Masculinities in Post-Millennial Popular Romance
eBook - ePub

Masculinities in Post-Millennial Popular Romance

Eirini Arvanitaki

Share book
  1. 70 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Masculinities in Post-Millennial Popular Romance

Eirini Arvanitaki

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

This book focuses on the projection of the hero's masculinity in a selection of post-millennial popular romance narratives and attempts to discover if, and to what extent, this projection reinforces or challenges patriarchal ideas about gender. In the majority of these narratives the hero is often presented as a hegemonic alpha male. However, hegemonic masculinity is not a fixed concept. Rather, it is subject to continuous change which allows for the emergence of various dominant masculinities. Under a poststructuralist lens and through a close textual analysis approach and a gender reading of romance narratives, the book suggests that to a certain extent the romance hero could be described as a platform onto which different forms of dominant masculinity are displayed and highlights that these masculinities do not necessarily clash, depend on, or function as a prerequisite for each other.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Masculinities in Post-Millennial Popular Romance an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Masculinities in Post-Millennial Popular Romance by Eirini Arvanitaki in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Letteratura & Critica letteraria dei generi gotico, romantico e horror. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
Routledge
Year
2022
ISBN
9781000618358
Edition
1
Topic
Letteratura
Subtopic
Critica letteraria dei generi gotico, romantico e horror

1 Hegemonic Masculinity and the Romance Hero

DOI: 10.4324/9781003202837-2
The romance hero [is] a construction, one that reflects contemporary ideas of masculinity more than any woman’s ideal man. The [hero] draws from ideas of masculinity already available in our culture, but modifies them to make him a woman’s fantasy, rather than that of a man.
(Zidle 1999: 23)
In the field of gender studies, “hegemonic masculinity” is one of the most cited and discussed concepts. Hegemony is
a social ascendancy achieved in a play of social forces that extends beyond contests of brute power into the organization of private life and cultural processes. Ascendancy [
] is embedded in religious doctrine and practice, mass media content, wage structures, the design of housing, welfare ⁄ taxation policies and so forth.
(Connell 1987: 184)
Hegemony refers to the way power functions in constructing our understanding of social relations. In addition, it emphasises the manner in which people accept relations of authority and power and also how individuals repeat them (Butler 2000: 14). What derives from this definition is the perception of hegemonic masculinity as a dominant ideology of masculinity (Connell 2001: 38–9). Its general characteristics (in the contemporary West) are typically associated with “whiteness, location in the middle class, heterosexuality, independence, rationality and educated, a competitive spirit, the desire and the ability to achieve, controlled and directed aggression, as well as mental and physical toughness” (Howson 2012: 60). This desired, idealised masculinity is what the majority of men tend to aspire towards and it functions as an ideal that, by definition, cannot be reached. Therefore, achieving it is impossible. Hegemonic masculinity is powerful, as a result, because it ensures men’s compliance with the system. It does so by preserving traditionally accepted practices (e.g. men as breadwinners and family providers) as important hegemonic masculine principles which in effect contribute to maintaining the continuance of this idealised masculinity (61). This dominant masculinity is also constantly evolving as it is a social construct and “a lived experience” (Donaldson 1993: 646) that is subject to social relations which may vary depending on the time period (Messner and Sabo 1990: 12), social class and profession (Tolson 1977: 81), financial status, and even depending on location, levels of modernisation and globalisation.
Jeff Hearn (2004: 53) notes that various studies have used hegemony as a term in discussions and debates on men, for example, “hegemonic masculinity” (Carrigan et al. 1985), “male hegemony” (Cockburn 1991), and “hegemonic heterosexual masculinity” (Frank 1987). However, to date, the meaning of the term “hegemony” has been ambiguous and the question of who represents hegemonic masculinity remains unanswered. For instance, in a study undertaken in 1990, Connell describes the Australian “iron-man” surfing champion as an example of hegemonic masculinity. However, Mike Donaldson (1993) appears to disagree with the hegemonic model proposed by Connell as his hegemonic status refrains the surfer from acting in ways that his peer considers masculine (drinking, showing off etc.). What scholars (e.g. Martin 1998; Wetherell and Edley 1999) agree on is that the concept does not specify who can be considered as a hegemonic male, or what are the defining characteristics of this type of ideal masculinity. As Stephen Whitehead puts it: “Is it John Wayne or Leonardo DiCaprio; Mike Tyson or Pele? Or maybe, at different times, all of them?” (Whitehead 2002: 93) Taking into account the confusion that surrounds the term, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005: 838) propose that hegemonic masculinity should not be seen as a fixed term referring to a specific model of masculinity as this hinders academics and scholars from acknowledging the social development of masculinity and its definitions.
As a result of the term’s ambiguity, scholars mainly focus on how certain forms of masculinity can dominate others. Carrigan et al. conceptualise the term as “a question on how particular groups of men inhabit positions of power and wealth and how they legitimate and reproduce the social relations that generate their dominance” (Carrigan et al. 1987: 179). Connell suggests that it is not of great importance to describe the term but argues that dominant masculinity is “the most honoured or desired in a particular context” (Connell 1995: 77). Across different cultures, this dominant form of masculinity receives its form through the creation of the hero in narratives as one of the ways in which this form of masculinity is promoted. This masculinity is “presented through forms that revolve around heroes: sagas, ballads, westerns, thrillers” (Connell 1983: 185) and, in the twenty-first century, is experienced by a wide, international audience through the use of mass media.
In Western culture, the hegemonic model of masculinity is successful, heterosexual, aggressive, and rational and takes risks (Connell 1995: 79). Prevailing studies of the popular romance hero seem to present variations of hegemonic masculinity (which echo Connell’s definition of the term) and suggest that these forms of idealised masculinity of the West have become synonymous with the dominant Harlequin and Mills & Boon alpha male. For example, Heather Schell points out that the term “alpha male” (commonly used for the Harlequin and Mills & Boon hero) is derived from the natural phenomenon of dominant behaviours among dogs and wolves. Her standpoint derives from evolutionary psychologists who believe that male behaviour can be explained if compared to large predatory mammals that exist in dominating and aggressive packs. “‘Alpha’ was originally used [
] to refer to the dominant individuals in rigidly hierarchical animal societies such as [
] primates and wolves” (Schell 2007: 113). The application of this term to the male heroes of romance fiction has its roots in “an amalgam of [
] popular ideas about the behaviour of wolves (wolves fight to maintain their place in the pack hierarchy), popular ideas about alpha males (they demand fidelity from their mates), and fantasies about ideal human masculinity (tremendous strength and sex appeal)” (115–6). Schell describes the alpha male as powerful, dominant, wealthy, aggressive, influential, intimidating, and physically strong. Mary Talbot adds sexual allure to the definitions of alpha heroes: they are “embodiments of hegemonic masculinity, presented as desirable, highly eroticised and utterly irresistible” (Talbot 1997: 107).
Laura Vivanco offers an alternative definition for the popular romance hero. In her book For Love and Money: The Literary Art of Harlequin Mills & Boon Romance (2011), Laura applies Northrop Frye’s five fictional modes to popular romance novels. Since the story of all fictional modes revolves around an individual, it is the power of the hero’s actions and the portrayal of the surrounding environment that categorise the novel under one of those mode types. Frye states:
In literary fictions the plot consists of somebody doing something. The somebody, if an individual, is the hero, and the something he does or fails to do is what he can do, or could have done, on the level of the postulates made about him by the author and the consequent expectations of the audience. Fictions, therefore, may be classified, not morally, but by the hero’s power of action, which may be greater than ours, less, or roughly the same.
(Frye 1957: 33)
These modes are the following: (i) mythic, (ii) romantic, (iii) high-mimetic, (iv) low-mimetic, and (v) ironic. The first mode refers to the fictional protagonists who are superior “in kind both to other men and to the environment of other men” (33). This hero would be divine and the story about him would have the form of a myth. Although stories of such nature play an important role in literature, they are “outside of the normal literary categories” (33). For Vivanco, popular romance novels could not fall under the mythic mode because they are not “a myth in the common sense of a story about a god” (33).
Based on Frye’s fictional modes, in a romantic narrative, the hero should be “superior in degree to other men and to his environment” but presented as a human being (33). Nevertheless, “the laws of nature are quite suspended” (33) and although his actions may seem natural to him, they are quite unnatural to the readership. Supernatural and paranormal elements, such as bewitched places or animals, or ghosts, may also be part of the story. According to Vivanco (2011: 32), the Mills & Boon Nocturne1 line of romances falls into this category as the protagonists of this series are usually vampires, time-travellers, or werewolves with supernatural powers and abilities. She suggests that sometimes both the hero and heroine of the novel may not be human beings but at least one of them is identified as such. High-mimetic literature is when its protagonist is “superior in degree to other men but not to his natural environment, the hero is a leader. He has authority, passions, and powers of expression far greater than ours, but what he does is subject both to social criticism and to the order of nature” (Frye 1957: 34). The low-mimetic literary mode alludes to the hero who is “neither superior to other men nor to his natural environment” (34). He is an everyday man and one that most readers would be able to relate to the man-next-door. He is a hero who exists in a common environment and has experiences familiar to the readers, rather than unrealistic or fictitious ones. The ironic mode describes stories in which the hero is
inferior in power or intelligence to ourselves, so that we have the sense of looking down on a scene of bondage, frustration, or absurdity [
]. This is still true when the reader feels that he is or might be in the same situation, as the situation is being judged by the norms of a greater freedom.
(34)
What can be derived from the aforementioned text is that the twenty-first-century heroes depicted in popular romance novels are high-mimetic and bear great resemblance to Connell’s hegemonic male ideal; they are pictured as men who have it all. They are handsome, powerful, and successful; they can exercise authority; they are superior to other men (lesser masculinities that exist in the romance narratives); and they are the ones “that the female of any species will be most intensely attracted to” (McAleer 1999: 149–50).
Hegemonic masculinity is not static but subject to change. Frank Pitt-man notes that “masculinity is different for each generation” (Pittman 1993: xiv–v). Whereas in the past, the term “man” “conjure[d] up the attendant characteristics of a strong, confident, competitive, and decisive patriarch” (Tragos 2009: 543), this is no longer the case. The man of the twenty-first century is “overly concerned with appearance, fashion, and trends. He is a metrosexual’s [sic] man” (2009: 545). Or, as Buerkle puts it, he exhibits a “masculinity concerned with aesthetics and other heretofore interests classed as feminine” (Buerkle 2009: 78). The concept of metrosexuality was first introduced by Mark Simpson in 2002 to describe the footballer David Beckham “as a metrosexual par excellence, emphasizing the narcissism of culture industry obsession mixed with the heteromasculine assets of desire from straight women and admiration from straight men” (cited in Buerkle 2009: 78). This (metrosexual) man is not afraid to pay great attention to his appearance and to express an interest in fashion and get involved with activities that were once considered as traditionally feminine (Segal 1993: 633–4). Barthel makes the observation that “the growing fascination with appearances, encouraged by advertising, has led to a ‘feminization’ of culture” (2003: 178). However, this type of masculinity did not conform to the (traditional) ideal masculinity of the past; a man who would show signs of metrosexuality was thought “to be effeminate and not a ‘real man’” (171). This perception still exists:
A well-dressed, well-groomed and “stylish” man still tends to arouse anxieties concerning sexuality and masculinity or the terrifying two-some of the homosexual and the effeminate. Stereotypically, “real” men don’t care what they look like and just “throw things on” whilst women go shopping and agonize over matters of self-presentation.
(Edwards 2003: 142)
A counter-response to this feminised man is the appearance of hypermasculinity. It is an attempt “to reclaim traditional notions of manhood” (Tragos 2009: 546) and a retrograde step towards “an age of rampant chauvinism, where men swagger about in a testosterone rage and women are reduced to sexual ornaments” (Mayer 2003: 512). Hypermasculinity is, as described by Ricciardelli and Clow, the exaggerated presentation of “traditionally” masculine realities (Ricciardelli and Clow 2003: 119) and elements of it can be found in the romance novels examined here (e.g. heterosexuality and sexual allure). The faithfulness of romance authors to the construction of heroes as dominant, aggressive, and at times intimidating for the heroines in the past could be seen as an attempt to avoid any association (of the heroes’) with effeminate, queer, or homosexual elements.
The preceding ref...

Table of contents