1. Social Organization of Masculinity
Masculinity is not a coherent object about which a generalizing science can be produced
yet we can have a coherent knowledge about the issue raised in attempts. If they
brought in the angle of vision we can see masculinity not as an isolated object but as an
aspect of a larger structure.
All societies have cultural accounts of gender but not all have concept of masculinity
and its modern usage terms him that one behavior results on the type of person one is
and on masculine person would behave differently being peaceable rather than violent
conciliatory valid and dominating height be able to kick a football uninterested in sexual
conquests and further.
This concept presupposes a belief individual differences and personal agency it is built
on the conception of individuality that developed in early modern Europe the growth of
colonial empires and capitalist economic relations the concept it’s also inherently wrong
relational masculinity does not exist except in polarized character types at least in
principle does not have a concept of masculinity in the sense of modern European and
Historical research suggest that this was too of European culture itself before the 18
century woman was suddenly regarded as different from men but different in the sense
of being incomplete or inferior. Woman and men would not seen as bearers I’ll call truly
different characters this conception accompanied the bourgeois ideology of separate
spheres in the 19 century.
In both respects our concept of masculinity seems to be fairly recent historical product
of a few hundred years old and speaking of masculinity at all then we are doing gender
in culturally specific ways rather than attempting to define masculinity as an object a
natural character type of behavior average and Norm we need to focus on the process
and relationships through which men and women conduct gendered lives masculinity to
the extent of the term can be briefly defined is simultaneously a place and gender
relations practices to which men and women engaged the place in gender and the affect
of these practices in bodily experiences personality and culture.
Gender is a way in which social practice is ordered and gender processes that every day
conduct of life is organized in relation the reproductive arena defined by the bodily
structure and process of human reproduction arena include sexual arousal and
intercourse childbirth and infant care bodily sex differences and similarities.
Call this a reproductive arena not a biological base to emphasize the point that we are
talking about historical process involving the body not a fixed set of biological
determinants gender is a social practice that constantly refers to bodies and what
bodies do not a social practice reduced to the body. Reductionism presents the exact reverse of the real situation gender exists precisely to
the extent that biology does not determine the social marketing of those points of
condition with historical processes supersedes biological evolution as a form of change.
Gender is a scandal and outreach from the point of view of essentialism socio biologists
are constantly trying to abolish it by proving the human social arrangements are
reflexive evolutionary imperative social practice is creative and inventive but not
inchoate a response to particular situations and is gendered within definite structures
of social relations gender relations the relations among people and groups organized to
the reproductive Arena foreman of the major structures of all documented societies.
practice that relates to the structure generated as people and groups grapple with
their historical situation does not consist of isolated that actions are configured in large
units and when we speak of masculinity and seminary we are naming configurations of
gender practice configuration is perhaps to static attend the party thing is the process of
configuring practice taking a dynamic view of the organization of practice we arrive at
an understanding of masculinity and femininity as a gender project these are processes
of configuring practice to time which transform their starting point In gender structures
we find gender configuring of practice however we slice the social world whatever unit
of analysis we choose most familiar is the individual life chorus the basis of the
common-sense notion of masculinity and femininity the configuration of practice here is
what psychologist have traditionally called personality or character.
Such a focus is liable to exaggerate the coherence of practice that can be achieved at
any one site therefore not surprising that psychoanalysis originally stressing
contradiction just to avoid the concept of identity poststructuralist critics of psychology
is Wendy Hollway have emphasized that gender identities are fractured and shifting
because multiple discourses intersect in any individual life this argument highlighted
another site that of discourse ideology a culture hear gender is organized in a symbolic
practice that may continue much longer than the individual life.
A third sight of gender configuration are institutions such as the state the workplace
and the school many find it difficult to accept that institutions substantively it’s not just
metamorphic Lee gender the state for instance is a masculine institution to say this is
not imply at the personality of top male office holders see-through and stained the
institution State organizational practices are structured in relation to the reproductive
arena the overwhelming majority of pop officeholders I men because there is a
gendered configuring of recruitment and promotion agenda configuring of the internal
division of labor and system of control agenda configuring a policy making practical
routines in away of mobilizing pleasure and consent.
The gender structuring of practice need have nothing biologically to do with
reproduction link with the reproductive arena is social this becomes clear when it is challenged an example is over homosexuals in the military the rules excluding soldiers
and sailors because of the gender of the sexual object choice done admitted reason for
this was a cultural importance of particular definition of masculinity in maintaining the
fragile cohesion of modern Armed Forces has been clear since the work of Juliet
Mitchell and Gail Rubin in the 1970s the gender is an internally complex structure where
a number of different logistics superimposed this is a fact of great importance for the
analysis of masculinity’s anyone masculinity as a configuration of practice is
simultaneously positioned in a number of structures of relationships which maybe
following different historical trajectories accordingly masculinity like femininity is always
liable to internal contradiction and historical disruption.
We need at least a threefold model of the structure of gender distinguishing relations of
a) power b) production and c) cathexis ( emotional attachment) this is a provisional
model but it gives some purchase on the issue about masculinity.
Power relationsthe main axis of power in the contemporary European-American
gender order is the overall subordination of women and dominance of men the
structure of women’s liberation named patriarchy this general structure exists despite
many local reversals it persist despite resistance of many kinds now articulated in
feminism these reversals in resistance mean continuing difficulties for patriarchal power
they define the problem of legitimacy which has great importance for the politics of
Production relations gender divisions of labor are familiar in the form of the allocation
of tasks sometimes reaching extraordinarily find detail equal attention should be paid
to the economic consequences of gender division of labor two men from an equal share
of the product of social labor this is most often discussed in terms of unequal wage rate
but the gender character of capital should be also noted a capitalist economy working to
a gender division of labor is necessarily a gendered accumulation process so it is not a
statistical accident but part of social construction of masculinity that men and not
women controlled the major corporations and the great private fortunes implausible as
it sounds the accumulation of wealth has become firmly linked to the reproductive
arena for the social relation of gender.
Cathexis sexual desires often seen as natural that it is commonly excluded from social
theory get what we consider desire in Freudian terms as emotional energy being
attached to an object it’s gendered characters clear this is true both for heterosexual
and homosexual desires bi sexual desire is ill-defined and unstable to practice that
shapes and realize desire are that’s an aspect of the ships involved whether they are
consensual or courses whether pleasure is equally given and received an feminist
analysis of sexuality fees have become sharp questions about the connection of
heterosexuality with men’s position of social dominance. Because gender is a way of structuring social practices and general auto special type of
practice that gender intersects better interacts with the racing class we might add that it
constantly interacts with nationality what position in the world order.
Similarly it is possible to understand the shaping of working class masculinity’s without
giving full weight to the class as well as the gender politics this is vividly shown an
historical work Limited livelihood on industrial England in the 19 century an ideal of
working class manliness and self-respect was constructed in response class deprivation
and paternalistic strategies of management at the same time and through the same
gestures as it was defined against working-class women. Strategy a family wage which
long depressed woman’s wait in 20 Century economies grew out of this interplay to
understand gender then we must constantly go beyond gender the same applies and
rivers we cannot understand class base or global inequality without constantly moving
towards gender gender relations are a major component of social structure as a whole
and gender politics are among the main determinants of collective fate.
what's going recognition of the interplay between gender race and class and comment
to recognize multiple masculinity's black as well as white working class as well as
middle-class this is welcome but it is risk another kind of oversimplification is easy in this
framework to think that they are Black masculinity or a working-class masculinity.
To recognize more than one kind of masculinity is only a first step we have to examine
the relation between them further we have to unpack the mileux of class and race and
scrutinize gender relations operating within them.
A focus on gender relations among men is necessary to keep the analysis dynamic to
prevent acknowledgment of multiple masculinity’s collapsing into a character typology
as happen with the all authoritarian personality research. Hegemonic masculinity is not
a fixed character type always and everywhere the same it is rather than masculinity that
occupies the hegemonic position in a given pattern of gender relations the Positive
always contestable a focus on relations also offered again in realism recognizing