Masculinities

B van Hoven, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

RP Huizinga, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
P Hopkins, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Glossary
Hegemony The process whereby particular behaviors and characteristics become dominant through subtle everyday practices
and processes which encourage subordinate groups to accept and take on certain dominant qualities and attitudes leading to
the marginalization and exclusion of particular practices, attitudes, and values.
Identity Markers of social group membershipdfor example, class, race, age, and abilitydthat are written on people’s bodies,
enacted through everyday performances, and contested through political action.
Ideology A set of values or beliefs which (re)produce behaviors, attitudes, and ideas about how people should (or should not)
live their lives.
Imaginative geographies Representations of places that are a result of images and imaginings. Edward Said discusses the
uneven power relations evoked and emphasized by such representations in his critique of representations of the Orient.
Masculinism Theories and practices that prioritize the experiences of men and reproduce power structures advantageous to
men as a group are called masculinist. Masculinist (political) movements, however, focus on disadvantages men experience in
society, for example, regarding custody or criminal sentencing.
Sex role theory Sex roles are seen as the prototypes into which men’s and women’s identities are forged through socialization.
Men are measured by their success or failure to comply with social norms of masculinity, such as to be strong, successful,
capable, reliable, and in control.

Masculinity has been defined both as a form of identity (i.e., a process of identification whereby particular traits, personal qualities,
and attributes are seen to be masculine (or not)) and as a form of ideology (i.e., a doctrine or set of beliefs dominant in institutions,
society, and culture at large). As such, masculinity is a social, historical, and political construct. The performance of masculinity
varies across time and space and takes on different formats in different contexts and so it is more appropriate to speak of
masculinities.
Just as work about whiteness and heterosexuality was brought to the attention of scholars interested in race and ethnicity and
sexuality, respectively, in the 1980s, interest in men and masculinities became a topic of interest among academics whose work
focused upon gender studies. Research on masculinities often departs from Raewyn Connell’s writing on masculinities in general
and hegemonic masculinity in particular. Connell’s own research in high schools in 1982 laid the foundation for her thinking about
the production and experiences of masculinities and hierarchical structures within these. Following an “inventory” of writings on
masculinity, Connell theorized “hegemonic masculinity” which she defined as actions and practices that permitted and continued
men’s domination over women. Hegemonic masculinity was achieved through culture, institutions, and persuasion and was
changeable over time (and space).
Earlier work on men and masculinities in particular drew on psychoanalysis and sex role theory, which sought to appreciate the
social nature of masculinity. The period after World War II has often been regarded as a time of change for men which caused
a conflict in role demands and expectations. This change was largely due to women’s entry into the labor market, and expectations
for men to be able to economically support their family, be (physically) strong figures of authority, and adopt forms of behavior in
the service sector traditionally associated with women. Drawing on sex role theory, the problem for men, then, was that they had no
alternative within the dualistic structure of masculine–feminine, the feminine being inferior. Feminist scholars have, however, taken
issue with the lack of attention for structural analyses of power relations, the dominance of middle-class, white, heterosexual males
as norm and its ignorance to issues of resistance and history. Connell’s work on hegemonic and multiple masculinities provided
a new framework for the study of masculinities within the context of gender studies, although it has not remained uncontested
either.
In recent years, critiques of work on (hegemonic) masculinities in recent years have included arguments that the concept of mas-
culinity essentializes male–female difference; it naturalizes the body rather than seeing it as discursively produced, rendering the
subject invisible. More recently, then, social scientists, including human geographers, have explored and emphasized the complex
ways in which masculinities are socially constructed, consumed, and performed. By adopting a relational approach to gender in
place, geographers have contributed to understandings of masculinities that exceed the conventional male–female binary. Indeed,
there seems to be growing interest and awareness in the experiences, expressions, and impacts of gender fluidity. For example, Kath

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd edition, Volume 8 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10281-1 433

434 Masculinities

Browne’s research on drag kings who “do” masculinity on stage and women who “are” masculine, i.e., who are mistaken for men in
their everyday lives, offers a starting point for a further destabilization of dominant narratives.

The Origin of the Study of Masculinities in Geography

Retracing the emergence of the first published work on masculinities in geography, Peter Jackson’s work is often regarded as setting
the groundwork for later research. The motivation by geographers to engage with masculinities has been varied and includes both
personal and political reasons; many geographers studying masculinities draw on feminist scholarship. Lawrence Berg, one of the
few men in geography studying masculinities, stated, for example, that the purpose of his own work is to resist hegemonic construc-
tions of masculinity and, reflecting on his own role as a man, to reduce his participation in the (re)constitution of masculinist geog-
raphies. This statement is relevant in a broader sense, since geography had been a masculinist discipline, but one with little
attention to men’s experiences as men. Although some current work on masculinities is also political, most literature deals with
men’s experiences as men addressing a wide range of concerns about men’s everyday lives, masculine identities, and gendered
performances.
Some 30 years after Jackson’s landmark interventions, work about the geographies of men and masculinities is now reaching
a critical mass in human geography. Jackson’s interest in masculinities emerged in the context of calls for new emphases within
cultural geography in the early 1990s. A key critique then was the lack of plurality in approaches to culture and a lack of atten-
tion to ideas of hegemony and resistance. Through exploring representations of men in advertisements, Jackson pointed to
differences in social constructions of (ideal) masculinities over space and time. Using an example from a study in a textile
mill in West Yorkshire, Jackson illustrates the effect of representations on the material spaces of both white female and black
male mill workers. This led him to the conclusion that in developing a social geography of gender, the construction of histor-
ically and geographically specific forms of masculinity requires mapping in order to identify potential lines for political strug-
gles. The spatial structures that underpin and reinforce contemporary patriarchal gender relations should also be a part of this
mapping.
Many early contributions to the study of masculinities in geography addressed representational spaces, specifically focusing on
artistic and cinematic representations, and advertising, for example, advertisements in magazines, or advertisements in the context
of campaigns (such as the Big Brother campaign or army recruitment). For example, in Mapping Men and Empire by Phillips, narra-
tives of adventure, Empire, and masculinity are explored. Based on a range of novels depicting adventures of the imperial frontier,
Phillips provides a description of patriarchal social relations embedded within these. Others, drawing on nonfiction, e.g., the
writing of the plantation in mid-19th-Century Ceylon, highlighted that where the realization of the imperialist adventure was con-
strained by the material conditions of place, it was the struggle with rather than the conquering of the elements that counted in
aiming to achieve manliness. Yet, for certain narratives to make sense, and for the struggle to be successful, the separation of
male and female spheres, mentally and/or physically, was required.

Developments Within Geographies of Masculinities

That this kind of artificial separation of spheres is not a thing from the past transpires from work in geography on masculinities set in
more recent times. Given the extent of this work, rather than offering a comprehensive overview, we use this article to offer a flavor
of some of the important contributions to understandings in this field. This section first explores studies about masculinities subject
to social and economic change as a result of shifting global processes and discourses. Second, we address emerging work dealing
with the complex interplay of masculinities, intersecting identities, and place.

Masculinities in Transition?
In studies on places in transition, insights are offered into how a separation of spheres is used to make sense of and retain (patri-
archal and masculinist) narratives. Examples discussed in Spaces of Masculinities, for instance, are from Lebanon and India. The way
in which men in Lebanon, whose position in the family had been challenged due to urbanization processes, aimed to resolve
contradictions in the family, at least temporarily, was to draw on cultural values of honor and shame during the Lebanese civil
wars. A discourse was created that blamed a hated other for the misery of urban life and redefined men as protectors of “their”
women, thus justifying the repression of women. In India, (middle-class) men have begun to aspire to Western masculinities as
portrayed through the global media. Although these aspirations contrast with more traditional norms and expectations of their
families, they managed to resolve anxieties by emphasizing that male identities are rooted in public cosmopolitan spaces. The
role of women in maintaining men’s public presence, then, was to perform home-based religious and familial duties and become
bearers of tradition. The participation of women in ethnic violence in Lebanon or globalization in India, or a focus on perhaps
men’s role in the home sphere, would have destabilized the narrative of the male “hero.” Again, there are parallels with work
on men and Empire mentioned above. The power of the state and state institutions to structure gender relations and to (attempt
to) fix gender identities emerges in the above examples and others such as the military, the prison, or the police. Even at smaller
 Masculinities 435

scales, studies have addressed the ways in which institutions structure gender relations and construct gendered identities as required
opposites. This poses all kinds of problems for women and men, for example, those entering the labor market.
Linda McDowell’s work on working-class men has illustrated some of the everyday experiences of young men in times of socio-
economic transition and change, in particular in reference to what has been called “second modernity.” Importantly, McDowell
illustrated the impact of structural factors on young people’s personal biographies. McDowell’s work broadens and deepens liter-
atures on issues facing working-class men, which include studies about gangs, bikers, hooligans, “yobs,” and lads. McDowell’s
research involved a series of interviews with working-class young men, school leavers from Cambridge and Sheffield, who were
seeking employment under the newly emerging conditions of second modernity. Rather than developing personal biographies
marked by opportunities and choices, though, McDowell found their access to labor constrained by social and spatial differences.
One of the main findings of the research was the desire of the young men to achieve “domestic conformity,” a version of “working-
class respectability.” The young men consulted were continually involved in a process of constructing themselves as masculine,
a construction that places a great deal of emphasis on waged labor.
McDowell’s work has introduced feminist approaches and masculinities to economic geography and thus illustrated the value
of such approaches to other subdisciplines within geography. Little and Leyshon have made a similar argument for rural geog-
raphy by noting that research has addressed the ways in which masculinity and femininity are constructed and performed in the
context of rural society and culture but that rural embodiment has remained underexplored. The role of nature in the construc-
tion and representation of both dominant and marginal rural masculinities has been the focus of a variety of work. The masculine
identities of young men living in rural Australia (“beyond the metropolis”) have been studied by Jane Kenway through ethno-
graphic work in rural areas. This research identified three main groups of young men according to the leisure pursuits and prac-
tices they engaged with on a daily basis: sacrosanct, subversive, and scorned masculinities. Sacrosanct masculinities were
performed by men who participated in a range of “embedded and endorsed leisure/pleasures” such as activities with motor vehi-
cles and playing football. Subversive masculinities were those associated with “unendorsed leisure/pleasures” such as those asso-
ciated with participation in specific forms of sport such as skateboarding. Finally, scorned masculinities were inhabited by men
who participated in “disembedded and unendorsed” activities such as those connected with music and computers. In exploring
these issues, this work provides a strong challenge to metro-centric work about masculinities by highlighting how young men in
rural areas negotiate global discourses, and local habits and histories in the management and articulation of their masculine
identities.

Masculinities and Intersecting Social Identities

Besides seeking to understand how masculinities influence and are influenced by social and economic change, much work in
human geography has also looked at the ways in which masculinities intersect with other social identities and the geographical
scales that shape and are shaped by these interactions. As noted above, the importance of the body as a site of masculine identity
has emerged as focus of much attention. Although Peter Jackson began to discuss race and masculinities in his work on advertising
(as has work on postcolonial geographies), and McDowell has highlighted the importance of the well-conditioned male body as
important factors in the world of finance, it was Robyn Longhurst’s project on “shitting, shaving, and shampooing” that put men’s
individual bodies and everyday processes of male embodiment on the map. In this work, she challenges bodily boundaries by high-
lighting the “messy materiality” of the male body by, for example, discussing fat bodies in relation to discursive and material spaces,
or heterosexual white male bodies and their discomfort with bodily fluids in domestic bathrooms.
More recently, in the edited volume Masculinities and Place, Andrew Gorman-Murray and Peter Hopkins emphasize the
geographical, temporal, and relational nature of masculinities, i.e., how space continuously structures and challenges social rela-
tions, and how these relations in turn influence constructions of masculinities. Indeed, in the last decade, several studies have
explored this intertwining relationship, finding many places in which masculinities are shaped, contested, and renegotiated, and
highlighting many topics related to the expressions and experiences of masculinities. In the remainder of this section, then, we
want to focus on contributions working on the intersection of place and masculinity in relation to class, race, age, sexuality, religion,
emotion, and rurality.
In the context of international migration and changing population structures, bodies tend to be increasingly racialized, and
nonnormative embodied practices, norms, and traditions are often considered different, or even undesirable. For example, geogra-
phers have been increasingly engaging with questions on what it means to be a devout man in different places at different times.
Arguably, efforts by Hopkins to explore religion and masculinities have been highly insightful, most particularly in contesting hege-
monic discourses surrounding young Muslim men in the United Kingdom, where Muslim male identities have been problematized
by the terroristic events of 9/11 and London 2005. By looking at intersections of religion, race, gender, and generational relations,
Hopkins effectively demonstrates how young Muslim men enact different masculine identities, that are simultaneously supporting,
challenging, and contradicting one another, influenced by their social markers of difference. Hopkins’ work highlights the complex-
ities young Muslim men face in the United Kingdom, and their highly differentiated experiences and perceptions of being and doing
man in everyday life.
Geographies of sexualities have had a significant impact in studies on masculinities in recent years and have opened the debate
to talk about masculinities, especially those masculinities that exceed the nonnormative. Although a significant body of work has
looked at gay experiences of space, geographers have mostly focused on the role of gay men claiming public sites, e.g., the role of gay
communities in neighborhood gentrification or work on “gayborhood” subcultural spaces. Alternatively, in his work on domesticity
436 Masculinities

and gay men’s sexual identities, Andrew Gorman-Murray stresses the importance of gay men’s homes as sites of understanding alter-
native male identities, as a counter discourse to the heteronormative image of home. His research highlights queer homemaking
practices that go beyond the home, stretching between private and public space, and, in doing so, contributes to understanding
of a more fluid conceptualization of home as a place of male identity formation.
Work on the geographies of age, too, promises interesting insights into and contestations of masculinities by drawing attention to
the ways in which gender shapes the everyday experiences of young people and age shapes everyday gendered experiences. Research in
educational contexts has provided insights into how and why boys “do” masculinity, and feminist geographers have demonstrated
differences in children’s geographies (i.e., their radius of activity) depending on their urban or rural context, or depending on their
location in developing or developed countries. Trell and van Hoven describe how Estonian young rural men exercise multiple mas-
culinities in response to changing social and physical everyday contexts. Becoming man is defined by overcoming adventurous boat
trips in the rough, Estonian countryside, but also by performing seemingly conflicting practices such as dancing and performing. By
engaging in local traditions and culture, they actively oppose dominant masculinities as performed by “city boys.” In addition to the
focus on youthful masculinities, lives of older men are becoming more present in geography. So far, contemporary carespaces have
proven to be highly gendered, but several researchers have offered valuable insights on how older men’s masculinities are negotiated
in place, mainly in the context of care policies in aging societies. For example, Anna Tarrants’ work has demonstrated the important
caring roles performed by grandfathers in relation to the construction and contestation of masculinities.
Narratives of emotion and gender have also increasingly been part of masculinity research. Recent research has demonstrated
that men do not only have an active understanding of their emotional lives, but appear to perform a “more emotional” form of
masculinity. Andrew Warren, for example, has introduced the surfboard-making industry, a space mostly dominated by “blokey”
masculinities, where masculinity is performed through strong bodies and physically hard labor. At the same time, however, as is
argued by Warren, male identity is shaped through deeply embodied craftsmanship, as bodily sensations and emotions are triggered
in the process of crafting, providing worker’s the tools to producing highly personalized products.

Conclusion: Futures of Masculinities in Geography

We have defined masculinity as a form of identity and as a form of ideology. We discussed ways in which geographers have explored
masculine identities in different social and cultural contexts and drew attention to the ways in which (state) institutions structure
gender relations and identities. Much research has drawn on cultural studies and feminist scholarship as a framework of reference.
Such research has done much to destabilize dominant narratives of (hegemonic) masculinity and instead argued that there is
a mutually constitutive relationship between masculinities and class, race, sexuality, age, ability, and religion.
Although research emphasizes that masculinities are continuously negotiated, and regularly shifting and changing depending on
intersecting identities, it seems perhaps less has changed than one might expect. Looking at research over time, for example, it is
notable that as early as 1957, in a discussion of the “new burdens of masculinity,” Mayer-Hacker emphasized the significance of
masculinity to men and the inextricable link of male sexual performance to self-worth. It emerged from research by Levant et al.
that although there are some differences in attitudes to masculinity as ideology based on geographic location and race, the greatest
difference is based on gender. Women are far less traditional in their views of the male role than men are. Last but not least, Cour-
tenay more recently demonstrated that the resources available for constructing masculinitiesdand the signifiers of “true” mascu-
linitydhave a negative impact on men’s health. Demonstrating masculinity in a different way implies crossing over socially
constructed boundaries and risking critique or even physical violence. Over the years, different authors have sought to nuance
boys’ aspirations to perform dominant male roles, but, as emphasized by Hartley as early as the 1950s, not adhering to dominant
male roles can leave men confronted with anxiety and self-alienation. Although these observations stem from the late 1950s, their
significance remains.
Reverting to Jackson’s call for mapping masculinities, we might note that a considerable amount of “mapping” has been
achieved and that interesting new lines of research have emerged. But although more now is known about the lived experiences
of men of a variety of backgroundsdat least in academic circlesdthe question arises about how helpful this research has been
in changing gender relations in society and the mechanisms of patriarchal, masculinist institutions. The clarification of Jackson’s
“lines of political struggle” then has received somewhat less attention. One line of struggle appears to be our very own work envi-
ronment. Some discussiondmotivated largely by feminist geographers and the exclusion of women from and within the acade-
mydhas addressed the conditions of work for geographers already. Such arguments have addressed the performance of
masculinities in academia and the ways in which different forms of gender discrimination as well as the gendered conduct of
academic staff work to support men’s contribution and marginalize women. Yet, the organization of panel discussions on the insti-
tutionalization of gender and the associated normalization of masculinities in the workplace at international geography conferences
demonstrate that policy appears to be lacking behind.
We would not advocate that our work, mapping masculinities, has been of no consequence. Instead, we would encourage
researchers from all areas of geography, and different cultural and institutional contexts, to consider more explicitly gendered iden-
tities and masculine ideologies, and the policy relevance such work might have. Perhaps more work needs to include collaborations
with organizations and institutions in order to raise awareness and impact strategy and policy. Work on representational spaces and
everyday lived experiences remains vital in critically accessing structural conditions for producing specific identity positions as well
as the role of agency.
 Masculinities 437

See Also: Capitalism; Cultural Politics; Cultural Turn; Feminism and Work; Feminism/Feminist Geography; Gender, Historical Geographies of; Identity
Politics; Masculinism; Patriarchy; Performativity.

Further Reading

Berg, L., 1994. Masculinity, place and a binary discourse of ‘theory’ and ‘empirical investigation’ in the human geography of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Gender Place Cult. J. Femin.
Geogr. 1, 245–261.
Berg, L., Longhurst, R., 2003. Placing masculinities in geography. Gender Place Cult. 10, 351–360.
Connell, R., 2005. Masculinities, second ed. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Connell, R., Messerschmidt, J.W., 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gend. Soc. 19, 829–859.
Cosgrove, D., Jackson, P., 1987. New directions in cultural Geography. Area 19, 95–101.
Dawson, G., 1994. Soldier Heroes: British Adventure, Empire and the Imagining of Masculinities. Routledge, London.
Gorman-Murray, A., Hopkins, P. (Eds.), 2014. Masculinities and Place. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham.
Hacker, H.M., 1957. The new burden of masculinity. Marriage Fam. Living 19, 227–233.
Jackson, P., 1991. The cultural politics of masculinity: towards a social geography. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 16, 199–221.
Jackson, P., 1994. Black male: advertising and the cultural politics of masculinity. Gender Place Cult. 1, 49–59.
Kenway, J., Kraack, A., Hickey-Moody, A., 2006. Masculinity beyond the Metropolis. Palgrave MacMillan, New York.
Levant, R.F., Majors, R.G., Kelley, M.L., 1998. Masculinity ideology among young African American and European American women and men in different regions of the United
States. Cult. Divers. Ment. Health 4, 227–236.
Little, J., Leyshon, M., 2003. Embodied rural geographies: developing research agendas. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 27, 257–272.
Longhurst, R., 2000. Geography and gender, masculinities, male identity and men. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24, 439–444.
McDowell, L., 2002. Transitions to work: masculine identities, youth inequality and labour market change. Gender Place Cult. J. Femin. Geogr. 9, 39–59.
McDowell, L., 2003. Redundant Masculinities: Employment Change and White Working Class Youth. Blackwell, Oxford.
Messner, M.A., 1998. The limits of the male sex role: an analysis of the men’s liberation and the men’s rights movements’ discourse. Gend. Soc. 12, 155–276.
Pain, R., 2006. Paranoid parenting? Rematerializing risk and fear for children. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 7, 221–243.
Phillips, R., 1997. Mapping Men and Empire: A Geography of Adventure. Routledge, London.
Van Hoven, B., Hörschelmann, K. (Eds.), 2005. Spaces of Masculinities. Routledge, London.

Relevant Websites

‘Men’s Bibliography’ http://xyonline.net/books/bibliography.

‘Men’s Resource Centre for Change’ https://www.mensresourcecenter.org.
‘Oxfam: Resources, Gender Equality and Men’ http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/learning/gender/gem.html.
‘Sonke Gender Justice Network. HIV/AIDS, Gender Equality, Human Rights’ http://www.genderjustice.org.za/.
‘XY: Men, Masculinities and Politics’ https://xyonline.net.