Masculinity in crisis Book

R.W Connell’s book Masculinities provides a good general summary of the different avenues of knowledge that have been obtained to date on masculinities as a field of study. While each avenue of knowledge has provided insight into masculinities, Connell argues that they fall short in critical ways. He theorizes masculinities as “relational,” in that it involves concepts of masculinity and femininity in relation to each other in addition to different forms of masculinity all relating to each other and all vying for cultural dominance. Hegemonic masculinity is whatever is culturally dominant within a particular society at a given period of time and it can change. It is important to note that hegemonic masculinity is not what men are—rather it is the ideal that they are trying to achieve because there are certain rewards at stake: such as power, recognition, money, and admiration. Men in power, then, are motivated to support hegemonic masculinity because of these rewards. Connell supports his theory of relational masculinities by gathering many life histories of men and exploring the plural nature of masculinities and their hierarchal arrangements in relation to each other. Connell is able to bring back the physical body into the studies of gender and social sciences without reverting to biological determinism by showing how some relational experiences are obtained by means of the physical body and then internalized to become a part of one’s social and psychological identity. Thus the body is an important means of sending as well as receiving social messages.

Connell’s book sparked some interesting ideas for me. I’ve always believed that hegemonic masculinity is bad news for women in general, but I’d never really considered the fact that hegemonic masculinity is a marginalizing force for many different types of men as well. It oppresses the men who try very hard but are not able to achieve the ideal, and it especially oppresses the men who aren’t able to achieve the ideal and do not even make the attempt to support its dominance. Connell does not believe that there is a hegemonic femininity. I would disagree. I believe there are plural femininities that exist in a relational hierarchy to each other. The difference, in my opinion, is that the feminine ideal has been crafted and maintained by hegemonic masculinity. Women in most societies have not been able to define what it means to be female. It has already been defined for them. The situation has greatly improved for most women in Western societies, but we “girls” are still encouraged to have perfect hair, perfect bodies, perfect makeup, and to provide pleasant company for men while they rule the world. That’s how I would define hegemonic femininity in current Western society. And though women do scramble and compete with each other to get to the top of that great imaginary pink pyramid, the rewards for doing so are quite meager indeed in comparison with patriarchal dividends.

Connell’s observations do provide some avenues of hope though for a common feminist like me. If hegemonic masculinity is more fluid than I thought, and if progressive social movements can cause people to question current power structures and even forsake them altogether, then perhaps someday we can work toward a type of “humanist hegemony” that flattens the pyramid structure and rewards us all with equality, tolerance, and eradication of poverty. Connell directly addresses my research agenda by asking if it is actually masculinity that is a problem in gender politics or is it rather the institutional arrangements that produce inequality. I believe it is the latter.