《性别、亲密关系与社会》课程教学资源（Masculinities）Hegemonic Masculinity - Rethinking the Concept（R. W. Connell and James W. Messerschmidt）

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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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