What actually is masculinity? Is masculinity what men are like? Or what men are supposed to be like? Or is masculinity simply that which is not feminine? And is masculinity defined by the superiority of men over women?
There are many different approaches to defining masculinity. As announced in the introduction, this month will focus on Raewyn Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity. In order to understand this concept and to be able to build on it, we would like to introduce you to her definition of masculinity in this text.
Even though the question sounds banal at first, it turns out to be an important building block in understanding sexism and dynamics in patriarchy. Spoiler: It gets a bit complicated and understanding still completes itself via the following texts.
Connell defines masculinity as follows: "'masculinity' is, to the extent that the term can be defined at all in a nutshell, a position in gender relations; the practices through which men and women occupy that position; and the effects of those practices on bodily experience, personality, and culture."
Essential for Connell is to recognize that masculinity is a position in gender relations. Fundamentally, then, the point is that masculinity is superior to femininity. However, Connell does not focus on rigid character traits such as strength or risk-taking, but on the practices that lead to men being superior to women in gender relations. These practices can change depending on circumstances and, for example, adapt to current social norms. What may be physical violence or demonstrations of strength in certain contexts may be eloquence and emotional competence in others, and something else entirely in still others. Importantly, while practices change, their effect always remains to reinforce men's position of power. According to Connell, however, the effects of these practices are as much a part of masculinity as the practices themselves. They affect how individuals perceive themselves, as well as culture, and thus also create an interaction with masculinity itself.
With her definition, she deliberately attempts to address and fill the weaknesses and gaps of previous definitional strategies. In doing so, Connell refers to the four most common ones.
With her definition, she deliberately attempts to address and fill the weaknesses and gaps of previous definitional strategies. In doing so, Connell refers to the four most common ones.
She describes one of them as essentialist (from Latin essentia: "essence”). This singles out a supposed essential trait, such as risk-taking, responsibility, irresponsibility, or aggression, and uses it as a basis for explaining men's lives. So, for example, men are risk-takers and that's why they do X or Y. In doing so, Connell criticizes the arbitrariness of choosing this one trait and that this approach cannot cover the complexity of masculinity.
Likewise, Connell criticizes the approach of defining masculinity by what men are supposed to be like. She calls it the positivist approach. Positivism, roughly speaking, is a philosophical direction in which one limits oneself to actual, sensually perceptible, and verifiable findings. So in the definitional approach, one looks at how men "really" behave and from that facts are derived. From this, a definition of masculinity is then formulated.
The problem here is that in order to be able to assign the facts to a certain gender, a conception of gender must already be given. Accordingly, Connell evaluates this approach as contradictory and criticizes that the clear classification leaves no room for mixing and ambiguity.
Daraus folglich löst Connell ihre Definition von Männlichkeit von dieser Vorstellung und fokussiert sich auf die Position im Geschlechterverhältnis und die Praktiken, die diese herstellen.
Similarly, the approach to defining masculinity is about what men should be. Connell calls it the normative approach. The focus, then, is on the social norm that men should live up to. Here, for example, we are talking about images of men in movies, such as that of James Bond.
One of the problems with this definitional strategy is, for example, that actually no man lives up to this norm. This leads to contradictory questions such as "If no man lives up to this norm, are all men unmanly?"
The last definitional strategy Connell criticizes she calls semiotic approaches (from Greek semeion: 'sign'). Here, symbolic differences are divided into male and female and then contrasted. The bottom line is that what is feminine is not masculine and vice versa. Connell summarizes it as, "Masculinity is effectively defined as non-femininity.''
She criticizes that this approach leaves out the personality level and has very limited applicability. By focusing on demarcation, for example, it allows only very limited conclusions about the position of men and women in gender relations.
These four approaches are often combined to fill gaps in explanation. Nevertheless, Connell evaluates them as insufficient. As mentioned above, she takes this criticism as an opportunity to formulate her own definition of masculinity. She herself writes in the book, "Instead of trying to define masculinity as an object (a natural trait, a behavioral average, a norm), we should focus our attention on the processes and relationships that allow men and women to live gendered lives."
The question of what masculinity actually is may seem trivial at first. But Connell makes clear with her critique and her own definition that it is an important part of how we analyze sexism and dynamics in patriarchy. A clear definition that includes gender relations and practices, as well as the impact of these, can help us deepen our analysis piece by piece and develop a better understanding of what we need to change. Note: The english citations of her book may not fit the english book exactly since we only had the german version available.