Re-reading masculine organization: Phallic, testicular and seminal metaphors

Abstract

This article examines the metaphorical resources provided by specific parts of the male body for thinking masculinity in social and organizational contexts. The genital metaphor of the male phallus is the most familiar, being associated with a form of hegemonic masculinity identified with power and control. However, other parts of the male genitalia can and do act as root metaphors for alternative forms of masculinity. Where the phallic metaphor focuses attention on power and control, the testicular and seminal metaphors highlight aspects of masculinity that are more relational and creative and bring it closer to the feminine. Whilst in social and organizational practice these coexist, in organizational analysis the emphasis has implicitly and explicitly been on the phallic. We generate a framework of the characteristics of each metaphor identifying positive, negative and excessive/inverted modalities that they can take, especially within organizational and institutional settings. We argue that applying a richer metaphorical frame to the study of gendered organizations will facilitate the acknowledgement of neglected potentials in masculinity for co-creating initiatives for organizational change.

‘Any d*** can make a baby, but it takes a real man to be a dad’: Group work for fathers

“…Hegemonic masculinity is closely linked with phallocentric masculinity; sexuality, sexual practice and the display of phallic attributes (Khan et al, 2009;Stephens, 2007). The genital metaphor of the male phallus suggests power and control, and the social construction of masculine hierarchies, since in a patriarchal society, those with a penis tend to be in positions of power (Linstead and Maréchal, 2015). Khan and colleagues (2009:45) suggest that 'the penis is situated at the core of masculinity' since it signifies the reproductive capacity for acquiring fatherhood.…”

“…Khan and colleagues (2009:45) suggest that 'the penis is situated at the core of masculinity' since it signifies the reproductive capacity for acquiring fatherhood. However, the notion of phallic power is fundamentally paradoxical, since it is dependent upon a system that privileges certain masculine identity positions, when masculinities are contested, multiple and shifting (Linstead and Maréchal, 2015). Ferguson and Hogan (2004) argue that Connell's (1995) notion of hegemonic masculinity is useful to see the way in which professionals constitute men in a 'hegemonic fixated' way; not because it is how men 'are', but because it helps to understand the impact of cultural ideals and their influences.…”

Men, Masculinities, and Gender Relations

“…The social category of men is also formed intersectionally, for example, in relation to notions of age, able-bodiedness, class, ethnicity and racialization, as well as nationality and regional location. The upshot of this work is the need to both name and deconstruct both men and masculinities (Hanmer, 1990;Collinson and Hearn, 1994;Whitehead, 2002;Linstead and Marechal, 2015). This involves recognizing the theoretical and empirical significance of heterogeneity within the terms 'men and masculinities': both men and masculinities typically take multiple forms, shaped by other important intersecting dynamics such as class, ethnicity, religion, age, and nationality.…”

Coding military command as a promiscuous practice? Unsettling the gender binaries of leadership metaphors

“…It readily summons bureaucratic rationality, for example-welldefined chains of command, standardized procedures, and regimented discipline in the service of unified purpose and action (Bass, 1990;Price, 2003). With the military comes a vivid vocabulary for controlled, means-end action: tactical missions of collective conquest (Cornelissen et al, 2005), executed through "directive and autocratic leadership" (Krasikova et al, 2013(Krasikova et al, : 1330 in a command climate (Ziegler & DeGrosky, 2008) rife with phallic efficacy (e.g., verbs that conjure decisive, forceful, penetrating agency toward victory; see Linstead & Marechál, 2015). As this suggests, the metaphor evokes unflinching strength, toughness, and even brutality.…”