You are on page 1of 5

In this chapter I discuss the third main direction in Masculinity Studies concerned with multiple Differences- that is,

differences within the category of the masculinity and typically between men. This direction is in sharp contrast to the almost exclusive focus on the hierarchical distinction between men and women which characterizes the Radical profeminism associated with John Stoltenberg. Radical masculinity approaches like Stoltenberg's are inclined to subsume multiple differences between men and women which complicate gender hierarchy under an overarching singular focus on men's power over women, the Gender divide. The central concern with multiple identity Differences between men is, however, the subject of masculinity writings attending to gay men and to race/ethnicity/imperialism (REI).

Gay and REI masculinities in context The emphasis on multiple differences within masculinity, in particular between men, in the work on gay/REI masculinities is not entirely distinct from the approach of writings under the umbrella of Social Constructionism. Both (multiple) Differences and Social Constructionist frameworks in Masculinity Studies highlight the complex nature of masculinity and the differential positionings of different group of men. Moreover, theorist focusing on gay men and those men marginalized by REI, frequently make use of the work of Socialist Constructionist writers, especially Connell. Indeed, Connell's contribution to the disaggregation of masculinity is crucial here and might seem to locate him in the Differences camp. Gay and black male writers write as if from a distances, with a sense of speaking from the margins. They speak with an overwhelming sense of their awkward relationship to masculinity and/or to Masculinity Studies. This cannot be said of Connell. While gay and black male writers write of their dislocation, Connell writes about it. Unlike the equivalent Differences trajectories in Feminist and Sexuality Studies, this framework in Masculinity Studies is more clearly identified with a Modernist frame of reference. A postmodern, for example, distinctly Postcolonial REI approach focusing on Third Worldmen as men is as yet undeveloped. Judith Newton argues that most of the writings in Masculinity undertaken in these studies focuses on white, middle-class heterosexual men. The accounts of masculinity undertaken in these studies rest upon notions of men's dominant social position as against that of women in a gender hierarchy. Masculinity is seen as having pay-offs for men in general as against costs for women. However she points out that women remain relatively unseen in these analyses. Men seem to create history and culture on their own- to be overly central to the creation of an unjust gendered society. Something of the same difficulty arises in relation to the subordinated men- that is, in relation to gay men and men marginalized by REI, including black and some non- Western men. In this context, most masculinity writers today make a point of indicating the waste in which the notion of Masculinity creates its own abjectoutsiders or marginals. It enables masculinity

writers to redefine Masculinity as non-unitary, as multiple, rather than as biological or even social given. The abjectaspect of the construction of masculinity- its underside. Include groupings such as gay and black/Third World men. The great majority of the masculinity writers today follow a broadly Social Constructionists and Socialist pro-feminist line. They are inclined to make use of Connells conception of masculinity as a hierarchical construct built upon the honoring of a certain form of manhood associated with white, heterosexual, class-privileged men in Western societies, a model which is increasingly exported globally. Virtually all Masculinity authors today strongly assert that a central, if not the central dynamic in hegemonic masculinity is the subordination of gay masculinity, and the latters construction as a repository for everything Euro- American heterosexual masculinity expelsweakness, feminization and the like. Gay and REI masculinities remain largely missing from Masculinity Studies and to the extent that they appear in the work of major writers in the subfield tend to be presented as not particularly active in shaping hegemonic masculinity but rather as negatively circumscribing dominant masculinitys borders. Once again there is a default effect that in giving white, straight, Western men centre stage they are given too much credit (or discredit) that is, too much agency in creating society and history. Marginalized and subordinated masculinities are largely relegated to the sidelines and are not presented as co-constructors of social life. Mainstream accounts of multiple masculinities, other masculinities Connell combines meta theorizing about hegemonic masculinity with case histories of white heterosexual and gay men and boys from both middle and working- class backgrounds. He also considers men in political movements like the environment movement. He pays considerable attention to axes of gender, class and sexuality, in presenting masculinity as multiple and non-homogenous. What is interesting is that only gender and class are thoroughly integrated into the large-scale aspects of the analysis. Though Connell is very serious about considering sexuality, sexuality and gay men still tend to operate as negative border markers rather than as active contributors to the shaping of masculinity, hegemonic masculinity and the gender order. Race/ ethnicity are strangely absent in his work. Despite certain limitations in his account of multiple masculinities, Connell does attend to links between race/ethnicity/imperialism and masculinity at a broadly schematic level in terms of discussing what he calls the globalization of gender and the world gender order. He links imperialism in its various stages- conquest, colonial and post-colonial with gender relations. Gender is here cast as intertwined with expanding capitalist/class relations. Thus, Connell says, conditions now exist for production of a hegemonic masculinity on a world scale. He refers to a dominant form that embodies, organizes and legitimates mens domination in the world gender order as a whole. The hegemonic form is marked by egocentrism, conditional commitments, declining ethical concerns, and is focused on accumulation and commodification, including of people and sexuality. This globalizing business masculinity is not dependents on individual physicality, but often commands considerable means of control, including violent control. It is important to acknowledge at this point that the study of connections between masculinity and globalization, and of Third

World masculinities, is still in its early stages. The analysis is schematic and from the vantage point of considering the spread of hegemonic, North Atlantic, white, class-privileged, straight guys necessarily remain centre stage in this global analysis. Those cast as peripheral tend to remain in the shadows. Critical contributions to Masculinity Studies As Louis Archer argues from a British prospective, issues around black masculinity remain largely undertheorized. Race and gender are predominately addressed as distinct issues black meaning men, gender meaning white. As noted black masculinity is not something we consciously talk about much in academic study. Gay masculinities have not been given a great deal of attention either. It is argues that among preconditions for a history of masculinity is gay history as first in the field and still the most productive. It would seem that while there are relatively few analyses available on black masculinity, there are many more on gay men, including those which attend to their gender identities(their masculinity), but these are generally not acknowledged within the subfield. Gay, it would appear, equates to sexuality and has little to say about masculinity, while Heterosexual unaccountably means gender/masculinity and is not about sexuality.

Gay Masculinities Dowsett notes that considering gay masculinity enables a thorough appreciation of the hierarchical character of masculinity as well as its contingency and instability. The inclusion of gay masculinity gives weight to questioning views of masculinity as a pre-destined biology or a simple set of rules to be learned. Gay masculinity highlights failure to achieve hegemonic masculinity and specifically draws attention to the non-natural, non-inevitable status of masculinity as an achievement-indeed, as a performance. Dowsett also points out the ambiguity of the relationship between gay analyses and Masculinity Studies. The relationship is not so much an unhappy marriage, as based on an occasional meeting. He notes that gay men are little interested in masculinity politics because it is primarily focused on heterosexual men. Although he is sympathetic to Feminism, he notes that gay men and feminists do not always agree and is much more willing to be critical of women/Feminism than most masculinity writers. He notes, for example, that women are complicit in homophobic constructions of masculinity. Increasingly, writers attending to LGBTI and queer sexualities are inclined to declare that gender rests upon a heterosexual focus of relations between the sexes and assert that gender categories should not be prioritized over those of sexuality. The inclination to separate gender from sexuality and regard gender as tainted by heterosexual privilege has become common. Masculinity tends to be seen in gay masculinity writings as something that produces costs but not benefits for gay men. Such is the strength of the oppression related to homophobia and

coercive heteronormativity that gay men are more often cast as victims rather than as complicit in gendered power and male dominance. Dowsett himself appears implicitly to support this conception of gay men as largely in the position of victims, despite his explicit support for Feminism, when he says, there is little doubt that the gains made by women in many spheres of social and economic life in this country (Australia) have greatly outstripped gains made by oppressed minority groups. Most gay Masculinity writings do not readily accept gay mens connections to male supremacy or their patriarchal pay-off as described by Stoltenberg and Connell. Hence, they often do operate from a rather different perspective from the overall Masculinity Studies subfield. These analyses typically priorities sexuality over gender to the point where gender is largely subsumed. On the other hand, some Masculinity writings that are focused on gay men point out that the issue of gay male domestic violence and of gender differentials in homophobic assaults upon gays and lesbians both signal a need to link analyses of gay men to the question of masculinity as a matter of urgency. REI Masculinities It should be notes that writings on race/ethnicity/imperialism and masculinity remain very largely dominated by writings on African-American men. By contrast, John Holmes has noted in a rare research study the extraordinary silence around gay Indigenous Australian men. This occurs in part because black Australians, like African Carribeans in the UK have primarily been understood in homogeneous fashion and subsumed under the singular question of race. Archer notes that a number of other marginal racial/ethnic minority masculinities also fail to attract much attention or analysis. Having recognized the somewhat narrow range of REI masculinity work, it is evident that the main bodies of these writings on African- American masculinity- bear some similarities with those on gay masculinity. Devon Carabo outlines certain tendencies in the much smaller field of REI masculinity studies which are similar to those described in relation to gay writings. Black men, he says, frequently remain silent about gender. While power relations between genders in AfricanAmerican families may be more egalitarian than white equivalents, perhaps reflecting the greater likelihood of earning equality, African-American men tend generally to support hegemonic conceptions of masculinity. Such support is registered in a defensive embrace of masculine authority over women in part a response to the denial in a white male-dominated society of the usual gender confirmations and privileges to black men- and in homophobia. Solidarity in the black community is frequently conflated with solidarity between black men and, in turn, this is conflated with affirming black mens masculinity. REI masculinity studies indicate significant difficulties with the notion of benefits rather than costs arising from their masculine positioning. Paying attention to gender rather than prioritizing race is commonly viewed in terms of disloyalty to racially marginalized communities, in this case to the black community. Criticism of relations between black men and women is construed in terms of betrayal and, importantly, what is highlighted in this account is betrayal of black women in ignoring their concerns.

Unlike those gay analyses distanced from Feminism, African- American mens ambiguous relationship with Feminism is more inclined to be associated with reassertions of traditional masculinity. Black feminist writers like Michelle Wallace and, later, Bell Hooks asserted in their work on black masculinity that collectively black men have never critiqued the dominant cultures norms of masculine identity. Relatedly, important scholarly work on black masculinity has often been concerned to discuss black mens positioning as racially victimized rather than bearing any investments in gender injustice. Black masculinity writings draw attention to the frequently white and Eurocentric assumptions of the subfield. Carbados enthusiastic support for a pro-feminist masculinity politics and scholarship faces the difficulty of the still overwhelming whiteness of Masculinity Studies. Writers who attempt to deal with both gay and black masculinity issues may find themselves even more marginalized. Conclusion Analyses of Masculinity Studies that focus on gay men and men marginalized by REI offer some possibilities and close down some too. As yet they remain poorly integrated into the field. Carbados advocacy of a pro-feminist black Masculinity politics thus faces the difficulty of the prevailing whiteness of Masculinity Studies. In similar fashion it may take time for gay theorists to find their contributions infuse the field of analysis. In addition, it is not entirely evident that women contributors to gender theorizing will welcome even these additions to Masculinity Studies. For example, some black feminist remain very wary of even pro-feminist black masculinity studies. As for writers who attempt to deal with both gay and black masculinity issues, their attempts at bringing together a combination of still peripheral concerns in Masculinity Studies remain unusual and barely acknowledged, let alone integrated into its established parameters.