COVID-19, masculinity and risk/at risk

It is April 2020 and we live in uncertain times. The COVID-19 pandemic is changing and affecting our lives in ways that we could not have foreseen a couple of months ago. The pandemic is global just as our ways of living often are. If not global in practice, at least deeply affected by global flows of information, goods, services, and travel. The contexts and situations in various parts of the world are different, but there are also a number of common features that characterize the current crisis. Among them, for example, the sharpening of social inequalities as the poor and the marginalized become the prime victims when economies and whole societies are locked down. These communities are also gravely affected by the pandemic spreading to densely and over-populated areas with little or no chance of social distancing. Another striking feature is the male predominance in both causing risk for others as well as discarding risk for oneself, but also men being a major risk group as they comprise 64% of the overall death toll (Ewig, 2020). The current situation crystallizes in many ways some of the questions we have addressed in masculinity studies for a long time. The theme of masculinity and risk, and masculinity at risk, was highlighted in a special issue of Norma in 2014 and in a collected volume (Mellström & Ericson 2014 and Ericson & Mellström, 2016), and it is also covered by Victoria Robinson in the newly published International Handbook of Masculinity Studies (eds. Gottzén, Mellström, & Shafer, 2020). The findings are straightforward, and follow a reactive societal chain of threat-risk-crisis-crisis management-care-rehabilitation. As we move from left to right in this reactive societal chain, we move from male-dominated occupational and societal arenas to female-dominated ones. It is an institutionally gendered division of labor that reflects how gendered subjectivities are formed and configured with regard to a wider cultural imaginary (Ericson & Mellström, 2016), and in particular with regard to risk as an analytical metaphor for understanding masculine subjectivities. Thus, the reactive crisis management chain from threat and risk to rehabilitation concerns the fundamental organization of our societies, as many ethical, practical, occupational, and intellectual issues are at stake when considering who is at risk and who are the risk taking parties. Risk represents a longstanding ‘leitmotif’ in studies of men and masculinities, connected to masculine subjectivities and accompanying cultural imaginaries such as heroism and bravery. In many ways, masculinity as a gendered configuration has traditionally been conflated with acts of courage, mastering fear, and risk ‘management’. Stephen Whitehead (2002) regards heroism a constituting feature of almost all forms of masculinity: ‘For most men, any “heroic project” begins when they leave for work’ (p. 123). The current corona crisis is certainly questioning any such gendered configurations as the real heroes/heroines are the nurses, doctors and other care workers in the caregiving frontlines, in female-dominated occupations. What no doubt seems to be called for is a more balanced reactive social chain where the work of caregiving needs to be valued for its productive societal contribution and possibly heroic qualities. We are in a unique situation where the current crisis offers us an opportunity for reassessing political priorities in many societies with regard to a more gender balanced risk ontology. Obviously, such an ontology would also benefit men and masculinities as the current global risk management aiming for saving lives is achieved by caring for others and protecting those who are most vulnerable. Workers in female dominated occupations are fighting an invisible enemy by compassion, courage and human responsibility. It is an enemy that will globally take the lives of hundreds of thousands, out of which an overwhelming majority is male, because they are more likely to have underlying health problems related to COVID-19, such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic lung diseases. Another part of the explanation points to men’s risky behavior in general, such as heavy drinking, violence, and substance abuse. The toxic consequences of masculinity are once again graspable, on a global scale, and once again attended to by an army of caregivers, consisting overwhelmingly of women. Another noteworthy dimension of toxic masculinity in the current situation is the tendency of some men to disregard the importance of personal hygiene. A strong recommendation for avoiding contagion is to wash your hands carefully. Handwashing is according to a recent survey (Smith, 2018) something men do to a lesser extent than women. One in six male workers do not wash their hands after having a poo at work! Although the evidence is not profound, a well-known theme in masculinity is replayed: to be a man is to distance yourself from femininity, which in this case is associated with cleanliness and hygiene. In the particular situation we are in currently, this is also a dimension of putting others at risk by non-hygienic gendered practices, and there is nothing heroic about this, whatsoever. When we finally reach a post-corona era, we dearly hope that such banal insights also contribute to the thorough reassessment of political priorities and a more gender balanced risk ontology. In masculinity studies and beyond, I truly look forward to a reinvigorated scholarly discussion on the concepts of risk, heroism and gender.

The current issue

The articles published in this open issue were obviously written and published online before the Corona crisis. The theme of gender transformation is, however, something that connects the call for a more gender balanced risk ontology with the four articles presented in this 2^nd issue of Norma 2020. It is most evident in Amanda Keddie’s contribution ‘Engaging boys and young men in gender transformation: The possibilities and limits of a pedagogy of empathy’. Keddie demonstrates how a gender transformative program aimed at developing young boyś empathy and feelings of vulnerability, also has its limitations due to a deeply inherent idea of empathy as always being pre-social. Keddie shows how emotional intensities, such as anger, fear, and shame, could be an opening to recognizing gender injustices and starting productive and transformative conversations. In an unconventional combination of using theorists such as Connell and Bourdieu, Rosvall et al. show in their article ‘A horizon circumscribed by norms? – Five gay men discussing career and work’ how a gay vocational habitus has been expanding. Indeed, a certain form of gender transformation can be seen as the authors argue that the normative space for non-heterosexual people in occupational settings has widened considerably. In the article ‘Masculinities and Femininities in sustainable transport policy. A focus on Swedish municipalities’ by Kronsell et al. we learn how gendered norms, and in particular masculinity, are institutionalized in transport policy and planning. Their work emphasize the negotiable and gender transformative potentiality of a less vertical structuring of masculinity. Finally, in the article ‘My little beautiful mess’: A longitudinal study of working-class masculinity in transition’ by Garth Stahl we see how gender transformation is being conceptualized through the concepts of liminality and transition. Stahl shows how the life history of one person, Leo, can be used for understanding ‘transitional in-betweeness’

As we are in a period of unusual uncertainty, transition and crisis, we shall also take the opportunity to help and encourage each other to further the possibilities for gender transformation. It will be essential in post-corona times where there will be many gender regressive forces facing us.