Hegemonic Masculinity

The concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ in no longer relevant to the study of geography and gender. Discuss using examples from research.

The concept of hegemonic masculinity was introduced over three decades ago by an ethnographic study, which emphasised social inequality in Australian high schools (Kessler et al., 1982), and highlighted the experiences of men’s bodies (Connell, 1983), the role of men in politics (Connell, 1983) and the conceptual discourse of construction. The concept of hegemonic masculinity has been widely debated throughout gender research, in relation to understanding dynamics between gender and sex, and incorporates real life applications in health, criminology, sports and education. According to Connell and Messerschmdit (2005), the concept of hegemonic masculinity emerged partly in reaction to sex role theory, which is most famously critiqued for its static nature, and more recently, it has received criticism for being seen as an outdated concept. Hegemonic masculinity was traditionally epitomised by patriarchy, and the continuous domination of men over women - something which is less apparent in 21st century life. This essay will discuss whether the concept of hegemonic masculinity remains a concept of relevance in todays studies of geography and gender, nor not, through using local and regional examples. This paper will detail the changing natures of the concept, and how this affects its survivability, whilst evaluating its relevance to the true lives of lived men and women.

Since it’s inception, gender has been considered a flawed concept, as it has argued through two contradicting approaches; the essentialist theory and the social constructionist theory. The essentialist theory associates gender difference with attributes of sex, and is a direct result of inherent human biology (Howard and Hollander, 2000). However the social constructionist theory contends this, and suggests that gender has no ontological connection with sex, instead gender is shaped by culture values and societal norms (Courtenay, 2000). Following the critique of the essentialist approach, the work of Peterson (2003) highlights that masculinity (and femininity) was constructed within a heteronormative understanding of gender. As a result, it essentialises masculinities based on a very simplified and narrow reality. However since the discursive constructions of gender identities in geographical research emerged, academics have tended to focus their definitions of the more holistic approach of social construction (Zosuls et al., 2011). Where Collinson and Hearn (1994) argue that masculinity and femininity are the results of embodied and lived genders, and they rest on a continuum of biological and cultural factors which incorporates dispositions of practices. Messerschmidt’s (2004) research supports this alignment with the social constructionist theory, and further dethrones