STRONG, SILENT AND EMOTIONAL – NAVIGATING MODERN MASCULINITY

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Masculinity in Practice/Masculinity as Practice – Empirical Studies Utilising Hegemonic Masculinity

Connell’s model of hegemonic masculinity has not simply remained in theory form. A variety of studies have attempted to assess its validity by conducting empirical studies that attempt to contextualise hegemonic masculinity (as well as the multiplicity of masculinities she outlines) within the real world. Many of the studies that have employed Connell’s model have shown the breadth to which it can be applied, and have revealed interesting conclusions around how masculinity operates in practice that cannot be drawn from simply looking at hegemonic masculinity in theory form. One such example is a study by Bartholomaeus (2012) who drew upon Connell’s model to assess masculinities of primary school boys, attempting to see whether a ‘hegemonic’ form of masculinity dominated other masculinities within the boys’ social world as is the case amongst adult men. She found that whilst the accounts suggested an existence of a form of ‘hegemonic’ masculinity amongst the young boys, the patterns and constructions of masculinity of the boys were not the same as amongst adults. This goes to show the locational relativity of Connell’s model – whilst applicable in a broad range of settings where masculinity is relevant, there is nonetheless no fixed ‘universal’ definition as to what hegemonic masculinity necessarily entails. In another study, Montes (2013) looked at hegemonic masculinity in the context of emotional expression of men who have migrated or been impacted by migration from Guatemala to the United States. Through the reflexivity offered by the process of migration, she argues, the men were given an opportunity to reflect on their emotions towards to their children and other members of their family, countering many discourses endemic to hegemonic masculinity around unemotionality, aggression and being non-nurturing. The study shows how situational experiences can alter men’s need to adhere to hegemonic forms of masculinity, with men finding solace in counter-hegemonic practices whilst in difficult positions with higher stakes.
Hegemonic masculinity’s significance in practice is thus situational and contextual, with wider circumstances having the capacity to shape its ultimate significance to individuals. Toerien and Durrheim (2001) use Connell’s model of multiple masculinities to observe what they see to be a synthesis of the ‘new man’ and ‘retributive’ or ‘macho man’ forms of masculinity, drawing on these particular conceptualisations of masculinity as discussed by Edley and Wetherell (1997). The authors conducted a discursive analysis of 15 editions of the South African edition of Men’s Health magazine, and discuss what they refer to as the discourse of the ‘real man’ – a coherent masculine subject position that attempts to resolve the contemporary ‘masculine crisis’ by essentialising masculinity in harmony with macho masculinity, whilst avoiding critiques of sexism and traditionalism through employing facets of the masculinity of the ‘new man’. This ‘real man’, they argue, is a kind of political strategy wherein the discourses of the ‘new man’ are utilised to maintain the patriarchal power and essentialised masculinity of the ‘macho man’ in a more socially acceptable way, but are hesitant to deem this ‘real man’ as hegemonic. Instead, they employ Wetherell and Edley’s (1999) caution in dichotomising discourses as fundamentally complicit or resistant to hegemony and argue that context of the discourse operating in practice is necessary for assessing its relationship with patriarchal agenda.
One particular area where empirical research on hegemonic masculinity has been significantly employed is within the field of men’s health – used by researchers often to attempt to explain health disparities between men and women. Studies show that men are more likely to adopt beliefs that ultimately put them at greater risk for health adversities because the enactment of such beliefs is considered demonstrative of masculinity (Courtenay, 2000). Consequently, men have been found to have poorer health outcomes than women – both in terms of physical and mental health – with these results influenced by masculine discourses valorising men’s toughness, glorifying risk-taking and perceiving the act of asking for help as feminine (Lee & Owens, 2002). As well as this, the contemporary environment appears to be particularly reinforcing of masculine norms, and subsequently perpetuates this health disparity. Scott-Samuel, Stanistreet and Crawshaw (2009) use Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity to explain potential health inequalities between men and women. The authors draw parallels with hegemonic masculinity and the competitive nature of the modern neoliberal economy, and argues that such an economy is a by-product of hypermasculine ideology in its rejection of community-based values in favour of aggressive competition in the market.
In this way, hegemonic masculinity is the cause of the structural violence that leads to gendered health inequality.

READ HETEROGENEOUS INFORMATION FUSION FRAMEWORK FOR HUMAN-LIKE PERCEPTION OF COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT

Practicing Oneself – Theoretical Approach to Identity

The third area of discussion is that of identities and how they relate to the work on emotions and masculinity previously discussed. The focus of this section is to briefly outline the trajectory that the study of identities has taken in the academy, locate the epistemological positioning that this study takes and explain the reasonings as to why this particular framework of studying identities has been taken. As with emotions and masculinity, this thesis also takes a non-essentialist and discursive approach to its study of identities. In general terms, I approach identity as a form of practice, attentive to social categories and their intersectionality and the role of narrative and meaning making in the constitution of self. Identity research is a field where, despite much interest in the area, many complexities and complications exist around framing what exactly an ‘identity’ constitutes (Wetherell, 2010). ‘Identity’ as a term is used to refer to both one’s personal sense of self, as well as their group category. As Wetherell (2010) explains, both are socially produced and rooted in discourse. Whilst more obvious in the case of group categories, individuals nonetheless also draw on available discursive resources to construct their senses of self. Avtar Brah (2007) explains how identity has also come to constitute the ‘social categories’ that individuals are a part of – such as being a ‘woman’ ‘gay’, ‘black’ or ‘Muslim’. These social categories denote group membership, but are internalised and become part of one’s personal identity.
The conceptualisation of identities as socially constituted has had a broad influence in the academy.
As van Meijl (2010) notes, initial psychological models of identity have branched out into the realm of the social through their de-essentialisation. Within this, identity studies moved from a framework of assuming a coherent, independent individual to how the individual itself is constructed through discourse, often in complex and contradictory ways (Wetherell, 2010). This opened up space for socio-cultural effects to be included within the study of identity, how identity is not only shaped, but ultimately constructed discursively through the cultural environment of the individual – how individuals are culturally and discursively produced (van Meijl, 2010). As Benwell and Stokoe (2010) discuss, a ‘discursive turn’ occurred within identity studies, reshaping the field so that identity became both antiessentialised and moved beyond the ‘project of the self’ approach to a sense of identities being socially, and thus discursively, produced. Like with emotions and masculinity, this move to discourse meant that identities were seen to be culturally and historically determined. In discursive psychology, language (discourse) is not considered as an externalisation of one’s thoughts, memories, attitudes or motivations, but constitutive of them – drawing on the notion that people are both the products and also the producers of language (Billig, 1991). Thus the individual becomes a discursive construction, one that is (re)produced through the means of discourse. It is in this vein that the identity work of the young men participating in this study will be analysed, drawing on the discursive meaning-making resources they have available to construct their sense of self.

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 – FROM BASIC EMOTIONS TO AFFECTIVE PRACTICE – THEORETICAL APPROACH TO EMOTION
2.2 – THE TYRANNY OF HEGEMONY – THEORETICAL APPROACH TO MASCULINITY
2.3 – REFLECTIONS AND RECONSTRUCTIONS – CRITIQUES OF CONNELL’S ‘HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY’ MODEL
2.4 – MASCULINITY IN PRACTICE/MASCULINITY AS PRACTICE – EMPIRICAL STUDIES UTILISING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY
2.5 – PRACTICING ONESELF – THEORETICAL APPROACH TO IDENTITY.
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 AIM OF THE STUDY
3.2 SAMPLE, RECRUITMENT AND ETHICS
3.4 DATA ORGANISATION & ANALYSIS:
CHAPTER 3: “IT DOESN’T LOOK VERY PRETTY” – MEN AND THE MANAGEMENT OF EMOTIONS
CHAPTER 4: STRONG, SILENT AND EMOTIONAL – NAVIGATING MODERN MASCULINITY
4.1 – THE RUGBY PLAYING ‘KIWI BLOKE’
4.2 THE ‘BAD ALPHA MALE’
4.3 REFLECTING AND SUBVERTING TRADITIONAL HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY
4.4 THE ‘GOOD ALPHA MALE’
4.5 THE ‘EMOTIONAL MAN’
CHAPTER 5: STRAIGHT MEN, GAY MEN, AND ‘STRAIGHT-ACTING’ GAY MEN
5.1 THE ‘GAY MAN’ AS A VANGUARD OF NEW EMOTIONAL CAPITAL
5.2 ‘STEREOTYPICAL’ AND ‘NON-STEREOTYPICAL’ GAY MEN
5.3 THE INADEQUATE ‘STRAIGHT MAN’?
5.4 THE ‘HUMANE HUMAN’
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION, REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
6.1 – WHAT THEN FOR MEN?
6.2 TOWARDS A BETTER MAN? – DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
REFERENCES
APPENDICES