Hegemonic Masculinity and Subordinated Masculinity

Subordinated masculinity is a concept within the framework of hegemonic masculinity, a theory of gender relations and the hierarchy of masculinities. This framework was significantly shaped by the work of sociologists R.W. Connell and James W. Messerschmidt, among others. Hegemonic masculinity refers to the cultural norms and practices that promote the dominant position of men and the subordinate position of women, as well as a hierarchy among men themselves.

Subordinated masculinity refers to forms of masculinity that are positioned below the hegemonic ideal in the social hierarchy. These forms of masculinity do not conform to the norms and expectations of hegemonic masculinity, which valorizes traits such as physical strength, heterosexuality, authority, and emotional stoicism. Instead, subordinated masculinities may embody traits or identities that are devalued and marginalized within the gender order, such as being homosexual, displaying emotional sensitivity, or engaging in practices and occupations that are culturally coded as feminine.

The concept of subordinated masculinity is crucial for understanding the dynamics of power and identity among men. It highlights that not all men benefit equally from the patriarchal dividend—the advantages men gain from the subordination of women—because the gender order also hierarchizes relations among men. Men who are associated with subordinated masculinity often face discrimination, marginalization, and violence, which serve to reinforce the dominance of hegemonic masculinity by stigmatizing and penalizing deviations from its norms.

Importantly, the concept also underscores the fluidity and relational nature of gender identities. Masculinities are not fixed; they are performed and can change over time and in different contexts. The relationships between different forms of masculinity (hegemonic, complicit, subordinated, and marginalized) are dynamic, with shifts in cultural, economic, and social contexts leading to changes in what is considered hegemonic or subordinated at any given time.

Understanding subordinated masculinity is essential for addressing issues of gender inequality and for promoting more inclusive and equitable gender relations. It challenges the binary view of gender and opens up spaces for diverse expressions of masculinity that challenge traditional norms.

See also: Complicit Masculinity

Meaning of Complicit Masculinity Explained

"Complicit Masculinity", a term coined by gender sociologist R.W. Connell (in "Masculinities", designates a nuanced landscape of male behaviors and their impact on gender dynamics. It pertains to men who may not actively dominate or demean women, yet indirectly support a gender system that favors men over women. The are, in a sense, wing-men for hegemonic masculinity By not challenging gender inequality, they sustain a system that provides them with advantages, making them complicit in the process.

Consider a man who doesn't dominate women or exhibit macho behavior, but also doesn't intervene or silently agrees when witnessing sexism or gender inequality. His silence and inaction indirectly contribute to the perpetuation of the male dominance system. This is an example of complicit masculinity in action.

The defining characteristic of complicit masculinity is its subtlety. It's not about blatant dominance or aggression. Instead, it's about silently accepting the privileges that come with being part of the dominant group. It involves enjoying the benefits of being a man in a patriarchal society without directly participating in the subordination of women.

In our everyday life, instances of complicit masculinity are not rare. It's the men who remain silent when casual sexism occurs, those who gain from the gender pay gap without questioning it, or those who relish their male privileges without acknowledging the struggles faced by women and other marginalized genders.

Recognizing and understanding complicit masculinity is a significant stride towards achieving gender equality. As long as it persists, the system that favors men is continually reinforced, and gender inequality remains intact. It's crucial for men to not only avoid being complicit but also to actively work towards challenging and dismantling these unfair norms and systems.

Meaning of Hegemonic Masculinity Explained

The term "hegemonic masculinity" coined by gender sociologist R.W. Connell in her book "Masculinities", is a critical concept in understanding gender dynamics. It refers to the dominant cultural norm of masculinity that is accepted and recognized widely in society. The essence of hegemonic masculinity lies in its ability to maintain the established patriarchal order, ensuring men's dominance and women's subordination.

But what does this mean in everyday life? It's crucial to understand that hegemonic masculinity doesn't refer to the most common type of masculinity performed by all men. Instead, it represents a particular kind of masculinity that is upheld as the ideal, the 'gold standard,' so to speak. This ideal is what sustains the dominant social position of men and the subordinate social position of women.

Hegemonic masculinity is about power and control. It is about the ways in which society validates and promotes certain masculine behaviors and attitudes that reinforce men's power over women. These practices can range from overt displays of physical strength and aggression to more subtle forms of control and dominance, like financial control or emotional manipulation.

Importantly, hegemonic masculinity doesn't just impact women. It also affects men who don't fit this ideal mold, including those who reject traditional gender norms or embrace more egalitarian relationships. This form of masculinity is not necessarily enacted by all men, but it exerts a powerful influence over societal expectations of what it means to be a 'real man.'

In Summary, the concept of hegemonic masculinity provides a framework for understanding gender power dynamics. It helps us decode how societal norms and expectations shape our behaviors and relationships. Recognizing the influence of hegemonic masculinity is the first step towards promoting more diverse, inclusive, and equitable expressions of masculinity.

See also: The Many Types of Masculinities 

The Many Types of Masculinities

Maculinity, says R.W.Connell. is not just one this, and instead we should be talking about “masculinities” in the plural, and here are some examples:

1.  Hegemonic Masculinity: At its core, this concept refers to the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women. It is not necessarily the most common form of masculinity, but rather the form that sustains the dominant social position of men and the subordinate social position of women.

2.  Complicit Masculinity: Refers to men who may not themselves enact dominant forms of masculinity but benefit from the hegemony of men over women. These individuals do not challenge the status quo of gender relations and thus indirectly support the structure of hegemonic masculinity.

3.  Subordinated Masculinity: Masculinities that exist in opposition to or at a lower rank than hegemonic masculinity within the social hierarchy. This often includes masculinities associated with homosexuality, certain racial and ethnic identities, and other non-normative gender expressions, which are marginalized because they do not fit the hegemonic ideal.

4.  Marginalized Masculinity: Focuses on the intersections of gender with race, class, and ethnicity, highlighting how certain groups of men are marginalized within the gender order. This concept emphasizes that while these men may be privileged by gender, they are disadvantaged by other social factors.

5. Protest Masculinity: A form of masculinity adopted by those who feel disenfranchised or disempowered by the socio-economic system. It is characterized by the exaggeration of traditional masculine norms and behaviors (such as toughness and aggression) as a form of resistance against perceived marginalization.

6. Toxic Masculinity: Although not coined by Connell, this term has been used in discussions about hegemonic masculinity to describe cultural norms that can be harmful to men, women, and society overall. It characterizes manhood as defined by violence, sex, status, and aggression, emphasizing the destructive aspects of failing to conform to hegemonic masculinity.

7. Masculinity and Capitalism: Connell has also explored the relationship between masculinity and the economic structure, particularly capitalism. Hegemonic masculinity is seen as supporting and being supported by capitalist economic relations, reinforcing gender inequality through the division of labor and the valorization of certain types of work over others.

8. Global Hegemonic Masculinity: The concept has been expanded to consider the global dimension, where certain forms of masculinity (often those associated with Western, white, middle-class men) are privileged over others on a global scale, influencing international politics, economics, and culture.

9. Hybrid Masculinities: This concept refers to the ways in which some men adopt elements of identity traditionally associated with marginalized or subordinated masculinities, while still maintaining overall positions of gender privilege. It highlights the fluidity and complexity of gender identities and the strategic negotiation of masculinity in contemporary societies.

10. Precarious Masculinity: The idea that masculinity is not an innate attribute but rather a status that must be continually earned and demonstrated through performance. This precariousness can lead to overcompensation through aggressive or dominant behavior.

11. Masculinity and Emotion: Challenges the traditional association of masculinity with stoicism and emotional restraint. It explores how emotional expression and vulnerability are integral to redefining and understanding masculinities in a more nuanced way.

12. The Crisis of Masculinity: Refers to the perceived crisis in traditional male roles and identities resulting from social changes, including the feminist movement, economic shifts, and the changing nature of work. This concept examines how these changes challenge traditional notions of what it means to be a man.

 

Hélène Cixous and Jacques Derrida

The intellectual exchange between Hélène Cixous and Jacques Derrida represents a significant intersection in contemporary philosophical discourse, particularly in the realms of deconstruction, feminism, and literary theory. Both figures are central to 20th-century French philosophy, sharing an intellectual and personal rapport that influenced their respective and joint works.

Exchange and Dialogue Between Cixous and Derrida

Cixous and Derrida engaged in a continuous intellectual dialogue, critically yet sympathetically exploring each other's work. Derrida's deconstructive philosophy, which emphasizes the instability of meaning and critiques logocentrism, resonates with Cixous's concept of écriture féminine or feminine writing. This concept advocates for a form of writing that embodies feminine difference and seeks to challenge the phallocentric language structure.

In "The Laugh of the Medusa" (1975), Cixous calls for a writing practice that connects to the female body, aiming to disrupt the patriarchal language that has historically marginalized women's voices. Derrida's influence is evident in her challenge to binary oppositions and her investigation into the spaces that lie beyond conventional gender, identity, and language dichotomies.

Derrida's Deconstruction and Cixous' Écriture Féminine

Derrida's critique of Western thought's metaphysics of presence and hierarchical oppositions lays a philosophical groundwork for Cixous's écriture féminine. Both philosophers examine how language shapes thought and reality. For Cixous, deconstruction is not just an abstract philosophical approach but a politically charged endeavor capable of freeing writing from the constraints of a masculinist tradition.

Cixous's "Sorties" engages with Derridean themes, such as binary oppositions, suggesting ways they might be surpassed or reimagined to foster a more inclusive understanding of identity and difference. Their dialogue is characterized by mutual exploration, with their works often referencing and responding to each other, weaving a complex intellectual exchange.

The Ethics of Writing

The friendship between Cixous and Derrida. and their correspondence (seen in publications like "Veils" form 2001), reflects a shared dedication to an ethics of writing that respects the other's alterity without attempting to assimilate or diminish it. This ethical concern underpins both Cixous's and Derrida's approaches to identity, alterity, and representation politics.

Derrida's later works on hospitality, forgiveness, and friendship echo Cixous's focus on the ethical implications of writing and literature. For both, writing is an act of self-expression and an ethical gesture towards the other, an invitation to an encounter that respects the other's irreducible difference.

Managing the Commons: Elinor Ostrom and Collective Responsibility

In a world faced with environmental degradation, climate change and resource depletion, the work of Nobel Prize winning economist Eleanor Ostrom offers a way to deal with problems through collective action. Ostrom explained how communities around the world can manage shared resources sustainably and equitably, challenging the common perception of the inevitable "tragedy of the commons."

The tragedy of the commons, a concept popularized by the work of Garrett Hardin in 1968, states that people who share a common resource but act out of self-interest will inevitably overuse and deplete common resources, such as pastures, forests, and fisheries. The conventional solution proposed to avoid this tragedy was state regulation or privatization. However, Eleanor Ostrom, through her careful empirical research, has demonstrated that there is a third way: the commons can be effectively managed by the people who use them, through collective action and self-governance.

Ostrom's journey into the world of the commons began with her groundbreaking research on irrigation systems in Los Angeles, where she observed that farmers successfully managed water resources through self-organized systems, without the need for outside authorities. This observation led her to research similar community-managed systems around the world, from the highlands of Nepal to the lobster fisheries of Maine.

Through her research, Ostrom has identified several key factors that contribute to the successful management of shared resources. These include clearly defined boundaries, rules adapted to local needs and conditions, collective decision-making processes, effective monitoring and sanctions of rule-breakers, conflict resolution mechanisms, minimal recognition of rights to organize by external authorities, and ventures nested into a larger common pool.

Ostrom's work challenges us to rethink our ways of governing and the potential for communities to sustainably manage shared resources without relying solely on top-down approaches or market mechanisms. She showed that with the right conditions, collective action can lead to outcomes that are not only sustainable but also equitable, preserving resources for future generations while meeting the needs of the present.

Her insights are particularly relevant today as we face global challenges that require joint solutions, from climate change to water scarcity. Ostrom's legacy teaches us that the key to solving these problems lies not only in technological advances or policy reforms, but in empowering communities to take action and manage their resources through shared governance and collaboration.

The Tragedy of the Commons Explained with Examples

The term "tragedy of the commons" was coined by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968. It describes a dilemma that occurs with shared resources. When individuals, motivated by personal interest, exploit a jointly-owned asset (like space, water, air, etc.), it can harm the common good, leading to the resource's depletion or destruction. While these actions may seem rational from the individual's perspective, they counter the shared interest of all users, resulting in overuse and depletion of the resource for everyone.

This concept illuminates the conflict between individual interests and the collective good. Each user can benefit from exploiting the shared resource, while the costs of depletion and pollution are shared among all users. This encourages overuse and mismanagement of the resource, leading to severe depletion. It highlights the need for effective governance and management strategies to balance individual needs with the long-term sustainability of public resources.

Environmental issues exemplify the tragedy of the commons. Natural resources like fisheries, forests, water sources, and air quality are classic examples. Overfishing in the oceans is a clear illustration: individual fishermen benefit from catching as many fish as possible, but without regulation, fish populations collapse, damaging the ecosystem and the livelihoods of fishing-dependent communities. Deforestation in the Amazon, driven by private economic gain, leads to biodiversity loss, climate disturbances, and risks to indigenous populations' habitats.

The tragedy of the commons also affects economic and social systems. Public goods such as fresh air, clean water, and public lands can suffer from overuse and underinvestment. Traffic congestion in cities is a social example: roads, a public resource, become clogged due to excessive use by private vehicles, leading to inefficiency and pollution.

Climate change presents a complex, global example of the tragedy of the commons. Emission of greenhouse gases by countries and companies pursuing economic growth results in drastic climate changes and environmental damage that affects everyone.

However, solutions and management strategies can help resolve and mitigate the consequences of the tragedy of the commons. Nobel laureate Eleanor Ostrom's work demonstrated that communities could manage shared resources sustainably without requiring privatization or government intervention. Her research identified success factors such as setting clear boundaries, adapting rules to local conditions, collective decision-making, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and conflict resolution processes.