Hegemonic Masculinity Research Paper
Hegemonic Masculinity Hegemonic masculinity describes the highest sociopolitical position in a masculine hierarchal structure (Connell 1987). Formally theorized by Connell (CITE), it describes the sociopolitical positioning in which “at any given time one form of masculinity rather than others is culturally exalted” (139), or, more specifically, “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.” (139). This definition denotes a male attribution that is constituted in part against the subservience of women. It is also critical to note that someone who partially
…show more content…
For example, masculinity that finds itself oppressed by the ideologies and mechanisms of hegemony, such as homosexuality is to heterosexuality – can be said to be subordinated; those who can draw ‘dividends’ of privilege and entitlement from hegemonic masculinity even though they may not occupy its social space are said to be complicit; and finally, those who masculinities can be said to have been relegated to at upmost downgraded social position can be said to have had their masculinity “marginalized” (for example, as men of color are in relations to those who are white in current day Global North.) (2014 140 141). Each of these masculinities are defined by their embrace of various power dynamics which puts them in various orbits to each other. For example, as Connell notes, a particular subordinated masculinity may in fact be marginalized (2014 141) and even marginalized masculinities may be afforded some dividends of privilege from hegemonic masculinity that femininities would not (in turn, making them by definition, complicit.) To reiterate, Connell reminds us that hegemonic masculinity is never any one biologically determined-person or group but a hierarchial position which can be occupied by anyone at any given time. Given the supposedly ubiquity that Connell argues exists for hegemonic masculinity, we can see if it ever defined Kate Bornstein prior
For example, masculinity that finds itself oppressed by the ideologies and mechanisms of hegemony, such as homosexuality is to heterosexuality – can be said to be subordinated; those who can draw ‘dividends’ of privilege and entitlement from hegemonic masculinity even though they may not occupy its social space are said to be complicit; and finally, those who masculinities can be said to have been relegated to at upmost downgraded social position can be said to have had their masculinity “marginalized” (for example, as men of color are in relations to those who are white in current day Global North.) (2014 140 141). Each of these masculinities are defined by their embrace of various power dynamics which puts them in various orbits to each other. For example, as Connell notes, a particular subordinated masculinity may in fact be marginalized (2014 141) and even marginalized masculinities may be afforded some dividends of privilege from hegemonic masculinity that femininities would not (in turn, making them by definition, complicit.) To reiterate, Connell reminds us that hegemonic masculinity is never any one biologically determined-person or group but a hierarchial position which can be occupied by anyone at any given time. Given the supposedly ubiquity that Connell argues exists for hegemonic masculinity, we can see if it ever defined Kate Bornstein prior