What Connell is best known for is her concept of "Hegemonic Masculinity," which will be introduced in this text. She is one of the first theorists to analyze masculinity by focusing on hierarchies and power relations of men.
She acknowledges the importance of distinguishing different masculinities in the context of prevailing systems of oppression. However, she argues that such descriptions are too rigid and suggest that there is, for example, only one Black masculinity or only one working-class masculinity.
Connell thus advocates a dynamic approach With the following classification, she does notwant to describe fixed character types, but patterns of action within certain situations and contexts. She is concerned here with making clear positions in a hierarchy among men and highlighting their interaction.
1. Hegemony
Connell names the first position in the male hierarchy Hegemonic MasculinityShe refers to Antonio Gramsci's theory of Cultural Hegemony. This describes how a power relationship between rulers and ruled is maintained: On the one hand, this happens through the use and threat of violence. On the other hand, this is done primarily against those who question the power relations.
However, there is another important component: "power by consent" is maintained. This means that the supremacy of a particular group is legitimized by society's values. Thus, there are beliefs and norms in which the given conditions are recognized as self-evident and best possible. Thus, the power of the rulers also consists explicitly of their acceptance in civil society, which therefore does not have to fear violence. At the same time, those in power make sure that this ideology continues to be defended and thus secure their position of power.
Connell transfers this idea to gender relations. Hegemonic masculinity thus embodies currently accepted strategies for gaining and maintaining power. It is used to ensure male dominance and female subordination.
Connell does not name specific characteristics or behaviors for hegemonic masculinity specifically. On the one hand, she does not want to develop certain character types or the like, on the basis of which it would be possible to classify men statically. It also means that not every powerful man corresponds to the current hegemonic masculinity or that every man is powerful who does. On the other hand, it emphasizes how hegemonic masculinity can vary in different local, historical, or global contexts. Moreover, it can be constantly challenged and is always subject to tension and change.
Nevertheless, to get a rough idea of what this means, we want to share Stuve and Debus' interpretation. They write in this regard:
"At present (in the Federal Republic of Germany and similar societies) men in this position present themselves to a high degree as capable and willing to perform, resilient, able to make decisions and assert themselves. Central to the position of hegemonic masculinity is a confident, knowledgeable handling of one's own position of power. Men in this position offer few targets for criticism and the strategies of dealing with asserting the position of power include charm, eloquence, irony, and efficiency."²
Stuve and Debus
2. Complicity
The next position in the male hierarchy is what Connell calls complicit masculinity. Connell writes in this regard:
“The number of men rigorously practising the hegemonic pattern in its entirety may be quite small. Yet the maj ority of men gain from its hegemony, since they benefit from the patriarchal dividend, the advantage men in general gain from the overall subordination of women.”¹
Connell
Stuve and Debus summarize:
"This form of masculinity supports hegemonic masculinity, does not critique norms of masculinity, and does not act in solidarity with boys/men and girls/women who suffer from masculinity practices. Thus - intentionally or unintentionally - it secures hegemonic masculinity."²
Stuve and Debus
Complicit masculinity thus creates and defends a generally accepted framework of values and norms. These may well be contradictory and are not the same everywhere. They refer to ideas such as the binarity of two genders, the gender-specific division of care and reproductive work, the supremacy and superiority of everything "masculine" over the "feminine," the associated classification into male and female, or even the belief that sexism does not exist.
Complicit masculinity ensures the power of hegemonic masculinity, and thus the supremacy of men over women, and safeguards male privilege. Connell describes this position as one that must also compromise: Many representatives "respect their wives and mothers, are never violent towards women, do their accustomed share of the housework, bring home the family wage"¹, but rather smile at feminists or devalue them.
3. Subordination
Oppression and devaluation among men are reflected in subordinate masculinity . This works especially with opposites: All that is not regarded as hegemonically masculine (and thus often as feminine) is subordinated. The most important of these subordinations, according to Connell, are homosexual masculinities:
"Oppression positions homosexual masculinities at the bottom of a gender hierarchy among men. Gayness, in patriarchal ideology, is the repository of whatever is symbolically expelled from hegemonic masculinity, "¹
Connell
Subordination and exclusion, however, can be experienced by all men who are considered not masculine enough and are insulted/devalued with words such as weakling, sissy, nerd, coward, or the like.
4. Marginalization
In addition to the three aforementioned positions in the hierarchy between men, Connell uses the term marginalization to highlight the interplay with other forms of oppression such as classism or racism. Stuve and Debus write:
"This [marginalization] means a position that, because of other social exclusions, can hardly gain access to a hegemonic position of masculinity, or only under very difficult conditions."²
Stuve and Debus
In particular, Connell wants to make clear that the masculinity dynamics she describes must also be taken into account in anti-racism or class struggles. She particularly addresses Black masculinities: they are explicitly constructed and shaped by the oppression of a racist society. At the same time, they are instrumentalized for right-wing narratives, such as the fantasy figure of the Black rapist. Connell also draws on Robert Staples³' book Black Masculinity³, which highlights how class and racism shape Black masculinities in the United States.
Exclusions of marginalized masculinities can occur in all of the above positions (hegemony, complicity, subordination). Analyzing these dynamics is a particularly difficult task, and one that intersectional theories partially address. Connell elaborates on this a bit more in Chapter 8, the history of masculinity. There, the focus is on masculinity in the context of unions and racism.
—
With these positions, Connell thus wants to offer a framework for analyzing masculinity. The concept particularly points to the mutability of masculinity and conceives it in the context of power relations and hierarchies.
Therefore, her work is still relevant in research and theory today. Connell herself continued to address criticism later on and had ideas to further develop and rethink the concept.⁴
➡️Further reading
¹R W. Connell: Masculinities. Springer VS, 2015: 4th German Edition. The original version can be found here: http://lulfmi.lv/files/2020/Connell_Masculinities.pdf
³Robert Staples: Black Masculinity: The Black Male’s Role in American Society. Black Scholar Pr (1. Februar 1982).