras A comprehensive bibliography of writing on
palavras [Men and masculinities: Other words]. men, masculinities, gender, and sexualities.
Sao Paulo, Brasil: ECOS/Editora 34. Retrieved December 10, 2003, from http://www.
Bosse, H., & King, V. (Eds.). (2000). Männlichkeit- xyonline.net/mensbiblio/
sentwurfe [Models of masculinity]. Frankfurt, Friedman, S., & Sarah, E. (Eds.). (1982). On the
Germany: Campus Verlag. problem of men. London: Women’s Press.
Breines, I., Connell, R., & Eide, I. (Eds.). (2000). Gardiner, J. K. (Ed.). (2001). Masculinity studies and
Male roles, masculinities and violence: A culture feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University
of peace perspective. Paris: UNESCO. Press.
Brittan, A. (1989). Masculinity and power. Oxford, Ghoussoub, M., & Sinclair-Webb, E. (2000). Imagined
England: Blackwell. masculinities: Male identity and culture in the
Brod, H. (Ed.). (1987). The making of masculinities. modern Middle East. London: Saqi Books.
London: Unwin Hyman. Godenzi, A. 2000. Determinants of culture: men
Brod, H., & Kaufman, M. (Eds.). (1994). Theorizing and economic power. In I. Breines, R. Connell, &
masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. I. Eide (Eds.), Male roles, masculinities and
Carrigan, T., Connell, R. W., & Lee, J. (1985). violence: A culture of peace perspective
Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory (pp. 35-51). Paris: UNESCO.
and Society, 14(5), 551-604. Haddad, T. (Ed.). (1993). Men and masculinities: A
Cleaver, F. (Ed.). (2002). Masculinities matter! Men, critical anthology. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’
gender and development. London: Zed. Press.
Collinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (Eds.). (1996). Men as Hall, C. (1992). White, male and middle-class:
managers, managers as men: Critical perspec- Explorations in feminism and history. New York:
tives on men, masculinities and managements. Routledge.
London: Sage. Hanmer, J. (1990). Men, power and the exploitation of
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, women. In J. Hearn & D. Morgan (Eds.), Men,
the person and sexual politics. Cambridge, masculinities and social theory (pp. 21-42).
England: Polity Press. London: Unwin Hyman/Routledge.
Connell, R. W. (1994). Psychoanalysis on masculin- Hearn, J. (1987). The gender of oppression: Men,
ity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theori- masculinity and the critique of Marxism.
zing masculinities (pp. 11-38). Thousand Oaks, Brighton, England: Wheatsheaf.
CA: Sage. Hearn, J. (1992). Men in the public eye: The con-
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, struction and deconstruction of public men and
England: Polity Press. public patriarchies. London: Routledge.
Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge, England: Hearn, J. (1996). “Is masculinity dead?” A critical
Polity Press. account of the concepts of masculinity and
Davidoff, L., & Hall, C. (1990). Family fortunes: masculinities. In M. Mac an Ghaill (Ed.),
Men and women of the English middle class Understanding masculinities: Social relations
1780-1850. Chicago: University of Chicago and cultural arenas (pp. 202-217). Milton
Press. Keynes, PA: Open University Press.
Introduction • 11
Hearn, J. (1998). Theorizing men and men’s in modern society. Buckingham, England: Open
theorizing: Men’s discursive practices in theo- University Press.
rizing men. Theory and Society, 27(6), 781-816. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1979).
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to Men’s studies bibliography (4th ed.). Cambridge:
the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory, 5(1), Human Studies Collection, Humanities Library,
97-120. MIT.
Hearn, J., & Morgan, D. (Eds.). (1990). Men, mas- McMahon, A. (1993). Male readings of feminist
culinities and social theory. London: Routledge. theory: the psychologization of sexual politics in
Holter, Ø. G. (1989). Menn [Men]. Oslo, Norway: the masculinity literature. Theory and Society,
Aschehoug. 22(5), 675-696.
Holter, Ø. G. (1997). Gender, patriarchy and capital- Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and
ism: A social forms analysis. Oslo, Norway: crime: Critique and reconceptualization of
University of Oslo. theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hooper, C. (2000). Masculinities in transition: the Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the
case of globalization. In M. H. Marchand & problem of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon.
A. S. Runyan (Eds.), Gender and global restruc- Metz-Göckel, S., & Müller, U. (1985). Der Mann:
turing: Sightings, sites and resistances (pp. 59- Die BRIGITTE-Studie [Man: The BRIGITTE
73). London: Routledge. study]. Hamburg, Germany: Beltz.
Kaufman, M. (1987). Beyond patriarchy: Essays Morrell, R. (Ed.). (2001a). Changing men in southern
by men on pleasure, power and patriarchy. Africa. London: Zed Books.
Toronto: Oxford University Press. Morrell, R. (2001b). From boys to gentlemen: Settler
Kimmel, M. (Ed.). (1987). Changing men: New masculinity in colonial Natal, 1880-1920.
directions in research on men and masculinity. Pretoria, South Africa: UNISA Press.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mort, F. (2000). Dangerous sexualities: Medico-
Kimmel, M. (1997). Manhood in America: A cultural moral politics in England since 1830 (2nd ed.).
history. New York: Free Press. London: Routledge.
Kimmel, M., & Messner, M. A. (Eds.). (2001). Men’s Novikova, I., & Kambourov, D. (Eds.). (2003). Men
lives (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. and masculinities in the former Soviet countries.
Kimmel, M., & Mosmiller, T. (Eds.). (1992). Against Helsinki, Finland: Kikimora, Aleksantteri
the tide: Pro-feminist men in the United States, Institute, University of Helsinki.
1779-1990. A documentary history. Boston, Ogasawara, Y. (1998). Office ladies and salaried
MA: Beacon. men: Power, gender, and work in Japanese com-
Law, R., Campbell, H., & Dolan, J. (Eds.). (1999). panies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Masculinities in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Olavarría, J., & Moletto, E. (2002). Hombres:
Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Identidad/es y sexualidad/es. III encuentros de
Press. estudios de masculinidades [Men: Identity(ies)
Lingard, B., & Douglas, P. (1999). Men engaging fem- and sexuality(ies). Third conference on studies
inisms: Pro-feminism, backlashes and schooling. of masculinities]. Santiago, Chile: FLACSO-
Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Chile.
Liu, H.-C. W. (1975). An analysis of Chinese Ouzgane, L., & Coleman, D. (1998). Postcolonial
clan rules: Confucian theories in action. In masculinities: Introduction. Jouvert: A Journal of
A. F. Wright (Ed.), Confucianism and Chinese Postcolonial Studies, 2(1). Retrieved December
civilization (pp. 16-49). Stanford, CA: Stanford 10, 2003, from http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/
University Press. jouvert/v2i1/con21.htm
Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, Pease, B., & Pringle, K. (Eds.). (2002). A man’s
CT: Yale University Press. world: Changing men’s practices in a globalized
Lorber, J. (2000). Using gender to undo gender. world. London: Zed Books.
Feminist Theory, 1(1), 79-95. Petersen, A. (1998). Unmasking the masculine: “Men”
Louie, K., & Low, M. (Ed.). (2003). Asian masculin- and “Identity” in a sceptical age. London: Sage.
ities: The meaning and practice of manhood in Phillips, Jock. 1987. A man’s country? The image
China and Japan. London: RoutledgeCurzon. of the Pakeha male: A history. Auckland,
Lundberg, C. (Ed.). (2001). Mannen. Fronesis, New Zealand: Penguin.
(8, special issue). Pleck, J. H., & Sawyer, J. (Eds.). (1974). Men and
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: masculinity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Masculinities, sexualities and schooling. Schwalbe, M. L., & Wolkomir, M. (2002). Inter-
Buckingham, England: Open University Press. viewing men. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein
MacInnes, J. (1998). The end of masculinity: The (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 203-
confusion of sexual genesis and sexual difference 219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Segal, L. (1997). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, in Latin America: An emerging conceptual
changing men (2nd ed.). London: Virago. development]. Nómadas, 6, 55-65.
Strauss, S. (1982). Traitors to the masculine cause. Weeks, J. (1990). Coming out: Homosexual politics
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. in Britain, from the nineteenth century to the
Sutton, P. (Ed.). (1988). Dreamings: The art of present (Rev. ed.). London: Quartet.
Aboriginal Australia. New York: Asia Society Welzer-Lang, D. (Ed.). (2000). Nouvelles approches
Galleries/George Braziller. des hommes et du masculin [New approaches to
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in men and the masculine]. Toulouse, France:
school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
Press. Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hege-
Tomsen, S., & Donaldson, M. (Ed.). (2003). Male monic masculinity: imaginary positions and
trouble: Looking at Australian masculinities. psycho-discursive practices. Feminism and
Melbourne, Australia: Pluto. Psychology, 9(3), 335-356.
Tosh, J. (1999). A man’s place: Masculinity and the White, S. C. (2000). “Did the earth move?” The haz-
middle-class home in Victorian England. New ards of bringing men and masculinities into gen-
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. der and development. IDS Bulletin, 31(2), 33-41.
Tosh, J., & Roper, M. (Eds.). (1991). Manful asser- Whitehead, S. M. (2002). Men and masculinities:
tions: Masculinities in Britain since 1800. Key themes and new directions. Cambridge,
London: Routledge. England: Polity.
United Nations. (2001). Beijing declaration and Multioptionale Männlichkeiten? [Multi-option
platform for action. New York: United Nations masculinities?] (1998). Widersprüche, 67 (special
Department of Public Information. issue).
Valdés, T., & Olavarría, J. (Eds.). (1998). Mascu- Zalewski, M., & Parpart, J. (Eds.). (1998). The
linidades y equidad de género en América “man” question in international relations.
Latina [Masculinities and gender equity in Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Latin America]. Santiago, Chile: FLACSO/ Zulehner, P. M., & Volz, R. 1998. Männer im
UNFPA. Aufbruch: Wie Deutschlands Männer sich selbst
Viveros Vigoya, M. (1997). Los estudios sobre lo und wie Frauen sie sehen [Men awakening: How
masculino en América Latina: Una producción German men see themselves and how women see
teórica emergente [Studies on the masculine them]. Ostfildern, Germany: Schwabenverlag.
PART I
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
2
SOCIAL THEORIES
FOR RESEARCHING
Direct Gender Hierarchy
and Structural Inequality
ØYSTEIN GULLVÅG HOLTER
While men are frequently the agents of the oppression of women, and in many senses
benefit from it, their interests in the gender order are not pregiven but constructed by
and within it. Since in many ways men’s human needs and capacities are not met within
the gender orders of modern societies, they also have a latent “emancipatory interest”
in their transformation.
—Caroline New (2001)
Men are encountering the shamefulness of being a man as such and at all. . . . I suggest
that, where shame tends nowadays to be seen as a moral emotion, and to be discussed
as an ethical problem, its reach is larger than this. I argue that shame is not only to be
thought of as a moral prop or provocation, but as a condition of being, a life-form, even.
—S. Connor (2001)
T
his chapter addresses the implications relations of gender inequality. In the views
of social theories used in researching and traditions described here, many of today’s
men and masculinities. In particular, I researchers would probably describe themselves
focus on two types of social theories: what I will as “social constructivists,” or at least give a nod
call direct gender hierarchy theories that in this direction. Current direct gender hierarchy
emphasize the social primacy of male domi- theories emphasizing the social primacy of male
nance, and structural inequality theories that dominance differ from the sociobiological
are more concerned with the social structural assumptions 20 years ago, and the same is the
15
16 • THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
case with structural inequality theories. There the process that Jalna Hanmer (1990) and David
has been a similar type of movement in both Collinson and Jeff Hearn (1994) have called
traditions, away from sex-gender toward gen- “naming men as men” is still in a very early
der as a more purely social creation, including stage and is a controversial venture. The greater
economic patterns, social sanctions, culture, the research possibility—especially, the free-
psychology, and so on. However, structural gen- dom for research to investigate the wider ground
der equality theories have usually been further of patriarchy and inequality, rather than just
developed, and are more socially and sociologi- the figure of gender—the further gender
cally insistent, with a wider and more historical research is brought along from simply recogniz-
view of social constructions. ing direct gender hierarchy to understanding
Societal theories of gender and inequality structural inequality in society. In other words,
can often be seen as “poststructuralist,” the stronger the framework of equality, allowing
although such terms are of questionable utility research not just into gender and women but,
today. Good gender research and theory creation even more controversially, men as gendered
go beyond a static structure-actor division. persons and the wider role of societal institu-
Connecting society and the individual has been tions, the better the chance of grounded theory
a major point for feminist research development in a positive sense. This includes important
as a whole. This has been especially evident developments in studies on gender and men,
in developments of relational feminism (in such as going from a belief in fairly static
the Nordic region, see, e.g., Haavind, 1984, types of men to understanding changes and
1994)—an attempt to move from “statistical new practices. Even in regions that are fairly
sex-related difference” to “everyday relation- advanced in terms of both economic develop-
ships.” However, the common trend toward ment and gender equality politics (such as the
relational emphasis in the 1980s was inter- Nordic region), however, patriarchal-critical
preted in quite different ways, as can be seen views may be controversial, since they implicate
in debates concerning the meaning of “sister- not just “problem men” but also the problems
hood” (e.g., in France and the United States) of the powerful institutions of society.
or the “women-friendly welfare state” (Nordic In this chapter, I focus specifically on two
region). Interpreted as women’s micropolitics, social theory perspectives and their implications
relational emphasis had different and often for research on men and masculinities: (a) a
inconsistent meanings in macro terms. These structural equality-inequality view of men and
debates showed the dilemmas between a “mar- masculinities and (b) its relationship to a direct
ket class” definition of women and the need gender hierarchy or direct male dominance
to improve all women’s rights. view. In Nordic research, these are often called
Current gender equality theories retain patriarchy (i.e., society and social structures of
elements of 1970s critical theory and power- oppression) and male dominance (i.e., men’s
patriarchy analysis, 1980s postmodernism, use of power, also called gender-power), but as
renewed social actor orientation, and other this contrast is not common in the English-
perspectives. Research on gender does not just language debate, I use the terms indirect and
challenge the division between masculine and direct gender hierarchy here. Are these different
feminine, it challenges the division between terms for the same issues? Or do they in fact
neutral and gendered. This is a major theoretical represent quite different perspectives, leading
point, creating a need to extend gender research to different research priorities and concepts of
into wider areas of society and focus on indirect change? If this is true, what are the connections
forms of structural inequality. between structural gender inequalities or patri-
International work with emerging studies of archal structures and direct gender hierarchy
men and masculinities confirms the importance (usually meaning male dominance)?
of the social context for the kinds of views that My main point is to introduce some of the
are developed in research. As the editor of the central elements in a structural inequality
Newsletter of the International Association for perspective and examine how they relate to
Studies of Men (IASOM) from 1993 to 2000, I the direct gender hierarchy approach. These
received quite different contributions from dif- elements include notions of gender inequality
ferent countries and regions. In some regions, or patriarchal structure, gender reification and a
Social Theories for Research • 17
dual-sphere economic analysis, concepts of hierarchy, which usually invoke some notion of
patriarchalization and genderization, and male dominance. The direct gender hierarchy
models of change suggested by recent resea- perspective emphasizes the consequences of
rch. I also draw attention to Nordic region men’s superior social position. It looks at the
studies in which gender equality research has effects of gender discrimination with a view
been carried further than elsewhere. to the immediate causes, which can often be
Before going further, it is necessary to note summarized as “men” or “male dominance.”
that the direct and indirect gender hierarchy (A more general cause could be masculinity
views I describe are broad paradigmatic in men and women, but this is a social psy-
approaches, and elements of both may thus be chological area that lacks research today.) In
found within the work of the particular theorists the European context, this kind of theorizing
and researchers. There is an ambivalence, one has in turn led to a focus on the analysis of
might say, that characterizes the field as a men and masculinities through the framework
whole. Although each perspective often implies of gender equality and gender inequalities.
the other, they also often point in quite different Indeed, male or men’s dominance clearly sug-
directions regarding the main problems and gests a variety of forms of structural gender
the main ways to solve them. The direct view inequality. Similarly, the frame of structural
highlights men’s dominance and the implica- gender inequality usually implies some notion
tions of masculinities, while the indirect view is of male (or men’s, or some men’s) dominance.
more concerned with men as part of society and Yet the links between the two are not well
the implications of societal change. known in current research.
The remainder of the chapter is organized Is direct gender hierarchy a universal fact or
in the following manner: first outlines are given a varying pattern? Is being a man the same as
of the direct gender hierarchy perspective being in a powerful position? At the outset, this
and the indirect gender hierarchy perspective issue should be understood in its social and
or structural inequality perspective, as I shall historical context. The direct gender hierarchy
refer to it here; the direct gender hierarchy view has been a primary reaction to the
perspective is then critiqued; some applications “neutralizing” or “malestream” type of social
of the structural inequality perspective are science in which issues of gender and power
considered; and finally, implications of this have been ignored. It has often appeared as a
perspective are provided, followed by some spontaneous interpretation in areas like violence
concluding remarks. against women, where gender and power seem
to be very closely linked.
The direct gender hierarchy view certainly
THE DIRECT GENDER has some empirical support in many areas, yet
HIERARCHY PERSPECTIVE it is often more of an implicit notion rather
than an explicit model or a systematic theory. It
is implicit in that it corresponds to widely held
Current Research
social norms, cultural images, and behavioral
In current research, the direct gender hierar- patterns. The notion that men are the dominant
chy model view is the most well-known and ones does not need to be argued at length. Its
widespread perspective, typically emphasizing tendency, when the larger silence of the main- or
male dominance or men’s dominance. The struc- malestream is broken, is to picture women and
tural inequality perspective, or patriarchy-critical men in a relationship between equal-women and
view, is far less well known. For example, the unequal-men. The portrait of men and women
world’s largest database of social science often resembles Max Weber’s notion of market
abstracts listed, as of 1995, 3,516 papers con- class (Brudner & White, 1997, p. 162; Wright,
cerning gender, many of them discussing male 2000, p. 21). Men and women are competing
dominance—but only 107 papers concerning groups with different chances in the market.
patriarchy (Holter, 1998). Most researchers know that the picture is more
Scholarship on men and masculinities, complex, yet this form of appearance is under-
especially critical scholarship, has been standable, given a historical period of increased
strongly influenced by notions of direct gender gender equality. This is how the problem
emerges—as a problem of men; men at large; because the gender equality and inequalities
and now, also, men circumscribed by women. perspective has been especially significant in
The “woman question” turns around into a “man European contexts, especially German, Nordic,
question.” For example, “women are seen as and United Kingdom contexts. In the Nordic
‘parents’ while men are seen as ‘fathers’” case, it could be argued that this significance
(Bekkengen, 1999). has been facilitated to some extent by the devel-
Even if power and masculinity are now opment of state politics concerning gender
often seen as “relational constructions” in male equality. This is particularly in terms of public
dominance or direct gender hierarchy research, governmental commitment to gender equality,
there is a tendency to make masculinity static even though a variety of gender inequalities
and solid. This is often connected to a view in continue, such as the gender wage gap, men’s
which power stems from the “inner” workings domination of business management, and men’s
of masculinity (or male nature, in traditional violence toward women. On the other hand, it
terms). “Masculine power is largely exercised could be argued that state gender equality
through self-regulation and self-discipline— politics have tended to emphasize a liberal and
a process of ‘identity work,’” it is argued in limited view of gender equality.
a recent masculinities theory overview The main theme in the structural equality
(Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p. 17). Men’s perspective is overall discrimination or inequal-
privilege is a consequence of this self-discipline. ity in society and their causes, rather than direct
By acting “in ways consistent with gender gender hierarchy as such. This research can be
norms . . . they reproduce male domination critical in situations, positions, and institutions
and power differentials.” This view is presented in a society or culture that hinders gender equal-
in general terms—men are “inculcated with ity, whether the context is overtly “gendered”
dominant discourses.” Masculinity is “unlikely or not. It extends a view that was advanced
ever to disappear” (p. 18). Or, as stated else- in Nordic feminist sociology in the 1970s,
where in this volume, even if “‘being a man’ in which gender was analyzed both as social
appears to be flexible and varied, it is then differentiation and as social stratification and
wrong to assume that this variation under- the use of class models was criticized (Holter,
mines male dominantion” (Brittan, 2001, 1970, pp. 18, 225).
p. 54). A view that holds true in some situations From a gender equality point of view, the
becomes the abstract rule. Social institutions international developments discussed here illus-
and variation tend to disappear. This tendency trate how the debate and research tend to start
can be found in applied areas also: for example, with the “figure” of direct gender hierarchy
in violence research and the issue of whether rather than the “ground” of structural inequality.
all men are potentially violent (discussed later). The structures of structural inequality are often
Arguably, the link between masculinity and comparatively hidden and difficult to recognize,
pride or shame rests on this overall equation especially as they often appear to be gender
of masculinity and power. neutral, although they are by no means neutral
in their effects. The problems of the direct
gender hierarchy approach can be summarized
THE STRUCTURAL as a takeover of the traditional patriarchal view
INEQUALITY PERSPECTIVE of men. Men are the larger, socially responsible
persons, compared to women. Only now is this
grand picture of men being seen as a negative
An Underexplored Tradition
rather than a positive factor.
Notions of direct gender hierarchy, male In structural inequality research and studies
(or men’s) dominance, and structural gender of patriarchal societies, more complex theories
equality and inequalities can thus be seen as have developed. Here, the discrimination of
interconnected. In this chapter, I focus primarily woman has been seen as a matter of society and
on the latter frame of reference; first, because of men’s role in society, not of men as such
this approach is still relatively rarely explored (see, e.g., Holter, 1997, pp. 273-303). However,
in an explicit way as a theoretical tradition in there are problems with these approaches also.
scholarship on men and masculinities; second, Traditional views of society are likely to be taken
on board, along with a tendency to downplay Lorentzen (1996) showed how masculinities
the existence of direct gender hierarchy patterns changed in the onset of modernity and how
that cannot so easily be explained by gender caring was marginalized in the men’s world.
inequality structures. There is a tendency for the Claes Ekenstam (1993) discussed the embodi-
structural background to become all and for the ment of modern masculinity and the restrictions
action-related figure to disappear. in men’s emotional expressivity. Jorun Solheim
Clearly, gender equalities and inequalities (1998) developed relational analysis in a symbolic
work in complex and contradictory ways. They direction, focusing on the home as an extension
can, indeed, even in a patriarchal and male- of the feminine.
dominated society, at times work against the
interests of men, individually and collectively,
Structural Inequality and Patriarchy
although at the same time the overriding pattern
of structural inequality works in favor of men As mentioned, the term patriarchy is rarely
and against women. used in today’s research; gender is the more
frequently used term. The phrases gender
equality and gender inequality are also more
Gender Equality Research
peripheral than one would expect. The lack of
Let us turn to the societal developments and awareness surrounding patriarchy is not sur-
emerging traditions arising from gender equality prising. There are many reasons why gender
research. In the next sections, I present some is visible, or even supervisible or “hyperreal”
research examples and discuss the use of terms (Baudrillard, 1993, p. 171), and patriarchy is
such as patriarchy. What is the new view of gen- obscure.
der, when one starts from the equality-inequality Formal or open patriarchy has been weak-
dimension? I outline some patterns that have ened and dissolved over the last centuries.
emerged in research, especially dual-sphere There is some truth to the idea that it is no
imbalance and gender reification connected to longer there. Its effects are still often there,
“horizontal” gender discrimination. however, so we should not take this too far. For
Some examples of gender-equal-status– example, the levels of gendered violence and
oriented research and gender equality theory in rape remain higher than one would expect in a
the Nordic region can illustrate this develop- gender equality–oriented society. They display
ment. In a study extending a relational view a deep gender-power connection.
of gender, Harriet Holter, Hanne Haavind, and Systematic gender-related discrimination
other authors (H. Holter, 1984) showed how still appears in many areas, whether we call it
patriarchal social patterns are reorganized and patriarchy, direct gender hierarchy, or inequality.
are changing over time. Anna Jonasdóttir (1991) The wording is not the main issue but rather
contextualized structural inequality in economic the acknowledgment that all of society (and
terms, describing women as “love power” as culture) is involved, not just some special “gen-
well as “labor power” in the labor market. In dered zones.” Research needs better concepts
Sylvia Walby’s (1990) theory of patriarchy, the of gender discrimination.
public phase of patriarchy is distinguished from Many operative patriarchal structures are
the private. This theory has been influential difficult to perceive directly, although we wit-
in Nordic research, as elsewhere. (Walby’s per- ness their effects. Sometimes the tracks disap-
spective has been further developed in studies pear. Examples include wage-work restructuring
of men, especially in the context of the United that devalues women and social competence
Kingdom; see Hearn, 1992). Øystein Gullvåg and labor market regulations that work to the
Holter and Helene Aarseth (1993) divided same effect (Hoel & Sørhaug, 1999; Holter,
modern forms of patriarchy into three main Karlsen, & Salomon, 1998). They usually have
frameworks and periods: paternalistic power, or no explicit gendered message or reference, yet
“paternate,” in early modernity; masculinistic they dictate new conditions for men and women.
power, or “masculinate,” in the industrial age The key links of patriarchal structure still
(much like Walby’s two phases), and a third often seem to be covered by a veil of secrecy,
“androgynatic” form in a period with decreasing an untouchable neutral and yet mostly male
discrimination. Using literary sources, Jørgen zone. Conversely, in areas where the effects of
patriarchy seem fairly visible, such as with the formation; it is formed by power structures but
persistent social problems of rape or battering, also by other forces, such as the need for social
it is not so easy to tell the societal and cultural recognition. In modern society, gender is a
causes and the effects on society in general. social psychological link between the individual
The term patriarchy is perhaps best dropped and the collective.
in favor of the phrase structural gender inequal- From a sociological and historical pers-
ity. Yet we need a term that pinpoints the struc- pective, the wider implications of the direct
tural character of inequality and a recognition gender hierarchy view are often problematic.
that structural gender inequality has survived, Obviously, notions of direct gender hierarchy
even if patriarchy in the literal sense (father- are important in gender equality theory. Yet they
power) has not. Patriarchal structures may be cannot be treated as universals. Rather, it is the
reproduced through fatherhood or through other form of society—the existence of historical,
social institutions and patterns. What is specific changing forms of patriarchy or gender-unequal
to the terms patriarchy and patriarchal society, societal structures—that creates certain types of
as distinct from an egalitarian society or from masculinities and the ways that power becomes
a society with some male power (“proto- linked to them. The reverse is not true. There is
patriarchy” has been used among historians, no abstraction called “men” that always shapes
e.g., Bin-Nun, 1975), is the fairly systematic, society and history. Still, there is evidence that
general character of the oppression of women is quite wide ranging and robust of direct gender
and the linked oppression of nonprivileged men hierarchy that must be taken into account in any
within a given society and culture. A patriarchal societal or historical argument regarding gender
society is one that displays two interlinked equality.
power structures, between and across the gen- Concepts such as compensation and emula-
ders (Holter, 1997). Men and women are easy tion are relevant in this area. Many studies have
to distinguish. Patriarchal structures are com- shown the importance of compensatory forms
paratively hidden. They do not walk around of masculinity. We can imagine a society in
with a sign saying “Hit me.” Critical gender which only a minor section of men actually
discourses need more awareness at this point. profit from patriarchal privileges, and yet many
men participate in direct gender hierarchy.
This is likely especially in contexts wherein the
A CRITIQUE OF THE DIRECT gender division is emphasized as a universal
GENDER HIERARCHY PERSPECTIVE division, a matter of all individuals in society—
as is the case in the modern age. In fact, the men
at the top of the social hierarchy may use mainly
Gender as a Compromise Formation
gender-neutral ways to achieve their aims. For
One way to align the two perspectives—direct example, they may use their economic or politi-
gender hierarchy and structural inequality— cal influence, and the men below will use what
goes back to early feminist sex role sociology, they have—namely, their gender. In other cases,
in which gender was seen as a mixed pattern, nonprivileged men may emulate the gendered
containing social differentiation as well as behavior of the dominant men. These themes
social stratification. True, gender differentiation have been central in masculinities theories,
is strongly influenced by stratification, but it linked to the breadwinner type of gender
cannot simply be reduced to stratification or contract. A third important approach concerns
the power dimension. Rather, the gender system gender as reification, experienced as something
is a framework of meaning, containing relations pregiven, even before gender as performance.
within which the sex of the person is made This is discussed further later on.
socially relevant. This framework concerns In these ways, we may explain the existence
power but also many other issues. It is often of direct gender hierarchy patterns even among
more of an adaptation to power than it is power men who objectively have little to gain by
or powerlessness by itself. A gender system, supporting patriarchal structures. We may also
in this view, is a response to a more or less better understand why many revolts against
patriarchal structure, and the two must be care- traditional patriarchal structures have been
fully distinguished. Gender is a compromise accompanied by renewed “fratriarchy,” or direct
gender hierarchy. For example, the history of Jalmert, 1984; Zulehner & Volz, 1998) are
socialism (as well as the earlier history of warning lights in this respect. We should be very
bourgeois revolutions) has been full of com- careful with arguments going directly from the
radely forms of neopatriarchal power, up to meaning of gender or the form of masculinity
the “geriatric patriarchy” that came to dominate in a given context to the actual power rela-
the former Eastern Bloc. tions, including the degree of discrimination of
The idea that gender is a system of meaning women (and nonpowerful men), in that con-
that is distinguishable from patriarchy as a text. Gender and masculinity forms do have a
structure of power can be used to outline a cri- relation to the degree (and form) of gender
tique of the current view of gender and power discrimination, but the relation tends to be more
that is quite different from the usual complaint complex, thus supporting the compromise view.
that it attacks men. On the contrary, it can be At this point, the dynamic role of the gender
argued that the “attack” on men is taken too system comes into view. Why do women—or
far only when society is left out of the picture. nonprivileged men—often emphasize gender,
More precisely, structural inequality mecha- even beyond the compensatory mechanisms
nisms that are not overtly gendered (not clearly discussed earlier? The historical dimension is
a matter of direct gender hierarchy) tend to important here. The modern gender system was
disappear from view. created partly “from below,” as a response to
Many of the current studies on masculinities older patriarchal structures. True, it may recre-
concern areas where we find both explicitly ate these structures, but it also has more demo-
gendered frameworks of meaning and structural cratic and dynamic elements. Therefore, women
patriarchal relations. Here, patriarchal domi- and nonprivileged men may emphasize gen-
nance, defined as relations that objectively der as part of a way of overcoming traditional
weaken women’s position and create related constrictions. Gender may become a means of
forms of discrimination, is associated with self-realization (O. Holter, 1983). Through the
subjective gendered meaning. In this perspec- gender system, gender meaning becomes
tive, patriarchal inequality and direct gender embodied. Bodies become “sexed,” with sex as
hierarchy may seem to be two terms for the “the sign on the body” (Søndergaard, 1996).
same thing. This is obviously a field of tension; gendering
In this approach, however, other areas are is a process that occurs for a variety of reasons.
easily overlooked or misinterpreted. The most One cannot simply assume that all cases of
serious case concerns an area of social patterns gender are cases of gender-power.
that objectively recreate gender inequality—yet
not with much direct reference to sex or gender.
Two Dimensions
It can be argued that this area represents a major
blind spot in current gender studies—or at least, Distinguishing between gender as a system
in the gender studies that take the reference to of meaning and patriarchy as a structure of
gender as their point of departure. Because power is still often a new idea in international
patriarchy is not announced, it is assumed that research. Researchers are much more used to
it is not there. A major example, discussed later, thinking in terms of a gender-power order. The
is the relationship between “production” and arrangement can have various names, such as
“reproduction” in society. Economic or political direct gender hierarchy or gender-power, but it
forces that objectively place producers (mainly, is commonly seen as one unified system.
men) ahead of reproducers (mainly, women) In the gender equality view presented here,
appear as gender neutral and are not adequately instead, there are two quite different dimen-
addressed. sions: equal status on the one hand and gender
Another mistake concerns the existence of on the other. Gender relations, or the gender
gender as social differentiation, which tends to system, are seen as a partially independent and
be interpreted as if social stratification (power) dynamic framework of meaning. It is slanted so
were also automatically of importance. But this that it seems to relate especially to women,
may not be the case. Representative surveys on children, and reproduction, but it concerns men
men and gender equality carried out in the and the sphere of production as much as women
Nordic region and elsewhere (e.g., Holter, 1989; and the sphere of reproduction.
All societies have some element of gender idea of the model is to distinguish between
organization, work division between the gen- patriarchal structure and gender system devel-
ders, and gender-linked norms and behaviors. opments and then to look at the changing
This does not mean that all societies have the connections between the two.
same major sphere divisioning, such as in the
contemporary economy. It is more like a ten-
The Gender-Power Dilemma
dency in this direction—a bit of Talcott Parsons’
(1964, pp. 130-133) complementary sex rela- If all gender is power, if gender and structural
tion, but not the whole package; not the nuclear inequality are mainly one and the same pattern,
family, not the breadwinner contract, not the then the existence of gender warrants the conclu-
modern-democratic definition of the individual, sion that power is there too. If gender as power
not wage labor versus free time, and so on. When is “virtually universal” (Kimmel, 2000a, p. 53),
this minimal “sexed organization” overlaps with we may assume, for example, that workplace
the organization of power and exploitation, discrimination is generally good for men
more specific and expansive gender systems (p. 190), or that men’s violence against women
are created, such as the modern one (Holter, “is restorative, a means to reclaim the power that
1997; Holter & Aarseth, 1993). he believes is rightfully his” (p. 262).
The specificity and independent role of Yet the research often tells a different
gender have varied. In some circumstances, story. First, it discloses variation within as well
gender is a fairly egalitarian differentiation as between the genders. Second, it shows an
system, and emerging direct gender hierarchy interplay between gender and power that the
or protopatriarchy turns to age and seniority researchers do not yet fully understand. One
relations, rather than sex, to legitimize new cannot say that this dilemma is solved in any
conditions (as in early historical societies). In of the traditions and views presented here.
other contexts, gender divisions are important Let us first look at variation within the
in society but still play second role to patri- genders, especially among men. It has long been
archy (e.g., the late Middle Ages). In a third type argued that direct gender hierarchy is primarily
of setting, patriarchy has been partly disman- associated with the powerful positions among
tled, there is some gender equality development, men. This has traditionally been a main thread
and gender becomes a more independent social of argument in direct gender hierarchy studies
system. This characterizes modern society. Gen- and also in the emerging field of studies of
der becomes more distinct from the patriar- men or men’s studies. It has roots in women’s
chal concept of the person, a more democratic studies and in feminist portraits of patriarchy as
venture and a more horizontal (but also wider) a system of suppression of women and nondom-
socioeconomic division. inant men. It can be found in the structural
In this situation, the gender system is not inequality tradition as well.
simply an echo of the structures of inequality. It Yet some empirical material, some of it
develops its own dynamics, sometimes acting from key zones of evidence such as violence
on its own, often with tension and conflict-filled against women or prostitution, has made some
relations to patriarchal structures. For example, researchers formulate the opposite rule, namely,
“protest masculinity” is not just one of several that power over women is associated with lack
masculinity forms. Protest, in some form, is of power in relation to other men. For example,
a common element in modern masculinities, men who buy women for sex have been seen
brought out in different ways. This type of as “losers in the male role” (Prieur & Taksdal
model implies a mixed and conflict-filled 1989). Patterns where masculinity could be seen
gender-patriarchy relationship. Against this as compensatory had already been identified by
background, men and women’s gender positions sex role theorists in the 1960s and earlier, partly
and gender identities can be described as com- based on psychodynamic theory. The “lack of
promise formations, attempts to balance “life power” kind of rule often rings true to resear-
needs” and “power needs.” Gender is mainly chers who have studied social stratification or
an adaptation to power, even if it has, in turn, power systems in other areas.
power consequences and emerges as “gender- Although problems may be generated at the
power” (Holter, 1997, pp. 195-241). The core top of a power structure or hierarchy (or by the
hierarchy as a whole, linked to circumstances between words and actions to which we shall
at the top), they often become larger, or at least return. Money, however, has no clear, consistent
more negatively visible, further down (“beware effect. Perhaps there is an “A curve,” with some
of the little man” is folk wisdom at this point). problems most typical in the mid- to high-
Further, advanced power regimes usually have income group, as if gender-power were a petit
built-in mechanisms to minimize the cost of bourgeois syndrome, but this trend is neither
power by shifting it downwards (Holter, 1997, strong nor clear. Other problems tend to heap up
pp. 396-404). The further down in the hierar- at the bottom, such as violence, although some
chy, the higher may be the emphasis on the pos- of this is a reporting effect. Typically, different
sibility to be “in on the deal” by using force measures show different results, without a clear
downwards. This can be seen as a main, tradi- demarcation of “one type of man” in terms of
tional, patriarchal principle—“submit to your class, social status, or job factors. Note that
master, and you yourself will be a master” money does have an effect on men’s wish to
(Holter, 1989, p. 31). In the modern world, it recreate a breadwinner type of gender contract,
is partly hidden by the market and democratic according to “marriage market” research. The
institutions. Yet authoritarian structures per- (male) money–(female) beauty connection is
severe through elements like bullying and still in force, even in proclaimed egalitarian
victimization. circumstances (Holter, 1990b).
For such reasons, we might expect that The mixed empirical picture shows that
lower status men are more involved in gender even if theories of masculinities (e.g., Carrigan,
discrimination than upper status men. This Connell, & Lee, 1985; Connell, 1995) are
is sometimes the case. For example, a 1988 important for understanding the dynamics of
Norwegian survey (Holter, 1989) of men and the gender system, the link between the type
gender equality showed a higher level of domes- of masculinity and the degree of inequality is
tic violence in the family of origin of working less direct than is sometimes suggested. This
class men compared to other men (that is, in strengthens the point made earlier, that gender
working class families in the 1950s and 1960s and patriarchy are different (only partially
compared to other families). However, violence overlapping) dimensions. Indeed, empirical
in the home seems more related across class findings have often led feminist researchers in
to authoritarianism, according to qualitative the opposite direction, namely, that the men
research (e.g., Lundgren, 1985) as well as a involved in problem areas such as prostitution
German survey (Zulehner & Volz, 1998). or violence against women are simply “normal”
Based on democracy and work research, a men. They come from all groups or forms of
third type of model comes into view. Here, it masculinity.
is not the top or bottom but the middle layers In this view, it is “Mr. Typical” who beats
that face the biggest problems, precisely due to or buys. The selection of the typical man may
the problematical character of the contact and vary with country and culture, but the main
overall character of the system. trend is global. We are led back to the direct
Together, the three models suggest a mixed gender hierarchy model, where all men partici-
picture. The empirical results confirm this. In pate in the discrimination of women.
time-use studies (e.g., Vaage, 2002) and in opin- Still, this argument is often based on status-
ion surveys regarding gender equality, there is or class-related evidence, using indicators such
no consistent pattern that oppression of women as income or education, which is not the most
is larger in one class or status group than in relevant at this point. In fact, bringing it in
others. A “from the top” tendency can be found, can be seen as an example of how gender is
but it is often counteracted by other tendencies. unconsciously made into class. One argues as
Several gender equality surveys and many if gender could be derived from status or class.
qualitative studies in the Nordic region make it Yet the argument concerns gender, not class. We
possible to give some empirically based evalua- do not know whether the men involved in prob-
tion of these models. Education seems to have a lem behaviors have been exposed to higher than
slight positive effect on gender equality orienta- normal levels of structural inequality—defined
tion and practices, with emphasis on orientation. through measures such as the object status of
There is an “in principle” gap (Jalmert, 1984) women, victimization and bullying, aggression,
violence, self-sacrifice, reification, and so on. “Greedy” wage work and production dominance
From qualitative research, it seems likely (Holter, in the domestic sphere tend to recreate social
1989). As these examples show, the gender- problems.
power dilemma is often a gender-power-class All this confirms Sylvia Walby’s theory of a
dilemma. Social status or class is a third party to shift toward public patriarchy and Holter and
the debate. Aarseth’s (1993) analysis of the “late mas-
culinate.” A man today becomes a man through
“the public eye” more than through his family
Locating Inequality Patterns
status or particularistic relations (Hearn, 1992).
Some researchers have argued that repro- Patriarchy has turned public and economic.
duction of children is the core of the gender Gender, to some extent, is a “functional equiv-
order (for a recent example, see Connell, 2002, alent” of patriarchy, to use Robert Merton’s
pp. 38, 54). In the 1970s debate, the family (1957, p. 52) term, yet it is more independent
was often seen as the core arena of patriarchy. and dynamic and can also be an oppositional
I think this is a mistake of figure and ground, as force. Reproduction and households remain
concerns today’s society. We know that repro- two of the main contexts of inequality. Yet pro-
duction often appears as the main zone of duction may weigh more in the total picture.
gender-power. But that, by no means, secures And the main point may be precisely the con-
its position as a key element in structural nections between work and family, masculine
inequality or patriarchy. We cannot judge by and feminine, neutral and gendered—not each
gender meaning or visibility but must look for on its own. A relational view is once more
the actual, objective effects. For example, we relevant. It seems that inequality or patriarchy is
must analyze whether a wage policy actually not mainly one type of structure, or a set of
increases the wage gap between men and structures, but relations between structures.
women, and this question is quite distinct from This, and not a specific zone or work area, is
the question of whether the process, negotia- the “core.”
tions, motives, and so on were gendered or not.
Gender equality and “genderedness” are two
different dimensions. In much research, they APPLICATIONS OF THE
have been confused. Therefore we should be STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY PERSPECTIVE
extra careful with the empirical evidence.
Mostly, we do not know which is which. A lot of
The Case of Caregiving Men
economic and work research evidence speaks
against the “family and children” version of Men’s position in female-associated work
patriarchy. Instead, research tells of families or in domestic labor is often interpreted dif-
losing out in the adaptation to work life, of ferently in the two perspectives. In the direct
production sphere dominance and horizontal gender hierarchy view, the same overall pattern
discrimination creating a major foundation for of dominance can be found in these areas as
gender discrimination and gendered violence can be found in others. This is shown, for
in the home as well as the job. Families and example, by men’s access to “glass escalator”
children are no longer the main context of patri- mechanisms in female-typed jobs that lead men
archy, even if male dominance and violence upwards in the work hierarchy while the women
are still major problems in the domestic sphere. stay below (Williams, 2000). In the structural
The institutions in this sphere are changing, inequality view, the changing societal posi-
with more mixed power regimes today. Families tioning of men and women is the main matter.
and children often come second, after the jobs The positions in each concrete arena may differ
have had their say. Work and family studies from the overall rule; all the more so, if they are
(Borchgrevink & Holter, 1995; Holter, 1990a) linked to societal imbalances.
show that “being able to talk about job prob- The secondary status of women’s activity
lems” is one important issue in modern family fields (mainly in the sphere of reproduction)
life. “Being able to use my competence” is a does not always imply women’s secondary
main job satisfaction item. Family life is used to status within these fields. On the contrary, recent
correct—and recreate—labor market imbalance. studies show the importance of “hegemonic
femininity” in an interplay with patriarchal an informal or latent “brotherhood.” The main

tradition in, for example, studies of nursing categories are men and women. Gender equality
(Bakken, 2001). Women often actively create analysis, on the other hand, emphasizes the role
gender segregation (Krøjer, 2003). Research of society and the position of both men and
shows Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s (1977) minority women in ways that decrease or increase gender
logic coming into play when men are the small equality. Here, the tendency is to place people
minority in gendered activity or work areas. into more or less gender-equal categories, with
The men are easily turned into stereotypical more women at the equal end of the scale, more
representatives of the “others,” token contrast men at the patriarchal end, and much mixture
types, and they easily take on this behavior. all along.
Compensatory masculinity can be relevant in In this perspective, gender discrimination
this terrain. has a major element of positional discrimina-
One study of an experiment with an all- tion. It hits people in specific positions, regard-
men group of employees in a kindergarten, less of their gender. This may seem like a nicely
initiated by the woman leader of the kinder- detached sociological perspective. But some-
garten, found greater variance and role freedom thing is missing. Can we really compare discrimi-
among the men, that they more easily could nation of some men in caregiving positions
take on “homely” activities, show feelings, and to the general discrimination of women? The
so on. Yet it also demonstrated that men in this problem is that gender discrimination seems
situation distanced themselves from feminine to follow the person, or the sex of the person,
standards, as if a symbolic mother were con- regardless of situations or positions—and that
stantly looking over their shoulder (Bredesen, this appearance becomes what Durkheim called
2000). It has been argued that men in kinder- a social fact, acting by itself (see Lukes, 1988,
gartens experience a “centrifugal” process that p. 14). Why does that happen? At that point, the
leads them away from the caregiving, “femi- notion of gender as a meaning system becomes
nine” core of the work (Baagøe Nielsen, 2003). too thin. It does not explain why these meanings
Men may be in a weak position in female- are so closely connected to power. Instead,
associated fields of work not because society modern gender as a system of reification
has now reached a state of gender equality comes into view–a framework of a quite specific
but because of persistent inequality that posi- economic type, characteristically conceived as
tions these fields below others and makes a universal fact. Women’s and gender studies
them into predominantly feminine domains. have discussed this in terms of alienation and
Therefore, men in caregiving roles or other sex objectification (see, e.g., Foreman, 1977;
female-associated areas may experience partic- MacKinnon, 1983). It is probably often seen as
ular forms of gender discrimination (Forsèn, a peripheral or irrelevant Marxist concept. Yet I
Gislason, Holter, & Rongevær, 2000; Holter, think it is a key term for understanding modern
2003). gender. It creates a kind of absolutistic being
In this perspective, the link between discrimi- that goes before “gender as performance”
nation of women and discrimination of some men (Butler, 1990, 1998) and before various notions
is emphasized. Inequality is seen as a varying of gender as situated subjectivity. It is related
relationship rather than a universal dividing line to the dual sphere view of gender oppression
that creates two class-like gender categories. Like (described later).
the burdens, the benefits of inequality are diverse
and shifting. Although men benefit on the overall
The Preference System
level, closer analyses show huge variation among
men in regard to inequality. Women, also, are In the structural inequality view, current
not always disadvantaged by gender segregation gender inequality can be described as a societal
and inequality. Patterns that sustain segregation, preference system that involves both genders.
or conversely promote equality and integration, This system has economic, social, cultural,
can be found among both genders. and psychological elements. It is linked to the
Direct gender hierarchy analyses mainly breadwinner type of gender contract; that is,
concern the power and benefits of an ongoing the man’s primary provider position vis-à-vis
system of direct gender hierarchy comparable to the woman. Yet the preference system also
appears in politics, law, and many other areas, model instead. Here we would expect that the
generally pulling men and women in two differ- degree of inequality is a strong predictor of
ent directions, rewarding gender segregation. So violence, but gender should be moderately or
a preference system may seem “profitable” also weakly related (expressing mixed relations
for women, in the short run and the concrete and adaptations). The chance of male violence
situation, even if it sustains inequality in the against women should be higher in imbalanced
longer run and works to the detriment of women relationships and households than in more
in society as a whole (Holter, 2003). balanced ones. There is increasing empirical
In this case, as in others, inequality is seen support for this, although the evidence has not
as a pattern that partly runs across the gender been systematized. Household balance has a
division, not just between the genders. Even if positive impact, reducing the level of violence
men are more likely to be on the privileged side, against women (Walby 2002). Qualitative
there is significant variation. As mentioned, the studies indicate that the chance of violence is
principal analytical unit in this type of approach higher in contexts where the woman has few
is not men or women as such but, rather, equal resources compared to the man.
and unequal tendencies. Each tendency can be
found within persons of each gender, in varying
Structural Discrimination
strengths, forms, and interrelations, depending
on the wider social context. It is not surprising Gender equality research shows that gender
that context becomes a key word in this type discrimination is more than a personal, direct,
of approach. or active relationship; for example, a man’s
violent relation to a woman. There is also a
more indirect component, which can be called
The Case of Violence
passive gender discrimination (a term used in,
Men’s violence against women is one impor- e.g., the EU Amsterdam treaty) or collective
tant issue. If we use the conventional direct discrimination. It clearly involves social cir-
gender hierarchy view, in which gender and cumstances, not just the relation or unit at hand
power are closely linked, we would expect that (e.g., “bad family”). It consists of the wider,
the type of man or the form of masculinity is social causes of the discrimination.
a good predictor of the chance of violence. The wage gap between men and women is
Because masculinity is deeply entangled with an example of this sort of structure. It can
power, the relation should be a strong one. Yet that change over time; structures are not fixed or
does not seem to hold true. Although there is an static but are often slow moving. Here and now,
empirical connection, it does not seem very strong the wage gap contributes to the social pre-
(as far as can be judged from representative sur- ference system, in which a man’s time appears
veys such as “Men in Norway 1988” (Holter, to be more valuable than a woman’s. The gap
1989)) and “The Norwegian Man 1998” (Haugen, in ownership, property, leading capital posi-
Hammer, & Helle, 1998). The case is perhaps tions, and so on works the same way. The
stronger in Germany, as reported by Zulehner and economy tells us that men have more value
Volz (1998), but this may be a reporting or design than women, even if politics says they should
effect. Qualitative researchers, therapists, and count for the same.
others give a mixed picture and often tell about Premodern patriarchy was mainly a socio-
“feminine” as well as “masculine” men who use political structure, underpinned by religion and
violence. I mentioned the tendency in feminist the military. Modern patriarchy emerged through
research, which can be found in violence research a “problem period” during which the emerging
also, to go the other way, toward arguments factory system attracted women before men. The
that any man can be violent, that violent men are nuclear family may not have been a major
of all types and come from all socioeconomic change in terms of household size, but it was a
categories (Lundgren, Heimer, Westerstrand, & new type of organization, mainly structured on
Kalliokoski, 2001). the need to provide new “producers of human
This is not surprising, if gender is in fact more personality” (Parsons, 1988, p. 126). This was
indirectly related to power than the mixed model principally different from both the aristocratic
assumes. So let us use the two-dimensional households of older Europe and the gender
relations among working people, small farmers, economic regime, the older patriarchal-political
and artisans. The institutions of the modern order became redundant (Holter, 1982).
gender system, with a nuclear or breadwinner
family system creating new “marriage market” Reification and the
arenas, evolved in the 20th century along with a
Deconstruction of Gender
new view of sexuality (Holter, 1983).
Most or all current gender equality theories This brings us to reification as a key issue
share a critique of traditional wage-work-only of the modern gender system. We saw that, in
definitions of work. Much research in the late the gender equality view, gender systems are
1970s and the 1980s showed how the wage-only formed and transformed according to shifting
view crashed with realities. This was shown by equality and to discrimination patterns in society
time-use studies and a lot of qualitative evi- and culture as a whole. In this sense, one
dence. Wider, more realistic, and more relational can say that power frames our whole picture
concepts of work were needed. of gender difference (Kimmel, 2000a). Yet this
Dual-sphere theory was one answer. It seems is not just the power of men, or even mainly
to have originated among many researchers, in gender-power. Gender-power is after the fact.
slightly different terms and versions, around this It is what happens if certain social conditions
time. The framework could also be called “work are at work. We need to know these wider
and family,” with family and household seen conditions.
as a workplace on its own. Studies (e.g., Berk, One approach in this direction starts with a
1985) claimed that household work forms gender key performance area and realization of gender;
identity. The two spheres could be described as that is, the transactions and exchanges between
production sphere and reproduction sphere, two potential partners seeking a relationship or
production meaning the creation of things or marriage, traditionally leading to the formation
nonhuman resources and reproduction the of a gender dyad or couple. In this gender mar-
creation of human resources. The needs in this ket analysis, the gender market is defined as
human-oriented work process, somewhat defen- the nonmonetary exchange of future rights to
sively called reproduction, could be described in a relationship or household partner. Each par-
terms of an “emancipatory minimum” (Fürst, ticipant “offers” and “asks” for offers. Although
1994). Many studies showed that reproductive the economic patterns are muted in terms of
work was relational in tendency, having a social- money—or precisely for that reason—they are
ization effect. One works one’s way to gender. clearly gendered, much more clearly than, for
Before we go on, a rather dramatic impli- example, in the labor market (Holter, 1983).
cation of this kind of analysis should be noted. Two levels of exchange are distinguished in
In principle, if all producers work for a wage this analysis. One level is individual—a level
and the reproducers work for the producers of exchange between men and women. Here, the
(wage workers), the class of producers will exchange form varies between giving, sharing,
“own” the class of reproducers. The reproducers and simple exchange. There is no consistent
will be individually dependent on the producers difference between women and men (in empiri-
for their livelihood. It is no wonder that, from cal terms, friends are often described as part of
this perspective, the producer becomes socially this category). On another level, however, the
enlarged and, in gender terms, that everything exchange is much more abstract. It is a gender-
may seem to rest on “the man” or “male domi- making relation, not just a playing out of some-
nance.” This extreme system has never fully thing already there. It is a potential producer
existed (despite breadwinner ideology). The and reproducer who meet each other, creating
point, however, is that it exists as a background the key gender relation through their meeting.
economic pattern strong enough to sustain a A major point of the analysis is that the sex of
gender-power system. Even if women make their the persons does not determine the outcome.
own wages, through paid reproduction work, Instead, it is the social form of the exchange—
their payments are deducted from the money the way that the two main spheres of society
(seemingly) brought in solely by the production are connected, through individual links—that
sphere. Production is the place of profits. makes the participants appear as if gender was
Reproduction is the place of costs. With this already at hand. This creates the fetishism
(ideological image of reification) in which it shows that gender has an economic element
seems obvious that gender is always already not just in prostitution, but in normal dating-like
there. It is not sex, or some combination of contact also (Holter, 1990b). Economic analysis
biology and early socialization, that creates a of gender is still very much an underdeveloped
“she” that is body and beauty and a “he” as a field.
more neutral and universal person. Rather, this Abstract masculinity is a term for the
is the outcome of the relationship between “man = person who has” element, as opposed to
two spheres of society, expressed in a particular “woman = person who is.” In gender market
individualized form (Ø. Holter, 1984). analysis, if beauty is capital in women, the
Studies of the gender market that use fairly wage, and what it represents and can be con-
openly gender-commercial arenas (such as verted to (means of reproduction), is capital in
contact advertising and public meeting places) the men’s world. In the market, it is the position
as indicators of the wider social pattern show as producer and wage earner that is tested
that the man is in a situation of “having” some- through the equivalent.
thing in this relation, compared to the woman’s In this analysis, the social constructions of
“being” something. The relation does not work masculinity and femininity originate in specific
out in the same sense for him as for her; it does positions that have no direct relation to sex but
not mainly concern something embodied in him are instead created by the sphere relationship
as a person. He “is” not; he “has.” For example, of production and reproduction. Gender appears
she thinks of him as person who exhibits social through reification as the individualized form
control. This social control appears as some- of transaction between the two spheres.1 In this
thing the man has, by making it; it is “self- perspective, it is not surprising that research
made,” in the market ideology. The woman, who generally shows that the gender market is a
is in the position of equivalent at this level of fairly gender-conservative place, where the suc-
the exchange, functions as sex object and beauty cessful breadwinner ideal is more operative than
subject. Her presence becomes strangely elsewhere in society. “He” is the one with the
money-like (related to extended and total forms arm on which to lean. “She” is the one who
of exchange), as it functions not only as the leans. The phenomenology at this point is rich,
scale of measurement of individual men’s offers as, for example, Erving Goffman (1977) noted.
but also as the key investment capital to get a The market’s high level of polarization shows
new reproduction-production unit going. that the logic of men being “not-women,” which
My own research on the gender market Nancy Chodorow (1978) and others attributed
(mainly in the 1980s) was later criticized for to early socialization, may be more operative
being too “economistic” (Fürst, 1994) and also in certain key phases later in life. The gender
too victimizing of women. I did not accept the market can be seen as the “prestation stage”
picture of women and use value (so-called “soft (Mauss, 1989) of the production-reproduction
values”) neatly divided from the harsh world relationship, or it can be seen as the main gender
of men and value (“hard values”). I find even contract. It is a stage of segregation.
less reason to do so today. The gender market Why does gender segregation increase as
turns our expectation around in regard to who men and women negotiate private relationships?
is an economic object and who is not. This This seems to be caused partly by the dynamics
is related to the second critique, with which of the market itself, but it may be mainly due
I mainly agree. Placing women in a passive to the connection between gender and class
victim status was a typical tendency in research brought out in the gender market in terms of gen-
from this period. If women are victimized as dered attractiveness. It is in every participant’s
object beauty and body capital, they are also, for interest in terms of upward mobility to define
once, the leading market investors. Women’s gender commercially. Thereby, even the gender
upward class mobility through marriage is market, a free-floating institution compared to
part of this picture. At the abstract gender level, earlier systems of marriage alliances, betrays its
the woman comes into a social position that partially patriarchal background. We do not have
does not stem from her individuality or the indi- to assume that men (or the market as an institu-
vidual level of the exchange and communica- tion) intend the actual result—women (and some
tion; a position and relation that, undoubtedly, men) as sex objects. Instead, this is the way the
market works, due to the fact that it exists in a The new or “diverse” gender is the gender
context of partial gender equality rather than that is still there when social asymmetry—rank,
pure free love. The inequality shows up in the status, power, exploitation—is left out of the
market in the form of abstract masculinity or picture. It can scarcely help being somewhat
wage-earning capacity, on the one hand, and ideal, today, yet its contours are becoming
money-like embodied beauty, on the other. clearer. New, more egalitarian and diverse
The gender market forms part of the condi- gender forms seem to be embodied and life
tions of reproduction and gender relationships; oriented, rather than cognitive-rational and
that is, the actual couples or families. As sym- power or work oriented. Equality-oriented
bol-oriented feminist researchers have pointed people do not refuse to be a man or a woman—
out, beauty translates into cleanliness and the logical conclusion, if power is all there is
reproduction, including the woman-mother to gender—yet they do not presume that gender
as a symbolic food figure (Borchgrevink & is an eternal and massive dividing line, either.
Solheim, 1988). Yet increasing expectations of They want individual flexibility, which will
gender equality have made the market patterns allow them to create gender from that basis,
more problematic, along with other breadwin- gender in a form of their own choosing.
ner-related structures. Research has shown a Direct gender hierarchy does not disappear,
change from “naturalistic” to more “individual- but it appears in a new light. To decrease and
istic” gender images (Holter, 1990b). Abstract dissolve direct gender hierarchy, the broader
masculinity is linked to patterns such as “job structures that support it must be addressed.
magnetism” and the greater “social space” of the Gender-equal cooperation must be a clear goal
producer vis-à-vis the caregiver or reproducer rather than an exception in working life, poli-
(Holter & Aarseth, 1993). Gender patterns tics, and the economy (Holter & Sørensen,
often express labor patterns and the ranking 2003). Now, more diverse masculinities have a
of labor in society. This is connected to the better chance. New cultural politics of mas-
“meta-institutional” power of labor and capital culinities need to be combined with structural
in modern society (Postone, 1993). reforms; that is, measures to balance the labor
market, do away with breadwinner preference
systems, and reduce overwork. This can be
New Gender Forms
achieved by uniting different parties through
So what could a new, reconstructed view of common, long-term democratization interests.
gender consist of?
Nordic research, especially in Sweden, has
shown the importance of social sanctions for the IMPLICATIONS OF THE
formation of masculinity, especially the impor- STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY PERSPECTIVE
tance of “unmanliness” and the “fear of falling”
(Ekenstam, Johansson, & Kuosmanen, 2001).
Studies of Men
This is connected to shame and authority, but
the more precise background is not clear. Fear What do the discussion and examples given
of falling, in this context, seems similar to here say regarding research?
Kimmel’s concept of market-related anxiety. Although research developments in gender,
Gender market studies tell of men’s fear of women, and men’s studies have strengthened
personal ruin, expressed in loneliness. social construction views of gender, biology is not
Diversity is one main part of the new gender necessarily thrown out. It reappears in a diverse
picture. Sexuality, once seen as a historical gender that is more healthy and less apt to “soak
constant, can now be approached as a modern up” patriarchal problems. A recent family study
form of intimacy, distinct from, for example, the found that traditional gender roles are recreated in
eroticism of Antiquity or the Middle Ages, embodied forms in modern households. It is when
thanks to the research of Michel Foucault the pressure of daily life rises that communica-
(1977), John Boswell (1980), and others. Men’s tion fails, typically with the women eventually
emotional range and expressions that could be expressing dissatisfaction (Lilleaas, 2003). This is
shown in public, such as crying, have varied not so much a result of cognitive or power-related
much more than formerly believed. strategies as of material fatigue.
Thirty years ago, as research into gender turned out to be a poor guide to other periods
began, “sex” was the dominant concept. or societies, the larger ground of true social
Biological sex was the factor that had to be science generalization (Holter, 1997). Today,
weighed into the argument, usually in pro- historians and social researchers are becoming
nouncements like “gender is both biological more aware that the modern “gender glasses” do
and social.” Today, biology is approached in not work well for understanding other societies
different terms. The social (including cultural, or for in-depth analysis of modern society.
economic, psychological, etc.) side of gender Human beings are more than the gender attrib-
has been shown to be more varied and changing uted to them; they dynamically change gender
than formerly believed. The social is more like and other parts of society and generally make
a metacode, shifting according to circum- trouble for abstractist or categorical theory
stances, not hard coded. By implication, it is (Connell, 1987). Some feminists saw this early
more advanced in its relation to biology too, as on. “Women are not trying to prove the innate
shown in the earlier example. superiority of one sex to another. That would be
Talcott Parson’s (1964) notion of gender repeating the male mistake,” wrote Gloria
complementarity, formulated in the mid-20th Steinem (1974, p. 134).
century, is an example of the ideology of hard- The societal and cultural context is vitally
coded gender. Parsons argued that men and important. Gender is not an isolated subject.
women were best served in a “complementary” Gender discrimination does not exist in the
relationship, with the man as breadwinner and world alone, does not act as a social force in
woman as homemaker. He argued that this was isolation, but mainly exists and is socially
in keeping with their biological (sexual) natures. effective through its connection to other main
Later, Parsons’ theory was developed in, for forms of discrimination, including social status
example, economy (Becker, 1981) but was and race.
largely dismissed as unrealistic in sociology due
to rising democratic and feminist consciousness.
Today, many theorists would interpret Parsons’ DEMOCRACY AND DEPATRIARCHALIZATION
argument mainly as a reflection of modern gen-
der ideology. Yet gender complementarity was an Studies of gender in wars and conflict in
ongoing affair in society, a socially effective modern society offer further proof, if we needed
arrangement. Norms really did seem to materi- it, that modern society is still a partly patriarchal
alize. Parsons’ ideas were formed when the bread- society. In wars, inequality structures often
winner ideal of the nuclear family ideal was become sharp and clear, targeting nonprivileged
still in its ascendancy. Later research found that, men as well as women and children (Jones,
indeed, the provider pattern was (and still is) a 2002).
core part of masculinity. From the two-dimensional gender-patriarchy
Parsons also, probably correctly, assumed a model, we would expect that the dynamics of
tendency toward sex complementarity in human depatriarchalization were connected to specific
societies generally. But like most sociologists gendering processes, but in mixed and indirect
of his time, he took the complementarity to be ways, sometimes in conflict. This is in line with
hard coded, a sign of nature represented by the surveys and other studies from the last decades
body. We may note how gender as a relational of research. The model makes us expect that
concept emerged from older usage, in which it patriarchal forces often use gender system
was considered to be situated inside women mechanisms in attempts to hinder equal status
(women as “the sex”), appearing in terms such developments. There is evidence of this in many
as “sex appeal” (Heath, 1982). Parsons thought areas (e.g., in the use of gender stereotypes in
that a complementarity principle could straight- the media).
away be derived from the modern context. The changes among men needed to
Thereby, the nuclear family and breadwinner create gender equality differ from the changes
ideal of the mid-20th century became paradig- among women. In this respect, these changes
matic of human development. are especially significant from a democrati-
Here, as in many other cases, not least in zation point of view. Changes among men
the vicinity of gender, the modern abstraction are important for reducing and dissolving
authoritarian relations in society. Existing gender equality analysis and historical research
(but often hidden or subdued) power patterns on changing patriarchal societal structures.
and exploitative structures in family life, work- Without a compass, it is difficult to make a map,
ing life, and other areas can be addressed and and using the result is apt to be misleading.
reduced. Today’s gender research offers parts of a map,
Further, depatriarchalization—for example, but it is not well oriented. I regard gender
in policies such as gender mainstreaming for equality as similar to the compass. Without a
men—means democratization in terms of social distinct understanding of equality, one that falls
class. This has not been achieved by most of the back into a patriarchal, reified gender discourse,
movement on the women’s side—instead, the the map will remain obscure. I describe a com-
process has sometimes contributed to a popular mon discourse in gender studies and debate,
stereotype of gender-equal status as a matter for constructed on the basis of the “men = patri-
career women only. archy” or “masculinity = power” line of imagi-
Democratization of class and status remains nation, without any perceived need to consider
important in today’s world, with its large eco- the equality dimension. The map is all, the com-
nomic differences. A more sharply differentiated pass nothing. However, too much compass—or
class society created by globalization means too structural a view—can also be a problem.
greater social costs and problems unless counter- I have argued against approaches in which
measures are applied. Depatriarchalization can direct gender hierarchy becomes the principal,
be seen as a new approach to this policy area. It theoretical guideline. This does not amount to
is different from a gender strategy of bringing an argument that direct gender hierarchy does
men in as gendered persons, naming men as not exist. On the contrary, my point is that
men, but also similar, as it has similar goals, such more context- and process-oriented approaches,
as creating new public spaces where problems based on better gender equality analyses, are
like violence and rape are openly discussed. It needed to better identify direct gender hierar-
specifically addresses men as “gender equality chies—not just their existence, but also their
responsible” in their own right, as much as causes, dynamics, and possibilities for reduc-
women, and sets cooperation between men and tion. Thus, even if radical approaches to direct
women as method as well as goal. gender hierarchy may seem most action
Because women’s movements toward gender- oriented in the short run, I think the opposite
equal status (taking greater part in traditional is true in the longer run.
men’s activities, etc.) have usually been upwardly I have discussed masculinities as outcomes
mobile in social class terms, although men’s of gendering processes in conditions of uneven
have not, we should expect gender-related and partial gender-equal status. We cannot
sanctions to be different. In general, we should expect “new men” as passive outcomes of more
be very careful with the idea that the two main postpatriarchal structures; men need to engage
positions in the gender system are mirror images in these processes, and research must show the
of each other—polarized positions and similar. profit for men as well as women. There is a
Asymmetry is a main part of the system, linked very gradual and quite uneven development
to the way it is integrated, through partial equal- toward increased equality. Men are increasingly
ity structures, with society at large. Although apparent as social actors in this development,
men participate in the equality-patriarchy power often through a connection of caring and
dimension as much as women, we should not caregiving. This is associated with children,
assume that men are gendered in the same ways women, and emerging diversity. These are
or even to the same extent that women are the main areas for new studies, methods, and
gendered. This is a matter of better study with theory creation.
clearer concepts.
NOTES
CONCLUSION
1. The reification analysis builds on feminist
In this chapter, I have discussed studies on analyses of alienation (e.g. Foreman, A. 1977); see
men and masculinities from the point of view of further Holter, Ø 1997.
REFERENCES management. Gender, Work and Organization,

1(1), 2-22.
Baagøe Nielsen, S. (2003). Vi trænger nye kræfter, Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the
sagde lederen—og ansatte en mand [We need person and sexual politics. Cambridge, England:
new forces, the leader said—and recruited a Polity Press.
man]. In K. Hjort & S. Baagøe Nielsen (Eds.), Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge,
Mænd og omsorg [Men and caregiving] England: Polity Press.
(pp. 136-163). København, Denmark: Hans Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge, England:
Reitzels forlag. Polity Press.
Bakken, R. (2001). Modermordet: Om sykepleie, Connor, S. (2001). The shame of being a man. Textual
kjønn og kultur [Matricide: On nursing, gender Practice, 15(2), 211-230.
and culture]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Ekenstam, C. (1993). Kroppens idehistoria:
Baudrillard, J. (1993). Symbolic exchange and death. Disciplinering och karaktersdaning i Sverige
London: Sage. 1700-1950 [The history of ideas of the body:
Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on marriage. Discipline and character formation in Sweden,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1700-1950]. Hedemora, Sweden: Gidlunds.
Bekkengen, L. (1999). Män som “pappor” och Ekenstam, C., Johansson, T., & Kuosmanen, J.
kvinnor som “föräldrar.” [Men as “dads,” (2001). Sprickor I fasaden: Manligheter i foran-
women as “parents”]. Kvinnovetenskapligt dring [Cracks in the facade: Masculinities in
Tidsskrift, 1, 33-48. transition]. Stockholm, Sweden: Gidlunds.
Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory: The appor- Foreman, A. (1977). Femininity as alienation.
tionment of work in American households. London: Pluto Press.
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Forsèn, R., Gislason, I., Holter, Ø. G., & Rongevær, Ø.
Bin-Nun, S. (1975). The Tawananna in the Hittite (2000). Kan menn? Menn og likestilling i arbeid-
kingdom. Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Winter. slivet [Can men? Men and gender equality in
Borchgrevink, T., & Solheim, J. (1988). En råtten working life]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic
tekst: Om kjønn, mat og fortolkning [A rotten Council of Ministers.
text: On gender, food and interpretation]. Foucault, M. (1977). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1).
Sosiologi i dag, 1(2). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Borchgrevink, T. & Holter, Ø. (Eds.). (1995). Labour Fürst, E. L’o. (1994). Mat: Et annet språk. En studie
of love: Beyond the self-evidence of everyday av rasjonalitet, kropp og kvinnelighet belyst
life. Aldeshot, UK: Avebury. med litterære tekster [Food: Another language.
Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance and A study of rationality, the body, and femininity
homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago through literary texts] (ISO Rapport No. 7).
Press. Oslo, Norway: Universitetet i Oslo.
Bredesen, O. (2000). Kule, analytiske og rå [Cool, Goffman, E. (1977). The arrangement between the
analytical, and raw]. Oslo, Norway: Hovedfags- sexes. Theory and Society, 4(3), 301-331.
oppgave sosiologi, Universitetet i Oslo. Haavind, H. (1984). Love and power in marriage. In
Brittan, A. (2001). Masculinities and masculinism. H. Holter (Ed.), Patriarchy in a welfare society.
In S. M. Whitehead & F. J. Barrett (Eds.), The Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
masculinities reader (pp. 51-55). Cambridge, Haavind, H. (1994). Kjønn i forandring: Som fenomen
England: Polity Press. og som forståelsesmåte [Gender in transition:
Brudner, L. A., & White, D. R. (1997). Class, As phenomenon and interpretational frame-
property, and structural endogamy: Visualizing work]. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 31,
networked histories. Theory and Society, 26, 767-783.
161-208. Hanmer, J. (1990). Men, power and the exploitation
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the of women. In J. Hearn & D. Morgan (Eds.), Men,
subversion of identity. New York: Routledge. masculinities and social theory (pp. 21-42).
Butler, J. (1998). How bodies come to matter: An London: Routledge.
interview by Irene Costa Meijer and Baukje Haugen, T., Hammer, G., & Helle, M. (1998). Den
Prins. Signs, 23(2), 275-286. norske mannen 1998 [The Nordic man 1998].
Carrigan, T., Connell, R. W., & Lee, J. (1985). Oslo, Norway: MMI Tabellrapport.
Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory Hearn, J. (1992). Men in the public eye: The con-
and Society, 14(5), 551-604. struction and deconstruction of public men and
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. public patriarchies. London: Routledge.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Heath, S. (1982). The sexual fix. London: MacMillan.
Collinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (1994). Naming men as Hoel, M., & Sørhaug, T. (1999). Omstilling, ledelse og
men: implications for work, organizations and likestilling: Sluttrapport fra et bedriftsprosjekt
[Restructuring, leadership and gender equality: Masculinities in Conflict and War” seminar of the
Final report from an enterprise project]. Oslo, Norwegian Network for Studies of Men and The
Norway: Institutt for samfunnsforskning. Centre for Gender Equality, Oslo, Norway.
Holter, H. (1970). Sex roles and social structure. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions in
Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. group life. American Journal of Sociology, 82,
Holter, H. (Ed.). (1984). Patriarchy in a welfare 965-990.
society. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Kimmel, M. S. (2000a). The gendered society.
Holter, Ø. G. (1982). Det verdifulle patriarkatet Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
[The valuable patriarchy]. In R. Haukaa, Kimmel, M. S. with Aronsen, A. (Eds.). (2000b). The
M. Hoel, & H. Haavind (Eds.), Kvinneforskning: gendered society reader. Oxford, England:
Et bidrag til samfunnsteori [Women’s studies: A Oxford University Press.
contribution to social theory]. Oslo, Norway: Krøjer, J. (2003). Når Farmand kommer hjem [When
Universitetsforlaget. Farmand comes home]. In K. Hjort & S. Baagøe
Holter, Ø. G. (1983). Raggning, kärlek och kønns- Nielsen (Eds). Mænd og omsorg [Men and care-
marknad [Dating, love, and the gender market]. giving] (pp. 72-89). København, Denmark:
Stockholm, Sweden: Hammarstrøm & Åberg. Hans Reitzels forlag.
Holter, Ø. G. (1984). Gender as forms of value. In Lilleaas, U.-B. (2003). Moderne par i gamle roller
H. Holter (Ed.), Patriarchy in a welfare society. [Modern couples in old roles]. Aftenposten.
Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Lorentzen, J. (1996). Mannlighetens muligheter: Om
Holter, Ø. G. (1989). Menn [Men]. Oslo, Norway: mannlig under, erfaring og etikk I det moderne
Aschehoug. gjennombrudds litteratur [The possibilities of
Holter, Ø. G. (1990a). Arbeid og familie: En studie manhood: On masculine wonder, experience and
av teknologkulturen [Work and family: A ethics in the literature of the breakthrough of
study of technological culture]. Oslo, Norway: modernity]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Universitetsforlaget. University of Oslo, Norway.
Holter, Ø. G. (1990b). Kjærlighet i forandring: Lukes, S. (1988). Emile Durkheim: His life and work.
Endring i makevalg 1973-1985 [Love in change: A historical and critical study. London: Penguin
Changes in mate selection 1973-1985]. Tidsskrift Books.
for samfunnsforskning, 31, 125-146. Lundgren, E. (1985). I herrens vold [In the hand
Holter, Ø. G. (1997). Gender, patriarchy and capital- of the Lord]. Oslo, Norway: J. W. Cappelens
ism: A social forms analysis (Doctoral disserta- forlag.
tion, University of Oslo, 1997). Oslo, Norway: Lundgren, E., Heimer, G., Westerstrand, J., &
Work Research Institute. Kalliokoski, A.-M. (2001). Slagen dam: Mans
Holter, Ø. G. (1998). Forskning om menn 1970-97: vold mot kvinnor i jamstallda Sverige. En
Bidrag til en oversikt [Research on men omfångsundesøkning [Men’s violence against
1970-1997: Contribution to an overview]. In women in gender-equal Sweden: A prevalence
B. Westerberg (Ed.), Han, hon, den, det: Om study]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes Offentlige.
genus och køn [He, she, it: On gender and sex]. MacKinnon, C. A. (1983). Feminism, Marxism,
Stockholm, Sweden: Ekerlids. method and the state: Toward feminist jurispru-
Holter, Ø. G. (2003). Can men do it? Men and gender dence. Signs, 8(4), 635-658.
equality: The Nordic experience. Copenhagen, Mauss, M. (1989). The gift. London: Routledge.
Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure
Holter, Ø. G., & Aarseth, H. (1993). Menns livssam- (Rev. ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
menheng [Men’s life connection]. Oslo, Norway: New, C. (2001). Oppressed and oppressors? The
Ad.Notam Gyldendal. systematic mistreatment of men. Sociology, 35,
Holter, Ø. G., Karlsen, B., & Salomon, R. (1998). 729-748.
Omstillinger I arbeidslivet [Restructuring in Parsons, T. (1964). Social structure and personality.
working life]. Oslo, Norway: The Work Research New York: Free Press.
Institute. Postone, M. (1993). Time, labour and social domina-
Holter, Ø., & Sørensen, B. A. (2003). Kjønnskulturer tion: A reinterpretation of Marx’s critical theory.
i arbeidslivet [Gender cultures in working life]. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Oslo, Norway: The Work Research Institute. Press.
Jalmert, L. (1984). Den svenske mannen [The Prieur, A., & Taksdal, A. (1989). Å sette pris på kvin-
Swedish man]. Stockholm, Sweden: Tiden. ner [Prizing women]. Oslo, Norway: Pax.
Jonasdóttir, A. G. (1991). Love, power and political Solheim, J. (1998). Den åpne kroppen [The open
interest. Ørebro, Sweden: University of Ørebro. body]. Oslo, Norway: Pax.
Jones, A. (2002, May 31). Gendercide and genocide. Søndergaard, D. M. (1996). Tegnet på kroppen: Koder
Paper presented at the “Constructions of Men and og konstruktioner blant unge voksne I Akademia
[The sign of the body: Codes and construction F. J. Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader
among young adults in academia]. København, (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Denmark: Museum Tusculanums forlag. Williams, C. L. (2000). The glass escalator: The
Steinem, G. (1974). The myth of masculine mystique. hidden advantages for men in “female” profes-
In J. H. Pleck & J. Sawyer (Eds.), The forty-nine sions. In M. S. Kimmel with A. Aronsen (Eds.),
percent majority: The male sex role. Englewood The gendered society reader (pp. 294-310).
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Vaage, O. F. (2002). Til alle døgnets tider: Tidsbruk Wright, E. O. (2000, September 21-24). The shadow
1971-2000 [All through the day: Time use, of exploitation in Weber’s class analysis. Paper
1971-2000]. Oslo, Norway: Statistisk Sentralbyrå. presented at the International Symposium
Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. Oxford, “Economy and Society: Max Weber in 2000,”
England: Blackwell. Madison, WI. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from
Walby, S. (2002). Reducing gendered violence. http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/weber.pdf
In M. Eriksson, A. Nenol, M. M. Nilsen (Eds.), Zulehner, P. M., & Volz, R. (Eds.). (1998). Männer
Køn och våld I Norden [Gender and violence in im Aufbruch: Wie Deutschlands Männer sich
the Nordic countries] (TemaNord conference selbst und wie Frauen sie sehen. Ein
report No. 2002:545). Copenhagen, Denmark: Forschungsbereich [Men in transition: How
Nordic Council of Ministers. German men see themselves and how women
Whitehead, S. M., & Barrett, F. J. (2001). The see them. A research report]. Ostfildern,
sociology of masculinity. In S. M. Whitehead & Germany: Schwabenverlag.
3
MEN, MASCULINITIES,
AND FEMINIST THEORY
JUDITH KEGAN GARDINER
I
s it true . . . that women in your society gender as a social construction; that is, the idea
“ are treated exactly like men?” a doctor in that masculinity and femininity are loosely
Ursula LeGuin’s (1974) science fiction defined, historically variable, and interrelated
novel, The Dispossessed, asks a visiting anar- social ascriptions to persons with certain kinds
chist. The anarchist replies with a laugh, “That of bodies—not the natural, necessary, or ideal
would be a waste of good equipment” (p. 16). characteristics of people with similar genitals.
Then he explains that in his society, “a person This concept has altered long-standing assump-
chooses work according to interest, talent, tions about the inherent characteristics of men
strength—what has the sex to do with that?” and women and also about the very division
(p. 17). Published in 1974, at the height of the of people into the categories of “men” and
20th-century American movement for women’s “women.” The traditional sexes are now seen
liberation, LeGuin’s fantasy attempts to visualize as cultural groupings rather than as facts of
gender equality as a society without differences nature based on a static division between two
based on one’s anatomical sex, but one, it turns different kinds of people who have both opposed
out, that primarily takes the form of allowing and complementary characteristics, desires, and
women the occupational choices and sexual interests. By seeking to understand the causes,
freedoms already common to men; men do a little means, and results of gendered inequality, femi-
child care and are otherwise unchanged. Feminist nist theories hope to develop effective ways to
theories take a number of approaches to this improve women’s conditions, sometimes by
slippery goal of gender equality that are inter- making women more similar to men as they are
twined with their varying perspectives on men now, sometimes by making men more similar
and masculinity. They endorse some aspects of to women as they are now, sometimes by vali-
traditional masculinity, critique some, and ignore dating women’s traditional characteristics,
others, as they ask who will be equal to whom, in sometimes by working toward the abolition or
what respects, and with what results for male and minimizing of the categories of gender alto-
female individuals and their societies. gether, but all simultaneously transforming
The most important accomplishment of ideologies and institutions, including the family,
20th-century feminist theory is the concept of religion, corporations, and the state.
35
Some women living prior to organized meanings of such ideals as liberty, fraternity,
movements for women’s rights claimed that and equality and so initiated one continuing
they were equal to men, as men described theme of feminist theorizing that has extended
themselves; that men were not fully equal to into masculinity studies as well.
the ideal of masculinity they themselves put Men’s superiority to women is a tenet of the
forward; and that men and masculinity placed world’s main monotheisms, although the major
women and femininity in a subordinate posi- religions also include countervailing tenden-
tion. With the resurgence of a movement for cies that value women’s spiritual capacities and
women’s rights in the second half of the 20th delimit male power and authority. The ancient
century, varied theories developed to explain Greek philosopher Aristotle portrayed women
the causes of male domination, to correct as naturally men’s inferiors in terms of reason.
erroneous assumptions about both women and In the long educational and philosophical tradi-
men, and to imagine new kinds of men and of tion that venerated his authority, masculinity
women in new circumstances. These theories was thus rendered both invisible and normative:
charged that cultural ideologies favored men, Masculinity was equated with the human ratio-
that social institutions reflected these ideolo- nality of men and women were marked by sex-
gies, and that men as a group benefited from uality, emotion, and their bodies. Champions of
the subordination of women as a group, despite women repeatedly asked if God and nature had
the great disparities that existed in the advan- made women so clearly inferior to men, why
tages accruing to individual men or subgroups were such strong social inducements necessary
of men in relation to other men and to women. to retain their subjugation?
Thus men and masculinity play a crucial role In reaction to claims that women were
in feminist theory, the body of thought that irrational, weak, vicious, and sinful, the early
seeks to understand women’s social situation defenders of women repeated a number of
and to articulate justice from a woman-centered strategies. They claimed women were equal
perspective. Furthermore, feminist thinking has or superior to men, writing, for example, books
been fundamental to the formation of contem- about heroic, saintly, learned, and otherwise
porary men’s and masculinity studies as intel- exemplary women. In another common strat-
lectual endeavors, academic subjects, and social egy, they asserted equality less by raising the
movements. This chapter briefly sketches how image of women than by lowering the image
men and masculinity figure in several strands of men. They thereby launched an inquiry into
of feminist theory. It looks at what the treatment the meaning of equality that continues to
of men and masculinity reveals about the gaps the present. Idealistic depictions of men as the
and assumptions in these theories. Focusing embodiments of reason and humanity, they said,
chiefly on a few key figures, it also indicates flew in the face of the evils men did: Men, too,
some advantages and future directions that these were as embodied, irrational, and vicious as the
theories pose for masculinity studies. misogynists claimed women were. Furthermore,
Misogyny created feminist theory, and men tyrannize over women rather than loving
feminist theory has helped create masculinity. and protecting them as they claim to do. So
That is, cultural condemnation leveled against the French medieval author Christine de Pisan
women by religious writers, philosophers, and (1405/1982) has her allegorical character
popular discourses across centuries and cultures Reason say “that these attacks on all women—
produced rebuttals by women and men. The first when in fact there are so many excellent
feminist theories were primarily defensive, and women—have never originated with me,
as they questioned men’s appropriation to them- Reason” but were occasioned rather by men’s
selves of essential humanity, they charged that own vices, jealousies, and pride (p. 18).
men, too, were embodied as a specific gender Margaret Cavendish (1985), a 17th-century
defined according to cultural ideals for people English aristocrat, suggests that women rich
with similar bodies, characterized by certain enough not to depend on men financially “were
psychological dispositions, and shaping social mad to live with Men, who make the Female sex
institutions to serve their interests. As women their slaves” (p. 89).
sought to be included in the rights and privi- In the democratizing ferment of the French
leges of citizens, they questioned the gendered Revolution, Mary Wollstonecraft (1985) cried
Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory • 37
out for recognition of the common humanity of philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1949/1968).
both sexes. Her “Vindication of the Rights of Although they knew themselves as subjects
Woman” appealed to men to “generously snap capable of transcending their immediate experi-
our chains, and be content with rational fellow- ences through reason and will, they treated
ship instead of slavish obedience” (p. 431). Woman as their Other—mystery, complement,
When Abigail Adams (1994) wrote her husband object of desire, creature of body and change. de
John Adams, one of the founders of the Beauvoir’s path-breaking book The Second Sex
American republic and later president of the defended women’s claims to full personhood
United States, to “Remember the Ladies” in and undercut men’s pretensions to fulfill their
framing the new American state, she pleaded own ideals. “It is clear that in dreaming of
for gender equality under Enlightenment himself as donor, liberator, redeemer, man still
ideals of freedom: “Do not put such unlimited desires the subjection of women,” she writes
power into the hands of the Husbands. (p. 172). She attacks the myths of masculine
Remember all Men would be tyrants if they superiority and confirms masculine dualities
could” (p. 876). The pioneering American that elevate mind over body by insisting that
feminists at the Seneca Falls Women’s Rights men, too, are creatures of bodily and sexual
Convention of 1848 implicitly accepted the infirmity rather than disembodied minds:
claims of men to both a rational and religious “Indeed no one is more arrogant toward
basis for citizenship when they attempted to women, more aggressive or scornful, than the
add women to the language of the Declaration man who is anxious about his virility” (p. xxv).
of Independence: “We hold these truths to be In a current version of this critique, Rosi
self-evident: that all men and women are Braidotti (2002) alleges that “the price men
created equal; that they are endowed by their pay for representing the universal is disem-
Creator with certain inalienable rights. . . .” bodiment, or loss of gendered specificity into
However, their statement immediately accused the abstraction of phallic masculinity,” and she
men of failing to uphold their own ideals: “The suggests that men need “to get real” by recog-
history of mankind is a history of repeated nizing their embodiment (p. 355). Exactly what
injuries and usurpations on the part of man this means and how both men and women,
toward woman” (Stanton, 1994, p. 1946). including those with physical and sensory dis-
Furthermore, they said, “man” has withheld abilities, experience their embodiment is a fruit-
from women “rights which are given to the ful topic in current feminist and masculinity
most ignorant and degraded men—both natives studies (Hall, 2002).
and foreigners” (p. 1947), a strategic attempt Twentieth-century liberal feminism con-
to divide the category of “man” by showing tinued the tradition of seeking for women the
some women superior to groups of men whom privileges already enjoyed by men. Betty
other men also held in disrespect. Thus feminist Friedan (1963) and the National Organi-
efforts to achieve political and educational zation for Women (founded in 1966) believed
equality with men argued that at least some that changing laws and educating people against
women already possessed equality in the quali- erroneous prejudices would remedy gender dis-
ties necessary for these privileges—immortal crimination, giving women equal opportunities
souls and educable human reason—but repeat- with men to exercise individual choices in life.
edly oscillated between imitating and critiquing They sought gender equity through changes in
men. At least a few men agreed and even fur- law and childhood socialization. They lobbied
thered these arguments. The liberal English for equal treatment of boys and girls in school
philosopher John Stuart Mill (Mill & Mill, and wrote children’s books featuring coo-
1970), who developed his ideas about women perative boys as well as resourceful girls. They
in dialogue with his wife Harriet Taylor, welcomed men into their organizations and
contended that an equal education for both encouraged women to enter previously male-
sexes would disprove men’s claims to superior dominated occupations. In all these endeavors,
intelligence. their critics alleged, they merely sought women’s
Despite increasing numbers of women inclusion in current, male-dominated institu-
intellectuals, men continued to think of human- tions, accepting a restrictively narrow model
ity as made in their image, according to French of equality without questioning the masculine
norms that valorized abstract reason and law relationship to social power, which was visibly
over the bodies and emotions they ruled. symbolized in the male anatomical part that
Current versions of liberal feminist theories, men feared losing and women envied. Luce
however, are more sophisticated in their Irigiray (1985) reversed what she called the
analyses and offer to men’s studies models “phallogocentric” Freudian concept of women’s
for inquiries into the gendering of the law, the “penis envy” as instead a defining characteristic
media, the state, and the professions; civil rights of the masculine psyche: this alleged female
organizations open to male members with envy “soothes the anguish man feels, Freud
accessible goals for social reform; and ideals feels, about the coherence of his narcissistic
such as androgyny for combining traditionally construction and reassures him against what
masculine and feminine personality characteris- he calls castration anxiety” (p. 51). Thus
tics in individuals. There is still ample room Irigiray follows one feminist strategy in defining
for further studies in these areas; for example, masculinity as a condition of lack, vulnerability,
concerning what fosters boys’ and girls’ best and weakness, in an ironic mirroring of Freudian
learning. Are girls still shortchanged by schools, versions of women’s lacking genital equipment
especially in math and science, or are boys now and defective moral development. American
suffering from a school system designed to keep theorist Drucilla Cornell (1998) develops this
good girls quiet and studious? The questions Lacanian theory to argue that masculinity is not
about which gender wins or loses by which kind a transcendent human norm but is always imper-
of setting or practice are ripe for reframing iled by unconscious castration fears. The “bad
while the idea of equality is still in contention in news for the little boy” who identifies with the
numerous societal and institutional settings. power of the idealized father, she says, is that
Psychologist Eleanor Maccoby (1998) “this fantasy leaves him in a constant state of
represents a recent version of this liberal view anxiety and terror that what makes him a man
in encouraging individuality and freedom of can always be taken away from him” (p. 143).
choice for both sexes and allowing for a varied This insecurity then fuels men’s fantasies of
play of masculine and feminine difference superiority to women but also provides them,
across the life cycle. She sees youth “growing she believes, with the motive for joining femi-
up apart” in groups segregated by sex and adults nists in challenging the gender order and so
experiencing “convergence” in sex and work freeing themselves from impossible standards
(p. 189). She describes greater divergence of masculinity against which they will always
within each gender than between the two, notes fail. As with all uses of psychoanalytic theory,
contradictory components of both masculinity Cornell and Irigiray’s feminist deployment
and femininity, and emphasizes that “sex-linked leaves open the question of how much the
behavior turns out to be a pervasive function Freudian or Lacanian framework distorts or
of the social context” more than of individual prejudges issues of gender, sexuality, and
personality (p. 9). Other feminist theorists sexual difference, both in individual human
also seek to deflate gender dualism by viewing psychology and in cultural representations. Per-
gender as developmental across the life course, haps these very schema encourage the overe-
so that, for example, masculinity might be stimation of the importance of sexual difference
defined by boys’ development from childish- in psychic functioning, also minimizing the
ness to maturity rather than by opposition to complexities of intrasexual relationships and
a denigrated femininity (Ehrenreich, 1983; of nonerotic bonds and antagonisms.
Gardiner, 2002). Rejecting psychoanalysis as the unscientific
Another approach to disputing gender bina- projection of male fantasies, contemporary
ries and the equation of masculinity with human feminist scientists join the feminist tradition of
rationality lies through the psychoanalytic theo- rationally disputing sexist claims that men are
ries of Sigmund Freud and his French follower superior to women and different by nature as
Jacques Lacan. Freud and Lacan (Gardiner, well as the claim that science itself is gender
1992) contradictorily asserted that all people neutral (Collins, 1999; Fausto-Sterling, 1992).
were governed by irrational unconscious desires, Susan Bordo (1999) describes the prevailing
thus unseating male claims to superior reason, pervasiveness of androcentrism in science and
and that men but not women had a privileged in men’s attitudes to nature: “The phallus stands,
not for the superior fitness of an individual unreliable performance of phallic equipment.
male over other men, but for generic male Example: the explosion of the space shuttle
superiority—not only over females but also Challenger” or as an “archetypically endless
over other species” (p. 89). Although some ceremony or gathering of maledom. Examples:
conservative adaptations of evolutionary theory diplomatic functions, church functions, White
reinforce traditional gender roles, for example House functions” (p. 209).
in explaining male aggression and promiscuity Legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon is the
as optimizing reproductive success and so as best-known exponent of a radical feminist view-
predicted strategies for human survival, Darw- point. Her theory posits male oppression of
inian feminist theorists dispute such ahistorical women as the first and most pervasive of all
mythologizing. Instead, they emphasize the oppressions, the model for racism and class
social construction of scientific categories, injustice and the structuring principle of all
the reliance on gendered metaphors in science established institutions. She begins one book,
texts, and the sexism within science (Fausto- for example, with this grim invitation to a
Sterling, 1992). They draw attention to the vast female reader:
variety of primate as well as human societies
and manifestations of gender and to the impor- Imagine that for hundreds of years your most for-
tance in the animal world of social systems over mative traumas, your daily suffering and pain, the
genetic programming. For instance, Barbara abuse you live through, the terror you live with,
Smuts (1992) shows that female solidarity are unspeakable—not the basis of literature. You
among primates decreases the prevalence of grow up with your father holding you down and
covering your mouth so another man can make a
aggression by males against females. Thus a
horrible searing pain between your legs. When
wide variety of feminist theorists disputes all you are older, your husband ties you to the bed
definitions of masculinity that claim the nat- and drips hot wax on your nipples and brings in
ural superiority of men over women and other other men to watch and makes you smile through
creatures. Further work will be developing it. Your doctor will not give you drugs he has
the philosophy and sociology of science with addicted you to unless you suck his penis.
respect to the gendering of nature and of (MacKinnon, 1993, p. 3)
contemporary scientific practices.
If one strand of feminist theory critiques This passage constructs everywoman as
the supposed rationality of masculinity, another eternally a victim, despite its invisible, autho-
characterizes masculinity as in itself harmful to ritative female narrator. Its version of men and
women and other men. These are the theories masculinity is horrifying, bizarre, and implic-
most frequently characterized as male bashing, itly culture specific: Men are represented by
because they focus on male violence against a father who facilitates the rape of his daughter,
women and on men’s sexual objectification of a husband who flaunts his sexual sadism, and a
women as the very definitions of masculinity. dope-dealing doctor who forces fellatio on his
These theories seek gender equality by abolish- patients.
ing or dramatically transforming men and MacKinnon (1987) makes gender dependent
masculinity, although they may either extol or on sex and sex dependent on male force. Such
vilify the characteristics ascribed to traditional social practices as pornography, rape, and pros-
femininity. titution institutionalize “the sexuality of male
Mocking male pretensions to power and supremacy, which fuses the eroticization of
authority, theologian Mary Daly (1987) rejec- dominance and submission with the social con-
ted religions dependent on a Father God and struction of male and female. Gender is sexual.
sought to remake a new, nonpatriarchal lan- Pornography constitutes the meaning of that
guage as a step toward defeating androcen- sexuality” (p. 148). MacKinnon does not dis-
tricism. The puns and startling new word cuss the origin of this system, but her paradigm
usages in her Wickedary associate masculinity implies that men have always had the rapist
not with power but with the follies and failures mentality to desire forced heterosexual sex as
of men as individuals and of male-dominated well as the superior physical power to accom-
institutions. Thus, for instance, she defines plish it. For her, masculinity defines men, rather
“male-function” as meaning “characteristically than the reverse. “By men I mean the status of
masculinity that is accorded to males,” but war, provoke feminist theorizing about the
not to those persons who are “defined as subor- relationship between masculinity and these
dinated by force as women are” (p. 170). Men predominantly male activities, with the goal
must work constantly to keep this masculine of eliminating these horrors rather than of
control and dominance in place, and the place militarizing women. Sociologist Nancy Chodo-
of subordinated men, including gay men, is row explores the links between masculinity,
rendered ambiguous in this account. nationalism, and violence, attributing men’s
Although male domination is universal, aggression more to cycles of humiliation
MacKinnon (1987) believes, it is also shaped by and domination among older and younger men
contemporary society: “women are the property than, like MacKinnon, to men’s sexual exploi-
that constitutes the personhood, the masculi- tation of women. She rejects the Freudian
nity, of men under capitalism” (p. 159). Further- theory that all people are innately aggressive
more, in her view, the standards for all aspects and instead sees aggression in both sexes as
of culture are masculine: “masculinity, the male defending the self when it is endangered either
standard for men” (p. 71), establishes patriarchal by physical force or by humiliation and shame.
law and relegates women to the “private, moral, However, she believes that men are more
valued, subjective”; men, on the other hand, psychologically prone to respond to humiliation
accrue to themselves the values of the “public, by violence against others than women are
ethical, factual, objective” (p. 151). She claims (Chodorow, 2002). Ecofeminist theorists also
that every quality that distinguishes men from derive war from a “militarized ‘cult of mas-
women is affirmatively compensated by society: culinity’” in which man conquers nature and
defines national security as the protection of
Men’s physiology defines most sports, their needs male privilege (Seager, 1999, p. 168). This
define auto and health insurance coverage, their “environmentally destructive ethos includes a
socially designed biographies define workplace cultivation of hypermasculinity, secrecy, frater-
expectations and successful career paths, their nity, and an inflated sense of self-importance”
perspectives and concerns define quality in schol-
(p. 169). At its most extreme, Joni Seager
arship, their experiences and obsessions define
merit, their objectification of life defines art, their
alleges, the “culture of nuclear destruction” is
military service defines citizenship, their presence “a private men’s club, within which masculinity
defines family, their inability to get along with is both an explicit sexualized expression and
each other . . . defines history, their image defines an implicitly taken-for-granted context”
God, and their genitals define sex. (MacKinnon, (p. 172). Thus, for ecofeminists and for many
1987, p. 36) global feminists, a masculinity that validates
competition among men and domination over
It is not merely the case that men make women also imperils the planet. For some of
their behavior the norm for all people but these theorists, masculine attempts to dominate
that these norms are themselves harmful. Porno- nature contrast with more feminist attitudes
graphy impels male bodies to act, creating a of attunement with nature. This masculine
total mind-body split that apparently constitutes arrogance, they believe, leads to the extinction
masculinity but not femininity. For MacKinnon, of species, the depletion of natural resources,
the masculine has always defined humanity, war, and the destruction of ecosystems necessary
but the masculine is inhumane. The ultimate for human survival.
solution to this grim paradox is the abolition These radical feminist theories attack
of both masculinity and femininity; that is, the masculinity rather than simply defending
abolition of gender, although feminist-inspired against sexist charges about women’s inferior-
laws, like those she and Andrea Dworkin pro- ity. Their vision of masculinity can be violent
posed to outlaw pornography and sexual harass- and negative, void of any of the positive charac-
ment, might help to identify and ameliorate teristics traditionally assigned to masculinity.
such negative consequences of eroticized Moreover, the superior force of disembodied
masculine dominance (MacKinnon, 1987, reason sometimes seems appropriated in them
pp. 200-201). to that of the female spokesperson for the voice-
Not only sexual violence but national and less and oppressed category of other women.
ethnic violence, as manifest in torture and Nevertheless, some male theorists agree with
these radical feminist and ecofeminist positions. women’s traditional characteristics. Such
For John Stoltenberg (1989), the only ethical theories tend to portray masculinity and femi-
position for persons with penises is antimascu- ninity as complementary, with both containing
line feminism. Thus he encourages other male good as well as bad traits. Psychologist Dorothy
humans to join him in Refusing to Be a Man. Dinnerstein (1976) argues that the universal
Exaggerated as the claims of radical feminism female control of early child rearing explains
may sometimes seem, it succeeded in breaking both male dominance and misogyny, because all
long-standing commonsense assumptions about infants fear their mothers’ life-giving or with-
the naturalness of heterosexual predation and holding powers and transfer these unconscious
the triviality of female complaints against male associations to other women. Chodorow (1978)
treatment of women in streets and offices. With also explains men’s and women’s disparate
its focus on the harms women experience, it personality structures through psychological
articulated sexual harassment as a crime and dispositions linked to female-dominated child
sexual objectification as a pervasive component rearing. Because boys, unlike girls, form their
of gender inequality. Once stated, these perspec- masculine gender identity not through direct
tives made sense to some men as well, both with imitation of the same-sex parent but through
regard to relations with women and to relations separation and contrast from their mothers, she
among men. Men around the world work now hypothesizes, they develop a sense of self that
with other men to reduce gendered violence is independent, autonomous, and individuated;
through profeminist organizations such as conversely, girls’ selves are more interdependent,
the Global Network of Men and Mentors on nurturant, and empathic.
Violence Prevention, as well as in environmen- Rather than accepting male dominance as
tal and peace organizations (Freedman, 2002, necessary to human society, Chodorow’s popu-
p. 287). Some men’s studies already address lar theory of 1978 explains it through forms
men’s bullying and harassment of other men in of child rearing that have been universal in the
workplaces and schools. A question that is still past but that modern technologies and social
open is the usefulness to men’s theorizing of the arrangements can now alter. Furthermore, she
model of harm developed by radical feminists. describes masculinity as so limiting for men’s
Aída Hurtado (1999), among others, critiques lives, rather than so enjoyably privileged, that
masculinist men’s studies on the grounds that men should also have incentives for change. If
although they trumpet men’s “wounds” from fathers take equal responsibility with mothers
childhood, they leave white upper class male for early child care, she argues, gender inequal-
privilege intact and unexamined. “The Western ity would disappear, women would be relieved
male intellectual tradition cannot theorize from of the unfair burdens of caregiving, and men
a position of privilege,” she claims, but, rather, would gain a satisfying intimacy with their
only one of a “victimhood” that “leaves the sta- children, women, and each other. Chodorow
tus quo untouched” (p. 126). However, accurate (1978) thinks “equal parenting” could bring all
assessments of men’s self-perceptions and per- people “the positive capacities” now restricted
ceptions of others that avoid both justification to each sex separately, and both sexes would
and blaming may well be necessary to those also be more flexible in their choice of sexual
designing psychological incentives for social objects (p. 218). This optimistic theory about
change. gender transformation requires dramatic changes
In contrast to radical feminist theories, in men’s lifestyles as they assume heavy child-
many cultural feminist theories do not see male care responsibilities to produce more egalitarian
aggression and other traditionally gendered personality structures in the future; women,
attributes as innate but rather as developed on the other hand, will continue their current
within individual psychologies by mother- multitasking of work and family obligations.
dominated child rearing and other widespread Current empirical studies in parenting show
social practices. Whereas sharply binary “domi- some changes in fathers’ and mothers’ tasks
nance” theories such as MacKinnon’s seem in and commitments of time and emotion to
danger of positing a masculinity that obliterates their children. The effects on the parents,
femininity, these “difference,” “cultural femi- the children, and society at large await future
nist,” or woman-centered theories validate investigation.
Unlike MacKinnon’s and other radical than as stable characteristics of individual

feminist theories that simply posit a dominating personality (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, &
masculinity as the origin of gender inequality, Tarule, 1986; Gilligan, 1982; Maccoby, 1998,
Chodorow’s (1978) psychoanalytic theory pp. 198-199). This is a rich field for future
explains masculinity as a defensive and com- research, especially in social contexts outside
pensatory formation in individual men’s devel- the college survey laboratory or therapist’s
opment. Identifying with their individual consulting room.
mothers, women become mothers in turn, but Theories of gender complementarity based
men become masculine by identifying with on the psychological asymmetries of child
the male roles in society. “Masculine identifi- rearing are subject to the criticisms that they
cation,” she says, “is predominantly a gender underestimate the effects of social dominance,
role identification. By contrast, feminine historical and cultural differences, and differ-
identification is predominantly parental,” based ences among members of the same sex. However,
on a girl becoming like her mother, whereas their emphasis on the importance of fathering
being a father has been a minor part of most has found widespread acceptance among both
modern men’s identity (p. 176). Thus gender is masculinist and profeminist masculinity theo-
defined by men’s difference from women in rists (Gardiner, 2002). Profeminist scholars
these theories but asymmetrically rather than Michael Kimmel and Michael Kaufman (1995),
in a relation of either simple opposition or for example, argue that manhood is dangerous
negation. According to Chodorow, this leaves when formed in flight from femininity. They
contemporary men confused about how to be cite Chodorow and Dinnerstein, among others,
masculine. She asserts that it is “crucial for to claim that “men need to heal the mother
everyone . . . to have a stable sexual identity. wound, to close the gap between the mother who
But until masculine identity does not depend cared for us and the mother we have tried to
on men’s proving themselves, their doing will leave behind” (p. 28). They contrast themselves
be a reaction to insecurity rather than a creative with the masculinist men’s movement of Robert
exercise of their humanity” (p. 44). Bly (1990), which urges men to “cut our psychic
In her early discussions of masculine umbilical cord” with women rather than sharing
identity formation based on feminist object- with them in the labors of bringing up the next
relations psychology, Chodorow (1978) claims generation (p. 27).
that masculinity based on negation of the If radical feminist theories sharply divide
mother is a defensive construction likely to masculine power from feminine powerlessness
be rigid, formed on unrealistic stereotypes and cultural feminist theories focus especially
and narrow cultural norms, and disadvanta- on psychological differences between men and
geous to both the individual and the culture. women, other theories are more attentive to the
However, her more recent defenses of hetero- myriad differences that divide men from other
sexuality as potentially as varied and exciting men and women from other women, as well as
as the homosexualities lead her to embrace the to the commonalities between the sexes and
view that all formations of unconscious desire the relationships among the various categories
have defensive, possibly even perverse com- of social inequality (Lorber, 1994; Maccoby,
ponents (Chodorow, 1994, 1999). Thus, if 1998). Feminists of color and many feminists
defensive personality structures can be as influenced by Marxism emphasize the inter-
flexible, complex, and exciting as nonde- connectedness of gender with other social hier-
fensive ones, there is no longer a theoretical archies, including nationality, ethnicity, social
reason to polarize masculinity as formed class, racialized identities, and sexualities.
negatively and defensively in contrast to a African American feminist theorist Patricia Hill
more positive femininity. Similarly, although Collins (1999) explains that the “construct of
feminist assessments of moral reasoning and intersectionality references two types of relation-
“women’s ways of knowing” initially appeared ships: the interconnectedness of ideas and the
to polarize a rigid abstract masculinity against social structures in which they occur, and the
interdependent and interpersonal female styles, intersecting hierarchies” of social power; “view-
current theorists see these gendered styles as ing gender within a logic of intersectionality
dependent on variable social contexts rather redefines it as a constellation of ideas and social
practices that are historically situated within the West African origins of many African
and that mutually construct multiple systems American people or the small-town American
of oppression” (p. 263) The categories these black South as models for more ideal and harmo-
theorists describe are not additive but trans- nious societies than those of the contemporary
formative, so that, for example, Chicano mas- capitalist West.
culinities are not simply Anglo masculinities In response to some second-wave white
with a salsa beat or a dose of machismo but feminists who drew analogies between the
complex responses to Hispanic cultures, Catholic disadvantaged positions of women and African
religion, dominant American middle-class white Americans, African American feminists pub-
masculine assumptions, and the internal dynam- lished the pioneering text All the Women are
ics of Latino families (Gonzalez, 1996). These White, All the Blacks are Men, but Some of
multidimensional feminist theories allow for Us are Brave: Black Women’s Studies (Hull,
more theoretical nuance as well, as seen in Scott, & Smith, 1982). African American
Hurtado’s (1999) “blasphemies,” addressed to feminist theorists repeatedly sought to balance
white feminism and positing, for example, white sympathy and critique for African American
men’s differential treatments of white women, men. Michelle Wallace (1990) began her book
who are needed to reproduce white children, Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman
and of women of color, who become used rather (originally published in 1978) with the premise
as sexual and economic objects. that African American men felt deprived of
Black feminists have repeatedly sought to manhood by white supremacy, so that it was
balance understanding of the particular oppres- a revolutionary claim for human dignity, not
sions experienced by women of color with a tautology, when striking male garbage
sympathy toward the vicissitudes of men in their workers mobilized by the Reverend Martin
communities. They critically examine the dif- Luther King, Jr., wore signs saying, “I am a
ficulties that men of color face in achieving man” (p. 1). According to Wallace, African
mainstream versions of masculinity and critique American men in the decade of the black
those forms of masculinity that depend on power movement (1966-1977) came to believe
sexism and male supremacy. In addition, they that “manhood was essential to revolution” and
join male black intellectuals in indicting the that authority over women was a primary
projections of endemic social problems such agenda for liberation (p. 17). Thus African
as male violence against women or substance American feminist discussions of masculinity
abuse exclusively onto blacks. Both male and were also discussion of the relationships
female theorists situate African American between men and women within African
gender characteristics within the common American communities and of the relationships
history of U.S. racism and the legacy of slavery. between these communities and the dominant
In particular, they speak of the dispersal of white culture.
families and cultures; the imposition of alien One prominent African American feminist
ideologies, physical hardship, and degrading theorist who has returned to these issues repeat-
servitude; and the denial of education, opportu- edly over the decades is bell hooks. Writing
nity, sexual choice, and occupational mobility. in collaboration with minister and public intel-
Chattel slavery was literally dehumanizing, in lectual Cornel West (1991), she bases her
that it did not recognize the human status of discussion and models her goal of an African
slaves in law or practice (Williams, 1991, American “beloved community” on “a vision
pp. 216-236); infantilizing, in that it did not of transformative redemptive love between
recognize the adult status of slaves but kept Black women and men” (see the dedication).
them as wards and dependents judged incapable Portraying the ideal bonding between African
of citizenship; and sometimes also emasculat- American men and women not through sexual
ing, castration figuring prominently in the ter- metaphors but as political friendship, hooks
rorist postbellum tortures of lynching (Ross, (1984) sees men as “comrades in struggle”
2002). These discussions affirm the strength (p. 67). She argues that the poor or working
necessary to survive such conditions and the class man has been hurt—and sometimes hurts
resulting cross-sex unity of African American others—by being unable to live up to dominant
communal experience, and at times they invoke definitions of masculinity
because he does not have the privilege or power tense area in contemporary discourse but an
society has taught him “real men” should possess. essential one if there is to be research rather
Alienated, frustrated, pissed off, he may attack, than mere rhetoric in the future.
abuse, and oppress an individual woman or Thus the theories of feminists of color expand
women, but he is not reaping positive benefits
the categories of gender analysis beyond a
from his support and perpetuation of sexist
ideology [and so is] not exercising privilege.
masculine-feminine binary, often looking to
(hooks, 1984, p. 73) larger structures of oppression and social repre-
sentations to explain tensions between African
American men and women and inviting African
Looking back to her childhood, hooks American men to join in both theorizing and
(1992) describes a harmonious African community building. However, the disparity of
American community where “there was no explanatory schemes among these various
monolithic standard of black masculinity” and feminist theories may help indicate some of
many men, despite their difficulties in attaining the gaps in each. If some white men who have
breadwinner economic status, were “caring and not experienced racist oppression are sexist
giving” (p. 88). In recent years, however, she or violent toward women, this explanation is
believes that media distortions confuse men unlikely to be the whole story for African
and women, white people and people of color, American men either. Conversely, if external eco-
with their “stereotypical, fantastical repre- nomic and social pressures rather than innate
sentations of black masculinity,” and some aggression or gendered psychological identifica-
African American male celebrities augment tions influence the expressions of masculinity in
these distortions with swaggering, self-centered African American men, such causation is likely
“dick thing” masculinity (p. 105). Although to be operative for other men as well. Currently,
she thinks African American men “receive many studies are segregated less by gender than
respect and admiration” from white as well as by academic discipline, whereas more inter-
other African American men for flaunting their disciplinary analyses of the effects of racism and
ostensible sexual prowess and domination of sexism on the lives of all people are warranted.
women, she sees these new ideals as spurious Other U.S. theorists of color and global
and harmful (p. 93). African American man- feminists currently join African American
hood should once again connote providing and feminists in analyzing ways in which mas-
protecting, she believes, rather than its current culinity is constructed in specific historical and
emphasis on men’s “capacity to coerce, control, cultural contexts. For example, Anna Maria
dominate” that has ruined relationships Alonso (1992) describes a Mexican construc-
between sexes in the black community (p. 66). tion of masculinity in which the independent
In contrast, hooks models a kind of feminism peasant is fully masculine, in opposition to the
built on cooperation between men and women. wage worker, who is “both like a child and
“Revolutionary feminism is not anti-male,” she like a woman because he relies on others
claims, but rather seeks the full development for his sustenance” (p. 414). Chandra Talpade
of all individuals (p. 63). She thinks femi- Mohanty, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Torres
nism can help both men and women attain (1991) show British imperial rule in India
the “capacity to be wholistic. . . . Rather than operating through “the ideological construc-
defining manhood in relation to sexuality, we tion and consolidation of white masculinity as
would acknowledge it in relation to biology: normative and the corresponding racializa-
boys become men, girls women, with the tion and sexualization of colonized peoples”
understanding that both categories are synony- (p. 15). Chilla Bulbeck (1998), who describes
mous with selfhood” (p. 69). African American global feminisms often overlooked by Anglo
male theorists are responding to such feminist feminists, reports on changing categories of
calls. Philip Brian Harper’s (1996) book Are We same-sex behavior and “third genders” around
Not Men? Masculine Anxiety and the Problem the world (p. 154). Evelyn Nakano Glenn
of African-American Identity, for example, (1999) traces the problematic effects of equating
addresses the varieties of African American masculinity with independence in “the racial-
male experience and the relationships between ized gender construction of American citizen-
African American men and women. This is a ship” (p. 22), and Valentine Moghadam (1999)
investigates the interconnections among huge In contrast, some poststructuralist feminist

military expenditures, deindustrialization, civil theories, especially those claiming the rubric
conflict, the rise of fundamentalist movements, “queer,” interrogate the very concept of gender
and the consequent “reinstitutionalization of as tied to specific kinds of human bodies. That
patriarchal gender relations” in the developing is, they question the foundational categories
world (p. 132). Typical of this postmillennial of men and women altogether and may wish
perspective is Cherríe L. Moraga’s (2002) inclu- to eliminate or proliferate gender beyond the
sive definition of the concerns of women of current male-female dichotomy.
color in terms affecting both men and women Poststructuralist feminists tend to see gen-
throughout the restructuring globe: She includes der as fluid, negotiable, and created through
“immigrant rights, indigenous peoples’ water and repeated performances rather than as fixed or
land rights, the prison industrial system, milita- innate. They believe their view is more liber-
rism, [and] reproductive rights” (p. xxvii). ating than the ideas of either traditionalists
Because these global and multicultural or other feminists. Although they do not claim
feminists all seek to make an impact on mixed- that androgyny or gender convergence has
gender communities defined in opposition to already been achieved, their theories forecast
the dominant white Western culture, they tend a multiplicity of gendered possibilities for
to adopt the position of collaborators in strug- people rather than only two opposed condi-
gle with male colleagues from their consti- tions. In her highly influential book Gender
tuencies, adding their methodological tools Trouble (Butler, 1990), philosopher Judith
of intersectional analysis to antiracist and Butler calls gender “a kind of persistent imper-
antiglobal organizing strategies. Their visions sonation that passes as the real” (p. x). Her
of equality look to a more inclusive and fairer goal is not to make it more genuine but to
future for both sexes throughout the world. As convince others of its artificiality. “As a strat-
hooks (2000) wrote, egy to denaturalize and resignify bodily cate-
gories” in a less polarized manner, she
The only genuine hope of feminist liberation lies proposes “a set of parodic practices based in a
with a vision of social change that takes into performative theory of gender acts that disrupt
consideration the ways interlocking systems of
the categories of the body, sex, gender, and
classism, racism, and sexism work to keep women
exploited and oppressed [in relation to] a global
sexuality and occasion their subversive resigni-
white supremacist patriarchy [that] enslaves fication and proliferation beyond the binary
and/or subordinates masses of Third World frame” of masculinity and femininity (p. xii).
women. (p. 109) She often repeats her belief that to “denatural-
ize” is to rename in a way that is liberating and
The gendered work of global systems and progressive. Part of moving “beyond the binary
of various human ecologies will be important to frame,” in Butler’s work, is her deemphasis on
future research agendas, as will such areas as masculinity and femininity in favor of “gen-
the differential gendering and sexualization of der,” understood as potentially multiple and
new technologies. variable. Neither “masculinity” nor “feminin-
As we have seen, many strands of feminist ity” appears in the index to Gender Trouble,
theory seek to make masculinity visible as a although “bisexuality,” “feminism,” “phallogo-
gender, rather than allowing it to retain the pres- centrism,” and “sex/gender distinction” are all
tige of being equated with human rationality or represented. Butler’s work thus continues the
the invisibility of being equated with economic feminist strategy of seeking liberation from
or scientific law. Some of the feminist theories traditional constraints by disputing the natural-
discussed here divide masculinity sharply from ness of gender altogether, but its distinctive
either a devalued traditional femininity of contribution lies in the argument that institu-
passivity and sexual objectification or from a tionalized heterosexuality creates gender
revalued femininity of nurturance and empa- (Butler, 1997, p. 135). If it were not socially
thy. Intersectional and multicultural feminist useful for there to be two sexes to marry one
theories retain gender as a crucial element in another and divide work and kinship, she
the complex, changing, and interrelated social claims, people would not need to be divided
hierarchies they describe throughout the globe. into the categories of men and women at all.
Butler’s performative theory of gender has Queer theorist Judith Halberstam (1998)
been enormously productive for the development catalogues varieties of masculinity in female
of queer theory as a field and for the advancement bodies, what she calls “masculinity without
of an antihomophobic political agenda in alliance men,” including the androgyne, the tribade,
with the movement for gay, lesbian, bigender, the female husband, the stone butch, and the
and transsexual rights (d’Emilio & Freedman, drag king. She concludes that “we are all
1997). Many male queer theorists have analyzed transsexuals” and that “there are no transsexu-
abject and alternative masculinities among men als”: Contemporary possibilities for surgical
in relation to hegemonic masculinities (Bersani, transformation of the body “threaten the bina-
1988; Thomas, 1996). Some women queer theo- rism of homo/heterosexuality by performing
rists, too, have focused specifically on alternative and fictionalizing gender” (Halberstam, 1994,
masculinities, especially as they are represented pp. 225-226). That is, with the categories of
in the media. For example, film theorist Kaja men and women unstable, people cannot be
Silverman (1992) argues for the progressive categorized by habitual sexual desire directed
potential of nonphallic masculinities that avoid toward one or the other of two categories.
dominant masculinity’s disavowal of powerless- Halberstam (1994) seeks an end to “compulsory
ness and instead “embrace castration, alterity, gender binarism” and its replacement by more
and specularity” (p. 3). Even more radically, flexible, depathologized forms of “gender pref-
other queer theorists embrace masculinity when erence” (p. 277). Nor are masculine women the
its signs are manifest in female rather than only ones with a vested interest in masculinities,
male bodies. For example, sociologist Gayle as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1995) notes. “As
Rubin (1992) argues that the lesbian categories a woman, I am a consumer of masculinities,
of butch and femme comprise an alternative but I am not more so than men are; and, like
gender system, not a simple imitation of the men, I as a woman am also a producer of
two conventional genders of male masculinity masculinities and a performer of them” (p. 13).
and female femininity. Although she admits Furthermore, Sedgwick claims that masculinity
that butch and femme are created within the and femininity are not opposite ends of the
environment of heterosexist society, she claims same continuum but rather “orthogonal to
they refigure traditional gender in ways that each other”; that is, independent variables in
may be either reactionary or liberating for the “perpendicular dimensions” so that a person
individuals involved and for society as a whole. could be high or low in both scales at once
She says that “like lesbianism itself, butch and (p. 15). This arena looks particularly fruitful for
femme are structured within dominant gender psychological studies in masculinity and queer
systems” and may either resist or uphold those theory as well as in feminist scholarship.
systems but never completely escape them Although some contemporary feminists
(p. 479). Thus butch is specifically lesbian want to claim masculinity for women or multi-
masculinity, configured differently but always ply genders, other feminists strive to minimize
in relation to heterosexual men’s masculinity, gender polarization or to eliminate gender
which is itself a complicated, changing, and altogether. Psychologist Sandra Lipsitz Bem
sometimes self-contradictory social constel- (1993) explains that she found the concepts
lation. For some women, she says, feeling they of androgyny and of sexual orientation too
had traits often ascribed to men, such as athleti- limiting to fit her own needs and so came to
cism or aggression, seems to have impelled think that “gender polarization, androcentrism,
their butch identities; for others, sexual desire and biological essentialism” all reinforced
for other women implied to them their own male power and so distorted the possibilities
masculinity. For yet other women, the primary for gender equality (p. viii). Sociologist Judith
impulse toward a butch identity seems to have Lorber (1994) stresses the multiplicity of
been the feeling that they were inwardly or “gendered sexual statuses” that might be cate-
essentially a man. Ways of achieving congruence gorized by genitalia, object choice, appearance,
with that feeling include adopting men’s mascu- gender display, kinds of relationship, relevant
line signifiers, such as a necktie or moustache, group affiliation, sexual practices, and self-
or, these days, a surgically transformed body. identifications (pp. 58-59). Her fundamental
goal is the abolition of gender by structuring bettered. Feminists ridicule masculinist men’s
equality so thoroughly into society that many studies and welcome profeminist efforts by men.
forms of sexuality are recognized as equally American feminist journalist Gloria Steinem
valid and gender no longer organizes social life (1992) announces that “women want a men’s
at all. This view takes the abolition of gender as movement” if that means men will “become
the only way of eliminating gender inequality more nurturing toward children, more able to talk
and as a positive goal in itself: “When the infor- about emotions,” and less violent and controlling
mation about genitalia is as irrelevant as the (p. v). English psychologist Lynn Segal (1990)
color of the child’s eyes . . . then and only then regrets the “slow motion” of men toward gender
will women and men be socially interchange- equality and muses that the literature of mas-
able and really equal” (p. 302). Until then, of culinity “uncannily mirrors” its feminist fore-
course, research that documents actual change bears: it “focuses upon men’s own experiences,
in attitudes, behaviors, and institutions will be generates evidence of men’s gender-specific
of special value. suffering and has given birth to a new field of
Poststructuralist feminist and queer theories enquiry, ‘Men’s Studies’” (2000, p. 160). At
encourage the flexibility and variability of both present, feminist theorists are citing masculinity
identity and desire and the decoupling of gender scholars more frequently than previously, and
identity and sexual preference. Although female vice versa. Feminist thinkers are benefiting from
theorists seem especially interested in female- the theoretical insights and empirical findings
embodied masculinities and sometimes warn of masculinity studies that concern the complex
their male colleagues about exclusive attention asymmetries, changing histories, local conditions,
to male practices, queer theories generally are and institutional variances of gender in a wide
accommodating to male practitioners and variety of specific settings.
disruptive of the heteronormativity that many Current textbooks in women’s and mas-
feminists feel upholds male dominance. On the culinity studies agree in their basic feminist
other hand, queer theorists pay little attention premises, all describing hierarchies of domi-
to some of the central concerns of other kinds nance, relationally defined gender, and multiple
of feminist theorizing: to parenting, for example, and interactive axes of social oppression
or citizenship, or the gendered politics of work, (Gardiner, 2003). In a rapidly changing world
although both male and female queer theorists marked by contradictory forces of war, violence,
are now more frequently incorporating antiracist, disrupted ecologies and economies, fundamental-
global, and other multifactored perspectives into ist backlash, enhanced opportunities for women,
their analyses. the feminization of poverty, the casualization
The movement for women’s equality has been of labor, the decline of traditional male wages,
one of the most successful social movements of the objectification of male bodies, the recognition
the past century, despite the varying oppressions of more diverse sexualities, the reconfiguration of
still suffered by women around the globe. nationalities and ethnicities, the rise of liberating
Feminist theories have been shaped by women’s social movements, and what Donna Haraway
changing place in contemporary societies, and (1989) calls the “the paradoxical intensification
these theories have sometimes proved effective in and erosion of gender itself ” (p. 191), feminist
changing both men’s and women’s consciousness theories continue to develop in conversation
and conditions. The widespread establishment of with men’s and masculinity studies and other
women’s studies programs in colleges and uni- movements for social justice. They continue to
versities, especially in the United States, has cre- seek an equality for men and women and for
ated a pool of practitioners of feminist theory and people around the globe at the highest level
inspired the establishment of men’s and mas- of human imagination and aspiration rather than
culinity studies as well (Boxer, 1998). Although the lowest common denominator. As Gloria
masculinist men’s movements sometimes decry Anzaldúa (2002) comments, “in this millennium
feminism, generally men’s studies treat feminism we are called to renew and birth a more inclusive
and feminist theory as scholarly big sisters, feminism, one committed to basic human rights,
perhaps dull, dowdy, outmoded, or too restrictive, equality, respect for all people and creatures, and
but nevertheless models to be followed and for the earth” (p. xxxix).
REFERENCES Chodorow, N. J. (1978). The reproduction of

mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology
Adams, A. (1994). Letter . . . 1776. In P. Lauter (ed.), of gender. Berkeley: University of California
The Heath anthology of American literature Press.
(Vol. 1, 2nd ed., p. 876). Lexington, MA: Chodorow, N. J. (1994). Femininities, masculinities,
D. C. Heath. sexualities: Freud and beyond. Lexington:
Alonso, A. M. (1992). Gender, power, and historical University Press of Kentucky.
memory: Discourses of Serrano resistance. In Chodorow, N. J. (1999). The power of feelings. New
J. Butler & J. W. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theo- Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
rize the political (pp. 404-425). New York: Chodorow, N. J. (2002). The enemy outside:
Routledge. Thoughts on the psychodynamics of extreme
Anzaldúa, G. (2002). Foreword, 2001. In violence with special attention to men and
C. Moraga & G. E. Anzaldúa (Eds.), This masculinity. In J. K. Gardiner (Ed.), Masculinity
bridge called my back: Writings by radical studies and feminist theory: New directions
women of color (pp. xxiv-xxxix). Berkeley, CA: (pp. 235-260). New York: Columbia University
Third Woman Press. Press.
Beauvoir, S. de. (1968). The second sex (Ed. and Collins, P. H. (1999). Moving beyond gender:
Trans. H. M. Parshley). New York: Bantam Intersectionality and scientific knowledge. In
Books. (Original work published 1949) M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.),
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Revisioning gender (pp. 261-284). Thousand
Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: Oaks, CA: Sage.
The development of self, voice, and mind. Cornell, D. (1998). At the heart of freedom: Feminism,
New York: Basic Books. sex, and equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Trans- University Press.
forming the debate on sexual inequality. New Daly, M., with Caputi, J. (1987). Websters’ first new
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. intergalactic wickedary of the English language.
Bersani, L. (1988). Is the rectum a grave? In Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
D. Crimp (Ed.), AIDS: Cultural analysis/ d’Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. (1997). Intimate mat-
cultural activism (pp. 197-222). Cambridge, ters: A history of sexuality in America. Chicago:
MA: MIT Press. University of Chicago Press.
Bly, R. (1990). Iron John: A book about men. Dinnerstein, D. (1976). The Mermaid and the mino-
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. taur: Sexual arrangements and human malaise.
Bordo, S. (1999). The male body: A new look at men New York: Harper and Row.
in public and private. New York: Farrar, Straus Ehrenreich, B. (1983). The hearts of men: American
and Giroux. dreams and the flight from commitment.
Boxer, M. J. (1998). When women ask the ques- New York: Anchor.
tions: Creating women’s studies in America. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1992). Myths of gender (2nd ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University New York: Basic Books.
Press. Freedman, E. B. (2002). No turning back: The history
Braidotti, R. (2002). Cyberfeminism with a differ- of feminism and the future of women.
ence. In C. L. Mui & J. S. Murphy (Eds.), New York: Ballantine Books.
Gender struggles: Practical approaches to con- Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique.
temporary feminism (pp. 347-357). Lanham, New York: Dell.
MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Gardiner, J. K. (1992, Winter). Psychoanalysis and
Bulbeck, C. (1998). Re-orienting Western feminisms: feminism: An American humanist’s view. Signs,
Women’s diversity in a postcolonial world. 17, 437-454.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Gardiner, J. K. (2002). Theorizing age and gender:
Press. Bly’s boys, feminism, and maturity masculinity.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the In J. K. Gardiner (Ed.), Masculinity studies and
subversion of identity. New York: Routledge. feminist theory: New directions (pp. 90-118).
Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power: Theories New York: Columbia University Press.
in subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Gardiner, J. K. (2003, Winter). Gender and masculin-
Press. ity texts: Consensus and concerns for feminist
Cavendish, M. L. (1985). From The Convent of classrooms. NWSA Journal, 14.3, 147-157.
Pleasure. In M. Ferguson (Ed.), First feminists: Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psycho-
British women writers 1578-1799 (pp. 86-101). logical theory and women’s development.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glenn, E. N. (1999). The social construction and Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing
institutionaliztion of gender and race: An up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA:
integrative framework. In M. M. Ferree, Belknap Press.
J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning MacKinnon, C. (1987). Feminism unmodified.
gender (pp. 3-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
González, R. (Ed.). (1996). Muy macho: Latino men MacKinnon, C. Only words. Cambridge, MA:
confront their manhood. New York: Anchor Harvard University Press.
Doubleday. Mill, J. S., & Mill, H. T. (1970). Essays on sex equal-
Halberstam, J. (1994). F2M: The making of female ity (A. S. Rossi, Ed.). Chicago: University of
masculinity. In L. Doan (Ed.), The lesbian Chicago Press.
postmodern (pp. 210-228). New York: Columbia Moghadam, V. M. (1999). Gender and the global
University Press. economy. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, &
Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender
NC: Duke University Press. (pp. 128-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, K. Q. (Ed.). (2002, Fall). Feminist disability Mohanty, C. T., Russo, A., & Torres, L. (Eds.).
studies. NWSA Journal, 14.3(Special issue). (1991). Third world women and the politics of
Haraway, D. (1989). A manifesto for cyborgs: feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University
Science, technology, and socialist feminism in Press.
the 1980s. In E. Weed (Ed.), Coming to terms: Moraga, C. L. (2002). From inside the First
Feminism, theory, politics (pp. 173-204). World: Foreword, 2001. In C. Moraga &
New York: Routledge. G. E. Anzaldúa (Eds.), This bridge called my
Harper, P. B. (1996). Are we not men? Masculine back: Writings by radical women of color
anxiety and the problem of African-American (pp. xv-xxiii). Berkeley, CA: Third Woman
identity. New York: Oxford University Press. Press.
hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to Pizan, C. de. (1982). The book of the city of ladies
center. Boston, MA: South End Press. (E. J. Richards, Trans). New York: Quality
hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representa- Paperback Book Club. (Original work published
tion. Boston, MA: South End Press. 1405)
hooks, b. (2000). Where we stand: Class matters. Ross, M. (2002). Race, rape, castration: Feminist
New York: Routledge. theories of sexual violence and masculine strate-
hooks, b., & West, C. (1991). Breaking bread: gies of black protest. In J. K. Gardiner (Ed.),
Insurgent black intellectual life. Boston, MA: Masculinity studies and feminist theory: New
South End Press. directions (pp. 305-343). New York: Columbia
Hull, G. T., Scott, P. B., & Smith, B. (1982). All the University Press.
women are white, all the blacks are men, but Rubin, G. (1992). Of catamites and kings:
some of us are brave: Black women’s studies. Reflections on butch, gender, and boundaries. In
Old Westbury, CT: Feminist Press. J. Nestle (Ed.), The persistent desire: A femme-
Hurtado, A. (1999). The color of privilege: Three butch reader (pp. 466-482). Boston, MA:
blasphemies on race and feminism. Ann Arbor: Alyson.
University of Michigan Press. Seager, J. (1999). Patriarchal vandalism: Militaries
Irigiray, L. (1985). Speculum of the other woman and the environment. In J. Silliman & Y. King
(G. C. Gill, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell (Eds.), Dangerous intersections: Feminist
University Press. perspectives on population, environment, and
Kimmel, M. S., & Kaufman, M. (1995). Weekend development (pp. 163-188). Cambridge, MA:
warriors: The new men’s movement. In South End Press.
M. S. Kimmel (Ed.), The politics of manhood: Sedgwick, E. K. (1995). Gosh, Boy George, you
Profeminist men respond to the mythopoetic must be awfully secure in your masculinity!
men’s movement (and the mythopoetic leaders In M. Berger, B. Wallis, & S. Watson (Eds.),
answer) (pp. 16-43). Philadelphia, PA: Temple Constructing masculinity (pp. 11-20). New
University Press. York: Routledge.
Kimmel, M. S., & Messner, M. A. (Eds.). (2000). Segal, L. (1990). Slow motion: Changing masculini-
Men’s lives (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and ties, changing men. New Brunswick, NJ:
Bacon. Rutgers University Press.
LeGuin, U. (1974). The Dispossessed. New York: Segal, L. (2000). Why feminism? New York:
Harper Collins. Columbia University Press.
Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Silverman, K. (1992). Male subjectivity at the margins.
Yale. New York: Routledge.
Smuts, B. (1992). Male aggression against women: Thomas, Calvin. Male Matters: Masculinity, Anxiety,
An evolutionary perspective. Human Nature, 3, and the Male Body on the Line. Urbana and
1-44. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996.
Stanton, E. C. (1994). Declaration of sentiments. In Wallace, M. (1990). Black macho and the myth of the
P. Lauter (Ed.), The Heath anthology of superwoman (Rev. ed.). London: Verso.
American literature (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 1946- Williams, P. J. (1991). The alchemy of race and
1948). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Steinem, G. (1992). Foreword. In K. L. Hagan (Ed.), Press.
Women respond to the men’s movement: A femi- Wollstonecraft, M. (1985). From A vindication of
nist collection (pp. v-ix). New York: Pandora. the rights of woman. In M. Ferguson (Ed.),
Stoltenberg, John. Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on First feminists: British women writers 1578-
Sex and Justice. Portland: Breitenbush Books, 1799 (pp. 422-431). Bloomington: Indiana
1989. University Press.
4
QUEERING THE PITCH?
Gay Masculinities
TIM EDWARDS
O
n the face of it, gay masculinities are attempts to reclaim the masculine, if only
a contradiction in terms: Gay negates through desire?
masculine. The litany of terminology It would seem that at the crux of this contra-
associated with homosexuality over the past diction, and without necessarily invoking any
century, let alone its representations (ranging specific psychoanalytic connotation, is the
from Quentin Crisp’s Naked Civil Servant to wider playing out of the relationship of desire
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the and identification.2 Within the heterosexual
Desert, as well as a camp tradition of television frame, this is, at least stereotypically, quite
stars from John Humphries in Are You Being simple: The male, in identifying as masculine,
Served? to Graham Norton’s self-titled chat learns to desire what he is not, on some level at
show), provide ample demonstration of the least; namely, the female and the feminine. Yet,
never-ending association of the homosexual within the frame of the homosexual, this rela-
with the effeminate: limp-wristed, shirt-lifting tionship is far more complex: The male, in pos-
poofs, pansies, and queens.1 Nonetheless, the sibly still identifying as masculine, but strongly
defining feature of the gay man is that he loves undermined by stereotypes and attitudes to the
or simply eroticises men as opposed to women contrary, desires what he perhaps still is or
and therefore, in some sense, the masculine wants to be, which is also masculine. Or, to put
as opposed to the feminine. This factor was it more simply, in relation to homosexuality,
strongly reinforced in the 1970s when, in the desire and identification become, if not the
wake of gay liberation, many gay men rejected same, then certainly less distinct.
the effeminate in favour of the hypermasculine, This sense of contradiction surrounding male
sexually driven machismo of “clone culture” homosexuality and masculinity would also
(defined later). All of this leaves us with some- seem to work on several strongly interrelated
thing of a conundrum, for if gay men are not levels: first, and most personally, in relation to
real men at all, or if they are gender deviants homosexual men themselves, who are caught up
whose relationship to masculinity is essentially in still being men but also desiring them—
one of lack, then how does this square with their which renders them somehow not men at all;
51
second, more socially, in relation to questions to regard themselves as “gay” at all. It is also
of representation and attitudes that often see gay borne out in studies of sexual behavior that
men as either promiscuous perverts of some report very large discrepancies between the
monstrous masculine sexuality or as effeminate numbers of men who have had sexual experi-
queens whose only relationship to the masculine ence with other men and the numbers of men
is a negative; and third, discursively and histor- who identify themselves as homosexual or gay,
ically, possessing a sexuality that is somehow most famously in the Kinsey Report of the
never simply just a matter of preference but a 1940s but reinforced in later research (Kinsey,
matter of gender and of definitions of normalcy 1948; Spada, 1979; Wellings, 1994).
and deviance. What this assertion also rests on is the logic
Consequently, it is my primary intention in of social construction. Social constructionist
this chapter to expose, explore, and perhaps theory, in a variety of ways, seeks to demon-
resolve some of these contradictions concerning strate that sexuality, far from being biological,
homosexuality and masculinity that, when constant, or inevitable, is socially variable, con-
connected, constitute the complex phenome- tingent, and ambiguous. Fundamental in this
non that is contemporary gay masculinity. As was the now legendary work of anthropologist
frequently noted, this invokes a focus on the Margaret Mead in Samoa, in which she demon-
politics as well as the theory of gender and sex- strated, in some empirical detail, a variety of
uality, as the one has constantly informed the sexual practices and gendered identities that
other and vice versa (Weeks, 1985). There are were often at significant variance from those in
three key sections: first, a consideration of the the West, as well as the wider sociological con-
history of homosexuality; second, a discussion cern with the social rather than biological nature
of various academic and political perspectives of human society (Cooley, 1902; Durkheim,
taken from the successes and failures of gay lib- 1951; Mead, 1977). More recently, social con-
eration; and third, an evaluation of more recent structionist accounts of sexuality have gained
theoretical attempts to resolve, or at least under- significant impetus from the work of Michel
stand, the contradictions of masculinity and Foucault. Foucault, in his pioneering History
homosexuality. Of Sexuality (1978), saw the homosexual as a
specific type of person, “invented,” as it were,
through the work of a series of Northern
European scientists of sex, or sexologists, in the
THE HOMOSEXUAL TRIUMPHANT: late 19th century, including the Swiss doctor
HIS STORY OF HOMOSEXUALITY Karoly Benkert, who coined the term homo-
sexual; Krafft-Ebing; and Magnus Hirschfeld,
It is now well known, within more academic among others (Foucault, 1978, 1984a, 1984b).
circles at least, that homosexuality is a cultur- The assertion that the homosexual identity is a
ally specific, modern, and Western phenomenon culturally specific phenomenon that varies in
(Caplan, 1987; Greenberg, 1988; Katz, 1976; perception, practice, and outcome from time to
Plummer, 1981; Weeks, 1977). While same-sex time and place to place also strongly under-
desire is in all likelihood universal throughout mined the notion that the homosexual identity at
time and space, the homosexual as a type of least, if not same-sexual activity, is simply the
person is only a century or so old and only fully result of some kind of behavioral, biological, or
exists in a similar form within parts of the psychological essence. In addition, for Foucault
United States, Australasia, and Northern this counteracted any notion of Victorian repres-
Europe, with variant forms elsewhere within the sion, and even sexual desire itself was con-
developed world and very little that is truly structed discursively through processes of
comparable anywhere else. What this assertion medical, scientific, and psychiatric labeling, as
crucially rests on is the distinction of sexual acts well as other often state-driven attempts to set
and sexual identities—or, to put it more directly, up and enforce the boundaries of sexual nor-
homosexual sex alone does not a gay man make. malcy and sexual pathology. In conjunction
This accounts, among other things, for the rou- with this, the rise of expertise per se, as part of
tine ability of a large number of men who have what Foucault called “scientia sexualis,” or an
sex with men, in public toilets or elsewhere, not entire science of sex, further hammered home
Gay Masculinities • 53
the conception of the homosexual as a type of the brain, or parental upbringing (see, for
person and homosexuality as a condition, a per- example, Le Vay, 1993). The problems of essen-
ception validated, reinforced, and perpetuated as tialism are now well established and are based
sexual “truth.” on three central points: first, that claims made
This perspective has been adopted and are of dubious reliability and validity in scien-
elaborated throughout a variety of studies both tific terms, as they are often based on small sam-
historical and anthropological, as well as poli- ples, animals, or identical twins, from which
tical and sociological. In relation to anthro- wider generalizations are necessarily limited;
pology, Foucault’s legacy has been used to second, that in reiterating the significance of
illustrate the indeterminacy of sex, exposing a the etiology of homosexuality, these claims have
wide diversity of cultural attitudes and practices had the consequence, intended or not, of both
in relation to sexuality (see, for example, marginalizing and pathologizing homosexuality
Caplan, 1987; Greenberg, 1988). More his- through the lack of any comparable attention to
torically, Jeffrey Weeks (1977, 1981, 1985) in heterosexuality; and third, that such claims
particular provided a thoroughgoing analysis of undermine the capacity for change and absolve
the twin motors of reform and regulation that responsibility both personally and socially,
were then seen to found and form the develop- leading to an “I/they can’t help it” model of
ment of contemporary gay culture. Gay libera- homosexuality.
tion was thus seen to be the culmination of The ambiguity of these claims more
much earlier movements toward reform dating politically has not gone unnoticed where
back to the 19th century and the work of attempts have not only been made to patholo-
Edward Carpenter (1908), among others, as gize homosexuality (through aversion ther-
well as the increased visibility brought about by apy, for example) but to establish the rights of
the trial of Oscar Wilde in the United Kingdom.3 those with a gay biology through an appeal to
Politically, the same argument has been used to civil liberties or a similar minority platform.
critique medical and psychological attempts to Similarly, constructionist claims often cham-
pathologize the homosexual and to develop a pion homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle
primarily utopian vision of a world in which choice, yet these beliefs can also lead to fears
erotic attachment is merely a matter of lifestyle of contagion, or gay sexuality “rubbing off,”
or personal choice of no more concern than which often underpins much resistance to gay
liking tea or coffee (Bristow & Wilson, 1993; and lesbian parenting (Epstein, 1987, 1988;
Harwood et al., 1993; Walter, 1980). Sociolo- Evans, 1993). It is not my intention here, how-
gically, social constructionist theory has also ever, to evaluate these claims in detail or to fuel
come to inform a range of studies of gender and an already very old and tired debate between
sexuality more widely. In particular, these essentialists and constructionists.
include interactionist work, in which sexual I do, however, wish to raise several concerns
identity is seen as form of self-constructed in relation to the constructionist history of homo-
narrative, or storytelling; and feminist work, in sexuality as it is most commonly perceived,
which the logic of constructionism has clearly played out, and perpetuated within predomi-
fuelled the sense of the unnaturalness of femi- nantly sexual-political understandings of sexu-
ninity in the wake of second-wave feminism ality. It is of critical importance here to note that
and, more recently, the attempt to deconstruct I am not attempting to provide a critique of
the very category of woman (Plummer, 1994; Foucault’s work per se; rather, I am questioning
Riley, 1988; Wittig, 1997). Ironically, one might some of the ways in which it has been adopted
also now conjecture that social construction- and applied elsewhere. I am thinking particu-
ism has become adopted so routinely within larly of the work of various gay historians and
the social sciences as to constitute a near the adoption of their work within some forms of
“discourse” in itself. socialist feminism, as well as some of its more
That said, this particular history of homosex- contemporary and eclectic variants (Bristow &
uality is not without critique, perhaps most tire- Wilson, 1993; Harwood et al., 1993; Patton,
somely from variant forms of essentialism that 1985; Segal, 1990; Weeks, 1985). Although
never-endingly try to claim that homosexuality varying significantly, all of these theorists
is the result of some abnormality in hormones, cite Foucault as a major influence in adopting a
politically informed perspective that is at pains indicative of a deliberate attempt to suppress the
to point out both that homosexuality is socially importance of feminism, depoliticize academia,
constructed and that gay liberation represented a and indeed exclude women (Stanley, 1984).
high-water mark in wider movements toward I would like to suggest that the issue here is
greater social acceptance of sexual diversity. As perhaps wider and indeed more historical.
I have already documented and critiqued these Women’s sexuality, particularly in any form
perspectives in detail elsewhere, I do not plan autonomous from men’s, has had a very long
to do so again here (Edwards, 1994, 1998). history of struggling to find voice in the face
However, it remains necessary to summarize of often concerted attempts to silence it or even
some of the key problems: First, these perspec- deny its existence. The comparative invisibility,
tives often fail to problematize gay liberation even now, of lesbianism compared with the
sufficiently either theoretically or politically; public spectacle, if not pariahlike, status of gay
second, to varying degrees, they present a view male sexuality, is testimony to this, as is the
of sexual history that is insufficiently racialized frequent desexualization of female homosexual-
or gendered; and third, they tend to lead to a ity into mere “romantic friendship” (Faderman,
form of triumphalism, a kind of “we’ve made it” 1981). Recent attempts to reclaim some sense of
perspective that offers few solutions to current the sexuality of lesbianism either discursively,
problems other than to reiterate the joys of through reinventing the connotations of the
diversity and pluralism ad nauseam. The rest identity of the dyke, or through representations
of this section will document some of these of women as promiscuous sexual predators,
difficulties more fully, particularly as they per- for example in the work of photographer Della
tain to the relationship of homosexuality and Grace, have often succeeded more in openly
masculinity. parodying gay male sexuality and less in finding
First, the history of homosexuality remains an alternative voice for the women who wish to
profoundly gendered. As I have argued else- express their sexual desires for other women
where, gender and sexuality as practices, dis- (Grace, 1993). It is, I think, clear, then, that this
courses and indeed constructs are intricately contemporary constructionist story of sexuality
linked, and it is often far more accurate to talk in is indeed his story of his homosexuality, and it
terms of gendered sexualities and sexualized is not satisfactory as an explanation of, or even
genders rather than of gender and sexuality as as an engagement with, its female equivalent.
if they were two distinct categories (Edwards, Strictly within that caveat, it may remain
1990). In addition, the stigmatization of male satisfactory as an understanding of the history
homosexuality has much to do with gender. Gay of male homosexuality alone. However, as we
men are often castigated as the wrong sort of shall see, several difficulties remain.
men: too masculine, too promiscuous, too phal- The gendering of this history of homo-
lic, or too lacking in masculinity, somehow sexuality does not end with the simple differen-
incompetent at it, or simply effeminate. Similar tiation of its male and female variations. Far
themes also emerge in relation to female homo- more significantly, the history of male homo-
sexuality—lesbians become “butch diesel sexuality remains gendered per se. The most
dykes” and masculinity in the wrong body or, cursory glance through past forms of male same-
conversely, some kind of feminine hormonal sex sexuality reveals a very significantly varying,
sexuality gone wild, “lipstick lesbians” who yet equally profoundly unending, connection
just can’t help helping themselves to “a bit of with gender. Greco-Roman culture may show no
the other.” In sum, the gay man is often appropriate parallel with contemporary under-
oppressed for being the wrong sort of man, and standings of gay male sexuality, yet it equally
the lesbian is subordinated for being the wrong demonstrates its connection with questions of
sort of woman. maleness and masculinity. Here, Spartan sexual
What also comes into play here, however, is relations were hardly formations of gay iden-
the sense in which the commonly played out tity, yet they were importantly connected with
history of homosexuality as socially constructed initiations into socially prescribed patterns of
fails to recognize the significance of gender manhood (Eglinton, 1971). Similarly, the molly
even within in its own terms. Some feminists houses of the Renaissance were in no way
have highlighted this gender absence as simple equivalents to contemporary gay male
clubs, bars, or ghettos, yet they did perform the any alternative but to conform, pump iron, and
function of providing meeting places for per- deny one’s emotional dissatisfactions, a feeling
ceived gender, as well as sexual, deviants (Bray, that arguably remains largely unchanged and
1982). In addition, the sexology of the 19th cen- undiminished since gay liberation. Indeed,
tury makes repeated reference to the connection given the media’s increasing fuelling of gay,
of gender to male same-sex desire, whether as and perhaps all, culture as merely a matter of
a third alternative or as an inversion (Carpenter, fashion, looks, and entertainment, the pressures
1908). Equally, the clone culture of the 1970s are probably worse today. The commonly
was as much concerned to prove that gay men played out constructionist history of homosex-
were men and not simply gay and, in attempting uality has no answer to this. Within this per-
to reformulate the relationship between sexuality spective, the homosexual is not only triumphant
and masculinity, the connection remained. None academically as a socially constructed category
of these historical moments is remotely the same but rather victorious socially, politically, and
or even easily comparable, but they do in very personally as an alternative way of life. In its
different ways repeatedly allude to the continued never-ending emphasis on the power of coming
connection, and not separation, of “the love that out, in its championing of the hard-won bene-
dare not speak its name” with questions of mas- fits of gay liberation, and in its promotion of
culinity.4 To assert, then, that sexuality is a thing the politics of pluralism for sexual minorities,
apart from gender for anything other than heuris- all that remains is to metaphorically, and per-
tic purposes is not only theoretically inadequate haps literally, throw one’s legs in the air and
but empirically inaccurate and politically naïve. enjoy it. Such an account never even conceives
It is perhaps the politics of this social con- of the question “and then what?”, let alone
structionist history of homosexuality that are its offering any solution. It is to this question of
weakest link. I have already noted its feminist the failings and problems of gay liberation that
limitations, and one could equally highlight its we now turn.
wholesale whitewashing of the issue of race,
color, or ethnicity, as have Kobena Mercer and
Isaac Julien (1988). However, what is perhaps CLONE COMPLAINTS:
most insidious here is the sense in which it fails THE PROBLEMS OF GAY LIBERATION
to meet the needs or expectations of even privi-
leged white gay men. As we shall see, sexism, Gay liberation is problematic not least because
racism, and ageism are but some of the “isms” liberation per se is problematic, both theoreti-
thrown at gay male culture, but it is gay men cally and politically. In theoretical terms, the
themselves who often seem to lose out most and notion of liberation tends to imply essentialism,
suffer most directly. As one disillusioned writer and, in relation to sexuality, this is compounded
in the gay press recently pointed out: by its conflation with the concept of repression
and the assertion of some otherwise contained
It was the politics of visibility, but rather than or constrained sexual desire. The difficulty here
create an image that was drawn from our inner is not so much the charge of essentialism, which
selves, we appropriated a macho stance. For the must remain in some senses merely a descrip-
first time, we congregated in defined gay spaces, tive term, but the sense of confusion invoked
but because our struggle was based on sexuality,
concerning what exactly is being liberated: a
the meeting points were based around sex. Despite
gathering under the “gay” banner, our ghetto was sexual desire, a sexual identity, a sexual com-
very much homosexual. By looking like “real munity, or all three? This is not to deny in the
men” we made gay sex more acceptable but lost least that gay men still constitute a marginal-
an opportunity to create a gay identity beyond the ized, stigmatized, and, on occasion, even demo-
active sex object. (Miles, 2003, p. 34) nized group, yet such an experience is perhaps
more accurately understood as a problem of
This may seem gloomy, but Miles is far subordination, emancipation, or, indeed, oppres-
from alone in his complaint that gay culture is sion. The term liberation therefore remains
a shallow, youth-dominated, image-, sex-, and rather inadequate in theoretical terms.
body-obsessed world predicated upon self- Nevertheless, it has remained the political
loathing and leaving profoundly little room for incantation of the gay movement since the
Stonewall rebellion of 1969.5 Given the blatantly displayed, literally bulging out of his
aforementioned ambiguities of the terminology plaid shirts, leather jackets, and button-fly jeans,
theoretically, it is worth trying to unpack a little and publicly paraded down the streets of many
of what is more politically meant by the term of the world’s most major cities in celebration
“gay liberation.” On its most immediate level, of his unconstrained promiscuous desire for
gay liberation proclaimed the importance of more and more of precisely the same thing,
coming out, which was seen to work on three namely those like himself, he became the
interconnected levels: first, through accepting emblem of the “sex” in homosexuality, or what
one’s sexuality for oneself; second, in exploring Michael Bronski once called “sex incarnate”
it with others of similar orientation; and third, (Bronski, 1984). Proclaimed by some as the
by telling the rest of the world with pride epitome of a guilt-free lifestyle of sexual libera-
(Walter, 1980). Coming out is again ambiguous tion and castigated by others as the nadir of
here, whether purely as a matter of personal misogynist self-loathing, the cruising gay clone
choice or more widely as a form of political came, perhaps mistakenly, to represent gay
affirmation, as it retains the potential impli- sexuality in its entirety and divide politically
cation of freeing an essential and hidden, or motivated academia like an axe through an
simply inner and asocial, self. None of this, apple. More precisely, and as I have demon-
of course, affected the development of a thriv- strated elsewhere, what this entire uproar often
ing commercial culture of clubs, bars, cafes, centered on was the perceived relationship of
and shops premised on a politics of increased the homosexual to the masculine (Edwards,
visibility through coming out. 1994, 1998).
This sense of ambiguity, or even ambiva- Following this, then, I wish to explore and
lence, concerning gay liberation was, however, expose this perception through a discussion of
also illustrated more academically. Some of the various academic perspectives developed
the earliest works on gay politics, particularly around the gay clone and gay liberation more
those of Hocquenghem (1972) and Mieli widely. These include feminist work and men’s
(1980), attributed a liberating force to gay desire analyses of masculinity, as well as gay and les-
in celebrating promiscuity, pushing the bound- bian studies. A potential problem here is the ten-
aries of decency, and, more generally, going dency to perceive these debates as going on
against the mores of mainstream heterosexual solely between these areas of study, when they
society; others, particularly those of Altman have, in fact, been conducted as much, if not
(1971) and Weeks (1977), saw gay politics as a more, from within each of them. There is, then,
culturally specific phenomenon contingent on no one feminist, no single gay, and no unitary
histories of movements toward reform and male perspective on the conundrums posed by
slowly shifting morals and values. It was not, gay liberation or even the gay clone; yet, as I
perhaps, surprising, then, that much of this shall argue strongly, all of these perspectives are
ambivalence should also be played out through underpinned by a varyingly implicit, yet mostly
a series of academic debates that followed the assumed, perception of the relationship of the
onset of gay liberation. These more theoretical homosexual to the masculine.
debates were in themselves often founded on the It is perhaps proper to start with gay men’s
political involvements of young writers and aca- own perspectives of their liberation and the clone
demics making their careers in colleges and uni- that some of them helped create. One of the ear-
versities. Most of these controversies centered liest and most influential of these was a chapter
in turn on various, and often violently opposed, by Gregg Blachford (1981) in Ken Plummer’s
perspectives of the development of commercial (1981) path-breaking collection The Making
gay culture and the practices and attitudes of of the Modern Homosexual, titled “Male Domi-
gay men, most notoriously those of the overtly nance and the Gay World.” Relying heavily on a
sexualized and hypermasculine cruising clone. primarily Althusserian understanding of the role
The cruising gay clone has now become of subculture, Blachford perceived both repro-
something of pariah, both within academic duction and resistance to male domination in
circles and more popular culture, pumped and postliberation gay culture. Resistance was per-
inflated into near mythic status as the iconic ceived to come through the lack of any direct
symbol of gay liberation. With his sexuality connection of such styles and practices to any
wider culture that simultaneously also informed celebrated, a point put most forcibly in John
its reproduction through its separation from it. To Allen Lee’s (1978) Getting Sex: New Approach—
put it more simply, macho gay male culture More Fun, Less Guilt. Lee argued that gay men
neither fully resisted nor purely reproduced male were quite simply better at “getting sex,” having
domination by virtue of its strict containment developed a highly sophisticated system of
within a subculture. A somewhat later and less dress codes and visual cues to indicate sexual
academically informed argument was made by preference, as well as adapting a variety of for-
Jamie Gough (1989) who, although acknowledg- mal and informal public contexts in which to
ing the sexist implications of some contemporary practice sex and enjoy it. Evidence for this was
gay culture, saw macho gay men as merely aping provided in the literary and often autobiograph-
“real” masculinity. Joseph Bristow (1989), in a ical accounts of John Rechy (1977) and Edmund
powerful polemic against lesbian accusations of White (1986), as well as in various surveys of
homosexual misogyny, pushed this argument fur- sexual behavior at the time (Jay & Young, 1979;
ther, seeing the gay clone as contrived and play- Spada, 1979). Similarly, in The Silent Community,
ful, theatrical and fake, a clone copy. The comic Edward Delph (1978) conducted an ethno-
effect of this was not lost on gay men themselves, graphic study of men’s sexual behavior with
who joked that any illusion of the clone’s mas- other men in public and semipublic places,
culinity was lost as soon as he opened his mouth such as parks, toilets, and saunas, and, in doing
and started discussing art and interior design, and so, emphasized both the sophistication of this
society at large bore witness to the disco group behavior and its silence.
The Village People, who did a number of decid- What these studies also illustrated, however,
edly camp dance routines with the individual was the connection of gay men’s sexual prac-
members dressed as a cowboy, a cop, a construc- tices with questions of masculinity, not only in
tion worker, and other stereotypical symbols of reinforcing the stereotype that men are simply
gay fantasy. From this perspective, then, mas- more promiscuous than women but the sense
culinity and homosexuality were exposed as in which the clone donned a stereotypically
increasingly playful social constructions that had masculine appearance and practiced a stereo-
no intrinsic interaction or relationship. typically masculine sexuality that was divorced
Others, however, were less convinced of the from emotional commitment and intimacy, a
frivolousness. In Two Steps Forward, One Step form of sexual expression so minimal that even
Back, John Shiers (1980) sounded a personal note conversation could destroy it. This was, of
of painful concern. In particular, this centered on course, precisely its appeal, the emotionally
his perception that gay men were still caught in risk-free, pared-down, and butt-naked excite-
the double bind and, indeed, double standards of ment: pure, exposed and throbbing—the cock
heterosexual society so that, in trying to maintain stripped bare.
more socialist or feminist convictions, gay men Others, though, found such sexual practices
ran the risk of losing sight of their own, primarily lacking, and complained that development of an
sexual, cause. Consequently, when copying more increasingly body-conscious commercial scene
traditional patterns of monogamous sexual prac- and networks founded on the promotion of sex
tices with long-term partners in private, gay men before, and often without, love were not for all—
risked little social opprobrium, but in publicly that, ultimately, they were another lesson in the
displaying a promiscuous desire for the mascu- continued alienation of homosexuality. Of fun-
line, they felt the full wrath of their stigma and damental importance in this was the articulation,
heterosexual society’s homophobia. Ultimately, or reworking, of the relationship of homosexual-
then, gay men were in a no-win situation of ity and masculinity. Gay culture, in asserting that
being forced into a closet not of their own making gay men could be real men too, although divorc-
and made into public pariahs when they broke ing homosexuality from its more negative rela-
its bounds. Rumbling under the surface here tionship to masculinity, also forced homosexuals
were increasing concerns relating to the potential together into a form of matrimony that was not
pitfalls of the newly sexualized and, indeed, necessarily happy. In particular, Michael Pollak
masculinized, dimensions of gay liberation. (1985) saw the promiscuous cruising of the
At the same time, others still felt that gay clone as a form of “internalized maximization
male promiscuity could, or even should, be of profits,” or a performance-driven masculine
sexuality wherein gay men notched up partners in highlighting the role of heterosexuality in
like cars off a production line. In short, the con- women’s oppression, often offered very clear
straints of the closet were often swapped for the and direct support for lesbians with feminist
pressures of performance. Of importance in this or gender-oriented concerns. More problemati-
was Pollak’s historically focused analysis of cally, gay men’s economic power was increas-
the development of gay male culture alongside ingly overt and being channeled into the rapid
emergent forms of masculinity within industrial expansion of a commercial gay scene of shops,
capitalism that were, in turn, founded on a form bars, clubs, saunas, restaurants, and a whole
of rationalized self-alienation. In more romantic host of other services from which lesbians
vein, some also complained that the commercial felt increasingly excluded, a factor that rapidly
gay world provided little emotional (although turned into fierce accusations of sexism and
plenty of sexual) sustenance, a point made most misogyny. Liz Stanley (1982), for example,
strongly in the historically nuanced and erudite experienced considerable disillusionment in
work of Barry Adam (1987) and echoed else- working with gay men politically, and Sheila
where (Dowsett, 1987). It reached its most Jeffreys (1990) argued similarly that gay libera-
extreme form in the novels and plays of Larry tion was merely another aspect of men’s sexual
Kramer (1978, 1983, 1986), an AIDS activist liberation and men’s sexual needs masqueraded
in New York who once infamously accused gay as the permissive society. Conversely, some gay
men of quite literally “thinking with their cocks” men increasingly complained that lesbians were
and “fucking themselves to death.” often aggressive and moralizing in their lack of
What begins to emerge here is a bipolarised support for gay men’s concerns, and lesbians
debate whereby the post–gay liberation gay man could themselves perhaps be accused of being
is either the emblem of a celebration of unin- complicit in heterosexual homophobia. Joseph
hibited sexual expression or simply the latest Bristow (1989) and Craig Owens (1987) argued
incarnation of sexual oppression. Although both strongly here that misogyny and homophobia
perspectives in extremis remain problematic, it were not opposed but two sides of the same coin
is the liberal, or perhaps liberationist, approach of patriarchal and heterosexual dominance. This
that is most in question. In denying that the conflict rapidly became both overly polarized
development and form of gay culture had any and problematic in itself, often diverting wider
connection with wider society other than to political energies into infighting. On a more
challenge it, or indeed with masculinity other positive note, lesbians and gay men later proved
than to celebrate it, gay liberationists also ran they were still able to work together success-
the risk of disowning all political responsibility, fully; for example, in opposition to Section 28,
a problem highlighted by the feminist critique a government statute that attempts to outlaw
of gay sexuality—to which we now turn. the “promotion” of homosexuality and “pre-
Of most direct significance here were the tend” families by local authorities in the United
conflicts that soon developed between gay men Kingdom.
and lesbians. In the first instance, gay liberation Nevertheless, such conflict exposed a deeper
meant gay men and gay women, yet within a divide within feminism in relation to questions
very few years, the two groups had suffered a of gender and sexuality, and feminist accounts
very acrimonious divorce, and many lesbians of gay liberation were often confused and con-
found their interests better served within the flicting. Perhaps most influentially, Gayle Rubin
women’s movement. Most fundamentally, this (1984), in her article Thinking Sex, argued
centered on a profoundly differing set of needs strongly for an analysis of sexuality as a sepa-
and wants, or what Annabel Faraday (1981) rate mechanism, or what she called a “vector of
once called the “polar experiences” of gay men oppression,” not simply dependent on, and indeed
and lesbians. Although gay men were often pri- distinct from, the analysis of gender. Conse-
marily concerned with sexual liberation in the quently, she documented “hierarchies of sexual-
face of continued public hostility and actually ity,” through which heterosexuality, whether
rising, rather than falling, criminal prosecutions; male or female, and particularly if marital, was
lesbians were finding that much of their own still privileged over homosexuality, which was, in
liberation depended on their gender rather turn, less stigmatized if monogamous; promiscu-
than their sexuality. The women’s movement, ity, prostitution, sadomasochism, and pedophilia
were deemed the lowest or worst of all. This, in presented with something of a problem here:
many ways, revolutionized, or at least counter- namely, the heterosexist bias of men’s studies,
acted, an increasingly vociferous North American a point put most forcibly by Carrigan, Connell,
view of sexuality as solely an extension of and Lee (1985) in “Toward a New Sociology
gender domination, theorized most fully in the of Masculinity.” They argued that the emergent
work of Andrea Dworkin (1981) and Catharine men’s studies, particularly in the late 1970s,
MacKinnon (1987). The most fundamental thrust neither recognized the significance of gay liber-
of this perspective was to perceive sexuality ation in attempting to undermine traditional
primarily as a form of power, most notoriously in masculinity nor the importance of heterosexual-
relation to rape and pornography. ity in maintaining male domination, but paid
Without wishing to stir up an already overly mere lip service to gay men in token chapters
whipped debate, the conflict that developed and short passages in otherwise overwhelmingly
within feminism concerning sexuality also white, middle class, heterosexual works and
exposed a profoundly different, if not com- perspectives. This was more than partially
peting, set of feminist perspectives upon gay explained as a result of the development of a
liberation. For Rubin, and indeed a variety of new men’s studies of masculinity as a response
other feminist writers, including Pat Califia, Mary to second-wave feminism both personally and
McIntosh, Lynne Segal (Califia, 1994; Segal & politically and partly as a necessary outcome to
McIntosh, 1992), and Carole Vance (1984), gay the limits of the functionalist sex-role theory
men constituted a marginalized group with their that informed these studies and that could often
own agenda; also, gay liberation, although far only adapt to seeing masculinity as a singular,
from unproblematic for women, was not neces- rather than pluralist, concept and practice
sarily about women (this remained primarily the (Kimmel, 1987).
responsibility of feminism). For Dworkin (1981) One major exception to this, and a significant
and MacKinnon (1987), as well as Sheila Jeffreys development in overcoming it, was the work of
(1990) and others (Stanley, 1982), however, this Carrigan, Connell, and Lee (1985) in formulat-
separation was false. Gay liberation was indeed ing the notion of a hierarchy of masculinities.
about gender oppression, and gay men were Connell (1987), in Gender and Power, extended
deeply bound up with the degradation of women this idea further and challenged the idea of a
and the feminine. The macho gay clone, in cele- singular male sex role, arguing for a pluralistic
brating the male and masculine sexuality, was and hierarchical notion of masculinities in
then engaged precisely in the annihilation of the which some forms were hegemonic and others
female and feminine sexuality more widely. subordinate. Thus, most obviously, black, gay,
What opened up rapidly here was the sense and working class masculinities were seen as
in which it was the relationship of gender and subordinate to and, indeed, oppressed by white,
sexuality, here homosexuality and masculinity, heterosexual, and middle class masculinities
that was at issue. The more liberal feminist that remained mostly dominant or hegemonic,
approach, in successfully exposing the complex- although this was still contingent on changing
ities of sexuality, also ran the risk of separating social and political contexts. Consequently,
it entirely from gender, although more radical men’s studies of masculinity became increas-
or revolutionary feminists, in asserting its very ingly complex and diverse in themselves, devel-
connectedness to gender, could lose sight of oping more sociostructural, philosophical, and
its specific significance. One potential solution even autobiographical dimensions in the work
to an often escalating and entrenched sense of of Jeff Hearn (1987), Vic Seidler (1994), and
conflict here emerged in the form of a more David Morgan (1992), respectively.
poststructural feminism, concerned precisely to Where did this leave the new critical studies
undermine the binaries of gender and sexuality, of men and masculinity in relation to gay
which I consider in the next section. liberation? The answer is, in some senses, frus-
Given the ongoing concern here with the tratingly, not very far forward. Following the
connection, and not separation, of homosexual- arguments of radical feminism, John Stoltenberg
ity and masculinity, the development of men’s (1989) made a blistering assault on the failures
own critical studies of masculinity remains of gay liberation and made gay men out to be
significant, if rather overshadowed. We are near traitors to the cause of gender politics; at
the opposite extreme, Robert Bly (1990) and the gay black lawyer, for example, is quite simply
New Men’s Movement promoted a return to a uncategoric. Second, identity politics more
traditional patriarchal order that was implicitly, theoretically are argued to have had the conse-
if not explicitly, homophobic. Although less quence, intended or unintended, of reinforcing
problematic politically, the vast majority of more rather than challenging the binaries of black-
contemporary men’s studies of masculinity still white, man-woman, straight-gay. And third,
remain overwhelmingly generalist in focus, often more politically, identity politics are perceived
making merely fleeting mention of the specifics to tend to undermine any wider political plat-
of gay masculinities. form on which to challenge conservatism or
One more thoroughgoing and empirically minority oppression, due to their tendency to
based work here is Connell’s (1995) Mascu- reinforce differences and divisions within and
linities. Following interviews with a small across different groups. The previous section
sample of gay men, Connell remained ambiva- demonstrated this itself by illustrating the
lent concerning the impact of gay liberation on degree of conflict aroused, and often unre-
wider gender or masculinity politics. Although solved, around gay masculinities. Poststructural
acknowledging the fundamental subversion of theory clearly provides an effective critique of
heterosexual object choice in the formation of this, yet the question remains as to the efficacy
gay identities, Connell reiterates the sense in of its solutions.
which men’s bodies also incorporate mas- In this next section, I wish initially to focus on
culinity. In desiring them, gay men thus remain, the work of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Judith
in a sense, “very straight.” The often criticized Butler as two of the most eminent and influential
watering down of gay politics and its cooptation poststructural theorists in relation to gender and
by consumer culture also adds to the sense in sexuality. In addition, I will also consider more
which the position of gay men, for Connell, recent attempts to apply their work more directly
remains contradictory in terms of gender poli- to the question of gay masculinities. It is neces-
tics. Here, then, gay men’s identification as sary in the first instance to explicate this work in
men may be problematic, but their desire for some detail to see more precisely where it leads
men limits their commitment to sexual politics. us prior to examining its wider implications. In
We are, then, back to where we started: the doing so, I hope to show how poststructural
relationship between desire and identification theory adds to our understanding of the problem-
in relation to homosexuality and masculinity. atic nature of the relationship between desire and
The question precisely, then, is one of how to identification that underpins the position of gay
go forward. masculinities. I will also seek to expose some
of the difficulties that tend to ensue from this
perspective.
FROM HOMOSEXUAL TO HOMOSOCIAL: In Between Men, Sedgwick (1985) started
THE POSTSTRUCTURAL SOLUTION to forge a major reconsideration of the role
and nature of homosexuality through an analysis
Poststructural theory is often as amorphous as it of its representation across a range of North
is diffuse and as ill defined as it is wide ranging. American, British, and other European literature.
It is not my intention, then, to discuss what now In particular, she constructed a new concept of
constitutes an entire canon of poststructural and homosociality to describe the range of affective
postmodern theory or the cultural studies and relationships between men that exist on a contin-
queer politics that it often informs. In relation uum from the unemotional to the fully homosex-
to gender and sexuality more specifically, how- ual. As a result, although perhaps inadvertently,
ever, poststructural theory perhaps most funda- she drew a parallel with Adrienne Rich’s (1984)
mentally provides a critique of identity politics influential notion of the lesbian continuum used
and, indeed, identity per se (Nicholson & to describe relationships between women. The
Seidman, 1995). First, individual and group main thrust of Sedgwick’s analysis was, however,
identities are perceived as equally semantically to interrogate the relationship of the homosexual
and socially dynamic, open, plural, conflicting, and the masculine and, in particular, to expose
or contingent rather than fixed, closed, unitary, the extent to which the two concepts are interde-
consensual, or set. Thus, the position of a young pendent. Her discussion was also historically
focused, seeing the homosexual identity as overshadowed, and it is difficult to see how
interdependent with emergent forms of mas- Sedgwick’s reverse policy of “unspeaking” the
culinity throughout the 19th century. This, then, homosexual can undermine this discursive priv-
led to a series of highly sophisticated textual ileging of the heterosexual, let alone make the
analyses of a selection of literary works from the quantum jump into heterosexual social and
mid-18th century through to the mid-19th cen- political dominance. The end of the homo-
tury, from which Sedgwick then extrapolated a sexual does not, then, necessarily entail the end
complex map of developments in the gendered of the heterosexual, and the project remains,
nature of male relationships. As an analysis ironically, to remove heterosexuality from the
within the discipline of literary criticism per se, sanctity of its discursive closet.
this was sophisticated and, indeed, often quite In later work, Sedgwick (1995) forged a
dazzling, yet it remained problematic, not least further disjuncture between sex and gender, here
because of the exposition of a series of social masculinity and homosexuality, as two concepts
and political developments from an analysis of she perceived as not necessarily in any way
primarily elite cultural texts. directly related. In sum, masculinity does not
Sedgwick (1990) then extended her analysis necessarily relate to men, or men only, and
of the role of the homosexual in Epistemology of Sedgwick returns to an understanding of gender
the Closet. Following on from Foucault, she centered on androgyny, as explored previously
sought to deconstruct the category of the homo- by Sandra Bem (1974), whereby some men, and
sexual and, more important, the entire divisive women, have more, or less, masculinity and,
system of sexual categorization. The initial aim indeed, femininity. This would seem not only to
of her analysis was to undermine the persistence implode gender dualisms but to throw up
of “the homosexual” as a defining category that another question entirely, namely the extent to
simultaneously creates the closet from which which masculinity has anything to do with men,
the homosexual had to endlessly “come out.” gay or straight, at all.
The difficulty here is that the closet remains not A similar problem underpinned Judith
merely a semantic construction but an institu- Butler’s (1990) attempt to implode the dualisms
tionally supported social reality premised on of gendered identity in Gender Trouble. Butler
wider processes of stigma and ostracism. To put sought, in the first instance, to undermine the
it more simply, the discursive closet would not fundamental necessity of the category of
matter were it not for the negative consequences “woman” and asserted instead that a feminist
that may, and often do, ensue in coming out politics must produce a radical critique of the
from the more social closet. However, the cut of politics of identity per se. On top of this, via a
Sedgwick’s work was as much to address the series of psychoanalytic investigations, she
semiotic question of the relationship of reader sought to demonstrate the mutual dependence
and text, as exemplified in her final chapter on and contradictions of the categories of sex and
Proust, as as it was to address the question of gender as wholly artificial and unnatural con-
homosexual oppression. structions that exist primarily at the level of
Sedgwick’s work also echoed that of Dennis repeated performance. Consequently, she per-
Altman (1971) in Homosexual: Oppression and ceived gender as only truly existing through
Liberation, in which he foretold that the end continuous processes of acting, speaking, and
of homosexual oppression would also entail the doing. In addition, at least by implication, the
end of the homosexual identity. What was also bottom line of Butler’s argument would seem,
implicit in Altman’s predicament was, however, like Sedgwick’s, to be that the feminine has
the perceived necessity of the homosexual little to do with the female and femininity little
identity if the social and, indeed, ontologi- to do with women.
cal, assumption of heterosexuality were to be There was, however, an added dimension
opposed. Ironically, although recent decades here, for gender is performed according to
have witnessed an ever-strengthening “dis- social sanctions and mores that can, and do, lead
course of homosexuality” centered on increas- to what Butler (1990) calls “punishments,” on a
ing visibility and opposition to older negative number of levels, from social ostracism to legal
definitions and stereotypes, discussion of hetero- control. Nevertheless, the thrust of her analysis
sexuality has, for the most part, tended to remain was that gender primarily exists at the level of
discourse. Thus, although its documentation of sum, male homosexual attachment is put onto
the power relations of discourse were important, the never-never: never having lost and never
Butler’s work ran the risk of missing an analysis having loved.
of power as an institutionally coercive, politi- The mention of AIDS at this juncture is not
cally sanctioned and socially practiced series coincidental, and the conjunction of the rise of
of mechanisms of oppression. In addition, it is the epidemic with the simultaneous develop-
this tension of the structural and the textual that ment and application of more poststructural
often still lurks in the controversy surround- theory to questions of sexuality is not insigni-
ing Butler’s arguments concerning the role of ficant. When AIDS was first recognized in the
drag, defined as an overall gender performance early 1980s, predominantly in the gay commu-
and not merely a camp minority practice, in nities of the United States and as a sexually
demonstrating the artificiality and fantasy that transmitted disease that continued to affect
surrounds gender categories. Nevertheless, the the gay male population disproportionately in
concept of performance remains an important Western societies, it was quickly perceived as a
one that opens up potentially radical political symbolic phenomenon as much as, if not more
solutions to overly entrenched understandings, than, a medical condition. To put it more simply,
and indeed practices, of gender, leading to Butler AIDS was rapidly presented and understood as
wrestling with some of the political implications a morally loaded disease of lifestyle. At the
in later work (Butler, 1993). epicenter of this, once again, were the sexual
How, though, does such a perspective activities of the promiscuous gay clone and,
work in relation to questions of masculinity and indeed, 1970s gay culture more generally. The
homosexuality? In following Freud, Butler moral outrage, homophobic vitriol, and back-
(1995) argues that masculine identification lash that took place against the gay community,
depends on a prior formation of sexual orienta- particularly through the tabloid media, who
tion and, in particular, a rejection of homosexu- often presented AIDS as the “gay plague,” is
ality. As a result, masculinity fundamentally and now well documented, particularly in the work
psychologically depends on the disavowal not of Simon Watney (1987) in the United Kingdom
only of femininity but of homosexuality, and, in and Randy Shilts (1987) in the United States.
doing so, is predicated upon a lack, or absence, It was not, perhaps, surprising, then, that gay
rather than a given, or presence. The problem, studies often went on the defensive and further
then, becomes a near algebraic one: Masculinity invoked the logic of constructionism and the
as a positive identification depends on a double, discursive legacy of Foucault to prove that AIDS
not single, negative dissociation. The additional, had no intrinsic connection with gay sexuality
and profoundly psychological, difficulty here is other than one of creating illness and stigmati-
that the loss of homosexuality is never avowed zation (see, for example, Altman, 1986; Crimp,
and therefore cannot be mourned. Butler’s 1988; Patton, 1985).
argument depends on Freud’s analysis of poly- However, this defensiveness had the effect,
morphous perversity, whereby the infant experi- intended or not, of overriding an intriguing
ences—and gains from—both homosexual and dimension raised by the epidemic of masculin-
heterosexual attachment but to successfully ity’s connection with sexuality, particularly in
form a gender identity must suffer a loss, a loss, relation to gay male sexuality. To put it directly,
moreover, that cannot be affirmed. The double AIDS, in threatening the very life, let alone
problem that then ensues for the male infant is style, of promiscuous gay male sexuality in the
that neither the attachment to another male 1970s opened up the question of just what hav-
nor its loss can be recognized, leading to the ing lots of sex meant to gay men and where their
impossibility of either affirming or mourning identities might end up without it. The funda-
homosexuality. This also has wider social mental dependence of gay male identity and,
implications, reflected in the lack of recognition indeed, masculinity more widely on sexuality
of gay male relationships and the intensity of and particularly sex per se was raised within
difficulties involved in their loss, for whatever more social psychological circles, particularly
reason. Thus, more particularly, the AIDS in the work of Person (1980) and Kimmel
epidemic is seen to expose the anguish of gay (1994), as well as my own (Edwards, 1992), yet
men’s grief as a difficulty in mourning per se. In it was never fully raised within gay studies and
quickly turned into an often media-driven and indeed, the absence of homosexuality. To put it
pejorative question of “sex addiction.” In a more simply, relations between men, both past
sense, then, AIDS triangulated the relationship and present, are characterized by the constant
of gender, sexuality, and identity more strongly, possibility of, and quite simultaneously the
although often the issue was only forced through equally continuous prohibition of, homosexual-
an individual, but also collective, experience ity. Thus homosexuality per se works as a pri-
of grief. marily invisible mechanism in the maintenance
This important, if rather painful, line of argu- of masculinity. For example, the homosexuality
ment was pursued to some extent by Leo Bersani of movies is demonstrated through the explicit
(1988, 1995), who sought to connect a personal lack or absence of portrayals of homosexuality,
question of mourning, particularly in the wake a point echoed elsewhere (Kirkham & Thumin,
of the AIDS epidemic, to a political question 1993; Simpson, 1994). Thus Bech starts to
of militancy. The overall thrust of his analysis demonstrate the crucial extent to which homo-
was to seek to marry, rather than divorce, the sexual identity depends even more funda-
intensely individual, psychological, and sexual mentally on masculinity than heterosexuality.
with the social, external, and pedagogic. At the This is intriguing, but it leads him into an equally
center of this logic was, once again, the promis- constant overplaying of the significance of cer-
cuous sexuality of the cruising gay clone. In the tain stereotypes of homosexuality; namely, that
first instance, Bersani rejected the argument that homosexuality is all about furtive glances and
the rise of a gay hypermasculinity was necessar- even more furtive sexual practices and is usually
ily about subversion play or parody, arguing that conducted in cities. Quite where this leaves the
sexual desire remained, in essence, a serious monogamous practices of the suburban and rural
business that could potentially reinforce patriar- homosexual is anyone’s guess. Despite this,
chal or conservative politics as much as it could Bech’s reworking of the relationship of homo-
undermine them. Thus, a homosexual, or even sexuality and masculinity retains an untapped
sexual, love of rough trade and uniforms did not potential. In particular, it starts to tip into an
make that love radical. As a result, gay men analysis of visual culture and the ways in which
were, and are, in the uneasy situation of poten- the male, and the masculine, have increasingly
tially desiring, and perhaps even sleeping with, become both the object as well as the subject of
their enemies. This is an argument that could the gaze; for example, in relation to contempo-
easily be used to bolster some more simplistic rary patterns of sexual objectification, advertis-
and homophobic dimensions of feminism, as ing, and the world of fashion. This forms what
outlined previously, yet, precisely because he calls a “telemediated” society, or visual and
Bersani, like Butler, invokes psychoanalytic media culture that simultaneously emphasize
theory, the issue becomes inverted, and gay processes of aestheticization as well as sexual-
men’s desire for the masculine remains not ization and in which relations between men
only to be problematized, but also to be cele- become, almost by quirk, absent of absent
brated, precisely for its constant invoking of homosexuality. It is important to note that this
the disavowed, male, sexual object. would seem to start to extend Sedgwick’s
Where, though, does this leave our analysis of more historical and textual analysis of homo-
the relationship of homosexuality and masculin- sociality toward an understanding of more
ity? By way of concluding this section, I would contemporary and applied discussion develop-
like to consider the work of Bech as perhaps the ments concerning masculinity, yet Bech’s
most complete attempt to document the more analysis in the final instance is left hanging
contemporary nature of the relationship of mas- and inconclusive. Also implicit and problematic
culinity and homosexuality. In When Men Meet, here is Bech’s invocation of the increasing
Bech (1997) starts by critiquing social construc- globalization of gay sexuality, given the rising
tionism for its lack of explanatory power and significance of the Internet and international
then moves on to examine, pivotally, what he travel and of sexual practices generally that
calls absent homosexuality. This is, in essence, a not only informs the development of the AIDS
reworking of Sedgwick’s notion of “homosocial- epidemic and sex trafficking but also, according
ity,” in which masculinity is seen quite literally to Dennis Altman (2001) at least, begins to
to depend on both the permanent presence and, scramble the very certainties of gay identity,
both theoretically and politically, as gay identity something that was not neutral and that also had
becomes at once both globalized and localized. an impact on such phenomena as institutional
To summarize, these applications of post- power relations and violent crime. Some of this
structural theory have reworked understandings impact at least is potentially lost in overdivorcing
of the relationship of homosexuality and mas- the analysis of masculinity from men.
culinity, in terms of sexuality and gender, as Third, although masculinity remains a social
follows: Successful heterosexual and mascu- construct that has no necessary, in the intrinsic
line identification psychologically and socially sense, connection with men, it is clearly incor-
depend on the repudiation of both femininity rect to state that is has no relationship to men
and homosexuality. Gay male sexuality offers a at all or that this is not qualitatively different
potentially, though not necessarily, radical chal- from its relationship to women. Furthermore,
lenge to both psychological and social sexual this also may undermine the sense in which
and gender order. In addition, this necessary masculinity itself can become problematized for
repudiation poses a series of difficulties for gay both men and women. To put it more simply, if
men themselves, whose relationships and even men and masculinity are not one and the same,
losses are not avowed or recognized and whose then they may remain related, and in separating
desires have the potential to work against them them, one should not disconnect them entirely.
as much as with them. In sum, the relationship More important, the tendency to separate
between desire and identification, which I have analysis and theory from questions of practice
argued to be at the core of the problem raised and politics also has the tendency to lead, poten-
by identity politics, is both explored and expli- tially at least, to a neglect of the fundamental
cated beyond a sense of simple contradiction ways in which patriarchy and masculinity are
to become something which, in a sense, cuts reinforced and perpetuated through institutions
both ways. In this scheme of things, then, gay both formal and informal and, perhaps most
men are neither more nor less “masculine” or important of all, the resistance to change that
misogynist than straight men but located in an may come from individual men and women.
awkward, and perhaps even dialectical, relation What this begins to expose in more directly
to gender both psychologically and socially. political terms is a problem of both relativism
Having said this, I should further note that and liberalism. Masculinity, although clearly a
a number of significant difficulties remain both lot more “open” than once conceived, is, equally
theoretically and politically. Perhaps the most clearly, also not an entirely mutable pheno-
fundamental of these is the relationship of such menon that is “up for grabs”; some forms of
psychoanalytically or textually centered theory to “performing” and “doing” masculinity remain
social or even cultural practice. Although some more, or less, problematic than others.
extrapolation of social and cultural implications Where, though, does this leave us in relation
from such work is perhaps easily accepted as to gay men and gay masculinities? Poststructural
simply common sense, wider aspects and ques- theory would seem to offer more theoretical
tions, including the issue of social and cultural solutions to the conundrums posed by identity
change, are in no way straightforwardly “read politics, yet it equally tends to elide discussion
off” from the use of psychoanalytic, literary, or of its applications and implications in practice.
textual analysis. Without wishing to imply any In sum, the difficulty remains more political.
form of return to positivism, the sense of distance Despite this, there seems little reason to presume
involved is often further reinforced through the that these questions could not be addressed
lack of empirically centered research or evidence more fully. More significantly, and perhaps
that might otherwise help to fill the gap exposed ironically, this seems to depend on undermining
between theory and practice. rather than reinforcing the sense of separation
A second and equally difficult problem con- that has developed between so-called old guard
cerns the question of values. Identity politics, identity politics and avant garde poststructural
for all its faults in setting up overly polarized or queer theory and politics (Seidman, 1995).
and often divisive contests, not only used but The continuing logic of social constructionism
rather developed, intentionally or not, a system is critical here, and the questions and the prob-
of value. In relation to our discussion here, mas- lems involved, if not necessarily the answers,
culinity became problematized in value terms as would seem to remain the same.
CONCLUSIONS: QUEERING THE PITCH? then, is the need to address far more than
previously an entirely different question of
At this final juncture, it is, I think, worth heterosexual men’s relationship to their hetero-
returning to some fundamental questions in sexuality, not just to their masculinity—for
relation to gay men. First and foremost, gay them to queer their own pitch.
men are not simply the same as other men,
for if they were, their gayness would neither
matter nor even register as significant. Clearly, NOTES
being gay does still matter, even within the
liberal and open spaces of advanced Western 1. I refer here to Quentin Crisp’s now legendary
industrial societies, let alone within the confines memoir-cum-novel The Naked Civil Servant (Crisp,
of conservatism, moralism, or fundamentalism 1968), later dramatized by the BBC and starring John
past or present. Second, gay men remain a Hurt in the title role, and Stephan Elliott’s 1994
stigmatized and marginalized minority whose movie The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the
gains, and these are still significant, are per- Desert, each of which in different ways celebrated
ilous. There is as yet nothing approaching effeminate and cross-dressing homosexuality with a
full legal or statutory equality for gay men or vengeance.
2. See Freud, 1977.
lesbians and very little antidiscriminatory legis-
3. Carpenter campaigned vigorously for legal
lation or protection. As such, their progress reform following the criminalization of homosexual
and position remain very open to regression acts, if not homosexuality itself, under the Labouchère
and undermining on many fronts. The AIDS Amendment of 1885 in the United Kingdom; how-
epidemic exemplifies this in many ways and ever, the subsequent trial and imprisonment of Oscar
exposes not only the resistance of gay and les- Wilde achieved an unprecedented level of visibility
bian communities but also their vulnerability. for homosexuality and perhaps some wider ambiva-
Third, gay men remain men, with all the perhaps lence, if not sympathy, toward it. The more-or-less
increasingly precarious privileges and benefits simultaneous categorization and criminalization of
that maleness bestows on them. Although these homosexuality, coupled with the rapid formation
may be both perilous and uncertain, gay men of movements toward reform, constitute a conjunction
of factors studied most fully in the work of Jeffrey
remain related to masculinity, and they cannot
Weeks (1977).
and, indeed, should not, be understood as sepa- 4. It is interesting that this phrase comes from the
rated from it. Fourth, and more theoretically, it poem Two Loves by Oscar Wilde’s lover, Lord Alfred
remains important to recognize the contingent Douglas, yet gained a Wildean flourish when Wilde
and changing nature of, as well as the diversity later quoted it in his own defense at his trial.
and plurality of, masculinities and homosexual- 5. The Stonewall Inn, a gay pub in New York,
ities. A fifth and utterly fundamental point, then, was subject to frequent raids by the police in the
is that gay men do not constitute a homogenous 1960s. On June 27, 1969, the clientele fought back,
group, or even a unified category, and their and so, legend has it, gay liberation began.
position varies very significantly according to
such factors as social class, geography, race,
or ethnicity, let alone individual politics, prac- REFERENCES
tices, or preferences. Whether or not, then,
gay masculinity queers the pitch of sexual Adam, B. D. (1987). The rise of a gay and lesbian
politics depends on a whole host of other micro movement. Boston, MA: Twayne.
and macro individual and social factors. Altman, D. (1971). Homosexual: Oppression and lib-
Consequently, there is no easy answer, and eration. Sydney, Australia: Angus & Robertson.
accusations of gay male misogyny are no more, Altman, D. (1986). AIDS and the new puritanism.
and no less, valid than endorsements of the London: Pluto Press.
Altman, D. (2001). Global sex. Chicago: University
gay male relationship to more feminist agendas.
of Chicago Press.
An added difficulty here is that the endless Bech, H. (1997). When men meet: Homosexuality and
questioning and indeed “queering” of gay men’s modernity. Cambridge, England: Polity.
pitch is somewhat misplaced on an oppressed Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological
minority and is, perhaps, even a form of hetero- androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
sexism in itself. What does remain more certain, Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bersani, L. (1988). Is the rectum a grave? In D. Crimp Edwards, T. (1990) Beyond Sex And Gender:
(Ed.), AIDS: Cultural analysis, cultural activism. Masculinity, Homosexuality And Social Theory.
London: MIT Press. In J. Hearn & d. Morgan (eds.) Men, Mascu-
Bersani, L. (1995). Loving men. In M. Berger, linities And Social Theory, London: Unwin
B. Wallis, & S. Watson (Eds.), Constructing Hyman.
masculinity. London: Routledge. Edwards, T. (1992). The AIDS dialectics: Aware-
Blachford, G. (1981). Male dominance and the gay ness, identity, death and sexual politics. In
world. In K. Plummer (Ed.), The making of the K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern homosexualities:
modern homosexual. London: Hutchinson. Fragments of lesbian and gay experience.
Bly, R. (1990). Iron John. New York: Addison- London: Routledge.
Wesley. Edwards, T. (1994). Erotic and politics: Gay male
Bray, A. (1982). Homosexuality in Renaissance sexuality, masculinity and feminism. London:
England. London: Gay Men’s Press. Routledge.
Bristow, J. (1989). Homophobia/misogyny: Sexual Edwards, T. (1998). Queer fears: Against the cultural
fears, sexual definitions. In S. Shepherd & turn. Sexualities, 1(4), 471-484.
M. Wallis (Eds.), Coming on strong: Gay politics Eglinton, J. Z. (1971). Greek love. London: Neville
and culture. London: Unwin Hyman. Spearman.
Bristow, J., & Wilson, A. (Eds.). (1993). Activating Epstein, S. (1987). Gay politics, ethnic identity: The
theory: Lesbian, gay, bisexual politics. London: limits of social constructionism. Socialist
Lawrence & Wishart. Review, 17, 9-54.
Bronski, M. (1984). Culture clash: The making of a Epstein, S. (1988). Nature vs. nurture and the politics
gay sensibility. Boston, MA: South End Press. of AIDS organising. Out/Look, 1(3), 46-50.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the Evans, D. (1993). Sexual citizenship: The material
subversion of identity. London: Routledge. construction of sexualities. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discur- Faderman, L. (1981). Surpassing the love of men:
sive limits of sex. London: Routledge. Romantic friendship and love between women
Butler, J. (1995). Melancholy gender/refused identi- from the renaissance to the present. New York:
fication. In M. Berger, B. Wallis, & S. Watson William Morrow.
(Eds.), Constructing masculinity. London: Faraday, A. (1981). Liberating lesbian research. In
Routledge. K. Plummer (Ed.), The making of the modern
Califia, P. (1994). Public sex: The culture of radical homosexual. London: Hutchinson.
sex. San Francisco: Cleiss Press. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. Vol. 1:
Caplan, P. (Ed.). (1987). The cultural construction of An introduction. London: Penguin.
sexuality. London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1984a). The history of sexuality. Vol. 2:
Carpenter, E. (1908). The intermediate sex: A study of The use of pleasure. London: Penguin.
some transitional types of men. London: Foucault, M. (1984b) The history of sexuality. Vol. 3:
Mitchell Kennedy. The care of the self. London: Penguin.
Carrigan, T., Connell, R. W., & Lee, J. (1985). Freud, S. (1977). On sexuality: Three essays on the
Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory theory of sexuality and other works. London:
and Society, 14, 551-604. Penguin.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Gough, J. (1989). Theories of sexual identity and
Cambridge, England: Polity. the masculinization of the gay man. In
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, S. Shepherd & M. Wallis (Eds.), Coming on
England: Polity. strong: Gay politics and culture. London:
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social Unwin Hyman.
order. New York: Scribner’s. Grace, D. (1993). Dynamics of desire. In V. Harwood,
Crimp, D. (Ed.). (1988). AIDS: Cultural analysis, D. Oswell, K. Parkinson, & A. Ward (Eds.),
cultural activism. London: MIT Press. Pleasure principles: Politics, sexuality, and
Crisp, Q. (1968). The naked civil servant. Glasgow: ethics. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Collins. Greenberg, D. F. (1988). The construction of
Delph, E. W. (1978). The silent community: Public homosexuality. London: University of Chicago
sexual encounters. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Press.
Dowsett, G. (1987). Queer fears and gay examples. Harwood, V., et al. (Eds.). (1993). Pleasure princi-
New Internationalist, 175, 10-12. ples: Politics, sexuality, and ethics. London:
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. Lawrence & Wishart.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Hearn, J. (1987). The gender of oppression: Men,
Dworkin, A. (1981). Pornography: On men possess- masculinity and the critique of Marxism.
ing women. London: Women’s Press. Brighton, England: Wheatsheaf.
Hocquenghem, G. (1972). Homosexual desire. Person, E. S. (1980). Sexuality as the mainstay of

London: Allison & Busby. identity: Psychoanalytic perspectives. Signs,
Jay, K., & Young, A. (1979). The gay report. 5(4), 605-630.
New York: Summit Books. Plummer, K. (Ed.). (1981), The making of the modern
Jeffreys, S. (1990). Anticlimax: Feminist perspectives homosexual. London: Hutchinson.
on the sexual revolution. London: Women’s Press. Plummer, K. (1984). Telling sexual stories: Power,
Katz, J. (1976). Gay American history: Lesbians and change and social worlds. London: Routledge.
gay men in the USA. New York: Thomas Pollack, M. (1985). Male homosexuality, or happi-
Y. Crowell. ness in the ghetto. In P. Aries & A. Bejin (Eds.),
Kimmel, M. S. (Ed.). (1987). Changing men: New Western sexuality: Practice and precept in past
directions in research on men and masculinity. and present times. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
London: Sage. Rechy, J. (1977). The sexual outlaw: A documentary.
Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: London: W. H. Allen.
Fear, shame, and silence in the construction Rich, A. (1984). Compulsory heterosexuality and
of gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kauffman lesbian existence. In A. B. Snitow, C. Stansell,
(Eds.), Theorizing masculinities. London: Sage. & S. Thompson (Eds.), Desire: The politics of
Kinsey, A. F., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. sexuality. London: Virago.
(1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Riley, D. (1988). Am I that name? Feminism and
Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders. the category of “women” in history. New York:
Kirkham, P., & Thumin, J. (Eds.). (1993). You Macmillan.
Tarzan: Masculinity, movies and men. London: Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical
Lawrence & Wishart. theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance
Kramer, L. (1978). Faggots. London: Methuen. (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female
Kramer, L. (1983). 1,112 and counting. New York sexuality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Native, 59, 14-27. Sedgwick, E. K. (1985). Between men: English liter-
Kramer, L. (1986). The normal heart. London: ature and male homosexual desire. New York:
Methuen. Columbia Press.
Lee, J. A. (1978). Getting sex: A new approach— Sedgwick, E. K. (1990) Epistemology of the closet.
more fun, less guilt. Toronto, Ontario: Mission Berkeley: University of California Press.
Book. Sedgwick, E. K. (1995). “Gosh, Boy George, you
Le Vay, S. (1993). The sexual brain. London: MIT must be awfully secure in your masculinity!” In
Press. M. Berger, B. Wallis, & S. Watson (Eds.),
MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Constructing masculinity. London: Routledge.
Discourses on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Segal, L. (1990). Slow motion: Changing masculini-
Harvard University Press. ties, changing men. London: Virago.
Mead, M. (1977). Sex and temperament in three Segal, L., & McIntosh, M. (Eds.). (1992). Sex
primitive societies. London: Routledge & Kegan exposed: Sexuality and the pornography debate.
Paul. London: Virago.
Mercer, K., & Julien, I. (1988). Race, sexual Seidler, V. J. (1994). Unreasonable men: Masculinity
politics and black masculinity: A dossier. In and social theory. London: Routledge.
R. Chapman & J. Rutherford (Eds.), Male Seidman, S. (1995). Deconstructing queer theory, or
order: Unwrapping masculinity. London: the under-theorization of the social and ethical. In
Lawrence & Wishart. L. Nicholson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Social post-
Mieli, M. (1980). Homosexuality and liberation: modernism: Beyond identity politics. Cambridge,
Elements of a gay critique. London: Gay Men’s England: Cambridge University Press.
Press. Shiers, J. (1980). Two steps forward, one step back.
Miles, M. (2003). Ghetto culture. Axm, 6(1), 32-34. In Gay Left Collective (Ed.), Homosexuality:
Morgan, D. (1992). Discovering men. London: Power and politics. London: Allison & Busby.
Routledge. Shilts, R. (1987). And the band played on: Politics,
Nicholson, L., & Seidman, S. (Eds.). (1995). Social people, and the AIDS epidemic. London:
postmodernism: Beyond identity politics. Penguin.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Simpson, M. (1994). Male impersonators: Men per-
Press. forming masculinity. London: Routledge.
Owens, C. (1987). Outlaws: Gay men in feminism. In Spada, J. (1979). The Spada report. New York:
A. Jardine & P. Smith (Eds.), Men in feminism. Signet.
London: Methuen. Stanley, L. (1982). Male needs: The problems
Patton, C. (1985). Sex and germs: The politics of and problems of working with gay men.
AIDS. London: South End Press. In S. Friedman & E. Sarah (Eds.), On the
problem of men: Two feminist conferences. Weeks, J. (1977). Coming out: Homosexual politics
London: Women’s Press. in Britain from the nineteenth century to the
Stanley, L. (1984). Whales and minnows: Some sexual present. London: Quartet.
theorists and their followers and how they con- Weeks, J. (1981). Sex, politics and society: The regula-
tribute to making feminism invisible. Women’s tion of sexuality since 1800. London: Longman.
Studies International Forum, 7(1), 53-62. Weeks, J. (1985). Sexuality and its discontents:
Stoltenberg, J. (1989). Refusing to be a man: Essays Meanings, myths and modern sexualities.
on sex and justice. Portland, OR: Breitenbush London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Books. Wellings, K., Field, J., Johnson, A. M., &
Vance, C. S. (Ed.). (1984). Pleasure and danger: Wadsworth, J. (1994). Sexual behaviour in
Exploring female sexuality. London: Routledge & Britain: The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes
Kegan Paul. and Lifestyles. London: Penguin.
Walter, A. (Ed.). (1980). Come together: The years of White, E. (1986). States of desire: Travels in gay
gay liberation (1970-73). London: Gay Men’s America. London: Picador.
Press. Wittig, M. (1997). One is not born a woman. In
Watney, S. (1987). Policing desire: Pornography, S. Kemp & J. Squires (Eds.), Feminisms.
AIDS and the media. London: Comedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kimmel Part I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kimmel Part I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FM-Kimmel.

qxd 3/5/2004 8:51 PM Page i

Copyright © 2004 by Sage Publications, Inc.

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

PART I. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 13

PART II. GLOBAL AND REGIONAL PATTERNS 69

PART III. STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES 163

13. Masculinities in Education 213

PART IV. BODIES, SELVES, DISCOURSES 311

PART V. POLITICS 395

2 • HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON MEN AND MASCULINITIES

4 • HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON MEN AND MASCULINITIES

6 • HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON MEN AND MASCULINITIES

We explore the construction of masculinities of gender, as well as the relationships between

8 • HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON MEN AND MASCULINITIES

10 • HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON MEN AND MASCULINITIES

12 • HANDBOOK OF STUDIES ON MEN AND MASCULINITIES

ØYSTEIN GULLVÅG HOLTER

Social Theories for Research • 17

Social Theories for Research • 19

Social Theories for Research • 21

Social Theories for Research • 23

Social Theories for Research • 25

femininity” in an interplay with patriarchal an informal or latent “brotherhood.” The main

Social Theories for Research • 27

Social Theories for Research • 29

Social Theories for Research • 31

REFERENCES management. Gender, Work and Organization,

Social Theories for Research • 33

JUDITH KEGAN GARDINER

Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory • 37

Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory • 39

Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory • 41

Unlike MacKinnon’s and other radical than as stable characteristics of individual

Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory • 43

Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory • 45

investigates the interconnections among huge In contrast, some poststructuralist feminist

Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory • 47

REFERENCES Chodorow, N. J. (1978). The reproduction of

Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory • 49

Hocquenghem, G. (1972). Homosexual desire. Person, E. S. (1980). Sexuality as the mainstay of

You might also like