• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
(Submission to Human Relations Journal, Tavistock Institute)
Naming Men as Men: a Critical Response
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Faculty of Organisation and Management, Sheffield HallamUniversity, England
roryridleyduff@tiscali.co.uk  Contact: 4 Rosehill ClosePenistoneSheffieldS36 6UFSouth YorkshireEngland
Abstract
Collinson and Hearn (2001) identify five constructions of masculinity (entrepreneurialism,careerism, paternalism, authoritarianism, and informalism) that constitute an inter-related andcollective set of strategies through which men maintain patriarchal power in work settings.Each strategy is presented as a collective form of male power that accounts for continuingdomination through asymmetrical power relations. This article examines the argument thatpatriarchy expresses the empirical reality of men’s power over women. While acknowledgingthe contribution of Collinson and Hearn, the way masculinity (and men’s ideal behaviour) isconstructed as active while femininity (and women’s ideal behaviour) is constructed aspassive is critiqued. Feminist theory has provided a cogent and sustained critique of the waymen’s behaviour limits opportunities for women but it is only recently that the impact of women’s behaviour on men has been subject to similar scrutiny. Using a new body of literature, and data from a longitudinal study, the author discusses the relationship betweendiscourses on patriarchy and matriarchy, and their relationship to sexual identity.
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff 
is a writer/consultant/lecturer whose doctoral research established howfriendship, courtship and parental interests shape entrepreneurship and systems of governance. His interest in enterprise governance evolved out of directorships in twoemployee-controlled businesses combined with 15 years consultancy work in the socialeconomy.
 
1
1. Introduction
Collinson and Hearn (2001) contribute to “feminist-inspired writings on men” (Whitehead &Barrett, 2001:1) by identifying five ‘patriarchies’ that dominate women: entrepreneurialism,careerism, paternalism, authoritarianism and informalism. They draw attention to severaldebates: poor gender analysis regarding management and leadership; classifying women’s andmen’s behaviours as outcomes of differentiated value systems; links between sexual violenceand domination.Following the tradition of feminist writings (Rowbottom, 1973; Hearn & Parkin, 1987;Walby, 1991; Cockburn, 1991; Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Eagleton, 2003) they argue forthe “important recognition” (Collinson & Hearn, 2001:148) that patriarchal power ispropagated through sexual violence and harassment. Nevertheless, attention is drawn to thefragility of men’s existence, the diversity of their experience, and the need for more study of their “lived experience”. In doing so, they comment on the increasing attention given to the“shifting and often contradictory social relations and identities through which men’sdifference, and their perception of differences, are reproduced” (ibid: 150).Barely has the call for plurality been articulated before boundaries are reset. They reinforceCockburn’s view that difference should not deflect from men’s “domination of women atsystemic and organizational levels” (Cockburn, 1991: 225). In short, plurality is permissibleonly if patriarchy itself is not questioned. In this paper, however, patriarchy’s explanatorypower
is
questioned and recast as a discourse politically advantageous to career-orientedwomen. I re-examine claims regarding “twice over” domination of women at work and home(Hearn & Parkin, 1987:6) and the inter-relationship between discourses on intimacy,harassment, courtship and working life. Do Collinson and Hearn’s five patriarchies help orhinder understanding of gendering processes?Collinson and Hearn’s article was based on data collected in the early 1990s. I contend thatthey make a useful contribution by outlining multiple interlinking patriarchies. In light of more recent research, however, a question arises whether these are independent powerstructures or behavioural responses to women’s power. I will argue that it is incorrect todescribe societies as patriarchal or matriarchal. They are both: different complementaryconstructions with symmetries that balance the influence of men and women at work and
 
2
home. As such, Collinson and Hearn’s constructions can be used to examine matriarchies aswell as patriarchies.The article draws on the work of Dr Warren Farrell. Given the absence of his perspectivesfrom academic works on gender, a few notes are given here to discuss why his work isreferenced. Firstly, Farrell was a pioneer of the 1970s feminist movement, the only manelected three times to the board of the National Organization of Women. In the 1980s, hestarted to articulate men’s perspectives as well as women’s and found himself immediatelyexcluded from university courses, lecture circuits and mass media that previously permittedhim to articulate views on gender equality (Farrell, 2000, Chapter 8).A decade later, however, he achieved recognition when the Financial Times included him intheir list of the top-100 thought leaders in the world, and the International Biographic Centreof London included him in their list of 2000 outstanding scholars of the 20
th
Century
1
. Forthis reason alone, his arguments need to be subject to greater academic scrutiny andcontestation.Reaction to referencing his work has been mixed. One conference participant suggested weshould not quote his “journalism” (despite later admitting to having read none of his books).The academic citations supporting Farrell’s arguments, however, are frequently more crediblethan those not acknowledging (or deliberately ignoring) his influence
2
. Nevertheless, thecharge of “journalism” has some justification. His texts are written for a broaderintelligentsia, are sometimes polemical, and parts of more recent works show a lack of rigour.This article does not contest the proposition that men dominate “at the top”: instead, itcontextualises this with reference to men “at the bottom” and the reasons why this is obscuredin the gender literature (see also Goldberg, 2000; Hoff-Sommers, 1995, 2000). This adds fuelto Collinson and Hearn’s call for more attention to gendering processes and debate about the
 purpose
behind discourses on patriarchy.In Section 2, I critically evaluate Collinson and Hearn’s claims. In Section 3, I present datafrom a longitudinal study to provide new insights into the lived experience of women andmen. In section 4, the five patriarchies are reviewed in the light of empirical findings beforeconsidering the implications of the findings in the conclusions.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...