Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary Positions and Psycho-Discursive Practices:

TLDR: The authors provided a critical analysis of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, arguing that although this concept embodies important theoretical insights, it is insufficiently developed as it stands to enable us to understand how men position themselves as gendered beings.

Abstract: In this article we provide a critical analysis of the concept of hegemonic masculinity. We argue that although this concept embodies important theoretical insights, it is insufficiently developed as it stands to enable us to understand how men position themselves as gendered beings. In particular it offers a vague and imprecise account of the social psychological reproduction of male identities. We outline an alternative critical discursive psychology of masculinity. Drawing on data from interviews with a sample of men from a range of ages and from diverse occupational backgrounds, we delineate three distinctive, yet related, procedures or psycho-discursive practices, through which men construct themselves as masculine. The political implications of these discursive practices, as well as the broader implications of treating the psychological process of identification as a form of discursive accomplishment, are also discussed.

Full text

Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity:
Imaginary Positions and Psycho-
Discursive Practices
Margaret Wetherell Nigel Edley
Faculty of Social Sciences Faculty of Humanities
The Open University Nottingham Trent University
Walton Hall Clifton Lane
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA Nottingham, NG11 8NS
Ph: 01908 654547 Ph: 01159418418
E-Mail: M.S.Wetherell@open.ac.uk E-Mail: nigel.edley@ntu.ac.uk
1

Final Revised Draft, Jan. 1999, to be published in Feminism and Psychology
2

Abstract
In this paper we provide a critical analysis of the concept of hegemonic masculinity.
We argue that although this concept embodies important theoretical insights, it is
insufficiently developed as it stands to enable us to understand how men position
themselves as gendered beings. In particular it offers a vague and imprecise account
of the social psychological reproduction of male identities. We outline an alternative
critical discursive psychology of masculinity. Drawing on data from interviews with a
sample of men from a range of ages and from diverse occupational backgrounds, we
delineate three distinctive, yet related, procedures or psycho-discursive practices,
through which men construct themselves as masculine. The political implications of
these discursive practices, as well as the broader implications of treating the
psychological process of identification as form of discursive accomplishment, are also
discussed.
KEYWORDS: male identity, hegemonic masculinity, identification, gender
categories, the imaginary, discourse analysis, discursive practice, discursive
psychology.
3

This paper focuses on the discursive strategies involved in negotiating membership of
gender categories. Specifically, we are interested in how men position themselves in
relation to conventional notions of the masculine. How do men take on the social
identity of 'being a man' as they talk, and what are the implications of the typical
discursive paths they follow? We concentrate on responses to interview questions
such as "Would you describe yourself as a masculine man?" and "Are there moments
in everyday life when you feel more masculine than at other times?", and on men's
responses to magazine photographs of possible role models. To help make sense of
these moments of self-assessment and identification, we introduce notions of
'imaginary positions' and 'psycho-discursive practices' and initiate a dialogue with the
feminist sociology of masculinity developed by Robert Connell and his colleagues
(Carrigan et al., 1985; Connell, 1987; 1995).
According to Connell, the task of 'being a man' involves taking on and negotiating
'hegemonic masculinity'. Men's identity strategies are constituted through their
complicit or resistant stance to prescribed dominant masculine styles. Connell's
(1987) analysis of this process of identification is an anti-essentialist one. He argues
that masculine characters are not given. Rather, a range of possible styles and
personae emerge from the gender regimes found in different cultures and historical
periods. Among the possible variety of ways of being masculine, however, some
become 'winning styles' and it is these with which men must engage.
Connell's conception of hegemony draws on Gramsci's (1971) depiction of the wars
of position and manoeuvre characteristic of social formations. Hegemonic ideologies
preserve, legitimate and naturalise the interests of the powerful - marginalising and
subordinating the claims of other groups. Hegemony is not automatic, however, but
involves contest and constant struggle. Hegemonic masculinity, Connell argues, is
centrally connected to the subordination of women. It is a way of being masculine
which not only marginalises and subordinates women's activities but also alternative
forms of masculinity such as 'camp' or effeminate masculinity. Typically, it also
involves the brutal repression of the activities of gay men and their construction as a
despised 'Other'.
4

Connell's formulation of hegemonic masculinity and men's complicity or resistance
has a number of advantages. First, this approach allows for diversity. Masculine
identities can be studied in the plural rather than in the singular. Second, this is an
analysis deeply attentive to the problematic of gender power. Finally, Connell's work
notes the relevance of relations between men as well as relations between men and
women for the formation of gendered identities. This approach has proved
particularly useful for understanding the broad social context of gender relations. It
also serves as a useful back-cloth for social psychological analyses (Wetherell and
Edley, 1998). We want to argue, however, that the notion of hegemonic masculinity is
not sufficient for understanding the nitty gritty of negotiating masculine identities and
men's identity strategies. In effect, Connell leaves to one side the question of how the
forms he identifies actually prescribe or regulate men's lives. Men might "conform" to
hegemonic masculinity, but we are left to wonder what this conformity might look in
practice. Moreover, this is not just a case of developing a 'micro' psychological
analysis to bolt on to the 'macro' sociological picture. The patterns we find when we
look in detail at men's negotiation of masculine identities have some important
implications for the more general sociological account.
Connell's account of the processes involved in the social and psychological
reproduction of hegemonic masculinity is sketchy. He argues that hegemonic
masculinity is not intended as a description of real men. Hegemonic masculinity is not
a personality type or an actual male character. Rather, it is an ideal or set of
prescriptive social norms, symbolically represented, but a crucial part of the texture of
many routine mundane social and disciplinary activities. The exact content of the
prescriptive social norms which make up hegemonic masculinity is left unclear. It
tends in Connell's writings to be correlated with what might be called macho
masculinity and exemplified by fictional characters in films such as Rambo, Rocky
and the Terminator. It is also unclear whether there is only one hegemonic strategy at
any point in time or whether hegemonic strategies can vary across different parts of a
social formation, creating conflicts or tensions for individual men between different
hegemonic forms as they move across social practices.
Hegemonic masculinity is presented in Connell's work as an aspirational goal rather
than a lived reality for ordinary men. Indeed a key characteristic seems to be its
5

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: imaginary positions and psycho- discursive practices" ?

In this paper the authors provide a critical analysis of the concept of hegemonic masculinity. 

Q2. Why did the authors choose discourse as a site for investigating men's identities?

The authors chose discourse as a site for investigating men's identities because the authors are persuaded of the central role discursive practices play in the constitution of subjectivity. 

Q3. What is the meaning of the term hegemonic masculinity?

The man, for instance, who describes himself as original, as beyond stereotypes, as having a personal worked out philosophy of masculinity or indeed as just ordinary and average has not escaped the familiar tropes of gender. 

Q4. What is the significance of the concept of hegemonic masculinity?

It could be argued that the concept has been particularly influential precisely because of its elasticity and lack of specificity and this may still be so for large-scale sociological, cultural, anthropological and historical investigations of forms of masculinity but not, the authors think, for social psychological analysis. 

Q5. What does Sam do in response to the interviewer's probing about the nature of security?

In response to the interviewer's probing about the nature of security and insecurity, Sam produces an account of himself as unembarrassed by taking on activities which are constructed as unusual for his gender, such as knitting and cooking. 

Q6. What does he say about being a non-conformist?

He explicitly links this to a non-conformist attitude derived from his days as a punk rocker and adduces several examples which support his claim for unconventionality such as being prepared to cry, support his wife and as the main caretaker for any future children. 

Q7. What is the surprising finding from their research?

As the authors noted, one of the surprising findings from their research is how infrequently in relative terms their sample engaged in heroic masculinity - that is tried out the highly invested imaginary positions encapsulating the key characteristics usually attributed to hegemonic masculinity (strength, boldness, winning challenges, cool toughness, etc). 

Q8. What is the effective way to be hegemonic?

paradoxically, one could say that sometimes one of the most effective ways of being hegemonic, or being a 'man', may be to demonstrate one's distance from hegemonic masculinity.