Example:Contemporary masculinity is, according to some, in crisis and, to others, in a state of redefinition and reformulation. The previous, or earlier, images of masculinity are somewhat outdated insofar as they placed tremendous emphasis upon the dominance of the male, the male as the breadwinner, the male as the unquestioned authority, and the male as the heterosexual. A critical and honest review of contemporary masculinity indicates that the male is no longer the primary breadwinner, is not necessarily heterosexual, is hardly the unquestioned authority and power-holder and is, within the context of Western societies, not necessarily dominant. It is, thus, that images of masculinity and the implications of the concept are a topic of debate and academic research, questioning and exploration. Despite the stated, however, there remains a persistent tendency towards the maintenance of earlier images of hegemonic masculinity. Indeed, a review of Connell's notion of hegemonic masculinity will reveal the extent to which contemporary images of masculinity are being overtly countered and contested by the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Following a review of Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity, this essay will argue that Connell's concept serves to shed invaluable light on the extent to which contemporary masculinity is experiencing crisis. This crisis, as briefly touched upon in the preceding, is a direct outcome of the dominant culture's refusal to accept changing notions of masculinity and its determination to maintain the gender status quo.Hegemonic masculinity is predicated on the longstanding notion that distinct gender differences exist between men and women. Hegemonic norms are accepted because "mass culture generally assumes there is a fixed, true masculinity beneath the ebb and flow of daily life," where men are expected to be strong, independent, competitive, risk-taking, aggressive, powerful, display sexual prowess, be emotionally distant, and be dominant over women in both the private and public spheres. Gender differences underpin an unequal system of power relations where "men, as a group, enjoy [access to certain] institutional privileges" not afforded to women. Although this is not a recently constituted ideology, Connell holds that the dominance of hegemonic masculinity represents an endeavour to maintain this system of inequality through efforts to quell challenges to its institution. He states, "Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy." The social prescription for western hegemonic masculinity, aimed at preserving the legitimacy of patriarchy, thus includes elements of heterosexism, homophobia, and male-dominant gender roles.Connell stresses that hegemonic masculinity is a "historically mobile relation" noting that when "conditions for the defence of patriarchy change," such as with economic or political pressures like the global movement for women's emancipation, "the bases for the dominance of a particular masculinity are eroded." In fact, the institutional and cultural features that give rise to any one form of masculinity also create alternate versions of masculinity that support or conflict with core assumptions. For example, dominant conceptualizations of masculinity portray adult males as family breadwinners. This conceptualization, alongside dominant discourse and practices perpetuate this belief, irrespective of evidence to the contrary and, in so doing, affirm a gender based division of labour. As may be inferred from the aforementioned, despite the fact that the concept of hegemonic masculinity is increasingly being questioned by contemporary economic realities, not to mention socio-political ones, the tenacious hold that this concept has on mass culture is such that alternative realities are labeled exceptions to the rule. Connell does not only acknowledge the veracity of the above-stated but emphasizes the extent to which the said assumption and complementary practices and discourse perpetuate the ideality of a gender-based division of labour. Even when it is increasingly difficult to maintain that division in the public sphere, it is upheld within the home, even in cases where breadwinning men become temporarily unemployed. Alternate contemporary practices support gender-equal relations, where it is acceptable for wives to maintain equal responsibility for the economic support of the family income. Within the parameters of contemporary reality, therefore, there is no single type of masculinity which withstands generalization and arguably includes all men. Indeed, as Donovan points out, "masculinity is not a monolithic entity." However, Connell's theory presents the notion of hegemonic masculinity as an over-arching masculine principle which in itself incorporates many distinct versions of masculinity, all of which in some way serve to differentiate men from women. For instance, hegemonic assumptions that men are stoic, physically tough, and competitive are contrasted against the dominant image of women being emotional, soft, and supportive.Brian Donovan, in his interpretation of Connell's theory, notes that "multiple masculinities span the gender system and power relationships affect which masculinities are legitimated, arraying masculinities into dominant and subordinate categories." Popular western examples of this hierarchy of masculinities may include images of successful businessmen or of men in sport, which often subordinate images of men struggling with unemployment or of those who are not interested in athletics. Connell reinforces this notion, stating that it is not sufficient simply to recognize differences among masculinities, but that "we must also recognize the relations between the different kinds of masculinity: relations of alliance, dominance, and subordination" that are "constructed through practices that exclude and include, that intimidate and exploit." Thus, images of masculinity that deviate from the dominant image may be considered acceptable as long as they do not challenge or threaten the dominant conceptualizations of masculinity. Theories of hegemonic masculinity show that "despite the range of masculinities… hegemonic masculinity forms a coherent structure because of the relatively stable collective interests of men.. . in maintaining the patriarchal status quo." By assuming that all historical expressions of masculinity are informed and influenced by the "patriarchal dividend," Connell contrasts masculinity against femininity, stating that "a gender order where men dominate women cannot avoid constituting men as an interest group concerned with defence, and women as an interest group concerned with change. He states that even those 'backbencher' masculinities that have not experienced "the tensions and risks of being the frontline troops of patriarchy" are allies in the defence of "traditional" masculinity and the pursuit of maintaining the legitimacy of patriarchy. Even though relatively few men may strictly adhere to the hegemonic image, throughout history men have benefited from patriarchal hegemony, which provides an image of ideal masculinity from which other types of masculinities derive. In other words, although the concept of a singular 'masculinity' is not sufficient to explain the variations of masculine identities existing at any point in time, hegemonic masculinity, as an overarching ideal that "guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women" provides a starting point from which to define masculinities. According to Connell's theory, then, the core of hegemonic masculinity is the differentiation from definitions of femininity. This is only the 1st part of this essay. Kindly check out Part 2 to read the complete article.Get a 10% DISCOUNT for your order of academic essays. Just visit any of our sites below! ID#251Jo10ThEssayist.comUSessayist.comUKessayist.comLawEssayist.comHDessayist.comAussiEssayist.com
No comments:
Post a Comment