Abstract
Hegemonic Masculinity: Formulation, Reformulation, and Amplification is a comprehensive primer for understanding the theoretical formulation and conceptualization of “hegemonic masculinity,” as well as reformulations and what James Messerschmidt refers to here as “amplifications” of the theory and concept. Raewyn Connell’s initial conceptualization of “hegemonic masculinity” is among the central organizing concepts within and beyond the sociology of gender. In Hegemonic Masculinity, Messerschmidt unpacks the historical emergence of Connell’s theory of gender relations, documents subsequent reformulations of the concept, and examines new work that builds on the concept and theory, accounting for shifts in gender relations, inequalities, and levels of analysis. Messerschmidt’s Hegemonic Masculinity helps to illustrate that the theory and concept have not only continued to be applicable, but that the relevance and utility of the concept and theory have become even more pressing.
Like many theoretical tools and concepts that travel widely within and beyond the disciplines in which they were initially formulated, hegemonic masculinity has been utilized in diverse ways. At its best, and most consistent with the initial formulation and reformulation, the concept offers a powerful analytical instrument that helps to reveal the ways that inequalities structure the social world. Occasionally, like “doing gender” or “cultural capital,” hegemonic masculinity is used with less precision and in ways not wholly consistent with the theoretical framework within which it was initially proposed. And at worst, it is used inaccurately in ways dramatically at odds with the conceptualization as a kind of foil against which some scholars have attempted to discount it to assert different ideas. Hegemonic Masculinity is a helpful corrective and an important contribution to feminist and gender theory within the social sciences.
At the outset, Messerschmidt summarizes initial debates among feminist scholars out of which Connell’s theory of gender relations emerged surrounding “the adequacy of the theoretical notion of patriarchy” (p. 1). Here, Messerschmidt summarizes some of these debates within radical and socialist feminism, two of the most dominant feminist frameworks at the time. He documents an important shift in radical feminism in the 1970s and 1980s wherein a renewed reliance on biologically essentialist arguments emerged, relying on categorical differences between women and men. Meanwhile, socialist feminists were theorizing patriarchal relations as historically emergent systems of social relations interconnected with other systems structuring social inequalities (e.g., capitalism). Despite these differences, however, both frameworks relied on categorical distinctions between “women” and “men.” Identifying this, a group of scholars began to suggest a shift in theory and language from a focus on patriarchy to one centrally concerned with gender.
This is a useful setup summarizing an enormous interdisciplinary and international scholarly dialogue. And Raewyn Connell’s theory of gender relations (within which “hegemonic masculinity” was initially proposed) emerged in response to this debate. Connell’s theory was among the first to successfully connect personal lives with social structures through a focus on not patriarchy, but what Connell began referring to as gender relations. And “hegemonic masculinity” was initially formulated to refer to specific culturally dominant patterns that work to “legitimate unequal gender relations” (p. 28). Here, Messerschmidt highlights the importance of both the relational and legitimation features of the framework.
Following, Messerschmidt documents the extraordinary volume of scholarship applying the concept. As a senior scholar in the field, writing and studying in the field as these shifts were taking place, I learned a great deal in this portion of the book through Messerschmidt’s careful summary of a small collection of studies that illustrate important points about how hegemonic masculinity was utilized initially in ways that illustrated the power of the concept and framework. Here, Messerschmidt also addresses some of the initial work that helped to expand the scope of the concept of hegemonic masculinity and its utility and subsequently summarizes the collection of criticisms the concept endured.
In 2005, Connell and Messerschmidt reformulated the concept of hegemonic masculinity in response to specific criticisms, though they continued to conceptualize hegemonic masculinities as relational and as specific patterns of hegemony (as opposed to “domination”). Messerschmidt summarizes and elaborates on the four areas of theoretical reformulation addressed in that work: specification about the nature of gender hierarchy, the importance of context and geography in examinations of hegemonic masculinities, processes of embodiment, and more carefully addressing the complexities and dynamics within and among masculinities. A part I particularly enjoyed was Messerschmidt’s subsequent summary of work relying on this reformulation, illustrating not only the enduring applicability of the concept and theory, but the incredible diversity of scholarship motivated by this work.
The portion of the book from which I learned the most was the chapter on what Messerschmidt refers to as “amplification,” examining scholarship that has built on this framework for studying gender and inequality. Here he summarizes work, for instance, that distinguishes between hegemonic and dominant configurations of masculinity. While dominant masculinities are sometimes hegemonic, hegemonic masculinities are not always dominant. He also provides a smart review of work illustrating differences among hegemonic masculinities examined at different levels of social life, emerging scholarship on “hybrid” configurations of masculinity, work further theorizing femininities within this framework, a summary of work on “fleeting” hegemonic masculinities, work focusing on digital life, scholarship engaging more explicitly with intersectionality, and important work emerging out of the global South. Collectively, this emerging body of work offers new directions that illustrate the flexibility of gender hierarchies and unequal gender relations through examinations of the fluidity of certain historically and contextually contingent configurations of hegemonic masculinity that are pervasive on an incredible scale and illustrate the enduring applicability of both the concept of hegemonic masculinity and Connell’s theory of gender relations.
Prior to concluding, Messerschmidt includes a chapter on his own theory of gender as structured action to illustrate the ubiquity of hegemonic masculinities throughout society and on a global scale. Messerschmidt summarizes his work theorizing what he calls “relational” and “discursive” social structures to illustrate how they work together to enable and constrain social action and embodiments of gender in ways that legitimate unequal gender relations, sometimes in underappreciated ways.
In the final chapter, Messerschmidt summarizes work on strategies for undermining unequal gender relations. Here, he initially engages with competing frameworks for understanding gender and inequality suggesting unequal gender relations are becoming a historical artifact, arguing that such work is incapable of attending to the elasticity of gender hegemony. And yet, he does summarize compelling scholarship examining counterhegemonic practices that offer avenues for considerations of social change.
Hegemonic Masculinity is a comprehensive and accessible overview of an international and interdisciplinary body of scholarship on hegemonic masculinity. In it, Messerschmidt historicizes, summarizes, analyzes, and clarifies this body of scholarship to help us better appreciate the enduring applicability of a concept that has been employed widely enough to have acquired diverse (sometimes contradictory) usages. My hope is that the book encourages more scholars to examine Connell’s theory of gender relations in more depth. While concepts sometimes acquire lives of their own, it is only within this framework for understanding how gender structures and operates within social life that the importance and power of the conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity can be fully appreciated.