Defining what it means to be a man within our current American Social Paradigm is a fairly insurmountable task. The social indoctrinations begin at such an early age that it is almost impossible to imagine a youth spent androgynistically and able to develop outside of the gender binaries established between man and woman. They are currently reinforced through institutional social structures, families, media, literature, and almost every other facet in our society and are set to a solely dichotomous divide between men and women (which in turn defines gender identities used for discrimination and horrendous inequities). One of the most efficient tools in ‘policing’ reinforcements as to how men are expected to play their social roles is masculinity. Masculinity is commonly defined as a measurement of ‘manliness’ and is a thinly veiled allusion toward who is deemed more powerful, dominant, or superior (within the context of man to man comparison). Tools like Hegemonic Masculinity and Androcentrism are essential to maintaining parameters of masculinity (and subsequently femininity) within our society. The only way to begin to deconstruct such powerful structures of ‘measurement’ in our society it that we must first realize the need for a more androgynistic and less categorical system and subsequently release our seemingly obsessive need to reinforce ideologies that maintain sexism, racism and homophobia within our social structures, ideologies, and symbolisms.
The oppositional pairing of men and women show evidence in American Society’s belief or need for inherent behavioral patterns and societal role norms. False ideologies like biological essentialism or universal truths are caustic and essential to maintaining discriminatory practices that further perpetuate social inequalities. Biological essentialism (for intents and purposes in The United States of America and its past history) has been used as a scapegoating tactic to further create inequalities in ‘validating’ ideologies of genetic predispositions and subsequent social inequities within the boundaries of race/ethnicity and gender. Biological essentialism has been utilized to validate slavery and other racial discriminatory practices (through ‘science’ and legal systems) for centuries and has also been utilized to perpetuate ideologies of women needing to ‘know their place’ within a ‘man’s world.’ When researching biological essentialism and its ramifications, author Sandra Bem wrote, “No matter how many subtle biological differences between the sexes there may someday prove to be, both the size and significance of those biological differences will depend, in every single instance, on the situational context in which women and men live their lives” (Bem 1993 pp. 38).
I believe that that biological essentialism has been utilized, adversely, towards ideologies of masculinities (this is in no way to infer that the inequalities suffered by women in our society are anywhere near rivaled by ‘less masculine-men’). I also believe that this idea of universal truth as to genetic predispositions and acceptable social norms/roles has allotted for many opportunities to discriminate against one’s sexuality, masculinity, femininity, etc. within our society. Ideologies like ‘Social Darwinism’ infers that the socially strongest men will succeed and those that are less powerful (less masculine) were meant to have a lower social standing. This is reinforced daily in the movies we watch, the advertisements we see, and the roles we interact with in our daily social lives. Whether it is a hyper-masculine hero gunning down middle-eastern terrorists in front of cowardly (less masculine) men and women or the full facial haired cowboy propped up against a manly fence he had just built lighting up a cigarette; it is readily apparent what our society expects from a “real man.”
I mentioned sexuality earlier and it is worth defining the differences between the uses of homophobic or sexist slurs and phrases solely within the context of policing masculinities of men by others (as opposed to being used solely against non-heterosexuals). In her research of masculinity within American High Schools, C.J. Pascoe made a very clear distinction stating, “Becoming a fag has as much to do with failing at the masculine task of competence, heterosexual prowess, and strength or in any way revealing weakness or femininity as it does with a sexual identity. This fluidity of the fag identity is what makes the specter of the fag such a powerful disciplinary mechanism. It is fluid enough that boys police their behaviors out of fear of having the fag identity permanently adhere and definitive enough so that boys recognize a fag behavior and strive to avoid it” (pg. 55). This statement is laden with aforementioned masculinity based problems. It denotes the importance and fear based on maintaining one’s masculinity, the policing of external influences, the internalization of identifying “wrong” behaviors, and the importance of semiotic control (masculinity equaling power, fag equaling femininity, etc.).
Hegemonic masculinity is a terminology often used to describe the roles, actions, and ideologies (internally and externally pressurized) that maintain men’s dominance over women in a society. R.W. Connel (while defending his theory) once wrote, “Hegemonic masculinity was understood as the pattern of practice (i.e., things done, not just a set of role expectations or identity) that allotted men’s dominance over women to continue” (2005, pp 832). Connel’s theory was applied by researchers worldwide in studies ranging from bullying and teacher strategies to criminology. It has also been used to study internalizations and external pressurizing of masculine norms within groups of adolescents. The interesting dynamic of hegemonic masculinity is that it is not a solely external dominating force; rather it is internalized as a norm (in this case men and women). Adolescent boys and adult men constantly police themselves in regards to how they are representing themselves around other men to avoid being labeled less masculine. This is essential to maintaining social dichotomies and inequities (in regards to sexism, racism, etc.) and, combined with America’s extremely neo-liberal ethos, it is a real danger to hindering social progress and understanding for more androgynous societal structures.
Perhaps understanding a theory like hegemonic masculinity can be further extrapolated by acknowledging America’s past and current androcentric social views. Author Sandra Bem defined androcentrism as, “the privileging of male experience and the “otherizing” of female experience; that is, males and male experience are treated as a neutral standard or norm for the culture of the species as a whole, and females and female experience are treated as a sex-specific deviation from the that allegedly universal standard” (bem 1993 pp. 41). This statement is of course used regarding gender inequalities between men and women in regards to our society and its power structures, but I believe androcentrism reflects a comparable paradigm to that of hegemonic masculinity.
According to the tenets of androcentrism, everything ranging from past historical narratives, power structures, media, church (bible), and family is viewed through an internalized masculine lens. Over generalizing terminologies (like mankind, freshman, etc.) set precedence for the male to be the norm and the female to be an oppositional paired deviation from the set regular. This theory too can be used as a comparative paradigm examining masculinity identities and their subsequent inequalities. When we have a media that indoctrinates our youth and sets standards of normality; what message does it send when we are bombarded with hyper-masculine imagery? It infers that this is the norm and subsequently the lens in which we should view ourselves and others. It becomes even more abhorrent in terms of examining femininity for men and women. The connotations of having a masculine centric viewpoint allude to warped self view in men and women.
When examining the importance of sexist language and androcentrism, author Sherryl Kleinman wrote, “Words are tools of thought. We can use words to maintain the status quo or to think in new ways-which in turn creates the possibility of a new reality” (Kleinman 2002 pp. 300). This same line of thought would appear to be applicable towards almost all of the objects, symbols, language, etc. that reinforce masculinity in this society. If we begin to reject dichotomous comparisons as to what is masculine and what is not; we can begin to deconstruct these archaic (and to some unachievable) norms of masculinity that have been pushed upon us.
Much like deconstructing semiotic control mechanisms, in regards to feminism and gender issues, masculinity is falsely labeled as a biologically or naturally occurring phenomenon. It must be reanalyzed (on an approachable non-academic macro-level) and denoted as a by-product of social inequalities and archaic patriarchal historical narratives. Labeling levels of masculinity as physical or scientific occurrence is a dangerous falsehood, and it must be understood as a social act/label imparted primarily by external representations of norms and external policing forces (that are later internalized). Even the biological correlation between testosterone and aggression was disproved in an article written by Robert Sapolsky I which he stated, “And “testosterone equals aggression” is inadequate for those who would offer the simple excuse that boys will be boys. Violence is more complex than a single hormone, and it is supremely rare that any of our behaviors can be reduced to genetic destiny” (Sapolsky 1997 pp. 32).
Real change could occur if public sentiment sent a strong message to our media and advertising conglomerates that this current model of judgmental (sometimes violence inducing) categorization is no longer desired within our society. A true shift in masculinity definitions would be possible in our era if we could find a way to unify collective action. A message must be sent to those choosing our media representations in our daily life. It seems that more and more people are beginning to feel this way as studies of adolescent bullying are broadcast as a more prevalent concern than the old time tested boys will be boys ethos. It seems that more people are beginning to voice concerns over the repercussions that our hyper-masculine society has over our future generations. Moreover, change can occur on a much more micro-level and implemented daily. Simple things like refusing to use terminologies like fag, homo, or any other homophobic slur can begin to spread through social osmosis. I have noticed this in my personal life. Since I have made a conscious decision to cease in using sexist, racist, or homophobic ‘banter’ around my friends, I have noticed a change in their dialogue around me (and hopefully around others). The awkward social situation of telling someone that you are uncomfortable with their language is sometimes enough to spur attention towards things we blow off as being humorous or normal. R.W. Connell also wrote once that, “there could be a struggle for hegemony, and older forms of masculinity might be displaced by new ones” (Connell 2005 pp. 833). I choose to find Connell’s optimism (within a theory many deem as pessimistic) inspiring in this statement and regardless who chooses to follow; I will walk a path of life encouraging this type of thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment