In the Introduction Connell proves that he has thought much about the importance and implications of his book. By reconstructing the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ we will be able to apply it to more practical issues (like the prevention of violence, fathering, health, etc). He wants masculinity research to be integrated with more general analyses of social change. “He argues that a binary division between sex and gender, as well as other binaries (man/woman, hetero/homosexual, for instance) pervade research on masculinities, and need to be disrupted” (xix). I like that Connell brings up the Global Dimension. He states how complicated and difficult it is to recognize a “world gender order”, and how understanding local problems are no longer good enough and we need to begin to face the larger issues of our institutions and cultural conflicts. I like that Connell takes the time to discuss this problem—and really begin the process of understanding masculinity on global level.
In Chapter 2, Connell immediately brings up one main common thread belief that is perpetuating the gender binary-- there is a fixed, “true” masculinity. And that this true masculinity is inherent and displayed through the male body. He supports this when he says either “the body drives and directs action” (ex) men are more aggressive than women), or “the body sets limits to action” (ex) men naturally do not take care of infants) (45). So he suggests we, as a society, should work harder to understand the current conception of the male body. He defines two misconceptions: the body is a natural machine which produces gender difference, and the other is that the body is merely a surface by which we are socially imprinted. It is so confining to think that our tendencies such as who we are as a parent, friend, how we act politically, how we act territorial are defined just by what we inherited. He makes a good point when he says “where difference appear, they are small compared to variation within either sex, ad very small compared to differences in the social positioning of men and women” (47).He argues that men are not ‘hard-wired’ to be extremely aggressive and dominant, like many assume. He suggests that when we turn globally, there are examples of cultures that do not fit the “norm” of women raising children, and men being the most aggressive. Connell directs his research to how the medical world has been designed to reinforce gendered bodies. Cosmetic surgery is commonplace and accepted as something a woman should want, but become so naturalized that a woman may feel she it is a need. In addition, there are now penile implants to ensure masculinity for every male. Connell does not deny the fact that bodies are important, “there is an irreducible bodily dimension in experience and practice” (51). He asks if we can settle for the assertion that both biology and culture are responsible for our performance of gender, and questions “if biological determinism is wrong, and social determinism is wrong then it is unlikely that a combination of the two will be right” (52). Because social practices elaborate, complicate, deny, modify bodily difference we need to find a new way to think about gender and go beyond the compromise of biological and social determination.
Connell goes on to discuss ‘the Body Inescapable’. He acknowledges that “maleness” and “femaleness” is the predominant way of interpreting gender in our cultural. Because our bodily experience is central in our memories of whom and what we are, it therefore becomes imperative in understanding of ourselves. Organized sports serve as a specific example of this symbolized bodily performance. As much as it perpetuates the idea that men are superior and more “masculine”, it also shows that kinetically, by running, jumping, throwing etc we tend to move differently—and these two aspects depend and reinforce each other. Connell discusses the faulty connection between masculinity and machinery. The fact that physical capabilities are promoted as economic assets by our labor force reflects our social construction of an economic reality, this “emphasis of masculinity in industrial labor has been both a means of survival, in exploitative class relations, and a means of asserting superiority over women” (55). He turns to our cyber oriented world to show how the man-machine relationship is reinforced through the gendered language, graphics, advertisements, etc. He states although the ‘body is inescapable in the construction of masculinity, the inescapable is not fixed’ (56).
Although our bodies are malleable, and can be used as tools and instruments, they do have their limits—“bodies cannot be understood as a neutral medium for social practice. Their materiality matters” (58). Examples could be sex, sports and manual labor. Gender-switching becomes an important issues as well, seeing as it is changing ones body to fit the symbolic notion of what one initially felt confined as before. Connell is arguing for a theory in which we are able to see our bodies as sharing, shaping and generating social agency. The body reflexive practice is the notion that the public gender meanings are instantly merged with the activity of the body and the inevitable emotions of the relationship between the two. The story of Adam shows how the body-reflexive plays out in sports. Adam didn’t want to throw the ball because he was scared that his father would see his ability to throw as “girly”, which threatens his seen and felt masculinity. “The social semiotics of gender, with its emphasis on the endless play of signification, the multiplicity of discourses and the diversity of subject positions, has been important in escaping the rigidities of biological determinism.” (65). He ends chapter two with recovering how practice reinforces what we see as normal, constituting and re-constituting structures—making the reality we live in. “As bodily reflexive practices they constitute a world which has a bodily dimension, but is not biologically determined” (65). Gendered politics is an embodied-social politics.
Connell starts Chapter 3 with the suggestion that “‘masculinity’ is not a coherent object about which a generalizing science can be produced” (67). We should try and see masculinity as a part of a larger construction. Connell claims all societies have meaning that constitutes gender but not necessarily the term ‘masculinity’. In defining masculinity, he makes it clear that it is not in contrast with ‘femininity’. Although historically this may have been true in regards to how women were treated merely as opposite of men, we need to abandon this idea of ‘separate spheres’ conjured during this time. Connell points out four main strategies that our culture uses to characterize masculinity: essentialist, positivist, normative and semiotic.
Essentialist definitions tend to take one trait or aspect central to the common view of ‘masculinity’. The obvious problem with essentialist definition is that the one trait or aspect chosen is completely arbitrary, and reinforces universality of these ever so subjective traits. Positivists turn to the ‘facts’ so they can have one distinct definition of masculinity, “what men actually are”. This is problematic because it discriminates against women and men (especially in research) -- validating only what they feel fits into this single definition and rejects what does not. By having just one archaic definition, we are losing sight of many identities (i.e. those who are ‘women’ but act ‘masculine’ and those who are ‘men’ but act ‘feminine’). Although it is useful for research and science purposes to have just one definition, “the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ point beyond categorical sex difference to the ways men differ among themselves, and women differ among themselves, in matters of gender” (69). Normative definitions acknowledge and validate these differences and suggest that “masculinity is what men ought to be” (70). In this way men are able to ‘be’ masculine in many different ways and to varying degrees. This approach becomes difficult when taking into account personality. The semiotic approach defines masculinity through structural linguistics. In one way or another, masculinity is defined as ‘not-femininity’. This idea is commonly used in studying structural and cultural constructions of gender, and has been effective in this way. Although it leaves behind the randomness of essentialist definitions is it limited in its range of social discourse. Connell wraps up nicely by saying “Rather than attempting to define masculinity as an object (a natural character type, a behavioral average, norm), we need to focus on the processes and relationships through which men and women conduct gendered lives” (71).
Connell finishes this chapter by suggesting gender “as a way in which social practice is ordered” (71). Gender is not a social practice condensed to the body, it is a social practice that suggest our bodies and what they do. In other words, we are not a fixed set of genes or biological determinants. When we refer to ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ we are referring to our constructions of how we practice gender. We should try and understand ourselves as ‘gender projects’, as ‘configuring gender through practice” (72). In the analysis of masculinity it is important to consider three important structures of gender: power (dismantling patriarchy), production (gender divisions of labor) and cathexis (emotional attachment). Seeing as how gender is “a way of structuring social practice in general not a special type of practice” it is inevitably intertwined with other social structures such as race and class (75). I appreciate the way Connell bring up these other factors such as race and class. By doing this he is choosing to complicate his thoughts and the issue at hand—for he could write another book just on that topic. Connell goes on to discuss four relations in ‘masculinity’: hegemony, subordination, complicity, and marginalization. He examines how these relationships give us a way to analyze masculinity in a more fluid way. He then discusses historical dynamics, violence and crisis tendencies, and how this effect gender relations. By recognizing they ways in which society is so intricate and complex, he is pushing further his cause of writing this book to enable others to do more research and reach further and more globally. To recognize masculinity (and femininity!) we have to look at these relationships between social structures, which he seems to effortlessly bring to our attention. Connell does an impeccable job of defining masculinity without actually defining it.
No comments:
Post a Comment