Combining hegemonic masculinity and intersectionality

Abstract

This article discusses the most influential contribution to studies of men and masculinity, i.e. the concept of hegemonic masculinity developed by R.W. Connell. It points to some problematic elements of the theory and some suggestions for improvement. One criticism is that the use of the concept during recent years has been characterized by ambiguities. We argue that these problems are not based on Connell's original conceptualization but on the ways the concept of hegemonic masculinity has been adapted and used by different researchers. We argue that this ambiguity is especially a problem when it comes to questions of power relations. In the article we first outline the reception of the concept. This is followed by a critical discussion of whether dominant masculinities are necessarily always related to legitimizing patriarchal gender relations. As an alternative we suggest that an intersectional approach may offer a theoretical tool for analyzing the complexities of differences and hierarchic power relations between men. In the concluding discussion we advance some suggestions that can improve and clarify the use of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, e.g. distinguishing between internal and external hegemony and emphasizing that both dimensions of power presume an open empirical and contextual analysis.

Keywords:

• gender
• masculinity
• hegemonic masculinity
• intersectionality
• power
• social equality
• Scandinavian welfare states

Notes on contributors

Ann-Dorte Christensen is a Professor of Sociology, Department for Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University, Denmark, and the Director of the Doctoral School of Social Sciences, Aalborg University. Her field of research is gender, intersectionality, masculinity, everyday life, and belonging. She is the principal investigator in the research project MARS – Masculinity, Risk and Safety. Publications within the area of masculinity include ‘Gender, class, and family: Men and gender equality in a Danish context’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, and Society (2008, together with Jørgen Elm Larsen) and ‘Resistance and violence: Constructions of masculinities in radical left wing movements in Denmark’, NORMA: Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies (2010).

Sune Qvotrup Jensen is an Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University, Denmark. He has a PhD in Gender Research and his current research interests involve gender, intersectionality, urban studies and subculture. Examples of publications within the area of masculinity and intersectionality are ‘Masculinity at the margins – othering, marginality and resistance among young marginalized ethnic minority men’, NORMA: Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies (2010) and ‘Othering, identity formation and agency’, Qualitative Studies (2011).

Notes

1. Connell (1995) defines patriarchal dividend as ‘the advantage men in general gain from the overall subordination of women’ (p. 79); this dividend can take the form of ‘honor, prestige and the right to command’ as well as material privileges (p. 82).

2. It can be argued that intersectionality thinking predates the construction of the actual term ‘intersectionality’. For decades, black feminists in the USA and Britain have worked with the interplay between gender and race (Anthias & Yuval-Davies, 1983; Collins, 1989; Combahee River Collective, 1977; hooks, 1989). Likewise, Marxist feminists have emphasized the interplay between gender and class (Hartman, 1981; Walby, 1990).