A refreshing take on masculinity studies from beyond the ivory tower of academia: Inclusive Masculinity – The Changing Nature of Masculinities

Citation

Baumgartner, E. (2013), "A refreshing take on masculinity studies from beyond the ivory tower of academia: Inclusive Masculinity – The Changing Nature of Masculinities", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 120-122. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151311305641

First, let me introduce the author to you: Eric Anderson is an American Sociologist in the Department of Sport Sciences at the University of Winchester and has published widely on sports theory, masculinity, sexuality and monogamy. He frequently appears in the media and holds several honorary and visiting academic positions as well as being an editorial board member of the International Review for Sociology of Sport, Journal of Homosexuality, Gender & Society and Men and Masculinities.

Providing you with a little background, for the last two decades the study of masculinity in sociology has become increasingly popular, and a small number of scholars have made their debut by developing theoretical concepts explaining the origin, construction and performance of masculinity. As such, Connell's notion of hegemonic masculinity has come to dominate the academic discussion on masculinity, despite numerous criticisms regarding the inflexibility of this concept and its claim of validity in different cultural, social and geographical settings. The study of masculinity itself, it appears, was, and continues to be, given justification through feminist theories around the patriarchy, and, surprisingly, lacks the inclusion of experience of men themselves. On the background of these criticisms, let me provide you with a summary of the book reviewed here to then return to some of the points raised.

Eric Anderson's book “Inclusive Masculinities – The Changing Nature of Masculinities” outlines a very interesting approach to masculinity studies via the route of sports and the construction of masculinity through the history, organization and practice of team sports in the context of the USA and the UK. The basic assumption of what Anderson develops as inclusive masculinity theory is that homophobia and homohysteria have been central to the construction of masculinity, especially in spaces to which men have or had exclusive access. The term homohysteria he defines by first mass awareness of the existence of homosexuality as a static sexual orientation, second the cultural Zeitgeist of disapproval of homosexuality and feminized bodily expression associated with it, and lastly the needs of men to align their social identity with heterosexuality to avoid homosexual suspicion. Anderson explains that with diminishing homohysteria two main masculinities exist: orthodox masculinity and inclusive masculinity. He questions Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity, as neither of those concepts of masculinity are culturally hegemonic in relation to one‐another and accentuates that hegemonic masculinity requires one to subscribe to all culturally ascribed and achieved variables to be truly dominant, whereas orthodox masculinity “simply” necessitates one to act masculine. Building on Bourdieu's concepts of cultural and social capitals, Anderson introduces the notion of masculine capital and illustrates how orthodox masculinity has been produced and reinforced by team sports through heterogendered and hegemonic practices of masculinity. He argues that through diminishing homohysteria, these practices become more and more socially marginalized and make room for a more inclusive form of masculinity, which embrace practices of masculinity previously sanctioned such as the exchange of affection between straight men.

Returning to some of the issues of the current debate and discussion of masculinity, Anderson has successfully managed to erode the hegemonic in the concept of hegemonic masculinity and replaced it with orthodox masculinity by making a very plausible case for inclusive masculinity, even in traditionally men‐only environments such as rugby clubs. Moreover, he develops this concept through the experience of men in his research and acknowledges their agency in the construction of masculinity. Additionally, he resists the temptation to explain masculinity from a purely macro‐sociological and patriarchal perspective, but rather includes that masculinity comes at a price, whereby a subscription to orthodox masculinity clearly limits forms of gender expression, body language and emotion. This is particularly important as it fragments the frequently implied notion of the “all‐privileged men” and “all‐disadvantaged women”. Perhaps, the regular appearance of “hegemony” and competitiveness even in the study of masculinity itself are inherent, and therefore Anderson's approach of not competing, but parallel masculinities is very refreshing. Equally revitalizing is the inclusion of his own experience of masculinity and homophobia in competitive sports, especially since the study of masculinity is marked throughout by an absence of auto‐ethnographic accounts of masculinity by the authors themselves.

Epistemologically speaking, Anderson has taken a nonconformist approach, which I rather like about this book and his work more generally. While essentially utilizing social‐constructionist theory, he quite readily employs post‐structuralist thinking when navigating the reader through his ideas. He states that, as a public sociologist, he believes in emancipatory research, which can be comprehended beyond the boundaries of academia, and he has certainly done a fine job making his ideas accessible to the reader. His entirely qualitative research consists mainly of ethnographic field studies and interviews with an all male cheerleading team, a fraternity and a rugby team. This leads me to the main criticism I have regarding this work. The research was conducted with mainly white, university‐attending men, a group very specifically located socio‐economically and educationally. While Anderson claims that the multitude of geographical locations strengthens the validity of the data, he does admit that there is not enough data in order to generalize beyond that specific group of middle class and white males, who attend university. This makes the application of his theory of inclusive masculinity potentially problematic beyond that very particular group of men, especially since a huge slice of research on masculinity theorizes about men and masculinities from working‐class backgrounds, particularly in relation to crime and violence. It would, however, be very interesting to explore the relevance of Anderson's concept of inclusive masculinity in the context of diverse groups of men and investigate to what extent, if to any, his theory could add to our understanding of masculinities and men more generally?! Perhaps Anderson's approach to masculinity could add dimensions to the way we think about working class men or men with different ethnic backgrounds beyond concepts of patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity.

In summary, Eric Anderson's “Inclusive Masculinity – The Changing Nature of Masculinities” is a breath of fresh air in the study of masculinity and men. It adds spice to the study of masculinity and men and provokes us to think outside the box of patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity, while including experiences of men themselves and some auto‐ethnograpic positioning of the author himself. The target audience of this book is potentially quite diverse from scholars working on gender to sports sociologist, and individuals particularly interested in masculinity studies. At a price of approximately £26 it is very good value for money and certainly introduces some new ideas into the study of masculinity, while having a positive feel about it in relation to the inclusion and acceptance of not only gay males, but also more holistic masculinities by university‐attending males. Compared to other titles on masculinity and men, this publication is excitingly positive about contemporary masculinities and makes a nice change from reading what can be, though academically sound, a tat depressing, when you actually happen to identify as a man yourself ….