Alternative Masculinities for a Changing World

À. Carabí, J. Armengol, À. Carabí, J. Armengol

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137462558
• eBook ISBN: 9781137462565
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Cultural & Social Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

Focusing on global examples of gender equality, this collection explores non-dominant models of masculinity that represent gender equity in pro-feminist ways. Essays explore new alternative models of masculinity by a wide variety of contemporary authors and texts, ranging from Paul Auster to Jonathan Franzen.

P A R T I

---

Alternative Masculinities: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

C H A P T E R 1

---

Reconstructing Masculinity or Ending Manhood? The Potential and Limitations of Transforming Masculine Subjectivities for Gender Equality

Bob Pease

Introduction

Some years ago, I researched the politics and practices of profeminist men (Pease, Recreating Men). I argued at the time that one of the most central issues for women’s prospects for gender equality is whether or not men can and will change. I put the view that changing the social relations of gender will involve changing men’s subjectivities, as well as their daily practices. This research was grounded in my own experiences as white heterosexual man who was committed to a profeminist position.

I did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that heterosexual men changing their personal lives to become more equal with their female partners will in and of itself challenge the structures of patriarchy. However, I believe that men have choices as to whether they accept patriarchy or work collectively against it. If they are to work against it, some form of transformation in men’s subjectivity in relation to domination seemed necessary. My research was concerned with the limits and possibilities of such transformation.

The primary motivating factor for men to support gender equality will come from their “relational interests” winning out over their egotistic interests. It is men’s relationships with partners, daughters, mothers, sisters, and so on that will provide the basis upon which men will come to support change (Connell, The Men and the Boys). Such a stance requires the development of what Kimmel (335) calls “democratic manhood,” where men will take a stand against gender injustice on the basis of moral and ethical commitments.

Connell (Masculinities 224) proposes a strategy of “exit politics” opposing patriarchy and trying to exit from dominant masculinity. While she identifies this strategy as the only path that has any potential to change the gender order, she also doubts its ability to achieve this potential. By contrast, I argue that Stoltenberg’s (Refusing) strategy of “refusing to be a man” and Connell’s (Masculinities) “exit politics” only remain unrealistic political strategies for a progressive gender politics for men as long as we continue to essentialize men’s identities. In constructing a new masculine subjectivity as profeminist men, it is important to conceive of identities as not being “founded on the notion of some absolute integral self” (Hall 45). I would propose that we have to destabilize men’s identities and encourage them to create solidarity with women and gay men on the basis of respect for difference.

In more recent years, I have been concerned with the wider politics of change in relation to privileged subjectivities, as they relate to colonialism, white supremacy, class elitism, heteronormativity, and ableism, along with male domination (Pease, Undoing Privilege). I have been concerned with the questions how can members of privileged groups transform their dominant subjectivities? Under what conditions might we be able to encourage members of privileged groups to engage with the knowledge of oppression and open themselves to hearing the voices of the oppressed?

As an antiviolence activist who works in diverse workplaces and community-based contexts primarily with men who have not been identified as perpetrators of violence, I am interested in practical pedagogical strategies for engaging men and members of privileged groups more generally in loosening their connections to dominant subject positions. In this chapter, I set out some of the theoretical, political, and pedagogical issues involved in such work.

Reconstructing Men’s Interests

It is generally well recognized that dominant groups have different interests in continuity as opposed to change, compared with subordinate groups. Thus, feminist campaigns for violence prevention and gender equality would appear to be opposed to men’s collective interests (Messner and Solomon).

This raises the question of whether it can be in men’s interests to change and whether men can distance themselves from their privileged position in patriarchy. Can men change to support and promote nonviolence and gender equality? Would they only do so on the basis of altruism or do they have things to gain? If men are to be reliable allies with women in violence prevention and gender equality campaigns, we must understand the nature of their interests and the basis of their resistance to change.

It is necessary to be able to articulate the reasons why men should challenge violence and support gender equality. Connell believes that to involve men, policies and programs will need to be compatible with some of the interests of men. Flood (459) talks about the tension between men’s “patriarchal interests” and what he perceives as “their interest in undermining patriarchy.” While he acknowledges the dangers of men asserting their interests at women’s expense, of denying male privilege and regarding themselves as victims, he believes that it is essential that men “see their stake in feminist futures” (459). I have previously written about the need for men to see beyond their socially constructed interests toward what I call their “emancipatory interests” (Pease, “(Re)Constructing”). The issue is, however, whether men can have nonpatriarchal interests as men. I have also argued that men have an ethical obligation to change (Pease, “(Re)Constructing”) irrespective of whether it meets their interests or not.

When we talk about men’s interests in terms of the disadvantages suffered by men under patriarchy, we are in danger of lending support to men’s rights advocates, who aim to refute feminist claims of men’s privilege. There are also dangers in seeing the disadvantages as the “costs of being on top.” The men who benefit the most and the men who experience the most costs are not necessarily the same (Connell, “The Role of Men and Boys”). Thus, the gains and costs of men’s gender privilege are spread unevenly between men on the basis of race, class, and age differences.

Molyneux wrote a significant article in 1985 on the difference between “the gender interests of women” and the concept of “women’s interests.” While women’s “gender interests” were based on an analysis of women’s subordination, “women’s interests” were those formulated by the women themselves in response to an immediate need. These latter interests were not necessarily compatible with the struggle for gender equality. The implication of Molyneux’s analysis was that men’s interests could also be seen this way. As I have argued elsewhere, people’s interests are not objectively determined. Rather, people formulate their interests (Pease, “(Re)Constructing”).

Men’s interests are not homogeneous and are differentiated by the membership of different classes, sexualities, and nations (Messner and Solomon). As noted, men’s interests are also further complicated by their relationships with particular women in their lives such as mothers, partners, and daughters (Goode). Given that men have different interests, it is unclear how these interests will play out. It is thus important to pay close attention to the concrete situations in which men are located and the diversity of men’s experiences (Connell, “The Role of Men and Boys”). In this context, we can then better understand the ways in which men’s interests are constructed and the possibilities of eliciting particular men’s support for gender equality and violence prevention.

The Internalization of Dominance

A concept that has been used to understand some of the ways in which privileged people sustain their dominant position is “internalized domination.” Pheterson (147) defines internalized domination as “the incorporation and acceptance by individuals within a dominant group of prejudices against others.” The concept of internalized domination may explain in part why members of privileged groups may reinforce the oppression of others without considering themselves as being oppressive.

Tillner (2) usefully takes the notion of internalized domination a little further by defining dominance “as a form of identity practice that constructs a difference which legitimizes dominance and grants the agent of dominance the illusion of a superior identity.” In this process, the identities of others are invalidated. Thus, I maintain that dominance is socially constructed and psychically internalized. To challenge dominant identities, we will need to explore different models of identity and construct subjectivities that are not based on domination and subordination.

The concept of internalized domination thus helps us understand the seeming paradox that Minow identifies in relation to those who publicly criticize social inequality, while at the same time engaging in practices that perpetuate these inequalities. The task of examining and reformulating our assumptions about the social world requires more than individuals learning to think differently, because of the ways in which the individual’s thinking is shaped by institutional and cultural forces. So while it is important for individuals to acknowledge the privileges they have and to speak out against them, it is impossible to simply relinquish privilege.

Gender Privilege and Masculine Subjectivities

It is useful to differentiate between the institutionalized patriarchal system, which refers to the structural advantages and privileges that men enjoy, and the personal patriarchal system, which involves men’s face-to-face interactions with women both at home and in the public sphere (Mederos). Because all men are socialized within patriarchy, they will all believe to some extent that they have a right to make normative claims upon women. Men will differ in relation to what claims they believe they are entitled to make and how they may enforce them. These claims include deferential treatment, unpaid domestic labor and child care, sexual services, and emotional support.

Men thus come to believe that they deserve something from women, which they then experience as an entitlement. The totality of these entitlements and claims is what constitutes male privilege. This sense of entitlement may not necessarily be conscious, and it may only come into their awareness when they are deprived of this unreciprocated service.

We cannot overcome sexism and patriarchal arrangements if we do not acknowledge and address male privilege. If we do not recognize the unearned privileges we receive as men, we will be unable to acknowledge the impact of these privileges upon the women in our lives.

Bailey (“Privilege” 109) describes privilege as “systematically conferred advantages individuals enjoy by virtue of their membership in dominant groups with access to resources and institutional power that are beyond the common advantages of marginalized citizens.” An individual’s privilege is thus more a product of his/her membership in privileged groups than it is of his/her individual capabilities. Most privilege is not recognized as such by those who have it. So not being aware of privilege and the sense of entitlement that members of privileged groups feel about their status are key aspects of privilege (Pease, Undoing Privilege).

Connell (Gender) refers to the privileges that men receive as “the patriarchal dividend.” This includes respect, authority, services from women, monetary benefits, institutional power, and control over one’s life. Depending on men’s location in the gender order, they will get more or fewer of these privileges. It is the patriarchal dividend that leads men to defend patriarchy. While many men talk about the costs of hegemonic masculinity, there is insufficient attention to what men gain from the patriarchal dividend. Over 30 years ago, Goode wrote an account of men’s response to feminism, which is still one of the best critical appraisals of men’s interests in relation to change in gender relations. Goode argued simply that men resisted change because they were the privileged group.

Men have to be involved in the process of challenging patriarchy. What such men can achieve in relation to reconstructing their subjectivities and challenging the cultural and structural foundations of their privilege is the subject of extensive debate within feminism and profeminist masculinity politics. However, I argue that it is possible for men to develop a cognizance of their gender privilege and to act in ways that challenge the reproduction of gender inequality (Pease, Recreating Men; Pease, “(Re)Constructing”; Pease, Undoing Privilege).

However, the preconditions for these actions for men have to rest on an acknowledgment that patriarchy and unearned male privileges exist, that they are reproduced by the practices of men, and that men will have to develop the moral courage to act in concert with women to live a life based on reciprocity rather than unearned entitlement.

Developing a Moral Commitment Among Men for Change

Young argues that most of us are part of causal relationships that lead to structural injustice. Consequently, she advocates a social connection model that says that individuals bear responsibility for structural injustice because they contribute to the processes that produce unjust outcomes. All men have an underlying moral responsibility to challenge patriarchy because they participate in it. When women are harmed by men’s practices, men who did not participate in those practices should feel tainted by them. Furthermore, men who share sexist attitudes share responsibility for the harms that result from those attitudes. Thus, men should feel some shame in, for example, men’s complicity in the prevalence of rape through not speaking out against it (May).

Shame is often an emotion that arises initially when people first become aware of their privilege. In relation to Indigenous issues, for example, the experience of shame is important in recognizing how the practices and inaction of white people have caused pain and loss for Indigenous people. Acknowledging shame is also important in healing and reconciliation. Thus, shame is a necessary response to the acknowledgment of the suffering of Indigenous people (Ahmed). For Jensen, an antiracist activist, the overwhelming feeling of acknowledging white privilege is sadness. Such an emotion is appropriate when we consider the level of racial injustice in our society (Pease, Undoing Privilege). While it is important to be aware of social difference in the experience of shame and oppression, I argue that there are commonalities in the emotional dynamics of the exercise of privilege.

One alternative to being moved by past and present injustices to oppressed people is to be detached from them and to claim that we are not in any way implicated in them. It seems as though, when challenged about their privilege, som...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• Part I   Alternative Masculinities: An Interdisciplinary Perspective
• Part II   Alternative Models of Manhood: Representations in American Literature and Culture
• List of Contributors
• Index