Abstract
The theory of hegemonic masculinity (henceforth “HM”) has been the most influential theory in scholarship on men and masculinities field since the early 1980s. In this book, Messerschmidt attempts a new, revised version of HM theory, combined with his structured action theory of gender. If this works out, it is important news for the field as a whole.
The primary claim of Masculinities in the Making is that HM theory can be further developed through clear steps and that structured action theory—perhaps better called a method of analysis—can help create those steps. This point is made, first, in a theory section discussing HM and structured action theories, and next, by using three empirical case studies, two social psychology oriented and one politics oriented.
In the theory section, HM is first disentangled from traits-based masculinity theory and ushered into a more relational arena. Different levels (micro–meso–macro) of HM are recognized. Messerschmidt then shows how structured action analysis offers a way to operationalize HM-related phenomena. Drawing on Giddens, Goffman, Martin, and others, structured action is described as relational, discursive, embodied, and reflexive, involving a congruence between sexed, gendered, and sexual identifications.
The book proceeds from theory to case studies, and from the local to the global, in a US context. In order to uphold the theoretical framework in the first part, the language is sometimes dense, and terms like “localized” are often used in the case studies. The ambition is to maintain sufficient analytical depth while trying to describe local phenomena, and portray them convincingly in terms of HM theory.
On my first reading of the book, I found it good, challenging but also uneven. The theory part seemed good, although some core points have been stated before, under other labels (like role theory). I found the social psychology cases innovative and sensibly interpreted, although I was not always sure about the specific relevance of HM theory compared with other interpretations, and I missed some more social psychological interpretation and detail.
It was only in the last case study on politics that my evaluation rose from good to very good indeed. For me, this case brought HM theory back to home ground, so to speak, in line with the best of hegemony theorists, like Gramsci and Poulantzas. Messerschmidt is more concrete on exactly what hegemony is, beyond dominance, and shows how it works in practice. Relying on political speeches, Messerschmidt shows how gendered discourses present a scenario of bystanders and feminized victims, and different “rescuer” and “protector”-gendered subtypes, operating under a proclaimed pro-gender equality mantle. The portrait is convincing and scary. The social psychology studies are interesting too but not as well fleshed out.
On my second reading, my evaluation improved and became more even throughout the different parts of the book. Perhaps more of the theory had seeped in. What can seem a bit wordy and clumsy at first, especially in the two social psychological case studies, is in fact how the author carefully connects to the theory.
It is a paradox that this version of HM theory has started to resemble what Connell called “categorical” theory—but now, hopefully, better situated, nuanced, able to locate power, not hide it. The author’s strings of categories are mostly derived from the main subject, hegemony, and then go into adjectives and verbs and levels. HM is embodied, practiced, localized, and has a sometimes complex and contradictory link to dominance and means of control. The reasoning is mainly deductive but also has inductive elements.
At its best, this revised theory resembles a rich tapestry, a weave not seen before. True, some threads are known, but they have not been recognized in these interwoven patterns, distinguishing between hegemony and dominance as forms of power, and between more and less power-dominated gender relationships.
Some of my critical points remain. Positive masculinities are very tentatively described. The wider trends among men and changes in masculinities are not much reported, perhaps mainly due to the US context, compared to Europe, where such studies are more developed, on topics like men’s increasing share of household and care work. Through more information on—so to speak—the middle men, the case studies could have been more clearly located in terms of wider social developments.
Even in the new and more sophisticated version, HM remains a somewhat slippery subject. It is still not always clear if HM is gender inequality, or just the legitimation of gender inequality. It slips back and forth. This tendency increases whenever HM behaves like a “cover all” type of theory, and it behaves that way as long as an independent theorizing of gender in/equality as a dimension in its own right is missing. This dimension does not just consist of male dominance over women but also how society orders the genders. For example, men acting as neutrals and then recreating gender oppression due to how society works. Such indirect relations tend to lie outside the radar of HM theory, since it is so closely attached to the idea that hegemony is (only) perpetuated through gender relations. Simply put, something must have a kernel of masculinity, or it is nothing. Indirect and gender-neutral gender stratification is not sufficiently recognized; masculinities are still not fully placed in context.
Messerschmidt’s revisions to HM theory work well, reducing if not obliterating my critical points. The step back to HM as a legitimation system is important and can be seen as a more modest positioning, making it easier to combine HM theory with other theories, including gender in/equality theory. Also, the new three levels perspective works out, most of the way, although I would have liked more attention to structural inequality between the levels. For example, hegemony at the top may go together with dominance at lower levels (economy analogy—welfare at the top and exploitation at the bottom). The levels interact and may in fact be quite dissimilar. Generally, more gender equality–related evidence, where are men and women at large going, could have helped fill in these gaps and improve the theorizing. This, I hope, will come in a new book.
In conclusion, Masculinities in the Making succeeds in its central mission: it engages research curiosity and opens up a new approach. Regardless of where the reader stands in relation to former ideas of hegemonic masculinity, Messerschmidt sharpens the angle, shows that this perspective deserves more investigation, and illustrates that this is doable. The book offers a new way to analyze qualitative material, combined with new theoretical tools of analysis. It should be combined with other gender equality theories, methods, and materials. Masculinities in the Making is an important contribution to the field, both for research and for teaching purposes.