Greg Knotts
In “The Men and the Boys,” Connell dissects the notion of masculinity. Masculinity cross-culturally, masculinity in a variety of historical periods, masculinity in research and in popular culture are all investigated. The Men and the Boys is an in-depth examination about masculinity across a variety of social spaces. Connell is a leading social scientist who adopts a variety of theoretical frameworks and constructs in this investigation of masculinity in a global world. The worlds of therapy, education, health services, violence prevention, policing, and social services are all examined in this collection of Connell's essays. A variety of lenses, from psychoanalytical, to social-psychological, to social constructionist are all utilized in Connell's theorizing. That there are multiple masculinities, and that they are actively constructed, are important conclusions of this investigation. That these masculinities can develop collectively and over time in a dynamic process is another important conclusion. Connell asserts that men and boys must be free to develop across a wide panoply of options rather than simply the typically prescribed, socially constructed roles that seem to limit the development of many.
Connell first grounds the reader in two assumptions: that 'sex role' theory and 'categorical theory' are politically influenced constructs that are wrong and will not be used in his discussion of masculinities. Sex role theory, the notion that appeals to social expectations of 'proper behavior' among men and women is based in social norms and expectations. Connell asserts, as do many others, that this theoretical construct ignores issues of violence, power, and material inequality and offers very few strategies for change. Categorical theory, the notion that women and men are pre-formed, biologically constructed categories is also insufficient to describe the complexities and ambiguities of gender definitions, Connell maintains.
Post-structuralist and post-modernist constructs address this complexity, Connell asserts. Fluidity, power and violence constructs, and the ambiguity of gender are better addressed in these frameworks. The division of labor, power relations, and the relations of emotional attachment or cathexis can be, and need to be, captured within these constructs in order to best draw conclusions about masculinities. We are faced with the reality of a post-structuralist, post-modern world and Connell grounds the rest of this inquiry within those conceptual frameworks.
The influence of globalization and the world order impact the construction of masculinities. Beginning in, or at least informed by, a colonial, imperial world, the hegemonic role of patriarchy and entrenched roles of power and labor became the norm for many developing countries and peoples. As the world population has increased to over six billion persons, the roots of the modern world gender order became more and more secure. Gendered institutions like armies, corporations, schools, and labor markets created opportunities for specific patterns of social practice. Widespread sexual exploitation of indigenous women figured prominently in the notion of conquest and settlement as colonialism and imperialism continued to develop. Over time, as conquest became a capitalist surge for transnational business, many of these institutions and ideologies continued to socially reproduce. The hegemonic culture of patriarchy and the historical social roles (sex roles) entrenched in practice, continued to flourish and have enormous influence on implications for the role of masculinity in the world order. It is only very recently that policy implications for the need for new perspectives on masculinity are being considered in a global context.
Connell devotes a chapter to the role of men's bodies and the impact of globalization. The new construct of sociology of the body is used as a framework to investigate the changing nature of the body — that the body is not a fixed constant, and is therefore influenced by experience. Influenced by Foucault, sociology of the body emphasizes the body's agency in social practice. Labor relations, power structures, violence, and sexuality are all influenced by body-reflexive practices and are therefore governed by, and constitute social structures in their own right. That the body cannot be divorced from the social practices it engages in serves as a template for understanding the role that social practice has on the formation of masculinities.
Connell then provides some case study research on the notion of the body as being influenced by the social practices of the individual. "The Iron Man" is an investigation of an Australian surfer who is clearly influenced by the socially constructed image created for him by his handlers and agents. He is being deliberately manipulated and constructed to fit an illustration of what it means, at least popularly, to be masculine. "I Threw it Like a Girl" is a case study that looks at the alternate reality to that exemplar of masculinity and what it means to develop in a world where a person is incapable of fitting into the prescribed norms. A body, in other words, that acts counter to what is 'expected' of it.
Homophobia, the body-reflexive practice of sport, violence, and heterosexual performance all act as social constructs in opposition to a body unable to perform a simple act of throwing a ball. The balance of these two case studies provides a small look into the world of body-reflexive practice and the role the 'body' can play in the development of masculinities.
Schools and education receive most of Connell's attention in this examination of masculinities. Schools, Connell asserts, are havens for the social construction of gender. They serve as social spaces to negotiate relationships among the various possibilities across the masculinity spectrum. School begins to form social constructs for boys to fit various 'ideals' in the masculine world. Boys who succeed in sport, sexual conquest, and aggressive behavior are one kind of ideal lauded in the schools. Another paradigm set up for boys to emulate is that of the achiever, the doer who will eventually be the achiever in business, the professional world, and money earning. These two constructs are held up as the ideal for boys and to not fit into one of them allows for pariah status, rejection, and harassment.
This construction is fostered collectively and institutionally in the schools. Boys enforce those norms on other boys, the adults offer models of those kinds of successes, and the family reinforces those models when boys are not 'trying' hard enough to achieve status in one or the other of the extremes. Schools, Connell maintains, are indeed the second most powerful influence in a child's life. The family is the first. What is socially expected is either explicitly referenced by the family, but is often just an 'understood.' Boys do not stand a chance at developing outside of these expectations without withstanding ridicule or even rejection.The same is true for the men in Connell's study. The influence of family as well as the adult workplace, and sexual relationships strongly influenced the roles most men were willing to achieve or maintain. The schools, however, foster the three major areas that typically inform the developing masculinities of boys: sport, discipline, and curriculum.
Curriculum, Connell suggests, offers an investigation into the realm of symbolism through the gender meanings entrenched in knowledge. Although knowledge and curriculum is meant to be delivered in a gender-neutral way, it is often not received that way if the models provided remain prejudicial and gender-biased. Discipline often gets doled out in various forms. Boys may self-discipline each other by saying something along the lines of "you are acting like a girl" or something to that effect if a boy is acting too 'goody goody.'
Adults are found to be reinforcing the notion that boys get into trouble more than girls. Both tactics socially maneuver and manipulate negative behavior as evidencing masculine behavior. And sport within the schools typically mirrors the larger society's obsession with defining hegemonic masculinity within the sport-as-masculine construct.
What Connell suggests to counter these prevailing ideologies is a consciousness raising for all invested stakeholders. Parents, teachers, students, and administrators must all be made aware that the school acts as a vehicle of social construction and reproduction of these hegemonic masculine norms. Connell suggests that this consciousness raising and change is not possible without the commitment of teachers. What he does, however, is put the onus on the teachers to discover ways to bring these issues to light. Connell relies on the idea that teachers will want to participate in such a consciousness raising effort, rather than be subject to those norms themselves. This is a dangerous assumption and one that I believe is naïve at best. Connell simply asserts that change is necessary and that teachers must play a role in that change — but then he offers no concrete ways for teachers to adopt change or implement new ideas or replace prevailing ideologies.
If schools have been such havens for the social construction of masculinity it is largely due to the fact that teachers are unwilling (or at least unable) to counter those prevailing thoughts and social norms without help and support. Without professional development and training as to how to implement social or curricular change at schools, teachers will continue to play their prescribed roles in this social construction. Connell excuses himself too early from the solution by simply saying 'go do it' without offering explicit ways that they can try.
Connell's inquiry into men's health and the role of masculinity and war are also equally deep in investigation and short on solution. However, without a doubt “The Men and the Boys” is a valuable, enriching look at the present research on gender identity and the formation of masculinities. Connell offers the reader many new lenses through which to view masculinity on the global stage. He simply leaves it at that, however. "This is the state of affairs," he seems to say — now go do something about it. Boys will be boys — albeit in ways that were heretofore not understood or realized — and the social construction of masculinity is a reality. Be aware of it. Have your consciousness raised about it. But look to someone else as to how to solve the problem.
commenting closed for this article