Connell - Masculinities Ch. 3, "The Social Organization of Masculinity"

In this chapter, Connell argues that masculinity is not a coherent object that we can generalize about and his goal is to provide a framework for distinguishing types of masculinities and understanding the dynamics of change.

Defining Masculinity

All societies have cultural accounts of gender, but not all have the concept 'masculinity'. The modern term assumes that a person's behavior is a result of the type of person they are. It presupposes a belief in individual difference and personal agency. It builds upon the concept of individuality developed in early-modern Europe with colonialism and capitalism. The concept appears to be a fairly recent invention, only a few hundred years old. It is inherently relational. It only exists in contrast to femininity. This idea that men and women are qualitatively different did not exist until the 19th century and bourgeois ideology of separate spheres. So, we are "doing gender" (see West and Zimmerman) when we use the term.

Four main strategies have been used to characterize the type of person who is masculine:

1. Essentialist definitions pick a feature that defines masculinity (risk-taking, aggression, responsibility, irresponsibility, and more) and describe men's lives according to it. The problem with this approach is that the choice of the essential feature is arbitrary.

2. Positivist definitions define masculinity as that which men actually are. They include the M/F scale in psychology and ethnographic studies that describe the pattern of men's lives and then call that pattern masculinity. There are three problems with this: a) there is no description without a standpoint. These "neutral" descriptions are based on assumptions about gender (Ex., choice of items on the M/F scale); b) to separate what men do from what women do requires that we already separate the categories of men and women; c) to define masculinity as what men actually are prevents the usage of the terms in which we describe some women as masculine and some men as feminine, etc. In fact the terms masculine and feminine go beyond simply differences between men and women, but describe differences within each sex on issues of gender. (Some women are more feminine, etc.).

3. Normative definitions offer a standard for what men ought to be like (John Wayne standards). The problem with this is that we cannot define masculinity according to a standard that only a minute, if any, number of men actually meet.

4. Semiotic approaches define masculinity through a system of symbolic difference between masculinity and femininity. Masculinity is defined as that which is not feminine. This definition uses masculinity as the master signifier, the place of symbolic authority, femininity is defined by lack. This definition has been very effective in cultural analysis, but it is limited in scope because it focuses on discourse. Connell argues that we need to be able to talk about other relationships. What he likes about it is the principle of connection. Masculinity only exists within a system of gender relations.

Connell's argument is that rather than attempting to define masculinity, we should be focusing on "the processes and relationships through which men and women conduct gendered lives. 'Masculinity', to the extent the term can be briefly defined at all, is simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture" (pg. 71).

Gender as a Structure of Social Practice

Gender is a way of ordering social practice. It is a social practice that constantly refers to bodies and what they do, but does not reduce social practice to the body. Connell argues that "in gender processes, the everyday conduct of life is organized in relation to a reproductive arena, defined by the bodily structures and processes of human reproduction" (pg. 71). This link need have nothing to do with biological reproduction. Gender exists because biology does not determine the social. Gender relations is one of the major structures of all societies.

When we refer to masculinity and femininity, we are talking about configurations of gender practice, or rather processes of configuring practice. Masculinity and femininity are gender projects which are "processes of configuring practice through time, which transform their starting-points in gender structures" (pg. 72). We can examine these projects at whatever unit of analysis we study society at: 1) individual life course, personality or character; 2) discourse, ideology or culture; 3) institutions such as the state, schools, or workplace.

Connell describes a three-fold model of the structure of gender:

a) power relations: in western society, the subordination of women and the domination of men, often referred to as patriarchy. It persists despite resistance.

b) production relations: the gender division of labor and its consequences, the benefit that men gain from unequal shares of the product, the gendered character of capital, etc.

c) cathexis: the gendered character of sexual desire, and the practices that shape that desire which are an aspect of the gender order. For ex., the relationship between heterosexuality and men's position of dominance.

Connell notes that gender, as a way of structuring social practice, is unavoidably connected to other social structures, race and class for ex. Gender interacts or intersects with race and class. For instance, white men's masculinities are constructed in relation to black men as well as in relation to white women. White masculinity is fused with institutional power. Also class masculinities, for ex. Working class masculinities depend on class as much as they do gender relations. The argument behind this is that to understand gender we must constantly go beyond it.

We must not only recognize multiple masculinities, we must investigate the relations between them, gender relations among men, in order to avoid a simple character typology.

Hegemony

Hegemony (based on Gramsci) is the cultural dynamic by which a group takes and maintains a position of leadership in social life. "Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of the patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women" (pg. 77).

Subordination

Within the overall framework, there are specific gender relations of dominance and subordination between groups of men: heterosexual over homosexual is the most significant.

Complicity

Very few men are actively engaged in maintaining the hegemony, but the majority of men gain from it because of the overall advantage to men of the subordination of women. "Masculinities constructed in ways that realize the patriarchal dividend, without the tensions or risks of being the frontline troops of patriarchy, are complicit in this sense" (pg. 79).

Marginalization

This refers to relations between the masculinities in dominant and subordinated classes or ethnic groups. It is always relative to the authorization of the dominant group's masculinity.

So we have two types of relationships: hegemony, domination/subordination and complicity; and marginalization/authorization. These two types provide a framework for understanding specific masculinities.

Historical Dynamics, Violence and Crisis Tendencies

We must recognize gender as both a product and a producer of history. Structures of gender relations change over time, sometimes in response to external sources, sometimes from internal. With the women's movement, the conflict of interests embedded in gender relations became obvious. The unequal structure placed men in a defensive position and women in an offensive position, seeking change. Such a battle is hard to imagine without violence and it is generally the dominant gender that has access to and uses the means of violence. Two patterns of violence emerged: 1)members of the privileged group use violence to maintain their position (domestic assault, sexual harassment, rape, murder); 2) violence becomes important in gender politics among men. It becomes a way of asserting masculinity (war, revolution, etc.).

Violence is a part of the system of domination, while at the same time a measure of its imperfection. If the hierarchy were actually legitimate, violence would not be necessary to maintain it. Crisis tendencies- crisis presupposes a coherent system so we cannot talk about a crisis of masculinity, but we can talk about the crisis of a gender order as a whole. The above three-fold framework enable us to map the crisis tendencies of the gender order.

Power relations--"the historical collapse of the legitimacy of patriarchal power and a global movement for the emancipation of women" (pg. 84). Fueled by the contradiction between gender inequality and the universalizing logics of modern state structures and market relations.

Production relations--huge postwar growth in married women's labor force participation.

Relations of cathexis--the growing acceptance of lesbian and gay sexuality as a public alternative to heterosexuality and the broader claims by women for sexual pleasure and control of their own bodies.

Finally, Connell points out that changes in masculinity go beyond images of the male sex role. "Economy, state, and global relationships are involved as well as households and personal relationships" (pg. 86).

Key Words:

- definitions of masculinity

- gender relations

- power relations

- production relations

- relations of cathexis

- intersection of gender with race and class

- hegemony, subordination, complicity

-marginalization/authorization

- violence