Abstract
In Masculinities in the Making, Messerschmidt intends to show the heterogeneity of masculinities by focusing on underdiscussed masculinities in the form of wimps, genderqueers, and U.S. presidents. Using structured action theory, he lucidly analyses the intersection of sex, gender, and sexuality and the duality of action and structure, in which masculinities and femininities are encapsulated.
In chapter one, the author critically evaluates the literature on hegemonic masculinity published from 2005 onwards. He points out the need to unambiguously define hegemonic masculinity, offering “those masculinities that legitimate an unequal relationship between men and women, masculinity and femininity, and among masculinities” (p. 34). His definition paves the way for distinguishing between different forms of masculinity.
Chapter two conceptualizes structured action theory, which serves as the theoretical pillar for the book. Structure refers to “recurring patterns of social phenomena (practices and discourses) that tend to transcend time and space and thus constrain and enable behavior in specific ways” (p. 47). The theory conceptualizes sex, gender, and sexuality, which are related to bodily and discursive practices in specific social settings. He reveals the mechanism that makes possible certain masculinities as dominant and others as subordinated and considers the possibility of challenging heterosexual normativity.
The structured action theory is illustrated in chapters three to five, with cases of young white men who perform nonhegemonic masculinities; cases of informants who identify themselves as genderqueers; and content analysis of the speeches of the two most recent U.S. presidents, G.W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Chapters three and four investigate informants who reflexively embrace certain masculinities/femininities and reject others. Based on life-history interviews, the chapters highlight identity fluidity. Chapter three examines the cases of Sam and Jerry. Sam represents various forms of masculinities in relation to different people: subordinated masculinity to his father, a localized femininity to his peers at school, and a localized dominating masculinity in exerting sexual control over women. Jerry’s masculinity is subordinated in relation to other boys at school, but he practises a positive masculinity in relation to girls.
Chapter four considers two young adults who challenge heterosexual normativity and identify as genderqueers. The identification process involves constant confrontation with themselves and others. I find these accounts of personal transition and self-exploration fascinating. The complexity of gendered identities allows readers to reconsider femininities and masculinities in gender relations.
Chapter five uses content analysis to illustrate local, regional, and global hegemonic and dominating masculinity with cases of Bush and Obama. The author argues that these presidents’ public speeches construct a hero–victim–villain discourse, masculinizing themselves as protectors, feminizing citizens in the United States and elsewhere as innocent, vulnerable people needing protection, and demonizing Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein as dangerous terrorists. The author contends that this discourse is constructed in the realm of heterosexual relationships, analogous to family relationships, with the presidents as patriarchal leaders and the citizens as women and children.
The text becomes problematic when the author introduces “two types of nonhegemonic masculinities,” dominant and dominating (p. 33). The former describes the “most celebrated, common, or current form” of masculinity and the latter includes “commanding and controlling specific interactions and exercising power and control over people and events” (pp. 54-55). They “do not necessarily legitimate a hierarchical relationship between men and women, masculinity and femininity” (p. 55). Although it is necessary to distinguish hegemonic, dominating, and dominant masculinities, the term “dominant masculinity” may be difficult to distinguish from hegemonic masculinity because the former can refer to male superiority in power relations. It may be more appropriate to replace “dominant masculinity” with “popular masculinity.”
In chapter five, the author asserts that Bush and Obama’s military actions against the above-mentioned terrorism, which involve killing and torture, construct a global dominating masculinity rather than hegemonic masculinity because they are “not legitimating unequal relations between men and women, masculinity and femininity” (pp. 157, 166). However, another way of interpreting their actions is that they imply a military masculinity positioned above femininity in the gender hierarchy. Highly masculinized military actions are authorized and legitimized by the U.S. state. As a result, the actions reproduce and reinforce male dominance/unequal gender relations not only in military forces but also in society. Hence, the categorization of hegemonic and dominating masculinities may not be fully justified here.
The empirical materials are appealing, although I find the repeated identification of action, structure, enabler and constraints throughout the empirical chapters redundant. Overall, the book deepens the discussion of masculinity construction and advances masculinity research. With rich empirical data, profound theoretical framework, and an accessible style, it deserves attention from professionals engaged in psychology, child development, gender studies, and sociology.