Reviews (II) - Hipatia Press

Transcription

Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
Changing Affective Economies of Masculine Machineries and
Military Masculinities? From Ernst Jünger to Shannen
Rossmiller
Ulf Mellström1
1) Karlstads University , Sweden
Date of publication: February 21st, 2013
To cite this article: Mellström, U. (2012). Changing affective economies of
masculine machineries and military masculinities? From Ernst Jünger to
Shannen Rossmiller. Masculinties and Social Change, 2(1), 119. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2013.19
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/MCS.2013.19
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System
and to Creative Commons NonCommercial and NonDerivative License.
MCS- Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 2 No. 1 February 2013 pp.
1-19
Changing Affective Economies
of Masculine Machineries and
Military Masculinities? From
Ernst Jünger to Shannen
Rossmiller
Ulf Mellström
Karlstads University
Abstract
This article discusses the affective economy and changing representations of
military masculinities with regard to transforming gendered, machinic and
digital bodies of integrated (wo)man-machine systems. The self-mechanised
ideal of the soldier body that the German writer Ernst Jünger came to formulate
has been configurative for generations of military masculinities. Jünger’s work
speaks directly to an affective understanding and embodied history of
masculinity in the military. However, in the current times of virtual warfare,
military masculinities are perhaps changing? As war is going cyber and
technical wizardry is as valued as the brute strength of self-mechanised bodies,
the body of the soldier is being destabilised. The case of Shannen Rossmiller is
here working as a contrastive case. Rossmiller is FBI’s most regarded cyber
counter-terrorist. She seems to inhabit and perform certain forms of
masculinities better than her male colleagues.
Keywords: military masculinities, bodies, machinic, digital, affective
economy
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.19
MCS- Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 2 No. 1 February 2013 pp.
1-19
¿Cambiando Economías
Afectivas de Maquinarias
Masculinas y Masculinidades
Militares? De Ernst Jünger a
Shannen Rossmiller
Ulf Mellström
Karlstads University
Resumen
Este artículo reflexiona alrededor de la economía afectiva y las
representaciones de las masculinidades militares con relación a las
transformaciones de género, cuerpos digitales y “maquínicos” de los sistemas
de maquinaria masculinos-femeninos. El ideal auto-mecánico del cuerpo del
soldado que el escritor alemán Ernst Junger formula ha sido configurado por
generaciones de masculinidades militares. El trabajo de Junger se centra
directamente en una comprensión afectiva de la historia del cuerpo en el marco
de la masculinidad en el ejercito. Sin embargo, en los tiempos actuales de un
“warfare” virtual, ¿Las masculinidades militares quizás están cambiando?
Como la Guerra está siendo cyber y la hechicería ténica es valorada como la
fuerza bruta de los cuerpos auto-mecanizados, el cuerpo de los soldados están
siendo desestabilizados. El caso de Shannen Rossmiller se está convirtiendo en
un caso de contraste. Rossmiller es la terrorista-cyber más buscada por el FBI.
Ella parece que interpreta ciertas formas de masculinidad mejor que sus colegas
masculinos.
Palabras claves: masculinidades militares, cuerpos, "maquínico", digital,
economía afectiva
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.19
I
MCS - Masculinities and Social Change, (2) 1
3
n this paper I will articulate a few lines of thought with regard
to a possible changing affective economy of a classical
masculine bastion such as the military. My focus will be on the
transformation of gendered, machinic and digital bodies of integrated
(wo)man-machine systems in the military forces. Different iconographic
figures will be contrasted to illustrate the argument of transformation
and representations of masculinities (and femininities) closely
connected to technology and materiality. My prime focus will be on
masculine gender constructions but I will also be concerned with what
Halberstam (1998) has called female masculinity.
Throughout the history of patriarchy we have witnessed many
different forms of power figurations where bodies, experiences and
materiality have been woven together in intricate forms. The affective
economy of such figurations/configurations has, however, been
surprisingly under-investigated, especially in masculinity studies. Many
classical feminist studies (Cockburn, 1983, 1985; Cohn, 1987; Hacker,
1989; Wajcman, 1991) have and still does a better job in having
intervened into what can be called ‘hardcore masculinities’, and defined
as forms of masculinity that has resisted gendered change and reform,
and cling onto traditional patriarchal core values in social communities
that exclude women, gay, lesbians and transsexual persons (author
2011a).
In line with many other feminist technology scholars (FTS)
(Wajcman, 1991, 2004; Faulkner, 2000, 2001; Oldenziel, 1999) I have
continuously argued that understanding technology, engineering,
machinery and so forth, in constitutive to masculinity, and a key to
understanding patriarchal power relations – i.e. different configurations
of the fusion of men/machines, the soma and the technics of masculinity
and gendered power relations (Mellström, 1995, 1999, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2009, 2011).Throughout the history of FTS the strong material
and symbolic relationship between masculinity and technology has been
given a significant explanatory value in regard to the exclusion of
women in technological fields and has become a key to understanding
masculine dominance. In a number of sociological, historical, an
anthropological studies (Cockburn, 1983, 1985; Hacker, 1989;
Wacjman, 1991, 2004; Faulkner, 2000, 2001; Oldenziel, 1999) the
4
UlfMellström - Changing affective economies
“pervasive and durable equation between masculinity and technology”
(Faulkner, 2000, p.3) has been confirmed. In these studies, we can
observe how technology and the masculinization of power have been
intimately connected. In other studies the individual importance
technologies have for men, have been verified (Mellström, 2002, 2004;
Schyfter, 2009a), and where identification with technology is selfevident. It is taken for granted as it is often part of what it means to be a
man; it is part of a masculine script in many different contexts
(Mellström, 2003). In these studies technology is shown to be an
essential part of many men’s upbringings as boys and connects closely
to definitions of what is masculine and what is not. Crucial for such
identification is the early socialization with and the embodiment of
different machines and technological knowledge and the pleasures
derived from this.
Although far to little research in masculinity studies has ventured into
this intellectual turf, we now see a new wave of studies that infuse
insights of feminist materialism/s into these classical domains of FTS
and direct a stronger focus on the entanglements of body, masculinity,
materiality and emotional experiences (Balkmar and Joelsson, 2010;
Balkmar, 2012; Harrison, 2010, Schyfter, 2009a, 2009b; Olofsson,
2010, 2011; Ericson, 2011).
In this paper I draw, in general terms, on the contributions of these
recent works together with Sara Ahmeds notion of affective economy
(2004) that in particular brings in the affective dimensions of embodied
and hybrid relations between people and machines (see also Scheller
2004). According to Ahmed (2004, p.119)
In such affective economies, emotions do things, and they align
individuals with communities—or bodily space with social
space—through the very intensity of their attachments. Rather than
seeing emotions as psychological dispositions, we need to consider
how they work, in concrete and particular ways, to mediate the
relationship between the psychic and the social, and between the
individual and the collective.
5
The mobilization of emotions within classical masculine bastions
such as the military is in addition deeply rooted in gendered
homosocial/homoerotic collective practices connected to technologies in
various ways. In such practices of masculine fraternity, machines can
often be understood as a means of a performative and embodied
communication enabling homosocial bonding linkages between peers as
well as between generations of men (Mellström, 2003). In other words,
in the construction of masculine fraternity, machines become an
essential element in the sharing of these relationships. Such inclusionary
and exclusionary processes resting on gender complementarity and
essentialising gender discourses have traditionally been used to protect
certain forms of male exclusivity where images of heroism and bravery
are at the core. As a performative ideal for such images it seems that
various military masculinities are still firmly entrenched gender
constructions, in the midst of transformative sexual politics and change
in gender relations, in contemporary societies based upon a legacy of
masculine heroism.
However, with the current ‘post-modernisation’ of civil-military
relations in which international peace-keeping missions are the main
objective for the military organisation rather than defending national
borders (see for instance Moskos, Williams and Segal, 2000; Persson,
2011), do we also witness change in the ways that masculinity is
configured? Moreover, and more to the point of this paper, in what ways
do we, in the current times of technologisation of war and cyber warfare
(Poster, 2011), see changing masculine (and feminine) configurations
with regard to machinic, digital and bodily experiences and
representations? Can we envision alternative representations and
narratives?
Weaponry and emotional work
In her seminal work in FTS in the beginning of the 1990’s Judy
Wajcman (1991, p.138) states:
War is a paradigm of masculine practices because of its pre-eminent
valuation of violence and destruction resonates throughout other
6
male relationships: relationships to other cultures, to the
environment and, particularly, to women.
In her straightforward way of portraying men and masculinity,
Wajcman is getting to the core of how much of the radical feminist
literary on men and masculinities were formulated at the time. In the
power and pleasure dualism that has been a key figure of thought in FTS
the last thirty-forty years, explanatory dimensions of control, and
domination were often connected to psychodynamic thinking in the
1970’s and 1980’s. Psychological explanations visualising a phallic
imagery deeply buried in the minds of men were, for good reasons,
popular. Many feminists were tracing the source of male fascination
with war and weaponry to men’s needs to substitute for the babies they
cannot conceive. As Wajcman notes (1991) “Ironically, the most
comprehensive account of this fundamentally radical position is by a
man, Brian Easlea…” In his still fascinating and readable book
“Fathering the Unthinkable” (1983) Easlea discusses, among other
things, how emotions are being mobilised in the development of the
nuclear bomb by the Los Alamos group in the Manhattan project, led by
Robert Oppenheimer. Besides the calculative and technical rationality
employed in making the nuclear bomb, a great deal of emotional work
was also going into the project. Easleas account is full of details how the
male scientists were overrided with pleasure and joy in their job and
search for technological perfection, how they were celebrating the
dropping of the bomb and how exalted they were over the effectiveness
of the weapon. The sanitized abstractedness of such emotional work was
also the theme of Carol Cohns work (1987) among defence intellectuals
a couple of years after the publication of Easleas book. However, Cohn
was rather interested in how technostrategic discourses helped to reduce
anxiety by distancing “the user from thinking of oneself as a victim,
making it possible to think about the unthinkable” (Wajcman, 1991,
p.140). Both Easlea and Cohn portray worlds where a sexual imagery
and patriarchal euphemisms permeates the emotional work of a
masculinity based on abstraction, domination and control. It is a form of
masculinity that makes strategic decisions and has a hegemonic status
within the military (Connell, 1987).
7
Another form of masculinity in the military is the foot soldiers. It is
the generations of men (and subsequently women) who have been
slaughtered in the trenches of World War I, who have been killed in the
bombings in World War II, the badly armoured afghan soldiers killed by
equally badly equipped taliban soldiers in Afghanistan, the highly
technologised Nato soldiers in Iraq killed by land mines, as well as all
those killed in numerous other wars. It is not the men in positions to
take strategic decisions but rather the ones that are the violators and
victims in parallel. The division of labour within military forces mirrors
disparate versions of masculinity in the civil society based on classed,
aged and racial divisions. Expressed differently and more crudely, the
ruling class men and working class men (Wajcman, 1991). It is among
the latter where constructions of the heroic have been prevalent as an
ideological machinery and discourse motivating young men (and
subsequently women) to risk their lives and where notions of danger and
virility has been at the core of their sense of masculinity.
The balancing point of such discourses is recognised in masculine
heroic images, celebrating courageous deeds, and bravery mythologised
in collective stories of heroes retold and mediated through collective
remembering practices that exemplify the core values of the military
occupations. As such, it connects to a longstanding gendered ‘leitmotif’
in ‘western’ culture of risk taking and mastering of fear as an ultimate
form of masculinity. Whitehead (2002, p.413) conflates this with
masculinity as a gendered configuration where the ‘doing’ of
masculinity equals acts of courage, mastering fear, and risk
‘management’. And to add a historical note, in the origins of ‘western’
culture in ancient Greece and the republic of Rome, the citizen was the
soldier. Others (women, foreigners, slaves) who could not serve in battle
could consequently not become citizens.
The affective economy of masculine subjectivity connected to war,
citizenship, heroism and invulnerability is thus a loaded gendered
heritage or as Barbara Ehrenreich summed up some twenty five years
ago: “Recall that it is not only that men make wars, but that wars make
men” (Ehrenreich, 1987, p.26). In the ideological as well as the bodily
making of men, the technological and the machinic has been at the
centre of this gender complex, not least in the industrial military
complex.
8
Integration of the machinic
Entanglements and integration of machinery and the machinic in the
military is, as partly discussed before, a long-standing theme with many
lines of thought in relation to power and pleasure, transcendence,
eroticism, lust, submission, penetration etcetera. The historian Lewis
Mumford (1934) has argued that the very first machine was an army
consisting of the soldiers and their weapons as the moving parts.
Mumford pointed to how weaponry and the disciplining of individual
bodies/soldiers into cleanly working parts, and the military’s fostering
of automation have contributed to the drive to integrate humans and
machines into effective complex systems. No doubt, it also within the
military where cyborgian ideals was formulated long before Manfred
Clynes coined the term cyborg. As Chris Hables Gray (2000, p.53) puts
it: “Cyborgs were a dream long before there were even machines…” As
Gray also has documented (Gray, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2001), the precyborgian history is full automatons, golems, homunculus, etcetera. A
desire for and fantasy of human transcendence is a common feature for
these hybrid creatures. In pre modern history different forms of
automatons is without exception connected to different religious
pursuits in trying to transgress life in its limited organic corporeal form.
It is however in the 19th and 20th century that automatons is
becoming an important part of military machineries although the dream
of the invulnerable and indestructible machinic man has been around
since ancient Rome and probably well before that. The mechanization of
the war and the soldier man walks hand in hand with industrialism and
‘scientific management’. The machinalisation of (hu)mankind that
Friedrich Nietzche talked about was also a machinalisation of war in the
name of industrial efficiency and technical rationality. The masculine
devotion to machineries and the symbolic marriage between men and
machines, where also given poignant expression in the art movements of
Russian constructivism, Dadaism and Italian futurism. The early 20th
century was in many ways an artistic zenith for the fusion of weaponry
and masculinity. For instance, for the Italian futurist Marinetti, the
modern man was a man multiplied with the machine (Edwards, 1988,
p.14). The idea of man multiplied by machinery is also a central theme
throughout modernity, ideologically as well as in different forms of
9
embodied expressions of masculinity. This is what Gray (2001) calls
“Man Plus”.
The affectiveness of this long-lived dream of the machinic, and the
prosthetic integration of masculinity and weaponry have had many sad
moments. Such a sad and truly vitalistic moment in military history is
vividly described by the German historian of ideas, Klaus Theweleit in
his impressive two volume, (very thick) “Männer Phantasien” (Male
Fantasies) (1978), where he examines the psychology of the German
Freikorps during WW I. Theweleith depicts the emergence of a new
type of man, one with a deeply erotic and ambivalent relationship
towards mechanisation. This new man was a creature whose physique
had been machinalised, his psyche eliminated – or in part displaced into
his body armour. This self-mechanisation doubly achieves a crucial and
pleasureable function for the soldier man. It is an affectiveness that in
the words of Theweleit interpreting the work of Ernst Jünger (1980,
p.162) performs of a self-mechanised masculinity ”…whose instinctual
energies have been smoothly and frictionlessly transformed into
functions of his steel body." This machinised man with a mechanised
psyche and machinalised body should devote his life to the machine.
"Yes the machine is beautiful: its beauty is self-evident to anyone who
lives life in all its fullness and power. We must imbue the machine with
our own inner qualities" (Theweleith, 1980, p.197). In return the soldier
man will reach "a higher and deeper satisfaction" (Theweleith, 1980).
The ideological and performative function of this self-mechanisation,
which Jünger held as the ultimate ideal for the soldier man, is evident. It
would motivate him to risk his life in the dreadful existence of the
trenches, to find a higher motive in the hopelessness of an endless war.
The ultimate goal of affective explosion is according to Theweleit: “The
crucial impulse behind the regeneration of the machine seems to be its
desire for release - and release is achieved when the totality-machine
and its components explode in battle.” (Theweleith, 1980, p.155).
The writings of Ernst Jünger interpreted by Theweleit is a sort of
figuration where mechanisation, intimacy and the body are tightly
woven together and which has since become a psychological profile and
ideal for generations of military masculinities, both in a modern and
postmodern descriptive sense. The integrated man-machine ontologies
10
have just been accentuated since. Or as Gray (2000, p.281) has it: “This
long standing incestuous relationship between war, men, and machines
may well have finally birthed the psychological reality of cyborgs in the
hell of 1917.”
Integration of the machinic
The cyborgised soldier is today a reality in terms of a fully integrated
man-machine system. Cybernetics is now the dominant metaphor in the
postmodern military. Computers are the most important force, man
plus-multiplier, and the cyborg man machine weapons system the ideal
(Gray, 1997). Enormous resources are spent on making soldiers into
cyborgs. We have seen a technological development where, for instance,
(hu)man-machine interfaces have been improved incredibly with
information being displayed on windshields, visors, or even broadcast
directly into the eyes and ears of weapon operators (Gray, 2000, p.281).
Such technological interventions along with shift of focus from warfighting to peacemaking and from warriors to technologists have
profoundly changed the construction of what it means to be a soldier in
an ontological meaning – not least in gendered terms. The cyborgisation
of the soldier during the 1990’s and 2000’s, and not least the cultural
coding, geared towards new forms of masculine identity is pointing
towards a less self-fixated self-mechanisation but rather fixing the
machinic in virtual warfare.
As Gray (2000) reports, gender categories for the postmodern soldier
is not self-evident. A female US trooper in Saudi Arabia told a
newspaper reporter “There aren’t any men or women here, just
soldiers”. Apparently these soldiers need not be heterosexual either, as
gays now serve openly in the military. Gay men serve
in about half the NATO armies and secretly in all the others. Gray
speculates around the current insecurity of may be caused by the
generated by the general crisis of war, an institution that possibly and
hopefully is becoming obsolete. Another reason is perhaps the changed
mission of the military more broadly, from a reactive organisation to an
increasingly proactive one, relying less and less on a classical masculine
identity of physical force, easy access to violence, and the direct
11
subjugation of other men and women. As same-sex relationships now are
out in the open, it also connects to a well-known theme of masculine
brotherhood and homoeroticism in military history. In comparison to the
almost institutionalized misogyny and homophobia of military
establishments throughout most the 20th century, it is noteworthy to see
that there have been other gendered configurations in the history of
military organization. For instance, “The Sacred Band ofThebes, made up
ofmale lovers, was much admired by Alexander the Great and erotic male
bonding has been implicitly accepted in many armies since.” (Gray, 2000)
Thus, it seems that war and military operations is no longer an
exclusively masculine heterosexual task, if it ever has been, considering
the civilian causalities of war. So, with an increasing integration of
machinic and digital bodies of integrated (wo)man-machine systems,
gender identity is less stable, providing new sources of gendered
legitimacy for a changing affective economy of military masculinities.
Another destabilising source is the continuous virtualisation of warfare.
New forms of information based technical platforms is at the heart of
contemporary productions of war and military organisation, including a
wide range of activities such as control of media and communication
channels, new means for manipulating war propaganda, ‘hacking’ of
databases and online networks. In general, ICT’s (Information and
Communication Technologies), are through their capacities of
democratisation, virtualisation, and transnationalism a source opening up
for blurred gender boundaries within the military forces (Peterson and
Runyan, 2010; Poster, 2011). The classical binaries of men-women,
soldiers-mothers, protectors-protected, aggressive-passive are becoming
less bounded as the military actors are being decoupled from their bodies.
Identity management is a continuously increasing activity for training and
military operations.
The Internet literature has explored many different contexts for identity
work (see for instance Turkle, 1995; Boellstorf, 2008; Mellström, 2009).
However, the dynamics of these processes with regard to the military is,
as Winifred Poster (2011) has shown, still an under investigated theme in
the literature on identity management and shifting in the context of
websites and social forums. In Poster’s own work, she considers three
different domains within the US military where new ways of gender
swapping is played out:
12
In leadership, as the new state info-czars are overwhelmingly
female; in training, with the virtual war games where soldiers
practice peacekeeping instead of war; and in counter-intelligence,
with the activities of cyber-spies who gather information by posing
as Iraqi militants online. (Poster 2011, p.7)
With a point of departure in Poster’s work, I shall before concluding
provide an example where masculinity is at stake in a number of
different ways.
It's Erin Brockovich meets Lara Croft
This is how Josh Schreff, who owns the book, movie and TV rights to
Shannen Rossmiller's story, characterize this rather unexpected, and
nowadays increasingly famous American cyberspy. In the magazine
Wired (2007) she is described as: “Shannen Rossmiller grew up on a
Montana wheat farm. She is blond and slim. Her husband runs a
wireless Internet company, and they have three children. After college,
she was appointed a local judge in a small Montana town, where she
and her family still live and which she'd rather not identify.” Rossmiller
has used her computer skills and knowledge of Arabic to infiltrate
jihadist cells on the Internet. Shocked and truamatized by, and as
consequence of 9/11, she taught herself Arabic and has created online
pseudonyms, pretending to be sympathetic to Al-Qaeda plotters in order
to lure them into revealing information leading to their capture.
In one account Rossmiller writes:
I created my first terrorist cover identity on the Internet on March
13, 2002, to communicate and interact with these targets. In my first
chat room sting, I convinced a Pakistani man that I was an Islamist
arms dealer. When he offered to sell me stolen U.S. Stinger missiles
to help the jihadists fighting the U.S. and coalition forces in
Afghanistan, I used the Persian Gulf dialect of Arabic to ask him to
provide me with information that I could use to confirm his claims,
such as stock numbers. Within a couple of weeks, the missile
identification numbers were in my computer inbox. Stock numbers
and the e-mail correspondence in hand, I intended to drive to the
closest field office for the FBI here in Montana but was afraid that
13
the FBI would not take me seriously. What were the chances of a
Montana mom showing up at their door with information about an
individual in Pakistan who was trying to sell Stinger missiles?
Instead, I submitted the information to the FBI's online tips site.
(Rossmiller, 2007, p.44).
Rossmiller's tips is said to have helped the FBI break up as many as
200 terrorist plots around the globe. The two biggest federal cases in the
U.S. traceable to her investigative work were that of an Alaska pipeline
engineer, Michael Curtis Reynolds, convicted in 2007, and the trial of
Ryan Anderson in 2004. Anderson was a National Guardsman who now
serves five life sentences for treason, convicted of funneling American
Army secrets to Al-Qaeda. Her information has also led US forces in
Afghanistan to locate Taliban cells, to discover a renegade stingermissile merchant in Pakistan, and help a European government to
identify a ring of potential suicide bombers. One explanation to
Rossmillers success is a fundamental flaw in al Qaeda's famously
decentralized organization, which apparently is the absence of a strict
hierarchy. This makes it relatively easy for a knowledgeable person like
Rossmiller to mix among these groups. Rossmiller has over the years
posed as a potential jihadist soldier looking for like-minded. She creates
multiple characters and uses her older and more respected personae to
invite the new ones into private forums. Rossmiller works the terrorism
boards as if she were playing a complex videogame (Hitt, 2007). Her
manifold characters come complete with distinct personalities and
detailed biographies. Rossmiller is most serious about her characters: "I
have a hard time letting go of these guys, because I kinda become them.
When you develop a personality, you essentially morph into it. It's hard
to let it go" (Hitt, 2007). She is also very meticulous in her work and
keeps copies of everything, time-stamps files, as well as taken
screenshots. She is reported to have an Excel spreadsheet that details the
640 people with whom she has had contact on these boards since 2002.
Rossmiller’s case is interesting for many reasons. It does not least
begs the question about intersecting gender and ethnicity identity
swapping online as well as what it means for the affective economy of
military masculinities, formerly so closely connected to different
embodied forms of masculine performativity.
14
As Poster (2011, p.9) has shown in her work, Rossmiller is in many
ways at the intersection of many different understandings that
historically have been mutually exclusive in our understandings of
military masculinity. “In a geographical sense, the home front of her
kitchen is the battle front; she travels globally online while her local
position has not changed.” (Poster, 2011). In her daily life she is a rather
average American small town woman, while in her virtual life she is a
Middle Eastern avatar. She is in parallel an enemy soldier and the
patriotic soldier. She is both male and female. She is a violent-seeking
masculine jihadist in the chat rooms while at the same time taking care
of her children at home, etcetera.
Rossmillers case raises the issue of who can be a soldier within in
times of virtual warfare? For good reasons it seems that one doesn’t
need to be a man to be a good cyber-soldier. “In fact, as Rossmiller
shows, one doesn’t need to be a man to be a good masculine cybersoldier”. (Poster, 2011) Apparently Rossmiller is better at acting as a
masculine jihadist than many of her male counterparts in the FBI. To
what an extent are women more generally skilled to be cyberwarriors?
Is cyber warfare an open gendered space? As it seems, masculinity is no
doubt a space open for interpretation in this context. In any case,
Rossmiller’s case as one of the most successful cyber warriors in
(post)modern times, has opened up opportunities for women in counterintelligence work as well as proving that virtual masculinities are a
performative phenomenon that makes it rather irrelevant what sex is
behind the screen.
Conclusive remarks
In this text I have through various examples shown how an increasing
technologisation of warfare with regard to cyborgian and digital
machineries is opening up new gendered spaces within the affective
economy of the military. It does not imply that the long-lived dream of
the indestructible soldier is evaporating but rather that it is creating
confusion over identity, which not least spills over to gendered
configurations.The realities of postmodern war and cyborg soldiering
are shrinking the homosocial and homoerotic spaces of classical
masculine machineries. Cyborgs and virtual avatars can be masculine of
15
feminine, but also have the potential of being neutered. New
possibilities for hetero-social and homosexual spaces have also
increasingly challenged the monolithic gendered binary system of the
military. In any case it seems that previous simplistic male/female
categories cannot stand against shifting gendered desires and actions,
new forms of masculinities and femininities in the military forces that
comes together with an increasing cyborgisation of bodies as well as the
masses of virtual avatars that sustain cyber warfare. This does not mean
that the military looses its masculine connotations but that new
masculine identities are constructed around mechanisation and
virtualisation rather than self-machinalisation, that physical force gives
way to fixing machines and acting in the virtual space of informatics
and computer-tech wizardry. Admittingly, military cyborgs and avatars
are still heavily masculine in their cultural coding, but these new
versions seems at least easier to adapt to for women and homosexual
men. They might even be better at staging the emotional work that goes
into this gendered cultural coding, opening up the affective economy
previously so closely connected to male bodies, masculine heroism and
bravery. The basic soldier identity is increasingly gender insecure,
perhaps “…vaguely male in dress and posture, vaguely female in status,
and vaguely masculine-mechanical in role and image.” (Gray, 2001,
p.58), or as in the case of Shannen Rossmiller, transforming and
transcending dominant military masculinities by virtualization. It all
begs for the question; Who can be a real man and soldier these days?
References
Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics ofemotion. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press
Balkmar, D. & Joelsson, T. (2010). Den bioniske mannen på
autoeroriska äventyr: mäns risktagande i trafikrummet. Nordic
Journal for Masculinity Studies, 5(1), 27-44. Retrieved from
http://www.idunn.no/ts/norma/2010/01/art06
Balkmar, D. (2012). On Men and Cars: An Ethnographic study of
gendered, risky and dangerous relations. Diss, Linköping
University: Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences
16
Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming ofAge in Second Life. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Cockburn, C. (1983). Male dominance and technological change.
London: Pluto Press.
Cockburn, C. (1985). Machinery ofDominance: Women, Men and
Technical Know-How. London: Pluto Press.
Cohn, C. (1987). Sex and death in the rational world of defense
intellectuals. Signs, 12(4), 687-718. Retrieved from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00979740%28198722%2912%3A4%3C687%3ASADITR%3E2.0.CO
%3B2-E
Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power: society, the person and
sexual politics. Cambridge: Polity in association with Blackwell.
Easlea, B. (1983). Fathering the Unthinkable. London: Pluto Press.
Edwards, F. (Ed.) (1988). Futuristisk teater & film . Stockholm:
Författarförlaget.
Ehrenreich, B. (1987). Iran scam: the real meaning of Oliver North - can
a member of the warrior caste survive the horror of peace?’ , Ms.,
May, 26.
Ericson, M. (2011). Nära inpå: maskulinitet, intimitet och gemenskap i
brandmäns arbetslag. Diss, Göteborg: Göteborgs university.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2077/2538
Faulkner, W. (2000). The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for
“making gender stick” to engineers. Science, Technology, &
Human Values, 25(1), 87-119. doi: 10.1177/016224390002500104
Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from
feminist technology studies. Women's Studies International Forum
24(1), 79-95. doi: 10.1016/S0277-5395(00)00166-7
Gray, C. H. (1993). The Culture ofWar Cyborgs: Technoscience,
Gender, and Postmodern War. Research in Philosophy and
Technology, 13 , 141-163.
Gray, C.H. (1997). Postmodern War: The New Politics ofConflict.
London: Routledge.
Gray, C. H. (2000). Enhanced Cyborgs and the Construction of the
Future Masculine. Science as Culture, 9(3), 277-301. doi:
10.1080/713695253
17
Gray, C. H. (2001). Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age.
London: Routledge.
Hacker, S. (1989). Pleasure, power and technology: Some tales of
gender, engineering, and the cooperative workplace. Boston:
Unwin Hyman.
Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ.
Press.
Harrison, K. (2010). Discursive skin: entanglements ofgender,
discourse and technology. Linköping: Linköpings university.
Hitt, J. (2007, July 23). Behind Enemy Lines With a Suburban
Counterterrorist. Wired, 15(11). Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/1511/ff_rossmiller?currentPage=all
Holth, L. & U.Mellström. (2011). Revisiting Engineering, Masculinity
and Technology Studies: Old Structures with New Openings.
International Journal ofGender, Science, and Technology. 3 (2),
313-329. Retrieved from
http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/vie
w/134/328
Mellström, U. (1995). Engineering lives: Technology, time and space in
a male centred world. Linköping: Linköping Studies in Art and
Science.
Mellström, U. (1999) Män och deras maskiner. (Men and their
Machines) . Nora: Nya Doxa.
Mellström, U. (2002) Patriarchal machines and masculine embodiment.
Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(4), 460-478. doi:
10.1177/016224302236177
Mellström, U. (2003). Masculinity, Power and Technology: A Malaysian
Ethnography. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Mellström, U. (2004). Machines and masculine subjectivity, technology
as an integral part of men’s life experiences. Men and
Masculinities, 6(4), 368-383. doi: 10.1177/1097184X03260960
Mellström, U. (2009). The intersection of gender, race, and cultural
boundaries or why is computer science in Malaysia dominated by
women?. Social Studies ofScience, 39(6), 885–907. doi:
10.1177/0306312709334636
18
Mellström, U. (2011). Moving beyond the comfort zone of masculinity
politics. Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies, 1 (6),1-4.
Retrieved from
http://www.idunn.no/ts/norma/2011/01/art05?textSize=smaller
Moskos, C. C., Williams, J.A. and Segal, D. R. (2000). (Eds). The
Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War. New York
and Oxford: Retrievedy Press.
Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and company.
Oldenziel, R. (1999). Making technology masculine: Men, women, and
modern machines in America, 1870-1945. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Olofsson, J. (2010). Taking place - augmenting space: spatial diffusion
in times oftechnological change. Luleå : Luleå tekniska
universitet, 2010. Retrieved from
http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/5022749/Jennie_Olofsson_Doc2010.p
df.
Olofsson, J. (2011). Cut out to handle a ladder?: Age, experience and
acts of commemoration. Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies,
6(1), 5-21. Retrieved from
http://www.idunn.no/ts/norma/2011/01/art07
Persson, A. (2011). Changing boundaries, defending boundaries:
gender relations in the Swedish Armed Forces. Linköping:
Linköpings university.
Peterson, V. S. & A. S. Runyan. (2010). Global Gender Issues in the
New Millenium . Boulder, CO, Westview Press.
Poster, W.(2011, May). The Iraqi Jihadist Who Was Really a U.S.
Homecoming Queen: The Transformation of Military
Masculinities in Cyberwar. Paper presented at the Conference Men
and Masculinities Moving On Again! of Linköping University,
Sweden.
Rossmiller, S. (2007). My Cyber Counter-jihad. Middle East Quarterly,
14(3) , 43-48. Retrieved from http://www.meforum.org/1711/mycyber-counter-jihad
Schyfter, P. (2009a). Tackling the ‘body inescapable’ in sport: body
-artifact kinesthetics, embodied skill and the community of
19
practice in lacrosse masculinity. Body & Society, 14(3), 81-103.
doi: 10.1177/1357034X08093573
Schyfter, P. (2009b). Entangled Ontologies, A sociophilosophical
analysis oftechnological artefacts, subjects, and bodies, Ph.D.
Science and Technology Studies. The University of Edinburgh.
Sheller. M. (2004). Automotive Emotions: Feeling the Car. Theory
Culture & Society, 21 (4-5), 221-242. doi:
10.1177/0263276404046068
Theweleit, K. (1977-1978). Männerphantasien. Frankfurt am Main:
Roter Stern.
Theweleit, K. (1980). Männerphantasien. Reinbek bei Hamburg:
Rowolth.
Toro-Troconis, M. & U. Mellström, (2010). Game-based learning in
Second Life. Does Gender Make a Difference?. Journal of
Gaming and Virtual Worlds, 1 (2), 53-76. doi:
10.1386/jgvw.2.1.53_1
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age ofthe Internet.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism Confronts Technology. Pennsylvania:
Penn State University Press and Cambridge: Polity Press.
Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Whitehead, S. (2002). Men and masculinities: Key themes and new
directions. Malden, Mass: Polity.
aUlf Mellström is Professor of Gender Studies at Karlstad
University, Sweden.
Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Ulf Mellström at
Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2, Karlstad, Sweden
Email: [email protected]
The “Mask of Masculinity”: Underreported Declines in Male
Friendship and Happiness in the United States
Jessie Klein1
1) Adelphi University, United States of America
To cite this article: Klein, J. (2013). The “Mask of Masculinity”:
Underreported Declines in Male Friendship and Happiness in the United
States. Masculinities and Social Change, 2(1), 2050. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2013.20
MCS - Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 2 No. 1 February 2013 pp.
20-50
The “Mask of Masculinity”:
Underreported Declines in
Male Friendship and
Happiness in the United States
Jessie Klein
Adelphi University
Abstract
Men suffer more as a result of contemporany social trends than is commonly
known. A recent focus on women’s greater malaise may unnecessarily and
inaccurately pathologize women’s emotional well-being. A widely cited study
declares that women are less happy than they were thirty-five years ago and
that their unhappiness is increasing at a faster rate than men’s. A closer
examination of related research, however, indicates that men are faring at least
as badly as women, especially due to trends in decreased social connections. In
particular, the dissolution of marriage, one of the few institutions fostering
social connections, may be particularly debilitating towards men. New
technologies, increased pressures towards self-reliance, and extreme economic
pressures are also linked to higher stress among men. This gender comparison,
regarding whether men or women are less happy, occurs at a time when
depression and anxiety are extremely high among American adults and youth;
and happiness, according to several studies, is decreasing. In light of these
concerns, future research must address these gaps in order to accurately assess
men's well-being and social ties; and social change regarding efforts to increase
well-being and community must be sensitive to needs more commonly
associated with men (as well as women).
Keywords: masculinities, friendship, well-being
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.20
MCS - Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 2 No. 1 February 2013 pp.
20-50
La "Máscara de la
Masculinidad": La amistad y
la Felicidad Masculina Como
Asignatura Pendiente
Jessie Klein
Adelphi University
Resumen
Los hombres sufren más, de lo que comúnmente se conoce, como consecuencia de
las actuales tendencias sociales. Un enfoque reciente enfatiza la existencia de un
mayor malestar de las mujeres que puede llegar a patologizar su bienestar
emocional de forma innecesaria . Un estudio ampliamente citado declara que las
mujeres son menos felices de lo que eran hace treinta y cinco años y que su
infelicidad está aumentando a un ritmo más rápido que los hombres. Sin embargo,
un examen más detallado de la investigación en este ámbito indica que los hombres
están sufriendo por lo menos tanto como las mujeres, especialmente debido a las
tendencias en la disminución de las relaciones sociales. En particular, la disolución
del matrimonio, una de las pocas instituciones que fomentan las relaciones sociales,
puede ser especialmente debilitante para los hombres. Las nuevas tecnologías, el
aumento de las presiones hacia la autosuficiencia, y las extremas presiones
económicas también son aspectos vinculados a un mayor estrés entre los hombres.
Esta comparación entre ambos géneros, es decir referentes a si los hombres o las
mujeres son menos felices, se produce en un momento en que la depresión y la
ansiedad son muy altas entre los adultos estadounidenses y los jóvenes, mientras
que la felicidad, según varios estudios, también está disminuyendo. A la luz de estas
preocupaciones, las investigaciones futuras deben abordar estas lagunas a fin de
evaluar con precisión el bienestar de los hombres, sus vínculos sociales, el cambio
social y los esfuerzos para aumentar el bienestar. La comunidad debe ser sensible a
las necesidades más comúnmente asociadas con los hombres (y también de las
mujeres).
Palabras clave: masculinidades, amistad, bienestar
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.201 3.20
22
M
Jessie Klein - The Mask ofMasculinity
en suffer more as a result of recent social trends than is
commonly known. This article examines signs of decreased
well-being among men, discusses why it occurs, and suggests
directions for future research and social change.
A current focus on women’s greater malaise may unnecessarily and
inaccurately pathologize women’s emotional well-being. A widely cited
study declares that women are less happy than they were thirty-five
years ago and that their unhappiness is increasing at a faster rate than
men’s. A closer examination of related research, however, indicates that
men are faring at least as badly as women, especially due to trends in
decreased social connections. In particular, the dissolution of marriage,
one of the few institutions fostering social connections, may be
particularly debilitating towards men.
New technologies, increased pressures towards self-reliance, and
extreme economic pressures are also linked to higher stress among men.
This gender comparison, regarding whether men or women are less
happy, occurs at a time when depression and anxiety are extremely high
among American adults and youth; and relatedly, happiness, according
to several studies, is decreasing. In light of these concerns, future
research must address these gaps in order to accurately assess men's
well-being and social ties; surveys need to also address the specific
social pressures men from disparate ethnic and racial backgrounds may
experience; and social change regarding efforts to increase well-being
and community must be sensitive to needs more commonly associated
with men.
Highly publicized research by Betsy Stevenson & Justin Wolfers
conveys that women’s reported happiness decreased at a faster rate than
men’s since the 1980s (2009); media reports of the study falsely
suggested in turn that women are significantly and absolutely less happy
than men. For instance a New York Times op-ed reported on the
study—and stated: “In postfeminist America, men are happier than
women” (Douthat, 2009). In fact the study conveys that men often
indicate lower rates of satisfaction than women on such issues as
marriage, work, and health (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009); even though
men may be less likely to report their related loneliness and
vulnerability.
23
What follows is a discussion of the role gender plays in decreased
social connection and reported well-being for men in particular. The
paper addresses four contemporary social trends and their impact on
men—declines in marriage; hyper self-reliance values; new
technologies; and increased economic pressures; these shifts have been
considered culpable in the decline of social connection and happiness in
the United States more generally—but have not been collectively
examined adequately with regard to their impact on men, in particular.
Popularized research regarding women’s decline in well-being
pathologizes women unnecessarily; since men tend to report their
unhappiness in ways that typical surveys are likely to miss—men are at
risk for having their malaise mis- or undiagnosed; and may then lose
access to much needed support.
New surveys must become more sensitive to how men manifest and
report their emotional challenges. Otherwise research results relating to
gender disparities regarding well-being are necessarily problematic.
Overview
Recent surveys of happiness, well-being, and social connection present
a picture of growing malaise and isolation in the United States
(Blanchflower & Oswald, 2001; McPherson et al., 2006; Olds &
Schwartz, 2009; Twenge, 2006). Writing in 2001, D.G. Blanchflower
and A.J. Oswald found that according to the General Social Survey, 34
percent of Americans in the 1970s described themselves as very happy,
but by the late 1990s, the figure was 30 percent (5). The number of
Americans who said there was no one with whom they discussed
important matters nearly tripled since 1985; 25 percent of those
surveyed in 2004 said they had no confidants whatsoever (McPherson et
al., 2006, p. 353)1 . In addition, the 2000 census reports that 26 percent
of households consist of one person only, as compared with 16 percent
in 1970 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, p. 5-1). There are more people
living alone today than at any point in American history.
Much of the attention toward these trends focuses on women. In their
much-cited article “The Paradox of Declining Happiness,” Betsey
Stevenson and Justin Wolfers declare that despite apparent gains in
24
several objective areas, women are significantly less happy than they
were thirty-five years ago (2009), and that their happiness is decreasing
at a faster rate than men’s. At the same time, popular and scholarly
studies showing that women are at least twice as likely as men to suffer
from depression have entered the public consciousness (Angold et al.,
1999; Peterson et al., 1991; Pichardo, 2006; Silberg et al., 1999).
Other studies, however, highlight survey unreliability due to the
socialization with which men contend. Men are often pressured to deny
to themselves and others any vulnerability or weakness, and may be
therefore less likely to report accurately on well-being assessments. A
closer examination of related research indicates that men may be faring
just as poorly as women, if not worse. In their book The Lonely
American (2009), Jacqueline Olds and Barry Schwartz write that men
tend to be affected more negatively than women by the American trend
towards decreased social connections. Additionally, a flood of research
about young boys and men reveals hidden trends toward male
depression that do not necessarily get reported on typical assessment
reports (Cochran & Rabinowitz, 2000; Diamond, 1998; Hart, 2001;
Pollack, 1998a; Pollack, 1998b; Real, 1998; Rochlen et al., 2005).
These findings suggest that decreased well-being and social
relationships is taking place for both men and women in the United
States; that the average American is less happy, and lonelier, than in
decades prior; that women may be pathologized more as a result of their
(perhaps healthier) inclinations to express their feelings; and that men
are experiencing unhappiness that may well be more formidable than is
generally recognized.
Gender and Declines in Social Connection and Reported Well-Being
The impact of decreased social connection and related unhappiness
among both men and women extends to all areas of life. Medical
research indicates that social connection has powerful effects on health.
Socially connected people tend to live longer, respond better to stress,
have more robust immune systems, and do better at fighting a variety of
specific illnesses. Health and happiness are linked to social connections
25
(Olds & Schwartz, 2009) and physical health is in turn linked to
increases in happiness (Siahpush et al., 2008). Increases in anxiety are
also linked to a host of medical problems including asthma, coronary
heart disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), ulcers, and inflammatory
bowel disease. Anxiety is now more common than depression; and as
anxiety increases, many of these physical ailments are expected to
increase among Americans too, especially IBS (Twenge, 2000).
These adverse health effects may well impact men more than women,
since research shows that men are less likely than women to report
physical symptoms and are then more at-risk for developing more
complicated conditions. One study suggests that men report physical
symptoms 50 percent less often than women, and that men report
emotional problems significantly less often than women as well, even
when controlled for the fact that mental disorders are found to be more
common among women (Kroenke & Spitzer, 1998). In fact, women
might appear to have disproportionately higher mental disorders than
men precisely because men have been so effectively conditioned to hide
their feelings and difficulties from themselves and others.
While many social trends may have equal or greater negative impacts
on men than on women, more attention is paid to women’s unhappiness
in popular and scholarly reports (Angold et al., 1999; Peterson et al.,
1991; Pichardo, 2006; Silberg et al., 1999; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009).
This article seeks to elucidate the concomitant trend toward male
unhappiness by using feminist masculinity theory to analyze a widely
reported and recognized study on the trend toward female unhappiness.
Pressures on men to deny their feelings may hurt men, but these
expectations undermine women too who are often stigmatized with
“emotional disorders” when compared with men --who may (falsely)
appear less disturbed.
In their work, Stevenson and Wolfers write that women report
decreased happiness during the same time they have gained so much in
terms of equal rights and opportunities. The study covers the period 35
years prior to its 2009 publication; during this time, women’s lives have
improved according to several objective measures, including career and
education opportunities and physical health, but their reported wellbeing decreased. According to Stevenson & Wolfers, in the 1970s,
26
women reported higher relative well-being to men. Today, however,
women report that they are less happy “both absolutely and relative to
men” (2009, p. 190).
What the study underemphasizes, however, is the still high rate of
current dissatisfaction among men on a host of specific markers. The
authors assessed satisfaction across a number of domains, including
marriage, work, health, and finances. They found that women reported
decreasing satisfaction in some areas, but that “typically men reported
similar, or even more rapid, declines” (2009, p. 194). Yet men do not
report a similar decline in overall well-being. Women reported less
satisfaction than men both relatively and absolutely on only one
barometer: They are less happy with their family’s financial situation
(2009, p. 194). Stevenson and Wolfers ask, but do not pursue, an
alternative research question: “Why has men’s reported happiness not
declined in line with women’s happiness, given their observed decrease
in well-being across a multitude of domains?” (2009, p. 221).
One explanation may well be that it tends to be more socially
acceptable for men to report low levels of satisfaction in significant
domains, which may indicate a level of indignation considered on some
level “manly.” At the same time, it has been less normalized for men to
report low levels of happiness, which might indicate vulnerability less
associated with masculinity. Stevenson and Wolfers’ findings that men
report decreased satisfaction in various areas, but not decreased overall
well-being, may illustrate the findings by William Pollack and others
that men’s depression and overall well-being is not accurately reported
on typical surveys (Cochran & Rabinowitz, 2000; Diamond, 1998; Hart,
2001; Pollack, 1998a; Pollack, 1998b; Real, 1998; Rochlen et al., 2005).
There is no doubt, based on Stevenson and Wolfers’ study that
women’s happiness levels have declined. What is less clear is whether
men are any happier than women. Women report being less happy than
they were in the 1970s, whereas men report being just as unhappy, if not
more unhappy, than they were in the 1970s (2009, p. 196). According to
Blanchflower and Oswald’s (2001) study, men in the 1970s reported
being significantly less happy than women did (2001, p. 5-6). By the
late 1990s, men still reported lower happiness scores overall when
compared with women, though the disparity had decreased (2001, p. 5-
27
6; 19). Further, Stevenson and Wolfers’ study does not make clear
whether women’s happiness has actually declined such that it is now
lower than men’s-only that it is has indeed decreased (absolutely) and
that it has decreased at a rate that is faster (relatively) than that noted for
men.
We may not yet know the extent to which men struggle with
unhappiness, loneliness, and other emotional challenges. Masculinity
theorists document the tendency for men to not report their more
complex feelings on surveys or comparable inquiries. They learn early
to develop what Pollack calls in his book Real Boys (1998b) a “mask of
masculinity:” by acting tough and casual, young boys learn to hide their
more vulnerable feelings (1998b, p. 11). On psychological studies or
surveys, Pollack writes, they are less likely to report their pain. Because
of pressure to appear masculine, they try to act tough and independent
even when they are depressed. Pollack writes that advanced research
tells us that boys are just as unhappy as girls, but they don’t necessarily
share their struggles with others (Klein & Chancer, 2000, p. 152).
Instead of the range of feelings available to girls, boys are expected to
express only anger; in schools boys are more likely to be teased and
ridiculed if they show others that they are sad or reveal that they might
have been crying. Boys are tutored instead to portray to the world a
“calm and cool” front (Pollack, 1998b, p. 13).
Pollack further argues that adult men manifest depression through
self-reports distinctly different from women and that “our diagnostic
tools are too often blind to this gender disparity” (1998b, p. 160). Other
studies also confirm that the high rate of men’s depression is not
accurately reported on typical surveys and that new diagnostic tools are
necessary to learn the full extent of men’s maladies (Cochran &
Rabinowitz, 2000; Diamond, 1998; Hart, 2001; Pollack, 1998a; Pollack,
1998b; Real, 1998; Rochlen et al., 2005).
The National Institute of Mental Health released its “Real Men. Real
Depression (RMRD)” campaign in April 2003 specifically to address
men’s experience of depression. The NIMH noted that “men are less
likely than women to recognize, acknowledge, and seek treatment for
their depression” (NIMH, 2003). The U.S. Department of Defense used
the RMRD campaign with service members as part of its training
28
curriculum (Rochlen, 2005).
These studies suggest that men may well misreport their less satisfied
feelings--and that future surveys comparing happiness among men and
women need to be replicated with this awareness. Stevenson and
Wolfers’ study did not discuss the different ways men tend to report
challenges to their well-being and the impact of this difference on their
research. Small discrepancies between male and female well-being rates
may even indicate significantly higher unhappiness among men as a
result of misreports.
Of great concern is also the higher rate of suicide among men. A
recent book, Men and Depression, looks at the high suicide rates among
men and the over-representation of men in every mental disorder other
than those associated with mood; this work seeks to find the depression
that remains hidden from common studies as well as from men
themselves. The research also shows that pressures on men to hide their
feelings from themselves and others mask the high rates of male
depression on more common studies (Cohran & Rabinowitz, 2000).
The National Institute of Mental Health (2001) reports that females
attempt suicide two to three times as often as men, but males are four
times more likely than females to die by suicide. Girls and women may
talk about their feelings more, and find other ways to express their
emotional pain, but if boys and men were allowed the same socially
sanctioned vehicles of self-expression, we might hear more about men's
similar difficulties. Instead males are more likely to act on their despair.
NPR reported on the high number of suicides among men in the
armed forces and the efforts being made towards suicide prevention
there. Alarmingly, almost as many American troops at home and abroad
committed suicide in 2010 as were killed in combat in Afghanistan.
NPR reports that the toughest “challenge is changing a culture that is
very much about ‘manning up’ when things get difficult” (Tarabay,
2010). Men in the army, even more than male civilians, are taught to
project a tough exterior; signs of vulnerability or emotional or physical
weakness are not just frowned upon, they are ridiculed, punished, and
can cause a soldier to be discharged.
Col. Chris Philbrick, director of the Army's suicide prevention task
force, said: "What did we do? What does the Army normally do when
29
there was soldiers with problems we didn't understand?"[We tell them:]
'Thank you for your service; go find someplace else to work'” (Tarabay,
2010). Former military psychiatrist Stephen Xenakis suggests that the
army pay attention to issues that Pollack and others have identified as
undiagnosed depression indicators among men, including alcoholism
and driving while intoxicated; Xenakis also suggests that marital issues
and discipline issues in the army are red flags (Tarabay, 2010).
Because males are less likely to recognize their own symptoms of
depression, nor do they necessarily have the awareness, means, or in
some cases emotional ability, to ask for help, predominantly male
institutions, then, have that much more responsibility to raise awareness
and provide proactive intervention and prevention services; but, they are
often challenged by their own inability to recognize this need or figure
out ways to help. In response to the differences between male and
female manifestations of depression on both surveys and self-reports,
Pollack (1998a) proposed a new category to address this phenomenon:
“major depressive disorder—male type.” Other researchers suggest
other methods for observing and diagnosing depression among men.
Rochlen et al. (2005) write that “behavioral and subjective indicators
that have been empirically and theoretically linked to depression in men
include substance abuse; somatic forms of distress like headaches,
digestive disorders, and chronic pain; risk-taking behaviors; severe
social isolation; aggression and violence; sexual misconduct and
promiscuity; as well as overwork” (2005, p. 189).
The National Institute of Mental Health similarly found that males
have difficulty acknowledging their feelings, asking for help, or seeking
support—and that consequently many turn to substances like alcohol or
drugs when they are depressed. Instead of experiencing sadness, they
are more likely to become frustrated, angry, discouraged, irritable or
even violent and abusive; they are likely to hide their depression from
themselves, their family and friends. Men also are more likely to react
to depression by working compulsively, engaging in reckless behavior,
or by putting themselves in harm’s way (2003). Interestingly, more men
than women suffer from alcoholism, substance abuse, and other
dependencies, as well as severe personality disorders—much of which
is also associated with depression (Cochran & Rabinowitz, 2000).
30
In addition to the fact that men manifest depression differently than
women, and that their depression is less likely to be revealed by typical
assessment tools, some studies show that men’s unhappiness is
comparable to women’s. Klerman and Weismman found that even on
their more typical surveys, the risk for depression among young men
was increasing so rapidly that the differential risk between men and
women was quickly narrowing (1989, p. 2229).
Indeed, men report higher levels of unhappiness than their female
cohorts in some recent research. Fathers are “more unhappy than
mothers” writes Parker-Pope in the New York Times (2010), reporting on
a study by the Families and Work Institute in New York which finds that
fathers are as stressed, if not more stressed than mothers. According to
the study, fathers in dual-earner families experienced a significant
increase in work-life conflict: 59 percent, up from 35 percent in 1977. In
more general terms, in 1977, the experience of work-life conflict for
women and men was similar. Yet men’s reported work-life conflict
increased from 34 percent in 1977 to 45 percent in 2008. Women’s
work-life conflict increased, but less significantly, from 34 percent in
1977 to 39 percent in 2008 (Galinsky et al., 2008, p.18).
Based on this emerging research, Stevenson and Wolfers’ findings on
declining happiness may in fact convey something important about
men’s declining happiness, as well as women’s. Given the lack of
reliability of men’s reports regarding depression and related issues on
surveys—as well as the research that conveys that men tend to have less
access to intimate relationships, fewer social venues for expressing their
feelings, and fewer friendships—the vague discrepancy in well-being
that women and men reported in the Stevenson and Wolfers’s study
instead may convey a general dissatisfaction among men and women
alike; further, because the discrepancy between male and female wellbeing reports is so small, it may well indicate an even higher rate of
unhappiness among men. In either case, understanding why unhappiness
and social isolation in America is so high -in addition to whether a
significant gender difference in these despair indicators persistsdeserves more exploration.
The following section discusses four trends which have been cited as
explanations for increased social isolation, depression, and anxiety in
31
the United States (declines in marriage; hyper self-reliance values; new
technologies; and economic pressures); each are addressed with regard
to their impact on men. Herein, emerges largely unrecognized
explanations for declines in male friendship and well-being.
Explanations for Declines in Male Friendship and Well-Being
The Decline of Marriage
A number of studies suggest that marriage is one of the few institutions
which provide a buffer against depression—perhaps because in an era of
decreasing friendships and increasing social isolation, marriage, (and
related forms of domestic partnerships) is now one of the only
institutions where there is much intimacy experienced at all. The 2006
"Social isolation in America" study noted that most Americans have
decreased their friendships by a third in the last twenty years; from an
average of three confidants, to closer to two today. At the same time,
for the first time married people are the minority in the United States;
only 49 percent of all households contain married couples (McPherson
et al., 2006; Coontz, 2006). Social isolation increased in the
contemporary dearth of friendships and marriages—and men may have
suffered most significantly as a result.
Blanchflower and Oswald write that factors that predict well-being
include marriage (19) and that according to a separate literature,
“marriage seems to provide protection against depression and mental illhealth (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2001, p. 12). Yet, since the 1970s the
divorce rate has increased, marriage has decreased, and people who do
marry, do so at later ages (Twenge, 2000, p. 1013). In the mid-1970s, 67
percent of adults were married, by the late 1990s only 48 percent were
married -a low figure which has remained fairly constant since the turn
to the twenty-first century (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2001, p. 7). Jean
Twenge (2000) writes that these social disconnection trends predict the
high anxiety levels that accompany them (2000, p. 1013). Reported
well-being also tends to rise in a lasting marriage and declines in the
midst of divorce (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2001, p.19; Olds &
Schwartz, 2009, p. 130; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009, p. 195-196). Thus
32
as marriage declines, and few institutions which might offer alternative
venues for intimacy take its place, depression tends to rise.
Yet, even as remaining marriages are thought to be somewhat of a
buffer against depression, anxiety, and social isolation, marriages
provide even less comfort than they might have previously. Stevenson
and Wolfers found that both men and women are less happy with their
marriages than in decades past. They write: “On average, women are
less happy with their marriage than men and women have become less
happy with their marriage over time. However, men have also become
less happy with their marriage over time and, thus, the gender gap in
marital happiness has been largely stable over time” (2009, p. 217). Men
and women’s disappointment with marriage is competitively high.
Marriage may not be providing the social support it once did.
Sociologist Emile Durkheim, writing in 1897, said that marriage
provides a regulatory force on otherwise limitless passions. Without this
regulation, people may try to satisfy their random desires; and this can
create a feeling of being unanchored, without intimate and fulfilling
relationships. A marriage for Durkheim “completely regulates the life of
passion, and monogamic marriage more strictly than any other”
(Durkheim, 1897, p. 270).
Durkheim wrote that marriage tends also to decrease trends towards
suicide. “Thus marriage may be said to reduce the danger of suicide by
half,” Durkheim wrote (1897, p. 173). Durkheim found that men were
particularly vulnerable when their marriages dissolved. He suggested
that both unmarried men and divorced men were more prone to suicide
than their female counterparts (Thompson, 1982, p. 112).
Analyzing this phenomenon today, Durkheim’s findings may still be
related to the added pressure on men to prove masculinity through
casual and often unfulfilling sexual conquests; Durkheim, and others,
also wrote that there are few other alternative social institutions that
bind men to social norms and goals. Today divorce is so common that
the institution of marriage barely retains any of the social glue it once
contained.
Thus the dissolution of marriage—our central, though withering
institution for engaging intimacy—leads to excessive individuation,
according to Durkheim. Marriage was meant to help people feel part of
33
a community and connected to larger social norms and conventions; its
demise leaves people, especially men, adrift.
The 2006 study “Social Isolation in America,” which used data from
the 2004 General Social Survey, found that marriage is the only
relationship in contemporary times where people are more likely to
discuss important matters with each other than they were two decades
previously. In every other category, social connection has decreased and
people speak less often with confidants (McPherson et. al., 2006, p.
358).
Yet Olds and Schwartz lament that this trend to confide more in
spouses does little to decrease social isolation more generally. They
discuss the tendency for married couples to “cocoon” which they write
is another form of social isolation from others and tends to increase the
fragility of marriage, the burdens placed upon marriage, and over time,
the likelihood of divorce and loneliness (2009, p. 116). A marriage most
likely to last and flourish, they write, “is woven into a larger tapestry
that includes extended family, neighbors, and peers” (2009, p. 118).
Prioritizing marriage and the nuclear family to the exclusion of
commitments to neighbors, extended kin, and civic duty and religion
has been found to be socially deleterious by many scholars (Coontz,
2006; Putnam, 2000). For Durkheim the decreased commitment to
community that surrounds marriage and contemporary life more
generally contributes to what he referred to as higher inclinations
towards egoistic suicide; people are less integrated in their communities
and less tied to social norms and conventions and therefore more likely
to become depressed and even suicidal (Durkheim, 1897).
Durkheim’s nineteenth-century research on the particular challenges
men experience in marriage is similar to Olds and Schwartz’s twentyfirst century conclusions. Durkheim wrote that men are more challenged
than women when they lose their marriage; Olds and Schwartz suggest
that married men in particular, suffer as a result of the dissolution of
social ties. McPherson et al.'s. study may explain this further. In 1984,
the probability that, for instance, a 25-year old affable married man
would be a social isolate (having no confidants) was virtually zero; in
2004, such men have a 10% chance of being social isolates; and a 44year old affable married man in 1984 would have been as unlikely to be
without confidants in 1984 as a 25-year old; but in 2004 he has a 20%
34
chance of being a social isolate (McPherson et al., 2006, p. 370).
Men are generally given less support to find and sustain intimate and
trusting relationships which can nurture them; then, they are more
dependent on their marriage and made more vulnerable by its demise.
People have become more adrift, and more depressed and lonely as
community ties outside of marriage are deprioritized concurrently with
the dissolution of marriage more generally.
Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History: How Love
Conquered Marriage, writes that the modern tendency for married
couples to ignore, or deprioritize their other relationships strains
marriages with too-high expectations which they can never fully satisfy.
As Coontz points out in a related article, this is a recent historical
phenomenon:
Through most of history, it was considered dangerously antisocial to
be too emotionally attached to one's spouse, because that diluted
loyalties to family, neighbours, and society at large. Until the mid19th- century, the word "love" was used more frequently to describe
feelings for neighbours, relatives and fellow church members than
spouses.
The emotional lives of Victorian middle-class women revolved
around passionate female bonds that overshadowed the ‘respectful
affection’ they felt for their husbands. Men, too, sought intimacy
outside the family circle. A man could write a letter to his betrothed
recounting his pleasure at falling asleep on the bosom of his best
friend without fearing that she might think him gay. When couples
first began to go on honeymoons in the 19th century they often took
family and friends along for company (Coontz, 2006).
That women’s relationships have decreased in importance is clearly
problematic—but the decrease in importance of men’s friendships raises
another concern. While one can imagine a woman who values a female
friend more than her husband (even as it is non as socially acceptable as
it might have been in the mid-nineteenth century), it is near impossible
to consider men “falling asleep on the bosom of his best friend without
fearing that” someone might think he is gay. Men’s friendships have
35
clearly lost both importance and affection; and with these new social
prohibitions, men’s loneliness has increased.
Olds & Schwartz further link the tendency to cocoon with a married
partner -while distancing friendships- with another aspect of
contemporary expectations toward extreme self-reliance. Families are
made to believe that they need to handle everything on their own--and
economically, of course, in the United States they are largely on their
own. Thus marriages bear almost the entire burden for emotional
intimacy as well as financial stability, childcare, elderly care, and
healthcare. Neither friends nor government are situated to support
families when they need help, and the pressure to rely on one’s own
resources without aid often tears down the very institution meant to
provide this bedrock of support. Since men are still pressured to be
primary breadwinners, even when their wives also work, the pressure to
provide economically in an era of decreased social and economic
supports, is likely to put more pressure and stress on men.
According to Olds and Schwartz, while both men and women have
decreased their confidants significantly, men are more likely to lose
touch with old friends as they take on the increasing responsibilities
requisite to family life. But as women are more likely to make new
friends, men are less inclined; once men lose old friends by falling out
of contact, they are less likely to replace those confidant connections
(Olds & Schwartz, 2009, pp. 116-117). This also suggests that men are
as much if not more at risk for depression and social isolation.
Olds and Schwartz also note that as men get more involved in
childrearing and both men and women try to keep up with increased
hours and demands in the workplace, friendships are further demoted; it
may often feel overwhelming to do all three roles well. Olds and
Schwartz link the dissolution of marriage to married people’s decreased
support systems. Working too hard with less extended family to help
with childrearing, and the added pressure to be all things to one another
is often too much burden for the marriage to bear (Olds & Scwartz,
2009, p. 127). Men are more likely to lose touch with their friends when
they get married; and thus more likely to suffer both when they lose
their marriage and when they maintain it; social pressures to undervalue
their social connections under both conditions (married or not married)
36
do men a significant disservice.
Thus the suggestion that women are less happy than men does men
and women a disservice. It perpetuates the pathologizing of women as
the historically “hysterical” gender; it prevents us from recognizing the
various ways men manifest their unhappiness; and it prevents us from
being effectively helpful to men and women by missing the larger issues
involved.
The following section examines the extreme self-reliance values
perpetuated today and the concurrent damage to the community both
men and women surely need to become less isolated and depressed in
the midst of twenty-first century indicators.
Extreme Self-Reliance
Olds and Schwartz locate the source of increased social isolation in
contemporary American values -hyper-individualism and self-reliance.
People are reluctant to talk about their loneliness because they do not
want to be seen as needy. They are concerned about the stigma towards
interdependence which can appear “unmanly, unheroic, and unAmerican” (2009, p. 33). Connecting with others and sharing feelings
and concerns has even been degraded in common parlance; rather than
signify caring and bonding, such sharing is referred to today as
“dumping,” “whining” or “being self-indulgent.” Someone who is
willing to be open about their needs is considered pejoratively “high
maintenance” or who focuses “too much” on their relationships-“codependent.” We have a host of words today that convey that depending
on one another is either wrong or “sick”.
Further, while females are increasingly pressured to be more selfreliant than they were in previous generations, men are asked to be just
as self-reliant if not more so, even as they are expected to juggle more
roles and responsibilities. The workplace gives mothers little support to
care for children even as most American families consist exclusively of
a working parent (or working parents); and even less support is given to
fathers who are increasingly involved in childcare.
Given the focus on self-reliance in the United States and the already
minimal levels of support afforded parents to care for their children,
men find that they still need to navigate a workplace that is “often
37
reluctant to give them time off for family reasons” (Parker-Poke, 2010).
Even when there are benefits available, such as flexible schedules and
family leave, American men are made to feel embarrassed about
prioritizing their family’s needs and thus are less likely to utilize these
already scarce resources.
The lack of care afforded parents, in particular financial support, in
the United States sets us apart from many European countries; Norway
and Sweden guarantee at least a year of family leave after the birth of a
child at 80 to 100 percent of the caregivers’ pay; Finnish parents can
take up to three years leave; and in some Scandinavian countries,
paternity leave is mandatory or the time off is lost (Gornick & Meyers,
2007, p. 102). These countries want to make sure men as well as women
are given the financial and emotional support they need to care for their
children at home. U.S. men, on the other hand, tend to find themselves
strangled by values relating to self-reliance; they are tutored not to
request or rely on supports. Thus even when men “need to take their
offspring to the doctor or pick them up from child care, they tended to
do so in a ‘stealth’ fashion rather than ask for a formal flexible work
arrangement” -reluctant to ask for help, wrote Parker-Pope. As a result,
fathers are becoming just as stressed, if not more stressed than mothers
(2010). For these and other reasons already discussed, men have
become a particularly high-risk group for social isolation, and are
increasingly subject to the high rates of depression and anxiety plaguing
contemporary U.S. society.
Further, pressure to be self-reliant and satisfy all needs in the nuclear
familial model, along with escalating demands for increased profit
margins, result in men and women working more hours; this trend
further stresses personal stability and marriage, as well as family life
more generally. The Families and Work Life Institute 2008 report
suggests that the factors that predict conflict among mothers and fathers
include the total number of hours worked per week and the number of
hours per week spent on the self -what they call “work-life centrism”
and “job pressure.” Effectively, each additional hour of work increases
the probability of experiencing some degree of work-life conflict. Each
additional hour spent on oneself decreases the probability of work-life
conflict. A balance is optimal according to the Institute. Fathers and
38
mothers who are focused on both work and family or mostly focused on
the family are less likely to experience work-life conflict. Job
satisfaction decreases the rate of conflict; and job pressure increases the
probability of work-life conflict (Galinsky et al., 2008, p. 20).
Yet focus on family often gets short shrift today even when adults or
children come home from work and school. Increasingly people first
greet their computers, phones, or other technological devices (ipads;
androids; kindles) before they connect face-to-face with anyone at home
-if they talk to anyone in person at all. Too often families facebook and
text one another from one room in the house to another; people in
adjacent work stalls email rather than waste time visiting- and
depression and anxiety loom in the decreasing intimacy exclusive to
face-to-face interactions.
New Technologies
Dependence on new technologies is also blamed for contemporary high
rates of depression, anxiety, and social isolation in the United States.
The results of several recent studies have many scholars and journalists
concerned about the extent to which such trends are eroding capacities
to create and foster face-to-face relationships (LaPorta, 2009; Franzen,
2010).
With new technologies, friendship on Facebook for instance, more
often facilitates an awareness of the number of people an individual can
“collect;” rather than fostering intimacy and connection; “friends” are
perceived as objects that will increase or decrease one’s status as they
are displayed on profiles for others to see and admire. Americans are
increasingly sitting by themselves, while they engage in a virtual
existence of adventures and relationships. Much of contemporary
American life takes place in solitary confined spaces with a computer or
phone -with only the illusion of an active social life. The phenomenon is
so great that studies show that teens are increasingly retreating to
cyberspace -often for the majority of their social interactions; and losing
vital skills for developing face-to-face interactions (The Pew Research
Center, 2010).
Indeed, one-third of Internet use by Americans takes place on social
networking sites, and the amount of time Americans spend on sites like
39
Facebook and Twitter grows dramatically every day. Teenagers who are
thought to be addicted to the internet are 2.5 times more likely to be
depressed than those who engage in normal use (Hendrik, 2010); While
the research is still inconclusive, males are perceived to be more at risk
for internet addiction and related depression, replacing face-to-face
intimacy and other relationships that would otherwise provide deeper
and more fulfilling experiences (Young & Rogers, 2009; Kandell,
1998). Where trust and intimacy are still elusive for many men as a
result of pressures to present a mask of masculinity that hides
vulnerabilities, men may be more prone to finding some (inadequate)
solace in the virtual connections accessible in cyberspace.
Economic Pressures
Jean Twenge (2006) and Madeline Levine (2006) document high rates
of depression among youth. Levine writes that over-valuing
individualism and competition over community and compassion
produces more miserable young people. Levine finds that teens are
strangled by extreme pressures from parents and schools; adults (and
often peers) are unwilling to accept young people unless they perform
on a series of multi-faceted and complex barometers -including
academics; extra-curricula; sports; and various other indicators of social
success, like popularity. Young people are reared to be economically and
otherwise successful- and any failures on this perceived path to success
are often met with parental dread and/or scorn. Such pressures on
children are particularly prevalent in wealthy families, according to
Levine.
Levine also contributes an important insight to the literature on
gender and youth despair. Working with an awareness of the impact of
masculinity issues on reported well-being, Levine notes the different
ways boys and girls manifest their depression. By the end of high
school, 30 percent of girls from affluent families exhibit clinically
significant symptoms of anxiety; boys have elevated rates of anxiety
and depression, too, but their most significant problem appears in high
rates of substance abuse used “to self-medicate their depression” (2006,
p. 18). Thus again, the level of depression among young males, in this
case, is masked by other symptoms; among boys it tends to manifest in
40
the abuse of substances. Without recognizing that male youth are
communicating their depression in this way, statistics documenting
female depression and anxiety may appear falsely higher.
In the race to success, boys, like men, are pressured to appear tough
and invulnerable in spite of the emotional challenges they are enduring.
Men have only recently begun “coming out” as depressed, as more
literature emerges about the prevalence of male depression (Cochran &
Rabinowitz, 2000). Young boys, though, are still schooled in the old
traditions of masculinity and are punished by peer groups if they appear
vulnerable and are perceived to be emotional; and boys are similarly
rewarded and revered if they posture as independent and tough and
powerful (Klein, 2012). Thus the statistics showing that young people
are more depressed and anxious at increasingly younger ages underreports the extent to which young boys, in particular, are suffering these
maladies.
Levine’s findings are also consistent with studies on adults that
conclude that there is no correlation between higher earnings and
reported well-being, but rather, often, an inverse relationship. Levine
found that depression and anxiety are higher among wealthy youth than
among their less privileged peers. Men, again, in these kinds of studies
are likely to be more anxious and depressed when it comes to measuring
oneself by one’s relative “worth,” since masculinity is still so intricately
tied to economic security and success in this country.
In trying to explain the increasing plummet of female’s reported wellbeing, Stevenson and Wolfers contest what they refer to as “standard
economic frameworks,” which equate financial gain in real wages with
higher reports in well-being. They wonder why women’s economic
advances, in particular, in recent decades have not manifested in
increases in happiness. Arlie Hochschild and Anne Machung argue in
their book, The Second Shift (1989) that women’s increased presence in
the workforce and increased wages didn’t increase well-being among
women because of the “second shift” women still do regarding
housekeeping and other home production. Stevenson and Wolfers cite
evidence that work hours have decreased among men and women
-statistics sharply disputed in Juliet Schor’s meticulously documented
Overworked American (1993)- and that men contribute more to
41
household tasks than they did in the past (more anecdotally contested);
Schor finds that Americans are working significantly longer hours than
their European counterparts, she refers to as the phenomenon of the
“Overworked American;” this is thought to be a source of great stress
for men as well as women today -though the most high-profile, and
sometimes criminal reactions to increased stress and competition in
today’s workforce is still mostly manifested by men.
David Callahan in The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are
Doing Wrong to Get Ahead (2004) suggests that today’s hyper-pressure
to succeed motivates Americans to cheat in almost every sphere of
American life including -sports, law, finance, sales, and among students
and teachers in education. Using Robert Reich’s term “the anxious
class,” Callahan writes that people tend to cheat to get ahead; the related
anxiety sometimes develops when choosing not to cut corners means
getting left behind.
Much of Callahan’s work focuses on cheating among the very
wealthy -men who use steroids and other illegal supplements in
professional sports; mostly men who bill excessive hours in white shoe
law firms; and mostly men who brought down the economy as
executives in leading Wall Street firms. Many men pushed to risk
everything for success and achieve at all costs, found themselves
exposed and despairing when the economy crashed. The Greenspan’s
Body Count blogosphere was named after the former Federal Reserve
chief who has been blamed for the current economic crisis; it “offers a
macabre tally of people who killed themselves or close family members
allegedly due to economic pressures” (Newsweek, 2009). Women are
less present in this list; they tend not to register in either high level
financial positions nor related white collar crime (and subsequent
depression) -since women are still largely barred from reaching
corporate top tiers by the still present glass ceiling (Levi, 1995).
Thus men may be more likely to become depressed as a result of
employment pressures. One study linking men’s unhappiness to work
issues found that unemployed men’s depression scores were higher than
those of employed men and that this inclination increased when
unemployed men had less social contact with others in the month before
losing their jobs. “Depression becomes likely when people lose a source
42
of social interaction that is important to their sense of worth, and have
no alternative means of experiencing this worth in other relationships,”
write Bolton and Oatley (2011). More than women, men are perceived
to be identified with their work and tend to lose self-esteem and suffer
from depression when their work status is threatened or otherwise
perceived as tenuous. Thus when unemployment rates are high, men, in
particular, are likely to suffer the worst emotional consequences. Men
might also respond to these emotional challenges in different ways;
workplace shootings, for instance, are triggered overwhelmingly by
salary reductions, demotions, lay-offs, or harassment at work (Klein,
2012). Thus today’s high unemployment statistics, hovering around 10
percent, may well be a contributing factor to Americans’ plummeting
level of well-being, for men in particular, as well as to increasing social
isolation statistics, more generally.
Thus contemporary social trends including a hyper pressure towards
increased self-reliance, the dissolution of marriage and face-to-face
interactions, and the high unemployment rate may put more strain on
men and contribute to extremely high depression rates among men that
we are still largely ill-equipped to measure or even fully understand.
Conclusion
This article examines Americans’ high rate of depression, anxiety, and
social isolation as it relates to gender. It suggests that studies and
popular notions emphasizing women’s growing unhappiness miss
important data and analysis related to men. This lack of awareness
falsely perpetuates the perception that women are more emotionally
disturbed than men. It also prevents men from getting the help they need
when they manifest their agony by abusing substances or through other
more opaque manifestations. To understand how Americans generally,
and men in particular, are faring regarding well-being, surveys must
take account of the specific ways in which men identify their emotions.
Without this discussion and understanding, reports in gender disparities
around well-being are necessarily problematic. Social conditions today
are tough on men and women, both; but men suffer in specific ways
because they have not been given adequate avenues for expressing their
pain.
43
An example of this occurs in the high violence perpetuated by men.
Gender is the greatest predictor of crimes, writes J.W. Messerschmidt,
because men are socialized to express their masculinity and related
emotions through violence (2000). Thus, of 191 school shootings
between 1979 and 2011, 95% of the perpetrators were male; and males,
again, commit suicide at exponentially higher levels (Klein, 2012). If
men were given social permission to express their vulnerabilities in
schools and our larger society -as well as on surveys- we might see less
violence and become more aware of the wider despair plaguing men as
well as women throughout our country.
Like women, men are expected to do everything on their own, but
unlike women, men are given few if any emotional venues to express
their discomfort and needs Men are discouraged from developing
intimate friendships and tutored away from expressing their feelings.
Many of the social trends thought to contribute to today’s high levels
of depression, anxiety, and social isolation in the United States -the
dissolution of marriage, new technologies replacing face-to-face
interactions, hyper-self-reliance values, and economic pressures- are
particularly deleterious towards men.
Further research that seeks to evaluate the differences between male
and female well-being must take into account the various ways social
trends affect men and women, as well as the ways male discontent may
be overlooked on typical well-being surveys. Any study hoping to get an
accurate account of male unhappiness must address the pressure on men
to mask their emotions with a “tough” masculine front. Without this
awareness, it may not be possible to accurately account for male
malaise.
If women’s happiness is decreasing at such a fast pace, it is likely that
men are just as unhappy, if not more unhappy. Further research must
locate the different ways men express their pain, and look more broadly
at the reasons for the high despair indicators revealed by current social
phenomena: In addition to The Overworked American (Schor, 1993),
The Overspent American (Schor, 1998), The Cheating Culture
(Callahan, 2004), and The Lonely American (Olds & Schwartz, 2009),
we contend with “The Depressed and Anxious American” and another
form of the disturbed American -as it relates to well-being reports-
44
“The Invisible Man.”
Finally, political activists and others seeking social change must be
sensitive to needs more often associated with men. The marriage rate
remains low at the same time as research reveals that marriage is one of
the few buffers against depression. Such unions may indeed increase as
same-sex marriage gains legitimacy and legality on the state and federal
level. Yet other avenues for developing intimate and supportive
relationships need to be fostered. Decreased community involvement
and other forms of civic engagement are also associated with increased
isolation and lower well-being. Indeed increased social activism, in and
of itself, may help increase well-being among men as well as women.
Further, men’s needs for intimacy and support, whether directly or
implicitly communicated must be registered, addressed, and validated.
Minimally surveys need to more accurately assess men’s well-being
-and seek sensitivity to the specific experiences of men from disparate
ethnic and racial backgrounds. Further research must also focus on
creating community and other forms of social support in ways that are
cognizant of men’s needs (as well as women’s).
Notes
Sociologist Claude S. Fischer from the University of California, Berkeley, casts doubt
on the McPherson team’s statistics—calling them “highly implausible based on the
immense scale of the reported change, anomalies in the GSS data and contrary results in
data on other types of network ties” (American Sociological Association, 2009). The
McPherson team countered that the burden of proof lies with Fischer and suggested that
the anomalies to which Fischer refers are from such a small part of the sample as to be
insignificant. The McPherson team did acknowledge that the media had over-simplified
their reports—and that their complex statistical models paint a more complicated
picture. In the abstract of the McPherson study, the team states, “Some changes reflect
the changing demographics of the U.S. population. Educational heterogeneity of social
ties has decreased, racial heterogeneity has increased. The data may overestimate the
number of social isolates, but these shrinking networks reflect an important social
change in America (McPherson et al., 2006, Abstract). Ultimately, the McPherson team
stands by their findings –suggesting that social isolation has indeed increased markedly,
regarding friends and community ties; though some greater intimacy is noted with
spouses and parents. They write: “Both kin and non-kin confidants were lost in the past
two decades, but the greater decrease of non-kin ties leads to more confidant networks
centered on spouses and parents, with fewer contacts through voluntary associations and
neighborhoods (Ibid.).
1
45
References
American Sociological Association. (2009, August 4). Debate continues
over isolation in America. Science Codex. Retrieved March, 10,
2012, from
www.sciencecodex.com/debate_continues_over_social_isolation_i
n_america
Angold, A., Erkanli, E. J., & Worthman, C. M. (1999). Pubertal changes
in hormone levels and depression in girls. Psychological
Medicine, 29, 1043-1053. doi: 10.1017/S0033291799008946
Associated Press. (2005, April 18). In Americans are over-medicated,
experts say. Fox News. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153758,00.html#ixzz1ZjlUEXt9
Barber, C. (2008). Comfortably Numb: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a
Nation . New York: Vintage.
BBC News. (2004, August 3). In Teen depression on the increase.
Retrieved March 10, 2012 from www.news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/health/3532572.stm
Blanchflower, D. G., and Oswald, A.J. (2001). Well-being over time in
Britain and the USA. Journal ofpublic economics, 88(7–8),
1359–1386. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00168-8
Bolton, W & Oatley, K. (1987). A longitudinal study of social support
and depression in unemployed men. Psychological medicine, 17,
453-460. doi: 10.1017/S0033291700025010.
Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are
doing wrong to get ahead. New York: Harcourt.
Cochran, S. V., & Rabinowitz, F. E (2000). Men and depression:
Clinical and empirical perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Coontz, S. (2006, Nov 30). How to Stay Married. Stephaniecoontz. com .
Retrieved March 10, 2012 from
www.stephaniecoontz.com/articles/article34.htm
Currie, E. (2004). The road to whatever: Middle-class culture and the
crisis ofadolescence. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Diamond, J. (1998). Male menopause. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
46
Douthat, R. (2009, May 25). Liberated and Unhappy. New York Times.
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html?scp=2&sq
=paradox+of+declining+happiness&st=nyt
Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: Free
Press.
Franzen, C. (2010, April 25). OMG! Teens Now Text More Than Talk
Face to Face. Aol News. Retrieved April 25, 2010 from
www.aolnews.com/tech/article/pew-study-texting-is-now-teenstop-way-to-communicate/19447380
Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J.T. (2008). Times are changing:
Gender and generation at work and at home. Families and Work
Life Institute. 2008 National Study ofthe Changing Workforce.
http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/Times_Are_Chan
ging.pdf
Gornick, J.C. & Meyers, M.K. (2007). Support for working families:
What the United States can learn from Europe (4th ed,). In D.S.
Eitzen (Ed), Solutions to social problems: Lessons from other
societies (4th ed.) (pp. 99-107). Boston: Pearson Education.
Gillan, A. (2005). Living apart together: the cautious approach.
Guardian. co. uk. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/16/audreygillan.uknews2
Hart, A. D. (2001). Unmasking male depression. New York: Word
Publishing.
Hendrik, B. (2011, October 3). Internet overuse may cause depression
study: Teens who pathologically use Internet may be about 2.5
times more likely to become depressed. WebMD Health News.
Retrieved October 12, 2011 from .
www.webmd.com/depression/news/20100802/internet-overusemay-cause-depression
Hoschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents
and the revolution at home. New York, USA: Viking.
Kandell, J.J. (1998, spring). CyberPsychology & behavior Internet
addiction on campus: The vulnerability of college students.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1 (1), 11-17.
doi:10.1089/cpb.1998.1.11
47
Klein, J. & Chancer, L. (2000). Masculinity matters: The role of gender
in high-profile school violence cases. In S. Spina (Ed.). Smoke and
mirrors: The hidden context ofviolence in schools and society.
(pp.129-162). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Klein, J. (2012) The bully society: Shootings and the crisis ofbullying in
America’s schools. New York: NYU Press.
Klerman, G.L. & Weissman, M.M. (1989). Increasing Rates of
Depression. Journal ofAmerican Medical Association JAMA .
261 (15), 2229-2235. doi:10.1001/jama.1989.03420150079041
Kroenke, K & Spitzer, RL. (1998). Gender differences in the reporting
of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine.
60(2), 2150-155. Retrieved from
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/60/2/150.short
Laporta, L.D. (2009, November). Twitter and YouTube: Unexpected
consequences of the self-esteem movement? Psychiatric Times,
26(11)1-4.
Lenhart, A. (2010, April 20). Teens, cell phones and texting: Text
messaging becomes centerpiece communication. Pew Internet &
American Life Project.
Levi, M. (1995). Masculinities and white-collar crime. In T. Newburn,
T. and E.A. Stanko, (Eds.). Just boys doing business? Men,
masculinities, and crime. (pp.234-252). New York: Routledge.
Levine, M. (2006). The price ofprivilege: How parental pressure and
material advantage are creating a generation ofdisconnected and
unhappy kids. New York: HarperCollins.
Lewis, M. (2005). Unilever Family Report: Home Alone? Unilever and
The Institute for Public Policy Research.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M.E. (2006, June).
Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks
over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71 (3), 353-375.
doi: 10.1177/000312240607100301
Messerschmidt, J.W. (2000). Nine Lives: Adolescent Masculinities, the
Body, and Violence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
National Institute of Mental Health. (2001, January). Women hold up
halfthe sky: Women and mental health research , NIH Publication
No. 01-4607. Retrieved March 10, 2002 from
48
ww.wvdhhr.org/bhhf/scienceonourminds/nimh%20pdfs/18%20wo
men.pdf
National Institute of Mental Health. (2003). Men and depression.
Washington, D.C.
Newsweek Educationsite (2009, Jan 14). Killer economy? The
deepening recession may lead to growth in suicide rates.
Newsweek. com . Retreived February 10, 2010 from
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/01/14/killer-economy.html
Olds, J. & Schwartz, R.S. (2009). The Lonely American: Drifting Apart
in the Twenty-first Century. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Parker-Pope. T. (2010, June 18). Now, dad feels as stressed as mom.
Nytimes. com . Retrieved June 20, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/weekinreview/20parkerpope.
html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=12774924078mwtlmycEhoqPmbVFyPUTA
Peterson, A.C., Sarigiani, P.A., & Kennedy, R.E. (1991). Adolescent
depression: Why more girls? Journal ofYouth and Adolescence,
20(2), 247-271. doi: 10.1007/BF01537611
Pew Research Center Publications. (2010, April 20). Teens, cell phones
and texting. Retrieved from pewresearch.org/pubs/1572/teens-cellphones-text-messages
Pichardo, J. (2006, Oct 12). Depression in teenagers: How to recognize
the symptoms and steps toward changing. Hearts and mindsinformation for change. Retrieved October 30 2006 from
www.heartsandminds.org/self/depression.htm
Pollack, W. R. (1998a). Mourning, melancholia, and masculinity:
Recognizing and treating depression in men. In W. Pollack & R.
Levant (Eds.), New psychotherapy for men. (pp. 147–166). New
York: Wiley.
Pollack, W. R. (1998b.) Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of
boyhood. New York: Random House.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Real, T. (1998). I don’t want to talk about it: Overcoming the secret
legacy ofmale depression . NewYork: Scribner.
49
Rochlen, A.B., Whilde, M.R. & Hoyer, W.D. (2005). The real men real
depression Campaign: Overview, copy theoretical implications,
and research considerations. Psychology ofMen & Masculinities,
6 (3), 186–194. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.6.3.186
Russell, J. (2007, Sept. 28).What you need to know about alcohol and
depression: Depression often goes hand-in-hand with alcohol use.
About. com . Retrieved September 30 2007 from
www.depression.about.com/od/drugsalcohol/a/alcoholanddep.htm
Schor, J. (1993). The overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of
Leisure. New York: Basic Books.
Schor, J. (1998). The overspent American: Upscaling, downshifting, and
the new consumer. New York: Basic Books.
Schor, J. (2004). Born to Buy: the commercialized child and the new
consumer. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Siahpush, M, Spittal, M, & Singh, G.K. (2008). Happiness and lifesatisfaction prospectively predict self-rated health, physical health,
and the p-presence of limiting, long-term health conditions.
American Journal ofHealth Promotion , 23 (1),18-26. doi:
10.4278/ajhp.061023137
Silberg, J. L., Pickles, A., Rutter, M., Hewitt, J., Simonoff, E.,Maes, H.,
Carbonneau, R., Murrelle, L., Foley, D., & Eaves, L. (1999,
March). The influence of genetic factors and life stress on
depression among adolescent girls. Archives ofGeneral
Psychiatry, 56(3), 225-232. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.56.3.225
Stevenson, B. & Wolfers, J. (2009). The paradox of declining female
happiness. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1 (2),
190–225. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
Tarabay, J. (2010, June 17). Suicide rivals the battlefield in toll on U.S.
military. NPR. Retreived June 30, 2010 from
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127860466
Thompson, K. (1982). Emile Durkheim . (Revised Edition), New York:
Routledge.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2008). Do
today’s young people really think they are so extraordinary? An
examination of secular changes in narcissism and selfenhancement. Psychological Science, 19, 181–188. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02065.x
50
Twenge, J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in
anxiety and neuroticism. 1952-1993. Journal ofPersonality and
Social Psychology, 79(6), 1007-1021. doi: 10.1037/00223514.79.6.1007
Twenge, J. M. (2006). The Me Generation: Why Today’s Young
Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—and More
Miserable than Ever Before. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Population Profile ofthe United States:
2000 (Internet Release) . Retrieved from
www.census.gov/population/www/popprofile/files/2000/chap05.pdf
Young, K.S. & Rogers, R.C. (2009). The relationship between
depression and internet addiction, CyberPsychology & Behavior,
1 (1), 25-28. doi:10.1089/cpb.1998.1.25
Jessie Klein is Assistant Professor of sociology and criminal justice
at Adelphi University, United States ofAmerica.
Contact Address: Adelphi University, Anthropology and
Sociology, Blodgett Hall, Room 105A, New York, United States.
Email: [email protected]
Masculinities, Gender Equality and Violence
Øystein Gullvåg Holter1
1) University of Oslo, Norway
To cite this article: Holter, Ø. G. (2013). Masculinities, gender equality and
violence. Masculinities and Social Change, 2(1), 5181. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2013.21
MCS - Masculinites and Social Change Vol. 2 No. 1 February 2013 pp.
51-81
Masculinities, Gender
Equality and Violence
Øystein Gullvåg Holter
University ofOslo
Abstract
Based on new data on the impact of gender equality on interpersonal violence,
the paper offers a critique of the gender-based violence view and presents an
alternative view where gender inequality is central. This is connected to recent
theory developments regarding gendering as an ontoformative (reality-shaping)
process, focusing on how gender inequality becomes manifest especially
through sexual harassment and sex-related violence.
Keywords: gender equality, violence, sexual harassment, gendering, theory
development
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.21
MCS - Masculinites and Social Change Vol. 2 No. 1 February 2013 pp.
51-81
Masculinidades, Igualdad de
Género y Violencia
Øystein Gullvåg Holter
University ofOslo
Resumen
Este artículo está basado en nuevos datos sobre el impacto de la igualdad de
género en la violencia interpersonal, en él se presenta una crítica a la visión
existente acerca de la violencia de género y describe una visión alternativa
donde la desigualdad de género es central. Ello está conectado con los
desarrollos teóricos recientes sobre género entendidos como un proceso
ontoformativo (visión de la realidad), centrados en cómo la desigualdad de
género se manifiesta especialmente a través del acoso sexual y la violencia
sexual.
Palabras clave: igualdad de género, violencia, acoso sexual, dimensión de
género, desarrollo teórico
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.21
W
53
hy is it that men are associated with violence, so much more
than women, in our society? This is not just a sociobiological
rule of most societies, but also a social and cultural rule in our
own society (Hagemann-White et al., 2008; Edwards, 2006; Hearn,
1998). The gender selection regarding violence is clearly not just a
"natural" state of affairs.
This paper uses new data that show impact of the degree of gender
equality on the level of violence, challenging conventional assumptions
about gender and violence. It uses this evidence to discuss genderrelated violence as performance, as reification, and as ontoformative.
The paper discusses gender and violence on the basis of improved
methods where gender equality measures are included.
Background
Over the last decades, gender studies have helped make gender into a
more central focus of violence research, together with a general
development towards more emphasis on the socially constructed
character of violence (e.g in Norway, Råkil, 2002). A part of the
violence, especially violence in close relations and private life
relationships, and in particular violence between men and women, can
be seen as “gendered” or “gender-based” violence (Ferguson et al.,
2004).
Thereby, in light of the theories of gender as configurations of
practices (Connell, 1995; 2003) as well as performances (Butler, 1990;
2004), violence has been investigated as a gendered question, with
increasing attention, first, to the victims of violence, and gradually also
to the perpetrators. This development was pioneered by feminists
demanding investigation and reduction of men's violence against
women (Ericsson, 1998), and has been important also for prevention of
violence work.
Yet the new gender paradigm also had limitations. Even if feminists
saw gender equality as a main issue, it has seldom been systematically
studied in relation to violence. Gender, rather than gender equality,
became the operative term. And what exactly does “gender-based”
violence mean? The main focus has been on men's violence against
54
Holter, Ø. G. - Masculinities, Gender equality and Violence
women, and the relationship between this supposedly “directly” genderbased violence and other “indirectly” gender-based forms of violence,
including women’s use of violence in close relations, was not clarified,
and has remained unresolved.
Violence surveys and other research has generally shown that men
perform most of the physically harmful violence in private or
interpersonal relationships. In this sense, the feminist model of men’s
violence against women as a central trait of gender discrimination has
proven true. However, besides the portion of violence performed by
women, with studies showing more gender balance in the less physically
harmful types of violence, there are also other traits that play important
roles, including social class and demographic variables (Pape &
Stefansen, 2004; Straus & Gelles, 1986; Finkelhor, 2007; 2008). Some
studies of violence against children indicate that women are as involved
(or, in some contexts, more involved) than men (Christoffersen, 1996).
Many men are non-violent, while some women are violent (Råkil, 2002;
Jungnitz, 2004). One might say that the gender-based violence paradigm
has worked a bit too well for its own sake, engaging too many
stereotypes. Popular versions of the model have been used in
fundamentalist ways, making violence inherent in masculinity, and have
simplified the complex empirical picture.
Therefore, revised gender models of violence have been discussed,
starting e.g. from ‘modified’ feminist poststructuralism and practiceoriented discourse theory (e.g. Butler, 2005; Reeser, 2010; Edwards,
2006; Fairclough, 2010). The aim is a more “situationist” approach, a
socially and culturally located theory (Connell, 2012; Sæter & Holter,
2011). Gender is not always an endless chain of references that govern
other action - but it can rise to this level at times, in certain situations.
These “violence-prone” situations can be differentiated in many
ways, but they also have common attributes. Although sociocultural
factors are of key importance for understanding why situations turn
violent, it remains the case that biology and psychology have a say
regarding who becomes violent in those situations (Baker, 1999;
Anderson, 1997). It is clear that institutional and organizational levels of
analysis are important, and that a main aim is to understand structures
and actors combined.
55
A gender model of violence has its main starting point in men’s
violence against women. Other related forms of violence are less well
clarified, including violence against men, and violence between men.
Most violence studies show that men, and especially young men, are
more often victims of violence in public areas, women more in private
or close relations. Are these just isolated phenomena, and if not, how are
they linked? Some gender regime and patriarchy models do put major
emphasis on the ranking between men, which could help explain the
large extent of violence between men in some contexts, especially
public sphere violence. Yet this is not well worked out in today’s
research.
Different forms of hierarchy combine or intersect in the creation of
violence, for example, the gender, class, ethnicity, sexuality, age and
function / handicap hierarchies. The combination or intersection affects
the violence chance at the structural as well as individual level. Power is
a central theme, although as we shall see, the connection between power
and violence varies and can be complex.
A wide model of several interacting forces is necessary in order to
understand a typical empirical trait, the “clustering” of violence. In
Norway data, for example, the chance of interpersonal violence is
associated with gender (male), with an insecure or lacking work
situation, with couple insecurity, with age (young adult), with lower
social class, with other forms of violence in the local environment, and
others (Pape & Stefansen, 2004). However, gender equality variables
are often missing or very limited in violence surveys.
Also, the evidence that does exist, is often conflicting. According to
the resource hypothesis, violence is what people (or, mainly men) turn
to, when other resources are lacking (Goode, 1971). If a man feels
threatened by losing his status vis-à-vis his partner or wife, the chance
of violence will rise. This view has some empirical support, especially
in surveys from some decades ago (Anderson, 1997; McCloskey, 1996).
Historically, women’s vote may have increased violence against women
(Websdale, 1992).
On the other hand, the empowerment of women hypothesis also has
support, especially in new studies, pointing in the opposite direction –
stronger women reduces violence (Kaya & Cook, 2010). Empowerment
56
of women is associated with actual gender equality although not
identical.
Studies discussing gender equality and violence are often restricted to
measurements on the attitude level. The actual practice is not included.
For example, men’s hostility towards women at the attitude level is a
known risk factor, but is not the same as whether the men are living in a
gender equal or unequal couples.
New data, presented below, throw new light on the issue. They bring
up a theme from the “classical” feminist tradition, where it was gender
inequality or the oppression of women that produced violence, rather
than gender as such.
New data
A new survey method was developed in Norway 2007, putting the main
focus on gender equality in different age periods and areas of society
(childhood, youth, adult work life, private life and others), using several
hundred variables in a multidimensional approach (Holter, Svare &
Egeland, 2009). Gender equality was measured on the practices level in
several ways, including power and decision-making (in jobs and
families), and division of housework and care work (in families).
Different types of attitudes, as well as personal gender identity
measures, were included. The survey also contained sets of questions
about health and quality of life.
The questionnaire started with a section where respondents were
asked about the period when they grew up and the conditions in their
childhood home and local environment. The questionnaire also included
a set of questions about violence in adult life, in private and public
arenas. The private life questions included questions on violence in the
current relationship, compared to the former relationship. The results
showed a strong tendency that former relationships were portrayed as
more violent than current relationships. The data on violence in adult
relationships were somewhat contradictive, probably as an effect of
underreporting of current relationship violence.
Compared to this, the retrospective childhood data were more
consistent. For example, men and women of different age groups gave a
57
very similar and consistent picture. Respondents of both genders
reported that the level of violence against children was reduced by about
two thirds, in the period covered by the survey. Also, the survey
questions about health and quality of life showed similar effects of
childhood violence, later in life. Figure 1, shown below, shows the
decreasing incidence of childhood violence (including physical
punishment) over time.
Figure 1 .
2007)
Violence against children in different age groups (Norway
Throughout the 1948-2000 time period, the data indicates that
violence against children was much less frequent in gender-equal
homes, than in gender-unequal homes. This main result is shown below.
58
Figure 2.
Violence and gender equality in the
childhood home
The results show almost two thirds less violence in gender-equal
homes, compared to traditional gender-unequal or father-dominated
homes. Mother-dominated homes were in the middle. As we shall see,
this pattern has recently been confirmed in an international survey also.
How realistic is this finding? Could it be a data or survey design
error? In the Norway survey, the respondents were first asked a series of
questions about their childhood and conditions in the childhood home.
“Who decided at home” (who had the final say) was asked as a
summary question, as an indicator of the degree of gender equality
between the parents, and this seems to be how it was understood (for
example, not a higher level of “don’t know” answers). The question
made sense. If men and women decide equally or not is a core of the
gender equality concept, at least in the Norway context. Further, varied
analyses of this association between parental gender equality and
(lower) violence show a consistent pattern across other variables. The
chance that the result is spurious is small. It could be objected that the
results are likely to be influenced by today’s "political correctness", but
this does not appear to be a major factor (see below), and it can be seen
as a plus that the phrase “gender equality” was not directly used.
The findings indicate that gender equality will, roughly, reduce the
chance of violence by one half to two thirds. As mentioned, the
association was remarkably strong and consistent across control
variables. These included whether the parents divorced or not,
59
harassment/mobbing in the local childhood environment, as well as
standard background variables like education,age and gender. For
example, the pattern was much the same across age groups (not shown)
and across education levels, as shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure
3. Violence and gender equality, by education level
It is noteworthy that the preventive effect of gender equality at home
was as strong among the younger respondents, as among the older ones,
and that the negative health effects of childhood violence were no less
strong (in fact a bit stronger) among the young than among the older
respondents.
It might be assumed that since violence has become more focused in
public and media debate, the threshold for reporting violence has
become lower. Since less serious cases are included, this should mean
that the negative health effects of violence should be lower among the
younger than the older respondents. However, that was not the case. The
violence concept, among the younger respondents, did not seem
“diluted”.
A main feature of the new results is that men and women give an
almost identical picture of violence and gender equality in childhood.
Their experiences seem far less “gender-divided” than has often been
assumed. For example, aggression problems later in life, associated with
60
early life experience of violence, have been seen as a special masculine
issue, but in the new results, aggression problems appeared as a quite
similar pattern across gender (even if the type of aggression problem
may vary by gender - for practical reasons, the survey’s health detail
was limited). The self-reported health and quality of life effects of
violence in childhood were much the same for women and men, as well
as the extent and content of the problems described. This does not fit a
model where gender-based violence leads to strong gender differences
among the victims.
Recently, the main Norway results have been confirmed in the
international IMAGES survey, partly building on the Norwegian
questionnaire (Barker et al., 2011). This survey included a question on
partner violence, showing a similar pattern. Data from the first countries
of the survey is used in Figure 4 below (based on Holter’s analysis of
the Images data file 2011, published with consent from the Images
team).
Besides violence against the respondents themselves (as children), the
respondents were asked about violence against the mother. The results
showed that gender unequal homes and especially father-dominated
homes were more often violent, on both indicators, compared to ender
equal homes.
Figure 4.
Childhood violence and partner violence in
an international survey
61
The figure speaks for itself. High gender equality in the childhood
home, defined as the mother and farther having an equal say, is
associated with lower violence. Even more clearly than in the Norway
survey, gender equality appears as a main factor reducing the chance of
violence against children, and also, violence against women.
In summary, the data indicate that gender equality works more
preventively than has so far been acknowledged in international
research. There, the opinion has often been split, for example, the
hypothesis that gender equality can increase violence in the short run,
even if it might reduce violence in the longer run. This argument has
been typical especially in gender-traditional contexts where, it has been
assumed, men may feel threatened and become more violent with more
gender equality . In view of the new results, this does not appear very
likely, or rather a minor effect, compared to the violence-reducing effect
of gender equality.
International research has also often portrayed men’s violence as a
fairly stable affair, occurring across different contexts. This idea also
becomes dubious, in light of the new data.
5. Violence against children, by parental gender equality and
perpetrator’s gender
Figure
62
This figure shows that there is no such thing as a “gender effect as
such”. Men were the more overall violent persons, in the main part of
the picture. But this was not the case in homes where the mother
decided. There, instead, the mothers were in a slight overweight among
those using violence. Also, even if the use of violence in equal-decision
homes remained mainly male, the gender imbalance among those using
violence was notably lower than in male-decision homes.
In homes where the father decided, the father was the one who was
violent in 89 percent of all the violence cases. In homes where the
parents decided equally, the father stood for 70 percent, and in homes
where the mother decided, 48 percent. In other words, mothers were
slightly more often violent than fathers, in mother-dominated homes.
Note that the “mother-dominant” category in this (and similar) contexts
is a more mixed category than the two others, including quite traditional
patterns as well as exception cases.
The main pattern can most economically be explained by two
coexisting tendencies: violence follows the line of power, and men are
more associated with violence. Of these, the first appears to be strongest
– rather than the conventional idea that violence follows gender or is
inherently a masculine domain. This appears also if we also consider the
extent of violence in the three types of households – gender-equal
households have a much lower violence level.
The violence data in the new data set is part of a broader investigation
of gender equality. Here is an example (from the Norway survey) of
how different factors influence the chance of gender equal practices
(decision-making and work/care division) in the couple. Note that
gender equality in childhood, as a whole, seems to have a small impact
on adult life gender equality.
63
Figure 6. Predictors of gender-equal practices (Norway 2007)
In this diagram, based on regression analyses of the gender equality
subdimensions of the survey, the independent variables are pictured on
the left, the dependent on the right. The gender dimensions are mapped
along with three background variables - income, education and age. The
size of the arrows shows the approximate effect.
The main dependent variable, gender-equal practices, is shown to the
right, with gender-equal practice defined as balanced decisions and
household work in married and cohabitating hetero couples. The
64
diagram includes the effect of gender equality on quality of life.
From this overall analysis, it appears that gender-equal background
(childhood and youth) has a rather small overall impact on the situation
today, not even clearly significant among women (no arrow). How can
this be explained, if gender related violence in childhood has such a
strong impact on later health and aggression?
Theory discussion
The new data is the result of a method development that places gender
equality issues in the center, and uses many variables concerning
everyday life, including aspects like conflict, violence, discrimination
and health. The detail “from below” approach to gender equality is new,
and this type of data has not existed before. They show a strong and
consistent tendency, both in the Norway case and in the international
case. Gender equality, especially the dimension connected to power and
decision-making, lowers the chance of violence. The pattern is similar
regarding violence against children, and partner violence.
Compared to this set of representative surveys, much of the earlier
research debate seems speculative and based on too restricted data. For
example, comparing age groups, we find no tendency that violence may
rise for a period, as has been argued in the international debate, based on
the hypothesis that gender equality is controversial at first and may
increase the risk of violence in private life. Instead, the pattern is quite
uniform – higher gender equality decreases the chance of violence
against children, regardless of the time period.
However, even if this macro trend is clear and central, it is not the
only tendency in the material. Gender equality is violence-reducing in
some but not all of the subdimensions measured. While economic and
educational gender equality in the parental couple had mixed or unclear
effects, the power and decision-making aspect of gender equality stood
out, with a reduction effect on the chance of violence. Gender equality
at the decision-making level was surprisingly strongly manifest as a
violence-reductive factor across control variables, while gender equality
in terms of “untraditional” work division in the home, and equal
65
education, were not statistically significantly correlated, or in other
words, a mixed picture.
This can be interpreted as some limited support for the idea that
increasing gender equality may also increase, not just decrease, the
chance of violence. Unfortunately the data are limited here, there may
be more “problem” households in the “untraditional” group, and the
term “untraditional work division” was not clarified for the respondents
(although the response rate was high, what is gender-traditional or not
was not an especially difficult question to answer).
Other patterns in the data (in the Norway survey) confirm the
impression that gender equality is positive in some senses, but not
necessarily all. The sample was surprisingly egalitarian in some ways,
like 90 percent wanting an equal sharing of household and paid work,
and surprisingly gender-conservative in others, for example, seeing
equity (or ‘different but equal’, equal worth, Norwegian likeverd) as
more important than gender equality (equal-setting, likestilling). Most
men and women, on the survey’s personal gender identity scale, scored
fairly traditional (men as mostly or very masculine, women as mostly or
very feminine). A minority, largest among women, scored mixed or
somewhat like the other gender. However, not a single respondent
checked off the option of being very like the other gender. The scale
results show some gender liberalism but within certain limits, indicating
a taboo against “too much” likeness.
A way to interpret these mixed results is that the democratic,
decision-making aspect of gender equality has historically been the first
and main form of gender equality development. Advances in other areas
have been slower and more controversial. In this view it is no wonder
that equal power is especially clearly linked to reduced violence, not
because other equality arrangements (like untraditional work division)
were more destructive, but because they were more controversial and
less of a “winning option” than equality in decision-making. They
worked out less well, and therefore did not reduce the chance of
violence as much as the decision-making factor.
This interpretation fits with historically oriented feminist theory of
gender contracts and gender work division, including modern gender
stratification recreated through production/reproduction imbalance
66
(Holter, 1984; Pateman, 1988; Acker, 1990; Hagemann & Åmark,
1999). The work positions (male breadwinner, female homemaker) can
be seen as more “hard coded” and less easy to change, than the
democratic or power-related positions. The material processes take time.
In Norway as in other countries gender equality first appeared as a
development of women’s status in cultural, social and political terms.
Business and material life have been a harder proposition for gender
equality, and changes in the economic sphere are smaller than in the
political sphere in Norway and the other Nordic countries (Holter &
Rogg, 2009).
In this perspective, gender equality is not just something “created” by
(post) modern life, or increasingly in demand by more meritocratic
organizations, or even by “selfish men” who now, due to increasing
returns on human capital, become more sensitive to women’s career
demands, e g towards their daughters (Farre, 2012). It is also something
that is often countered, put on the waiting list, toned down, or turned
away from its objectives (NOU, 2012). This happens during a long
historical process of struggle. Gender equality, in this perspective, is a
key part of the struggle for a democratic society. Since gender equality
has worked better on the political than the economic level, in the period
of the survey, it is not surprising that it has a stronger effect on violence.
As far as can be judged, the respondents tried to be realistic about their
childhood in the 2007 survey as well as in a smaller “prototype” 1988
survey (Holter, 1989), that showed a similar tendency.
The normative pressure towards gender equality found in surveys in
Norway (e g Skjeie & Teigen, 2003) fits with this historical view.
However it does not explain the remarkable consistency of the Norway
and the international results, with countries where gender equality is
much more controversial. Also, the results generally discourage the idea
that normative or political aspects of gender equality is the only or even
the main aspect of gender equality development. Other aspects are
important too, especially the material balance in the couple. Gender
equality emerges as a broad civil society process, not just a political
change (not surprisingly, designing a sociological detail study of gender
equality, we found that gender equality is – in fact – sociological).
A problem with any theory argument that runs to history or tradition,
67
is the question “why is it still there”. If we have economic gender
discrimination today, but less political discrimination, why has only one
of them been significantly reduced; what keeps the other going?
This question is relevant. Gender in/equality clearly involves material
structures as well as actor systems, disciplinary systems and govern
mentalities, logics of practice, and practicalized discourses. None of
these perspectives have “expired”, although they must all be reoriented
to help clarify the issues at hand.
It is clear, in the Norwegian context especially, that gender equality is
increasingly seen as a benefit for personal and family life, and that the
normative pressure in this direction has become stronger over the last
decades (NOU, 2012). In the 2007 survey, there were strong
associations between experienced gender equality in the couple
relationship on the one hand, and satisfaction with the relationship and
quality of life on the other hand. The chance of having seriously
considered divorce was far lower among those who evaluated the
relationship as gender equal, compared to the rest. However, this may
not directly translate to a lower divorce rate in practice, over time. A
recent Norway survey, linked to registry data, instead showed a higher
rate among the gender-equal, six years later. The researchers think that
the result is due to an underlying “liberal” factor which is associated,
both, with a higher chance of gender equality, and a higher chance of
divorce (Hansen & Slagsvold, 2012).
Once more, we see that “all” gender equality is not one and the same,
the way it works depends on the context. There are in fact different
aspects involved, some of them ambiguous and contradictory.
Historically, this is what we would expect - gender equalization is
realized in skewed, imbalanced, imperfect ways. Social innovation, in
this case gender equality, runs uphill at first (Holter, 2007). It develops
through different paths, and gender equalities (plural) is more relevant
than any unilinear model of (singular) gender equality.
Another important finding concerns the association between violence
in childhood, and health problems later. As mentioned this link did not
vary much with age (not “milder” over the period) and was also
surprisingly similar across gender. We thought that having a problem
with aggression later in life was a typical male reaction to childhood
68
violence, as was found in the 1988 survey, but as mentioned, the 2007
data shows that it is a female reaction too, quite similar across gender.
Although we could not go into the types of aggression problems, the
2007 survey confirmed the 1988 survey concerning one important detail
variable – having been involved in traffic accidents with personal injury.
The 1988 survey showed that among men, the proportion involved was
more than three times higher among those with violence in childhood,
compared to the rest. In the 2007 survey the proportion was almost two
times higher, similar among men and women. Perhaps the association
has become weaker over the span of a generation, but it is still
remarkably strong.
A recent survey in Finland gives similar results.
Not only is there no significant difference in the violence inflicted on
children by mothers and fathers, the intimate partner violence
witnessed by children is evenly distributed between the genders. The
findings demonstrate that the accumulation of familial violence
clearly occurs by household, not by gender (Ellonen et al., 2008,
p. 6).
Like in Norway, the violence level was reduced over time, due to
women being more critical in partner selection (Savolainen, 2005) and
other factors.
The new results confirm other studies showing that early experiences
of violence are “formative” and become “embodied”, but also go
further. They show links from childhood violence to later life health and
violence. Why are these links more clear here, than in the gender
equality dimension, even though gender equality, especially the
subdimension of power or decision-making, is clearly a main causal
variable, lowering the chance of violence? As we saw, gender inequality
among the parents, especially regarding power, lowers the chance of
violence, and thereby also the chance of health or violence problems for
the child later in life. This is a main finding. Yet it seems to become
manifest in health and violence terms, not in terms of gender equality as
such. This is more puzzling.
A possible interpretation is that violence is more “effective” than just
69
gender power on its own. It sets deeper marks. This is why it shows up
as a stronger cross-generational pattern, while the overall impact of
gender equality in childhood is lower (in some respects quite low) on
later life gender equality, compared to the impact of material
circumstances and other factors. In brief terms, gender in/equality
experiences have been easier to change, more open for individual
choice, than violence experiences.
This makes social psychological sense, according to qualitative
studies, fitting also with the historical view above. Thereby, we can
explain, both, why gender equality in childhood does have some
positive impact on adult life, and why the negative impact of violence in
childhood is stronger and clearer.
In a qualitative study of men using violence against women, including
expert interviews (therapists working with the men), we found that two
tendencies were especially prevalent, “brutality” and “objectification”
(or reification). The “brutality” factor was linked to early childhood
trauma and “social inheritance”, yet there was also an objectification
factor, with underlying misogynism, since the violence primarily
targeted women (Holter & Aarseth, 1993).
In the introduction I asked about gender as a repeating and governing
pattern – what are the circumstances for gender-related behavior to rise
to this level. It is clear that violence one central part of this context, like
feminist theorists have for long argued, an “institutional domain” of
gender discrimination (Walby, 2009, p. 449; 1994). According to the
new material, these contexts are characterized more by gender
inequality, than by any specific gender constellation. The power aspect
is central. At the same time, studies of violence warn that violence is
not simply an “imprint” of gender power. In the qualitative study
mentioned above, the therapists emphasized that most of the men who
had been required to go to therapy for their violence problems could be
described as “weak” or even “effeminate” - they were not necessarily
very masculine in their gender identity (Holter & Aarseth, 1993).
Similarly, studies have found that violence may sometimes be the
response of those who are not in a power position (in the direction of the
resource hypothesis). Yet the main picture resembles the one from
research on bullying and harassment in organizations, which have
70
different forms and causes, but usually follow the path of power rather
than the other way round (Stackelbeck & Langenhoff, 2002).
The results support the empowerment of women hypothesis, although
more on the political than the material level, while the resource
hypothesis makes sense only if gender inequality is assumed. In the
Norway context, there is a notable lack of the effects we would expect if
the “threat to male superiority” view was true. We do not find any sign
of an A curve, which should have appeared, but rather a quite constant
reduction over the c 1950-2000 time period.
Finally, what do these findings say regarding the question of gender
power, an issue that lies beneath most of the gender and violence
discussion? My comment here concerns only one specific aspect,
namely the difference between “setting a rule” and “conforming to a
rule”, which has come to the forefront in recent gender theory debate
(Connell, 2012).
We can identify a set of gender acts that sets a rule, distinct from a set
of acts that just follows existing rules. We know that in practice these
two categories, “formative” and “conformist”, are often overlapping.
Every gender-related act has a bit of both. Yet the distinction can be
useful and analytically important for understanding gender, inequality
and violence. Although the categories are seldom distinct in private life,
they can be distinct in other areas, for example when states create rules
favoring women with many children (natalist policy), and in effect set a
rule for motherhood, and implicitly for both genders, or when
aggressive regimes use “identity” to create support (Sen, 2007; Jones,
2004). Rule-setting agendas can appear quite clearly in family life too,
for example in connection with the mother-in-law, who is often seen by
the wife as imposing her own rules on the household, or even making
her husband into a “mamma’s boy” (Sæter & Holter, 2011). In such
cases psychological violence and what Galtung (1969) called “structural
violence” become relevant.
What does the new data say on the issue of interpersonal violence as
the “policing” of gender inequality, a major way that a gender-inequal
standard is “set”, in the final practice? This line of inquiry is not
contradicted in the new data. But is it supported?
In a recent paper, Connell (2012, p. 866) emphasizes the
71
“ontoformative” aspect of gendering – the way the gender elements in
social relations are linked to established social realities, and can create
these realities.
To treat gender as performative and citational is not enough. In
feminist social science, gender is ontoformative (…). Practice starts
from structure but does not repetitively cite its starting point. Rather,
social practice continuously brings social reality into being, and that
social reality becomes the ground of new practice, through time.
This is based on the organization research of Martin (2003, pp. 344355), who writes:
Many gendering practices are done unreflexively; they happen
fast, are "in action," and occur on many levels. They have an
emotive element that makes people feel inspired, dispirited,
happy, angry, or sad and that defies verbal description by all but
the most talented novelist. Think about capturing in words an
inspirational talk or "bawling out" by a boss. (…) Although people
are "gender-agentic," that is, active practitioners of gender, I
suggest that their practices are guided only sometimes by
intention relative to gender (…). Defining agency independently
of intention leaves us free to assume that individuals and
groups practice masculinities and femininities at work without
consciously intending to.
Martin distinguishes between gendering practices (what I call
formative acts) and practicing gender (conformist acts), and uses “being
bawled out by a boss” as example. The act is linked to power, has an
“emotive element”, and works on the self-concept of the employee.
Clearly, more than just “doing gender” is involved. Gendering
practices can usefully be defined as the meta level or “command code”
of practicing gender. Gendering practices can be seen as a superset of
the wider practicing of gender.
The gendering is strongly linked to the type of gender regime in the
organization (workplace, family). Martin describes gender-divided,
homosocial and masculinity-oriented US business organizations. It is
72
also connected to what Goffman (1974) called framing (and, also,
stigma), and to power techniques like gestures and erasure (Connell,
2007). However, organizations do not have to work this way (Puchert, et
al., 2005). The command code is a power aspect, not primarily caused
by the actual gender proportions of the organization, work divisions, and
so on, but almost always influenced by the latter. In hierarchical
organizations, the same act, or a similar act, usually has more of a
formative gendering aspect if performed by a superior, compared to an
inferior. The larger the power element, the larger is usually the
formative aspect, beyond conformism.
This view differs from the “collective male dominance” view of
violence (May & Strikwerda, 1994), and also a view where male
bonding is necessarily central (“domestic violence is another way in
which men exert power and control over women. (..) Violence is
restorative, a means to reclaim the power that he believes is rightfully
his” - Kimmel, 2000, p. 262). However, homosociality and male
bonding can be central in some contexts. Gender-unequal forms of
solidarity between men can inform men’s sexual violence against
women (Boswell & Spade, 1996); violence against gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender persons in public spaces (Herek, Cogan &
Gillis, 2002); and military combat (Page, 2002; Flood, 2008, p. 342).
Yet violence evidence tells us that masculinities are only part of the
problem, violence in couples is clustered, it occurs especially in the
phase with small children, and is associated with unemployment and
social difficulties (Haaland, Clausen & Schei, 2005), as well as custody
disputes (Nordborg, 2005). Masculinities are changing, and can also
involve cooperation against men’s violence (Connell, 2005). Although
masculinity or patriarchy is important (Hearn, 1998; Ferguson et al.,
2004), it is not enough to explain violence (DeKeseredy & Schwartz,
2005). The new findings show a broader picture. They build on a Nordic
research tradition where violence has been more extensively studied
(Eriksson, Nenol & Nilsen, 2002; Sogn, Lorentzen & Holter, 2006),
including studies of bullying in school (Mossige & Stefansen, 2007) and
sexualized violence (Sætre, 1989).
Gender inequality and violence in childhood both have effects later in
life, but they are stronger in the case of violence. As argued, gender
73
inequality experiences have been more open to later life influence than
violence experiences, and have been easier to rework for the individual.
Violence experiences are harder to rework or reframe beyond the rulesetting of the original incident. In this perspective it is no surprise that
aggression problems is the most frequently reported later life effect of
the violence. On a social psychological level, it is possible to “turn
against” the violence, but difficult to “go beyond” it, although possible,
as shown by studies of victims of sexual abuse reshaping the meaning of
their experiences in ways that leave both the victim and the aggressor
positions behind (Andersen, 2009).
In a relatively gender-equal social context like today’s Norway, an
explicit setting of a gender-unequal standard is likely to attract negative
attention. Gender inequality remains an underlying issue, while the rulesetting or gendering of practices appear more indirectly, through other
means. Recent studies of harassment in Norway show high levels of
verbal sexual harassment in school contexts especially (NOU, 2012).
No-one is “against” gender equality, but it is dangerous to be stamped as
“whore” or “homo”. Gender and sexual discrimination appears to have
some functional equivalence, to use Merton’s term. Likewise, in the
Norway 2007 survey, many respondents seemed to express ambivalence
with gender equality indirectly, through negative views of
homosexuality and “rule-breaking” gender identity.
It is possible, therefore, to interpret sexual discrimination as a
manifestation of gender inequality, or a way the “policing” of the gender
system is done. It is especially related to the hierarchy between men,
and fears of being seen as an “effeminate” man. It is also shameful and
embodying. With an “ontoformative” act, there goes, in principle,
“bystanders”, “underlings”, and “supporters”, in the power and
hierarchy perspective. Primary characteristics of bullying or mobbing
are stigmatizing, and manipulating the victim; personnel management
action favoring the view of the victim's workmates; and expulsion
(Leymann, 1990). There is a social psychological process, implanting
embodied shame in the victim, supported by informal (and often,
formal) social structures. Note that this perspective links main issues in
queer theory and gender equality theory – fields that are often seen as
separate.
74
This new view of gender-unequal violence, mediated through gender
and sex, also allows research to more specifically focus on well-known
contributing causes of violence in modern society, including humiliation
and lack of human dignity, including the construction of masculine
“shame spots”, creating a more general “fear of falling” among men
(Ekenstam, 2007). Such spots and locked situations, in the background
of much of the statistics of violent acts, can be better understood.
Conclusion
A useful distinction has been made between the gendering of practices
and the practicing of gender. Gender as ‘command code’ differs from
gender as performance.
The paper discusses men’s violence against women as, both, a way of
practicing gender, a performance, and as a more formative act, a way of
“gendering practice”, or even, policing the gender system. The starting
point is emerging new data suggesting that gender in/equality, not
gender by itself, is a main dimension for understanding variations in
violence levels.
Most of the empirical material in this paper is from Norway, in the
frontline of gender equality development (e g according to the Gender
gap index). The Norway situation differs from the one in many countries
south and east in Europe, for example Spain, which has stronger gendertraditional elements and a larger burden of patriarchy. Violence against
children is very common globally (Pinheiro, 2006), and violence in the
media is one of the contributing factors (Krug et al., 2002). Many traits
are similar, and the same main pattern appears across countries in the
international data.
The Norway material shows long-term change, as the gender order
has developed in the last decades. Even in a country increasingly
emphasizing gender equality, gender inequality continued to cause
violence against children, partner violence, and sexual harrasment. The
extent of the violence was gradually reduced. Yet the problem effect of
inequality (rising risk of violence) was not diminished in the period
studied.
75
Today, the effects of unemployment on interpersonal violence is
obviously a main concern. These effects vary with context but are
mainly negative, especially regarding long-term unemployment. The
“resource” hypothesis (lower resources, higher violence) may become
stronger. On the other hand, there are cases where men’s unemployment
is used to promote couple equality and invest in other projects. It seems
that empowering women and creating a gender equal local setting, with
societal and cultural support, can make a difference.
The political message of the new data is clear. If we want to reduce
violence in private life, we should invest in gender equality (Holter,
2005). A balanced European parental leave system could be a way to
ensure that both parents are parts of decisions at home, and thereby, that
children have better socialization environments that are less exposed to
violence.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierachies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered
Organization. Gender and Society, 4(2), 131-158. doi:
10.1177/089124390004002002
Andersen, T. H. (2009). Sårbar og sterk: Menn som har vært utsatt for
seksuelle overgrep i oppveksten:En kvalitativ studie av sosiale og
kulturelle faktorers innvirkning på virkelighetsskaping og
mestring. (Doctoral dissertation).
Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, Status, and Domestic Violence: An
Integration of Feminist and Family Violence Approaches. Journal
ofMarriage and Family, 59(3), 655-669. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/353952
Baker, L. A. (1999). Theories of violence: biology. In Gottesman, R,
(ed), Violence in America. New York: Scribner.
Barker, G., Contreras, J., Heilman, B., Singh, A., Verma, R., &
Nascimento, M. (2011). Evolving men: Initial results from the
international men and gender equality survey (IMAGES).
Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women
(ICRW) and Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Promundo .
76
Boswell, A. A., Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape
culture. Gender & Society 10(2), 133-147. Retrieved from
http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guido/Soc1/soc1readings/frat
ernities%20and%20collegiate%20rape.pdf
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of
Identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2005). Giving an Account ofOneself. New York: Fordham
University Press.
Christoffersen, M. (1996). Opvækst hos fedre. En sammenligning av 35-årige børns opvekst hos fædre og mødre.
Socialforskningsinstituttet rapport 96:23. København.
Connell, R. W. (2005). Change among the Gatekeepers: Men,
Masculinities and Gender Equality in the Global Arena. Signs
30(3), 1801-1825. doi: 10.1086/427525
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. (2003). Developing a theory of gender as practice: Notes
on Yancey Martin's feminist lecture. Gender & Society 17(3),
370-372. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594638
Connell, R. W. (2007). Southern theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. (2012). Transsexual Women and Feminist Thought:
Toward New Understanding and New Politics. Signs 37, 4, 857881. doi: 10.1086/664478
DeKeseredy, W. S., Schwartz, M. D. (2005). Masculinities and
interpersonal violence. In: M. Kimmel, J. Hearn & R. W. Connell
(eds.). Handbook ofStudies ofMen and Masculinities (pp. 353366). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Edwards, T. (2006). Cultures ofMasculinity. London: Routledge.
Ekenstam, C. (2007). Klämda män: föreställningar om manlighet &
omanlighet i det samtida Norden. In Ø. G. Holter (ed.), Män i
rörelse. Jämställdhet, förändring och social innovation i Norden
(pp. 173-224). Hedemora: Gidlunds forlag.
Ellonen, N., Kääriäinen, J., Salmi, V. & Sariola, H. (2008). Violence
against Children and Adolescents in Finland. English summary of
survey. Research ofLegal Policy Communications no. 87, Police
College of Finland Reports no. 71. Retrieved from
77
http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/poliisioppilaitos/home.nsf/files/lapsiuh
ritutkimus_englishsummary/$file/lapsiuhritutkimus_englishsumm
ary.pdf
Ericsson, K. (1998). Sexual harassment and the genderization of work.
In D. von der Fehr, B. Rosenbeck & A. Jónasdóttir (eds.), Is there
a Nordic Feminism? Nordic feminist thought on culture and
society. London: UCL Press.
Eriksson, M., Nenol, A., Nilsen, Muhonøn, M. (2002). Køn och våld i
Norden [Gender and violence in the Nordic countries]. Report
from a conference in Køge, Denmark, November 23-24, 2001;
TemaNord (2002:545). København, Denmark: Nordic Council of
Ministers.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study
ofLanguage. Harlow: Longman applied linguistics.
Farre, L. (2012). The Role ofMen for Gender Equality. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Ferguson, H., Hearn, J., Holter, Ø., Jalmert, L., Kimmel, M., Lang, J. &
Morrell, R. (2004). Ending gender-based violence: A call for
global action to involve men . Stockholm: SIDA Swedish
International Development Agency.
Finkelhor, D. (2007). Developmental Victimology. The Comprehensive
Study of Childhood Victimizations. In R.C. Davis, A.J. Luigiro &
S. Herman (Eds.). Victims ofcrime (3rd ed.) (pp. 9–34). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Finkelhor, D. (2008). Childhood Victimization. Violence, Crime, and
Abuse in the Lives ofYoung People. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Flood, M. (2008). Men, Sex, and Homosociality. Men and
masculinities, 10(3), 339-359. doi: 10.1177/1097184X06287761
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of
Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191. Retrieved from
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern Univ Press.
Goode, W. (1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 33 , 624-636. Retrieved from
78
Haaland, T., Clausen, S.E., & Schei, B. (2005).
Vold i parforhold - ulike
perspektiver. Resultater fra den første landsdekkende
undersøkelsen i Norge. Norwegian Institute for Urban and
Regional Research, report 2005 (3), Trondheim.
Hagemann, G. & Åmark, K. (1999). Fra 'husmorkontrakt' til
'likestillingskontrakt'. Yvonne Hirdmans genusteori. In F.
Engelstad (Ed.). Om makt. Teori og kritikk. Oslo: Ad Notam
Gyldendal, Oslo.
Hagemann-White, C., Gloor, D., Hanmer, J., Hearn, J., Humphreys, C.,
Kelly, L., et al. (2008). CAHRV - Gendering Human Rights
Violations: The case ofinterpersonal violence. Final Report
(2004-2007) Directorate-General for Research. Eur 23336.
Brussels.
Hansen, T., & Slagsvold, B. (Eds.). (2012). Likestilling hjemme. Oslo:
Nova rapport 8/2012.
Hearn, J. (1998). The Violences ofMen: How Men Talk About and How
Agencies Respond to Men's Violence to Women . London: Sage.
Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., Gillis, J. R. (2002). Victim experiences in
hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Journal ofSocial Issues,
58(2), 319–333. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00263
Holter, H. (Ed.) (1984). Patriarchy in a Welfare Society. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Holter, Ø. G. (ed) (2007). Män i rörelse. Jämställdhet, förändring och
social innovation i Norden . Hedemora: Gidlunds forlag.
Holter, Ø. G. (1989). Menn. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Holter, Ø. G. (2005, December). Preventing violence in the family:
Nordic perspectives on the role of men. Keynote introduction at
the Conference on violence within the family, European Council,
Strasbourg.
Holter, Ø. G. & Aarseth, H. (1993). Menns livssammenheng. Oslo: Ad
Notam Gyldendal.
Holter, Ø. G. & Rogg, E. (2009). Kjønn og makt i Norden - tolkninger
og forklaringsforsøk. In Kirsti Niskanen & Anita Nyberg (Eds.),
Køn och makt i Norden - Del 2: Sammanfattande diskussion och
analys. TemaNord.
79
Holter, Ø. G., Svare, H. & Egeland, C. (2009).
Gender Equality and
Quality ofLife - A Norwegian Perspective. Oslo: NIKK (Nordic
Gender Institute).
Jones, A. (ed.) (2004). Gendercide and genocide. Norman: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Jungnitz, L., et al. (2004). Violence against men. Men’s experiences of
interpersonal violence in Germany. Federal Ministry for Family
Affairs, Senior Citizens,Women and Youth – BMFSFJ, 11018
Berlin.
Kaya, Y. & Cook, K. J. (2010). A cross-national analysis of physical
intimate partner violence against women. International Journal of
Comparative Sociology, 51 (6), 423–444. doi:
10.1177/0020715210386155
Kimmel, M. (2000). The Gendered Society. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Zwi, A. B. & Lozano, R.
(2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces.
Violence and Victims, 5(2), 119-126. Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1990/00000
005/00000002/art00005
Martin, P. Y. (2003). "Said and Done" versus "Saying and Doing":
Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender at Work. Gender and
Society, 17(3), 342-366. doi: 10.1177/0891243203017003002
May, L. & Strikwerda, R. (1994). Men in Groups: Collective
Responsibility for Rape. Hypatia, 9(2), 134-151. doi:
10.1111/j.1527-2001.1994.tb00437.x
McCloskey, L. A. (1996). Socioeconomic and Coercive Power within
the Family. Gender and Society, 10(4), 449-463. doi:
10.1177/089124396010004006
Mossige, S. & Stefansen, K. (2007). Vold og overgrep mot barn og
unge. En selvrapporteringsstudie blant avgangselever i
videregående skole. Oslo: Norsk institutt for forskning om
oppvekst, velferd og aldring (NOVA), NOVA Rapport 20/2007.
Nordborg, G. (2005). Children's Peace? The possibility of protecting
children by means of criminal law and family law. In M.
80
Eriksson, M. Hester, S. Keskinen & K. Pringle (Eds.), Tackling
Men's Violence In Families (pp. 101-118). Bristol: Polity Press.
NOU. (2012, September). Politikk for likestilling. Report nº15, Oslo:
Departementenes servicesenter.
Page, J. (2002). Is mateship a virtue? Australian Journal ofSocial
Issues, 37(2), 193-200. Retrieved from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3567/
Pape, H. & Stefansen, K. (2004). Den skjulte volden? En undersøkelse
av Oslobefolkningens utsatthet for trusler, vold og seksuelle
overgrep [The hidden violence? A survey ofthe exposure ofthe
population ofOslo to threats, violence and sexual abuse]. Oslo:
Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies.
Report no. 1/2004 .
Pateman, C. (1988). The Sexual Contract. Oxford: Polity Press Oxford.
Pinheiro, P. S. (2006). Report ofthe independent expert for the United
Nations study on violence against children. Retrieved from
http://www.violencestudy.org/r242
Puchert, R., Gärtner, M., Höyng, S., Kimmel, M., Abril, P. & Morilla, X.
R. (2005). Work Changes Gender: Men and Equality in the
Transition ofLabour Forms. Leverkusen: Barbara Budrich
Publishers.
Råkil, M. (ed.) (2002). Menns vold mot kvinner: behandlingserfaringer
og kunnskapsstatus. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Reeser, T. (2010). Masculinities in Theory. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sæter, G. & Holter, Ø. G. (2011). Min ektemann - mammas gutt. Kjønn,
makt og normalitet i diskursen om mammadalten. Tidsskrift for
kjønnsforskning 4, Retrieved from
http://www.idunn.no/ts/tfk/2011/04/art08
Sætre, M. (1989). Seksualisert vold, seksuelle overgrep mot barn,
seksuell kultur og identitetsbekreftelse. Oslo:
Magistergradsavhandling, ISO, University of Oslo.
Savolainen, J. (2005). The Decline in Family Violence Against Finnish
Women, 1980-2003. In R. Sirén and P. Honkatukia, (Eds.).
Victimization to violence in Finland. Helsinki.
Sen, A. (2007). Identity and violence. The illusion ofdestiny. London:
Penguin.
81
Skjeie, H. & Teigen, M. (2003). Menn imellom . Oslo: Gyldendal
Akademisk.
Sogn, H., Lorentzen, J. & Holter, Ø. G. (2006). Research on violence in
Norway / Forskning om vold i Norge. Oslo: Kilden, Norges
Forskningsråd.
Stackelbeck, M. & Langenhoff, G. (2002). Der Mobbing-Report.
Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und
Arbeitsmedizin, Dortmund/Berlin.
Straus, M. & Gelles, R. (1986). Societal change and change in family
violence from 1975 to 1985. Journal ofMarriage and the Family,
48(3), 465-479. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/352033
Walby, S. (1994). Theorizing Patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Walby, S. (2009). Globalization and Inequalities. Complexity and
Contested Modernities. Los Angeles: Sage.
Websdale, N. (1992). Female Suffrage, Male Violence, and Law
Enforcement in Lane County, Oregon, 1853 to 1960: An
Ascending Analysis of Power. Social Justice, 19(3), 82-106.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29766695
Øystein Gullvåg Holter is Professor at the Centre for Gender
Research, University of Oslo, Norway.
Contact Address: Centre for Gender Research, P.O. Box 1040
Blindern, 0315 Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected]
Studying Men’s Violences: Some Key Methodological Principles
in Developing a European Research Framework
Jeff Hearn, Irina Novikova, Keith Pringle, Iva Šmídová, Marjut
Jyrkinen, LeeAnn Iovanni, Fátima Arranz, Voldemar Kolga, Dag
Balkmar & Marek M. Wojtaszek1
1) CROMENET EU NETWORK. Critical Research on Men in Europe
To cite this article: Hearn, J., Novikova, N., Pringle, K., Šmídová, I.,
Jyrkinen, M., Iovanni, L., Arranz, F., Kolga, V., Balkmar, D. & Wojtaszek, M.
(2012). Studying Men’s Violences: Some Key Methodological Principles in
Developing a European Research Framework. Masculinities and Social
Change, 2(1), 82115. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2013.22
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 2 No. 1 February 2013 pp.
82-115
Studying Men’s Violences:
Some Key Methodological
Principles in Developing a
European Research
Framework
Balkmar & Marek M. Wojtaszek
CROMENET. Critical Research on Men in Europe
Abstract
This article sets out some key methodological principles in developing a
European research framework for studying men’s violences. This involves
attention to gendered analysis and gendered power relations; gender
collaboration; interconnections between social arenas; ethical and political
sensitivities; examining and problematising roots and explanations of men’s
violences; building on and reviewing the contribution of Critical Studies on
Men; use of multiple methods, methodologies and epistemological frames; and,
addressing intersections of multiple dimensions of power and disadvantage.
Together, these principles and perspectives assist in developing a comparative
and transnational orientation, by attending to cultural variations, convergences
and divergences in time and space, and intersecting forms of power relations in
the study of men’s violences in a European context.
Keywords: abuse, Europe, men, masculinities, methodology, research,
violation, violence
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-2862
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.22
82-115
Estudiando las Violencias
Masculinas: Algunos
Principios Metodológicos
Clave en el Desarrollo de un
Marco de Investigación
Europeo
Balkmar & Marek M. Wojtaszek
CROMENET. Critical Research on Men in Europe
Resumen
Este artículo desarrolla algunos principios metodológicos clave con el objetivo de
desarrollar un marco europeo de investigación decicado al studio de las violencias
de los hombres. Esto implica prestar atención al análisis de género y a las relaciones
de poder vinculadas al género; a la colaboración entre géneros, a la interconnexión
entre los ámbitos sociales, la sensibilidades éticas y políticas; examinando y
problematizando las raíces y explicaciones sobre las violencias de los hombres;
construyendo y revisando la contribución de los Estudios Críticos sobre Hombres;
la utilización de multiplicidad de métodos, metodologías y entornos
epistemológicos; y, dirigiendo intersecciones de multiciplidad de dimensiones sobre
el poder y la desigualdad. Conjuntamente, estos principios y perspectivas participan
del desarrollo de una orientación comparativa y transnacional, a través de atender
variaciones culturales, convergencias y divergencias en tiempo y espacio, e
interseccionando formas de relaciones de poder en el estudio de las violencias de
los hombres en el contexto Europeo.
Palabras clave: abuso, Europa, hombres, masculinidades, metodología,
investigación, violación, violencia
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-2862
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.22
84
M
Hearn et al. - Studying Men's Violence
en’s violence is one of the most massive global social
problems. A huge amount of feminist and related critical
scholarship has shown the range and amount of men’s
violences that need to be recognised, including violence to women,
children, men (other men, each other, themselves), transgender people,
older people, and their interconnections (for example, Hanmer et al.,
1989; Lundgren et al., 2001; Martinez et al., 2006). Men’s violence
takes many gendered forms. It includes physical and sexual violence
from and to those known and unknown, emotional and sexual
degradation, rape and sexual assault, sexual trafficking, homicide and,
in some cases, suicide. The extent of violence can be relatively minimal
or extensive and life threatening, one-off or persistent, emotionally more
or less damaging, explicit or implicitly sexual or sexualised. Attacks by
men on women and children can be random or highly organised.
There is a high degree of transnational commonality around some
aspects of such practices. At the same time, there is the importance of
understanding men’s violence in its specific social, cultural and political
contexts its concrete nature, dynamic development and wider social and
societal context (Ruspini et al., 2011). This entails attention to
interpersonal, ideological and structural questions. There is a need to
recognise the multi-level, multi-layered nature of explanation; this
includes combinations of individual, family and structural explanations.
There is also a need to gender explanations: to examine how gender and
sexuality operate at interconnected levels of individuals, families, and
social structures and cultural patterns.
In recent years comparative perspectives have been applied to many
fields of study. Comparative research can be pursued for many reasons,
to: gather basic empirical data; test theories developed in one context to
another; develop more comprehensive models; examine influences of
cultural conditions; feed into transnational policy development, such as
EU policy. One of the most convincing reasons for adopting a
comparative approach is the potential offered for deconstructing the
assumptions that underpin social practices and policies in different
countries. Such a process of deconstruction facilitates a reconstruction
of more effective policies and practices. There is growing awareness
that such practices and policies increasingly interact transnationally, at
both European and, indeed, global levels: consequently research may
85
explore the processes and outcomes of those interactions and
connections.
In addition, distinctions need to be made between: comparative
research, comparing different countries, societies, cultures and systems;
transnational research on men’s violences; and research on men’s
transnational violence in terms of cross-border violences, such as in
trafficking, pornographisations, militarism, abduction, “paedophile”
rings, “honour” killings, and so on. These include actions by men, as
individuals and as collectivities, both directly as in their practice of
violence and less directly in their management, monitoring, sponsorship
and facilitation. This links with developments in transnational feminist
and profeminist scholarship, including critical research on men and
masculinities (Connell, 1993, 1998, 2005; Pease & Pringle, 2001;
Novikova & Kambourov, 2003; Kelly, 2006; Cornwall et al., 2011).
In this article we examine key methodological principles in
developing a research framework to study men’s violences in the
European context. This is the result of transational cooperation amongst
18 researchers across Europe funded by the European Union. The group
was brought together through the work of Sub-network 2 of
Coordination Action on Human Rights Violations (CAHRV)1 . This
cooperation built on the work of the European Thematic Network on
Research on Men in Europe, “The Social Problem and Societal
Problematisation of Men and Masculinities” (Hearn et al., 2004;
Pringle, 2005; Pringle et al., 2006). 2
Both the CAHRV Sub-network and the earlier Thematic Network
comprised women and men researchers researching men and
masculinities in an explicitly gendered way. The central focus of the
Thematic Network’s effort was the investigation of the social problem
and societal problematisation of men and masculinities. The reference to
‘social problem’ referred to both the problems created by men, and the
problems experienced by men. The notion of societal problematisation
referred to the various ways in which the ‘topic’ of men and
masculinities has become and is becoming noticed and problematised in
society – in the media, politics, policy debates, and so on. This focus
was set within a general problematic: that changing and improving
gender relations and reducing gender inequality involves changing men
as well as the position of women.
86
We argue that in developing a research framework and strategy to
study men’s violences in the European context, the following
methodological principles and perspectives are fundamental: gendered
analysis and gendered power relations; gender collaboration;
interconnections between social arenas; ethical and political
sensitivities; examining and problematising roots and explanations of
men’s violences; building on and reviewing the contribution of Critical
Studies on Men; use of multiple methods, methodologies and
epistemological frames; and, addressing intersections of multiple
dimensions of power and disadvantage. Together, these principles and
perspectives assist in developing a comparative and transnational
orientation, by attending to cultural variations, convergences and
divergences in time and space, and intersecting forms of power
relations.
Key Methodological Principles and Perspectives in Developing
Research Strategy
Gendered Analysis and Gendered Power Relations
Research strategy needs to attend to the centrality of gender and
gendered power relations. This is not only in terms of the substantive
focus of the research, but also in terms of the gender composition and
structure of research networks. Issues of gendered content and processes
need to be addressed throughout research, including the production of
data and the interpretation of data and gaps in data. While most, or even
in some views or argumentations all, violence is gendered, the
gendering of research on violence is discussed less often.
One crucial issue that distinguishes different approaches to gender is
whether gender is seen as one of several fundamental social divisions
underpinning social life, individual experiences, and the operation of
other social divisions (such as age, class, ‘race’, ethnicity, religion), on
the one hand, or as just one of a string of social factors defining an
individual’s response to a situation, on the other. Studies that refer to
women or women’s experiences do not necessarily constitute a fully
gendered approach. They may, for example, treat women (or gender)
simply as a variable, rather than as constitutive of, or located in, some
87
social structural formation. And moreover they may not analyse men as
just as gendered as women. An adequately gendered approach would
include at least the following features:
• Attention to the variety of feminist approaches and literatures; these
provide the methodology and theory to develop a gendered account;
• Recognition of gender differences as both an analytic category and
experiential reality;
• Attention to sexualities and sexual dynamics in research and the
research process; this includes the deconstruction of taken-forgranted heterosexuality, particularly in the study of families,
communities, agencies and organisations;
• Attention to the social construction of men and masculinities, as
well as women and femininities, and including understanding
masculinities in terms of relations between men, as well as relations
with women and children;
• Understanding of gender through its interrelations with other
oppressions and other identities, including those of age, class,
disability, ‘race’, ethnicity and religion;
• Acceptance of gender conflict as permanent, and as equally as
normal as its opposite, as well as examining resistance to this view;
• Understanding that gender and sexuality and their relationship are
historically and culturally acquired and defined; and
• Understanding that the close monitoring of gender and sexuality by
the state (the official biography of individuals) is not accidental, but
fulfils the purposes of particular social groupings.
Research on men’s violence has to be gender-present (Hanmer &
Hearn, 1999). To scientifically present violence as gender-absent or
gender-neutral would, theoretically at least, require it to be random in its
doing and receiving in relation to women and men, and require it to play
no role in the maintenance of gendered social boundaries and social
divisons. It is very difficult to give examples of violence with such
possible randomness or lack of relation to gendered social boundaries
and social divisons.
88
Gender Collaboration
Research on men’s violences needs to bring together women and men
researchers who research men and masculinities in an explicitly
gendered way. Such a meeting point for women researchers and men
researchers is necessary and timely in the development of good quality
research on men in Europe. Such work offers many opportunities for
collaboration and learning across countries and between colleagues.
Research on men that draws only on the work of men is likely to
neglect the very important research contribution that has been and is
being made by women to research on men. Research and networking
based only on men researchers is likely to reproduce some of the
existing gender inequalities of research and policy development. This is
not a comment on gender essentialism but rather on the need to draw on
the full knowledge and expertise available. Gender-collaborative
research is necessary in the pursuit of gender equality, the combating of
gender discrimination, achievement of equality, and anti-discrimination
work more generally. This is not to suggest that all research teams
should comprise women and men researchers.
Interconnections, and Separations, between Social Arenas
A key principle is to see the interconnections between men’s violences
and other social arenas: home, work, social exclusion/inclusion, health,
care, and so on (Hearn & Pringle, 2006). For example, varieties of
violence connect with the health and welfare of those involved — both
those violated and the construction of bodies of violators and others.
Violence involves the use of the body and the affecting of the bodies of
others. Many such interlinks co-exist in the gendered structure of
society – in the symbolic realm, in the division of labour and in
individual gender life trajectories. Social institutions, such as the family,
education, law, politics, labour markets, can have contradictory relations
to violence. The institution of the family or household can both be a
place where care is practised and a place where various types of
violence occur.
Violence does not operate as a separate sphere of practice. There are
impacts of work/employment on violence (including gender differences
89
regarding work), and vice versa; impacts of domestic and family
relations on violence, and vice versa; impacts of social
inclusion/exclusion on violence, and vice versa; and impacts of men’s
health and women’s health on violence, and vice versa.
Ethical and Political Sensitivities in Collaborative Work
Studying sensitive but also powerful topics, such as gendered violence,
calls for addressing specific ethical issues on the research process and
method(s) used. Ethical issues concern especially professional integrity
and relations with and responsibilities towards research participants,
sponsors and/or funders. Possible problems, such as methodological,
technical, ethical, political and legal problems, need to be taken into
consideration at every stage of the research on a sensitive topic.
The importance of good collaboration and work process, and
appropriate ethical practices cannot be emphasised too strongly in the
development of high quality comparative, transnational research. This
question operates in several respects and at several different levels, and
is an important ethical issue in its own right. This applies all the more so
when the attempt is made to act against violence, violation and abuse, in
this case men’s violences and abuses.
This is also a practical question in terms of getting tasks done with
the benefit of the greatest input and contribution from all concerned,
from different ethnic(ised), gendered, sexual, linguistic, national and
other differenced socio-political contexts. Without this, there is a great
danger of some participants dominating the research process, leading to
a limited understanding of men’s violence. Indeed the ability to work
collaboratively is a sine qua non of successful transnational research
work, and especially so on such difficult and sensitive topics as gender
power relations, violence, violation and human rights.
Furthermore, it is also a matter of the content of research knowledge
and of epistemology: for, without good collaborative practices the
epistemology of dominant one(s) may dominate the epistemologies of
others. These points apply for all participants, and particularly for those
in leadership positions. In particular, it is vitally important to develop
facilitative and supportive research working, research practices, and
research leadership.
90
Our experience of working on European, EU and other comparative,
transnational research on men and masculinities suggests a number of
pointers for developing such research practice. These matters of
research process cannot be separated from the content of research: in
this context, comparative, transnational research on men, masculinities
and men’s interpersonal violences.
Thus we suggest these positive guidelines:
• Give strong attention to ethical questions in the gathering, storage
and distribution of data and other information.
• Be respectful of all researchers and what they bring to the research;
this extends to understanding of difference, and of others’ research
and national and regional locations.
• Be aware that the major regional differences within Europe (and
beyond) mean that assumptions that single models should be
applied in all parts of Europe should be treated critically and with
great caution. While there may has been more research and more
research resources in Western Europe, researchers there have much
to learn from Central and Eastern Europe, including about the
latter’s historical situations. As is often the case within structural
and uneven power relations, those with less resources often know
more about those with more resources, than vice versa.
• Be aware of major national, legal and cultural differences within
Europe, around openness/secrecy, financial accounting and many
other matters.
• Value self-reflective approaches to the development of multiple
methods, and in the conduct of researchers, meetings and other
activities.
• Be aware that much research is done by goodwill and indeed
overwork, and with few or no additional resources; thus excessive
demands can mean that time and resources are taken from other
academinc and related activities, and other research projects; this is
an issue of ethical allocation of time and resources between
different activities, which is especially important in working on
questions of violence and violation.
• Express positive support and gratitude, not excessive criticism.
• Be aware that most people are working in their second, third or
91
fourth language, and that extra attention may need to be given to
clarity in the working language.
• Take care in writing emails and other communications; where
possible, write clear short emails and other communications; do not
use obscure phrases or make ungrounded suggestions in email and
other communications.
• In collective research discussions give feedback in good time, and
not late in the process of research production.
• Develop an appropriate and fair collective publishing policy, so
texts and information are not used inappropriately by others as their
own.
• Be aware of internal differences within research projects, especially
between those who are more funded and those who are less (or not)
funded, and between universities and similar institutions that are
better resourced (especially in Western Europe) and universities and
similar institutions that are less well resourced (especially in
Central and Eastern Europe). This involves a thorough grounded
understanding of the conditions under which different researchers
are working: some are working on permanent contracts, some
temporary contracts; some are well paid, others are not; some are in
supportive working environments, others are in environments
lacking support. Researchers are subject to other social divisions
and differences, such as by age, class, disability, ethnicity and
racialisation, gender, sexuality.
• Develop projects that are fair in terms the distribution of resources,
including between those with greater coordinating functions and
other research functions, between those who are more funded and
those who are less funded, and between universities and similar
institutions that are better resourced (especially in Western Europe)
and universities and similar institutions that are less well resourced
(especially in Central and Eastern Europe); This is especially so
with the under-resourcing of research and the overwork of many
researchers doing much work unpaid or in “overtime”.
• Develop a violation-free mode of organisation and working.
• Aim to produce a working environment that people are satisfied
with, that they look forward to working with and are pleased to be
in.
92
Examining and Problematising Roots and Explanations of Men’s
Violences
The examination of causes, explanations and ‘roots’ needs to be
considered, both in broad and multiple ways, without seeing them in
over-simple and deterministic interpretations. Debates on why men do
violence – the ‘roots’ of men’s violences - has been long and varied. It
has moved through shifts in disciplinary and discursive constructions,
and in the placing of men’s violence in relation to ‘men’ and ‘violence’.
Explanations of men’s violence may be developed from a wide range of
academic and disciplinary traditions. These include biological and
sociological, psychological and psychoanalytic, sociological,
anthropological, political and economic. Within such different
traditions, there are different conceptual, analytical and empirical
building blocks (Hearn, 1998a). Within human rights frameworks,
instead of ‘roots’ of violence, the terminology is often much based on
‘causes’ of violence that can sometimes, but not in all cases, be
interpreted as obliging states that have signed the relevant UN
conventions to address such violations through prevention and
intervention (Kelly, 2006, p.10).
A simple framework for analysis of explanatory levels of men’s
violence to women is that outlined by Gondolf (1985), drawing on the
work of Bagarozzi and Giddings (1983) and Gelles (1983). Gondolf’s
framework is drawn up in relation to ‘wife abuse’, but it is useful for
considering the broad terms of debate around men’s violence more
generally. He presents three major theoretical explanations as follows:
Psychoanalytic themes [that] focus on stress, anxiety instilled during
child rearing ...; social learning theories [that] consider the abuse to
an outgrowth of learned patterns of aggressive communication to
which both husband and wife contribute ...; socio-political theories
[that] hold the patriarchal power plays of men oppressing women to
be at the heart of wife abuse (Gondolf, 1985, p.27).
More specific forms of explanations include: cognitive and cognitivebehavioural approaches; reactive theories (frustration, stress and
blocking of social roles); family culture, subcultures and cultural
theories; systems theories; violence as structured oppression; cross-
93
cultural societal studies; hegemonic and dominant masculinities, and
their empirical and theoretical critique. These all should be considered
critically (Hearn, 1998b).
Some writers, such as Lees and Lloyd (1994) and Edleson, Eisikovits
and Guttmann (1985) have combined other theories to produce multicausal approaches. The latter argue that terror is the major feature of the
battered woman’s life, rather than the beatings which might occur
spasmodically, drawing on empirical studies of violence to known
women in five areas (violence in the man’s family of origin; chemical
abuse and violence; personal characteristics; demographic and
relationship variables; information on specific violent events). More
recently, other hybrid and multi-causal explanations that combine
several factors or realms have been developed,
for example, economy, labour market exclusion, isolation, housing
situation, men´s inability to fulfill breadwinning, stress, and
patriarchal male peer support (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002,
2005); or social isolation, unintegrated support networks, unequal
access to resources, centralized authority, and lack of access to nonviolent networks (Michalski, 2004) or macro, meso, micro and
ontogenetic levels (European Commission, 2010). (Hearn, 2013,
p.9).
An interesting and important example of the complexities of
explanation concerns the relation of some men’s propensity to drink
alcohol, especially excessively, and use of violence. Some small-scale
studies have noted consumption of large amounts of alcohol by many
men before physical violence to known women (Bergman & Brismar,
1992), but caution is needed in explaining violence by alcohol, or drug,
use as the independent cause. Whilst there is an association, Horsfall
(1999, pp. 85-86) notes difficulties in seeing alcohol as the direct cause
of violence, for example, both may have similar etiology through other
personal, social or structural conditions. A US national random survey
showed more heavy drinkers were violent to their partners, though much
violence was done whilst sober (Kaufman, Kantor & Straus, 1987). The
2010 WHO report, focusing on macro-level issues, concludes:
94
Alcohol is an intoxicant affecting a wide range of structures and
processes in the central nervous system which, interacting with
personality characteristics, associated behaviour and sociocultural
expectations, are causal factors for intentional and unintentional
injuries and harm to both the drinker and others. These injuries and
harm include interpersonal violence… homicide, drink–driving
fatalities and other unhealthy criminal behaviours. (WHO, 2010, p.
6)
The report suggests that associations of alcohol and violence vary
comparatively, with strong linkages in the “Eur-C countries” of Belarus,
Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, the Russian
Federation and Ukraine. This points to the significance of different
levels of analysis in explanation.
Building on and Reviewing the Contribution of Critical Studies on
Men
There is now a substantial international body of critical, feminist and
profeminist work on men, masculinities and men’s practices. Some of
the implications of this general research can be extended men’s
violences. The approach here argues for Critical Studies on Men (CSM)
that are: comparative, international and transnational, interdisciplinary,
historical, cultural, relational, materialist, deconstructive (Connell et al.,
2005; Kimmel et al., 2005).
The variety of disciplinary and methodological frameworks available
for the study of men, masculinities and men’s practices include
approaches from: biology, stressing sex differences; essentialism
searching for the “real” masculine; role theory; gender-specific
socialisation and identity formation; history; anthropology and crosscultural studies; feminist theories; patriarchy theory; multiple
masculinities and hegemonic masculinity; focus on habitus; gay theory;
queer theory; social constructionism and discourse theory;
deconstruction; postmodernism; postcolonialism; transnational
globalised conceptualisations; as well as humanities perspectives.
There are tensions between approaches that stress gender dichotomy
and inevitability to gender adversities, as against those that emphasise
change, processuality, flexibility and self-reflection for different
95
genders. There are also variations in the extent to which these studies
take a critical stance towards men and masculinities, as opposed to the
much more ambiguous and sometimes even anti-feminist activities of
‘men’s studies’, which can become defined in a much less critical way
as ‘by men, on men, for men’. CSM examine men as part of historical
gender relations, through a wide variety of analytical and
methodological tools and approaches. The notion of men is social and
not to be essentialised and reified, as in some versions of the equivocal
term ‘men’s studies’. Men are understood as historical, cultural and
changeable, both as a social category and in particular constructions.
Critical Studies on Men have brought the theorising of men and
masculinities into sharper relief, making men and masculinities explicit
objects of theory and critique. Among the many areas of current debate,
we would draw attention to three particular sets of questions that have
preoccupied researchers: the concept of patriarchy; similarities and
differences between men and between masculinities; and men’s, or
male, sexualities and subjectivities. In each case, there are tensions
between generalisations about men and masculinity and specificities of
men and masculinities, including the notion of hegemonic masculinity.
Masculinities operate in the context of patriarchal relations. The
development of a dynamic conception of masculinities can be
understood as part of the feminist and gendered critique of monolithic
conceptions of patriarchy. Thus the notion of masculinities fits with a
more complex and diversified understanding of patriarchy (Walby,
1986, 1990; Hearn, 1987; Holter, 1997) or patriarchies (Hearn, 1992). In
reviewing the field, Connell (1998) summarised major themes in
contemporary studies on men as: plural masculinities; hierarchy and
hegemony; collective masculinities; bodies as arenas; active
construction; contradiction; dynamics.
There is also a lively debate on the limitations of the very idea of
‘masculinities’, including around the confusions of different current
usages in the term (for example, Donaldson, 1993; Nordberg, 2000;
Whitehead, 2002). The very concept of ‘masculinity/masculinities’ has
been critiqued for its ethnocentrism, historical specificity, false
causality, possible psychologism and conceptual vagueness (McMahon,
1993; Hearn, 1996, 2004). Whilst Connell (1993, 1995) has emphasized
the cultural specificity of masculinities, and even of the concept itself,
96
the term has been applied in many and various ways. Connell has also
described hegemonic masculinity as a “configuration of gender
practice” rather than a type of masculinity, yet the use of the term has
sometimes been as if it is a type (also see Carrigan et al., 1985). Crosscultural research has used the concept of ‘manhood’ (Gilmore, 1990)
and historical research the notions of ‘manliness’ and ‘unmanliness’, in
the UK (Mangan & Walvin, 1987) and Sweden (Andersson, 2003;
Tjeder, 2003).
Generally we prefer to talk more precisely of men’s individual and
collective practices – or men’s identities or discourses on or of men –
rather than the gloss ‘masculinities’. However, the latter term is still
used at some points in thisarticle, as it remains the shortest way to refer
to how men act, think, believe and appear, or are made apparent. The
concept has been very important, even though some researchers use the
terms very differently, in serving several definite academic and political
purposes. Perhaps above all, recent studies have foregrounded questions
of power.
There is some development of critical studies on men addressing
men’s violences. In such critical approaches the focus on men’s power
and domination is central. Violence is located as one element of that
power and domination, even though there are major discussions and
debates about the explanation of those violences. In order to understand
men’s violences, it is necessary to understand the social construction of
men and masculinities, not just the abstracted nature of violence. There
is an increasing literature that places the analysis of men’s violence to
women, especially known women, within the context of the analysis of
men and masculinities more generally, rather than within the context of
violence or ‘domestic violence’. The explicit focus on men is
emphasised by Pringle (1995) in his review of men’s violence to
women. He notes first that ‘men tend to have a need to dominate and
control’, and, second, that ‘structural factors play a part in the
generation of men’s physical and emotional violences’ (p. 100). Pringle
stresses that such violence is behaviour chosen by men, it is the product
of choice within a structural context of hierarchical power
arrangements. As Tifft (1993) has explained, the prevalence of battering
is directly related to the ideological and institutionalised strength of
such structural gender arrangements.
97
The application of masculinities theory to men’s violence to women
has been developed to some extent. One of the broadest analyses of the
relation of crime and masculinity within a framework of masculinities
theory is James Messerschmidt’s (1993) Masculinities and Crime. He
has argued that crime, including violence, is available as a resource for
the making of masculinity, or at least specific forms of masculinity.
Messerschmidt sees various forms of criminal behaviour, crime and
violence as structured action and differentially available resources for
“doing masculinity” (West & Zimmerman, 1987), when other resources
are not available (according to class, ethnicity/“race” and sexuality). He
thus posits a compensation model of masculinity, so that violence is
seen as a resource when, for example, marriage, steady employment
with reliable pay, having and providing for children, or educational
success are not available as “masculine-validating resources”.
Various, mainly qualitative, studies have explored these possible
“compensatory” dynamics, for example, in studies of unemployed and
marginalised men and young men. Less attention has been given to
quantitative studies of these processes. The production and reproduction
of masculinities is detailed by Miedzian (1992) in her description of the
significance of violence in the rearing of boys and sons. She does not
simply chart the socialisation of boys but also sees the construction of
masculinity of boys and young men within wider society as intimately
interconnected with violence. Stanko (1994) has spoken of the need to
look simultaneously at masculinity/violence in analysing the power of
violence in negotiating masculinities.
While this may appear to be clearer in considering men’s violence to
each other, such a ‘simultaneous yet negotiated’ analysis needs to be
extended to man’s reproduction of violence/masculinity in relation to
women.
Violence seems sometimes, indeed often, to be directly linked to
masculinity with only the difference whether this relation is constitutive
or subtle. This might support the idea of hegemonic masculinity and a
relatively non-differentiated understanding of violence. However, the
relation between masculinity, or rather, masculinities, and violence is
more complex.
98
First, there are many men who condemn or despise violence against
women and children. This, however, does not necessarily (or even
perhaps probably) imply a fully egalitarian view of gender relations.
Rather this may possibly involve a viewpoint such as ‘a man has to
make his wife obey without using physical strength’, that is, through his
(male) authority.
Second, the construction of masculinity is contradictory: there are
complex connections between “responsibility” and “violence”, between
“honour/respect” and “violence”, between “autonomy” and violence”;
in each case, both elements might contradict each other or go together
(violence in the name of honour, responsibility, education, or even
respect), and the specific combination contributes to the construction of
masculinities and defines what kind of violations against whom are
acceptable and what kind are not. At the same time, this also raises
important questions of how to address other men’s, or male, “nonviolent” practices that are still tightly bound to (legal or noncriminalised) violent practices, such as in military and war, or as
clientele in the sex trade.
Third, attitudes concerning men’s, or ‘male’, violence in different
forms and the practice of non-(physical) violence can constitute
distinctions between masculinities. The superiority of (non-violent)
masculinity can be (re)constructed by understanding that this form of
masculinity does not need to use of physical strength or direct
interpersonal power over others. In this sense, the condemnation of
violence might, in some contexts, also be men’s, or male, practices to
reassure or revalorise other or dominant forms of masculinity. There are
indeed power relations between men and masculinities, which regulate
what kinds of violence are accepted and who has the power to condemn
violence for which kinds of men and in what contexts. Thus, there are
various power relations between men (and not only between offender
and victim) and different ways of handling of violence (accepting,
expecting, convicting) as part of the regulation of power relations
between men more generally.
Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) have critically reviewed the
concept of hegemonic masculinity, in part in relation to violence. They
suggest that what should be rejected includes the continued use of
psychological trait theory, and too simple a model of global gender
99
dominance. Both of these elements (and their rejection) are relevant to
the analysis of men’s violence to women. Several reformulations were
presented, including more holistic understanding of gender hierarchy;
the importance of the geography/ies of masculinities; the return to the
emphasis on social embodiment; and the dynamics of masculinities,
including contestation and democratisation.
A further promising development is to understand men’s violence to
known women at least in part through relations between men, as men.
For a man to understand his relationship with other men may be a means
to unlocking the emotional dynamics of his abuse of women, as a
compensatory and regulatory mechanism in his relations with other
men. The processes by which men construct women through relations
with each other, as men, and use those constructions to regulate relations
between men, may be at the core of the persistence of such violence
(Hearn & Whitehead, 2006). Such violence may appear to be a paradox,
since it is inconsistent with the heroic role of provider to and protector
of women. Yet it appears as a paradox, only as long as masculinity is
understood in the context of ‘… the study of men conceptualised solely
as the study of personal identity, of masculinities’ (Hanmer, 1990, p.34).
When models emerge which are rooted in what men have in common,
as men, across social divisions (Whitehead, 2005) or which are
concerned with the actuality of men’s practices, men’s violence to
known women may be seen as functional in maintaining masculine
identity, while appearing on the surface to undermine it.
Use of Multiple Methods, Methodologies and Epistemological
Frames
There is a need to go beyond quantitative measures that are primarily
descriptive and lack in-depth analysis. There is a need to build
foundations for culturally-sensitive studies that gather new comparable
cross-national data and address issues of patterns, trends and differences
in many areas. It is assumed that no one method is able to answer the
spread of research questions. A range of methods needs to be employed,
including: national representative surveys, survivor accounts,
perpetrator accounts, individual biographies, Critical Discourse
100
Analysis, agency data interviews, and/or analysis of case files. While
attending to statistical and other information, qualitative and grounded
methods and analyses need to be emphasised and developed.
Methodological contributions need to be from across social sciences,
demography, anthropology, and so on. All forms of approaches and
epistemological frames to understanding knowledge should be utilised
including positivist social science, feminist standpoint theory, poststucturalist, postcolonial, critical social postmodernism approaches, but
all should be reviewed critically. Methodology needs to attend to both
material inequalities and discursive constructions.
Processes of cultural variation impinge directly not only on any
research topic (including men’s violences) but also on the research
process itself. This occurs in a whole range of ways – not least the fact
that different research traditions in different countries value various
forms of research differently. For instance, thinking about Denmark,
Sweden and the UK, it seems clear that qualitative research is valued
more highly within “mainstream” social sciences in the UK than in
Denmark or Sweden. Moreover, where qualitative research is carried
out, one can find considerable cultural variations in how it is done,
especially as of course there is no clear dividing line between qualitative
and quantitative research. So, for example, in a cultural context where
quantitative research is seen very much as the “norm“, it may well be
that much qualitative research is carried out there along more
quantitative principles than is the case in a context where qualitative
research is more broadly accepted. These kinds of variability have
important implications for what is researched and how it tends to be
researched in different countries and contexts. The picture is even more
complex when one takes into account variability between research
approaches across disciplines as well as across countries.
The same considerations apply to theoretical and analytical
understandings of men’s violences – and indeed of men’s gendered
practices more generally. There are massive potential variations in the
way in which men’s practices can be understood analytically and
theoretically – not least the highly political and emotive issue of men’s
violences. This is because there are indications (see Hearn & Pringle,
2006; Pringle et al., 2006) that different theoretical and analytical
approaches vary partly according to country and cultural context. This
101
may partly (but only partly) explain the fact that the emphasis of gender
research on men in the Nordic countries has historically been placed on
topics such as employment, work in the home, and health, rather than on
men’s violences to women and children; whilst a different balance has
tended to occur in countries such as Germany and the UK (Pringle,
2005).
Until rather recently, there was a relatively limited development of
feminist work on men’s violence to known women that was inspired by
post-structuralism, postmodernism, and feminist poststructuralisms and
postmodernisms. As such and according to many of these approaches,
violence, including men’s violence, is not a discrete area of study, and
nor is it a separate object cause or ‘explained’ by some other subject or
cause. Instead, violence is multiple, diverse and context-specific; it is
also formed in relation to and in association with other social forms,
such as sexuality, family, marriage and authority. Violence is not a
separate thing, but is constructed in diverse social relations and
discourses (Hearn, 1998b). However, violence is never ‘only a
discourse’ when thinking about its object and its effects: violence is very
much a physical, mental and emotional experience(s) to its victim and in
a different way for its perpetrators. Thus research that is limited to an
anti-foundational postmodernist ideology may reduce the acts of
violence to discursive elements or processes. For these reasons, there is
now much greater recognition of the need for research to be concerned
with both material, embodied actions, experiences and relations, and
their construction in discourse, with what may be called a materialdiscursive approach.
Addressing Intersections of Multiple Dimensions of Power and
Disadvantage
The question of difference and diversity is important in relation to men’s
violence to (known) women in terms of age, disability, economic class,
gender, race and ethnicity, and sexuality. For instance, black feminists
have highlighted the neglect of experiences of black women in much of
the research on men’s violence (for instance, Bhatti-Sinclair, 1994) Thus
earlier research on (men’s) violence in ‘white’ contexts and
communities would need further emphasis and focus on and through the
102
aspects of research and researchers of/from ‘non-white’ communities.
The cultural settings in Europe concerning ethnicity are very diverse,
and increasingly so. Therefore, emphasis on these aspects is very much
needed in the current and future Europe. This arises also the question
that ‘who’ (‘white’ or ‘non-white’, ‘originally European’ or
immigrants/ethnic minorities, and so on) are involved in the research
processes, and what does it mean for the outcome of the research
settings, their contextualisations and outcomes.
At the same time, there is a danger that when following the
cultural/ethnic/race ‘path’, research becomes essentialist, and starts to
‘explain’ the violence in a ‘cultural’ and non-gendered way. This is an
aspect that needs to be emphasised in the process of developing of a
‘European’ strategy to research on violence. According to Hearn (1998b,
p.33),
[s]tructuration theory, in emphasising the intersection of social
structures and agency/actions, also raises the theme of difference and
diversity (Messerschmidt, 1993). These issues of difference and
diversity between forms of violence, between kinds of men’s
violence, and experiences of different social groups defined by other
divisions and oppressions are a major theme of current research (see
for example Rice, 1990; Kirkwood 1993; Tifft, 1993; Pringle, 1995).
Issues of difference and diversity, by age, ethnicity, race, religion,
sexuality, and other social divisions, need to be highlighted, thus
interlinking men’s violences with economic and material circumstances,
in terms of work, family, health, education, and so on, and the complex
intersections of forms of social inclusion and social exclusion. This
relates to the broad questions of gender power relations and societal
constructions of masculinity, as well as the impact of poverty and other
inequalities upon men’s violences.
Types of situations where issues of ethnicity and gender intersect in
various ways to increase the likelihood of violence occurring and/or to
increase the likelihood of violence not being prevented or halted
include: (i) racism, especially militant racism; (ii) projects of state and
non-state nationalism and pan-nationalism (e.g. in the Baltic States, in
the Balkans, in US and UK foreign policy); state and non-state
terrorism; (iii) the unwillingness sometimes of state and non-state
103
agencies to intervene in gendered violence in minority ethnic group
families; (iv) over-eagerness sometimes of state/non-state agencies to
intervene in gendered violence in minority ethnic group families (at
other times avoidance); (v) relative lack of attention sometimes paid to
gendered violence in majority ethnic group families and amongst more
powerful groups compared to that in minority ethnic group families
(Walby, 2009).
Situations where multiple dimensions of power/disadvantage (for
instance including age, gender, ethnicity/”race”, religion, sexuality,
disability, kinship, class) intersect may often be ones where violence is
most likely to occur, even if not all the dimensions of power flow
constantly in the same direction. For example, the commercial sexual
exploitation of children, in one perspective, can be seen as the outcome
of a complex interaction of various dimensions of oppression and
violence: at least gender, age, class, ethnicity/”race”, sexuality. We are
thinking here primarily of dominant, even taken-for-granted, ways of
being men, rather than the concept of so-called “paedophilia”. It is
indeed heterosexuality that most often though not always - enters
problematically into processes of violence and oppression.
This involves examining the specificity of intersectionalities, in such
a way that:
• The likely vulnerability of both women and men in less powerful
social locations;
• The less resources of both women and men in less powerful social
locations;
• The greater likelihood of the prosecution of men in less powerful
social locations;
• The lesser likelihood of the prosecution of men in more powerful
social locations;
• Gender power relations are not neglected.
Violence and violations are not simply means for or structurings of
other forms of power, domination and oppression. They are forms of
power, domination and oppression in themselves that structure
organisations. While such a perspective can mean that violence as
violation may blur into power relations, a key distinction is that power
relations are not necessarily violating.
104
Conclusion
Challenges in Comparative and Transnational Research
A shared methodological framework for a research strategy for studying
men’s violences needs to adopt comparative and transnational
orientation in examining men’s practices, gender relations and social
policy responses in their specific social and cultural contexts.
Consequently, it seeks to understand them as both socially and culturally
constructed and with real material forms, effects and outcomes for
people’s lives. This involves taking into account the complex
intersection of gendered inequalities with other forms of social
disadvantage.
Yet many challenges around methodology in research on gender
violence remain, in particular how to plan and accomplish such research
transnationally. Kelly (2006) discusses some methodological questions
and points out challenges to combine human rights framework and
social research, for example, in studying gender violence
transnationally. The premises of these frameworks and their embedded
positions and ideologies differ in many ways. According to Kelly, the
human rights framework is based on universality, commonalities and
setting boundaries, whereas in current social research much attention is
increasingly paid to diversity, differentiation and cultural contexts
(Kelly, 2006, p.2). This creates tensions, even though such tensions
could be overcome by (re)constructing of methodologies as well as
procedures in doing research.
Major possible difficulties in comparative research include practical
and empirical problems, such as obtaining comparable empirical data.
Cultural and linguistic problems include how descriptions depend on
national and cultural writing styles and linguistic understandings, so that
comparisons are of not only systems but also linguistic, cultural
practices. Administrative and statistical systems usually do not
correspond with each other. Major difficulties posed by differing
meanings attached to apparently common concepts used by respondents
and researchers are likely. This signals a broader problem: for diversity
in meaning itself arises from complex variations in cultural context at
105
national and sub-national levels – cultural differences which permeate
all aspects of the research process.
Practical responses to such dilemmas can be several. On the one
hand, it is perhaps possible to become over-concerned about the issue of
variable meaning: a level of acceptance regarding such diversity may be
one valid response. Another response is for researchers to carefully
check with each another the assumptions which each brings to the
research process. In addition, the impacts and interaction of different
cultural contexts is of major significance for the internal cooperation
and process of future initiatives in research development.
The importance of attention to different historical and political
contexts of different regions, countries and parts of Europe cannot be
overstated. There are dangers in transplanting ideas and theories from
one part of Europe to others, in seeing comparison as an ‘even surface’.
Caution needs be exercised in terms of developing a single
methodological measure across all Europe. Cultural differences in
Europe, as elsewhere, need to be taken into consideration when
researching gender violence transnationally. Major differencies are
related to history, forms of organising societies and their welfare
models, and power relations between different groups of people, such as
ethnic majorities and minorities. Diversity among citizenships often
impact on how violence is understood societally: culturalised and
ethnisised citizenship can lead to essentialism in interpreting violence
by certain groups, for instance ‘honour killings’ or forced marriages are
sometimes explained, even excused, on cultural grounds.
Some Exemplars
In the light of these considerations, we provide here three examples of
possible comparative and transnational research approaches to men’s
violence, before identifying some final research priorities.
•
Comparative surveys on gendered violence: Accomplishing such
surveys can often meet various problems based on differences in
cultural and social situations in different areas. In spite of such
problems, comparative survey studies of men and masculinities in
the context of gender power relations may be developed. One
106
example is the approach developed by Connell and colleagues
(Connell, 2004, 2005), initially in an Australian context. This
combines diverse quantitative measures with more qualitative
assessments of situational context and embodied dimensions,
informed by poststructuralist approaches. Men’s violences are
considered in the broad context of conflict and peacemaking and
other aspects of gender relations.
• Comparable cases ofmen’s violences: The study of parallel cases on
forms or locales of men’s violences simultaneously across several
or many countries, for example, men in prison (short-term, longterm, lifers), men arrested for ‘domestic violence’, men in men’s
anti-violence programmes, young men and violence in and around
sport. This can draw on quantitative, qualitative and ethnographic
approaches, and build on matched cases. Similarities in some parts
of the procedures or basis for the organisations can offer an
important common ground for comparative research, which still
leaves space for embedded cultural and social differences to be
taken into account in comparing the cases. Another possibility for
comparative research on gender violence is key incident analysis
(Kroon & Sturm, 2000).
• Studies of men’s transnational violences: Studies of men’s
transnational violences can include the sex trade, use of information
and communication technologies, ‘paedophile rings’, violence in
transnational interpersonal relations, abductions, ‘honour killings’,
human trafficking, militarism, and related violences. These involve
both transnational violent phenomena and demand transnational
collaboration in doing research.
Research Priorities
1. Focus on men’s violences to women, men, children, transgender
people, by full attention to men’s relations with men.
2. Develop quality assurance in research on men’s violences in terms
of it being conducted in the full knowledge of international, critical
gender scholarship and research on what is already known.
3. Link research on men’s violences to social inclusion/exclusion, and
intersectional approaches to cultural and other differences.
107
4. Link research on men’s violences to human rights agenda, its
potentials and its limitations, including its feminist critiques.
5. Link research on men’s violences to current critical debates on
masculinities and men’s practices.
6. Include physical, sexual and other forms of violences, including
the relations of men’s violences and men’s sexualities.
7. Develop transnational, as well as comparative and international,
research, including research on men’s transnational violences.
8. Develop policy-driven research on what reduces and stops men’s
violences.
9. Attend to both questions of research content on men’s violences
and questions of research process in researching men’s violences,
and also to their interrelations.
10. Increase investment and build support for investment in research
in Central and Eastern Europe, which remains the most underfunded area for research into men’s violences.
11. Focus on ethical issues during and throughout the whole research
process, and develop collaborative, facilitative and supportive
research environment from the beginning of the process.
12. Develop relational approaches between: forms of men’s
violences; men’s interpersonal violences and men’s institutional
violences; social divisions/exclusions/inclusions; violence and other
social arenas.
13. Develop research that explores the dynamics of men’s violences
transnationally by giving a primary role (not necessarily the only
primary role) to qualitative approaches.
14. In developing research strategy to explore the dynamics of men’s
violences in a transnational, transdisciplinary fashion, create and
maintain considerable “spaces”/fora - both initially and throughout
the project – to ongoing discussions and consultations between the
researchers involved about the methodologies/methods they adopt
and about developing frames for accommodating/dealing
with/taking
advantage
of
variations
in
such
methodologies/methods. This cannot be emphasised too much.
15. When and where researchers are brought together to explore such
issues, it is vital that research strategy creates clear “spaces” or fora
– both initially and throughout the process – whereby analytical
108
and theoretical variations can be discussed and clarified, and
frames developed to accommodate, deal with and harness such
variations. This is especially so with transdisciplinary research,
and is essential where research is to be transnational and
transcultural.
Notes
The CAHRV project (Project no. 506348) ran from 2004 to 2007, as part of the
European Commission Framework 6 research on “Citizens and Governance in a
Knowledge-based Society”. Within CAHRV, Sub-network 2 focused on “the roots of
interpersonal violence: gendered practices, social exclusion and violation” (see Hearn et
al., 2007). The other researchers in the Sub-network in addition to the current authors
were Gunilla Bjerén, Harry Ferguson, Ursula Müller, Elżbieta H. Oleksy, Cornelia
Helfferich, Ilse Lenz, Elizabete Pičukāne and Victoria Rosa.
2 The Thematic Network operated from 2000 to 2003, within the EU Framework 5
Programme. About half the 18 researchers in the CAHRV Sub-network were part of the
previous Thematic Network. The overall aim of this Network was to develop empirical,
theoretical and policy outcomes on the gendering of men and masculinities in Europe.
1
References
Andersson, S. (2003). Ordnande praktiker. En studie av status,
homosocialitet och manligheter utifrån två närpolisorganisationer.
Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Pedagogiska institutionen.
Bagarozzi, D., & Giddings. C.W. (1983). Conjugal violence: A critical
review of current research and clinical practices. The American
Journal ofFamily Therapy, 11, 3-15. doi:
10.1080/01926188308250106
Bergman, B. & Brismar, B. (1992). Family violence is a learned
behaviour. Journal ofPublic Health, 106, pp. 45-52.
Bhatti-Sinclair, K. (1994). Asian women and violence from male
Partners. In C. Lupton and T. Gillespie (Eds.), Working with
Violence. (pp. 75-95). London: Macmillan.
Carrigan, T., Connell, R.W., & Lee, J. (1985). Towards a new sociology
of masculinity. Theory and Society, 14(5), 551-604. doi:
10.1007/BF00160017
109
Connell, R.W. (1993). The big picture: Masculinities in recent world
history. Theory and Society, 22(5), 597-623. doi:
10.1007/BF00993538
Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity.
Connell, R.W. (1998). Men in the world: Masculinities and
globalization. Men and Masculinities, 1 (1), 3-23. doi:
10.1177/1097184X98001001001
Connell, R. (2004). Masculinities, change and conflict in global society:
Project outline - July 2004. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Connell, R. (2005). Measuring gender patterns: Rationale for
interviews. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Connell, R.W., Hearn, J., & Kimmel, M. (2005). Introduction. In M.
Kimmel, J. Hearn, and R.W. Connell (eds.) Handbook ofStudies
on Men and Masculinities. (pp. 1-12). Thousand Oaks. Ca.: Sage.
Connell, R.W., & Messeschimidt, J.W. (2005). Hegomonic masculinity.
Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859. doi:
10.1177/0891243205278639
Cornwall, A., Edström, J., & Greig, A. (eds.) (2011). Men and
Development: Politicizing Masculinitie. London: Zed.
DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2002). Theorizing Public
Housing Woman abuse as a Function of Economic Exclusion and
Male Peer Support. Women’s Health and Urban Life, 1 (2), 26-45.
Retrieved from:
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/17396
DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2005). Masculinities and
Interpersonal Violence. In M. Kimmel, J. Hearn and R. W. Connell
(Eds). Handbook ofStudies on Men and Masculinities. (pp. 353366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and
Society, 22 (5), 643-657. doi: 10.1007/BF00993540
Edleson, J.L., Eisikovits, Z., & Guttman, E. (1985). Men who batter
women: a critical review of the evidence. Journal ofFamily
Issues, 6 (2), 229-247. doi: 10.1177/019251385006002006
European Commision (2010). Feasibility Study to Assess the
Possibilities, Opportunities and Needs to Standardise National
Legislation on Violence Agaianst Women, Violence Against
110
Children and Sexual Orientation Violence. Luxembourg:
European
Commission.
Gelles, P.J. (1983). An exchange/social control theory. In D. Finkelhor,
R.J. Gelles, G.T. Hotaling and M.A. Straus (Eds.) The Dark Side
ofFamilies. (pp.151-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gilmore, D. (1990). Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of
Masculinity. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Gondolf, E.W. (1985). Men Who Batter: An Intergrated Approach for
Stopping Wife Abuse. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.
Hanmer, J. (1990). Men, power and the exploitation of women. In J.
Hearn and D. Morgan (Eds.), Men, Masculinities and Social
Theory. (pp. 21-42). London and New York: Unwin
Hyman/Routledge.
Hanmer, J. and Hearn, J. (1999). Gender and welfare research. In F.
Williams, J. Popay and A. Oakley (eds.) Welfare Research: A
Critical Review. (pp.106-130), UCL Press, London.
Hanmer, J., Radford, J., & Stanko, E.A. (Eds.) (1989), Women, Policing
and Male Violence: International Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Hearn, J. (1987). The Gender ofOppression: Men, Masculinity and the
Critique ofMarxism . Brighton: Wheatsheaf; New York: St.
Martin’s.
Hearn, J. (1992). Men in the Public Eye: the Construction and
Deconstruction ofPublic Men and Public Patriarchies. London
and New York: Routledge.
Hearn, J. (1996). Is masculinity dead? A critique of the concept of
masculinity/masculinities. In M. Mac an Ghaill (Ed.),
Understanding Masculinities. (pp. 202-217). Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Hearn, J. (1998a). Theorizing men and men’s theorizing: men’s
discursive practices in theorizing men. Theory and Society, 27(6),
781-816. doi: 10.2307/658031
Hearn, J. (1998b). The Violences ofMen. How Men Talk About and How
Agencies Respond to Men's Violence to Women . London: Sage.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men.
Feminist Theory, 5 (1), 97-120. doi: 10.1177/1464700104040813
111
Hearn, J. (2013). The sociological significance of domestic violence:
tensions, paradoxes, and implications. Current Sociology, 16 (2),
1-19. doi: 10.1177/0011392112456503
Hearn, J., Müller, U., Oleksy, E., Pringle, K., Chernova, J., Ferguson,
H., Holter, Ø.G., Kolga, V., Novikova, I., Ventimiglia, C., Lattu,
E., Tallberg, T., & Olsvik, E. (2004). The European Research
Network on Men in Europe: The Social Problem and Societal
Problematisation ofMen and Masculinities. Volumes 1 and 2.
Brussels: European Commission.
Hearn, J., Novikova, I., Pringle, K., Šmídová, I., Bjerén, G., Jyrkinen,
M., Iovanni, L., Arranz, F., Ferguson, H., Kolga, V., Müller, U.,
Oleksy, E.H., Balkmar, D., Helfferich, C., Lenz, I., Wojtaszek,
M.M., Pičukāne, E., & Rosa, V. (2007). Methodological
Framework Report SN 2. FP6 Co-ordination Action on Human
Rights Violation, Sub Network 2, Swedish School of Economics
and Business Administration, Helsinki, Final Report to the
European Commission, Retrieved from http://www.cahrv.uniosnabrueck.de/reddot/Methodological_Framework_web.pdf,
http://www.cromenet.org/
Hearn, J., & Pringle, K., with members of CROME (2006). European
Perspectives on Men and Masculinities: National and
Transnational Approaches. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hearn, J., & Whitehead. A. (2006). Collateral damage: Men’s ‘domestic’
violence to women seen through men’s relations with men.
Probation Journal, 53 (1), 38-56. doi:
10.1177/0264550506060864
Holter, Ø.G. (1997). Gender, Patriarchy and Capitalism. A Social
Forms Analysis. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Horsfall, J. (1999). The Presence ofthe Past: Male Violence in the
Family. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Kaufman Kantor, G., & Straus, M.A. (1987). The ‘drunken bum’ theory
of wife beating. Social Problems, 34 (3), 213-230. doi:
10.1525/sp.1987.34.3.03a00010
Kelly, L. (2006). Benefits and Limitations ofHuman Rights
Frameworks: The Case ofInterpersonal Violence. Analytic report
on the CAHRV cross-cutting workshop. Valencia, June 2006. The
112
report was prepared within CAHRV and funded through the
European Commission, 6th Framework Programme, Project No.
506348.
Kimmel, M., Hearn, J., & Connell, R.W. (Eds.) (2005). Handbook of
Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.
Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving Abusive Partners. London: Sage.
Kroon, S., & Sturm, J. (2000). Comparative case study research in
education: Methodological issues in an empirical-interpretative
perspective. Zeitschrift fűr Erziehungswissenschaft, 3 (4/2000),
559-576.
Lees, J., & Lloyd, T. (1994). Working with Men Who Batter Their
Partners (An Introductory Text) . London: Working with Men/The
B Team.
Lundgren, E., Heimer, G., Westerstrand, J., & Kalliokoski A.M. (2001).
Captured Queen: Men’s violence against women in “equal”
Sweden – a prevalence study. Stockholm: Fritzes Offentliga
Publikationer.
Mangan, J., & Walvin, J. (Eds.) (1987). Manliness and Morality.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Martinez, M., Schröttle, M., Condon, S., Springer-Kremser, M.,
Timmerman, G., Hagemann-White, C., Lenz, H-J, May-Chahal,
C., Penhale, B., Reingardiene, J., Brzank, P., Honkatukia, P.,
Jaspard, M., Lundgren, E., Piispa, M., Romito, P., Walby, S., &
Westerstrand, J. (2006). State ofEuropean research on the
prevalence ofInterpersonal violence and its impact on health and
human rights. Coordination Action on Human Rights Violations,
European Commission 6th Framework Programme. Retrieved
from http://www.cahrv.uniosnabrueck.de/reddot/CAHRVreportPrevalence(1).pdf
McMahon, A. (1993). Male readings of feminist theory: The
psychologization of sexual politics in the masculinity literature.
Theory and Society, 22 (5), 675-696. doi: 10.1007/BF00993542
Messerschmidt, J.W. (1993). Masculinities and Crime: Ctitique and
Reconceptualisation ofTheory. Latham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.
113
Michalski, J. H. (2004). Making Sociological Sense out ofTrends in
Intimate Partner Violence. Violence Against Women: An
International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 10 (6), 652-675. doi:
10.1177/1077801204265018
Miedzian M. (1992). Boys will be Boys: Breaking the link between
masculinity and violence. Virago, London.
Nordberg, M. (2000). Hegemonibegreppet och hegemonier i
mansforskningsfältet. In Folkesson, P., Nordberg M., Smirthwaite,
G. (eds.), Hegemoni och mansforskning. Karlstad: Karlstad
University.
Novikova, I., & Kambourov, D. (Eds.) (2003). Men and Masculinities in
the Global World: Integrating Postsocialist Perspectives.
Kikimora Publishers, Aleksanteri Institute, Helsinki.
Pease, R., & Pringle, K. (Eds.) (2001). A Man’s World: Changing Men’s
Practices in a Globalized World. London: Zed.
Pringle, K. (1995). Men, Masculinities and Social Welfare. London:
UCL Press.
Pringle, K. (2005). Neglected issues in Swedish child protection policy
and practice. In M. Eriksson, M. Hester, S. Keskinen and K.
Pringle (eds.), Tackling Men’s Violence in Families (pp. 155-171).
Bristol: Policy Press.
Pringle, K., Hearn, J. Ferguson, H., Kambourov, D., Kolga, V., Lattu, E.,
Müller, U., Nordberg, M., Novikova, I., Oleksy, E., Rydzewska, J.,
Šmídová, I., Tallberg, T., & Niemi,H. (2006). Men and
Masculinities in Europe. London: Whiting & Birch.
Rice, M. (1990). Challenging orthodoxies in feminist theory: A black
feminist critique. In L. Gelsthorpe and A. Morris (eds.), Feminist
Perspectives in Criminology. (pp. 57-69). Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Ruspini, E., Hearn, J., Pease, B., & Pringle, K. (Eds.) (2011). Men and
Masculinities around the World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stanko, E. (1994). Challenging the problem of men's individual
violence. In T. Newburn and E. Stanko (Eds.). Just Boys Doing
Business: Men, Masculinities and Crime. (pp. 32.45). London:
Routledge.
Tifft, L. (1993). Battering ofWomen: The Failure ofIntervention and
the Case for Prevention . Boulder, CO: Westview.
114
Tjeder, D. (2003). The Power ofCharacter: Middle-class Masculinities,
1800-1900. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Walby, S. (1986). Patriarchy at Work: Patriarchal and Capitalist
Relations in Employment. Cambridge: Polity.
Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing Patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Walby, S. (2009). Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and
Contested Modernities. London: Sage.
West C., & Zimmermann, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender &
Society, 1 (2), pp. 125-151. doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002
Whitehead, A. (2005). Man to man violence: How masculinity may
work as a dynamic risk factor. The Howard Journal ofCriminal
Justice, 44(4), pp. 411-422. doi: 10.1111/j.14682311.2005.00385.x
World Health Organization (2010). European Status Report on Alcohol
and Health 2010. Copenhagen: WHO. Retrieved from
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/128065/e945
33.pdf
Jeff Hearn is a Professor of Gender Studies (Critical Studies on
Men), Linköping University, Sweden; Professor of Management
and Organisation, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland,
and Professor of Sociology, University of Huddersfield, UK.
Irina Novikova is a Professor in the Department of Culture and
Literature, and Director of the Centre of Gender Studies, University
of Latvia, Latvia.
Keith Pringle is a Professor of Sociology with reference to Social
Work, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Research Professor in
Social Work and Social Policy, London Metropolitan University,
UK.
Iva Šmídová is a PhD, Head of Gender Studies, Masaryk
University in Brno, Czech Republic.
Marjut Jyrkinen is an Acting Professor of Gender Studies,
Helsinki University, and Postdoctoral Researcher, Hanken School
of Economics, Helsinki, Finland.
LeeAnn Iovanni is a Postdoctoral Researcher, Aalborg University,
Denmark.
Fátima Arranz Lozano is a Professor of Sociology, University
Complutense of Madrid, Spain.
Voldemar Kolga is a Professor of Psychology, and Dean of the
Faculty of Psychology. University Nord, Tallinn, Estonia.
Dag Balkmar is a Postdoctoral Researcher, Gender Studies,
Linköping University, Sweden.
Marek M. Wojtaszek is an Assistant Professor in the Humanities,
Łódź University, Poland.
Contact Address: FLO, Hanken, Hanken School of Economics.
PO Box 479, FIN-00101, Helsinki, Finland. Email:
[email protected]
115
Privilege: a Reader
Elena Duque1
1) Universitat de Girona, Spain
To cite this review: Duque, E. (2013) Privilege: a reader. Masculinities and
Social Change, 2(1), 116118. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2013.23
To link this review: http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/MCS.2013.23
116-118
Reviews (I)
Kimmel, M., & Ferber, A. (Eds). (2003). Privilege: a reader. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Esta nueva obra que nos ofrece Michael Kimmel se centra en el tema
del privilegio. El privilegio que tienen algunas personas sobre otras por
sus condiciones de sexo, raza, clase, etc. y que sin embargo no es
aceptado por algunas personas que lo ostentan. Kimmel plantea como
las personas que se encuentran en esta situación privilegiada no quiere
reconocer esta condición como si ello las culpabilizara de hechos
discriminatorias que otras personas, no ellas, han realizado. De esta
manera no se quiere reconocer que por el simple hecho de ser hombre
y/o blanco y/o de clase social favorecida ya es un privilegio en sí
mismo. Esto no significa ser culpable de todas las discriminaciones
existentes pero sí es una realidad social de situación privilegiada frente a
otros colectivos. Sin embargo, algunas de las personas que se
encuentran en esta situación de privilegio se excusan o bien afirmando
que no han realizado individualmente acciones discriminatorias y
acaban afirmando que se trata de problemas individuales de personas
concretas que ejercen el poder. De manera que no se trata de un
problema social global. Kimmel destaca que siempre han sido los
colectivos más oprimidos los que han denunciado, estudiado y analizado
estas diferencias sociales. En este libro el autor quiere analizar el tema
del privilegio, hacerlo invisible, entender cómo se crea, etc.
En este libro además se discuten cuatro dimensiones básicas: sexo,
raza, sexualidad y clase. Las dos primeras dimensiones sexo y raza son
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.23
MCS - Masculinities and Social Change, 2(1)
117
aspectos inmediatamente visibles y vienen dados desde el nacimiento;
aunque de todas formas eso no exime de que puedan ser transformados.
Las dos segundas dimensiones son menos visibles de entrada y no son
marcadas desde el nacimiento, aunque por ejemplo, en el caso de la
sexualidad, hay personas que defienden que su opción sexual es innata.
La obra quiere analizar estas cuatro dimensiones no por separado sino
como interactúan entre ellas. Una interacción que no es nueva en los
estudios de género ya que por ejemplo las “Black women” han llevado a
cabo estudios de este tipo.
El libro está dividido en cuatro partes que incluyen diversos capítulos
redactados por diferentes autores y autores. Una primera se centra en
cómo hacer el privilegio visible, la problemática de la que hablábamos
al inicio, el no reconocimiento de las personas privilegiadas de las que
socialmente lo son. La segunda parte se preocupa de entender cómo se
genera y se mantiene este privilegio. La tercera parte está más centrada
en analizar determinadas intersecciones entre las dimensiones antes
mencionadas. Y la cuarta parte plantea cómo ir más allá superando el
privilegio y actuando por la igualdad.
Para finalizar quisiera destacar los dos primeros capítulos del libro en
los que habla respectivamente del privilegio blanco y del privilegio de
los hombres negros. La autora del primer capítulo hace un interesante
análisis de como como mujeres blancas no reconocen el privilegio sobre
las “black women” de la misma manera que los hombres no lo
reconocen sobre las mujeres. Y cómo en ocasiones aunque las “black
women” han recalcado esta situación, las mujeres blancas han querido
difuminar este privilegio con afirmaciones como que “todas somos
mujeres”. Por tanto, no querien reconocer la desigualdad que la cuestión
de raza genera entre las propias mujeres. En una línea parecida el
segundo capítulo plantea el privilegio de los hombres negros sobre las
mujeres negras, y cómo mientras luchan contra el privilegio de los
hombres blancos sobre ellos, olvidan la opresión que ellos pueden
ejercer sobre las mujeres negras.
Considero que son reflexiones básicas a incluir en los estudios de
género y de masculinidades en concreto, ya que reconocer nuestra
situación de inferioridad y luchar contra la opresión se nos hace más
fácil que no reconocer nuestra situación de superioridad, y de privilegio
118
Elena Duque - Privilege: a reader
y, si bien no nuestra culpabilidad, sí el reconocimiento de este hecho y
nuestra responsabilidad de actuar ante esta realidad social.
Elena Duque, Universitat de Girona
[email protected]
Men in Feminism
Silvia Molina Roldán1
1) Departamento de Pedagogía, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain
To cite this review: Molina, S. (2013) Men in feminism. Masculinities and
Social Change, 2(1), 119120. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2013.24
To link this review: http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/MCS.2013.24
119-120
Reviews (II)
Jardine, A., & Smith, P. (eds.). (2013). Men in feminism . New York:
Routledge.
El libro Men in feminism nos adentra en la reflexión sobre la interesante
cuestión de la relación entre los hombres y el feminismo. ¿El feminismo
es una cuestión puramente femenina o, por el contrario, los hombres
tienen también un papel importante en este movimiento social? Si es así,
¿cuál es ese papel? ¿Cuál es la relación que establecen los hombres con
el feminismo y cómo puede ésta contribuir o no a este movimiento?
Estas preguntas son centrales en la configuración del movimiento
feminista y siguen muy vigentes en la actualidad, cuando la cuestión de
la igualdad de género y los derechos de las mujeres son principios
compartidos por ambos géneros –si bien aún queda terreno por avanzar
en muchos ámbitos para que esa igualdad sea efectiva–.
El libro Men in feminism , editado por Alice Jardine y Paul Smith, está
compuesto de 24 capítulos escritos por diversos autores y autoras que
aportan diferentes visiones sobre el tema. La publicación tiene su origen
en unas sesiones organizadas en la Modern Language Association en
Washington en 1984, donde hombres y mujeres del mundo académico
debatían sobre “el hombre en el feminismo”, partiendo del hecho
constatado de que el trabajo de muchos intelectuales hombres tiene en
cuenta y emplea la teoría y el pensamiento feministas. Una vez
planteado el trabajo de elaboración del libro, los editores se dieron
cuenta de que abordaban un tema sobre el que no se había prestado
demasiada atención, no al menos abiertamente, y que suscitaba tanto
reacciones positivas como negativas en el contexto de la academia.
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.24
120
Silvia Molina - Men in feminism
De hecho, y de acuerdo con los propios editores, las contribuciones que
los participantes en esta publicación afectan aspectos centrales del
feminismo. Así, el libro parte de la intención de reunir un número
aproximado de hombres y mujeres para continuar esos debates; de
hecho, los mismos capítulos del libro se responden unos a otros en sus
aportaciones.
El primer capítulo, contribución de Stephen Heath y titulado “Male
feminism” (“feminismo masculino”), que fue objeto de discusión en una
de las sesiones, sitúa el punto de partida del libro. Mientras las mujeres
son los sujetos del feminismo, quienes con sus voces y acciones
determinan lo que implica ser mujer, los hombres devienen objetos, una
parte de la estructura social a ser transformada, ya que es causa de
desigualdades. Así, según Heath, aunque los hombres puedan apoyar o
simpatizar con el feminismo, lo harán siempre desde su postura de
hombres, que es inevitablemente una posición de poder. De hecho, es
este conocimiento de “ser hombres” algo que, según Heath, el
feminismo masculino recibe del feminismo (femenino) y del que
feminismo masculino se ocupa: “(…) knowing one is a man, what it
means. It was with the consequences of this knowledge we gain from
feminism that “Male Feminism” was concerned. Its problems, brought
up in the ending, are then those of the relations of such a knowledge to
feminist practice”. (p.32)
Originalmente publicado en 1987, su reciente reedición muestra que
el tema abordado sigue siendo de actualidad. De carácter
eminentemente académico, es una obra de interés para teóricas y
teóricos del feminismo, las relaciones de género y las masculinidades
igualitarias que pretenden reflexionar y contribuir al avance de unas
relaciones de género igualitarias.
Silvia Molina Roldán, Universitat Rovira i Virgili
[email protected]
List of Reviewers
To cite this review: (2013). List of Reviewers. Masculinities and Social
Change, 2(1), 121. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2013.25
MCS - Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 2 No. 1 February 2013 p.
121
List of Reviewers
Thank you to 2012 Reviewers. On behalf of the journal Masculinities and
Social Change we deeply appreciate reviewers contributions to the quality of
this journal. The journal owes this debt with those who have been peer
reviewers during this period. Yours sincerely,
Oriol Rios
Editor
Duque, Elena
Prieto-Flores, Òscar
Siles, Gregor
Campdepadrós, Roger
López, Laura
Íñiguez, Tatiana
Santos, Tatiana
Serrano, Mª Ángeles
Molina, Silvia
Bento, Paulo
Herrero, Carlos
Santiesteban, Lourdes
Marini, Fabiana
Prieto, Rodrigo
Melgar, Patricia
Ruiz, Laura
Francisco, Andrea
Coll-Planas, Gerard
García Llorente, Hector J.
2013 Hipatia Press
ISSN 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2013.25
García. Jorge
Travé, Jose Andres
Sierra, Sonia
Hanusa, Darald
Bonell , Lars
Rodríguez, Andrea
Gonzalez, Julio Cesar

Reviews (II) - Hipatia Press

Transcription

Similar documents

DVSN Brochure - The Bedford Citizen

A NEW DAY Brochure Women - The Tree of Peace Friendship Centre

Abuse in close relationships - Upplands

CHILD AND YOUTH PROGRAM OFFERS FUN, EDUCATION, AND

System Needs To Change – Wangaratta Chronicle

Tanisha M. Bagley - printhouse books

Jasmin Nario-Galace Center for Peace Education, Miriam College

October 2012 - Safe Harbor Family Crisis Center

Types of Abuse

Russell Simmons, NYC Councilmen and Erica Ford announce New