The study of masculinities has not escaped the influence of Judith Butler’s writings on gender, performativity, and subversion. However, this article suggests that Butler’s formulations of performativity and subversion express a lack of clarity and engender a number of problems with respect to agency, action, interaction, and social change. This article argues for reformulating performativity and subversion in a more explicitly sociological frame to render the concepts more useful for examining agency and subjectivity in the study of masculinities. The writings of Erving Goffman suggest ways to reclaim the socially constructed agency of “performance” from the mire of “performativity,” with the latter’s apparent disappearance of subjective action. This article suggests reworking subversion away from parody and resignification toward a consideration of resources for subjectivity and challenges to prevailing social structures. In this way, performativity and subversion may be set more convincingly within a sociologically informed study of masculinity.

This essay considers how we might come to understand social constructionism sociologically. It examines a number of related approaches to gender and sexuality that speak to sociological concerns and might be termed social constructionist: historicism, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and materialist feminism. By recognising that social constructionism is multifarious rather than unified, we find that each social constructionist approach offers particular strengths for analysing the complexities of gender and sexuality. Through closely analysing these approaches and some of the criticisms of them we can reassert sociology's specific contribution, and embrace social constructionist analyses which address the multilayered characteristics of the social in general and gender and sexuality in particular.

No abstract

This article examines the circulation of heterosexist positions within several recent New Zealand media texts. It argues that a recent form of discourse engages liberal language and assumptions in ways that support the privileged position of heterosexuality and the marginalization of homosexuality. The examples given highlight not only the tenor of some recent representations of homosexuality, but also some problems within liberalism. Most notable of these are liberalism's individualism and its failure to recognize the systemic nature of hierarchical power relationships and the constituting of lesbian and gay subjectivities within these relationships. These problems allow liberalism to play an active part in processes of domination and subordination.

The internet is an increasingly important enabler and mediator of sexual relations in society. It has begun to transform older modes of knowing, experiencing and organizing sexuality. In light of an emerging social science literature, this article considers internetmediated sexuality and its consequences for theorizing power. It looks at three ideal typical strands of power in relation to sexuality: the constitutive, the regulatory and the unequal. It considers empirically based discussions alongside broader theoretical concerns: Foucauldian work on discourse and subjectivity, an Althusserian account of interpellation, the symbolic interactionist focus on the presentation of self and feminist analyses of inequality. On the internet, the article suggests, the overlaps between different forms of sexual power are often complex and multi-directional.