This article evaluates the usefulness of the concept of hegemony in theorizing men. The discussion is located within the framework of ‘Critical Studies on Men’ (CSM), in which the centrality of power issues is recognized, rather than that of ‘Men’s Studies’, where it is frequently not. Recent uses, as in ‘hegemonic masculinity’ in the analysis of masculinities, are subjected to a qualified critique. Instead a shift is proposed from masculinity to men, to focus on ‘the hegemony of men’. This formulation seeks to address the double complexity that men are both a social category formed by the gender system and collective and individual agents, often dominant collective and individual agents, of social practices. This is explored mainly in relation to substantive studies on men, and briefly the institutional development of CSM. The concluding discussion examines how these arguments connect with debates in feminist theory and social theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abercrombie, N. and B.S. Turner (1978) ‘The Dominant Ideology Thesis’ , British Journal of Sociology29(2): 149–170 .
2.
Alasuutari, P. (2000) ‘Globalization and the Nation-state: An Appraisal of the Discussion’ , Acta Sociologica43(3): 259–269 .
3.
Bachrach, P. and M.S. Baratz (1962) ‘The Two Faces of Power’ , American Political Science Review56: 947–952 .
4.
Barbalet, J.M. (1987) ‘Power, Structural Resources and Agency’ , Perspectives in Social Theory8: 1–24 .
5.
Beemyn, B. and M. Eliason, eds (1996) Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Anthology. New York: New York University Press .
6.
Benhabib, S. and D. Cornell, eds (1987) Feminism as Critique: Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late Capitalist Societies. Cambridge: Polity; Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press .
7.
Bocock, R. (1986) Hegemony. London: Tavistock .
8.
Bourdieu, P. (2001) Masculine Domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press .
9.
Butler, J. (2000) ‘Restaging the Universal: Hegemony and the Limits of Formalism’, pp. 11–43 in J. Butler, E. Laclau and S. Žižek Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Debates on the Left. London: Verso .
10.
Butler, J., E. Laclau and S. Žižek (2000) Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Debates on the Left. London: Verso .
11.
Carrigan, T., R.W. Connell and J. Lee (1985) ‘Towards a New Sociology of Masculinity’ , Theory and Society14(5): 551–604 .
12.
Clatterbaugh, K. (1998) ‘What is Problematic about Masculinities?’ , Men and Masculinities1(1): 24–45 .
13.
Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London: Sage .
14.
Cockburn, C. (1991) In the Way of Women. London: Macmillan .
15.
Cockburn, C. and S. Ormrod (1993) Gender and Technology in the Making. London: Sage .
16.
Collinson, D.L. and J. Hearn (1994) ‘Naming Men as Men: Implications for Work, Organizations and Management’ , Gender, Work and Organization1(1): 2–22 .
17.
Collinson, D.L. and J. Hearn, eds (1996) Men as Managers, Managers as Men. Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Managements. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
18.
Connell, R.W. (1983) Which Way Is Up? London/Boston: Allen & Unwin .
Connell, R.W. (1998) ‘Men in the World: Masculinities and Globalization’ , Men and Masculinities1(1): 3–23 .
24.
Connell, R.W. (2000) The Men and the Boys. Cambridge: Polity .
25.
Connell, R.W. (2002) Gender. Cambridge: Polity .
26.
Crenson, M. (1971) The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decision making in the Cities. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press .
Diamond, L. and I. Quinby, eds (1988) Feminism and Foucault: Reflection or Resistance. Boston: Northeastern University Press .
29.
Donaldson, M. (1993) ‘What is Hegemonic Masculinity?’ , Theory and Society22(5): 643–657 .
30.
Edwards, T. (1994) Erotics and Politics. London and New York: Routledge .
31.
Eichler, M. (1980) The Double Standard: A Feminist Critique of Feminist Social Science. London: Croom Helm .
32.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. Harlow: Longman .
33.
Fawcett, B. (2000) Feminist Perspectives on Disability. Harlow: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education .
34.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon .
35.
Frank, B. (1987) ‘Hegemonic Heterosexual Masculinity’ , Studies in Political Economy24: 159–170 .
36.
Fraser, N. (1989) Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity .
37.
Fraser, N. (1998) Justice Interruptus: Rethinking Key Concepts of a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age. New York and London: Routledge .
38.
Geras, N. (1987) ‘Post-Marxism?’ , New Left Review163: 40–82 .
39.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. (1996) The End of Capitalism (as we knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA and Oxford: Blackwell .
40.
Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebook. London: Lawrence & Wishart .
41.
Hanmer, J. (1990) ‘Men, Power and the Exploitation of Women’, pp. 21–42 in J. Hearn and D. Morgan (eds) Men, Masculinities and Social Theory. London and New York: Unwin Hyman/Routledge .
42.
Hanmer, J. and J. Hearn (1999) ‘Gender and Welfare Research’, pp. 106–130 in F. Williams, J. Popay and A. Oakley (eds) Welfare Research: A Critical Review. London: UCL Press .
43.
Hanssen, B. (2000) Critique of Violence: Between Poststructuralism and Critical Theory. London: Routledge .
44.
Harding, S. (1998) Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminism and Epistemologies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press .
45.
Hearn, J. (1987) The Gender of Oppression. Men, Masculinity and the Critique of Marxism. Brighton: Wheatsheaf; New York: St. Martin’s Press .
46.
Hearn, J. (1989) ‘Reviewing Men and Masculinities, or Mostly Boys’ Own Papers’ , Theory, Culture and Society6: 665–689 .
47.
Hearn, J. (1992) Men in the Public Eye. The Construction and Deconstruction of Public Men and Public Patriarchies. London and New York: Routledge .
48.
Hearn, J. (1996a) ‘Deconstructing the Dominant: Making the One(s) the Other(s)’ , Organization3(4): 611–626 .
49.
Hearn, J. (1996b) ‘ “Is Masculinity Dead?” A Critical Account of the Concept of Masculinity/Masculinities’, pp. 202–217 in M. Mac an Ghaill (ed.) Understanding Masculinities: Social Relations and Cultural Arenas. Milton Keynes: Open University Press .
50.
Hearn, J. (1997) ‘The Implications of Critical Studies on Men’ , NORA. Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies3(1): 48–60 .
51.
Hearn, J. (1998a) ‘Getting Organised: The Politics and Organisation of Critical Studies on Men’ , International Association for Studies on Men Newsletter5(1): 15–17 .
52.
Hearn, J. (1998b) ‘Theorizing Men and Men’s Theorizing: Men’s Discursive Practices in Theorizing Men’ , Theory and Society27(6): 781–816 .
53.
Hearn, J. (1998c) The Violences of Men. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
54.
Hearn, J. (2002) ‘Critical Studies on Men in Four Parts of the World’ , NIKK Magasin3: 12–15 .
55.
Hearn, J. (2004) ‘Information Societies are Still Societies’, pp. 205–208 in T. Heiskanen and J. Hearn (eds) Information Society and the Workplace: Spaces, Boundaries and Agency. London: Routledge .
56.
Hearn, J. and D.L. Collinson (1993) ‘Theorizing Unities and Differences between Men and between Masculinities’, pp. 97–118 in H. Brod and M. Kaufman (eds) Theorizing Masculinities. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
57.
Hearn, J. and D. Morgan, eds (1990) Men, Masculinities and Social Theory. London and New York: Unwin Hyman/Routledge .
58.
Hearn, J. and W. Parkin (1993) ‘Organizations, Multiple Oppressions and Postmodernism’, pp. 148–162 in J. Hassard and M. Parker (eds) Postmodernism and Organizations. London and Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
59.
Hearn, J., K. Pringle, U. Müller, E. Oleksy, E. Lattu, J. Chernova, H. Ferguson, Ø.G. Holter, V. Kolga, I. Novikova, C. Ventimiglia, E. Olsvik and T. Tallberg (2002) ‘Critical Studies on Men in Ten European Countries (1): The State of Academic Research’ , Men and Masculinities4(4): 64–92 .
60.
Hennessy, R. (1995) Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse. New York: Routledge .
61.
Hennessy, R. and C. Ingraham, eds (1997) Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference and Women’s Lives. New York and London: Routledge .
62.
Herdt, G., ed. (1994) Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. New York: Zone Books .
63.
Holmwood, J. (1999) ‘Radical Sociology: What’s Left?’, pp. 277–293 in P. Bagguley and J. Hearn (eds) Transforming Politics: Power and Resistance. Basingstoke: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s Press .
64.
Howarth, D. (2000) Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press .
65.
Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso .
66.
Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (1987) ‘Post-Marxism without Apologies’ , New Left Review166: 77–106 .
67.
Landry, D. and G. McLean (1993) Materialist Feminisms. Cambridge, MA and Oxford: Blackwell .
68.
Lorber, J. (1994) Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press .
69.
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Macmillan .
70.
Macleod, C. and K. Durrheim (2002) ‘Foucauldian Feminism: The Implications of Governmentality’ , Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour32(1): 41–60 .
71.
McMahon, A. (1993) ‘Male Readings of Feminist Theory: The Psychologization of Sexual Politics in the Masculinity Literature’ , Theory and Society22(5): 675–696 .
72.
McNay, L. (1992) Foucault and Feminism. Cambridge: Polity .
73.
Marx, K. (1859/1975) ‘ “Preface” to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’, in Karl Marx: Early Writings, Harmondsworth: Penguin .
74.
Marx, K. and F. Engels (1845/1970) The German Ideology. London: Lawrence and Wishart .
75.
May, T. (1998) ‘Reflexivity in the Age of Reconstructive Social Science’ , International Journal of Social Research Methodology1(1): 7–24 .
76.
Messner, M. (1997) Politics of Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
77.
Morgan, D. (1992) Discovering Men. London and New York: Routledge .
78.
Novikova, I., K. Pringle, J. Hearn, U. Müller, E. Oleksy, E. Lattu, J. Chernova, H. Ferguson, Ø.G. Holter, V. Kolga, C. Ventimiglia, E. Olsvik and T. Tallberg (2004) ‘Men, Masculinities and “Europe” ’, in M. Kimmel, J. Hearn and R.W. Connell (eds) The Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
79.
O’Brien, M. (1981) The Politics of Reproduction. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul .
80.
Pease, B. (1996) ‘Reforming Men: Masculine Subjectivities and the Politics of and Practices of Profeminism’. Doctoral thesis. Bundoora: La Trobe University .
Pease, B. (2000b) ‘Researching Profeminist Men’s Narratives: Participatory Methodologies in a Postmodern Frame’, pp. 136–158 in B. Fawcett, B. Featherstone, J. Fook and A. Rossiter (eds) Practice and Research in Social Work: Postmodern Feminist Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge .
83.
Plummer, K. (1995) Telling Sexual Stories. London: Routledge .
84.
Purvis, T. and A. Hunt (1993) ‘Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology...’ , British Journal of Sociology44(3): 473–499 .
85.
Ramazanoglu, C., ed. (1993) Up Against Foucault: Explorations of Some Tensions between Foucault and Feminism. London and New York: Routledge .
86.
Sawicki, J. (1991) Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power and the Body. London and New York: Routledge .
87.
Sklair, Leslie (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell .
Walby, S. (1986) Patriarchy at Work. Cambridge: Polity .
90.
Walby, S. (1990) Theorizing Patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell .
91.
Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of an Interpretive Sociology, 2 Vols. G. Roth and C. Wittich (eds). Berkeley: University of California Press .
92.
Wetherell, M. and N. Edley (1999) ‘Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary Positions and Psycho-discursive Practices’ , Feminism & Psychology9(3): 335–356 .
93.
Whitehead, S. (1999) ‘Hegemonic Masculinity Revisited’ , Gender, Work and Organization6(1): 58–62 .
94.
Whitehead, S. (2002) Men and Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity .
95.
Willett, C., ed. (1998) Multiculturalism: A Guide to the Current Debate. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell .
96.
Wrong, D. (1979) Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses. Oxford: Blackwell .
