Hierarchic Masculinity

“Femininity is neither a natural nor an innate entity, but rather a condition brought about by society, on the basis of certain physiological characteristics.” Simone de Beauvoir

“The feminine character, and the ideal of femininity of which it is modelled, are products of masculine society.” Theodor Adorno

“The problem is not changing people’s consciousness - or what’s in their heads - but the political, economic, institutional regime of the production of truth.” Michel Foucault.

Introduction

Masculinity is the property by which humans of the male sex are defined as manly, masculinity is what makes a man. Masculinity should be understood in the same way Durkheim understands society. It is the idea that masculinity, like society, has a life or is real sui generis. Masculinity is self-created and "real" because people believe it. The wider and deeper social and philosophical meanings and problems of masculinity, and how it is believed to be real, are issues with which this investigation is concerned. Because of the sheer complexity of the concept of masculinity, it is necessary to examine and overview a broad (but not complete) range of subjects using a number of methodologies from a variety of disciplines, because masculinity is socially saturating on many different levels and in many different ways. Perhaps the most important aspect of masculinity is hierarchy, this goes someway toward defining what masculinity is and what it does. Hierarchic masculinity can be broadly defined as an ideological construct, informing social practices and symbol systems that constitute the differential distribution of power and status between and within the two gender groups.

Throughout the history of the social sciences, masculinity was not seen as a concept worthy of analysis. It could not, or would not, be conceptualised as a subject for analysis in its own right, with no possibility of contestability. The concept was not deconstructed before the development of feminist pedagogy, which to the development of a framework of gender analysis. The first major studies of masculinity as such, came from the school of anthropology, but only in a comparative sense, in our relation to other cultures. The need to question masculinity, except in its broad range of characteristics, was not elucidated until feminist thought became more influential.

However, the concept of masculinity has in recent years been subject to extensive analysis and deconstruction. The contestability of masculine hierarchy is in fact very real, resulting in the difficulty to pin down and dissect it. This is because masculine hierarchies are manifold and complex, there is conflict between different forms of masculine status and identity in a culture where masculine status affirmation is significant, as well as tensions which exist within them, along with parallelisms and interactions between them. For example, hierarchical status might include factors of strength and a body aesthetic, of class and income, age, race, ethnicity, sexual prowess and sexual identity. These hierarchies are both interrelated and separated in their multiplicity. How these hierarchies of masculine status are formed, accepted, perpetuated and interact, and how they inform masculine identity are the main concerns here. How men perceive themselves, other men and women, and how women perceive men in turn is important. In relation to this, how women are involved in the perpetuation and affirmation of masculine ideology is an important issue. These problems oscillate continually between the two gender groups, resulting in a complexity by which hierarchies are difficult to make generalisations about. The questions that underpin this dissertation are: What is masculinity? How, where and when is it produced? How is it organised as a social practice? What are the effects?

Initially, a clarification of the term "ideology" is necessary. The concept of ideology is used throughout this dissertation in the Marxian sense, that is, ideologies serve to justify and mask a set of group (but not necessarily social class) interests. Here, ideologies are not a distortion of true consciousness; on the contrary, ideologies mould consciousness. In this sense the term "ideology" is used as Mannheim does, to define different styles of thought which oppose change and lessen value conflict; ideologies are interpretative schemes used by social groups to make the world more intelligible to themselves.(1) The notion will bare further analysis later, as various theories converge upon it.

Chapter 1 - Masculinity

First of all it seems necessary to have some working understanding of masculinity as a sketched answer to the first question. This answer will be refined as the examination of masculine hierarchy is elucidated, allowing some tentative conclusions. A definition of masculinity would be a useful tool to work with and indeed, a definition of "what it is to be a man" is something virtually everyone can answer. Ronald W. Connell writes that the term masculinity in its modern usage "assumes that one’s behaviour results from the type of person one is."(2) A man’s masculinity is then, assigned according to his behaviour. But masculine behaviour is understood in a particular way in a particular social and historical context. In Western culture masculinity is associated with strength, rationality, leadership or domination, sexual vigour, competitiveness, independence, aggression, bravery and heroism, control and power. That there are other qualities too, illustrates the complexity and range of the term. This range of qualities also implies that individuals are complex and elude complete definition. This range also points to the problem that no one man enacts all of these traits. Each of these qualities are optional, but too few of them can disqualify a person from being masculine; for example, a woman can be brave, but not necessarily masculine. These qualities are subject to change over time within, as well as between, cultures. As a result of these issues, there is no final definition of masculinity that can be agreed upon or found in any one man.

Historical developments

Obviously then, trying to define masculinity in this way is problematic. There are no living exemplars who live out all of the possible qualities (though there are fictional exemplars that do), and masculinity’s relative definition means that it is always an evasive concept. The reason why masculinity is so difficult to define is found in its history. This history also accounts for its current influence and illustrates the necessity for examination. Masculinity as a modern, Western concept was shaped by five particular developments beginning at the end of the fifteenth century. First, new understandings of what it is to be a person with a sexuality grew from the decline in religious influence over intellectual life, prompted by the Renaissance and Reformation. "Marital heterosexuality displaced monastic denial as the most honoured form of sexuality."(3) This shift emphasised the hierarchy of Christian cosmology with God at the top, followed by the angels, men, women, animals and finally plants and rocks. Men and women, like the angels, were ordered within their own hierarchies as a microcosm of the main cosmology. The king was at the top and the serf at the bottom. The family too was a microcosm of this structure with the husband at its head. In this way marital heterosexuality is historcially tied to the structure of patriarchy.(4) To reinforce this structure, heterosexuality become compulsory as part of this family life.(5)

The second development arose from three inter-linked religious and then secular trends which developed the idea of masculinity as rational, in opposition to the natural world and emotion. This development is the primary example of "transcendental" activity which Simone de Beauvoir considers to define masculinity.(6) The first trend was the opposition of rationality and culture to emotion and nature which were understood as feminine. This first trend stretches back before the Renaissance, to the beginnings of Christian religion where the assigning of value to a transcendent being placed value beyond nature, which was then understood as secondary and ephemeral. This was supported by biblical exegesis, and resulted in the exploitation of those life-forms deemed less valuable and placed here for our own use.(7)

This exploitation of nature must be emphasised because nature was understood in direct relation to women. The Christian cosmology and the later secular opposition and gendering of rationality and emotionality provided the ideal conditions for sexism, where women are equated with an irrational, cyclical and dangerous nature, both of which must be controlled or destroyed. It also provided the conditions for technology and science to emerge and dominate nature.(8) These conditions firmly place women and nature in the sphere of "the Other", thus allowing definitions of masculinity in opposition to these, and the justification of the patriarchal order of exploitation and hierarchy. The second trend was to emphasise the dichotomy of nature and culture, providing the dualistic "underpinning for a particular way of organising gender relationships which separates biology from culture and ensures the political domination of men and the subordination of women."(9) This dichotomy would justify men’s aggression and sexuality as "natural", foundational and inevitable. The third trend was to equate masculinity with culture and rationality in a period where the Western world was understood as the bearer of reason which must enlighten the savage world. This resulted in the forging of "a cultural link between the legitimation of patriarchy and the legitimation of empire..."(10)

The third development in the making of modern masculinity was in the creation of overseas empires, which is related to the above three trends. The imperial states and armies were ruled and staffed by men and divinely supported by a male God. The imperial ideology was masculine in its goal of conquest, control, subjection and the instrumental use of reason. The connection between masculinity and violence is explicit here and is embodied by the successful conquistador, one of the first masculine exemplars.(11) The connection between masculinity and the state is something that is a historical constant in the West and will be examined in further detail.

War of a different kind drove the fourth development. The wars and civil wars within Europe affected and challenged the gender order as it did the class order. Connell cites the seventeenth century Quakers as defending equality in religion for women as a symptom of this change. But absolute monarchy, the Reformation of patriarchal religion, strong states and aggressive armies provided further institutionalisation of men’s power.(12) These developments in empire building and civil war do not mean that genocide, sexism and racism did not exist before the scientific and economic revolutions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but that men were able to kill and oppress each other with greater efficiency. War was no longer a local affair between tribes or kingdoms, but between states and countries culminating in colonialisation, World Wars and the Holocaust of the twentieth century.(13) The importance of the connections between war and masculinity also necessitates deeper examination.

The fifth development is the growth of centres of capitalism. The city allowed for an emergence of sexual sub-cultures like Molly houses, run by transvestites.(14) This was an important development for marginalised forms of masculinity based on sexuality. These cities were more controlled than other comparable living spaces, but their anonymous nature allowed for an increase in the individualism and a change in the understanding of work and the workplace. As part of the influence of Protestantism, individualism gained cultural strength because of the emphasis on following ones own conscience without the need for priestly mediation.(15) This individualism is important to the development of masculinity because of its emphasis on self-reliance, achievement and competition which in turn supported the development of modern capitalism and the changing attitude towards work. Weber identified this development as the "Protestant Work Ethic" whereby men would pursue an occupation to achieve the greatest profit possible as a religious duty. This pursuit later became secularised and Weber emphasized the popular writings of Benjamin Franklin as an example of how, by the eighteenth century, diligence in work, scrupulous use of time, and deferment of pleasure had become a part of the popular philosophy of work in the Western world.(16) The masculine tone of this philosophy is evident in that what is expected of a hard worker is expected of a man specifically. Connell explains, "The entrepreneurial culture and workplaces of commercial capitalism institutionalised a form of masculinity, creating and legitimating new forms of gendered work and power in the counting-house, the warehouse and the exchange."(17) Furthermore, Arthur Brittan notes that masculine ideology lends itself well to capitalism because of its emphasis on competition and achievement.(18)

The individualism that grew from Protestantism in the climate of the city was an important requirement for the development for masculinity and its relation to modern capitalism for other reasons too. John MacInnes writes of three inter-related trends which were necessary for this development. First, people began to think of themselves in terms of owners of commodities, the private form of property; this included owning their own "properties", their own capabilities. The methodologies of enlightenment rationalisation, logic, scientific enquiry and empiricism theorised the social and natural world in terms of properties, resulting in the notion of a shared species essence, a collection of properties which expressed our shared equality.(19) Once people began to think of themselves in these terms the idea that they were possessors of a gender became fixed. It is not that men and women did not think of themselves as masculine or feminine before this, but that gender became a more important part of personal identity than it ever had been before.

Gender was closely related to the market for other reasons because it was the "ideological result of a material struggle over the sexual division of labour".(20) By the sexual division of labour MacInnes means "the process whereby males and females routinely perform different activities or occupy different social roles, receive different material rewards and have access to contrasting amounts of power and status because of their sex."(21) Because women spent most of their time and energy gestating and nurturing children "they were construed by men as not being able to contribute to political or economic life."(22) Women were more closely subject to "the forces of reproduction" then men. Until recently, women have spent around fifty percent of their fertile lives pregnant or breastfeeding infants. In such circumstances, solidarities of sex emerged between those who deal in this way with infants and those who do not. Because men as a sex were relatively biologically free from dealing with the species’ reproductive needs in comparison to women, ideologies which legitimised the social arrangements were developed by men that took advantage of this freedom. These ideologies rationalised "the existence of a social division of labour between the sexes resting on the biologically determined division of procreation and early feeding."(23)

This rationalisation could have been reinforced in the event of the scarcity of women and exchange of them by men,(24) the development of animal husbandry by men,(25) the dependence of women on men when they were vulnerable while heavily pregnant or with small children,(26) and later in history, the consolidation of private property by men.(27) This rationalisation implied that these arrangements were natural, given and unquestionable and it is because of this claim to naturalness that gender as an ideology has so much power. However, there are counter-examples and instances where men co-operated or shared women’s work, and it is likely that this rationalisation suffered set-backs and modifications throughout the course of history. It is also possible that women became separated and eventually denigrated in a different sphere of labour because of men’s fear of women and their power. The sexual and reproductive organs of a woman are interior, hidden and mysterious, leaving men feeling exposed, obvious and vulnerable. Women have a creative power and power over the life of the species, they give birth to and they nurture us all. This power of creation is also associated with destruction "for example, there are many taboos on menstruation - some tribes believe that a man who touches a menstruating woman may die, such is the aura of power and magic surrounding women." Therefore women must be kept weak or separated, lest they overwhelm men with their mysterious powers.(28)

It is important to understand that gender does not cause the sexual division of labour. Why the sexual division of labour, as structured by the "forces of reproduction", results in the ideology of gender goes some way as to explaining the patriarchal exploitation of women and its connection to masculinity. MacInnes suggests that masculinity itself, as opposed to "maleness", the biological aspect of being a man, "exists only as various ideologies or fantasies about what men should be like, which men and women develop to make sense of their lives." This ideology results from the sexual division of labour.(29) That these ideologies guide a certain type of behaviour ensures the sexual division of labour. The recent historical developments that MacInnes and Connell highlight have refined these ideologies. But that these ideologies differ over place and time is something we must be aware of.

The ideological claim that masculinity and femininity are natural and unchanging is an important one to understand when studying gender. Masculinity is distinct from biological sex, but is understood as somehow socially expressing it. This does not stop women from being masculine, so there must be some social mechanism which produces masculine males but not masculine females (at least not in the same numbers or with the same social acceptability as masculine males). This is an important issue because our culture believes males must be masculine and females feminine despite the understanding that masculinity and femininity are qualities men or women can have.(30) But in fact, the qualities that are presumed to be masculine is a matter of arbitrary semantics. For example, why is aggression masculine? Women can be aggressive too, so why is it not considered feminine or neutral? The answer is found in the ideological expectations of how men and women should act.

These ideological expectations constitute gender socialisation.(31) This happens in spite of the fact that there is little difference between men and women. It is a striking idea that men and women are virtually the same, especially when we are so used to understanding them as very different. But as Connell explains "sex differences, on almost every psychological trait measured, are either non-existent or fairly small." More differences exist between individuals within the sexes than between the sexes as two groups. Biologically, the similarities between men and women are greater than the differences, some of which are merely cosmetic. But these modest differences are always exaggerated due to the influence gender ideology has on our culture.(32) Gayle Rubin has also written that "far from being the expression of natural differences, exclusive gender identity is the suppression of natural similarities."(33) Connell argues that gender ideology socially constructs and informs any differences.(34) Gender as existential symptom

Is the ideology that rationalises the "forces of reproduction" the only reason why biological sex is specifically brought together with gender in this way? Is this enough to sustain gender socialisation in cultures where the "forces of reproduction" are no longer so powerful? A possible answer is provided by Rubin who writes that gender ensures species reproduction by institutionalising heterosexuality.(35) However, institutional heterosexuality seems unnecessary as the species would still reproduce without it, though possibly on a smaller scale. If Rubin’s explanation were modified to include the reasoning that institutionalised heterosexuality also enforced what radical feminists call "the male imperative", then we have a better answer. The "male imperative" is the demand for sexual access to women at all times. Marriage, prostitution and pornography are expressions of this imperative. Here we have various strong reasons for why gender is applied to sex, but no clear psychological explanation as to why men want to sexually subordinate women that does not fall back on crude biological explanations.

MacInnes offers another answer to why gender is imposed consistently and beyond the initial rationalisation of reproductive forces. He considers our understanding of gender to be paradoxical because gender is explained as naturally determined or socially constructed. Gender is represented or understood as determined or constructed when necessary to justify the gender order.(36) MacInnes argues that the gender paradox depends on what he calls the fetishism of sexual difference: "confusing the fact that we are all born as a man or a woman with the fact that we are all born of a man and a woman."(37) This is an important a notion in trying to understand masculine hierarchy as it is in understanding gender. This confusion results in understanding the human condition (that we are born of a man and a woman) in terms of biological sex difference. The confusion arises because "in a sense, reproduction is about the way in which human bodies experience pleasure, pain and alienation."(38) The human condition is characterised by these experiences, as well as by desire, frustration, fear, curiosity, choice, the unknown and unknowable, the limits of our birthplace and time, death. Because the human condition is so fraught, MacInnes understands it to be defined by the need for "psychic security".

Our modern understanding of the self is a reaction to this condition as it invites us to imagine that people can reach an authentic self (an inner child, a deep masculine, finding oneself, "the real me" and so on) as a guarantee or root as to who we really are in the face of psychic insecurity. MacInnes writes that we project this angst onto sexual difference because the obvious candidate for rooting ourselves or "being" ourselves is in our biological sex. The understanding of ourselves in terms of gender is a form of "bad-faith" whereby we ignore the problems of psychic security and assure ourselves of the "truth" of ourselves in relation to our (unquestionable) sex and the (unquestioned) activities of our gender.(39) Our lives thus appear to be natural, given and unquestionable. We feel safe in this realm of answers, direction and differentiation. Foucault’s explanation as to why we claim the " ‘right’ " to rediscover what one is and all that one can be" was a political response to the new procedures of power which become concerned with life as a political object.(40) His explanation does not exclude McInnes, but places the above psychological account within a historical context. More will be said of these procedures of power in the following chapters.

The "naturalness" and the "differences" of gender identity are part of the overall ideology of gender, reinforcing its power. Because gender identity is an ideology arising from historical conditions it does not really exist as a property in individuals. Therefore, trying to empirically analyse masculinity or femininity as a collection of character traits is misguided. It does not exist within men and women as an innate characteristic. This will become even clearer as I examine the structure of masculinity as a guiding ideology in social practice and a form of power/knowledge in disciplining male bodies as masculine. To clarify this position it is useful to draw an analogy. Race is a similar ideology of identity with a historical development. Like gender, people imagine themselves to be members of a particular race and in this sense a race actually exists. But the psychological or biological essence of "race" does not exist nor does it cause race nor does it explain racial difference. On biological grounds there could be no explanation as to why a race at one time was not considered to exist or how the conception of it has changed historically. We could not define a true racial identity for a race group, but the members would behave as if they belonged to one. The natural fact of certain biological differences (like skin colour or genitalia) provide convenient explanations for difference, but they do not actually explain differences in wealth, health, social status, intelligence and so on.(41) These differences are present because it is the social ideology of race or gender, and the social structures and practices in which these identities are imbedded, that result in different life experiences, opportunities, status, work, and arrangement of identity.

The above discussion goes some way as to explain how masculinity as an idea arose and what it could be. But how it is supported, socially structured and perpetuated is another issue. The understanding that gender is an ideology built to defend the patriarchal sexual division of labour contravenes the received wisdom that gender is natural. Understanding masculinity as a social practice, structured and guided by gender ideology is to understand masculinity as a social relation. This relation takes place in multiple ways (between various people, in various place and so on), so it is more accurate to speak of ideologies of masculinity or of masculinities. This is the insight of post-structuralist theory which indicates that gender identity is fluid and composed of multiple discourses and ideologies, like those of race, class and age, it is a product and producer of history. This illustrates the dynamism of the structure of this type of social relation. As a result, masculinity as a gender relation can only be understood in relation to femininity, or "the Other". This is because gender is the way in which the social practices of masculinity and femininity are organised, referring to bodies as male or female and what these sexed bodies do as masculine or feminine. This means that the body is one of the main places gender identity is displayed and learnt. In their turn, the issues of "the Other" and the body can only be understood in the context of everyday consciousness which results in the acceptance of the gender order as ordinary.

  • (1) Honderich, T. (ed.) - The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, p392-393
  • (2) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p67
  • (3) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p186
  • (4) "A patriarchal society is one in which power is held by male heads of households. There is also clear separation between the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ spheres of life. In the ‘private’ sphere of the household, the patriarch enjoys arbitrary power over all junior males, all females and all children. In the ‘public’ sphere power is shared between male patriarchs... No female holds any formal public position of economic, ideological, military or political power. Indeed females are not allowed into the ‘public’ realm of power. Whereas many, perhaps most, men expect to be patriarchs at some point in their life cycles, no women hold formal power." Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p105 quoting Mann.
  • (5) See Chapter 5 - Others
  • (6) See de Beauvoir, S. - The Second Sex
  • (7) Genesis (1:28) "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over it..." Though certain biblical passages stress our stewardship, Christian practice has been more in line with the former attitude.
  • (8) Maureen McNeil (ed.) illustrates how science and technology are influenced by gender in Gender and Expertise (Free Association Books 1987)
  • (9) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p15
  • (10) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p187
  • (11) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p187
  • (12) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p189
  • (13) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p96
  • (14) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p188
  • (15) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p186
  • (16) see Weber, M - The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
  • (17) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p188
  • (18) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p16
  • (19) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p3
  • (20) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p2
  • (21) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p1
  • (22) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p17
  • (23) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p42
  • (24) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p87
  • (25) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p92
  • (26) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p83
  • (27) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p104
  • (28) Horrock, R. - Masculinity in Crisis, p46
  • (29) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p2
  • (30) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p80
  • (31) definition of socialisation here?
  • (32) Connell, R. W. - Masculinities, p21
  • (33) Rubin, G. - "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex" in R. R. Reiter (ed.) Towards and Anthropology of Women, p180
  • (34) Connell, R. W. - Gender and Power, p80
  • (35) Rubin, G. - "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex", p180
  • (36) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p25-26
  • (37) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p2
  • (38) Britten, A. - Masculinity and Power, p123
  • (39) MacInnes, J. - The End of Masculinity, p13 and p153
  • (40) Foucault, M. - The History of Sexuality, p145
  • (41) MacInnes makes a similar analogy regarding national identity on p40

My Writings:

Other:

Links:

Please consider making a small donation to keep this site ad-free.