Queer eye on a ‘straight’ life: deconstructing masculinities in construction

Abstract

The male-ness or masculine nature of the construction industry has often been blamed for the problems of equality and diversity in the sector. Yet, what constitutes masculinity in construction is rarely problematized. Conventionally, masculinity in construction tended to be associated with the subordination and harassment of minority groups (e.g. women, non-heterosexuals), and the ideals of keeping fit in order to meet the tough, physical demands of construction work. Therefore an attempt was made to expand the conceptualization of alternative masculinities in construction. By deploying queer theory, the life stories of nine non-heterosexuals working in trade and professional occupations in the construction industry were analysed to explore how a range of different masculinities played out in the social interactions in their personal and working lives. The findings suggest that conventional hegemonic masculinity, while present, is not the only form of masculinity that subordinates minority groups in construction. Rather, other non-hegemonic forms of masculinity (e.g. found in homo-social contexts) also serve to exclude both men and women. Nevertheless, examples were also identified of minorities countering such exclusionary forms of masculinity through, for instance, ‘friendship’ alliances at work, which could offer possibilities for building a more inclusive workplace in construction.

Keywords:

• Equality and diversity
• gender
• masculinities
• queer theory
• sexuality

Acknowledgements

I express my sincere gratitude to the guest editors and the three anonymous referees for their patience and constructive feedback on earlier versions of this article. I thank Professor Christine Räisänen for encouraging me to do this study. And I am forever indebted to the nine participants for their generosity in sharing their life stories, without which this article would not have been possible.

Notes

1. Heteronormative accounts refer to the tendency that heterosexual relationships are treated as the norm in the accounts portrayed in the construction management literature. So, for example, in reiterating the comments provided by one of her informants about men having their dinners ready in the oven, Watts (2007) reinforces the institutionalized idea (and ideal) of heterosexual relationships as the norm.

2. There is, of course, the danger of essentializing sexual orientation as a category for the sample choice presented here. Nevertheless, it is deemed a useful starting point since these subjects have had to confront the dominant form of masculinity in their everyday lives. As Connell (2005) noted, ‘masculinity is necessarily in question in the lives of men whose sexual interest is in other men’ (p. 90). To avoid falling into the trap of essentializing these accounts, careful attention has been paid to deconstruct the interactions portrayed in the life stories to identify what is queer.

3. All the participants identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual to the researcher, but it must be noted that not everyone has fully disclosed their sexual orientation to their families, friends and co-workers. It must also be stated that the study is still ongoing and that the researcher is keen to collect more life stories of other LGBT individuals working (or who have recently worked) in the construction industry. The researcher has also obtained full research ethics approval for the study (institution reference number 11450).