Perspective HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY Rethinking the Concept R.W.CONNELL University of Sydney,Australia JAMES W.MESSERSCHMIDT University of Southern Maine The concept of hegemonic masculiniry has influenced gender studies across many academic fields but has also attracted serious criticism.The authors trace the origin of the concept in a convergence of ideas in the early 1980s and map the ways it was applied when research on men and masculinities expanded. Evaluating the principal criticisms,the authors defend the underlying concept of masculinity,which in most research use is neither reified nor essentialist.However,the criticism of trait models of gender and rigid typologies is sound.The treatment of the subject in research on hegemonic masculinity can be improved with the aid of recent psychological models,although limits to discursive flexibiliry must be recognized.The concept of hegemonic masculinity does not equate to a model of social reproduction;we need to recognize social struggles in which subordinated masculinities influence dominant forms. Finally,the authors review what has been confirmed from early formulations (the idea of multiple mas- culinities,the concept of hegemony,and the emphasis on change)and what needs to be discarded (one- dimensional treatment of hierarchy and trait conceptions of gender).The authors suggest reformulation of the concept in four areas:a more complex model of gender hierarchy,emphasizing the agency of women;explicit recognition of the geography of masculinities,emphasizing the interplay among local, regional,and global levels;a more specific treatment of embodiment in contexts of privilege and power; and a stronger emphasis on the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity,recognizing internal contradictions and the possibilities of movement toward gender democracy. Keywords:masculinity:hegemony:gender:social power:agency:embodiment: globalization The concept of hegemonic masculinity,formulated two decades ago,has consid- erably influenced recent thinking about men,gender,and social hierarchy.It has provided a link between the growing research field of men's studies(also known as AUTHORS'NOTE:The authors are grateful to the journal's reviewers,Pat Martin,Mike Messner.and Kirsten Dellinger.for extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.We also extend our thanks to John Fisher,whose patient and inventive searching of bibliographical databases provided essential support for this article. GENDER SOCIETY.Vol.19 No.6.December 2005 829-859 D0L:10.11770891243205278639 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society 829 o2osS6eoege8rmee3g"3eaR4T0mt6o2ECTElB。crmom28aGC7buton
10.1177/0891243205278639 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY Perspective HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY Rethinking the Concept R. W. CONNELL University of Sydney, Australia JAMES W. MESSERSCHMIDT University of Southern Maine The concept of hegemonic masculinity has influenced gender studies across many academic fields but has also attracted serious criticism. The authors trace the origin of the concept in a convergence of ideas in the early 1980s and map the ways it was applied when research on men and masculinities expanded. Evaluating the principal criticisms, the authors defend the underlying concept of masculinity, which in most research use is neither reified nor essentialist. However, the criticism of trait models of gender and rigid typologies is sound. The treatment of the subject in research on hegemonic masculinity can be improved with the aid of recent psychological models, although limits to discursive flexibility must be recognized. The concept of hegemonic masculinity does not equate to a model of social reproduction; we need to recognize social struggles in which subordinated masculinities influence dominant forms. Finally, the authors review what has been confirmed from early formulations (the idea of multiple masculinities, the concept of hegemony, and the emphasis on change) and what needs to be discarded (onedimensional treatment of hierarchy and trait conceptions of gender). The authors suggest reformulation of the concept in four areas: a more complex model of gender hierarchy, emphasizing the agency of women; explicit recognition of the geography of masculinities, emphasizing the interplay among local, regional, and global levels; a more specific treatment of embodiment in contexts of privilege and power; and a stronger emphasis on the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity, recognizing internal contradictions and the possibilities of movement toward gender democracy. Keywords: masculinity; hegemony; gender; social power; agency; embodiment; globalization The concept of hegemonic masculinity, formulated two decades ago, has considerably influenced recent thinking about men, gender, and social hierarchy. It has provided a link between the growing research field of men’s studies (also known as 829 Y AUTHORS’NOTE: The authors are grateful to the journal’s reviewers, Pat Martin, Mike Messner, and Kirsten Dellinger, for extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. We also extend our thanks to John Fisher, whose patient and inventive searching of bibliographical databases provided essential support for this article. GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 19 No. 6, December 2005 829-859 DOI: 10.1177/0891243205278639 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
830 GENDER SOCIETY/December 2005 masculinity studies and critical studies of men),popular anxieties about men and boys,feminist accounts of patriarchy,and sociological models of gender.It has found uses in applied fields ranging from education and antiviolence work to health and counseling. Database searches reveal more than 200 papers that use the exact term"hege- monic masculinity"in their titles or abstracts.Papers that use a variant,or refer to "hegemonic masculinity"in the text,run to many hundreds.Continuing interest is shown by conferences.In early May 2005,a conference,"Hegemonic Masculini- ties and International Politics,was held at the University of Manchester,England; in 2004,an interdisciplinary conference in Stuttgart was devoted to the topic "Hegemoniale Mannlichkeiten"(Dinges,Ruindal,and Bauer 2004). The concept has also attracted serious criticism from several directions:socio- logical,psychological,poststructuralist,and materialist (e.g.,Demetriou 2001; Wetherell and Edley 1999).Outside the academic world,it has been attacked as- to quote a recent Internet backlash posting-"an invention of New Age psycholo- gists"determined to prove that men are too macho. This is a contested concept.Yet the issues it names are very much at stake in con- temporary struggles about power and political leadership,public and private vio- lence,and changes in families and sexuality.A comprehensive reexamination of the concept of hegemonic masculinity seems worthwhile.If the concept proves still useful,it must be reformulated in contemporary terms.We attempt both tasks in this article. ORIGIN,FORMULATION,AND APPLICATION Origin The concept of hegemonic masculinity was first proposed in reports from a field study of social inequality in Australian high schools (Kessler et al.1982):in a related conceptual discussion of the making of masculinities and the experience of men's bodies (Connell 1983);and in a debate over the role of men in Australian labor politics(Connell 1982).The high school project provided empirical evidence of multiple hierarchies-in gender as well as in class terms-interwoven with active projects of gender construction (Connell et al.1982). These beginnings were systematized in an article,"Towards a New Sociology of Masculinity"(Carrigan,Connell,and Lee 1985),which extensively critiqued the "male sex role"literature and proposed a model of multiple masculinities and power relations.In turn,this model was integrated into a systematic sociological theory of gender.The resulting six pages in Gender and Power (Connell 1987)on REPRINT REQUESTS:James W.Messerschmidt,Department of Criminology,P.O.Box 9300.Univer- sity of Southern Maine,Portland,ME 04107;e-mail:mschmidt@usm.maine.edu. o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T6066O2ECTBgarto1827bution
masculinity studies and critical studies of men), popular anxieties about men and boys, feminist accounts of patriarchy, and sociological models of gender. It has found uses in applied fields ranging from education and antiviolence work to health and counseling. Database searches reveal more than 200 papers that use the exact term “hegemonic masculinity” in their titles or abstracts. Papers that use a variant, or refer to “hegemonic masculinity” in the text, run to many hundreds. Continuing interest is shown by conferences. In early May 2005, a conference, “Hegemonic Masculinities and International Politics,” was held at the University of Manchester, England; in 2004, an interdisciplinary conference in Stuttgart was devoted to the topic “Hegemoniale Männlichkeiten” (Dinges, Ründal, and Bauer 2004). The concept has also attracted serious criticism from several directions: sociological, psychological, poststructuralist, and materialist (e.g., Demetriou 2001; Wetherell and Edley 1999). Outside the academic world, it has been attacked as— to quote a recent Internet backlash posting—“an invention of New Age psychologists” determined to prove that men are too macho. This is a contested concept. Yet the issues it names are very much at stake in contemporary struggles about power and political leadership, public and private violence, and changes in families and sexuality. A comprehensive reexamination of the concept of hegemonic masculinity seems worthwhile. If the concept proves still useful, it must be reformulated in contemporary terms. We attempt both tasks in this article. ORIGIN, FORMULATION, AND APPLICATION Origin The concept of hegemonic masculinity was first proposed in reports from a field study of social inequality in Australian high schools (Kessler et al. 1982); in a related conceptual discussion of the making of masculinities and the experience of men’s bodies (Connell 1983); and in a debate over the role of men in Australian labor politics (Connell 1982). The high school project provided empirical evidence of multiple hierarchies—in gender as well as in class terms—interwoven with active projects of gender construction (Connell et al. 1982). These beginnings were systematized in an article, “Towards a New Sociology of Masculinity” (Carrigan, Connell, and Lee 1985), which extensively critiqued the “male sex role” literature and proposed a model of multiple masculinities and power relations. In turn, this model was integrated into a systematic sociological theory of gender. The resulting six pages in Gender and Power (Connell 1987) on 830 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 REPRINT REQUESTS: James W. Messerschmidt, Department of Criminology, P.O. Box 9300, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME 04107; e-mail: mschmidt@usm.maine.edu. © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
Connell,Messerschmidt/HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 831 "hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity"became the most cited source for the concept of hegemonic masculinity. The concept articulated by the research groups in Australia represented a syn- thesis of ideas and evidence from apparently disparate sources.But the conver- gence of ideas was not accidental.Closely related issues were being addressed by researchers and activists in other countries too;the time was,in a sense,ripe for a synthesis of this kind. The most basic sources were feminist theories of patriarchy and the related debates over the role of men in transforming patriarchy (Goode 1982;Snodgrass 1977).Some men in the New Left had tried to organize in support of feminism,and the attempt had drawn attention to class differences in the expression of masculinity (Tolson 1977).Moreover,women of color-such as Maxine Baca Zinn (1982), Angela Davis (1983),and bell hooks(1984)-criticized the race bias that occurs when power is solely conceptualized in terms of sex difference,thus laying the groundwork for questioning any universalizing claims about the category of men. The Gramscian term"hegemony"was current at the time in attempts to under- stand the stabilization of class relations (Connell 1977).In the context of dual sys- tems theory(Eisenstein 1979),the idea was easily transferred to the parallel prob- lem about gender relations.This risked a significant misunderstanding.Gramsci's writing focuses on the dynamics of structural change involving the mobilization and demobilization of whole classes.Without a very clear focus on this issue of his- torical change,the idea of hegemony would be reduced to a simple model of cul- tural control.And in a great deal of the debate about gender,large-scale historical change is not in focus.Here is one of the sources of later difficulties with the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Even before the women's liberation movement,a literature in social psychology and sociology about the"male sex role"had recognized the social nature of mascu- linity and the possibilities of change in men's conduct(Hacker 1957).During the 1970s,there was an explosion of writing about"the male role,"sharply criticizing role norms as the source of oppressive behavior by men(Brannon 1976).Critical role theory provided the main conceptual basis for the early antisexist men's move- ment.The weaknesses of sex role theory were,however,increasingly recognized (Kimmel 1987:Pleck 1981).They included the blurring of behavior and norm,the homogenizing effect of the role concept,and its difficulties in accounting for power. Power and difference were,on the other hand,core concepts in the gay liberation movement,which developed a sophisticated analysis of the oppression of men as well as oppression by men(Altman 1972).Some theorists saw gay liberation as bound up with an assault on gender stereotypes(Mieli 1980).The idea of a hierar- chy of masculinities grew directly out of homosexual men's experience with vio- lence and prejudice from straight men.The concept of homophobia originated in the 1970s and was already being attributed to the conventional male role (Morin and Garfinkle 1978).Theorists developed increasingly sophisticated accounts of o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T60N66O2ECTBgartto1827bution
“hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity” became the most cited source for the concept of hegemonic masculinity. The concept articulated by the research groups in Australia represented a synthesis of ideas and evidence from apparently disparate sources. But the convergence of ideas was not accidental. Closely related issues were being addressed by researchers and activists in other countries too; the time was, in a sense, ripe for a synthesis of this kind. The most basic sources were feminist theories of patriarchy and the related debates over the role of men in transforming patriarchy (Goode 1982; Snodgrass 1977). Some men in the New Left had tried to organize in support of feminism, and the attempt had drawn attention to class differences in the expression of masculinity (Tolson 1977). Moreover, women of color—such as Maxine Baca Zinn (1982), Angela Davis (1983), and bell hooks (1984)—criticized the race bias that occurs when power is solely conceptualized in terms of sex difference, thus laying the groundwork for questioning any universalizing claims about the category of men. The Gramscian term “hegemony” was current at the time in attempts to understand the stabilization of class relations (Connell 1977). In the context of dual systems theory (Eisenstein 1979), the idea was easily transferred to the parallel problem about gender relations. This risked a significant misunderstanding. Gramsci’s writing focuses on the dynamics of structural change involving the mobilization and demobilization of whole classes. Without a very clear focus on this issue of historical change, the idea of hegemony would be reduced to a simple model of cultural control. And in a great deal of the debate about gender, large-scale historical change is not in focus. Here is one of the sources of later difficulties with the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Even before the women’s liberation movement, a literature in social psychology and sociology about the “male sex role” had recognized the social nature of masculinity and the possibilities of change in men’s conduct (Hacker 1957). During the 1970s, there was an explosion of writing about “the male role,” sharply criticizing role norms as the source of oppressive behavior by men (Brannon 1976). Critical role theory provided the main conceptual basis for the early antisexist men’s movement. The weaknesses of sex role theory were, however, increasingly recognized (Kimmel 1987; Pleck 1981). They included the blurring of behavior and norm, the homogenizing effect of the role concept, and its difficulties in accounting for power. Power and difference were, on the other hand, core concepts in the gay liberation movement, which developed a sophisticated analysis of the oppression of men as well as oppression by men (Altman 1972). Some theorists saw gay liberation as bound up with an assault on gender stereotypes (Mieli 1980). The idea of a hierarchy of masculinities grew directly out of homosexual men’s experience with violence and prejudice from straight men. The concept of homophobia originated in the 1970s and was already being attributed to the conventional male role (Morin and Garfinkle 1978). Theorists developed increasingly sophisticated accounts of Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 831 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
832 GENDER SOCIETY/December 2005 gay men's ambivalent relationships to patriarchy and conventional masculinity (Broker 1976:Plummer 1981). An equally important source was empirical social research.A growing body of field studies was documenting local gender hierarchies and local cultures of mascu- linity in schools (Willis 1977),in male-dominated workplaces (Cockburn 1983), and in village communities (Herdt 1981;Hunt 1980).These studies added the ethnographic realism that the sex-role literature lacked,confirmed the plurality of masculinities and the complexities of gender construction for men,and gave evi- dence of the active struggle for dominance that is implicit in the Gramscian concept of hegemony. Finally,the concept was influenced by psychoanalysis.Freud himself produced the first analytic biographies of men and,in the"Wolf Man"case history,showed how adult personality was a system under tension,with countercurrents repressed but not obliterated (Freud [1917]1955).The psychoanalyst Stoller(1968)popular- ized the concept of"gender identity"and mapped its variations in boys'develop- ment,most famously those leading to transsexualism.Others influenced by psychoanalysis picked up the themes of men's power,the range of possibilities in gender development,and the tension and contradiction within conventional mascu- linities (Friedman and Lerner 1986:Zaretsky 1975). Formulation What emerged from this matrix in the mid-1980s was an analogue,in gender terms,of power structure research in political sociology-focusing the spotlight on a dominant group.Hegemonic masculinity was understood as the pattern of prac- tice (i.e.,things done,not just a set of role expectations or an identity)that allowed men's dominance over women to continue Hegemonic masculinity was distinguished from other masculinities,especially subordinated masculinities.Hegemonic masculinity was not assumed to be normal in the statistical sense;only a minority of men might enact it.But it was certainly normative.It embodied the currently most honored way of being a man,it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it,and it ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men Men who received the benefits of patriarchy without enacting a strong version of masculine dominance could be regarded as showing a complicit masculinity.It was in relation to this group,and to compliance among heterosexual women,that the concept of hegemony was most powerful.Hegemony did not mean violence, although it could be supported by force;it meant ascendancy achieved through cul- ture,institutions,and persuasion These concepts were abstract rather than descriptive,defined in terms of the logic of a patriarchal gender system.They assumed that gender relations were his- torical,so gender hierarchies were subject to change.Hegemonic masculinities therefore came into existence in specific circumstances and were open to historical o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T6066O2ECTBgarto1827bution
gay men’s ambivalent relationships to patriarchy and conventional masculinity (Broker 1976; Plummer 1981). An equally important source was empirical social research. A growing body of field studies was documenting local gender hierarchies and local cultures of masculinity in schools (Willis 1977), in male-dominated workplaces (Cockburn 1983), and in village communities (Herdt 1981; Hunt 1980). These studies added the ethnographic realism that the sex-role literature lacked, confirmed the plurality of masculinities and the complexities of gender construction for men, and gave evidence of the active struggle for dominance that is implicit in the Gramscian concept of hegemony. Finally, the concept was influenced by psychoanalysis. Freud himself produced the first analytic biographies of men and, in the “Wolf Man” case history, showed how adult personality was a system under tension, with countercurrents repressed but not obliterated (Freud [1917] 1955). The psychoanalyst Stoller (1968) popularized the concept of “gender identity” and mapped its variations in boys’ development, most famously those leading to transsexualism. Others influenced by psychoanalysis picked up the themes of men’s power, the range of possibilities in gender development, and the tension and contradiction within conventional masculinities (Friedman and Lerner 1986; Zaretsky 1975). Formulation What emerged from this matrix in the mid-1980s was an analogue, in gender terms, of power structure research in political sociology—focusing the spotlight on a dominant group. Hegemonic masculinity was understood as the pattern of practice (i.e., things done, not just a set of role expectations or an identity) that allowed men’s dominance over women to continue. Hegemonic masculinity was distinguished from other masculinities, especially subordinated masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity was not assumed to be normal in the statistical sense; only a minority of men might enact it. But it was certainly normative. It embodied the currently most honored way of being a man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it, and it ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men. Men who received the benefits of patriarchy without enacting a strong version of masculine dominance could be regarded as showing a complicit masculinity. It was in relation to this group, and to compliance among heterosexual women, that the concept of hegemony was most powerful. Hegemony did not mean violence, although it could be supported by force; it meant ascendancy achieved through culture, institutions, and persuasion. These concepts were abstract rather than descriptive, defined in terms of the logic of a patriarchal gender system. They assumed that gender relations were historical, so gender hierarchies were subject to change. Hegemonic masculinities therefore came into existence in specific circumstances and were open to historical 832 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
Connell,Messerschmidt/HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 833 change.More precisely,there could be a struggle for hegemony,and older forms of masculinity might be displaced by new ones.This was the element of optimism in an otherwise rather bleak theory.It was perhaps possible that a more humane,less oppressive,means of being a man might become hegemonic,as part of a process leading toward an abolition of gender hierarchies. Application The concept of hegemonic masculinity,formulated in these terms,found prompt use.In the late 1980s and early 1990s,research on men and masculinity was being consolidated as an academic field,supported by a string of conferences,the publi- cation of textbooks(e.g.,Brod 1987)and several journals,and a rapidly expanding research agenda across the social sciences and humanities. The concept of hegemonic masculinity was used in education studies to under- stand the dynamics of classroom life,including patterns of resistance and bullying among boys.It was used to explore relations to the curriculum and the difficulties in gender-neutral pedagogy(Martino 1995).It was used to understand teacher strate- gies and teacher identities among such groups as physical education instructors (Skelton 1993). The concept also had influence in criminology.All data reflect that men and boys perpetrate more of the conventional crimes-and the more serious of these crimes-than do women and girls.Moreover,men hold a virtual monopoly on the commission of syndicated and white-collar forms of crime.The concept of hege- monic masculinity helped in theorizing the relationship among masculinities and among a variety of crimes(Messerschmidt 1993)and was also used in studies on specific crimes by boys and men,such as rape in Switzerland,murder in Australia, football"hooliganism"and white-collar crime in England,and assaultive violence in the United States (Newburn and Stanko 1994). The concept was also employed in studying media representations of men,for instance,the interplay of sports and war imagery (Jansen and Sabo 1994).Because the concept of hegemony helped to make sense of both the diversity and the selec- tiveness of images in mass media,media researchers began mapping the relations between representations of different masculinities (Hanke 1992).Commercial sports are a focus of media representations of masculinity,and the developing field of sports sociology also found significant use for the concept of hegemonic mascu- linity (Messner 1992).It was deployed in understanding the popularity of body- contact confrontational sports-which function as an endlessly renewed symbol of masculinity-and in understanding the violence and homophobia frequently found in sporting milieus(Messner and Sabo 1990). The social determinants of men's health had been raised earlier,but the sex role concept was too diffuse to be very useful.The concepts of multiple masculinities and hegemonic masculinity were increasingly used to understand men's health practices,such as"playing hurt"and risk-taking sexual behavior(Sabo and Gordon o2oosS6e68a8rmh8Pg532RT4T6066O2ECTBgarto1827bution
change. More precisely, there could be a struggle for hegemony, and older forms of masculinity might be displaced by new ones. This was the element of optimism in an otherwise rather bleak theory. It was perhaps possible that a more humane, less oppressive, means of being a man might become hegemonic, as part of a process leading toward an abolition of gender hierarchies. Application The concept of hegemonic masculinity, formulated in these terms, found prompt use. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, research on men and masculinity was being consolidated as an academic field, supported by a string of conferences, the publication of textbooks (e.g., Brod 1987) and several journals, and a rapidly expanding research agenda across the social sciences and humanities. The concept of hegemonic masculinity was used in education studies to understand the dynamics of classroom life, including patterns of resistance and bullying among boys. It was used to explore relations to the curriculum and the difficulties in gender-neutral pedagogy (Martino 1995). It was used to understand teacher strategies and teacher identities among such groups as physical education instructors (Skelton 1993). The concept also had influence in criminology. All data reflect that men and boys perpetrate more of the conventional crimes—and the more serious of these crimes—than do women and girls. Moreover, men hold a virtual monopoly on the commission of syndicated and white-collar forms of crime. The concept of hegemonic masculinity helped in theorizing the relationship among masculinities and among a variety of crimes (Messerschmidt 1993) and was also used in studies on specific crimes by boys and men, such as rape in Switzerland, murder in Australia, football “hooliganism” and white-collar crime in England, and assaultive violence in the United States (Newburn and Stanko 1994). The concept was also employed in studying media representations of men, for instance, the interplay of sports and war imagery (Jansen and Sabo 1994). Because the concept of hegemony helped to make sense of both the diversity and the selectiveness of images in mass media, media researchers began mapping the relations between representations of different masculinities (Hanke 1992). Commercial sports are a focus of media representations of masculinity, and the developing field of sports sociology also found significant use for the concept of hegemonic masculinity (Messner 1992). It was deployed in understanding the popularity of bodycontact confrontational sports—which function as an endlessly renewed symbol of masculinity—and in understanding the violence and homophobia frequently found in sporting milieus (Messner and Sabo 1990). The social determinants of men’s health had been raised earlier, but the sex role concept was too diffuse to be very useful. The concepts of multiple masculinities and hegemonic masculinity were increasingly used to understand men’s health practices, such as “playing hurt” and risk-taking sexual behavior (Sabo and Gordon Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 833 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
834 GENDER SOCIETY/December 2005 1995).The concepts of hegemonic and subordinated masculinities helped in under- standing not only men's exposure to risk but also men's difficulties in responding to disability and injury (Gerschick and Miller 1994). The concept of hegemonic masculinity also proved significant in organization studies,as the gendered character of bureaucracies and workplaces was increas- ingly recognized.Ethnographic and interview studies traced the institutionali- zation of hegemonic masculinities in specific organizations (Cheng 1996; Cockburn 1991)and their role in organizational decision making(Messerschmidt 1995).A particular focus of this research was the military,where specific patterns of hegemonic masculinity had been entrenched but were becoming increasingly problematic(Barrett 1996). Discussions of professional practice concerned with men and boys also found the concept helpful.Such practices include psychotherapy with men (Kupers 1993),violence-prevention programs for youth (Denborough 1996),and emo- tional education programs for boys(Salisbury and Jackson 1996). These are the primary fields where the concept of hegemonic masculinity was applied in the decade following its formulation.But there was also a wider range of application,for instance,in discussions of art(Belton 1995),in academic disci- plines such as geography(Berg 1994)and law(Thornton 1989),and in general dis- cussions of men's gender politics and relation to feminism (Segal 1990).We may reasonably conclude that the analysis of multiple masculinities and the concept of hegemonic masculinity served as a framework for much of the developing research effort on men and masculinity,replacing sex-role theory and categorical models of patriarchy. Eventually,the growing research effort tended to expand the concept itself.The picture was fleshed out in four main ways:by documenting the consequences and costs of hegemony,by uncovering mechanisms of hegemony,by showing greater diversity in masculinities,and by tracing changes in hegemonic masculinities. Regarding costs and consequences,research in criminology showed how partic- ular patterns of aggression were linked with hegemonic masculinity,not as a mechanical effect for which hegemonic masculinity was a cause,but through the pursuit of hegemony(Bufkin 1999;Messerschmidt 1997).Moreover,the pioneer- ing research of Messner(1992)showed that the enactment of hegemonic masculin- ity in professional sports,while reproducing steep hierarchies,also comes at con- siderable cost to the victors in terms of emotional and physical damage Research has been fruitful in revealing mechanisms of hegemony.Some are highly visible,such as the"pageantry"of masculinity in television sports broad- casts(Sabo and Jansen 1992)as well as the social mechanisms Roberts(1993)calls "censure"directed at subordinated groups-ranging from informal name calling by children to the criminalization of homosexual conduct.Yet other mechanisms of hegemony operate by invisibility,removing a dominant form of masculinity from the possibility of censure (Brown 1999).Consalvo (2003),examining media reporting of the Columbine High School massacre,notes how the issue of o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T60w66O2ECTBgarto1827bution
1995). The concepts of hegemonic and subordinated masculinities helped in understanding not only men’s exposure to risk but also men’s difficulties in responding to disability and injury (Gerschick and Miller 1994). The concept of hegemonic masculinity also proved significant in organization studies, as the gendered character of bureaucracies and workplaces was increasingly recognized. Ethnographic and interview studies traced the institutionalization of hegemonic masculinities in specific organizations (Cheng 1996; Cockburn 1991) and their role in organizational decision making (Messerschmidt 1995). A particular focus of this research was the military, where specific patterns of hegemonic masculinity had been entrenched but were becoming increasingly problematic (Barrett 1996). Discussions of professional practice concerned with men and boys also found the concept helpful. Such practices include psychotherapy with men (Kupers 1993), violence-prevention programs for youth (Denborough 1996), and emotional education programs for boys (Salisbury and Jackson 1996). These are the primary fields where the concept of hegemonic masculinity was applied in the decade following its formulation. But there was also a wider range of application, for instance, in discussions of art (Belton 1995), in academic disciplines such as geography (Berg 1994) and law (Thornton 1989), and in general discussions of men’s gender politics and relation to feminism (Segal 1990). We may reasonably conclude that the analysis of multiple masculinities and the concept of hegemonic masculinity served as a framework for much of the developing research effort on men and masculinity, replacing sex-role theory and categorical models of patriarchy. Eventually, the growing research effort tended to expand the concept itself. The picture was fleshed out in four main ways: by documenting the consequences and costs of hegemony, by uncovering mechanisms of hegemony, by showing greater diversity in masculinities, and by tracing changes in hegemonic masculinities. Regarding costs and consequences, research in criminology showed how particular patterns of aggression were linked with hegemonic masculinity, not as a mechanical effect for which hegemonic masculinity was a cause, but through the pursuit of hegemony (Bufkin 1999; Messerschmidt 1997). Moreover, the pioneering research of Messner (1992) showed that the enactment of hegemonic masculinity in professional sports, while reproducing steep hierarchies, also comes at considerable cost to the victors in terms of emotional and physical damage. Research has been fruitful in revealing mechanisms of hegemony. Some are highly visible, such as the “pageantry” of masculinity in television sports broadcasts (Sabo and Jansen 1992) as well as the social mechanisms Roberts (1993) calls “censure” directed at subordinated groups—ranging from informal name calling by children to the criminalization of homosexual conduct. Yet other mechanisms of hegemony operate by invisibility, removing a dominant form of masculinity from the possibility of censure (Brown 1999). Consalvo (2003), examining media reporting of the Columbine High School massacre, notes how the issue of 834 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
Connell,Messerschmidt/HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 835 masculinity was withdrawn from scrutiny,leaving the media with no way of representing the shooters except as"monsters." International research has strongly confirmed the initial insight that gender orders construct multiple masculinities.Valdes and Olavarria (1998)show that even in a culturally homogeneous country such as Chile,there is no unitary mascu- linity,since patterns vary by class and generation.In another famously homoge- neous country,Japan,Ishii-Kuntz(2003)traces the"emergence of diverse mascu- linities"in recent social history,with changes in child care practices a key development.Diversity of masculinities is also found in particular institutions, such as the military (Higate 2003). Gutmann(1996),in the most beautifully observed modern ethnography of mas- culinity,studied a case where there is a well-defined public masculine identity- Mexican"machismo."Gutmann shows how the imagery of machismo developed historically and was interwoven with the development of Mexican nationalism, masking enormous complexity in the actual lives of Mexican men.Gutmann teases out four patterns of masculinity in the working-class urban settlement he studies, insisting that even these four are crosscut by other social divisions and are constantly renegotiated in everyday life. Finally,a considerable body of research shows that masculinities are not simply different but also subject to change.Challenges to hegemony are common,and so are adjustments in the face of these challenges.Morrell(1998)assembles the evi- dence about gender transformations in southern Africa associated with the end of Apartheid,a system of segregated and competing patriarchies.Ferguson(2001) traces the decline of long-standing ideals of masculinity in Ireland-the celibate priest and the hardworking family man-and their replacement by more modern- ized and market-oriented models.Dasgupta(2000)traces tensions in the Japanese "salaryman"model of masculinity,especially after the"bubble economy"of the 1980s:A cultural figure of the"salaryman escaping"has appeared.Taga(2003) documents diverse responses to change among young middle-class men in Japan, including new options for domestic partnership with women.Meuser(2003)traces generational change in Germany,partly driven by men's responses to changes among women.Many (although not all)young men,now expecting women to reject patriarchal social relations,are crafting a"pragmatic egalitarianism"of their own.Morris and Evans(2001),studying images of rural masculinity and feminin- ity in Britain,finds a slower pace of change but an increasing subtlety and fragmentation in the representation of hegemonic masculinity. From the mid-1980s to the early 2000s,the concept of hegemonic masculinity thus passed from a conceptual model with a fairly narrow empirical base to a widely used framework for research and debate about men and masculinities.The concept was applied in diverse cultural contexts and to a considerable range of practical issues.It is not surprising.then,that the concept has attracted criticism.and to this we now turn. o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T60N66O2EnCTBgartto1827bution
masculinity was withdrawn from scrutiny, leaving the media with no way of representing the shooters except as “monsters.” International research has strongly confirmed the initial insight that gender orders construct multiple masculinities. Valdés and Olavarría (1998) show that even in a culturally homogeneous country such as Chile, there is no unitary masculinity, since patterns vary by class and generation. In another famously homogeneous country, Japan, Ishii-Kuntz (2003) traces the “emergence of diverse masculinities” in recent social history, with changes in child care practices a key development. Diversity of masculinities is also found in particular institutions, such as the military (Higate 2003). Gutmann (1996), in the most beautifully observed modern ethnography of masculinity, studied a case where there is a well-defined public masculine identity— Mexican “machismo.” Gutmann shows how the imagery of machismo developed historically and was interwoven with the development of Mexican nationalism, masking enormous complexity in the actual lives of Mexican men. Gutmann teases out four patterns of masculinity in the working-class urban settlement he studies, insisting that even these four are crosscut by other social divisions and are constantly renegotiated in everyday life. Finally, a considerable body of research shows that masculinities are not simply different but also subject to change. Challenges to hegemony are common, and so are adjustments in the face of these challenges. Morrell (1998) assembles the evidence about gender transformations in southern Africa associated with the end of Apartheid, a system of segregated and competing patriarchies. Ferguson (2001) traces the decline of long-standing ideals of masculinity in Ireland—the celibate priest and the hardworking family man—and their replacement by more modernized and market-oriented models. Dasgupta (2000) traces tensions in the Japanese “salaryman” model of masculinity, especially after the “bubble economy” of the 1980s: A cultural figure of the “salaryman escaping” has appeared. Taga (2003) documents diverse responses to change among young middle-class men in Japan, including new options for domestic partnership with women. Meuser (2003) traces generational change in Germany, partly driven by men’s responses to changes among women. Many (although not all) young men, now expecting women to reject patriarchal social relations, are crafting a “pragmatic egalitarianism” of their own. Morris and Evans (2001), studying images of rural masculinity and femininity in Britain, finds a slower pace of change but an increasing subtlety and fragmentation in the representation of hegemonic masculinity. From the mid-1980s to the early 2000s, the concept of hegemonic masculinity thus passed from a conceptual model with a fairly narrow empirical base to a widely used framework for research and debate about men and masculinities. The concept was applied in diverse cultural contexts and to a considerable range of practical issues. It is not surprising, then, that the concept has attracted criticism, and to this we now turn. Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 835 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
836 GENDER SOCIETY/December 2005 CRITIQUES Five principal criticisms have been advanced since debate about the concept began in the early 1990s.In this section,we evaluate each criticism in turn,hoping to discover what is worth retaining from the original conception of hegemonic mas- culinity and what now needs reformulating. The Underlying Concept of Masculinity That the underlying concept of masculinity is flawed has been argued from two different points of view,realist and poststructuralist.To Collinson and Hearn (1994)and Hearn (1996.2004),the concept of masculinity is blurred,is uncertain in its meaning,and tends to deemphasize issues of power and domination.It is ulti- mately unnecessary to the task of understanding and contesting the power of men. The concept of multiple masculinities tends to produce a static typology. To Petersen(1998,2003),Collier(1998),and MacInnes(1998),the concept of masculinity is flawed because it essentializes the character of men or imposes a false unity on a fluid and contradictory reality.Some versions of this argument criti- cize masculinity research because it has not adopted a specific poststructuralist tool kit-which would,for instance,emphasize the discursive construction of identities (Whitehead 2002).The concept of masculinity is criticized for being framed within a heteronormative conception of gender that essentializes male-female difference and ignores difference and exclusion within the gender categories.The concept of masculinity is said to rest logically on a dichotomization of sex(biological)versus gender(cultural)and thus marginalizes or naturalizes the body. No responsible mind can deny that in the huge literature concerned with mascu- linity,there is a great deal of conceptual confusion as well as a great deal of essentializing.This certainly is common in accounts of masculinity in pop psychol- ogy,in the mythopoetic men's movement,and in journalistic interpretations of bio- logical sex-difference research.It is another matter,however.to claim that the con- cept of masculinity must be confused or essentialist or even that researchers'use of the concept typically is. We would argue that social science and humanities research on masculinities has flourished during the past 20 years precisely because the underlying concept employed is not reified or essentialist.The notion that the concept of masculinity essentializes or homogenizes is quite difficult to reconcile with the tremendous multiplicity of social constructions that ethnographers and historians have docu- mented with the aid of this concept(Connell 2003).Even further removed from essentialism is the fact that researchers have explored masculinities enacted by peo- ple with female bodies (Halberstam 1998;Messerschmidt 2004).Masculinity is not a fixed entity embedded in the body or personality traits of individuals.Mascu- linities are configurations of practice that are accomplished in social action and, therefore,can differ according to the gender relations in a particular social setting. o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T6066O2ECTBgarto1827bution
CRITIQUES Five principal criticisms have been advanced since debate about the concept began in the early 1990s. In this section, we evaluate each criticism in turn, hoping to discover what is worth retaining from the original conception of hegemonic masculinity and what now needs reformulating. The Underlying Concept of Masculinity That the underlying concept of masculinity is flawed has been argued from two different points of view, realist and poststructuralist. To Collinson and Hearn (1994) and Hearn (1996, 2004), the concept of masculinity is blurred, is uncertain in its meaning, and tends to deemphasize issues of power and domination. It is ultimately unnecessary to the task of understanding and contesting the power of men. The concept of multiple masculinities tends to produce a static typology. To Petersen (1998, 2003), Collier (1998), and MacInnes (1998), the concept of masculinity is flawed because it essentializes the character of men or imposes a false unity on a fluid and contradictory reality. Some versions of this argument criticize masculinity research because it has not adopted a specific poststructuralist tool kit—which would, for instance, emphasize the discursive construction of identities (Whitehead 2002). The concept of masculinity is criticized for being framed within a heteronormative conception of gender that essentializes male-female difference and ignores difference and exclusion within the gender categories. The concept of masculinity is said to rest logically on a dichotomization of sex (biological) versus gender (cultural) and thus marginalizes or naturalizes the body. No responsible mind can deny that in the huge literature concerned with masculinity, there is a great deal of conceptual confusion as well as a great deal of essentializing. This certainly is common in accounts of masculinity in pop psychology, in the mythopoetic men’s movement, and in journalistic interpretations of biological sex-difference research. It is another matter, however, to claim that the concept of masculinity must be confused or essentialist or even that researchers’use of the concept typically is. We would argue that social science and humanities research on masculinities has flourished during the past 20 years precisely because the underlying concept employed is not reified or essentialist. The notion that the concept of masculinity essentializes or homogenizes is quite difficult to reconcile with the tremendous multiplicity of social constructions that ethnographers and historians have documented with the aid of this concept (Connell 2003). Even further removed from essentialism is the fact that researchers have explored masculinities enacted by people with female bodies (Halberstam 1998; Messerschmidt 2004). Masculinity is not a fixed entity embedded in the body or personality traits of individuals. Masculinities are configurations of practice that are accomplished in social action and, therefore, can differ according to the gender relations in a particular social setting. 836 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
Connell,Messerschmidt/HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 837 The idea that a recognition of multiple masculinities necessarily turns into a static typology is likewise not borne out by the development of research.A paradig- matic example is Gutmann's(1996)Mexican ethnography,already mentioned. Gutmann is able to tease out different categories of masculinity-for example,the macho and the mandilon-while recognizing,and showing in detail,that these are not monadic identities but always are relational and constantly are crosscut by other divisions and projects.Warren's(1997)observations in a Britishelementary school provide another example.Different constructions of masculinity are found.which generate effects in classroom life,even though many boys do not fit exactly into the major categories;indeed,the boys demonstrate complex relations of attachment and rejection to those categories. Although the idea that the concept of gender embeds heteronormativity is now a familiar criticism (Hawkesworth 1997).it is a contested criticism (Scott 1997). While it correctly identifies a problem in categorical models of gender,it is not a valid criticism of relational models of gender(e.g.,Connell 2002;Walby 1997)nor of historical approaches where the construction of gender categories is the object of inquiry.In the development of the concept of hegemonic masculinity,divisions among men-especially the exclusion and subordination of homosexual men- were quite central issues(Carrigan,Connell,and Lee 1985).The policing of het- erosexuality has been a major theme in discussions of hegemonic masculinity since then. The idea that the concept of masculinity marginalizes or naturalizes the body (because it is supposed to rest on a sex-gender dichotomy)is perhaps the most star- tling of the claims in this critique.Startling,because the interplay between bodies and social processes has been one of the central themes of masculinity research from its beginning.One of the first and most influential research programs in the new paradigm was Messner's(1992)account of the masculinity of professional athletes,in which the use of"bodies as weapons"and the long-term damage to men's bodies were examined.The construction of masculinity in a context of dis- ability (Gerschick and Miller 1994),the laboring bodies of working-class men (Donaldson 1991),men's health and illness(Sabo and Gordon 1995),and boys' interpersonal violence (Messerschmidt 2000)are among the themes in research showing how bodies are affected by social processes.Theoretical discussion has explored the relevance of the"new sociology of the body"to the construction of masculinity (e.g.,Connell 1995,chap.2). Critiques of the concept of masculinity make better sense when they point to a tendency,in research as well as in popular literature,to dichotomize the experi- ences of men and women.As Brod(1994)accurately observes,there is a tendency in the men's studies field to presume"separate spheres,"to proceed as if women were not a relevant part of the analysis,and therefore to analyze masculinities by looking only at men and relations among men.As Brod also argues,this is not inev- itable.The cure lies in taking a consistently relational approach to gender-not in abandoning the concepts of gender or masculinity. o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T60N66O2ECTBgartto1827bution
The idea that a recognition of multiple masculinities necessarily turns into a static typology is likewise not borne out by the development of research. A paradigmatic example is Gutmann’s (1996) Mexican ethnography, already mentioned. Gutmann is able to tease out different categories of masculinity—for example, the macho and the mandilón—while recognizing, and showing in detail, that these are not monadic identities but always are relational and constantly are crosscut by other divisions and projects. Warren’s (1997) observations in a British elementary school provide another example. Different constructions of masculinity are found, which generate effects in classroom life, even though many boys do not fit exactly into the major categories; indeed, the boys demonstrate complex relations of attachment and rejection to those categories. Although the idea that the concept of gender embeds heteronormativity is now a familiar criticism (Hawkesworth 1997), it is a contested criticism (Scott 1997). While it correctly identifies a problem in categorical models of gender, it is not a valid criticism of relational models of gender (e.g., Connell 2002; Walby 1997) nor of historical approaches where the construction of gender categories is the object of inquiry. In the development of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, divisions among men—especially the exclusion and subordination of homosexual men— were quite central issues (Carrigan, Connell, and Lee 1985). The policing of heterosexuality has been a major theme in discussions of hegemonic masculinity since then. The idea that the concept of masculinity marginalizes or naturalizes the body (because it is supposed to rest on a sex-gender dichotomy) is perhaps the most startling of the claims in this critique. Startling, because the interplay between bodies and social processes has been one of the central themes of masculinity research from its beginning. One of the first and most influential research programs in the new paradigm was Messner’s (1992) account of the masculinity of professional athletes, in which the use of “bodies as weapons” and the long-term damage to men’s bodies were examined. The construction of masculinity in a context of disability (Gerschick and Miller 1994), the laboring bodies of working-class men (Donaldson 1991), men’s health and illness (Sabo and Gordon 1995), and boys’ interpersonal violence (Messerschmidt 2000) are among the themes in research showing how bodies are affected by social processes. Theoretical discussion has explored the relevance of the “new sociology of the body” to the construction of masculinity (e.g., Connell 1995, chap. 2). Critiques of the concept of masculinity make better sense when they point to a tendency, in research as well as in popular literature, to dichotomize the experiences of men and women. As Brod (1994) accurately observes, there is a tendency in the men’s studies field to presume “separate spheres,” to proceed as if women were not a relevant part of the analysis, and therefore to analyze masculinities by looking only at men and relations among men. As Brod also argues, this is not inevitable. The cure lies in taking a consistently relational approach to gender—not in abandoning the concepts of gender or masculinity. Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 837 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
838 GENDER SOCIETY/December 2005 Ambiguity and Overlap Early criticisms of the concept raised the question of who actually represents hegemonic masculinity.It is familiar that many men who hold great social power do not embody an ideal masculinity.On the other hand,Donaldson(1993)remarks that there did not seem to be much masculine substance to those men identified by researchers as hegemonic models.He discusses the case of the Australian "iron man"surf-sports champion described by Connell(1990),a popular exemplar of hegemonic masculinity.But the young man's regional hegemonic status actually prevents him doing the things his local peer group defines as masculine-going wild,showing off,driving drunk,getting into fights,and defending his own prestige. Martin (1998)criticizes the concept for leading to inconsistent applications, sometimes referring to a fixed type of masculinity and on other occasions referring to whatever type is dominant at a particular time and place.Similarly,Wetherell and Edley (1999)contend that the concept fails to specify what conformity to hege- monic masculinity actually looks like in practice.And Whitehead (1998,58:2002. 93)suggests there is confusion over who actually is a hegemonically masculine man-"Is it John Wayne or Leonardo DiCaprio;Mike Tyson or Pele?Or maybe,at different times.all of them?"-and also about who can enact hegemonic practices. We think the critics have correctly pointed to ambiguities in usage.It is desirable to eliminate any usage of hegemonic masculinity as a fixed,transhistorical model. This usage violates the historicity of gender and ignores the massive evidence of change in social definitions of masculinity. But in other respects,ambiguity in gender processes may be important to recog- nize as a mechanism of hegemony.Consider how an idealized definition of mascu- linity is constituted in social process.At a society-wide level (which we will call "regional"in the framework below),there is a circulation of models of admired masculine conduct,which may be exalted by churches,narrated by mass media,or celebrated by the state.Such models refer to,but also in various ways distort,the everyday realities of social practice.A classic example is the Soviet regime's cele- bration of the Stakhanovite industrial worker,named for the coal miner Aleksandr Stakhanov who in 1935 hewed a world record 102 tons of coal in a single day,trig- gering a scramble to beat the record.Part of the distortion here was that the famous "shock workers"achieved their numbers with a great deal of unacknowledged help from coworkers. Thus,hegemonic masculinities can be constructed that do not correspond closely to the lives of any actual men.Yet these models do,in various ways,express widespread ideals,fantasies,and desires.They provide models of relations with women and solutions to problems of gender relations.Furthermore,they articulate loosely with the practical constitution of masculinities as ways of living in every- day local circumstances.To the extent they do this,they contribute to hegemony in the society-wide gender order as a whole.It is not surprising that men who function o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T60w66O2ECTBgarto1827bution
Ambiguity and Overlap Early criticisms of the concept raised the question of who actually represents hegemonic masculinity. It is familiar that many men who hold great social power do not embody an ideal masculinity. On the other hand, Donaldson (1993) remarks that there did not seem to be much masculine substance to those men identified by researchers as hegemonic models. He discusses the case of the Australian “iron man” surf-sports champion described by Connell (1990), a popular exemplar of hegemonic masculinity. But the young man’s regional hegemonic status actually prevents him doing the things his local peer group defines as masculine—going wild, showing off, driving drunk, getting into fights, and defending his own prestige. Martin (1998) criticizes the concept for leading to inconsistent applications, sometimes referring to a fixed type of masculinity and on other occasions referring to whatever type is dominant at a particular time and place. Similarly, Wetherell and Edley (1999) contend that the concept fails to specify what conformity to hegemonic masculinity actually looks like in practice. And Whitehead (1998, 58; 2002, 93) suggests there is confusion over who actually is a hegemonically masculine man—“Is it John Wayne or Leonardo DiCaprio; Mike Tyson or Pele? Or maybe, at different times, all of them?”—and also about who can enact hegemonic practices. We think the critics have correctly pointed to ambiguities in usage. It is desirable to eliminate any usage of hegemonic masculinity as a fixed, transhistorical model. This usage violates the historicity of gender and ignores the massive evidence of change in social definitions of masculinity. But in other respects, ambiguity in gender processes may be important to recognize as a mechanism of hegemony. Consider how an idealized definition of masculinity is constituted in social process. At a society-wide level (which we will call “regional” in the framework below), there is a circulation of models of admired masculine conduct, which may be exalted by churches, narrated by mass media, or celebrated by the state. Such models refer to, but also in various ways distort, the everyday realities of social practice. A classic example is the Soviet regime’s celebration of the Stakhanovite industrial worker, named for the coal miner Aleksandr Stakhanov who in 1935 hewed a world record 102 tons of coal in a single day, triggering a scramble to beat the record. Part of the distortion here was that the famous “shock workers” achieved their numbers with a great deal of unacknowledged help from coworkers. Thus, hegemonic masculinities can be constructed that do not correspond closely to the lives of any actual men. Yet these models do, in various ways, express widespread ideals, fantasies, and desires. They provide models of relations with women and solutions to problems of gender relations. Furthermore, they articulate loosely with the practical constitution of masculinities as ways of living in everyday local circumstances. To the extent they do this, they contribute to hegemony in the society-wide gender order as a whole. It is not surprising that men who function 838 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
