I am in agreement with the definition given by Paul Robinson that masculinity is a socially constructed project that is inherently resistant to broad generalizations across time and space. This confirms in a synopsis that which I will be exploring; that because masculinity is of broad and varying definitions and categorizations it has contributed to making it so contentious.
Possibly, if we accept ambiguity and masculinities as constructed, complex, and fluid states we may see more clearly that men and masculinity is and will remain contentious because the society holds fixed theories of sex/gender. And these theories may be different from the action and lifestyle that our men choose to live by.
The ideological frame work of what is masculinity will be explored in light of the
existing perspectives on masculinity. These are the positivist who views the membership of the male sex as been signified by the male anatomy. The social constructivist who view male gender as been practiced in social interactions and is signified by beliefs and behaviour, like been courageous and strong. Each society assumes that "given" attributes are fixed, although they vary across cultures and between individuals. And the Postmodernism will not work with the fixed categories of sex and gender disintegrate altogether, rather it is replaced as "floating signifiers" who give no credence to "a sexual identity" be it "masculine" or "feminine" or any characteristics and stereotypically assigned to sex or gender as not independently defined.
The Positivist approach is concerned with the biological concept of sex. This according to Phil Robinson in "Race and theories of masculinity" "in the biological approach, sexual anatomy equates with sexual destiny. Anatomy is proof of being a man. Being a man takes on a universal status. Aggression, reason, a need for control, competitiveness, and emotional reticence are thought to be "natural" attributes for a man. Thus the positivist approach ascribes innate "masculine" traits to men. Like wise interpretive constructivist theories also fix stereotypes of gender on to the body. This could be categorized under the biological conservatives who see the behaviours of men as purely biological. This is another area of major contention as theories aim to define what is masculinity and their failure to agree on the fundamentals of it.
As it relates to gender socialization and its social construct, I believe that men's "natural" qualities merge with the social theories of men. This is result of the constant process of inventing and reinventing themselves. But just as a positivist approach ascribes innate "masculine" traits to men, interpretive constructivist theories also fix stereotypes of gender on to the body. Thus gender it seems continues to be perceived as a "thing." Gender has always been influenced by historical, social, and cultural factors rather than anatomical factors, and is not part of a person's essential, "natural," "true" self. It will therefore comprise of numerous difference, even contradictory theories of what it means to be male likewise masculinity. For the social constructivist gender is achieved through and by people and their context; the supposed distinction between sex and gender disappears. Gender is not something we are, but something we do in social interactions.
Postmodern theory it can be stated reinforces a social constructivist stance, which breaks loose of any given definitions of those uncertain "things" called sex and gender. This is a result of us living in fragmented and differing realities. As expressed in the “British Medical Journal” A man may cry in one encounter and stoically withdraw in another, or do both.
The stereotypical expectations of gender within our social institutions are so permeated with images of what it is to be manly or effeminate that conflict will be inevitable. The alternative theories of masculinity, as opposed to "traditional" ones, help us to recognize that if the society remains alienated in perpetuating male gender myths based on sexual difference and expectation, then there will be continued contention as it relates to the issue of masculinity.
The issue of men’s and women’s right’s movement as was been discussed before is also a reason for contention within masculinity. The most common known men’s movement is the profeminist men’s movement. Their theoretical and political writings comprise the majority of what is often referred to as the "New Men’s Studies”. This particular movement has followed the emancipatory visions expressed by feminist writers. Thus they have to an extent internalized that which has often been the cry of females as it relates to them been marginalized or predisposed to problems.
This has been achieved through their attempts to re-establish the problematize nature known to or common to masculinity and patriarchy. In so doing then there will be a reduction in masculinities hegemonic salience. This occurrence will be on the same basis as the men’s movement try not to re-establish men as the main subject matter within studies of gender.
In recent times, the “New Men’s Studies” have begun to cross the threshold of what Brod and Kaufman in “Theorizing Masculinities” term the ‘second wave’. According to Robinson “this has extended the focus from an assumption of a single, unified masculinity to paradigms that attempt to recognize difference amongst men and between masculinities”. Robinson further notes that this is not an entirely new position; men’s literature has noted differences between men prior to Brod and Kaufman’s announcement of the “second wave”. This I found particularly evident during my research for this essay. Robison further states, in relation to Brod’s and Kaufman’s reasoning’s; that “aside from simple acknowledgement of variance, much of the New Men’s Studies literature has not incorporated men who are less privileged along lines of sexuality, class or race. Examples of men who may be categorized as such may include gay men or even those who do not lye within the traditional heterosexual categories, poor men of lower social status and black men.
The research for this essay supports this viewpoint in that which there has been a tremendous amount of attention on class and sexuality, concerns are currently being raised by men of colour and white men regarding the continued absence of men of colour from the majority of profeminist men’s literature. This has particular influences on why masculinity is so contentious.
If looked at from a critical viewpoint one will note that the profeminist men’s movements has deeply rooted within its movement the need to denaturalize men. Their failure however, to provide sufficient literature on coloured men shows that they are still predominantly focused on white men. This in itself is conflicting as the movement calls for an end to hegemony and simultaneously creates it within itself. This is clear evidence that divisions within masculinity are part of what makes it so contentious.
According to Messner in “Politics of masculinities: Men in movement” much of the information provided has to an extent focused on a false Black-white dichotomy, thereby ignoring non-Black men of colour and potentially creating static racialised "archetypes" that preempt attention to the diversity amongst men. Apart from masculinities that are marginalized along racial lines, I am of the personal opinion that the differential view of either the non-feminist men’s movements and their theoretical positions and the positions they take towards issues of race, is significant in examining the role of race and racism in the construction of masculinities. I also think that failure to pay particular attention to the experiences of Blacks, Latino, and Asian men have led to issues of masculinity been so contentious.
Robinson in his attempt to relate the impact on racism and its impact on masculinity states that; “the fact that men of colour occupy a dual position of being oppressed by racism and simultaneously experience male privilege within certain social domains marks a clear distinction from most white profeminist men’s social location and analysis”. I think that this distinction is particularly evident in the writings of men as white men profeminist writings tend to emphasize men’s gender privilege whilst men of colour writings tend to emphasize their experience of racial oppression. This difference limits the extent to which masculinity may be seen as holistic rather it makes it appear diverged. And this divergence assists in making masculinity more contentious.
I am of the personal opinion that this can in fact be changed or at least to reduce the contention. However for this to be achieved there needs to be fundamental changes in the ideological framework on which some theories are based. I think that if profeminist men should stop assuming that white men’s experiences are universal. Then there could be more room to openness as it relates to differences within masculinity. I have specifically stated this point because I am of the firm belief that if there could be one (1.) specific explanation for what constitutes the contention within masculinity then I would assume that it actually lies within the different view of masculinities and the failure of each group to think that the argument proposes by another may be a part of masculinity and that each separate view may form a cohesive whole rather than been wrong. If this approach is taken, then one can begin the process of removing contention within masculinity.
An additional approach that can be taken is that theoretical frameworks must be developed so as to incorporate a multiplicity of interacting factors. This would include; oppression not been viewed as belonging to one social group, And as stated by Messner; “neither should there be an assumption that there is a consistent similarity of interests between all people challenging social inequality”.
Conversely, Messner has articulated the need for men of colour to refrain from class and racial reductionism. This would only allow for the deconstruction of masculinities, which would further the contention.
In concluding it can be evidently stated that issues concerning masculinity as always been contentious and will remain contentious if there are differential views. In addition it is the failures of those who propose views and ideologies of masculinity that create contention when they fail to accept opposing or any other theory apart from their own. I have theorized from my readings and research that; in observing men, masculinity can no longer be perceived as a single variable but as a highly complex state.
NAME: TAMIEKA SCOTT
I.D. #: 02076228
COURSE: GENDER & DEVELOPMENT IN
CARIBBEAN SOCIETY
COURSECODE: SY25C
TUTOR: MISS. PERKINS
QUESTION: WHAT MAKES DEBATE SURROUNDING
MASCULINITY SO CONTENTIOUS?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brod, Harry and Kaufman, Michael (eds). (1994). “Theorizing Masculinities”. Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Clatterbaugh, Kenneth. (1990). “Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity: Men,
Women, and Politics in Modern Society”. Colorado & Oxford: Westview Press.
Ghaill Mairtin Mac an. (1994) “The Making of Men: Masculinities,Sexualities and
`Schooling”. Bristol: Open University Press.
Hearn Jeff.(1987) “The Gender of Oppression: Men, Masculinity, and the Critique of
Marxism” Great Britain: Wheatsheaf Books Limited.
Messner Michael. A. (1997). “Politics of masculinities: Men in movement” Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Moynihan Clare. (Oct 17, 1998) British Medical Journal, Theories of masculinity.
(Theories in Health Care and Research, part 2)
Robinson Phil “Race and Theories of Masculinities”
Sexton Patricia Cayo. (1970) “The Feminized Male: Classrooms, White Collars and the
Decline of Manliness. New York: Random House, Inc.
