Hegemonic Masculinities: A Critical View of Gender Differences. Marissa L. Beveridge. Dublin Business School

Transcription

1 Hegemonic Masculinities: A Critical View of Gender Differences Marissa L. Beveridge Dublin Business School

2 Hegemonic Masculinities: A Critical View of Gender Differences The concept of hegemonic masculinities, proposed by Connell, has reached the world of academia with many supporters as well as critics. The theory, rooting from Gramsci s hegemony, meaning ideological domination, seeks to explain how power is won and held by men. Connell s concept is constructionist in nature stating that, within gender, meaning is created through various structures and continuously practiced throughout life. Indeed, within the social dominance theory male-female differences develop from contextual social differences (Lips, 2008, p. 75). Kimmel (2003) described Connell s theory as follows: The hegemonic definition of manhood is a man in power, a man with power, and a man of power. We equate manhood with being strong, successful, capable, reliable, [and] in control. The very definitions of manhood we have developed in our culture maintain the power that some men have over other men and that men have over women. (p. 57). Here, Kimmel is describing the typical hegemony we find within the Western world as it pertains to gender relations. Other supporters of structuralism, as well as other schools of social thought, would agree that our world is organized in various hierarchies one of these being gender. The gender hierarchy exists such that men hold most of the more powerful, high-status positions (Lips, 2008, p. 73). Hegemonic masculinity, as it relates to the gender hierarchy, associates the top of the food chain with characteristics such as authority, control, physical strength, power, and supremacy. Consider most of the positions of power both historically and presently. Whether it is in the government, the church, the military, or the business realm, the most powerful positions

3 are held by males. These particular groups of men monopolize positions of power, therefore collecting the majority of the wealth, and reinforce dominance over women and minority men. These models, such as the Roman Catholic Church, have provided models for male domination which have further encouraged males to continue to seek dominance. As stated by Kronsell (2005) institutions largely governed by men have produced and recreated norms and practices associated with masculinity and heterosexuality (p. 281). She goes onto explain her viewpoint of hegemonic masculinity as a set of masculine norms that have dominated institutions of social control, such as the military. Similar to the Catholic Church that prohibits females from holding any positions of power, the military is majority populated by males in most countries. Connell argues that the military provides a corporate display of masculinity which is crucial to the definition of hegemonic masculinities in modern society. To further illustrate this point, according to the Women in National Parliaments Statistical Archive, as of 2006 only 18 of the 193 member-states of the United Nations had women representing at least 30% of parliamentary seats. At the top of the list was Sweden with 45% of its power given to women still less than half but significantly higher than the United States with 15% and Ireland with 12% female representation. The lowest was Saudi Arabia with no women in their parliamentary positions (Lips, 2008). We can find examples of hegemonic masculinity in several places, including Disney movies. The majority of Disney movies revolve around a heterosexual relationship between a dominant male and a submissive female. The images within this realm of media influences the social constructs of both men and women. Disney displays this most explicitly in the movies Beauty and the Beast and Mulan. On one hand, in Beauty and the Beast, Gaston displays the typical hegemonic male someone who is physically strong, handsome, and powerful. In

4 Mulan, when Mulan tries to pass herself off as a man, she quickly learns that strength and physical prowess defines masculinity. She must appear masculine enough to be accepted by the other members of the Emperor s army. In both these films, the male is the dominant, most powerful character, while the female and other, less powerful men must submit to the hero of the film. But hegemonic masculinity is much more complex than Disney portrays it. The concept of hegemonic masculinities seeks to explain how particular groups of men inhabit positions of power and wealth and how they reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance (Cornwall & Lindisfarne, 1994, p. 19). One of the explanations could be found in an opposing view of the constructionist school of thought: evolutionary psychology. For decades, evolutionary psychology has sought to explain human behaviors through the basic idea of Charles Darwin s survival of the fittest. Here, we can see how hegemonic masculinities might fall into this category. Men have sought social domination for thousands of years, perhaps in conjunction with a constructionist view, theorists should view hegemonic masculinities through the eyes of an evolutionist. A simplified evolutionary perspective might state that because men have competed with men for sexual access to women, men have evolved to favor violence and competition and because women have had to emphasize long-term mating, they have evolved to seek out men who are particularly successful and able to provide resources for their children (Lips, 2008, p. 79). We can explore the gender differences between males and females further by looking at the differences not only in power itself, but how power is obtained. Men and women display several opposing social differences such as aggression, influenceability, dominance, nurturance, empathy, and altruism. Whether or not these are determined by the social constructs, biology,

5 evolution, or a combination is unclear what is clear, however, is the distinct differences between men and women. Researchers have often explained the gender differences within aggression as overt or relational in nature. Males are more likely to engage in overt aggression involving threats and physical violence; females typically engage in relational aggression, sometimes referred to as indirect or social aggression. As it relates to hegemony, the male uses his aggressive nature to obtain power and dominance over women as well as over other men. This type of competitive sexuality is seen across cultures, races, and social classes though in different scales. A modern example might be athletics, commonly associated with males. Males participate in competitive sports much like the way they compete in a social and/or business world. They seek to get on-top and not be over-taken by other males, and certainly not other females. It is often said that females are more easily influenced than their male counterparts; however, little evidence exists to support this claim. When gender differences are found, they usually show greater female conformity [but] a meta-analysis of social influence studies indicated that the gender difference is quite small, with male and female means about onequarter of a standard deviation apart (Lips, 2008, p. 159). Certainly Connell s concept of hegemonic masculinities would support some of this claim. Structuralism is founded upon the notion that we constantly perform gender in everyday life. Conformity is just one of the ways that society has shaped gender we all conform to certain norms. For example, a common social behavior of adolescent boys is to prove their heterosexuality in everyday life. They typically conform to the roles laid out for them and rarely deviate in fear of revoking their claims of heterosexuality.

6 Another example is the conformity to other social roles by both men and women. For example, women who compete in sports, are doctors or lawyers, or who participate in other masculine things are not always discriminated. However, men who participate in feminine activities such as cooking, cleaning, or becoming nurses or teachers are often looked down upon. Much like the previous example with adolescent boys, males who participate in these activities are often viewed as homosexual whether they are or not. Women have more options when it comes to conforming to social schemas; however, this doesn t mean that when they conform to the more masculine that they ll be respected like men or treated the same as men. This can be explained by hegemonic masculinities where males are in power, with power, and of power. As previously discussed, males tend to seek dominance not only over women, but other males as well. In laboratory studies conducted by Lockheed & Hall (1976), they found that allmale groups exhibit more concern with dominance and leadership than all-female groups, and again, in mixed groups males are more likely to exert their dominance and take on leadership roles (Lips, 2008). The dominant male can be seen in nearly every Western society within a patriarchal household. Traditionally males have been the bread-winners of the household, while females have subordinated to their role of being the care-giver. Kimmel (2003) paints a picture of this typical patriarchal male: a young, married, white, urban heterosexual, Protestant father of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight and height, and a recent record in sports (p. 57). This patriarch is dominant and powerful and is thought to be the ultimate male by American standards and sought after by the subordinate wife. We ve all heard that women are more nurturing and that they have a maternal instinct but how true is this gender difference? Interestingly enough, research has shown that the sexes do not differ in their physiological responses (heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductance) to an

7 infant s cry (Lips, 2008, p. 165). Evolutionists have argued against this stating that males and females differ in their nurturance out of the basic need to have their genes survive. For example, evolutionary psychology argues that men, who can produce millions of sperm with relatively little investment of energy, have evolved with an innate tendency to devote energy to short-term mating, fertilizing as many women as possible and maximizing the chances that their own genes will survive (Lips, 2008, p. 78). They go on to explain the opposite of females: women, for whom reproduction (both the production of eggs and the gestation of embryos) involves a greater and more time-consuming commitment, have evolved with a tendency to be sexually selective, choosing only the best mates and trying to trick them into monogamy (Lips, 2008, p. 78). In addition to a nurturing disposition, females are also credited with having more empathy than their male counterparts. Empathy, sensitivity towards the feelings of others, has historically been a female characteristic. Yet, though research has showed that measures of empathy tend to favor women, it is not exclusive to women. The same holds true for altruism, or a willingness to help others. Women have a reputation for being helpful, yet when actual helping behavior is measured, females do not consistently come out ahead (Lips, 2008, p. 169). Research supports that males are more likely to help females when the activity required is gender-role appropriate. Most of the altruistic characteristic is situational in nature, rather than gender-dependent. For all these character traits, whether associated with males or females, we can see that hegemonic masculinity is not as cut-and-dry as Connell would like us to believe. The complexities surrounding the gender hierarchy and gender differences has given the opportunity for other theorists to critically argue against the constructionist approach. Connell s theory of hegemonic masculinity thrives on the basic principal that hegemony is likely to be established

8 only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal and institutional power, collective if not individual (Connell, 1995, p. 77). With that said, we can further understand the relationship between men and women, and men among men, from the hegemonic masculinities perspective as well as other schools of thought.

9 References Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. 2 nd ed. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender & power. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA. Hanlon, Niall. (2011). Constructionist approaches [PowerPoint Presentation]. Retrieved from Kronsell, Annica. (2005). Gendered practices in institutions of hegemonic masculinity. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7, Lips, Hilary M. (2008). Sex & gender. 6 th ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.