Introduction
Determining the variances between masculinity, gender and identity are complex. One has to have a profound understanding of the social, cultural, environmental, and biological concepts to emphasize the differences. Consequently, the primary goal of this essay is to gain in-depth insights into the formation of the social aspects highlighted above.
In this case, acquiring information from books such as Young Masculinities: Understanding Boys in Contemporary Society by Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman, Male Impersonators: Men Performing Masculinity by Simpson, and The Making of Men: Masculinities, Sexualities and Schooling by Ghaill will assist in seeing the role of educational sphere in the development of masculinity by highlighting the importance of emotions, affection, fluidity, and lively experience of this social aspect. In the end, the conclusions are drawn to summarize the primary outcomes of the paper associated with the new insights of masculinity.
Gender, Identity, and Masculinity
Gender, identity, and masculinity are highly dependent on external factors such as culture and social constructionism theory of gender. Despite the contrary, the differences tend to exist. For instance, in comparison to sex, gender is not a genetic phenomenon, and it is dependent on a plethora of circumstances. The physiological features of an individual do not determine it.
The key definers of gender are its performativity and relational nature, as an individual interferes in the social interactions associated with the particular gender role (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). It is a socially constructed phenomenon due to the well-established perceptions of femininity and masculinity in the community. The primary issue is the need to perform it and act and dress as a representative of a particular gender (Ghaill 1998). The society accepts the deviations from gender’s commonly recognized norms and contributes to the fluidity of one’s perception of self.
As for the identity, it is highly based on the cultural dogmas and their collaboration with historical events and levels of power (Ghaill 1998). The development of identity is a continuous process, and the masculine self-identification pertains to the presence of dominant features associated with the manhood reflected in culture (Ghaill 1998). Thus, the sense of masculinity is highly connected to social institutions such as schools. For instance, the majority of researchers refer to the fact that “masculine perspectives are pervasively dominant” (Ghaill 1998, p. 2). Despite the essence of education institutions, the perceived male’s behaviour is affected by ideologies and dogmas of a particular culture (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
The externalities are the primary differences that influence the definition of identity, masculinity, and gender. Gender is highly dependent on social norms while being altered by the behavioral patterns common in society. The identity has a connection with the cultural dogmas and beliefs of the community. In the intervening time, the masculinity pertains to the understanding of the gravity of power and domination. Apart from the cultural dogmas, one active contributor to the development of masculine and feminine behavioral patterns is an educational institution. Teachers often employ particular role models associated with a particular gender and create a perception of femininity and masculinity among students.
Types of Masculinity and Performance
Simultaneously, it remains evident that gender is performed differently and reflected in our behavioural patterns, appearances, and decision-making principles. A similar concept can be applied to the doctrines of masculinity. According to the various theoretical frameworks and social theories, one of its sub-definitions is hegemonic masculinity. It remains apparent that the critical element that shapes of this type of masculinity are an emphasis on dominant cultural modes (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
In this case, the hegemonic masculinity prioritizes the essence of supremacy and is contradistinguished to the nature of femininity (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). It is the commonly accepted mode, and it is reflected by portraying the leading position of males in the society, their heterosexuality, and a desire to compete (Ghaill 1998). For instance, one of the examples of performance is having achievements in sports and taking care of children and animals (Ghaill 1998). Adult males and young children feel the significance of this characteristic and value it.
Thus, the fluidity of gender implies that the masculinity has different variations. Despite having well-established masculine features and being delineated by the communal interactions, values, culture and social class, the nature of the performance of masculinity is still dynamic and open to changes (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
In this case, there is a concept of masculinity, which does not have as authoritarian dogmas as hegemonic one has. This type implies the elements of feminization, and one of the examples is presenting flowers to the male teacher by the male student (Ghaill 1998). This behavior is viewed as atypical to masculinity and often causes dissonance in the group or community.
Simultaneously, it was revealed in the interviews that the emblematic masculine roles taken among boys are machos and lads (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001; Ghaill 1998). For instance, lads did not highlight their schoolwork of high importance and attempted to intervene into the school system (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
As for the macho lads, this social group had similar perceptions of the academic excellence, but they claimed that the school assignments have to be completed by girls. The representatives of these social groups wanted to gain attention and respect by their strength and dominance. On the contrary, honor students expressed high concerns about academic performance, and this aspect differentiated them from the rest of the class.
Masculinity and Interpretive Methodology
The controversial nature of masculinity is a clear driver for conducting numerous studies in this field to understand its conceptualization. In this case, it is critical to depict the correlation between masculinity and interpretive methodology. Initially, this type of the research pertains to the importance of the social construction theory and the possibility to access reality via “boys’ aspirations and anxieties, their pride and loss” (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001, p. 13). In other words, it assists in seeing the connection between the personal, social values, and behavior of a person. In the context of the topic of masculinity, Frosh, Phoenix, Pattman and Ghaill tend to portray the interdependence between the principles of masculinity in their behavioral patterns, values, and decision-making.
In the interim, this research helps see the presence of the social construction theory of gender in the shaping of masculinity. For instance, it is impractical to assess the masculinity of the participants separately from their background, style, and culture (Ghaill 1998). The research reflects that conflicts with the boys’ personal anxieties and social norms are the primary drivers for showing the male’s competitiveness and strength (Ghaill 1998). It remains apparent that the participants have to retain the commonly accepted characteristics of hegemonic masculinity and adapt their individual traits to the social expectations. In this case, the interpretive methodology can reveal that predominance of the hegemony is the primary cause of the development of homophobia in adolescents and younger boys (Ghaill 1998). The interpretive research tends to highlight these connections and has a tendency to reveal gaps such as disparities and stereotyping linked to masculinity, femininity, and sexual orientation.
Fluidity of Masculinity
Sequentially, fluidity is one of the critical matters, which have an effect on the performance of masculinity. Despite a clearly identified nature of masculinity and a rationale for its development, the fluid masculinity cannot be disregarded. This aspect implies the presence of variations in the commonly accepted characteristics of masculinity and its dependence on the personal, professional, and social values. Thus, in the context of this case, it is vital to depict the changes in the educational sphere, as this theme is vehemently discussed in the books.
In spite of the importance of hegemonic masculinity in the learning process, the modern classroom tends to be extremely tolerant by making transparent transitions between male and female roles (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). For instance, the example of Oliver shows that not complying with the initial definition of masculinity such as loving football and disregarding schoolwork did not question his manhood (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). His answers and behavior did not create a wrongful perception of his sexuality, and female students and teachers appreciated his attention and efforts (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
Other boys’ orientation was questioned since they did not comply with the ‘tough’ definition of masculinity (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). The behavior of the described participants was tolerated by girls and teachers. However, the majority of the male students in the class reflected another variation of masculinity, which embraces aggression and toughness to comply with the commonly accepted masculine principles.
Males’ Affections and Emotions
Despite being socially constructed, the masculinity has a reflection of the personality and the behavioral patterns. In the interim, it has a potential correlation with cultural dogmas, as the majority of the rituals are defined by the culture (Ghaill 1998). Concurrently, race, cultural background, and parenting have a critical effect on the understanding of males’ traits and characteristics (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). A combination of these concepts highlights that men’s performance of affection and emotions can be differentiated from the commonly accepted behavioral patterns among women.
As for the example for the emotions employed by male students, Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman offer an analysis of the boys’ responsiveness and emotionality during the interviews (2001). In this instance, the authors refer to narrative and thematic assessments to depict the correlation between the biographical elements and masculine identity (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
It remains apparent that initially, the boys were associated as being less emotional and talkative. However, the study revealed that during the individual interviews, the participants were open are expressed their opinions about girls, bullying, homophobia, and racism (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). Subsequently, the directness of their responses decreased during the group interviews, but the male students were contented joking and discussing the topics (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). Nevertheless, the sense of competitiveness and desire to show their strength did not allow them to express their negative attitudes about bullying.
Their emotionality and affection to girls were completely different during the mixed-gender group discussions. In this case, the boys felt like the dominant participants and did not want to show their weaknesses. It remains evident that a commixture of these factors portrays that boys have a tendency to adjust their emotionality and affections to the commonly accepted concepts of hegemonic masculinity. In this case, the males cannot complain and present their feelings openly, as it creates a perception of homosexuality and a high-level feminization.
Working Class Adolescents and Masculinity
Due to the dependence of masculinity on an extended variety of social factors, it pertains to the fact that adolescents from working class families have a different understanding of this concept. Thus, their behavioral patterns and attitudes tend to reflect their values associated with masculinity. Consequently, in the context of this topic, it is vital to highlight the effect of the social class on the self-esteem and attitude. For instance, the private school boys from a high socio-economic status initially emphasized their “intellectual and moral superiority” (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
The excellence in the academic performance was the most significant part of their future economic stability and career development (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). The progress of these social values pertained to the principles of masculinity accepted in the family, as, in this case, the perception of masculinity is linked to hard work and economic independence.
On the contrary, the boys from the middle-class and working families had a radically different understanding of masculinity. The public schoolers emphasized the need to be aggressive and did not consider that the schoolwork will affect their future lives (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). This ideographic London sample helped see that these concepts are the commonly accepted principles of hegemonic masculinity. Instantaneously, the current changes in the working class emphasized the need that individuals from the working class have to change their perception of masculinity and be prepared for subordinator roles (Ghaill 1998). This alteration does not comply with the initial model of hegemonic masculinity, but it will help male students to adapt to the reality.
As for the individualistic understanding of the masculinity, it is vehemently affected by the attitudes and values of the family (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). In the intervening time, it is also influenced by race and ethnicity. For example, being a Turkish student differentiates a male individual from his classmates and creates a dissimilar perception of masculinity and the lack of understanding between students from dissimilar cultures (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). The isolation of the particular ethnic groups defines a communication gap between students and makes it impossible to copy the common masculinity identification in the classroom.
Embodied Experience and Construction of Masculinity
Despite the essence of social, cultural, and historical factors to the understanding of the critical features of masculinity, the embodied experience plays a critical role in the development of the particular performance and behavioral patterns. The strength of masculinity is dependent on the feeling of sexuality, “sexual potency”, and distinct physical features of the male’s body (Ghaill 1998, p.91). This aspect had a critical impact on the self-esteem of the individual while the topic was crucial for the everyday conversations (Ghaill 1998). The physical features of a male student not only shifted the confidence but also identified him as a heterosexual.
The athletic body shape and the absence extra weight also contributed to the positive perspective as being masculine in the society (Ghaill 1998). Playing sports such as football is one of the sports to ensure one’s manhood. Consequently, the lack of obesity is an outcome of this lifestyle. Based on the embodied experiences mentioned above, it could be revealed that the construction of masculinity and the ability of an individual to comply with its features are also dependent on the physical condition and the appearance of a person.
Reflection of Masculinity in a Real Life
The lively experiences of perceived masculinity in the educational sphere are the critical topics of the selected readings. In this case, the majority of the information is gathered with the assistance of the interpretive studies, which reveal the boys’ perceptions of their identity. In the book by Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman, the authors emphasize responsibility, strength, and involvement in sports as critical parts of masculinity (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). In this instance, both girls and boys define football, as a critical attribute of male’s identity (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
In this case, playing football portrays one’s strength and helps the boys gain respect among their classmates. Another example of masculinity is the fact that male students are eager to take responsibility for their pets and tend to tell stories about their cats and dogs with love and respect (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). The examples of this book show that male students, who participated in this study have a clear sense of masculinity and tend to reflect it in their behavioral patterns and values. The conceptualization of masculinity is acquired from the community and by means of social construction of gender theory, as in their prioritizing typical masculine values will define their manhood.
Ghaill also refers to the real life examples in his book The Making of Men: Masculinities, Sexualities and Schooling. At the beginning of the book, the author invokes his real life experience and mentions the fact that one of his students gave him flowers in the middle of the schoolyard (Ghaill 1998). Several days later, the boy was involved in the fights while trying to prove his heterosexuality (Ghaill 1998). In this case, the experience of the boy, which is atypical to masculine behavior, will create misunderstandings in the society leading to the development of the conflict. Thus, he tried to restore his image by showing his power in the fight, as power and supremacy are the definers of the hegemonic masculinity.
Embodiment, Masculinity, and Their Relational Nature
Despite the gravity of psychological component, the masculinity has to be depicted by physical characteristics. The embodiment implies the physical representation of masculinity by using tangible forms (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). Regarding physical exemplification, the hegemonic masculinity is identified by distinct males’ physiological attributes and the potential absence of extra weight (Ghaill 1998). It is contrasted to femininity, as the females tend to be different from males by their physical appearance. Subsequently, having some features of the woman’s outlook will reduce the level of masculinity.
The relational nature of masculinity is displayed in the form of ideas, notions, behavioral patterns, and attitudes. It remains apparent that the hegemonic masculinity clearly establishes the features of a typical male. Thus, having deviations in any attributes will cause shaping the particular attitude towards an individual. In this case, the males with the representative hegemonic typology tend to show aggression towards people with the lack of toughness and responsibility (Ghaill 1998).
The compliance with the features of hegemonic masculinity increases the feeling of superiority regarding intellectual skills and economic stability. As for the femininity, the males tend to distinguish feminine and masculine activities. For instance, the manhood implies being involved in sports. Concurrently, the boundaries are transgressing while minimizing a gap between men and women (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). Currently, the activities such as football are gaining popularity among women, and men become involved in atypical masculine roles.
Overall Experience of Masculinity
It remains apparent that other concepts of masculinity imply emotional and relational aspects. The principles of masculinity emphasize the replication of the dominant narratives into behavioral patterns. In this case, the typical features of masculinity include that competitiveness, toughness, and responsibility (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). Meanwhile, in some cases, it involves aggression, but it is one of the critical approaches to articulate dominance (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
It is often claimed that the males cannot express their emotions clearly (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). It remains apparent that they have a tendency share their feelings during individual conversations while they do not want to demonstrate their weaknesses to the community. This aspect might damage their image of masculinity and create difficulties restoring it in future. The typical muscular lifestyle implies being involved in sports and as a consequence athletic body shape prevails. Thus, the male physical attributes and sexual attributes pertain to the level of self-esteem, masculinity, and heterosexuality (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001).
Impersonating Masculinity: Homosexuality and Feminism
The analysis depicted above highlights that masculinity was formed by the sequence of the historical and social events. Thus, the history contributed to the development of the particular male rituals such as shaving. From the early childhood, the little boys “are fascinated by the ritual their fathers enact before the bathroom mirror every morning” (Simpson 1994, p. 110). It seems that this ritual is a necessity and implies only removing facial hair. However, it is not the only notion and idea of this action. The overall shaving process is very personal and is highly referred to the embodiment of the masculinity. This ritual reflects man’s sexuality by demonstrating manhood and high levels of testosterone (Simpson 1994).
There are many associations, which tend to impersonate the masculinity. In his book Male Impersonators: Men Performing Masculinity, Simpson refers to bodybuilding, heterogeneous sexual orientation, tattoos, and sports (Simpson 1994). Nevertheless, simultaneously, the author does not underestimate the significance of gays and feminists on the development of definers of masculinity (Simpson 1994). For instance, the development of gay movement is the opposite to the concepts of hegemonic masculinity, which supports heterosexuality.
Feminism also damages a clear understanding of man’s position in the society. Currently, the females try to expand their possibilities by claiming complete equality. The development of these movements is one of the drivers for the desire of men to comply with the concepts of hegemonic masculinity. It helps them regain their image and improve their position in the society. The modern businesses consider it as an opportunity and provide a male customer with a plethora of choices.
Marketing and Hegemonic Masculinity
The advertisers and marketers take advantage of the commonly accepted attributes of masculinity. For instance, not being a fan of football does not guarantee that one would not buy a raiser. This item is often related to the dominance of hegemonic masculinity and creates the associated emotions by proposing its design. The hegemonic masculinity implies constructing the concepts opposite to femininity (Frosh, Phoenix & Pattman 2001). Thus, the razor makers take advantage of this theory and prioritize typical masculine attributes in the design. It shifts the demand and increases the popularity of razors among men.
As for the specific examples, it is Gillette with its Gillette Sensor marketing campaign. Its design reminds a personal about the aerospace, which often associated with a “man-made technology” solely (Simpson 1994, p. 112). The product coverage uses the images of football, as a sport is one of the critical definers of masculinity (Simpson 1994). It remains evident that using these concepts is ample to attract a typical male purchaser. To ensure the effectiveness of its marketing campaign, Gillette employs “narcissism and homoeroticism” (Simpson 1994, p. 119).
The advertisement uses the reflection of ‘successful’ man in the mirror and creates a perception that every male consumer can acquire a similar image. Simultaneously, Gillette uses slogan “the best shave the man can get” (Simpson 1994, p. 112). Using this technique underlines that every man is a winner. A blend of these approaches implies that man is a dominant participant of the social interactions, and Gillette gives him a possibility to be competitive. It remains evident that these concepts are the critical definers of hegemony masculinity and taking advantage of them shifts the demands and revenues.
Conclusion
In the end, it remains apparent that gender, masculinity, and identity are defined by the historical events, cultural dogmas, and interpersonal communications. In this case, the hegemonic masculinity is gaining its popularity, as it is one of the tools to restore the image of the male’s dominance. As for the learning environment in schools, it was revealed that educational entities have a substantial impact on the formation of masculinity among young children. The instructors strictly rely on the principles of hegemonic masculinity.
It is beneficial in terms of developing male social identity and distinction between feminine and masculine gender roles. Synchronously, this definition establishes a gap by increasing homophobia among children. Hegemonic masculinity emphasizes the importance of heterosexual orientation and does not accept homosexuality. Simultaneously, this concept has an adverse impact on the recognition of rights of different races and ethnicities since the children have a well-established image of behavior, which might be dissimilar in various cultures. A combination of these factors pertains to the fact that the modern educational system requires modifications, as it does not support the essential principles of tolerance, freedom of sexual orientation, and equality.
Despite an adverse impact of hegemonic masculinity on the tolerance and equality of rights, the marketers take advantage of its key characteristics. In this case, they tend to attract men by using associations with sports, strength, and power. The example of Gillette shows that referring to competitiveness, male dominance, and narcissism shifts the demand and generates additional revenues. Currently, buying and using these products assists male consumers in regaining their masculine image while contrasting their distinct features to homosexuality and feminism.
Reference List
Frosh, S, Phoenix, A & Pattman R 2001, Young masculinities: understanding boys in contemporary society, New York, Palgrave.
Ghaill, T 1998, The making of men: masculinities, sexualities and schooling, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Simpson, M 1994, Male impersonators: men performing masculinity, Routledge, New York.