Hegemony and Hegemonic Masculinity

Gender hegemony is a concept associated with the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), who developed the term of hegemony in order to describe the preponderance of one social class over the others. In Gramsci’s terms hegemony encompasses not only economic and political predominance but also the ability of the hegemon class to project its own ideology so that those who are subordinated by it accept it as a ‘common sense’ and

‘natural’. As Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (cited in Alvarado &Boyd-Barrett, 1992: 51) postulated that ‘common sense’ is ‘the way a subordinate class lives its subordination’. Gramsci placed particular emphasis on the element of ‘struggle’, which plays a crucial role in understanding hegemony and ‘common sense’. ‘Common sense’ is characterised by flexibility, mobility and it is persistently and ‘continuously transforming itself’ (Gramsci, cited in Hall, 1982: 73). As Fiske explained: ‘consent must be constantly won and rewon, for people's material social

55

experience constantly reminds them of the disadvantages of subordination…’, which threatens the dominant social class (Fiske, 1992: 291).

‘Hegemony…posits a constant contradiction between ideology and the social experience of the subordinated that makes this interface into an inevitable site of ideological struggle’

(Fiske 1992: 291). Hence, some of the main features of hegemony are: ‘… the winning and holding of power and the formation (and destruction) of social groups that processes. It is about the way in which the ruling class establishes and maintains its domination' (Donaldson, 1993: 645). Additionally, the concept of hegemony refers to the ability of the hegemon to persuade the greater part of the populace through the use of the media ‘and the organisation of social institutions in ways that appear ‘natural’, ‘ordinary’ and ‘normal’. The state, through punishment for non-conformity, is crucially involved in this negotiation and enforcement’

(Donaldson, 1993: 645). To recapitulate, hegemony describes the liaisons of power and ideology and refers to and reinforces what Bocock (1986: 318) called ‘fundamental outlook of society’.

The concept of hegemony has been a central feature of the recent gender research and debates on men and masculinities. There have been a number of ways the notion of hegemony has been used in studying masculinity, for example, in ‘hegemonic heterosexual masculinity’

(Frank, 1987), ‘male hegemony’ (Cockburn, 1991), ‘the hegemonic male’ (Vale De Almeida, 1996), ‘hegemonic men’ (Lorber, 2002), and ‘hegemonic masculinity’. Of these, this last use, that of hegemonic masculinity, has been by far the most popular and influential over the last two decades or more.

The concept of hegemonic masculinity was originally developed by Connell in her paper

‘Men’s Bodies’ and was further discussed in her later work ‘Which Way is Up?’ (1983).

According to Connell (1990: 83) hegemonic masculinity ‘is the culturally idealised form of

56

masculine character’, which refers to the relationship/identification of masculinity with

‘toughness and competitiveness’ as well as legitimates women’s subordinate position in the society and the ‘marginalisation’ of homosexual men. This form of masculinity is not by nature hegemonic. It acquires this position within a given social system once it is idealised and it is widely accepted. Thus, it is understood that hegemonic masculinity can acquire many forms depending on the cultural norms that characterise any given social system.

According to Hanke (1990: 232) ‘hegemonic masculinity refers to the social ascendancy of a particular version or model of masculinity that, operating on the terrain of ‘common sense’

and conventional morality defines ‘what it means to be a man’. Hegemonic masculinity gains its superior place towards other forms of masculinity and femininity through physical force and control. Connell (1983: 28) postulated that ‘force and competence are…translations into language of the body of the social relations, which define men as holders of power, women as subordinate [and] this is one of the main ways in which the superiority of men becomes naturalised’. Although hegemony could be supported by strength it doesn’t mean violence. It mainly describes the ‘ascendancy achieved through culture, institutions and persuasion’

(Connell &Messerschmidt, 2005: 832).

Connell is reticent in providing a detailed account of the components of hegemonic masculinity. However, academics who have explored the notion of hegemonic masculinity have postulated that it is centred on disparaging effeminate masculinity and femininity (Connell, 1987) and upon a range of practices. In particular, in the western societies hegemonic masculinity revolves around economic success, heterosexuality (McDowell, 2003), sexual domination, aggression, determination and potency (Seidler, 2006). In primary education, which is the focus of my research, hegemonic masculinity is characterised by aggression, toughness, resistance to authority (Mac An Ghaill, 1996; Sewell, 1999; Frosh et al, 2002) and sport competiveness, manifested especially through football (Connell, 1996;

57

Skelton, 1997a, 2000, 2001; Swain, 2000a, b, 2001). Furthermore, ‘masculinities have become performative often as a way of concealing inner emotional turmoil from others...vulnerabilities are often hidden as men can feel they should somehow be able to handle their own emotions as not to be more shamed’ (Seidler, 2006: 13).

Another expression of hegemonic masculinity is related to professional success in the labour market (Ochberg, 1987). Hegemony is related to the gender division of labour, which results in the ‘social definition of tasks into as either ‘men’s work’ or ‘women’s work’ and the definition of some kinds of work as more masculine than others’ (Carrigan,et al. 1987: 94).

Moreover, hegemonic masculinity is reinforced and perpetuated through the family structures, in the form of patriarchy. Especially, masculinity becomes hegemonic through ‘the manifestations and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general’ (Lerner, 1986: 239). In the domestic sphere hegemonic masculinity is manifested through the identification of men as breadwinners and patriarchal father figures. This, often results in women’s subordination, for they are identified as housewives, sexual objects and nurturing mothers. These particular expressions of hegemonic masculinity in the labour market and the domestic sphere were very useful in the analysis of the discursive representations of masculinity in the anthology textbooks, for they enabled me to identify the specific form that hegemonic masculinity acquires in the textbooks (see chapter 5).

Hegemonic masculinity is strongly identified with heterosexuality and is related to what Butler (1990, 1993) called ‘hegemonic heterosexual matrix’, which describes a discursive formation by which ‘children’s normative gender identities are inextricably embedded and produced within hegemonic (normative and dominant) representations of heterosexuality’

(Renold, 2006a: 491). Rubin promulgated that the association of hegemonic masculinity with

58

heterosexuality is presented as ‘good’, ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ (Rubin, 1985: 280). Thus, hegemonic male sexuality ‘embodies personal characteristics’, which are manifested by

‘adult males through exclusive social relationships with men and primarily sexual relationships with women’ (Herek, 1987: 72-3). As well, ‘it requires not being effeminate in physical appearance or mannerisms; not having relationships with men that are sexually or overly intimate and not failing in sexual relationships with women’ (Herek, 1987: 72-3). This is also significant for it implies the association of hegemonic masculinity with heterosexuality and demonstrates the performative nature of gender identity and sexuality where certain gender discourses are intelligible whilst others are not (Butler, 1990).

Despite the predominant position of hegemonic masculinity in the social systems, Connell (1995: 7) has argued that men in their majority are ‘complicit’ towards the principles of hegemonic masculinity, mainly because their behaviours reflect what is considered ‘normal’

for men. Connell (1995: 79) refers to this type of masculinities as ‘complicit masculinities’, which ‘are constructed in ways that realise that patriarchal dividend, without the tensions or risks of being the front line troops of patriarchy...’ (Connell, 1995: 79).

Connell recognises individuals’ power to refuse to go along with the ideals of hegemonic masculinity, however, resistance could ‘incur high social and emotional costs and [men can]

be subjected to a number of othering practices in which their deviation from hegemonic norms are subordinated and pathologised’ (Renold, 2004: 249). Symptomatic of this, is the subordination of gayness by heterosexual men. Gay men embody what Connell referred to as

‘subordinate masculinities’, which are perceived as the inferior ‘other’ by men who embody hegemonic masculinity. To apply these ideas to school, for instance, it could be argued that in those schools where physical prowess in sports e.g. football is a signifier of successful masculinity, subordinate masculinity is performed by non-footballing boys who experience

59

exclusion and subordination by their classmates due to their lack of interest or skills of football (Swain, 2000b; Skelton, 2000; Clark &Paechter, 2007; Paechter &Clark, 2007). Not only is hegemonic masculinity enacted by a minority of men but it is conflated with whiteness and middle-classness. These characteristics of hegemonic masculinity are crucial for they lead to marginalisation of masculinities of subordinated class or racial/ethnic groups (marginalised masculinities). As in my research social class or ethnic background were not taken into consideration, this type of masculinity will not be discussed any further here.

In synopsis, hegemonic masculinity maintains its leading dominant position status through the subordination of femininity as well as through the marginalisation and subordination of other masculinities (subordinate and marginalised masculinities). Also, hegemonic masculinity is contingent, which means that ‘the form it takes is particular to any situation or social group, and it can be open to challenge or change over time’ (Paechter, 2012: 231). This is very important as it is perhaps possible that less oppressive forms of masculinity could become hegemonic (Connell, 1985). Hegemonic masculinity is also relational, for it is constituted in relation to femininity and subordinated forms of masculinity (Paechter, 2012).

In my study, this concept of hegemonic masculinity in all the iterations I have explored was used to analyse my data including observations of children’s play activities on school playgrounds, for sports are the ‘embodiment’ of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995: 204).

Through sport activities, in particular, the superiority of males’ physical strength over females contributes towards the legitimization of female subjugation as well as the subordination of other forms of masculinities that do not encompass the characteristics of hegemonic masculinity (Dempster, 2009). This is encouraged by the media, which overemphasise male sport achievements to the detriment of female athletes and sporting activities (Miller, 1998). Professional male athletes are presented as ‘exemplars’ of

60

hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995: 81) and their power and authority are considered paragons of hegemonic masculinity. Furthermore, demonstrations of physical strength, stamina and achievement by athletes are encouraged and remunerated (Whitson 1990; Swain 2000b, 2001). Specifically at schools, sports are ‘masculinising processes’ (Salisbury

&Jackson 1996: 205) through which boys learn to be men. Sporting ability is a signifier of

‘successful masculinity’ (Skelton, 2001: 136), which is most commonly manifested in the football fields (Whitson, 1990; Swain, 2000b). Commonly, the football field is the ‘providing ground’ (Whitson, 1990: 24) of masculinity as boys with high footballing skills are often among the most popular students at school. In contrast, those students with little or no skills are labelled as effeminate and they are subordinated and marginalised (Edley &Wetherell 1997; Martino 1999; Swain 2000a, b; Frosh et al., 2002; Jackson 2003).

The use of language plays a key role in encouraging boys to take up hegemonic masculinity discourses, for it often promotes misogynistic and homophobic discourses (Connell, 1987, 1989; Schacht, 1996; Swain, 2000b). Hegemonic masculinity discourses are also reinforced by a number of sport-related activities, such as male bonding in the changing rooms (Rutherford, 1988), initiation rituals (Skelton, 1993) and heavy drinking (Coates 2003;

Wellard 2002). These activities serve the purpose of reinforcing the associations of hegemonic masculinity with power and strength and assert hegemonic masculinity’s superiority over femininity and other forms of masculinity (Rutherford, 1988) that are not hegemonic. The strong connection between hegemonic masculinity and football was evident in the analysis of children’s play practices as I will demonstrate in chapter 6 where I explored the relation between football and successful masculinity/hegemonic masculinity as well as the extent to which exclusion from the game is interpreted as an absence of an overt subscription to hegemonic forms of masculinity.

61

Connell’s (1987) theory has offered valuable insights into the study of hegemonic masculinity in the two Athenian primary schools. More specifically, hegemonic masculinity enabled me to explore the discursive representations of masculinity and femininity in the anthology textbooks in relation to gender roles in the domestic sphere and labour market. The data also allowed me to scrutinise the gender hierarchies formed in the two Athenian primary schools and explored the characteristics that hegemonic masculinity had acquired in the specific socio-cultural context.