Masculinities by R. W.

Connell
Review by: ystein Gullvg Holter
Acta Sociologica, Vol. 39, No. 3 (1996), pp. 337-341
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4194839 .
Accessed: 03/11/2014 01:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Acta
Sociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.74 on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:57:15 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews 337

for an informed discussion of such questions would have added greatly to the
qualities of this book.
Wlhat are the visions and values of the researchers? Do they envision a
society of sexual athletes who fulfil themselves through satisfactory intercourse -
the more the better? I do not think so. A humanistic concern flows through the
text, an appreciation of liberation from pietist taboos and misplaced moralism as
well as of sensuality that equates with human warmth, mutuality, self-
determination and closeness.
Although I regret the schism in the sociological tradition between theory and
empiricism, this book is highly recommended for its thorough documentation and
wise and well-balanced comments. It is indeed a pleasure to see a book so well
presented: the language is clear and informative, the command of English is
excellent and the tables could hardly be presented in a more readable way. My
compliments to Finnish design.
Kontula and Haavio-Mannila are now probably working on their next project
mentioned in the book, that of sexual autobiographies in which context and
meaning are likely to be brought to the forefront. Indeed variation in
methodology has great research potential in this sensitive area of human
existence.
Tone Schou Wetlesen
Department of Sociology, Oslo

R. W. Connell: Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.

A new book by Robert Connell is something of an event within the still quite
small area of men's studies, where the author has been a main perspective
contributor. If Jeff Hearn's (1993, cf. Pahl 1993) Men In The Public Eye was a
'first' in this field under the heading 'advanced level/special topic', Masculinities
is a first in the area of 'general level, main introduction, up-to-date state of the
art'. Connell combines fresh and associative writing with theoretical consistency,
giving concrete discussions that nuance the larger framework, describing how
men's interaction with women and with each other, their gender-related
lifestyles, cultures, group formations and personal relations can be understood
in terms of diverse patterns of 'masculinity'. This core category, used broadly
throughout the book, is formulated and worked out through the author's
impressive knowledge of (and empathy with) many critical traditions, including
those within psychoanalysis and psychodynamic studies, social history, ethno-
graphy and various critical Marxist perspectives, helping Connell along as he
draws the figures of modern masculinities.
The first part of the book introduces the field and recent masculinities
theory, described as the third major project for investigating men in our century
- after the Freudian project and the sex role project. Next, Connell goes some way
into an application of his theory, through four small qualitative studies of men,
with findings that often are similar to those of recent Scandinavian research,
including the absent father theme, the feminized image of care and personal
communication, boys' vulnerability, and young fathers' involvement with their
children (Holter & Aarseth 1994; Bengtsson 1994). In the third part, Connell
moves further into the theoretical terrain, with some historical reflections that
belong to the best sections of the book.
It is of some interest that the former prison colony of Australia has created

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.74 on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:57:15 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
338 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA1996 VOLUME 39

the first 'sustainable' paradigm in studies of men, the hierarchy of masculinities

paradigm, which connects gender theory and social class theory (Carigan,
Connell & Lee 1985; Connell 1987). Its current influence is reflected in the name
of the new journal in the field, Masculinities, published by Guilford in New York.
Masculinity, the paradigm states, exists in diverse forms, in a hierarchy between
men, and so even if men mostly rank above women, or above women in the same
class context, there is also an important system of ranking between men, which is
psychological and ideological as much as material or economic. At its material
basis, there is a patriarchal dividend appropriated by men, fuelling the processes
of masculine hierarchization, which mainly operates and enforces itself within
the psyche of each man as a question of ontological 'normalcy' or 'identity
formation' (in ways that resemble Stein Braten's concept of 'model power'). Men
relate to hegemonic masculinity both as reality and as wish-fulfilment, trying to
embody it, emphathize it, or intellectualize it, yet they also redefine it, according
to context, creating oppositional masculinities under some circumstances.
Masculinity, as a multifarious 'norm' of the male person, is a broad constraining
pattern throughout local contexts, changed through these, and in turn deeply
influential on men's behaviour, interaction and experience, much more so than
conventional social science has recognized. In brief, men's masculinities are an
underevalued part of their action repertoire.
Connell describes three main forms of modern masculinity, those of
'hegemonic', 'complicit' and 'protest' masculinity, with three related processes
of dominance, complicity or acquiescence, and subordination/protest, making up
the hierarchy. Complicit masculinities are 'masculinities constructed in ways
that realise the patriarchal dividend, without the risks or tensions of being in the
frontline troops of patriarchy' (p. 79). Protest masculinities, opposing other men,
but not male power over women, also partake in this dividend. Connell loosely
defines male power in terms of unpaid labour, leadership positions and control of
work and public life, as well as 'men's prerogatives in daily life' (p. 41). Connell
also recognizes a fourth process, one of authorization and marginalization or
deviancy, relating to the system as a whole; men may be robbed of masculinity
altogether, or face a threat of rejection on a more absolute level.
In these ways, masculinities theory widens the 'social account' of men, our
ways of understanding men's behaviour and experiences as interlinked social,
cultural and psychological patterns. A link is retained, also, to patriarchal
exploitation theory: exploitation of women seems to come into all masculinity, at
least as a tendency, yet it does so in very different ways, according to how
masculinities are formulated and the bases for these formulations, including how
men and patriarchs 'split the cake'. The benefits of oppression of women in
modern society are seen as accruing partly on men in general, in various forms
and to various degrees, and partly on power groups in society.
The latter framework, however, is not fully spelled out in Connell's book;
the wider ramifications of masculinities remain partly in the shadows, and it
often remains diffuse how patriarchy combines or converts gender into other
forms of power. If power, thereby, is somewhat under-examined, it tends to rest
with men, so to speak 'in the meanwhile'. One takes what is unarguably there,
gender, since patriarchy is shadowy anyway. Gender may become a catch-all, and
the masculinity concept has been criticized for being too wide and vague, so that
just about anything men do can be put inside it, or reinterpreted as a 'masculine'
kind of action. Connell leaves no doubt that men can often fruitfully be studied in
a masculinities perspective, but the reader is not enlightened as to when this
perspective is relevant, and when it is not, or when some other perspective such
as class, work position, age, habitus, etc., would be more relevant. Similarly, the
case study portraits rest more on the author's pragmatic but also somewhat

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.74 on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:57:15 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews 339

eclectic view of men, than on masculinity theory as such. I miss a more in-depth
argument regarding working-class masculinities, and a more questioning
attitude towards the middle-class idea of emancipation (since J. S. Mill and
the rise of democratic liberalism, patriarchal enlightment has measured itself
in its 'treatment of women', placing it above subject classes and colonial peoples).
In the personal sphere, I am slightly doubtful about the conventional Freudian
and object relations view of interaction which Connell uses especially for the
category of'cathexis' or emotional object-attachment, and outright sceptical when
he reduces emotions to 'sex plus' (more, though, in his 1987 work Gender and
Power than here). There are problems aligning a feminist theory of relational
intersubjectivity with the 'lone rider' vision of emotional investment in the
Freudian tradition. Likewise, while agreeing 'race/ethnicity is important for
masculinities, I miss an analysis of how 'race' and gender regimes interact.
Here and elsewhere, different power orders may be negative, rather than
positive, correlates, or in Merton's terms, 'functional equivalents'. Gender
oppression may be one means of power among others, and patriarchal power-
holders may increase their hold by combining repression on one front, with
leniency and liberalism on some other front (Holter 1989). Connell's concept of
'authorization' seems fruitful, however, as a background process in such a
context. This is brought forth through victimization and harassment studies,
where 'authorization' relates, precisely, to the connections between various forms
of dominance (gender, 'race', class and other traits); here also, gender devaluation
becomes one means of inflicting subject damage, carefully calculated together
with others. A considerable body of evidence makes it probable that the
exploitative structures of the gender system are authorized in related back-
ground ways, and so within each relative construction of masculinity and each
male 'habitus' there also exist deeper absolute requirements, with a fear of what
Orlando Patterson calls 'social death'. I find the 'dividend' idea partially
misleading, since men's pro-patriarchal activities seem to relate more to
investments than dividends. Besides enjoying the potential fruits of the
oppression of women, men are also 'process creators', husbands, partners, lovers,
following rules that may enhance the labour power fund, household, class or
family considerations, rather than masculinity as such. Economically speaking,
masculinities are involved in 'entreprenneurial' roles in the wide process of
conversion of reproductive and domestic labour, and this perspective is not
brought out well in his analysis.
Connell's masculinities approach works best when power and gender do in
fact overlap, i.e. to the extent that gender is also power. Yet there are forms of
power that are objectively detrimental to women's status while not being
especially gendered, and, on the other hand, there are gender relations that are
fairly egalitarian and not mainly a matter of dominance. In current gender
studies, these two 'outer' spheres tend to remain grey areas, since the idea of
using gender as indicative of patriarchy no longer applies. Thus, the
masculinities in Connell's tripartite system may in fact be fairly different from
the main patriarchal categories or classes, and the inner dynamics of the
masculinities system may differ from that of patriarchy. We do not know, since
the empirical mapping of patriarchal dominance and exploitation is still in its
early stages. Many studies point to the ambivalent and ambiguous relation of
men to women, and to women's interests, and so Connell's picture should
probably be filled out with vacillating forms, and probably also more solidaric
masculinity forms. In general, however, classifying men's patriarchal positions
by means of their masculinity forms remains a doubtful procedure. One may say
'the patriarchal dividend' is a big step forward from 'libido', but when it is
attributed to men as such, masculinity as such becomes a substitute for

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.74 on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:57:15 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
340 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA1996 VOLUME 39

patriarchy analysis, and gender equality issues narrow into gender competition
questions. Therefore, also, there is a tendency to re-inscribe class and other forms
of dominance into gender, which even though it may uncover new, personal sides
to things, also tends to blur what is going on, or give it a too individualist focus.
Instead of a downtrodden class, we have protest masculinists and other losers
versus winners and hegemonic masculinity types. Where 'class' posits questions
collectively, 'gender' tends to posit them individually, and the two must be seen in
connection.
Like Hearn and other authors in the masculinities traditions, Connell often
writes as if the identity of men and patriarchy had been proved. This is not my
view. When investigating discrimination or oppression of women, we certainly do
not know a priori whether men are the oppressors, in some intermediate position,
or not involved; we will have to find out; further, we do not know whether men's
actions as men, or some other form of masculinity, is of prime importance or
rather of peripheral importance. Economic and worklife changes enhance or
reduce the overall level of discrimination against women while not primarily
being gender-related changes, or being only indirectly so. Some institutions are
more involved in discrimination than others, and the gender of the personel or
even 'the gender culture' in these institutions may not be the main reason. True,
'masculinity' is often connected with power, but so is much else, and a concept
that ties the male power and masculine lifestyles aspects into one huge knot may
easily become projective rather than helpful.
This happens in some sections of the book. So deep is men's complicity in
patriarchy, according to Connell, that oppositional forces among them can at best
be posed as 'dignity' matters, not as solidarity responses - 'because the project of
social justice in gender relations is directed against the interests they share' (p.
236). Collectively, here, men are seen as patriarchs; only as individuals can they
support women, since basically their common masculinity, and the oppression of
women or patriarchy melt into one. The implication seems to be a lonely man's
venture, or even a divisionary politics among men. The one interest Connell gives
men in opposition to patriarchy (in addition to lower-ranking men's 'in-house'
interest against the patriarchs), right at the end of the book, is relational interest.
Yet 'interest' by itself is relational, as Anna Jonasdottir (1991) has argued;
interest means 'living among'. True, men may have no 'interest' in the dissolution
of patriarchy according to the conventional, male individualist definition of
'interest', yet its applicability may be as limited here as in the case of the
liberation of women. Even if we do retain the conventional notion of interest, the
masculinities framework itself implies that non-dominant men may have non-
patriarchal interests.
On the historical horizon, some fresh air comes into these gender matters,
mainly in the author's observations of how this modern order of 'gender' itself is a
much more local and particularistic affair than has commonly been imagined.
Historically, he traces hegemonic masculinity to early modern 'gentry masculi-
nity', in what I call 'the paternate', describing how new, more democratic notions
of masculinity were created and developed, especially in relation to the conquest
of America, the role of slavery, and the colonial system. He mentions how the
emerging gender order replaced an older and more lordly order, where hierarchy
was more overt and less gender-related, and bodies not treated as 'sexed' in the
modern sense. Increasing evidence points to the link between the 'race' and 'sex'
concept of the person as elements within one process of patriarchal moderniza-
tion, highlighting the problems of a theory that starts with a universalist idea of
gender as extending a specific form of 'objectivity' of the modern age, treating
people according to their external anatomical characteristics.
While I find Connell's conclusions too bleak regarding men, he becomes too

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.74 on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:57:15 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews 341

rosy regarding modernity; the idea that modern development corresponds to

rising equal status is too close to the patriarchal self-image for comfort. The
actual empirical evidence may be interpreted both ways. Connell cites much
critical evidence, not only within gender, but to gender as such, but he does not
fully notice this side of the affairs, and the evidence relating to the ways in which
modern society increasingly puts emphasis on regulation through 'sex' options,
where people in the old society had followed patriarchal prescriptions.
Masculinity categories must be understood on this specific historical background,
as an integral part of the modern 'householding' of people and things. All in all, I
find Connell's contributions most valuable when this open, societal perspective is
present, as is often the case. On that basis I recommend Masculinities as
important reading.

References
Bengtsson, M. 1994. On Parental Identification. Paper. Submitted to
Young.
Carigan, T. Connell, R. W. Lee, J. (1985. Toward a New Sociology of
Masculinity. Theory and Society, 14, 551-604.
Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and
Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hearn, J. 1993. Men In The Public Eye. London, New York:
Holter, 0. G. 1989. Menn. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Holter, 0. G. & Aarseth, H. 1994. Mans livssammanhang. Stock-
holm: Bonniers Utbildning.
Jonasdottir, A. G. 1991. Love Power and Political Interest. Sweden:
Orebro Studies.
Pahl, R. 1993. Rigid Flexibilities? - Work Between Men and Women.
Work, Employment and Society, 7, 634-635.

0ystein GullvadgHolter
Work Research Institute Oslo

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.74 on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:57:15 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions