This article examines the tragic accidents that occurred in Montana and in Colorado where a total of 27 fire fighters lost their lives. While the encompassing interest concerns men operating in male dominated working sites and how homosociality is contingent on artifactual utility, the article specifically discloses the organizational dynamics found among the perished fire fighters and the homosocial practices that may have contributed to the tragic outcomes of these disasters. Not only does homosociality embrace dominance, competitive activities and friendship; it also includes material aspects, which is why the study allocates an understanding of the intimacy between artifacts and performances of masculinity. A theoretical aim of this study advocates collaborative practices between masculinity studies and actor-network theory (ANT). In order to disclose how materiality fosters demonstrations of masculinity and homosocial performances, this article draws on the previously mentioned disasters in the U.S. Additionally interviews with retired fire fighters in a Swedish town provide supplementary sources of information.
TovBen S. (1995). The artificial paradise. Science fiction and American reality. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
3.
BrandthB., & HaugenM. S. (2005). Text, body, and tools: Changing mediations of rural masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 8, 148–163.
4.
BrownS. B., & CapdevliaR. (1999). Perpetuum mobile: Substance, force and the sociology of translation. In LawJ. & HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 26–50). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
5.
ButlerJ. (1993). Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of sex. New York & London: Routledge.
6.
CallonM. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In BijkerW.HughesT. P. & PinchT. J. (Eds.), The social constructions of technological systems. New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83–103). Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.
7.
ConnellR. W. (1999). Maskuliniteter [Masculinities]. Göteborg: Daidalos.
8.
CzarniawskaB., & HernesT. (2005). Constructing macro actors according to ANT. In CzarniawskaB. & HernesT. (Eds.), Actor-network theory and organizing (pp. 7–13). Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
9.
HalberstamJ. (1998). Female masculinity. London & Durham: Duke University Press.
10.
HayleK. (1992). The materiality of informatics. Configurations, 1(1), 147–170.
11.
HaylesK. (1999). How we became posthuman. Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
12.
HetheringtonK. (1999). From blindness to blindness: Museums, heterogeneity and the subject In LawJ. & HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 51–73). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
13.
IhdeD. (2002). Bodies in technology. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.
14.
JohanssonT. (1998). Från mansroll till maskuliniteter: En inledning [From man's role to masculinities: Introduction] In EkenstamC.FrykmanJ., & JohanssonT. (Eds.), Rädd att falla. Studier i manlighet [Afraid to fall. Studies in masculinity] (pp. 7–15). Hedemora & Möklinta: Gidlunds Förlag.
15.
JohanssonT. (2008). The Full Monty — masculinity undressed. NORMA. Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies, 3(1), 14–30.
16.
LatourB. (1998). Artefaktens återkomst. Ett möte mellan organisationsteori och tingens socio-logi [The return of the artefact. An encounter between organizational theory and the sociology of things]. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus Förlag AB.
17.
LatourB. (1999). On recalling ANT. In LawJ. & HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 15–25). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
18.
LawJ. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.
19.
LawJ. (1998). Machinic pleasures and interpellations. In BrennaB.LawJ., & MoserI. (Eds.), Machines, agency and desire (pp. 23–48). Oslo: TMV Report Series.
20.
LieM. (1995). Technology and masculinity. The case of the computer. The European Journal of Women's Studies, 2, 379–394.
21.
LindahlM. (2005). The little engine that could: On the ‘managing’ qualities of technology. In CzarniawskaB. & HernesT. (Eds.), Actor-network theory and organizing (pp. 50–66). Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
22.
Lipman-BlumenJ. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. Signs, 1(3), 15–31.
23.
LohanM., & FaulknerW. (2004). Masculinities and technologies: Some introductory remarks. Men and Masculinities, 6(4), 319–329.
24.
LützhöftM. H., & NyceJ. M. (2004). Integration work on the ship's bridge. In LützhöftM.. (Ed.), The technology is great when it works: Maritime technology and human integration on ship's bridge (pp. 127–169). Linköping: Department of Mechanical Engineering.
25.
MacKenzieD., & WajcmanJ. (1999). Introductory essay: The social shaping of technology. In MacKenzieD. & WajcmanJ. (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (pp. 3–27). Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
26.
MacLeanN. (1992). Young men & fire. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
27.
MellströmU. (1995). Engineering lives. Technology, time and space in a male-centred world. Linköping: Department of Technology and Social Change-Tema T.
28.
MellströmU. (2002). Patriarchal machines and masculine embodiment. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(4), 460–478.
29.
MellströmU. (2003a). Teknik, intimitet och manlighet [Technology, intimacy and masculinity]. In JohanssonT. & KuosmanenJ. (Eds.), Manlighetens många ansikten — fäder, feminister, frisörer och andra män [The many faces of masculinity — fathers, feminists, hair dressers and other men] (pp. 251–271). Malmö: Liber.
30.
MellströmU. (2003b). Masculinity, power and technology. A Malaysian ethnography. Hampshire & Burlington: Ashgate.
31.
MeuserM. (2007). Serious games. Competition and the homosocial construction of masculinity. NORMA. Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies, 2(1), 38–51.
32.
MichaelM. (2006). Technoscience and everyday life. The complex simplicities of the mundane. Berkshire: Open University Press.
33.
MoserI. (2006). Sociotechnical practices and difference. On the interferences between disability, gender, and class. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(5), 537–564.
34.
MoserI. (2007). On becoming disabled and articulating alternatives. The multiple modes of ordering disability and their interferences. Cultural Studies, 19(6), 667–700.
35.
OldenzielR. (1999). Making technology masculine: Men, women, and modern machines in America, 1870–1945. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
36.
NehlsE. (2003). Vägval. Lastbilsförare i fjärrtrafik — perspektiv på yrkeskultur och genus [Crossroads. Truck drivers driving long distant traffic — Perspectives on working culture and gender]. Göteborg: Etnologiska föreningen i Västsverige.
37.
SpringerC. (1996). Electronic eros. Bodies and desire in the postindustrial age. Austin: University of Texas Press.
38.
StrathernM. (1999). What is intellectual property after? In LawJ. & HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 156–180). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
39.
VerbeekP. P. (2005). What things do. Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. State College: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
40.
WeickK. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652.
41.
WeickK. E. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 301–313.
