In Plural Masculinities, Sofia Aboim engages the changing dynamics of masculinity in the lives of men, and ultimately how the growing plurality of performances impacts the gender order. In emphasizing the existence of a diversity of masculinities, she claims that ‘‘different routes to change’’ (p. 10) can impact the hegemonic standard. She is, in a sense, deconstructing the homogeneous form of hegemonic masculinity to show that change is possible by conveying how ‘‘complicit’’ men produce alternative versions of masculinity based on an individualized experience, as opposed to historical institutionalized beliefs. She utilizes multiple methods from different data sources, which strengthen the claims that the diversity of masculine performances within the ‘‘private’’ sphere are impacted by social and familial changes. While Chapter Four derives from cross-cultural data, the final two chapters (Five and Six) are based on data drawn from men in Portugal, which limits specific application in other cultures, but is extremely useful when discussing change in general. Whether it is factor analysis of cross-cultural quantitative data concerning attitudes of the breadwinner role versus practices of work in the home (Chapter Four) or qualitative interviews with men as they respond to changes in family structures (Chapter Five), Aboim’s findings emphasize how gender expectations are slow to change even as the structure and organization of the family changes. Furthermore in Chapter Six, her qualitative analysis of sexuality and gender roles claims that, over time, expectations are changing about men’s and women’s roles in sexual relations (albeit slowly) which she argues impacts the hegemonic standard. Developing masculinities are hybrid masculinities, offering alternative masculinities that borrow from feminine experiences. The text exhibits that changes in masculine expectations and displays are apparent and they are linked to societal change, which impacts the gender order. Her use of multiple methods offers strong credibility to her claims, as each finding supports the overall idea. Although the interpretation of hybrid masculinities cannot be challenged, it can be debated. Throughout the text, Aboim demonstrates a complete understanding of the field, drawing on a range of theoretical ideas to express an inclusive discussion about the topic of masculinities, often moving beyond masculinity studies, and even feminist theories. In Chapter One, she offers a brief history of the development of the field to establish the context of her argument. The author, however, extends the discussion beyond the gender field, locating it within larger sociological discussions. For example, she reviews discussions of family (Chapter Three) and domination and hegemony (Chapter Two), allowing readers to comprehend the basis of her argument and the theoretical underpinnings that have helped to develop the ideas. This is a great tool for any graduate student who is interested in the field. But Aboim’s extensive theoretical development also appears to be a key limitation in the book. Although all aspects of the theories appear to be applicable to the discussion, the thorough discussion leads a reader to get mired in the theoretical discussions, losing focus on the key points the author is attempting to convey. The author dedicates the entirety of Chapter Three to justify family, or at least the ‘‘private’’ sphere, as an important venue for discussion, setting up the following three chapters. The author engages the discussion of the separation of spheres, which is interesting and thorough, but does not explicitly identify which aspects of it are relevant, nor does she offer examples to help the reader follow the context of the discussion. She relies predominantly on indepth theoretical discussions, which tend to be extremely abstract, making it difficult to

Myth of the Social Volcano: Perceptions of Inequality and Distributive Injustice in Contemporary China

Physical and mental health of Chinese grandparents caring for grandchildren and great-grandparents

Income inequality, economic growth, and subjective well-being: Evidence from China

Entrepreneurs innovation bringing job satisfaction, work-family balance, and life satisfaction: In China and around the world

Feeling good about the iron rice bowl: Economic sector and happiness in post-reform urban China.

Social context affects people’s life satisfaction because it provides a natural reference for evaluating their own socioeconomic standing. Given their reference role, social contexts operationalized by space versus time may have very different implications. Our hypothesis is that spatial variation in economic development has little impact on life satisfaction as individuals living in different locales are unlikely to experience this variation personally, but that short-term temporal changes in economic development, on the other hand, do have an impact, as individuals in a given locale experience these changes directly. These two very different implications of spatial versus temporal social contexts are tested with an analysis of repeated survey data in 60 counties of China from 2005 to 2010. The results show that life satisfaction does not vary much with regional differences in economic development but responds positively to the local level of economic development over time. That is, the contextual effects of economic development vary greatly depending on how social context is operationalized. Temporal context matters far more than regional context where individuals’ life satisfaction is concerned.

Jie Zhou

Papers

Does Economic Development Affect Life Satisfaction? A Spatial-Temporal Contextual Analysis in China