Intersectionality and masculinities studies, go together like a horse and carriage

Every two years in June and July (except for the first years of the COVID-19 pandemic), hundreds of thousands of European people are preoccupied with men’s football, either during the European Cup or the World Cup. I, like many others, am one of these people. Given my double citizenship, the fact that I live in a third country, which is neither of my homelands and finally, that part of my family has roots in yet another country, I usually spend every evening in front of the TV, cheering one of the four teams that I feel connected to. Except for this year, as only three of them are playing because the fourth one was not good enough to get tickets to Germany. In other words, I am a passionate football enthusiast. No wonder that this editorial is about men’s football. That said, my sympathy for this sport is not just due to its entertaining nature but also because I see it as a phenomenon that illustrates many issues of high relevance for critical men and masculinities studies. One of them is intersectionality, a traveling concept that in the last decades became one of the most significant theoretical approaches in sociology, anthropology, philosophy, legal studies, critical race staties, gender studies, and hence, men and masculinities studies (Wojnicka, 2019).

The importance of football in critical men and masculinities studies

One of the most brilliant analyses of the link between intersectional theory and masculinities can be found in the book by Hill Collins and Bilge (2016). In their work, the authors use the football metaphor to illustrate the benefits of utilizing this particular theoretical approach. They demonstrate its importance in examining social institutions, using the examples of FIFA and the 2014 World Cup to explain why the intersections of masculinity and race cannot be ignored when watching football matches on television:

The increasing racial/ethnic diversity on elite European teams that recruit African players, other players of color from poorer nations, and racialized immigrant minorities may help teams to win. However, this racial/ethnic/national diversity of elite football teams has also highlighted the problem of racism in European football (…) White European fans may love their teams, yet many feel free to engage in racist behaviors, such as calling African players monkeys, chanting racial slurs, and carrying signs with racially derogatory language. In one case, Polish fans threw bananas at a Nigerian football player. (2016, pp. 9, 10)

Another vital contribution to the critical men and masculinities studies, where the football metaphor is utilized, is from Gee (2013), who wrote about David Beckham and what she called ‘flexible masculinity’, where his muscularity, heterosexuality, and prowess as a footballer made it possible for him the ‘bend the codes’ of masculinity. The British football star, or rather his gender performance, was also analyzed in the book written by Cashmore (2004), and last but not least, yours truly, as the ever first scientific paper I published was focused on a discussion of his masculinity in the context of that time's popular term ‘metrosexuality’ and androgyny (Wojnicka, 2006). Connell has also referred to football metaphors while discussing the distinction between hegemonic and complicit masculinity, comparing them to football players and fans. The carriers of the latter might be seen as those who laze around in front of the TV, while the carriers of the first are those who ‘run in the mud’ (Connell, 2005, p. 79) because football players themselves (successful or not) are perfect examples of embodying the idea of hegemonic masculinity. That said, Connell used this example to demonstrate that such a simplified understanding of her theory does not reflect its complexity. Even though Connell did not apply an intersectional approach directly, it is evident that her theory is built on the assumption that not only gender but also other factors, such as race, social class, sexuality, age, dis/ability, etc., shape power relations between men themselves, men and women and men and other genders. The power relations between hegemonic and marginalized forms of masculinities are built on the inequalities that are rooted in racial, class, and sexual differences. Finally, in one of my previous NORMA's editorials, analyzing the concept of complicit masculinity, I also used the football metaphor. As already mentioned, according to Connell, complicit masculinities are associated with passive consumers of the sport, whereas hegemonic masculinities are linked to active players on the field. Football players, especially top athletes, embody hegemonic masculinity and are celebrated figures with substantial economic and social capital, physical strength, and heterosexual appeal. Therefore, while looking at contemporary top football players, one might assume that racial and ethnic backgrounds are irrelevant in achieving hegemonic masculinity, implying that men of all races can attain hegemonic status. However, looking back to the 2021 World Cup, where three black players from England were exposed to racial attacks from some fans, reveals this is not entirely true; non-white men are seen as representatives of the hegemonic category only under specific conditions and for limited durations. The gatekeepers of these conditions are men embodying complicit masculinities (Wojnicka, 2021, p. 202).

Intersectionality and critical men and masculinities studies

What has yet to be directly articulated by Connell was discussed in detail by Christensen and Jensen (2014) in their groundbreaking paper on the benefits of applying an intersectional approach to the analyses of hegemonic masculinities and power relations between men. The paper's authors explore how hegemonic masculinity and intersectionality can be integrated to understand gender dynamics better. They argue that combining these frameworks can improve the analysis of how power works through multiple intersecting social categories such as gender, race, class, and sexuality. The article's main argument is that although hegemonic masculinity and intersectionality are separate concepts that come from different traditions, they, in fact, complement each other. Connell’s theory provides a critical perspective on multidimensional gender power dynamics, while intersectionality emphasizes the complexity and different types of correlations between multiple social categories. Therefore, Christensen and Jensen call for integrating these frameworks for a more in-depth analysis of how masculinity is performed and maintained in different contexts. Using these theoretical frameworks helps unveil the diversity within masculinities and the complex expressions of power and privilege associated with different masculine identities. Finally, according to the authors, combining intersectionality and hegemonic masculinities theory exposes the non-monolithic character of masculinities and how they are shaped by intersecting factors such as race, social class, age, dis/ability, and sexuality (2014).

Not all scholars agree that intersectionality should be applied in research on white men and masculinities. Bilge (2014a, 2014b) offers a theoretical discussion of how intersectionality, a concept originating from Black feminist activism and scholarship, has been deprived of its initial (radical) political character and ‘whitened’ in academic and institutional contexts. She suggests that these practices reduce their radical potential by belittling or ignoring its primary focus on race and structural power inequalities that are shaped by racial factors. As intersectionality gained popularity in academia and policymaking, its critical edge and political roots have been reduced, and the concept has been appropriated in ways that often downplay its emphasis on race and structural inequalities (2014b). Another scholar who critically engaged in the discussion about the intersectional approach was Nash (2008). She raised similar concerns about its depoliticized overuse, conceptual ambivalence, and potential seizures by neoliberal forces. She raises the same argument as Bilge, suggesting that arguments that intersectionality has become a buzzword, which reduces its radical potential.

As much as Bilge's and Nash’s criticism has many relevant points, applying intersectional theory to research on men and masculinities, even when applied to white communities, is vital, given the importance of power relations analyses, which should always constitute the crucial element of such scholarship. In examining the social positioning of (white) (heterosexual) men, an intersectional approach is an academic ‘must have’ because their races, classes, and sexualities must be taken into account in order to effectively analyze the privileges and costs of masculinities (Messner, 1997) and the differential power relations in society. Without including white/heterosexual/middle-class men and a critical, cross-sectional analysis of their position in societies and their role in shaping multidimensional power relations, understanding the essence of patriarchy is impossible because the world as we know it ‘(…) was built on structural inequality and oppression that privileges the powerful (e.g. wealthy, white, men) and disadvantages vulnerable groups (e.g. people of color, women, poor); these historic inequalities continue to permeate and shape society’ (Watkins Liu, 2018, p. 306) and therefore critical research on men and masculinities must be conducted with an intersectional approach. Naturally, as suggested by Bilge, it has to be done with a strong emphasis on maintaining the political and critical dimensions of intersectionality to ensure it remains a tool for social justice and transformative change. Moreover, the intersectional analyses of men and masculinities must be done with vigilance and critical engagement to resist weakening intersectionality's radical potential (Bilge, 2014a). Fortunately, many CSMM scholars understand this. Among papers published in NORMA within the last decade, one can find many excellent examples of applying an intersectional approach when studying men and masculinity. Along with the already mentioned paper written by Christensen and Jensen (2014), I strongly recommend a study on intersectionality and social justice in programs that are designed for men and boys by Keddie, Flood, and Hewson-Munro (2022), a paper on peacekeeping masculinities by Bennike and Stoltz (2022), an article about Polish migrant men (Fiałkowska, 2018) or a study on the importance of social capital in maintaining privileges among male managers (Aavik, 2015).

The current issue

The authors of the articles that constitute the current issue also strongly agree that the utilization of an intersectional approach can significantly benefit their analyses of different terrains of masculinities expressions, performances, and re-definitions. The first paper, authored by Raksha Janak, Deeva Bhana, James Marculitis, and Imraan Buccus and entitled ‘Becoming manly’: white South African defense force veterans negotiating masculinity (2024), intersectionality constitutes a critical analytical lens. The paper offers an in-depth examination of how white, English-speaking veterans negotiate their masculinities in the post-apartheid era. It analyses the complex nexus of historical, racial, and gender dynamics in shaping veterans’ identities and provides a novel perspective on the process of maintaining masculine ideals in the country. The paper examines how the veterans’ identities are influenced by their position as white men within the unique context of South Africa.

Sexuality, rather than race, is the main plot in the second paper from the issue entitled We Are Family: Taiwanese gay fathers’ Strategic Normalisation Decision-making in Transnational Reproduction by Chen (2024). In this paper, the unique experiences of Taiwanese gay fathers who use transnational reproduction to start their families are discussed. The study analyses how these fathers navigate the complex intersections of sexuality, race, and family norms in the context of transnational surrogacy and adoption. The unique aspect of the paper is the argument that, unlike in many existing studies on transnational reproduction, which focus primarily on race, the author argues that the main factor shaping the experience of the discussed sample is their sexuality, which predominantly constitutes the societal perception and acceptance of the ways they do families.

Finally, the race-sexuality-social class triad is complemented by the paper written by Marta Gospodarczyk entitled Rural Masculinity in Protest: Farmer's Political Movements in Modern Poland as Sites of Rural Masculinities’ Reproduction (2024). Gospodarczyk’s paper examines the role of farmers’ political movements in contemporary Poland as vital terrains for negotiating and performing rural masculinities. The study analyzes the process of mobilizing traditional masculine traits in the context of rural protests, presenting a nuanced understanding of the intersections of class identity, masculinity, and politics. One of the most valuable elements of the paper is the utilization of the protest masculinity concept, which, according to Connell and Messerschmidt, constitutes a subcategory of marginalized masculinity and is defined as

(…) a pattern of masculinity constructed in local working-class settings, sometimes among ethnically marginalized men, which embodies claim to power typical of regional hegemonic masculinities in Western countries, but which lacks the economic resources and institutional authority that underpins the regional and global patterns. (2005, pp. 847–848)