Hegemonic masculinities are at the top of the gender hierarchy and exist in relation to subordinated gender constructs. Traditional constructions of hegemonic masculinities include risk-taking, self-discipline, physical toughness and/or muscular development, aggression, violence, emotional control, and overt heterosexual desire. Using a grounded theory approach, 43 men were interviewed focusing on the process of hegemonic masculinities construction (n = 25 pre-active duty Reserve Officer Training Corps members and n = 18 Delayed Entry Program men). By casting non-military personal (i.e., civilians) and service members of different branches (i.e., Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force), different occupational specialties (i.e., infantry, artillery, supply, etc.), and different rank (officer versus enlisted) as less physically able, self-disciplined, willing to take risks, emotionally controlled, and/or intelligent, pre-active duty servicemen discursively dominate others. The end result is that men create hierarchies that subordinate others while simultaneously placing their own perceived characteristics in positions of symbolic dominance.
BlumerH. (1956). Sociological analysis and the “variable.”American Sociological Review, 21(6), 683–690.
2.
CahillS.C. (1986). Language practices and self definition: The case of gender identity acquisition. The Sociological Quarterly, 27, 295–311.
3.
CampbellH., & BellMayerfeld M. (2000). The question of rural masculinities. Rural Sociology, 65, 532–546.
4.
CarriganT.ConnellB., & LeeJ. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society, 14, 551–604.
5.
CharmazK. (1990). “Discovering” chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and Medicine, 30, 1161–1172.
6.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CollinsonD.L., & HearnJ. (2005). Men and masculinities in work, organizations, and management. In KimmelM.S.HearnJ., & ConnellR.W. (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 289–310). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
8.
ConnellR.W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
ConnellR.W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley. University of California Press.
10.
ConnellR.W. (2000). The men and the Boys. Berkley: University of California Press.
11.
ConnellR.W. (2005). Globalization, imperialism, and masculinities. In KimmelM.S.HearnJ., & ConnellR.W. (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 71–89). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12.
DemetriouD.Z. (2001). Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society, 30, 337–361.
13.
DonaldsonM. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity?Theory and Society, 22, 643–657.
14.
EighmeyJ. (2006). Why do youth enlist? Identification of underlying themes. Armed Forces & Society, 32, 307–328.
15.
GlaserB.G., & StraussA.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
16.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
17.
GubriumJ.F., & HolsteinJ.A. (1997). The new language of qualitative methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
HearnJ. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory, 5, 49–72.
19.
HigateP. (2007). Peace keepers, masculinities, and sexual exploitation. Men and Masculinities, 10, 99–119.
20.
HigateP. (2002). Traditional gendered identities: National service and the all volunteer force. Comparative Social Research, 20, 229–235.
21.
HigateP., & HoptonJ. (2005). War, Militarism, and Masculinities. In KimmelM.S.HearnJ., & ConnellR.W. (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 432–447). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
22.
HockeyJ. (2002). “Head down, bergen on, mind in neutral”: The infantry body. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 30, 148–171.
23.
HolsteinJ.A., & GubriumJ.F. (2000). The self we live by: Narrative identity in a postmodern world. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
JohnsonA.G. (2005). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy (Revised and updated edition). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
25.
KarnerT.X. (1998). Engendering violent men: Oral histories of military masculinity. In BowkerL.H. (Ed.), Masculinities and violence (pp, 197–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
KimmelM. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: The Free Press
27.
KimmelM. & MosmillerT.E. (1992). Against the tide: Pro-feminist men in the United States, 1779–1990. A documentary history. Boston, MA: Beacon.
28.
LaRossaR. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837–857.
29.
LymanP. (2004). The fraternal bond as joking relationship: A case study of the role of sexist jokes in male group bonding. In KimmelM.S. & MessnerM.A. (Eds.), Men's lives (6th ed., pp. 169–178). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
30.
MajorsR., & BillsonJ.M. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of black manhood in America. New York: Lexington Books.
31.
McCrearyD.R.SaucierD.M., & CourtenayW.H. (2005). The drive for muscularity and masculinity: Testing the associations among gender-role traits, behaviors, attitudes, and conflict. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 83–94.
32.
McKayJ.MikoszaJ., & HutchinsB. (2005). “Gentleman, the lunchbox has landed”: Representations of masculinities and men's bodies in the popular media. In KimmelM.S.HearnJ., & ConnellR.W. (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 270–288). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
33.
MessnerM.A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Beacon Press: Boston.
34.
MessnerM.A. (2000). Politics of masculinities: Men in movements. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
35.
NagelJ. (2005). Nation. In KimmelM.S.HearnJ., & ConnellR.W. (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 397–413). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
36.
PadillaP.A., & LanerRiege M. (2002). Trends in military influences on army recruitment themes: 1954–1990. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 30, 113–133.
37.
PascoeC.J. (2003). Multiple masculinities? Teenage boys talk about jocks and gender. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1423–1438.
38.
PetersenA. (2003). Research on men and masculinities: Some implications of recent theory for future work. Men and Masculinities, 6, 54–69.
39.
PopeH.G.Jr.PhillipsK.A., & OlivardiaR. (2000). The Adonis complex: The secret crisis of male body obsession. Sydney: The Free Press.
40.
PykeK.D. (1996). Class-based masculinities: The interdependence of gender, class, and interpersonal powerGender & Society, 10(5), 527–549.
41.
de BereRegan S. (2003). Masculinity in work and family lives: Implications for military service and resettlement. In HigateP. (Ed.), Military masculinities: Identity and the state (pp. 91–109). Westport, CT: Praeger.
42.
SartreJ. (1963). Search for a method. Trans. BarnesH. E.. New York: Vintage Books.
43.
SegalD.R., & SegalM.W. (2004). America's military population. Population Bulletin, 59(4), 1–44.
44.
SieboldG.L. (2001). Core issues and theory in military sociology. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 29, 140–159.
45.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures, and techniques. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
46.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
47.
WalkerG.W. (2006). Disciplining protest masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 9(1), 5–22.
