In recent years ‘masculinity’ has been associated with various social phenomena ranging from male suicide to homophobia and (more positively) involved fathering and caring for others. Masculinity has attracted the attention of the public and scholars alike, provoking debates and crisis talk in the media as well as much theorising and research by social and human scientists. This chapter will critically consider some of the most influential theoretical work developing a framework which informs the other chapters in this book and which could be adopted (and adapted) by other researchers in the field. As a (social/critical) psychologist I will begin with psychological theories of men and masculinity (PMM) emanating from the USA before moving on to the interdisciplinary (though often sociological) field known as critical studies of men and masculinity (CMM). Although in my own work I have mainly been influenced by work within CMM I have more recently had the opportunity to engage with key concepts generated by colleagues working from a PMM tradition.
The Psychology of Men and Masculinity
Within Social and Personality Psychology the ‘trait’ approach to gender was dominant up until the 1980s, an approach which mapped biological sex directly onto gender identity; in other words, only men could be masculine and women feminine. This association between sex and gender began to be decoupled by Sandra Bem and colleagues—on the Bem Sex Role Inventory masculinity and femininity were formulated as independent constructs such that men could score on femininity and women on masculinity, with a high score on both dimensions producing an ‘androgynous’ sex role orientation (Bem 1974). However, trait theories and measures did not engage with how society constructed, (de)valued, and distributed gendered roles; there was no account of gendered power relationships and differentials. Subsequently, other psychologists influenced by feminism and men’s liberation movements became more interested in the social construction of gender, and, specifically, the negative effects of masculinity norms/ ideologies on men (and others), initially conceptualised as gender role strain (GRS: Pleck 1981). In an early and influential piece, Brannon (1976) identified four traditional masculine norms:
- No Sissy Stuff: Men must avoid any behaviour or characteristic associated with women or femininity.
- Be a Big Wheel: Masculinity is measured by success, power, and receiving the admiration of others.
- Be a Sturdy Oak: Manliness is predicated on rationality, toughness, and self-reliance.
- Give 'em Hell: Men must balance the ‘rationality’ of the sturdy oak with daring and aggression, and must be willing to take risks in order to become the big wheel.
According to Pleck (1981), men are socialised to conform to dominant masculinity ideologies—with negative consequences, or gender role strain. When men successfully conform to the dominant masculinity norms this will have come at a cost to self and others (e.g. work immersion may cause stress and ill-health for the man and a compromised home life), while not living up to existing ideals may lead to feelings of failure and related self-esteem issues (Pleck 1981). This Gender Role Strain Paradigm (GRSP) pioneered by Pleck and colleagues has become very influential in the PMM in the USA (e.g. Wong et al. 2010). Trait measures of gender/masculinity have largely been rejected in favour of normative scales which measure the extent to which men endorse traditional masculinity ideals, such as the original Male Role Norm Scale (MRNS: Thompson and Pleck 1986). Two different scales have since been developed: one measuring conformity to norms, the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik et al. 2003), and one assessing endorsement of norms, the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R; Levant et al. 2010). Research using the GRSP and associated measures has generally found that greater acceptance of and/or adherence to traditional masculinity ideologies (e.g. ‘pursuit of status’; ‘risk-taking’; ‘self-reliance’) is linked to a host of negative outcomes, ranging from sexism and homophobia (e.g. Parrott 2009) to health-averse practices (Hamilton and Mahalik 2009; Levant et al. 2011).
Influenced by the GRSP, other psychologists developed the concept of Gender Role Conflict (GRC: O’Neill 1981) to describe the unwelcome consequences of narrowly defined traditional masculinity ideals. To measure such outcomes, a Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS) has been designed (O’Neill et al. 1986) which identifies four main patterns in its factor analysis: Success/Power/Competition (SPC); Restrictive Emotionality (RE); Restrictive Affective Behaviour Between Men (RABBM) and Conflict Between Work and Family Relations (CBWFR). In a major review of empirical research using the GRCS, O’Neill (2008) indicates that ‘GRC is significantly related to men’s psychological and interpersonal problems’ (358) while also being implicated in health-defeating practices such as excessive alcohol consumption.
In sum, US psychologists have developed an understanding of masculinity which is multifaceted, socially situated, and linked to a repertoire of negative consequences, including unhealthy practices. There is also a great concern with studying masculinity with respect to diverse communities, including marginalised groups such as Latino men, gay men, black men, disabled men, and men from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g. Treadwell and Young 2012; Griffith et al. 2011)—this is reflected in the name change of Division 51 of the American Psychological Association (APA) from ‘Psychology of Men and Masculinity’ to ‘Psychology of Men and Masculinities’. Much of the psychological research on masculinity has employed the normative measures mentioned above although, increasingly, psychologists focusing on men and masculinity are using qualitative methods and mixed method designs (e.g. Silverstein et al. 2002; Sloan et al. 2015). In addition, there is now more evidence that specific masculinity factors are associated with more positive outcomes, including health benefits for men (see Levant et al. 2011). This greater openness to methodological diversity, plurality masculinities, and the complexity of relationships between specific masculinity dimensions and health practices chimes with the work conducted outside US psychology.
Critical Studies of Men and Masculinity
Hegemonic Masculinity
Outside Psychology, masculinity theory has been particularly advanced by sociologists within the interdisciplinary field ‘Critical Studies of Men and Masculinity’ with a focus on societal and cultural constructions of masculinity and their impact on different groups of men (and women). Indeed, there has been some debate about the utility of the concept of masculinity/masculinities, with some arguing that it often homogenises men and encourages a fixed, reductionist outlook which draws attention away from what men actually do in practice (e.g. Hearn 2004, 1996). Nonetheless, the concept has endured and, arguably, now encompasses men’s actions as well as social norms, most notably in relation to ‘hegemonic masculinity’ (Carrigan et al. 1985; Connell 1995; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005).
Hegemonic masculinity is not (only) about men and/or masculinity, but encompasses gender identities, relations, and conflicts—the gender order more widely. Early definitions emphasise this point: ‘the currently most honoured way of being a man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it, and it ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men’ (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005: 832). As such, a pluralistic and hierarchical perspective is presented where multiple masculinities (and feminities) exist and operate in relation to each other. Specifically, Connell highlighted the operation of power through masculinities, which are best understood as ‘configurations of practice’; at a given moment in a given context some men will enact and be privileged by locally ‘hegemonic’ masculinities while women and other men will be marginalised or subordinated by these hegemonic practices....