Once you have read the articles by Donaldson andBird,write a post that does the following:
- Identify the focus/argument of each essay:
- What message is each author attempting to communicate?
- How does each define hegemonic masculinity?
- Explain how Donaldson discussed hegemonic masculinity in relationship to the following:
- heterosexuality
- homophobia
- sexism
- women’s subordination.
- Discuss how Bird defines homosociality and how it is connected to each of the following:
- hegemonic masculinity
- emotional detachment
- competitiveness
- the sexual objectification of women
- the gender identity of men.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and Society. http://www.jstor.org Welcome to the Men's Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity Author(s): Sharon R. Bird Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 120-132 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/189829 Accessed: 20-08-2014 00:03 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]. This content downloaded from 146.111.34.148 on Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:03:18 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions http://www.jstor.org http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage http://www.jstor.org/stable/189829 http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp WELCOME TO THE MEN'S CLUB Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity SHARON R. BIRD Washington State University This studyfocuses on multiple masculinities conceptualized in terms of sociality, a concept used to refer to nonsexual interpersonal attractions. Through male homosocial heterosexual interactions, hegemonic masculinity is maintained as the norm to which men are held accountable despite individual conceptu- alizations of masculinity that departfrom that normn When it is understood among heterosexual men in homosocial circles that masculinity means being emotionally detached and competitive and that masculinity involves viewing women as sexual objects, their daily interactions help perpetuate a system that subordinates femininity and nonhegemonic masculinities. Nonhegemonic masculinities fail to influence structural gender arrangements significantly because their expression is either relegated to heterosocial settings or suppressed entirely. To understand gender inequality, one must do more than study relations between genders. The nature of gender relations is such that asymmetries exist between men and women and among men and among women (Connell 1987, 1992). Recognition of masculinity as a social construct began only a couple of decades ago, and recognition of a power dynamic differentiating "normative" from "non-normative" masculinities began only a few years ago (Kimmel 1990). Investigation of the many possible types of masculinity conceptualizations has been rare (Connell 1987; Kimmel 1990). Connell's (1992) research on homosexual masculinities and their subordination to heterosexual masculinities is a notable exception. As Connell's work demonstrates, delineation of relations among masculinities is important because it facilitates a better understanding of how the structural order of gender is maintained. Hegemonic masculinity, or "the maintenance of practices that institutionalize men's dominance over women" and is "constructed in relation to women and to subordinate masculinities" (Connell 1987, 185-86), shapes the AUTHOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1993 annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Portland, OR. I thank Leslie Atkins, Kendal Broad, Peter Burke, Valerie Jenness, Lisa Mcintyre, Margaret Andersen, Miriam Johnson, R. W. Connell, the reviewers at Gender & Society, and especially Lisa Broidy, 7im McGettigan, and Amy Wharton for their helpful criticisms and advice. Special thanks also to the men interviewedfor this study. REPRINT REQUESTS: Sharon R. Bird, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4020. GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 10 No. 2, April 1996 120-132 C 1996 Sociologists for Women in Society 120 This content downloaded from 146.111.34.148 on Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:03:18 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp Bird / HOMOSOCIALITY 121 overall framework of gender relations. By problematizing masculinity, Connell challenges typically undisputed meanings associated with male dominance. In this study, I focus on how meanings that correspond to hegemonic masculinity are maintained and how meanings that do not correspond to hegemonic masculinity are suppressed. Within the existing gender order, meanings associated with behav- iors that challenge hegemonic masculinity are denied legitimation as masculine; such meanings are marginalized, if not suppressed entirely. Contradictions to hegemonic masculinity posed by male homosexuality, for example, are suppressed when homosexual masculinity is consistently rendered "effeminate" (Connell 1992). The maintenance of hegemonic masculinity is explored here through investiga- tion of male homosocial interactions. Homosociality refers specifically to the nonsexual attractions held by men (or women) for members of their own sex (Lipman-Blumen 1976). Homosociality, according to Lipman-Blumen, promotes clear distinctions between women and men through segregation in social insti- tutions. I add, further, that homosociality promotes clear distinctions between hegemonic masculinities and nonhegemonic masculinities by the segregation of social groups. Heterosociality, a concept left untheorized by Lipman-Blumen, refers to nonsexual attractions held by men (or women) for members of the other sex. Also critical to this analysis is an investigation of the relationship between sociality and the self-conceptualization of masculinity. As I argue here, homosocial interaction, among heterosexual men, contributes to the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity norms by supporting meanings associated with identities that fit hegemonic ideals while suppressing meanings associated with nonhegemonic masculinity identities. I focus specifically on the connection between individual masculinity and gender norms in small group interactions to capture subtle mecha- nisms of control. When personal conflicts with ideal masculinity are suppressed both in the homosocial group and by individual men, the cultural imposition of hegemonic masculinity goes uncontested (see Kaufman 1994). The following meanings are crucial to our understanding of how homosociality contributes to the perpetuation of hegemonic masculinity: (1) emotional detach- ment, a meaning constructed through relationships within families whereby young men detach themselves from mothers and develop gender identities in relation to that which they are not (Chodorow 1978); (2) competitiveness, a meaning con- structed and maintained through relationships with other men whereby simple individuality becomes competitive individuality (Gilligan 1982); and (3) sexual objectification of women, a meaning constructed and maintained through relation- ships with other men whereby male individuality is conceptualized not only as differentfrom female but as better than female (Johnson 1988). CONCEPTUALIZING MASCULINITIES Gender identity is distinguished from the heavily criticized concept of gender role in that the latter is used to refer to behavioral expectations associated with more This content downloaded from 146.111.34.148 on Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:03:18 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp 122 GENDER & SOCIETY / April 1996 or less static social positions, whereas the former refers to a continual process whereby meanings are attributed by and to individuals through social interaction. Gender, in other words, is relational. Gender identity originates in early interac- tions, becoming more stable through the accumulation of meanings attributed by and to the self over time (see Burke 1980; Burke and Reitzes 1981). Information received through interactions may be used either to reinforce existing self-notions of gender meanings or to weaken them. That is, mere socialization does not sufficiently explain how individuals conceptualize identity. Socialization provides the terms of social interaction but does not determine how individuals incorporate interactional meanings into their own conceptualizations of gender (Connell 1987). The unique experiences of men, embedded within particular social institutions and subject to varying historical contexts, facilitate conceptualizations of mascu- linities that may differ considerably. Each male incorporates a variety of meanings into his gender identity, some of which are consistent with hegemonic masculinity and others of which are not (e.g., Connell 1992; Messner 1992b). The social ideal for masculinity, which in itself is a nonstatic notion, may be internalized (i.e., central to one's core self [see Chodorow 1980]) or simply interiorized (i.e., acknowledged by the self), enabling individuals to understand the gender norms to which they are held accountable. In either case, each male comes to understand both socially shared meanings of masculinity and the idiosyncratic meanings that comprise his unique gender identity. Internalization of hegemonic meanings provides a base of shared meanings for social interaction but also quells the expression of nonhegemonic meanings. The presumption that hegemonic masculinity meanings are the only mutually accepted and legitimate masculinity meanings helps to reify hegemonic norms while suppressing meanings that might otherwise create a foundation for the subversion of the existing hegemony. This presumption is especially prevalent in male homosocial interactions, which are critical to both the conceptualization of masculinity identity and the maintenance of gender norms. MALE HOMOSOCIAL INTERACTIONS: EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT, COMPETITIVENESS, AND SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN Three of the shared meanings that are perpetuated via male homosociality are emotional detachment, competition, and the sexual objectification of women. These meanings characterize hegemonic masculinity but are not always internal- ized as central to individual identity. First, emotional detachment (i.e., withholding expressions of intimacy) maintains both clear individual identity boundaries (Chodorow 1978) and the norms of hegemonic masculinity. To express feelings is to reveal vulnerabilities and weaknesses; to withhold such expressions is to maintain control (Cancian 1987). Second, competition in the male homosocial group supports an identity that depends not on likeness and cooperation but on separation and distinction (Gilligan 1982). Competition facilitates hierarchy in relationships, whereas cooperation suggests symmetry of relationships This content downloaded from 146.111.34.148 on Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:03:18 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp Bird / HOMOSOCIALITY 123 (Messner 1992a). Finally, the sexual objectification of women facilitates self- conceptualization as positively male by distancing the self from all that is associated with being female. The objectification of women provides a base on which male superiority is maintained (Johnson 1988), whereas identification with women (and what it means to be female) helps remove the symbolic distance that enables men to depersonalize the oppression of women. Individual conceptualizations vary in the extent to which these meanings char- acterize one's masculinity. Masculinities that differ from the norm of hegemonic masculinity, however, are generally experienced as "private dissatisfactions" rather than foundations for questioning the social construction of gender (Thomas 1990; see also Kaufman 1994). Hegemonic masculinity persists, therefore, despite indi- vidual departures from the hegemonic form. METHOD The data collected for this study were gathered through personal interviews and field observations. Eight in-depth interviews were conducted in the fall of 1992 in a small northwestern city in the