Abstract
James Messerschmidt’s Hegemonic Masculinity: Formulation, Reformulation, and Amplification provides a thorough yet succinct review of the development, application, shortcomings, and prevailing utility of hegemonic masculinity as a concept. Rather than taking for granted the centrality of hegemonic masculinity as a core conceptual tool in the study of gender inequality, Messerschmidt’s analysis shows exactly how it came to be: through its formulation vis-à-vis important paradigmatic shifts in feminist theories, careful assessment of initial limitations, and subsequent reformulation and elaboration to account for the sociohistorical contingencies. Messerschmidt’s argument is compelling not only for the continuing applicability but also for the growing relevance of hegemonic masculinities for making sense of gender inequality today.
To begin, Messerschmidt shows how the concept developed out of growing dissatisfaction with dominant frameworks of the mid-twentieth century: radical feminist theory and socialist feminism in particular. Although radical feminism identified patriarchy and unequal power relations between women and men as a basis of social inequality, it became entangled with essentialist and biological arguments. Conversely, socialist feminist theory suggested that patriarchal relations and masculine domination constitute socially and historically contingent systems. However, both theories of patriarchy were plagued by conceptions of “men” and “women” as static, diametric categories. These problems produced a paradigmatic shift from patriarchy to gender, shifting the analytical focus to the kaleidoscope of gender differences. Messerschmidt identifies this theoretical shift as pivotal in conceptualizing hegemonic masculinities as fluid, culturally and contextually variable, and historically contingent structures.
From this crucial piece of the “backstory,” Messerschmidt outlines Raewyn Connell’s (1987, 1995) initial formulation of the concept in chapter 2, focusing on how hegemonic masculinities work to legitimate unequal gender relations. This formulation proved widely applicable, with an incredible volume of studies showing how hegemonic masculinities were deployed through discursive legitimation practices to reinforce gender inequality. Amid useful applications of the concept over almost two decades, however, there were also major criticisms: an overly essentialized concept of masculinity and masculine “traits,” an unsatisfactory theory of the “subject” and of the agency of both hegemonic and subordinate groups, inattention to patterns of embodiment tied to hegemonic masculinities, and the necessity of analyzing hegemonic masculinities at different micro and macro levels.
Following this critical review of the initial limitations, Messerschmidt summarizes the collaborative effort made by Connell and himself (2005) to reformulate the concept. The reevaluation addresses the criticisms outlined and lays out a reformulation that retains two critically distinct features: that hegemonic masculinities are relational and that they exist as a pattern of hegemony rather than domination. Messerschmidt then discusses how recent scholarship has built upon (“amplified”) the reformulation. One vein of this recent work shows how hegemonic masculinities can exist paradoxically in “hybrid” forms. That is, certain men can embody “hybrid hegemonic masculinities” that incorporate subordinate masculine or feminine styles and displays. But while hybrid masculinities appear out of sync with hegemonic masculine styles, they often reinforce, rather than challenge, gender hegemony. Taken together, these new directions illustrate contemporary hegemonic masculinities as fluid, contingent structures, flexible to change, often invisible, yet ubiquitous in social life.
Messerschmidt also advances “structured action theory” to conceptualize the version of hegemonic masculinity he develops. This framework rests on the notion of gender as an accomplishment. The embodied practices and actions that coalesce to suggest a particular gender form or configuration, however, do not occur in a vacuum but are constrained by structures. Breaking down the pervasive term, Messerschmidt distinguishes two precise structural foundations of hegemonic masculinities: relational and discursive social structures. Relational social structures (such as gendered divisions of labor in workplaces) and discursive social structures (representations or sign systems that establish conceptions of “truth”) work recursively to constrain embodied action and to legitimate unequal gender relations.
Chapter 6 reckons with critiques and competing frameworks that suggest hegemonic masculinity is no longer applicable. Inclusive masculinity theory, for instance, maintains that hegemonic masculinities have been replaced by egalitarian, “inclusive masculinities” in Global North societies. Messerschmidt convincingly argues, however, that the assumptions bound up in this claim are at odds with decades of research on masculinities and that the theory does not adequately attend to the flexibility of gender hegemony. The pursuit of gender equality is not impossible, however. In closing, Messerschmidt offers several empirical examples of counterhegemonic practices—positive masculinities and femininities in particular—suggesting avenues for social change.
This book is a masterfully composed primer of use to both beginners and experts in the field. The book’s scope is comprehensive, and it is exceptionally accessible. For those already knowledgeable in the field, Messerschmidt offers a critical discussion of a body of work so expansive it is likely to clarify the oft-muddied concept, even for those familiar with it. While Hegemonic Masculinity is certainly now the most comprehensive and straightforward resource that exists for exploring the concept, readers should be aware that it does not cover everything. Certain critiques, extensions, and competing frameworks go unmentioned; for instance, recent works have suggested that there are other frameworks better suited to interrogating and dismantling gender inequality and that scholarship focusing on “multiple masculinities” has lost touch with its feminist roots (Schwalbe 2015). Messerschmidt reckons seriously with other competing frameworks—like Anderson’s (2009) inclusive masculinity theory—but might have also grappled with a wider range of competing theories and concepts.