Approaches to Studying Masculinity: A Nonlinear Perspective of Theoretical Paradigms

Abstract

Abstract:The aim of this paper is to argue that there is a need to locate theoretical paradigms on masculinity within a nonlinear perspective, and this has implications for the conceptualization of the research agenda. Over the last 40 years, discussions and research on masculinity have been arranged in time-related stages where each stage is marked by a change in theoretical underpinnings. These conceptual shifts uphold a distinction between "old" and "new" paradigms where in consequence the former or the latter (depending on personal beliefs) becomes devalued to some degree. This paper suggests that in the context of masculinity studies one cannot impede or deny the usefulness and value of the previous theoretical paradigms. Similarly, new paradigms should not be seen as less significant. The approach based on "nonlinearity of theoretical paradigms" acknowledges the coexistence of paradigms, which are seen as equally relevant to contemporary contexts. Moreover, this discussion on nonlinearity implies that research on masculinity, in its search for comprehensiveness, could apply a concept of theoretical paradigm as a modus operandi for each undertaken study.

Valorizing Trump’s Masculine Self: Constructing Political Allegiance during the 2016 Presidential Election

“…This is the case even if the subject being studied does not explicitly refer to the behavior as gendered (e.g., “I’m tough because I’m a man ”), which is to say analysts’ perspectives shape their interpretations. Although readers are likely more familiar with Connell’s framework, there have always been “coexisting paradigms” in scholarship on men (Borkoski 2018) and allowing space for developing perspectives is arguably beneficial for the field (Bridges 2019).…”

Inclusive masculinity and Czechia youth

“…Despite some early research being engaged with how to help men, the sub-discipline has come to focus on the social problems caused by masculinity. This included both examining the privilege gained by men through their gender (Lorber, 1994) and the social costs to girls and women (Borkowska, 2018).…”

“…Hegemonic masculinity theory failed to explain these new findings and therefore also failed to properly conceptualise these new forms of masculinity. To fill the theoretical gap and offer a more contextualized understanding of the relationship between homophobia and masculinity, Anderson (2009) devised Inclusive Masculinity Theory (IMT), which has recently been described as the third and most recent wave of masculinity scholarship (Borkowska, 2018).…”

Love, Fear, and Disgust: Deconstructing Masculinities and Affective Embodiment in Pregnancy Guides for Men

“…Apart from post-hoc and vague accounts of experiencing "confusion," what this means men may actually feel, or representations of what they may expect to feel, while they navigate pregnancy, labour and birth has received little or no systematic attention. Feelings matter because they tell us something about material-discursive tensions and they direct our attention away from neat post-hoc cognitive social constructions that neglect gendered power relations (Borkowska 2020). When bodies and embodiment become our focus we resist the Cartesian mind-body dualism with its tendency towards an objectification of the body and instead we treat bodies and feelings as important sources of data for understanding entrenched forms of oppression as well as opportunities for empowerment.…”

“…Research examining the rise of adaptive “nurturing” forms of masculinity or masculinities has primarily focused on how men socially construct their identities to integrate caring roles as they transition to becoming fathers (Chin et al 2011; Crespi and Ruspini 2015; England and Dyck 2014). Such studies draw upon respondents’ talk to suggest an enactment of hybrid masculinities (Bridges and Pascoe 2014), generating a literature that finds that “inclusive” masculinities now coexist without dominating one another (Anderson 2009; Borkowska 2020), because men are becoming more emotionally attuned (de Boise and Hearn 2017). However, hegemonic masculinity is adaptive (Connell and Messerschmit 2005), and these studies suggest that it functions in more nuanced ways by absorbing so-called feminine behaviors without radically challenging politically gendered inequalities.…”