Masculinities in Theory

An Introduction

Todd W. Reeser

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781444358537
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Discrimination & Race Relations
• Index: Social Sciences

Masculinities in Theory is a clear, concise, and comprehensive introduction to the field of masculinity studies from a humanities perspective.

• Serves as a much-needed introduction to the field for students and scholars of cultural studies, literature, art, film, communication, history, and gender studies
• Includes discussions of gay/queer, feminist, and gender studies in relation to masculinity
• Covers the key theoretical approaches to the study of masculinity, and introduces new models
• Explores the question "What is masculinity and how does it work?"
• Looks at language, discourse, signification, power, cross-dressing, female, queer and transsexual masculinity, race and masculinity, nation and masculinity, interracial masculinities, and masculinities in history

1

Theorizing Masculinity

The Origins of Masculinity

In order to begin to think about theoretical approaches to masculinity, I might begin with one of the most central questions about masculinity: who creates it and where does it come from? If we assume that masculinity is not simply produced naturally or biologically, how does it come about? No identifiable person or group of people creates masculinity and then forces people to follow it. Masculinity is far too widespread, diffuse, and complicated for any single person or group to create it. Because it infuses everything, one cannot ultimately determine its origin. To say that it is created by the family, by media, by sports, or by another means only oversimplifies the complexity of the issue. A boy is influenced by so many brands of masculinity that it is very difficult to isolate a single source. In the end, we can only try to determine as best we can what it is and how it functions.

Clearly, men tend to have more of a vested interest in the propagation of many types of masculinity than women do, since they more often benefit from its advantages (or at least think they benefit from them). The male body is the most common purveyor of masculinity, but that does not mean that masculinity is entirely contained within the male body nor that non-men cannot profit from its advantages. Men may aid its propagation more than women, but other groups often considered outside the field of hegemonic masculinity can and do participate in its spread as well, including women, gay men, and lesbians. In fact, the very desire to have masculinity, when one perceives oneself as a member of a group not possessing it, can be a motivating factor in attempts to obtain it and in the value attached to it. One might imagine a female business executive who feels that she needs more masculinity because she lacks it or perceives herself as lacking it, whether because she is a woman in a male-dominated world or because culture does not automatically accord her the possibility of having masculinity. Female-to-male transsexuals might also have a vested interest in the masculinity that they desire in order to obtain a greater sense of wholeness. A further reason why men cannot simply be considered the inventors of masculinity is that many are critical of masculinity, while on the other hand some gay men and heterosexual women like it and may in fact find it erotic and attractive in themselves or in others. In short, although men may have more to gain from masculinity than other groups, the cause or the origin of masculinity cannot be directly linked to the male body in any simple or stable way.

A basic tenet of this chapter is that there is no single or simple origin to masculinity, and that it cannot be isolated as beginning in a single place or at a single point. Rather, it is constantly created and challenged in numerous ways. This chapter will outline many of those ways, with a focus on questions related to ideology, discourse, and signs. A second tenet of this chapter – and a corollary of the first – is that not only is there no single creator of masculinity, but there is no originary form of masculinity either. There is no single model that everyone turns to in order to define masculinity and to imitate it when they want to be or to act masculine. There are only innumerable copies of masculinities floating around in culture, copies that can never be brought back to an originary masculinity that invented them. Even if one takes what seems to be an origin of some key definition of masculinity, upon examination it cannot be considered the sole origin of that brand of masculinity since other copies of that origin end up taking over the definition. The construct of the bodybuilder is a case in point. Many consider Arnold Schwarzenegger the origin of the modern image of the muscular bodybuilder and, in a larger sense, of a certain influential idea of what the ideal male body should look like. Teenage boys or other bodybuilders interested in weightlifting might pin photos of him up on their walls, consider him legendary, and imitate other aspects of his brand of masculinity (perhaps from his films). The bodybuilders who are influenced by his example might imitate him and consider him a model, but they themselves then become new copies of Schwarzeneggerian masculinity that are necessarily different from the originary form, each different in its own hybrid way. One man might become a Latino version of Schwarzenegger, another a gay male version, another a female version, etc. Those men (or women) in turn influence the masculinity of others, whether because they too become famous or because they influence other men or boys that they encounter in their day-to-day interactions. That brand of masculinity also leaves the realm of the flesh and becomes representational, in film, TV, posters, magazines, etc. As a result, the original form of masculinity, based on Schwarzenegger himself, is widely disseminated throughout culture, and turned into a series of new originals that in turn influence other people and other texts. The documentary about Schwarzenegger’s career Pumping Iron (1977), for instance, influences bodybuilding and then the documentary Pumping Iron II: The Women (1985), while influenced by the figure of Schwarzenegger, portrays a form of masculinity in a new form, which in turn has an influence on other bodybuilders. The Schwarzeneggerian form of masculinity is not absent, however, from these new versions of masculinity (quite the contrary in fact), but the new forms do not exist in the same originary forms in which they had existed before. One way to express this kind of approach to gender, then, is to say that copies of masculinity come to replace what might be considered the original. A given definition of masculinity, I might say, functions in complicated ways as it spreads throughout culture, influencing other definitions even as it is constantly transformed during its spread. This approach does not imply that gendered points of origin or various definitions of masculinity cannot be isolated, or that their influence cannot be isolated. One could still study the influence of Pumping Iron on the representation of the muscular male body. But those origins must be thought of as plural, as ultimately unlocalizable in a single relationship of influence.

Even the seemingly original models of masculinity themselves are not pure forms, but are already hybrid forms based on a mixture of other previous forms. Schwarzenegger’s masculinity, for instance, relies on precedents, images of masculinity such as early twentieth-century photos of the male body or the idealized artistic male body of Renaissance and ancient art. Even seemingly stable masculinity, such as Schwarzenegger’s, refers to other forms of masculinity, in an endless chain of linked but different masculinities. The necessary hybridity of masculinity might be considered more acute in a media-dominated era like the present in which masculinities can very easily circulate via TV, film, and the Internet.

Masculinity as Ideology

One way to understand the concept of masculinity as not created by any one person or by any single group is to consider masculinity as an ideology, a series of beliefs that a group of people buy into and that influences how they go about their lives. The concept of ideology is more traditionally associated with class and with politics (we talk about a “bourgeois ideology” or a “communist ideology”), but it is possible to think about masculinity as an ideology too. One reason to think in these terms is that ideology as a concept is often aligned with those in power: we talk about a “dominant ideology” as the political ideology that prevails in a given context. To consider masculinity as an ideology makes sense since it often is, or is often perceived of as, a subjectivity linked to power. A further parallel between masculinity and ideology is that, in the same way as no single class or single group can be considered to create ideology (though some groups are more major forces in its articulation and its propagation), no single group can be seen as responsible for constructing masculinity. Various institutions clearly have a self-interest in masculinity: the government needs soldiers to defend itself, so it promotes a military version of masculinity; the business world needs a capitalistic masculinity to make money, so it makes its version of gender appear ideal. But it is not possible to isolate any given institution as the origin of masculinity. Military masculinity is also produced, for instance, by cinema and by corporations (such as by marketing military toys to young boys). Several institutions may function together to build masculinity: sport and the military might have a mutual interest in a certain brand of muscular or fit masculinity, but neither creates masculinity from scratch. Another issue with seeing institutions as creating masculinity is that masculinity is not simply created by institutions, for masculinity itself also contributes to creating institutions. The military might try to create a military form of masculinity, but masculinity has already inflected the creation of the institution of the military in the first place, as well as the desire to propagate that genre of masculinity. So masculinity can be thought of both as created by institutions and as creating them, and the process of the construction of masculinity as a constant back-and-forth movement between masculinity and institutions.

One offshoot of thinking about masculinity as an ideology is the idea that one may buy into it without thinking about it, that it appears so natural within a given cultural and historical context that it is not questioned. In the United States, a large percentage of the population takes capitalism for granted or considers it a normal part of everyday life. Similarly, a large percentage of people take masculinity for granted as part of everyday life (if they think about it at all). Various groups tend to have different relations to the invisibility of masculinity. Men might be more prone not to see it as ideology, and women less so since they are often closed out of it, in the same way that a communist might see capitalism as far from natural because he or she functions in another economic system. Masculinity might be seen as ideological by men at times, of course, in the same way that someone living under capitalism might at times see capitalism from a distance and as one possible economic system among many. In the same way as one becomes conscious of the capitalist system when it does not function well for them, one may be more likely to view masculinity from a distance when there is a snag, a man who is unable to maintain his masculinity or a woman who is hurt by it.

Although a single origin to an ideology cannot be located, ideologies are often assumed to be created and propagated through various social forms, especially through images, myths, discourses, and practices. By virtue of their constant and unavoidable repetition throughout culture, these tools of ideology are eventually made to seem natural and thus to keep themselves from being questioned or interrogated, and they each have their own specific function in the large-scale process of constructing masculinity as ideology. We might be most familiar with the images of masculinity that pervade us: film, TV, and billboards would be some common examples of how we are given the message that a certain kind of masculinity is valid or more valid than another. Images related to advertising are particularly important in this context since they are one social form of masculinity in which capitalism and masculinity can function in tandem, as two ideologies can work together and buttress each other’s propagation. A Calvin Klein underwear advertisement, for instance, may put forward a certain image of masculinity with great force because it is putting its products forward with great zeal, and some viewers’ desire to possess or to be around the form of masculinity represented is inseparable (or is made to seem inseparable) from their desire to have the product pushed. These images might not be direct representations of actual or frequent masculinity, but symbolic images that require interpretation in order to be ideologically effective. Such symbols might function directly with readily available meanings that a culture has effectively already agreed on, as in the case of phallic symbols. On the other hand, the lack of culturally agreed-on meaning in these images can paradoxically make them more available to the ideology of masculinity since symbols or signs might be so subtle that one is less aware of their functioning than widely accepted signs like the penis.

Similar to images, myths also function as a way to make certain forms of masculinity seem eternal and unchanging, not open to change or variation, and not ideological in nature. Mythopoetic or Jungian approaches to masculinity that assume an inner core or essence of masculinity with which modern society has lost touch would fit into this category. Those who see masculinity as ideological are often skeptical and critical of such approaches, which tend to assume that there is a core of masculinity that all men can or should share and that myths put that core into an expression that explains their universality. In this approach, myths have the effect of retroactively reading a given idea of masculinity back onto all masculinity in order to make it appear universal when in fact it is fabricated. This idea is closely related to the idea that there are no underlying structures of masculinity: without such structures, myths themselves are not possible. Such myths might refer to actual myths or to narratives taken as universal that play a role similar to myths, such as Adam’s creation in Genesis or Odysseus’ epic journey in The Odyssey, whose elements are considered to represent a universal masculinity that links all men. Religious stories that explain elements of human existence might be purer examples of a myth because of their widespread cultural status, often taken as truth, meaning they can explain mythologically how aspects of masculinity come to be. The common understanding of Adam’s creation, for example, makes the original man a heterosexual victim of a woman’s seduction, and some believe that these aspects of Adam’s creation apply to all men. Certain scientific ideas on masculinity can also become mythological in this sense when they are taken to be essential truth about men, including genetic explanations for violence or warfare, biological explanations for male sexuality, or studies about how boys are biologically more or less something than girls.

Images can be turned into myths when they become so widespread that culture takes them for granted as a narrative of masculinity. When such images are so widespread, they are taken as universal and, on a cultural level, come to appear as mythological. The cowboy’s popularity as American cultural icon means that he represents an ideal of masculinity that appeals to so many boys that it effectively becomes an American myth. Male superheroes (Superman perhaps most famously) could be considered mythological figures in this sense: it is not that the creators of the Superman story necessarily set out to create a universal image of masculinity, but elements of that image appeal to so many boys (and grown men) that American culture has come to view Superman as universal and foundational to US masculinity. Cultural images not directly about men can also be related to masculinity. The hamburger has become an American myth, an essential aspect of American identity, but part of its mythological status derives from beef’s link to masculinity (we talk about “beefy” men for instance). So the cultural myth of the hamburger is buttressed by masculinity and affirms, in turn, the recurring connection between meat and masculinity.

More influential than myths, discourse constructs the ideology of masculinity as well: groups of texts around a given topic with a similar function contain certain presuppositions about masculinity that are propagated among children and adults. Key examples of cultural discourses (e.g., medical, legal, psychoanalytic, religious, pedagogical, political) include official and unofficial types in written and oral forms. Pedagogical discourse, for instance, might include textbooks, teacher-training materials and courses, official publications by the government or school districts that have implicit or explicit representations of masculinity, but it also includes unofficial forms of discourse, particularly oral forms such as conversations among teachers in the teachers’ lounge, actual verbal interactions between teachers and students in the classroom, or even conversations about teaching between students themselves.

Other less common, less categorical, or less official forms of discourse also create and propagate ideologies of masculinity: there might be a discourse around men’s locker rooms, for instance. While there may not be much of an official collection of written texts to serve as a foundation to study the discourse on locker rooms (though there may in fact be some), there is an oral discourse on this topic that constructs masculinity, whether it is the actual discourse that men have in the locker rooms themselves, discussions or jokes among women about men’s locker rooms, or gay male pornography that takes place in locker rooms. One could undertake, for example, a study of how a discourse around locker rooms constructs or destabilizes a certain idea of masculinity or the male body. Discourse serves as a particularly important organizing format for masculinity since language is central to masculinity (more on this later), and, because it is linguistically defined, it lends itself well to study and analysis.

A fourth way in which masculinity is propagated as ideology, one less language-based than discourse and the two other categories discussed above (images and myths), is through practices. When men perform various actions on a regular basis, they may be held within an ideology of masculinity. These actions might include sport, for instance, as men play football (and do not do gymnastics); they might include games, as boys play with toy guns (and not dolls); or they might include clothing, as men dress in jackets and ties (and not in dresses). With these practices, an ideological materiality becomes inscribed in daily life and transcends language and signs. The boy may be influenced by images or discourses around guns, and then change what he does on a daily basis (buy a toy gun, play with it, go hunting with his dad, vote for a pro-NRA political candidate). As these aspects of ideology influence practices, these practices in turn also serve to construct masculinity: the more I practice football, the more I believe that sport and masculinity are related, and the more I convey that belief to others (whether directly or indirectly). And the more American boys play football, the more American masculinity seems linked to football. Abstract ideology can never really be disassociated from the physicality of practice, and the dividing line between what I believe and what I do is never really clear or stable. To return to the question of origin, I might say that masculinity’s origin cannot be isolated entirely within the realm of the abstract or of the physical either. The physical and the abstract constantly interact with each other in ways that are complicated and not easily determined.

Practices cannot be totally separated from images, myths, or discourse either. In fact, despite the distinctness of these four categories of ideology, they can all overlap with one another. Images of a militarized masculinity might pervade American film, and those images might encourage (or be reinforced by) the boyhood practice of playing with guns. The reverse can certainly be true as well: practice can influence image. The cultural practice of playing with or using guns might mean that Hollywood is more likely to make films with guns to sell films. Consequently, representations of masculinity (on TV, for instance) should be seen as having a double nature: on the one hand, they reveal a form of masculinity that already exists in culture, but on the other hand, they construct (or help construct) the masculinity that they depict in culture. Conversely, a representation might depict a critique of masculinity already in culture, or it might invent a new critique. In both cases, however, the representation of masculinity exists in a back-and-forth relation with culture.

The prevalence of these social forms suggests that masculinity is at least largely imposed via these forms. Practices of masculinity, for example, leave the boy with little choice of how to act. But oddly, masculinity is often perceived to be free, unlike femininity and its imagined constraints. One paradox of masculinity as ideological is that it often gives the illusion of freedom, the illusion that masculinity...