R.W. Connell – Masculinities - summary (Chapters 1-5) - Doing Gender PDF

Preview

Summary

Download R.W. Connell – Masculinities - summary (Chapters 1-5) - Doing Gender PDF

Description

R.W. Connell – "Masculinities": The History of Masculinity summary (Chapters 1-5) Chapter 1 In chapter one of her book Masculinities titled "science of masculinity" R.W. Connell examines the production of knowledge regarding masculinity, arguing to its ambiguous nature and problems with its claim for objectivity on account of its gendered practices of research and production of knowledge about masculinity and gender differences. Connell surveys three main attempts to form a science of masculinity in the 21st century: the clinical (psychoanalysis), the one of social psychology and gender role theory and the one of sociology, anthropology and history (see hyperlinks for detailed discussion). Albeit the lengthy discussion of these forms of organized knowledge about masculinity, Connell suggests that other, none clinical or academic, forms of knowledge about masculinity have accumulated, namely the form of political knowledge. This type of knowledge about masculinities accumulated in various political spheres with the most important of them being the gay liberation movement and the women's liberation movement. The gay liberation movement, by the way of coining the term homophobia, realized that homophobia and gay persecution are related to dominant and hegemonic forms of masculinity. Connell notes that one of the interesting products of the gay liberation movement and the discussion of homophobia was the blurring of the distinction between the men/women polarization and the homosexual/straight polarization. In this respect it is interesting to see the onward attacks on gender conventions, such as drag, which formed the queer style. Second wave feminist thinking initially dealt with the concept of patriarchy and at some point turned its attention to male violence. The theory of gay liberation shares feminists' take on mainstream masculinity as an institution which is essentially related to power, is organized for the purpose of domination, and which resists any change out of allegiance to existing power relations. At the end of chapter one of "Masculinities", "The Science of Masculinity", R.W. Connell wonders if masculinity is the problem of gender politics, or whether the problem is not masculinity (or hegemonic masculinity) itself but rather the institutional arrangements which produce inequality and bring forth the need to scrutinize masculinity. Connell believes that masculinity is shaped out of the reciprocal relations between the personal and social dimensions, and she therefore wonders if this type of dynamic interaction allows for a stable object of knowledge, and if the science of masculinity is at all possible?

As far as positivistic science of masculinity is concerned than Connell's answer is a definite no, unless we are willing to reduce this science to biology only while excluding psychoanalysis, sociology and ethnography. With masculinity being a relational concept, for masculinity and femininity only exist in relation to one another, masculinity as an object of study will always be masculinity in relation. The science of masculinity for Connell will always be the science of gender relations. As elaborated later on in chapter three, R.W. Connell defines masculinity as practice configurations which are structures by gender relations. Masculinities according to her are essentially historical constructs, and their changing invention is a political process which influences the balance of interests in society and the courses of social change. Knowledge about masculinity can never be positivistic, and it can never be objectively reflective – it must be critical. Chapter 2 In chapter two of "Masculinities" titled "Men's Bodies" R.W. Connell deals with the relation between the male body and masculinity. At the beginning of "Men's Bodies" she negates the argument, widely held in different spheres in society, that men cannot change on account of them having a sort of essential nature. She describes how true masculinity is always perceived as something which stems from men's bodies – true masculinity is engraved in the male body or expresses something in regards to that body. For Connell such views represent the strategic array of modern gender ideology, and therefore the sociological task of understanding masculinity starts with understanding the male body and its relation to masculinity and gender. The tendency of research in this field was for the most part shifting back and forth in the discussion of nature versus nurture, with a compromise which holds that both biology and society partner together in the shaping of genders. Connell thinks that all three approaches are wrong. According to Connell sociobiology has replaced religion in justifying hegemonic gender ideology. However sociobiology cannot produce sufficient evidence to the existence of biological determination of sex differences and is faced with a vast array of contrary evidence in the form of cultural and historical diversities in the construction of gender. For Connell the source of this false biological approach is in the metaphor of the body as a machine which is build or programmed for certain activities, a metaphor which is false as much as it is prevalent. The reason for this distortion is that ideology precedes biological research. Accordingly, Connell describes how medicine, as in the cases of sex change operations, works to reconcile the body with gender ideology. Connell uses Bryan Turner's term of "body practices" to argue that society, through sports, fashion and finally even plastic surgery, works to produce the male or female body in accordance with its perceptions.

Social semiotic approaches position themselves in the opposite end of the sociobiological approach. Instead of the body as machine metaphor they offer the body as a field of battle in which social forces meat, a metaphor of the body as canvas drawn upon and imprinted with signs. But for Connell the semiotic approach has its own problems, with the stress on the signifier threatening to eliminate the signified, and to lose the sex in the discussion about sexuality. Does this mean that the path that combines biology and social construction theory is the way to go? Connell says no and holds that two errors do not make a right. To begin with, the two approaches are incommensurable. A social process can develop an initial biological difference, but also transform it completely to the point of erasing it. For Connell a compromise cannot be found between biological determination and social determination, but in any case Connell asserts that any theory of gender cannot escape the presence of the physical body and therefore any theory in masculinity studies cannot escape the presence of men's bodies. R.W. Connell, in chapter two of "Masculinities" titled "Men's Bodies", argues that physical experiences shape us, with the example of sports in which masculinity is manifested in the pattern of developing and working the body. The institutional organization of sport dictates defined social relations: competition and hierarchy for men, exclusion or subjection for women. Sports serves, according to Connell, as an instrument in the hand of hegemonic masculinity in its war against feminism as a symbolic proof of men's superiority. The same aspect can be found in manual labor which specified a type of tough masculinity the although, as illustrated in Paul Willis's "Learning to Labor", served for class exploitation, has also served to prove men's superiority. But also the link between masculinity and manual labor, with its economic roots in the industrial period, has changed with the shift to post-industrial modes of production, and with it masculinity is also changing. Connell argues that the body is an inevitable element in the construction of masculinity, but its inevitability does not fix its position. The bodily process combines with the social process to become a part of (both personal and collective) history and a possible object for political interference. This does not mean that we have to go back to the perception of men's bodies as a passive platform, for the body has a variety of means to oppose social symbolization and control. Connell draws attention to the simple fact that there is no one human body, but a lot of bodies which are in a constant state of change in their personal courses in time. Men's bodies, according to Connell, not only change but also have the capacity to object and refuse various suggestions to participate in social life. Connell brings biographical stories of men who had their life course imprinting a permanent mark on their body. She quotes Michel Messner who noted how the use of the body as weapon (in relation to sport) eventually leads to violence directed to the body itself. All this, as well as the bodily price of industrial workers, emphasizes for Connell the materiality of the body in relation to its participation in social practices.

Connell argues that social gender theory in fact excludes the physical body by viewing it as just an object for symbolic imprinting, but not as a participant in the gender game. Therefore Connell wishes to argue for the statues of bodies as action agents in social processes. Connell's point is that once bodies function as both objects of social practice and its agents, and in the conditions in which that practice creates the structures that define and appropriates the bodies, we are faced with a pattern that exceeds the formula accepted in social theory. Connell calls this pattern a practice of bodily reflection. In this reflection man is at once inside and outside his own body, performing while being aware of his performance in relation to social conventions. The bodily reflection moves from the personal to the social, and the way the body functions influences the way it is constructed, and vice versa. For R.W. Connell practice generated the reality in which we live, and practice always involves the body and its materiality. The world which is created through the gender practices of bodily reflection is a political sphere, and so gender politics is for Connell a politics manifested in the body. Chapter 3 After illustrating how main currents of research (psychoanalysis, social sciences and gender role theory)have failed to produce a coherent science of masculinity, R.W. Connell concludes that the problem is that masculinity is not a coherent object of study, at least not if taken in isolation. Connell therefore devotes chapter three ("The Social Organization of Masculinity) of "Masculinities" to a methodological declaration of intent for the rest of her book, mapping her object of study and defining masculinity as collection of practices within a system of gender relations. Definitions of masculinity R.W. Connell argues that the term masculinity in its modern use is derived from European individuality that evolved with the growth of colonial empires and capitalist economy, and therefore masculinity in the sense that we use it is a relatively novel concept. As she suggested in chapter 2 of "Masculinities", masculinity for Connell is a relational term which is always defined in opposition to femininity. Connell locates four main strategies for defining masculinity: the essentialist strategy, the positivistic, the normative (a standard of masculinity) and semiotic definitions, all rejected by Connell who nevertheless borrows from the semiotic approach the idea the masculinity exists in relation to a complex symbolic system. Gender as constructing social practices According to Connell, gender is a manner in which social practices are organized. These practices relate to the processes of reproduction and human bodily structures. The practice of gender in not limited to isolated actions but to branched arrays referred to by Connell as collections of gender practices. Connell describes how institutions are gendered not only as a metaphor but also in an active manner. The state, for example, is gendered since state organizational practices are constructed in relation to the field

of reproduction – the fact that it is still mostly men who hold key position of power in the state is not only the reason for the state's masculinity, but also its outcome. Connell quotes Gayle Rubin who perceived gender as a complex structure in which several logical systems conjunct. Connell therefore proceeds to argue that masculinity includes different systems, and this inevitably leads to internal contradictions and historical change. For Connell, in order to acknowledge gender as a social pattern it must be viewed as a product of history as well as the producer of history. The last two centuries have been characterized by the rise of gender politics, with the male group looking to sustain its privileged position and the female group looking to undermine the existing structure of power relations. Patriarchy instills men with financial, political and symbolic gains, and the politics of masculinity is therefore not only a personal matter of identity, but also one which relates to questions of social justice. Connell argues that the ideology of patriarchy legitimizes violence towards women and subordinated forms of masculinity as a result of the hegemonic masculinity's superiority over them. Furthermore, violence is a male institute which usually functions between men (like in war). Violence of minority men is the rebellion of masculinities which were marginalized by hegemonic masculinity. Violence is according to Connell a part of the system of domination, but it is also a sign of the system's weakness, for it wouldn’t have to resort to intimidation if its legitimacy was not questionable. Therefore Connell argues that today's masculinity is, in Habermas's terminology, crisis inclined with the collapse of the legitimacy for the patriarchic order. The main point R.W. Connell makes here is that changes in gender relations over the past centuries have led to far reaching changes in the practices of masculinity. In chapter three of Masculinities ("The Social Organization of Masculinity") R.W. Connell is searching for a structure of gender that will incorporate three different types of relations: power relations, production relations and cathectic relations. Power relations: the prime axis of power in contemporary western culture is the subordination of women to the rule of men, what the women liberation movement referred to as patriarchy. Relations of production: the gendered division of labor turns capital into a gendered form; this is because the accumulation of capital is related for Connell to the field of reproduction, Cathectic relations: following Freud Connell perceives passion is emotional energy invested in subjects, and the practices which shape passion are gendered and can raise difficult questions such as those regarding homosexuality. Gender for Connell is not an isolated subject but one that is present in all aspects of society, and consequently all social practices are constructed, among other things such as race and ethnicity, through the prism of gender. Masculinity as a gender category therefore intersects with other power relation systems such as race and ethnicity. Connell concludes that gender and masculinity cannot therefore be

understood in separation of other social arrays and structures, arrays and structures which in turn cannot be understood without appealing to gender. Relations between masculinities In light of the aforesaid, Connell holds that one should not talk about masculinity but rather about masculinities. Connell is not concerned with identifying white masculinity or black masculinity, bourgeois masculinity of blue collar masculinity, but to examine the relation between these masculinities and to avoid a fixed typology of masculinities. Connell examines the main practices which structure masculinity in western modern culture: hegemony, subordination, cooperation and marginalization. Hegemony: the concept of hegemony of taken from the works of Antonio Gramsci, and in its adaptation in Connell's theory one form of masculinity takes precedence as the preferred type over other masculinities and aims at maintaining its privileged status. The existence of hegemonic masculinity is sustained on condition of some overlapping between a cultural ideal and institutional power. The nature of Hegemony as suggested by Gramsci is dynamic, and it can be challenged by other forms of masculinity that in time gain or lose hegemonic power. Subordination: hegemony warrants the subordination of one group to the rule of another, in the field of masculinity Connell argues that the predominant subordination of our age is the subordination of homosexual masculinity to heterosexual masculinity through a number of material practices. Cooperation: few are the men who actually completely meet the definition of hegemonic masculinity, but many of them nevertheless enjoy its benefits. Connell therefore suggests that relations of cooperation exist between hegemonic masculinity and different groups that take part in it and sustain it without completely belonging to it. Marginalization: this type of relationship characterizes a situation in which one masculinity is oppressed by another (usually the hegemonic masculinity) or alternatively empowered by it (like black athletes that are turned into of model of hegemonic masculinity). This system of hegemony/subordination, cooperation and marginalization/empowerment is according to Connell a dynamic system of practices, not identities, and any gender oriented analysis must therefore account for developments in these relationships. Chapter 4

In chapter four of Masculinities ("Live Fast Die Young") R.W. Connell examines the life stories of young working class men. She notes how the working class was usually viewed as sexually conservative but to the contrary it was the working class who historically brought about new family structures. Connell argues that conditions in the capitalistic workplace influence the construction of masculinity and examines contemporary patterns of employment and their implications on masculinity. The narratives of all the young men interviewed by Connell display similar starting points and some similar characteristics such as the importance of family ties in the lower labor market, a tendency for radical pragmatism , an experience of violence, both initiated (and sometimes glorified) and state violence. Most of the men in Connell's study experienced the education system as foreign power and have begun to shape their masculinity in relation to this power, sometimes leading them to meet the power of the police and corrective systems. Connell concludes that state power is not an abstraction in the lives of these men, but rather a concrete material power. Connell argues that heterosexuality is enforced on the men interviewed, although some of them have experienced homosexual relations and one of them eventually discovered himself as a cross-dresser. The ideology which surrounded the life stories of the men in Connell's study is characterized according to her by strong contradictions and tensions such as a scornful attitude towards women and admiration of them. Connell employs Alfred Adler's concept of masculine protest as resulting of an experience of helplessness in early life and manifested later on with exaggerated and sometimes aggressive claims to power. The biographical narratives in Connell's study indicate similar starting points but diverge later on in life. Masculine protest is a masculinity which borrows themes of hegemonic masculinity and co-opts them in the context of poverty and hardship. Some of the men had a relationship of cooperation with hegemonic masculinity and enjoyed its benefits while others rejected it and have moved outside of the common masculine identity. According to Connell the key to understanding the differences between the men in her study is the political nature of their process. Most of the men were deprived of the benefits of patriarchy due to their low starting points, if they accept this lose they justify their deprivation, if they protest against it they are blocked by the state's power. One of the ways to resolve these tensions described by Connell is to embrace marginality in a highly extrovert manner. Another strategy is to completely ...