Theories of Masculinity: A Critical Examination

What is masculinity? And how should we study it? Is masculinity the gender that is one, to paraphrase Irigaray? Or should masculinity be considered in the plural, as Raewyn Connell suggests? In this article I examine two theoretical models for understanding masculinity, each offering a different research perspective. The first, Connell’s, has become hegemonic in the field of masculinity studies, in Israel too. The second, Pierre Bourdieu’s in Masculine Domination, has been the target of much criticism by feminist scholars, though at the same time there is a rich feminist discussion of the potential contribution of Bourdieu’s theoretical oeuvre to feminist analysis of gender, which argues with, but also draws on, his work. As I argue in this article, both approaches offer important insights for conceptualizing masculinity, but both contain problems as well. I suggest that Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capital are useful for an analysis of masculinity. Following Michael Schwalbe, I argue that instead of there being multiple “masculinities,” there are multiple ways to signify a “masculine self.” Whereas Schwalbe defines “manhood acts” as acts that signify ability to control and resistance to being controlled, I suggest that masculinity can be regarded as a repertoire of models for action and perception that are structured by a set of organizing principles. Thinking about masculinity through the concepts of habitus and repertoire shifts the focus from “masculinities” to the multiple and contextual ways in which situated social actors implement signifying cultural models. At the same time, the contradictions in the repertoire of masculinity, and the fact that not all models signify the existence of a “masculine self” to the same extent, explains the tension that may arise between masculine and social status. The concept of capital opens up questions concerning the specific ways of “doing masculinity” that may yield profits in concrete social spaces.