Connell,Messerschmidt/HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 839 as exemplars at the regional level,such as the"iron man"discussed by Donaldson (1993).exhibit contradictions. At the local level,hegemonic patterns of masculinity are embedded in specific social environments,such as formal organizations.There are,for instance,well- defined patterns of managerial masculinity in the British corporations studied by Roper (1994)and Wajcman (1999).Socially legitimated hegemonic models of masculinity are also in play in families.For instance,men's gender strategies shape negotiations around housework and the "second shift"in the U.S.families studied by Hochschild (1989).Hegemonic patterns of masculinity are both engaged with and contested as children grow up.Gender is made in schools and neighborhoods through peer group structure,control of school space,dating patterns,homophobic speech,and harassment(Mac an Ghaill 1994:Thorne 1993).In none of these cases would we expect hegemonic masculinity to stand out as a sharply defined pattern separate from all others.A degree of overlap or blurring between hegemonic and complicit masculinities is extremely likely if hegemony is effective. The overlap between masculinities can also be seen in terms of the social agents constructing masculinities.Cavender (1999)shows how hegemonic masculine models were constructed differently in feature films in the 1940s compared with the 1980s.This is not just a matter of the characters written into the scripts.Practice at the local level-that is,the actual face-to-face interaction of shooting the film as an actor-ultimately constructs hegemonic masculine fantasy models (in this case, "detectives")at the society-wide or regional level.(We will explore this question of the relations between levels in the Reformulation section of the article.) The Problem of Reification That the concept of hegemonic masculinity reduces,in practice,to a reification of power or toxicity has also been argued from different points of view.Holter (1997,2003),in the most conceptually sophisticated of all critiques,argues that the concept constructs masculine power from the direct experience of women rather than from the structural basis of women's subordination.Holter believes that we must distinguish between"patriarchy,the long-term structure of the subordination of women,and "gender,"a specific system of exchange that arose in the context of modern capitalism.It is a mistake to treat a hierarchy of masculinities constructed within gender relations as logically continuous with the patriarchal subordination of women.Holter(1997)tellingly points to Norwegian survey evidence showing that the gender identities of men do not map directly onto such equality-related practices as attitudes toward violence. Holter(1997,2003)certainly is correct that it is a mistake to deduce relations among masculinities from the direct exercise of personal power by men over women.At the least,we also must factor in the institutionalization of gender inequalities,the role of cultural constructions,and the interplay of gender dynam- ics with race,class,and region. o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T60N66O2ECTBgartto1827bution
as exemplars at the regional level, such as the “iron man” discussed by Donaldson (1993), exhibit contradictions. At the local level, hegemonic patterns of masculinity are embedded in specific social environments, such as formal organizations. There are, for instance, welldefined patterns of managerial masculinity in the British corporations studied by Roper (1994) and Wajcman (1999). Socially legitimated hegemonic models of masculinity are also in play in families. For instance, men’s gender strategies shape negotiations around housework and the “second shift” in the U.S. families studied by Hochschild (1989). Hegemonic patterns of masculinity are both engaged with and contested as children grow up. Gender is made in schools and neighborhoods through peer group structure, control of school space, dating patterns, homophobic speech, and harassment (Mac an Ghaill 1994; Thorne 1993). In none of these cases would we expect hegemonic masculinity to stand out as a sharply defined pattern separate from all others. A degree of overlap or blurring between hegemonic and complicit masculinities is extremely likely if hegemony is effective. The overlap between masculinities can also be seen in terms of the social agents constructing masculinities. Cavender (1999) shows how hegemonic masculine models were constructed differently in feature films in the 1940s compared with the 1980s. This is not just a matter of the characters written into the scripts. Practice at the local level—that is, the actual face-to-face interaction of shooting the film as an actor—ultimately constructs hegemonic masculine fantasy models (in this case, “detectives”) at the society-wide or regional level. (We will explore this question of the relations between levels in the Reformulation section of the article.) The Problem of Reification That the concept of hegemonic masculinity reduces, in practice, to a reification of power or toxicity has also been argued from different points of view. Holter (1997, 2003), in the most conceptually sophisticated of all critiques, argues that the concept constructs masculine power from the direct experience of women rather than from the structural basis of women’s subordination. Holter believes that we must distinguish between “patriarchy,” the long-term structure of the subordination of women, and “gender,” a specific system of exchange that arose in the context of modern capitalism. It is a mistake to treat a hierarchy of masculinities constructed within gender relations as logically continuous with the patriarchal subordination of women. Holter (1997) tellingly points to Norwegian survey evidence showing that the gender identities of men do not map directly onto such equality-related practices as attitudes toward violence. Holter (1997, 2003) certainly is correct that it is a mistake to deduce relations among masculinities from the direct exercise of personal power by men over women. At the least, we also must factor in the institutionalization of gender inequalities, the role of cultural constructions, and the interplay of gender dynamics with race, class, and region. Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 839 © 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
840 GENDER SOCIETY/December 2005 It is,indeed,research on these issues that shows the concept of hegemonic mas- culinity is not trapped in reification.Among the fruitful studies of institutional mas- culinities are those that reveal quite subtle variations.for instance.between the dif- ferent branches of a single military force,the U.S.Navy (Barrett 1996).There are studies of locally specific hegemonic masculinities constructed in spaces such as a New Zealand country pub,which show the interweaving of masculinity with rural identity(Campbell 2000).Other research,especially studies of school classrooms (Martino 1995;Warren 1997),shows the fine-grained production and negotiation of masculinities (and femininities)as configurations of practice. Collier(1998)criticizes the concept of hegemonic masculinity through its typi- cal use in accounting for violence and crime.In the "masculinity turn"in criminol- ogy,Collier suggests,hegemonic masculinity came to be associated solely with negative characteristics that depict men as unemotional,independent,non- nurturing,aggressive,and dispassionate-which are seen as the causes of criminal behavior.Martin(1998,473)similarly observes a drift toward a view of hegemonic masculinity not just as a type but as a negative type,for instance,in"saying that defending gun ownership is a defense of hegemonic masculinity." This criticism has force.It draws on McMahon's (1993)accurate analysis of the psychologism in many discussions of men and masculinity.Men's behavior is rei- fied in a concept of masculinity that then,in a circular argument,becomes the explanation(and the excuse)for the behavior.This can be seen in many discussions of men's health and problems of boys'education-indeed,any of the contemporary troubles assembled under the banner of a"crisis in masculinity."In pop psychol- ogy,the invention of new character types is endemic(the alpha male,the sensitive new-age guy,the hairy man,the new lad,the "rat boy,"etc.)In this environment, hegemonic masculinity can become a scientific-sounding synonym for a type of rigid,domineering,sexist,"macho"man (in the Anglo usage,e.g.,Mosher and Tomkins 1988). Because the concept of hegemonic masculinity is based on practice that permits men's collective dominance over women to continue,it is not surprising that in some contexts,hegemonic masculinity actually does refer to men's engaging in toxic practices-including physical violence-that stabilize gender dominance in a particular setting.However,violence and other noxious practices are not always the defining characteristics,since hegemony has numerous configurations.Indeed, as Wetherell and Edley (1999)ironically observe,one of the most effective ways of "being aman"in certain local contexts may be to demonstrate one's distance from a regional hegemonic masculinity. Collier(1998)sees as a crucial defect in the concept of hegemonic masculinity that it excludes"positive"behavior on the part of men-that is,behavior that might serve the interests or desires of women.This hardly is a problem once we get beyond a rigid trait theory of personality.Most accounts of hegemonic masculinity do include such "positive"actions as bringing home a wage,sustaining a sexual relationship,and being a father.Indeed it is difficult to see how the concept of hege- mony would be relevant if the only characteristics of the dominant group were o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T60w66O2ECTBgarto1827bution
It is, indeed, research on these issues that shows the concept of hegemonic masculinity is not trapped in reification. Among the fruitful studies of institutional masculinities are those that reveal quite subtle variations, for instance, between the different branches of a single military force, the U.S. Navy (Barrett 1996). There are studies of locally specific hegemonic masculinities constructed in spaces such as a New Zealand country pub, which show the interweaving of masculinity with rural identity (Campbell 2000). Other research, especially studies of school classrooms (Martino 1995; Warren 1997), shows the fine-grained production and negotiation of masculinities (and femininities) as configurations of practice. Collier (1998) criticizes the concept of hegemonic masculinity through its typical use in accounting for violence and crime. In the “masculinity turn” in criminology, Collier suggests, hegemonic masculinity came to be associated solely with negative characteristics that depict men as unemotional, independent, nonnurturing, aggressive, and dispassionate—which are seen as the causes of criminal behavior. Martin (1998, 473) similarly observes a drift toward a view of hegemonic masculinity not just as a type but as a negative type, for instance, in “saying that defending gun ownership is a defense of hegemonic masculinity.” This criticism has force. It draws on McMahon’s (1993) accurate analysis of the psychologism in many discussions of men and masculinity. Men’s behavior is reified in a concept of masculinity that then, in a circular argument, becomes the explanation (and the excuse) for the behavior. This can be seen in many discussions of men’s health and problems of boys’education—indeed, any of the contemporary troubles assembled under the banner of a “crisis in masculinity.” In pop psychology, the invention of new character types is endemic (the alpha male, the sensitive new-age guy, the hairy man, the new lad, the “rat boy,” etc.). In this environment, hegemonic masculinity can become a scientific-sounding synonym for a type of rigid, domineering, sexist, “macho” man (in the Anglo usage, e.g., Mosher and Tomkins 1988). Because the concept of hegemonic masculinity is based on practice that permits men’s collective dominance over women to continue, it is not surprising that in some contexts, hegemonic masculinity actually does refer to men’s engaging in toxic practices—including physical violence—that stabilize gender dominance in a particular setting. However, violence and other noxious practices are not always the defining characteristics, since hegemony has numerous configurations. Indeed, as Wetherell and Edley (1999) ironically observe, one of the most effective ways of “being a man” in certain local contexts may be to demonstrate one’s distance from a regional hegemonic masculinity. Collier (1998) sees as a crucial defect in the concept of hegemonic masculinity that it excludes “positive” behavior on the part of men—that is, behavior that might serve the interests or desires of women. This hardly is a problem once we get beyond a rigid trait theory of personality. Most accounts of hegemonic masculinity do include such “positive” actions as bringing home a wage, sustaining a sexual relationship, and being a father. Indeed it is difficult to see how the concept of hegemony would be relevant if the only characteristics of the dominant group were 840 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