The pattern of partnership formation has changed over the last 30 years. The proportion of “married people has fallen, while the proportions of single and divorced people have increased”. (www.statistics.gov.uk)
There has been a doubling in the proportion of households headed by a lone parent with dependent children in the UK since the early 1970s, to 6 per cent in 2002. (www.statistics.gov.uk)
Up to the mid-1980s a large part of the rise was due to divorce. More recently, the “number of single, lone mothers has grown at a faster rate, because of the rise in the proportion of births outside marriage. Lone mothers headed the majority of lone parent families in spring 2002, with just one in ten headed by a lone father”. (www.statistics.gov.uk) Living arrangements for men and women are broadly similar. Most live in a couple and “81 per cent of couple households live in owner occupied accommodation”. (www.statistics.gov.uk)
However, there are differences between the sexes for living alone. In 2001, a higher proportion of single men than single women were owner occupiers in Great Britain. () In regards to post modern culture the report highlighted that both men and women working full time spent just over six and a half hours a day with their children at the weekend. The ways in which men and women chose to spend time with the children differed. Women spent around two hours on housework while with their children, compared with 1 hour and 20 minutes spent by men. “In the case of television, men spent around 1 hour and 20 minutes watching TV in the company of their children, compared with women’s 50 mins. ()
Labelling and the classification of masculinity have produced the idea of a ‘new man or new lad’ and these two concepts have two key stereotypes of men living in contemporary society. The ‘new man’ label refers to a modern man who is caring, sensitive, and respectful to women and has a keen interest in his physical appearance. The response to this type cast of male is that he is gay. However, the ‘new lad’ is depicted somewhat differently. He is described as hedonistic and concerns in life include drinking, football and girls. The existence of these stereotypes highlights that there has been a profound cultural shift in masculinity. The modern male presents a figure who aspires to be independent and different. (Gill in Connell, 1995).
Homosocial male desire is defined by Eve Sedgewick as “Social bonds between persons of the same sex” Desire is defined as “The effective social give that shapes an important relationship” (Sedgewick in ,Whitehead, 2002) The “creation of this concept by Sedgewick highlights the shift in male friendships/relationships in post-modern cultures”. (Sedgewick in Whitehead, 2002) In male continuum, social construct is forced upon men. Men are “encouraged to develop intimate homosocial bonds with each other, but at the same time, they are not to allow these relationships to cross over into homosexual desire”. (Sedgewick in Whitehead). Men can interact with each other as rivals and thus fulfil their homosocial needs without appearing homosexual. Walker, 1994
Argues people ignore the “differences between the gendered cultural ideologies and social reality” (Walker, 1994 in Whitehead, 2002) Cultural norms are significant as they act as a blue print for how men and women perceive friendships to be. (Walker in Whitehead, 2002)
In contemporary society, the male gender role constrains men’s behaviour and inhibits them from expressing affection to each other unless they are very close family relations such as father and son. Research has shown that men limit verbal self-disclosure with friends (Rubin, 1985 and Swain, 1987 in Kimmel and Messner, 2001) However suggestions by Hacker, Rawlins and Wright is that, “the degree of self-disclosure may be underestimated. (Hacker et al in Kimmel and Messner, 2001) “This research shows that men and women share the stereotyping about gender differences in general friendships, but in specific friendships, men discuss their relationships more openly and report relying on men friends for emotional support” (Hacker et al in Kimmel and Messner, 2001) Furthermore Wellman argues, “There has been widespread domestication of male friendship, with men seeing friends in their home in much the same way women do” (Wellman, 1992 in Kimmel and Messner, 2001) “The use of public space for male socializing is diminishing”. This supports the view that men’s relationships are showing an increased level of intimacy. Men are comfortable in their relationships being in the home and they are becoming more like women’s (Wellman, 1992 in Kimmel and Messner, 2001) Mens use in telephones, cracking jokes and open talk of women maintains the structure of Hegemonic masculinity. In the case of the telephone, “It was used primarily as a tool for business. Interestingly however, although most men reported calling friends for instrumental reasons, many men admitted telephone conversations were not limited to the reason for the call. Conversations included families and work after initial business (Kimmel and Messner, 2001). Cracking jokes “ritually affirms heterosexuality amongst men whose social circumstances create a level of physical and emotional intimacy culturally regarded as un-masculine and they also help to mediate male disputes. (Kimmel and Messner, 2001). Jokes were often used to “exaggerate gender difference and denigrate women”. (Kimmel and Messner, 2001) Finally men construct masculinity through their shared talk on women. Like jokes, the common emphasis was highlighting difference between men and women. (Kimmel and Messner, 2001) Talks included how wives had better standards in housekeeping than them, higher control in child rearing than them and how women had greater chance of spending money impulsively (Kimmel and Messner, 2001) Men took solace in how talks such as these reaffirmed their masculinity and helped men interpret their relationships, reassuring them that their experiences were not unusual (Kimmel and Messner, 2001) These patterns of behaviour are just some of the ways men construct masculinity or provide themselves with re-assurance that positions of friendship are just that. One can therefore only conclude that from this evidence the construction of the masculine gender is ongoing. The difficulty in understanding male form is highlighted by the fact that as a singular behaviour of man violates the norms of gender ideology, other behaviour shows simultaneous conformity to traditional ideologies of masculinity. (Kimmel and Messner, 2001)
Recent studies have also pointed to the significance of “class, race, ethnicity and region in producing and fracturing young masculine identities” (Frosh et al, 1994) Stephen Frosh, Ann Phoenix and Rob Pattman highlight that the cultural resources available to construct masculinities are racialised. This they argue is a valid point when thinking about the overwhelming whiteness of depictions of the new forms of man (Frosh et al, 2000; 2001).Their study based in London secondary schools they found that “black young men of African Caribbean descent are viewed as ‘super masculine’, embodying highly valued traits associated with toughness, a particular masculine style and dress, and physical ability.” (Frosh et al, 2000; 2001) This stereotyped them “popular/hegemonic figures”(Frosh et al, 2000;2001) Majors and Billson studies in 1994, highlighted how such a type cast could actually project these lads negatively and give them little cultural capital in wider society. (Majors and Billson in Connell,1995) “It had major costs in terms of being trapped by the ‘cool pose’, with little cultural capital in wider society.” (Majors and Billson in Connell, 1995) “In fact the very traits that were admired were also liable to produce fear and discrimination from authority figures such as teachers and potential employers”. (Majors and Billson in Connell, 1995) Studies in Popular culture shows, fixed identities do not portray a real circumstance to which the Modern man lives, “Anybody working on popular culture knows how awkwardly notions of fixed identity sit with the fluidity of sexual images represented in fashion, music and nightlife”. (Mort) There is “need for a different set of languages to speak about masculinity- languages which grasp masculinity as a process rather than static and unchanging” (Mort)
Heterorelations are open to great diversification in Post modern culture’s overall examination of the male figure. Diversity is increasingly shown as men’s need for individuality and discovery for inner fulfilment. Also, an increase in men’s involvement in consumer culture has been attributed to a fascination by the media over male creation and its portrayal of the ‘Ideal man’. Statistics show living arrangements can no longer be typified by the traditional and static breadwinner role model as various living arrangements are constructed by many social factors such as decline in marriage rate, increased divorce rates and increasing number head of households being single parents. Men friendships continue to develop towards women’s as increasingly male’s show confidence in friendships as they are protected by their continuous referral to the definition of hegemonic masculinity when structuring their same sex relations. “Heterosexuality is institutionalised as a particular form of practice of relationships and identity” (Richardson, 1996) Richardson argues there “actually exists a diversity of meanings and social arrangements within the category ‘heterosexuality and contains a distinct heterosexual community” (Richardson, 1996) Heterosexuality is a category heavily divided by gender. “Making heterosexuality visible is difficult, since its power as the natural order of things hinders both its actors and the social theorists in extricating contested meanings from the apparent certainties of first intercourse” (Holland et al in Richardson, 1996) The conclusion is therefore that as there is a continual pattern of development in masculinity, men living arrangements and heterorelations remain fluid and unresolved.
Total Words: 2556
Bibliography
Segal, Lynne (1990) Slow motion: Changing masculinities, Changing men
Connell (1995) Masculinities: Polity press: Cambridge
Berger, Wallis and Watson (1995) Constructing Masculinities: Routledge: New York
Chapman and Rutherford (1998) Male Order: Unwrapping Masculinity: London: Lawrence and Wishart
Connell (1995) Masculinities: Polity press: Cambridge
Mac an Ghaill (1996) Understanding Masculinities: Bristol: Open University Press
Morgan (1992) Discovering Men
Richardson (1996) Theorising Heterosexuality: Telling it Straight: Buckingham: Open University Press
Frosh(1994) Sexual Difference : Masculinity and Psychoanalysis
Kimmel and Messner (2001) Men’s Lives:
Websites
Viewed: 3rd May 2005
The principle of organization in the modern world is fundamentally different: an individual is a member of many well-defined circles, no one of which involves and controls his total personality. "The number of different circles in which individuals move, is one of the indices of cultural development." Modern man's family involvements are separated from his occupational and religious activities. This means that each individual occupies a distinct position in the intersection of many circles. The greater the number of possible combinations of membership, the more each individual tends toward a unique location in the social sphere. Although he may share membership with other individuals in one or several circles, he is less likely to be located at exactly the same intersection as anyone else.
Simmel's Ambivalent View of Modern Culture
Multifaceted involvement in a variety of circles contributes to increased self-consciousness. As the individual escapes the domination of the small circle that imprisons his personality within its confines, he becomes conscious of a sense of liberation. The segmentation of group involvement brings about a sense of uniqueness and of freedom. The intersection of social circles is the precondition for the emergence of individualism. Not only do men become more unlike one another; they are also afforded the opportunity to move without effort in different social contexts.
As a result of these trends, modern man finds himself in a deeply problematical situation: he is surrounded by a multiplicity of cultural elements, which, although they are not meaningless to him, are not fundamentally meaningful either. They oppress the individual because he cannot fully assimilate them. But he cannot reject them because they belong at least potentially to the sphere of his own cultural development. "The cultural objects become more and more linked to each other in a self-contained world which has increasingly fewer contacts with the subjective psyche and its desires and sensibilities." Simmel, like Marx, exemplifies this process by reference to the division of labor. Once this division is highly developed, "the perfection of the product is attained at the cost of the development of the producer. The increase in physical and psychical energies and skills which accompanies one-sided activities hardly benefits the total personality; in fact it often leads to atrophy because it sucks away those forces that are necessary for the harmonious development of the full personality." The division of labor severs the creator from the creation so that the latter attains an autonomy of its own. This process of reification of the cultural products, accentuated, though not originated, by the division of labor, causes increasing alienation between the person and his products. Unlike the artist, the producer can no longer find himself within his product; he loses himself in it.
The cultural universe is made by men, yet each individual perceives it as a world he never made. Thus, progress in the development of objective cultural products leads to an increasing impoverishment of the creating individuals. The producers and consumers of objective culture tend to atrophy in their individual capacities even though they depend on it for their own cultivation.
http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Simmel/SIMMELW6.HTML
Notes
The abstract idea of 'the family' is often a long way from the reality of family life.
However eg. images of ideal family life tend to normalise particular arrangements, or set them up as ideal. Witness the imagery of white m/c two parent two child families - less prevalent now perhaps but still an important component of cultural imagery.
Weeks et al see concerns with Rights as an aspect of a wider reshaping of non-heterosexual patterns of relationships and emergence of families of choice. They explore commitments to egalitarianism, and importance of care, responsibility and commitment in such 'families' comprising kin, friends, lovers etc. As part of new experiments in living -
E.g. friendships frequently provide support in making non-heterosexual way of life possible. - Families of choice - not (necessarily) kin but friends etc.
Many argue that we are seeing much more diverse patterns of family structure developing with more complex ties of family love, support, exchange, duty and obligation" (Ford and Millar 1997, p.2).
Say some more later. Point is though that rather than stay within an unhappy marriage - because it is what is expected, because there is not really an acceptable alternative, we are more likely to choose what we believe will work for us.
Here will - explore other commentators who explore value change in rather different ways. These writers see such change as important to restructuring of familial and other intimate relations. – But more complicated than a rise in egoism or an erosion of moral fabric. People are no less moral than they were – but increasingly they are thrown on themselves. In some respects people are moral agents more than in the past as they have to work out new ways of living together.
Ask: Has there been a shift in the ways in which people experience relationships? Are their experiences shaped less by social customs and expectations than in the past?
Writers like Giddens argue that now relationships are more entered into for their own sake. That people enter into and stay in intimate relationships so long as they are getting what they want from it (the pure relationship)
(Giddens : The transformation of Intimacy)
Giddens also suggests a shift away from Romantic love. People are less motivated by a desire to find 'that special person' - the one with whom they will live with forever. Rather they are seeking out hat special relationship - and if they do not find it with one partner (and who could live up to all those dreams? They will seek it out through another partner. And then another.
Beck is associated in particular with the thesis of individualization.
An important strand in discussions of family change. - elaborate a bit further:
(See Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2000)
They say we are 'on the way to a post familial family'
This is the idea that marriage / family was a community of need; it was 'an obligation of solidarity'. Explain. Eg. mutual dependence.
Individualisation was set in train with industrialisation.
But not really fully delivered until quite recently when women like men before became increasingly individualised.
Thus women have a pretty key role in recent changes in family (as elsewhere gendered shift crucial).
"They can choose, perhaps not altogether freely but more than before, whether they really want to marry or to stay single and whether to seek a divorce rather than put up with endless conflicts if the marriage does not turn out as they hoped. This means that, in women's biographies too, the logic of individual design is gradually asserting itself and the obligation of solidarity is further breaking down" (p. 90)
Where does Beck's argument leave our question about the weakening of social ties and commitments?
Need be clear not on about family values argument.
But - he is interested in value change.
The family is becoming more of an elective relationship, an association of individual persons, who each bring to it their own interests, experiences and plans… (p. 97).
different attempts to label and classify masculinities, none have had the staying power of ‘new man’ and ‘new lad’, or their ability to capture or speak to changes in the landscape of gender. ‘New man’ and ‘new lad’ have become familiar and recognisable stereotypes. Despite the fact that constructions of them are always occasioned - that is, produced for particular purposes in specific interpretative contexts - there is considerable consensus about what constitutes each. The ‘new man’ is generally characterised as sensitive, emotionally aware, respectful of women, and egalitarian in outlook - and, in some accounts, as narcissistic and highly invested in his physical appearance. He is as likely to be gay
By contrast, ‘new lad’ is depicted as hedonistic, post-(if not anti) feminist, and pre-eminently concerned with beer, football and ‘shagging’ women His outlook on life could be characterized as anti-aspirational, and owes a lot to a particular classed articulation of masculinity
profound cultural shift in masculinity.
Most contemporary empirical research on/with young men points to an extremely complicated relationship between the self descriptions made by real young men and the templates of masculinity on offer in magazines and other cultural forms.
men we interviewed were highly invested in independence and autonomy and in ‘being different’ (Gill et al, forthcoming).
Recent studies have pointed instead to the significance of class, ‘race’, ethnicity and region in producing and fracturing young masculine identities. Stephen Frosh, Ann Phoenix and Rob Pattman point out that the cultural resources available to construct masculinities are racialised –a key point when thinking about the overwhelming whiteness of representations of the new man and the new lad (Frosh et al, 2000; 2001). In their important study of boys in London secondary schools they found that black young men of African Caribbean descent are viewed as ‘super masculine’, embodying highly valued traits associated with toughness, a particular masculine style and dress, and physical ability. This rendered them popular/hegemonic figures, but also had major costs in terms of being trapped by what Majors and Billson (1994) call the ‘cool pose’, with little cultural capital in wider society. In fact the very traits that were admired, were also liable to produce fear and discrimination from authority figures such as teachers and potential employers.
Tim Edwards’ assertion that the new man was not simply the product of the media or even of responses to second wave feminism, but ‘he was rather the crystallisation of consequences in economics, marketing, political ideology, demographics and most widely consumer society in the 1980s’ (1997). This, I think, gives a very valuable sense of the multiplicity of different influences and determinations that produced the discourses about the new man and (equally) the new lad
The style press exercised two key kinds of influence, then - first in opening up space for fashion/lifestyle magazines aimed at men, and secondly in pioneering radically new ways of representing male bodies.
As with feminism it is hard to overestimate the impact of the gay liberation movement - post Stonewall - on the construction of the figure of the ‘new man’. One avenue for this influence has been on visual representations of the male body in popular culture. Magazines aimed at gay men, together with pin-ups and particular subcultural styles within the gay club scene have had a profound effect upon representations of masculinity, through a routing that has gone from gay porn through art house photography to advertising (Parsi: 1997).
We have become a culture preoccupied with interpreting itself - discovering or producing meaning in anything and everything. Legions of professionals now exist whose role it is to pick over and analyse every aspect of human behaviour from the bedroom to the street, to find or create a pattern in what they see, and to narrate the story of who we are back to us in compelling new terms.
The new cultural intermediaries (of whom academics constitute one group) have been crucial to the emergence and persistence of discourses
Power and the Production of Subjects: a Genealogy of the New Man and the New Lad
Rosalind Gill, Gender Institute, London School of Economics
