Cultures of Masculinity

Tim Edwards

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• eBook ISBN: 9781134452446
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Presenting a survey of the social, cultural and theoretical issues which surround and inform our understanding of masculinity, this book explores the interface between traditional sociological approaches and the work covered by more post-structural, media-driven or cultural perspectives.

Edwards well known for his work on representations of masculinities, uses grounded examples of the job market and domestic violence to set his theoretical discussion. He argues that there is a need for more dialogue on men and masculinities between disciplines, and considers the validity of the concerns and anxieties which surround masculinity in the contemporary world through a range of key topics, including:

• the new man, the new lad and 'men's movements'
• men, masculinity and violence
• marginalized masculinities: black masculinity and gay male sexuality
• queer theory, performativity and fashion
• cinema, representation and the body.

One of the most comprehensive and progressive studies of modern masculinity available, this book will be essential reading for students of gender, culture and sociology.

1
‘Crisis, what crisis?’

Sex roles revisited

It is now not uncommon in populist and academic circles alike to talk of a ‘crisis’ of masculinity, yet what this actually means remains unclear. One of the causes of this confusion is the sheer profusion of uses and applications of the concept. Consequently, it is seen to refer to factors as diverse as the impact of second-wave feminism on men, competition with women either at school or at work, the escalating levels of violent acts men are seen to commit, anxieties concerning how men should act within the home or within personal relationships, the representation of men in negative terms in the media, or the undermining of traditional male sex roles. What constitutes a crisis as such is equally unclear. In particular, the concept of crisis is used to incorporate a sense of panic or anxiety that on the one hand has already happened or on the other might happen, and is applied equally to masculinity as a concept or to the experiences of men themselves.

This chapter has three key aims: first to try to define what a crisis of masculinity actually means, second to document and assess some of the ‘evidence’ for and against its use, and third to consider where this actually leads us not only in terms of its sexual political implications but rather for its importance to our understanding of masculinity itself. My concern here is neither to unquestioningly accept the concept of a crisis of masculinity or what it implies, nor to dismiss it out of hand. There are, I will suggest, ways in which masculinity is, perhaps, in deep crisis yet not necessarily in accordance with how this crisis is often perceived. Consequently, there are three sections: first, a consideration of how the crisis of masculinity is most commonly defined and what it is predicated on; second, an evaluation of various explanations of its significance; and third, an analysis of what a crisis of masculinity actually means more widely in terms of the theory and practice of sexual politics.

The crisis from without, the crisis from within

Evidence for the masculinity in crisis thesis tends to come from two inter-linked sets of concerns. The first I call the crisis from without. This includes some partially empirically documented concerns relating to the position of men within such institutions as the family, education and work. A specific concern here is the perception that men have lost, or are losing, power or privilege relative to their prior status in these institutions. The second I call the crisis from within. This is far less easily documented as it centres precisely on a perceived shift in men’s experiences of their position as men, their maleness, and what it means. Most importantly, this often refers to a sense of powerlessness, meaninglessness or uncertainty. The continuity concerning the importance of power here highlights not only its significance for masculinity per se, but rather the sense that this is a key factor that informs the entire masculinity in crisis thesis. More particularly, it also highlights the way in which the crisis from without and the crisis from within connect or how the crisis from without can also be a crisis from within and vice versa. Consequently, in this section I will consider these two levels of crisis in relation to seven key areas of concern. These include work, education, the family, sexuality, health, crime and representation, which, when taken together, may then inform an overall masculinity in crisis thesis.

Work

Historically, work has often stood as the most fundamental foundation of masculine identity, particularly in relation to modernity or, more specifically, advanced Western industrial capitalism. Moreover, it was a key thesis of many of the earliest critiques of masculinity working within the sex role paradigm that work was seen to be the most fundamental element in the formation of successful masculine identity (see, for example, David and Brannon, 1976; Farrell, 1974; Tolson, 1977). The primary point here was that work not only matters to men, but is also part of them as a key dimension of their identity and masculinity. Consequently, successful masculinity was equated directly with success at work whether in middle-class terms of a career or in more working-class terms of physical labour. The more contemporary problem in many Western societies is that this ethos is argued to be severely undermined on several fronts, usefully summarised by Beynon (Beynon, 2002). First, the decline of manufacturing has meant that many working-class men have found themselves unemployed, sometimes later in life and with little prospect for improvement. Second, downsizing and increasingly market-driven policies in many Western societies have led to rising occupational insecurity and a sense of precariousness across many service-oriented, professional or financial sectors and this in turn has meant that some middle-class men have similarly found their positions undermined. In addition, studies of unemployment tend to show a marked stigma concerning men who feel emasculated without work and, more particularly, the loss of ‘men’s work’ or manual labour in later life (Cockburn, 1983; Gaillie, Marsh and Vogler, 1994; Willott and Griffin, 1996). Third, all of this has taken place alongside the increasing participation of women in the workforce combined with a greater emphasis on sexual equality, thus tending to question any unilinear connection of gender and employment. However, such developments may also have wider implications that could be seen to be important on two interlinked fronts: first, as they rupture any straightforward equation of work with masculinity; and second, because they start to break down the breadwinner ethic or the equation of provision with masculinity. While women undoubtedly often remain disadvantaged in many ways, there is also little doubt that any simplistic equation of masculinity and men with the public sphere and work, and femininity and women with the private sphere and home, has at least become more complex even if it has not necessarily begun to break down. What this amounts to overall is an undermining of any direct relationship of masculinity with work per se.

However, it is easy to overstate the case here on various counts. First, the importance of women’s participation at work is strongly mitigated through discrimination against them in terms of power and career advancement, more commonly known as the glass ceiling, as well as the overwhelming significance of part-time working for many women and the fact that many working-class women have historically always worked (see, for example, Crompton, 1997; Davidoff and Hall, 1987; Game and Pringle, 1984). Second, and critically, men’s insecurities at work are often quite demographically specific and tend to be most strongly related to certain groups of men in specific employment at particular times such as manufacturing industries in the 1980s. Consequently, there is no simple undermining of men’s position at work en masse. In addition, none of these developments necessarily has any causal connection with shifts in sexual politics and may have more relation to wider developments in flexible working, globalisation and post-Fordism, which may, at least potentially, affect both sexes, albeit in different ways. The rise of part-time working for women is a case in point here. In sum, it would seem that while there is some evidence for tendencies towards crisis from without on the work front, there is little reason to assume that this is either unilaterally gendered towards men or that this should necessarily inculcate a crisis of masculinity en masse from within. What does still remain of concern here, from the point of view of a crisis from within, is the tendency to rupture the directness of the connection of masculinity and work in more psychological terms. Consequently, if masculinity is less defined through work alone, then one has to question what does define it, and it is this sense of the effect of the undermining of the ‘masculinity equals work’ ethic as an identity that tends to inform many other issues, as we shall see.

Education

Of rising media concern in recent years has been the increasing failure of males as opposed to females in education (see, for example, Elliot-Major, 2000; Lightfoot, 2000). This is focused most particularly on the widening gender gap in performance at school. Girls are now seen to routinely out-perform boys in terms of educational attainment on reaching school leaving age. Of more particular significance here is that while historically this disparity has evened out or even reversed in favour of boys at further and higher levels of education, these too are now perceived as showing signs of maintaining and indeed consolidating the educational lead of females over males. More importantly, media and academic concern alike are heightened, to near hysterical levels in the case of the media, as the failure of boys often appears to be explained as centred on their own increasing rebelliousness and inability to study, or more simply problems with their ‘masculinity’ (Arnot, David and Weiner, 1999; Francis, 2000; Lingard and Douglas, 1999). This is itself often perceived to be linked to the gloom and despair that some groups of young men feel at least concerning their employment prospects. Consequently, fears concerning a crisis in the education of males are strongly linked with those related to the world of work and indeed crime.

However, these concerns would often seem over-inflated and under-analysed on several counts. As a consequence, and perhaps not surprisingly, some authors have been quick to dismiss such claims on several fronts (Connell, 2000; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Kenway, 1995). First, in terms of measurement, gender is only one variable in relation to educational performance and academic success, while grades and assessment scores are only one measure of performance. It is perhaps particularly crude to simply assess gender and educational performance in terms of lumped aggregates and averages that ignore the significance of such factors as geography, class, or ethnicity. In addition, success at school or university is measured not merely through academic qualifications, but also through such factors as the creation of social skills, development of overall ‘cultural capital’ and successful entry into employment. If such factors are taken into account, the picture presented of gender disparity necessarily starts to appear more complex. Second, the so-called ‘hidden curriculum’ of education is still seen to be strongly gendered in terms of its content, as males and females continue to be locked into what Connell calls the ‘heterosexual “romance” pattern of gender relations’ (Connell, 2000:161). Thus schooling is seen, perhaps more than anything else, to inculcate the learning of traditional gender roles. Thirdly, and most fundamentally, the failure of boys at school is not new. It has long been documented that the passive and primarily mentally and emotionally selfcontrolling and cooperative skills often fostered in the classroom are more commonly associated with femininity than with masculinity, and working-class masculinity in particular is often more focused on physical prowess and has often found little outlet or success within the classroom. Paul Willis’s massively influential study of working-class lad cultures titled Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs is a prime example here (Willis, 1977). More recent studies also tend to endorse this connection, though often with greater sophistication (Gilbert and Gilbert, 1998; Pollard, 1985; Swain, 2000). In addition, as Connell’s, Francis’s, and Mac an Ghaill’s studies point out, the education system across Western societies is in a state of flux and opens up opportunities for reform as well as reinforcement of gender relations (Connell, 2000; Francis, 1998, 2000; Mac an Ghaill, 1994). However, this would hardly seem to constitute evidence for an overall crisis of masculinity in education. It would seem, then, that the perceived gender disparity in terms of educational attainment means little, at least in isolation. What does still seem to retain some significance is the linking of this factor with concerns relating to employment as previously outlined or indeed in relation to crime.

Crime

Crime remains a profoundly gendered phenomenon. To put it simply, the vast majority of crimes and particularly violent crimes are committed by boys or men and not by girls or women (see also Chapter 3). While there is some evidence to support the claim that women’s crime is increasing or is simply under-represented, the committing of crimes remains profoundly linked to the male sex (Bowker, 1998; Heidensohn, 1996; Messerschmidt, 1993, 1997; Smart, 1978; Stanko, 1994). This is, in essence, nothing new. What is newer here, however, is the sense in which this may relate to a wider crisis of masculinity. The concern is that crime, and particularly violent crime as committed by young and working-class males, is strongly related to rising unemployment and an increasing sense of despair among these groups, which finds expression or outlet through aggression and violence. Of particular concern is the recent wave of violent crime in depressed and impoverished areas, such as council estates in the UK since the late 1980s, often accompanied by new forms of crime such as ram-raiding, joy-riding and the rise of alcohol-induced brawling in towns and cities. The problem has also received some feminist as well as media attention, further highlighting its connections with a crisis of masculinity (Campbell, 1993).

There are, though, some points of scepticism worth raising here. First and foremost, crime remains notoriously difficult to measure, let alone relate to any simple cause and effect model as complex as a crisis of masculinity. Secondly, the immense media attention often now paid to matters of violent crime has in all likelihood also escalated and distorted its significance in a manner not dissimilar to the moral panics surrounding the mods and rockers in the 1950s (Cohen, 1972). As already stated, violence among lower-class young males is not necessarily new and therefore not necessarily indicative of any particularly contemporary crisis of masculinity. Thirdly, and most significantly, any recent or current escalation of violent crime in impoverished areas in all likelihood may be due as much, if not more, to rising social divisiveness and economic inequality, most particularly the widening gap between rich and poor, than to gender or masculinity. On top of this, the often strongly racialised dimension of such crimes is also frequently wholly neglected (Bowker, 1998). What remains of concern here, however, is the sense that such tendencies towards a crisis of masculinity from without, while often vastly overstated, may still relate to a wider crisis from within. There is some reason to assume that some young men are turning to crime as an alternative way of life when faced with a lack of opportunities elsewhere. This point is endorsed by Ian Taylor in Crime in Context where he attempts to interrogate the connection of questions of crime and masculinity to wider developments in the market and capitalist society, noting, in particular, the connection of crime and crises of masculinity at ‘lower levels of opportunity’ (Taylor, 1999:79). As violence is still an activity associated more with masculinity than with femininity, then it is also logical for the despair and frustration of some groups of young men to take this form. What remains clear, however, is the sense that this remains demographically and geographically quite specific and not particularly indicative of any overall crisis of masculinity.

Family

The family is perhaps the most complex arena within which the greatest sense of concern relating to a perceived crisis of masculinity resides. In the first instance this most fundamentally relates to the world of work. Given increased insecurity at work, if not unemployment, coupled with the rising participation of women in paid work and the commonality of dual-income households, there is much reason to assume that the image and indeed practice of men as providers, and the breadwinning ethic that goes with it, have been severely undermined if not displaced. On top of this the rise in rates of divorce, more commonly filed by women than by men, further undermines any mythic, or indeed real, status the stereotypically gendered nuclear family may have had or still has (see Beynon, 2002).

Moreover, the status of fatherhood has also suffered on several fronts. First, there has been increased coverage of such issues as domestic violence, child abuse and men’s general abandonment of the role of fatherhood. Though all of these issues are very worthy of significantly greater attention than they received previously, this has had the unintended consequence of representing all men as potential violators of their position as fathers and partners. Second, the masculine provider ethic and the role of the father may also be potentially undermined through advances in technology such as IVF that render the need for fathers increasingly redundant, though again this is easily overstated. Third, it is now well known that the judicial process tends to favour women or mothers as primary carers of children according to what are now perhaps outdated modes of parenting. Recent high-profile campaigns by Fathers for Justice in the UK and similar pressure groups concerning men’s rights are a prime example that has attracted much media attention. Taken together these factors would seem to present a somewhat pessimistic future for the position of men within the family.

However, such a view is undermined on several fronts: first, it often over-simplifies the view of fatherhood and tends to marginalise very fundamental variations according to class, race and sexuality (for a useful summary see Marsiglio and Pleck, 2004). Similarly, Adams and Coltrane (2004) highlight the tendency to collapse into anxieties concerning the implosion of gendered differences or the biological stereotypes concerning both children and parenting. Second, men often remain reluctant fathers and resistant to change and to taking their domestic responsibilities and commitments seriously, as men’s participation in child care and domestic work has not increased particularly significantly and often remains pitched at the secondary level of ‘helping out’ (see for example, McMahon, 1999). Consequently, while fathers are often relatively poorly supported through employment practices and state legislation, they also often appear equally slow to force change. Third, and more widely, men’s position within the family is not necessarily undermined per se, rather it may be perceived as adapting to changing circumstance which may work to men’s advantage as well as women’s, giving them both the opportunity for more loving relationships with their children and a sense of equality and commonality with their partners.

Sexuality

Concerns relating to the family and men’s position within the domestic sphere relate strongly to underlying anxieties surrounding men’s sexuality. There are essentially two dimensions to this issue. The first of these concerns men’s ongoing difficulties in relation to emotional expression or communication and interpersonal intimacy. Though the New Man promised a new dawn in men’s inner emotional happiness and expression, as typified in the now overly common imagery of men holding babies, this often proved to be little more than a media invention and myth. Men’s difficulties with emotional expression are also not new historically and are well documented, yet what is newer here is the sense of increasing pressure surrounding men’s personal development and capacities in these areas (Clare, 2000; Horrocks, 1994; Seidler, 1989). Of particular importance here is the perception of women’s rising expectations sexually and emotionally in the wake of second-wave feminism, often linked with a greater sense of their sexual and emotional independence from men.

Allied to this, the contemporary plethora of near pornographic representations of muscular men, oiled and gleaming, in everything from Hollywood movies to pop music and adverts for soft drinks, has led some to argue that a culture of anxiety and low selfesteem is now growing among men not dissimilar to that experienced in relation to women for many years (Pope, Phillips and Olivardia, 2000; Bordo, 1999; Wolf, 1991). An additional difficulty here, however, is the sense of slithering into the altogether different territory of gay sexuality and it is decidedly unclear whether some of this overtly sexual representation of men is related to women’s expectations of heterosexual men at all or rather to the proliferation of dual marketing and implicitly ‘gay’ representations of male sexuality. In particular, concerns around men’s sexuality often focus precisely and exclusively on the heterosexual and many stereotypes concerning both black and gay male sexuality remain. In sum the issue here seems to centre on a lack of resolution to a not very new set of problems.

Health

Concerns relating to men’s health exist on several well-documented levels. A particularly useful summary is provided by Lee and Owens in The Psychology of Men’s Health (Lee and Owens, 2002). First, men’s mortality rates are generally higher than women’s across advanced Western industrial societies. One frequently quoted statistic concerns the gender gap in life expectancy which, although actually now closing, remains significant (Beynon, 2002; Connell, 2000; Watson, 2000). Explanations for this situation are numerous, yet mostly centre on a mixture of genetic and social considerations varying from the influence of testosterone to men’s greater participation in many forms of lifethreatening activities including sport, drinking and smoking, violence and road accidents, which account for many young male deaths (Lee and Owens, 2002). A second factor concerns comparisons in relation to morbidity rates, where men are sometimes perceived as over-represented, and in connection with a whole series of diseases and afflictions that men, purely by virtue of being male, are prone to or which are exclusively male afflictions. The most glaring example of this was Goldberg’s sensationally titled work The Hazards of Being Male originally published in 1976 and reprinted in 2000. Goldberg assaulted the notion of male privilege with vigour in docume...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 ‘Crisis, what Crisis?’
• 2 Femenism
• 3 Violence and Violation
• 4 In Black and White
• 5 Identity and Desire
• 6 What are You Looking at?
• 7 The Spectacle of the Male
• 8 Auto-Mechanics
• Conclusion
• Bibliography