Men individually and collectively, and as a social and economic category, are increasingly problematic.
This change has developed alongside the maintenance and growth of men's power. It has also prompted the focused study of men and masculinity. Here I introduce some personal, political and theoretical reasons for men to focus on the study of men; consider some problems to do with this project; assess the state of Men's Studies as a developing academic sub-discipline in Europe and North America; and outline some promises that are offered by such a process. I hope this will assist in exchanging information, building networks and critique.
The rise of the Women's Liberation Movement and modern feminism have brought about a deep questioning of what it is to be a woman. An indirect, yet surely inevitable, consequence of this process has been a growing questioning of what it is to be a man. This is seen in a whole range of changes in men's feelings, actions and activities, as we attempt to redefine our masculinity, for example, in the development of unisex or bisexual images, and the blurring of gender roles in pop culture and fashion. Alongside these cultural changes, there are a number of broader social changes affecting men, such as loss of interest in the traditional male 'breadwinner role' with increased divorce, rising unemployment and even 'men's liberation'; the various direct and indirect impacts of feminism; and men's various responses to feminism. On the one hand, there are specific, often feminist-inspired critiques of dominant masculinity, male violence and patriarchal power; on the other, there are men's responses, from outright hostility to sympathetic stances in the form of men's anti-sexist groups and other activities.
No longer is it possible to take maleness for granted, or to recognise one uniquely dominant model of masculinity. And yet while men and masculinity are problematic, men have been and still are powerful. Men's power remains, while that power is less certain, so that men are becoming less certain of ourselves/themselves. As men and masculinity have become more problematic, we/they have come to be seen more as 'topics' for study and observation. Justifications for this I shall consider conveniently under the three perspectives of the personal, the political and the theoretical, before discussing the state of 'men's studies'.
Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit. Overwhelmed by a sense of animalism and deeply ashamed of it; wanting, not to express himself, but to hide from others his total physicality's total egocentricity, the hate and contempt he feels for other men, and to hide from himself the hate and contempt he suspects other men feel for him.
So wrote Valerie Solanas, published in 1968; so read I in 1973. And yet, hurtful as these words might appear, they slid off me because I knew them to be partly true. They even gave me a kind of assurance that explained that the kind of world we lived in was controlled, albeit by these nasty forms of manhood. The feelings of things-not-being-quite-right could be attributed to the peculiar ways in which I and other men had developed under their effects.
Since 1978, I have been involved in men's consciousness-raising and various other activities against sexism. My absorption in the questions and questioning of masculinity has continued in all sorts of activities and experiences. Perhaps most important has been just being with men, and enjoying it a lot. The last eight years or so have produced many experiences for me, of friendship, intimacy and sexuality, and of birth, child-care and child-work, that do not fit the traditional stereotypes and models of masculinity. Frequently these (my) experiences of being a man have been unclear, confused, subtle, intimate, contradictory, joyful, painful, bodily - what some would describe as not worthy of a 'real man' at all. And that may be the point, for reassessing men and masculinity necessitates a revaluation of the less articulated and familiar aspects of masculinity, to give them worth. It is paradoxical that, although men clearly have great power relative to and over women in crucial respects, such as through the control of public positions, at the same time certain aspects of men and men's lives are not given much worth and value.
There is sometimes a tendency for men concerned about sexism to assume that they should (a) see themselves as feminists, and (b) focus politically on women and 'women's issues'. I see these political positions as misguided, in the particular sense that men cannot be feminists, (Hearn, 1983). Men can clearly be interested in and instructed by feminism - but if feminism is to be theory and practice by and for women, then political participation by men in the Women's Movement will be likely to reduce its autonomy, if only indirectly. A man may well use feminism as a reference, as a source of information and insight, as a context; though this may appear a fine line from interference, it is a real line all the same. And it still leaves men's main problem as ourselves, not women.
Even having said this, to justify a focus on men and masculinity on political grounds in this way could still invite other misunderstandings. To advocate a focus on men by men should arise out of support for women's liberation and women's action, and not any form of competition, as is often supposed. A political focus on men is intended as complementary, not antagonistic or competitive; support for women's liberation is essential for men who are engaged in this kind of activity. Thus, although this may raise practical contradictions in specific situations, men's respect of the autonomy of women and the Women's Movement, can continue alongside men's active support of women's liberation, at both an individual and collective level.
Nevertheless, a major problem with political justifications, including men's focus on men, is the patriarchal domination of the major forms of 'politics' and 'leadership' (Hearn and Parkin 1986-7). This suggests that a rather cautious approach to politics is appropriate for men concerned to change political relationships with women and other men - seeking out and building political initiatives that include changing ourselves and each other, not just opposing some external threat from 'other men'.
The personal and political issues referred to above have not been and are not seen as important in most academic and theoretical work. The reasons for this are complex, but include not only the personal and political orientation of such work, but also the way the relationship between the 'personal' and the 'political' is analysed. In other words the recognition of the existence of the 'personal', the 'political' and their relationship, is a necessary part of theory. Academic theory that 'chooses' to ignore half of the 'facts' of existence is simply poor theory. Perhaps the most basic theoretical issue that still needs attention is the still frequent equation of 'humans' and 'man'/'men'. This is not merely a matter of arbitrary language; it recurs in the sets of assumptions that may be used about what it is to be human. For example, much social theory, including much marxist theory, begins with analysing what men do, particularly what work they do, and all the more so what public, paid, productive work they do, and then equating all that with 'economic relations', 'economy' or '(economic) classes'. Sometimes the equation is made, less satisfactorily still, with 'humans' or 'society' though Marx himself warned against 'above all... establishing "society" as an abstraction over against the individual' (Marx, 1975, p350). Such analyses sometimes point out that women do different things, ie., are non-men.
A crucial theoretical problem seems to be that while feminist analysis of (the category) 'women' can be conducted partly in opposition to such mainstream theory generally, and partly within separate practices and politics, this is not possible for the category 'men'. For although 'men' (and 'masculinity') are clearly problematic, this process of theorisation cannot be carried out in any simple opposition and separateness. Critical discussion of men and masculinity by men has to be conducted in connection and not antithesis to the mass of men; it has to take account of the fact of dominant male theorising, and it has to be in relation and contradiction, (and not just opposition) to dominant theorising.
We are thus brought to the question: 'Can there be a men's anti-patriarchal theory?'. Can there be a theory that would parallel and not compete with women's theory? Some would say 'no'; ie., it is ridiculous for an oppressor class to propound a theory of liberation. For example, one could perhaps argue that it would be meaningless for bourgeois people to construct bourgeois anti-capitalist theory, and it would also raise reasonable suspicions that they were engaged in a convoluted exercise in ideology and smoke-screening. Yet the comparison is not exact. Members of the bourgeoisie can change classes, both individually and collectively; men cannot. It is men's fix in biology that paradoxically helps to create the possibility of critical, anti-patriarchal theory and practice by men. If bourgeois people are convinced that they want to oppose capitalism they can renounce their economic class and change sides, men cannot do that in the same way. The contradiction of consciousness and biology creates the possibility of anti-patriarchal theory - or theory against patriarchy whilst remaining a man.
One possible interpretation of these issues is that rather than patriarchy serving capitalism, as suggested in the socialist-feminist and marxist-feminist traditions, capitalism (as superstructure) may serve patriarchy (as base). Capitalism in its identification of person (the man) and labour, not only dominates the day to day practice of commodity production and exchange, it also dominates (and is reproduced in) theorising that develops within it. 'Capitalist' theorising thereby could be said to produce a capitalist domination of the mental environment, and this in turn obscures and helps to perpetuate patriarchal relations. The conflation of labour and person may obscure, that is force out of sight, the conflation of bodily appearance and person under patriarchy.
One obvious area of men's practice and 'theoretical practice' that invites attention and change is that within the social sciences. Historically this collection of disciplines has developed in close association with the professions of the church, medicine, law and indeed science itself. They have traditionally comprised another bastion of the 'progressive' male establishment, producing 'malestream' depictions of 'society', governing reproduction, dominating education, and 'standing above' and avoiding various reproductive labours. In other words academia and academic discourse have long been part of malestream patriarchal public discourse. (cf O'Brien, 1981).
In the social sciences, men have generally remained untheorised. Assumptions about the nature of men and masculinity have usually remained implicit (Morgan, 1981: Pearson, 1982). History and literature provide endless stories about men and masculinity, and huge creative opportunities in teaching and learning if only these subject matters became more focused (August, 1982; Bowen, 1985). Above all there is a huge wariness in using the concept of 'patriarchy' within the social sciences. These 'men's studies' have been man made and are badly in need of 'modification' (Spender, 1981). The implications of feminism for men in the social sciences are many and varied. They range from personal/political stances against sexism to the questioning of hierarchical working relationships, as well as raising substantive issues for study such as the historical development of masculinity (Hearn et al., 1983).
Several possible avenues present themselves for male social scientists facing these issues - from pretending to be male 'feminists', to becoming 'expert' on women's studies, and promoting 'gender studies' as some over-arching discipline for both women and men to fit into, to developing the study of men and masculinity. However, we must be aware that many other rationales can prompt an interest in the study of gender by men. For example, there are 'good liberal' reasons for men to take a(n) (un)healthy interest in the affairs of women, paralleling motivations for white people to attempt to 'know' the minds of black people. Of particular interest is the increasing development of the specific study of men and masculinity in further and higher education. In the United States there are about a hundred men's studies courses in universities and similar institutions (Bliss, 1986; also see Weisberg, 1984), and over forty people teaching men's studies courses are listed in the Men's Studies Directory. There are special issues on men in academic journals, and some bibliographic sourcebooks on men and masculinity. In Britain, there has been a gradual development of occasional day courses, study groups and taught units within formal educational programmes[2]. Thus the question is not the hypothetical one of should men's studies exist, for it does; but how should it exist.
Such developments must be viewed with caution. For example, if research money appears available, the study of men may attract the attentions of general (male) social science researchers with no particular commitment to critique, or worse, still committed to some form of anti-feminism. On the other hand, the growth of this area of study is to be welcomed as the specific critique of men should be a priority for men in opposing sexism in the social sciences. The position developed here is that men concerned to oppose sexism and interested in studying 'gender' should focus primarily on the critique of men and masculinity, not the study of women, and similarly men studying men and masculinity should do so with anti-sexist commitment, that is, both critical and loving.
The reasons for this are several, and hinge on the acceptance of other men as our brothers, from whom we are separated. The most drastic action we can take politically, personally or academically is not to try to solve women's 'problems' for them, but to recognise our love and responsibility for each other and to change our relationships with each other accordingly. Thus, I would criticise the work of, for example, Bouchier (1983) and Charvet for concentrating almost wholly on women, women's material and feminism, as well as for reducing feminism to an ideology paralleling liberalism or conservatism. In contrast, Griffin (1982, p280) writes '...when a theory is transformed into an ideology, it begins to destroy self and self-knowledge. Originally born of feeling... it organises experience, according to itself, without reaching experience'.
In making these suggestions I am certainly not advocating any form of male academic separatism. All I am trying to argue is that male social scientists should clarify what we are doing in relation to feminism, women's studies and the study of gender, and why. (Indeed, the emerging emphasis of men's studies has only arisen with the establishment of women's studies as an identifiable area.) In my opinion and experience, the rationale for my/men's involvement in the study of gender has to come from a focus on the understanding and changing of men and masculinity. The more a commitment is made to anti-sexism, the clearer this focus becomes.
The recognition of the case for men to focus on men and masculinity is, however, only a beginning. Because of the contradictions and ambivalences outlined above, care and attention is needed with the form and quality of this development. From working on these issues, especially in the Men and Masculinity Research/Study Group at Bradford, the following broad ground rules are suggested in the study of men and masculinity:
(i) Men must not seek to appropriate feminism or feminist theory. We should respect the autonomy of feminism/women's studies; while not seeking to establish as a matter of principle a converse autonomy for 'Men's Studies'.
(ii) Men's studies must be open to all, women and men. Its forms, procedures, findings and theories must be open to scrutiny, criticism and guidance by and from women, should they wish it.
(iii) The major task of men's studies is the development of a critique of male practice partly in the light of feminism rather than the development of a male critique of feminism. This means that while men's studies are inconceivable without feminism, and while they are bound to utilise, and must recognise feminist work, the basic concern is not to engage feminism on its own terms but to see what implications feminism has both for men's position in the world and the practice of the existing mainstream disciplines. The critical target is men and male ways of being, not women or feminism. For these reasons, the very term 'men's studies' may itself be open to objection as expressing an unwarranted symmetry between men's and women's studies. It may be preferable to use an alternative term, such as 'the critique of men', that makes this distinction explicit.
(iv) Men's studies, or whatever preferred term is used, must span traditional disciplinary divides; it cannot avoid being interdisciplinary. Psychology, economics, political science and the rest are all relevant to an understating of men and masculinity. Similarly it is unlikely that a single methodology will be able to encapsulate all that has to be said.
(v) Men doing research, learning, teaching, theorising, and academic discourse about men and masculinity need to subject our own practice to scrutiny. The relationship of researcher to researched, learner to learned, teacher to taught are problematic and need repractising (not just rethinking) in ways that do not reproduce the patriarchy of disinterested positivism. In other words, they need to be subject to consciousness raising, even to become forms of consciousness-raising.
These broad principles seem to apply in formal social science courses, short courses on men and masculinity, theorising, and on men-related research projects, or simply informal academic discussions. We need to improve the quality of our activity.
To face oppression, primarily by us as men but also of us, we need drastic action. Men must address our power and the sources of oppression by men, alongside our own oppression and alienation. This requires committed attention to the structures of power, the enormities that are so obvious and so taken for granted within the social sciences. How can there be so many books, articles and treatises written on parliament, industry, the City, the professions, and so on, that do not even mention the power of men?
Against this we have various resources: our findings, our critique, our practice, our experience. In developing critical men's theory, we can ask how does this make sense in terms of our own and others' experiences; how does it help to relate theory and practice; how does our construction of theory become part of our own practice, and thus subject to consciousness raising? These are all useful tests of 'academic practice'.
In particular it is time to allow practice and experience as serious matters of theory. It is unfortunate that experience has become devalued in the social sciences to mean uncritical storytelling, the recitation of prejudice, and so on. In feminism, theory, practice and experience is what you have, and can critically explore; it is your own resource. Men's experience is rarely honestly shared, in its layers and contradictions.
| 'social science without love is mechanical method' |
Perhaps most surprisingly, and yet most importantly, my experience tells me that a commitment to the critique of men and masculinity will probably develop in association with love. To speak of love in academic contexts is near heresy. Indeed unconditional positive regard to the doers of violence, whether institutional or individual, is very difficult and liable to create major contradictions in research and/or personal terms. However, just as within psychoanalysis, practice without love is technique, so too social science without love is mechanical method. Love is the unspoken necessity for men changing the practice in the social sciences; researching our brothers, and co-researching as brothers are opportunities for changing and meeting others and ourselves. This necessitates a major questioning of research organisation.
Finally and optimistically, we can in doing the social sciences as elsewhere be allies to women in opposing sexism and oppression. We men can socially change sides; however disconcerting this may sound and be to both men and women, it is possible for us to do this.
1. The first four sections are brief extracts from 'The Personal is Political is Theoretical'. The subsequent sections are edited from 'Changing Men's Sexist Practice in the Social Sciences'. Both are to be included in 'The Gender of Oppression' (1987). Previous versions of this paper have been given at the Social Analysis Research Seminar, University of Bradford; and the British Sociological Association Annual Conference on The Sociology of The Life Cycle, March 1986. I would like to acknowledge the assistance of many friends and colleagues, particularly at Bradford - both in and out of the University - especially Alan Carling and Peter Bluckert, in developing some of these ideas and practices.
2. Special issues of journals include the following: Impact of Science on Society (21(1), 1971; Journal of Social Issues (34(1), 1978); The Counselling Psychologist (7 (1), 1978); The Studies International Forum (7(1), 1984); Therapy Now (Summer 1985); Ten-8 (17, 1985); American Behavioral Scientist (30(1), 1986); Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors (Spring 1986); University of Dayton Review (Winter 1986-7). Bibliographies on men and masculinity include those by Grade, Brannon and Peck (1979); Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979); in Britain, Ford and Hearn are constructing a bibliography, as are others in Cardiff and Liverpool. Networks of men's studies scholars exist in the Netherlands, the USA and Britain; collated syllabuses are available from the United States. Courses and more academic study groups that have taken place in Britain over the last five years include: Men and Childcare (Leeds, WEA) (Harris, 19823); Men's Studies (Coventry, WEA) (Gurden and Hardman, 1982-3); Men and Sexual Politics (Huddersfield); Men and Masculinity Study Groups (Goldsmiths' College, London; University of Bradford); Men's studies (Youth and Community Work Courses, Manchester Polytechnic); Men's Studies and related adult education courses (Islington Adult Education Institute) (Adkins, 1975); Myths of Manliness (Nottingham WEA).
3. These first two points are slightly adapted from my memorandum with Carling called 'Studying Men' (November 1983, University of Bradford).
G ADKINS 'Educating Peter', Men's Anti-Sexist Newsletter (21,1985).
ER AUGUST 'Modern Men, or Men's Studies in the Eighties', College English (44, 1982).
ER AUGUST 'Men's Studies, A Selected and Annotated Bibliography (Libraries Unlimited, Littleton, CoL/London, 1985)
S BLISS 'Changing Men's Publications', Men's Studies Newsletter (3, (2) 1986).
D BOUCHIER The Feminist Challenge: The Movement for Women's Liberation in Britain and the USA (Macmillan, London,1983).
J BOWEN 'Speaking of Men' New Statesman (24 May. 1985).
J CHARVET Feminism (Dent, London, 1982).
KE GRADY, R BRANNON, JH PLECK 'The Male Sex Role. A Selected and Annotated Bibliography' (US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Rockville, 1979).
S GRIFFIN 'The Way of all Ideology', in NO Keohane, MZ Rosaldo and BC Gelpi (ed.) Feminist Theory, A Critique of Ideology (Harvester, Brighton, 1982).
H GURDEN, J HARDMAN, 'Sexual Politics for Men', Achilles Heel (6&7, 1982-3).
J HARRIS 'Men and Childcare', Achilles Heel (60, 1982-3).
J HEARN 'Birth and Afterbirth: a materialist account (Achilles Heel, London, 1983).
J HEARN The Gender of Oppression. Men, Masculinity and the Critique of Marxism (Wheatsheaf, Brighton, 1987).'
J HEARN,ACCARLING 'Studying Men', Memorandum to Women's Studies Academic Group (University of Bradford, November, 1983).
J HEARN, C CREIGHTON, C MIDDLETON, D MORGAN, R THOMAS, C PEARSON 'Changing men's sexist practice in sociology'. Network 25 (1983).
J HEARN and PW PARKIN, 'Women men and leadership: a critical review of assumptions, practices and change in the industrialised nations', International Studies of Management and Organisation, 16 (1986-7).
K MARX 'Economic and philosophical manuscripts', Early Writings (Penguin, Hammondsworth, 1975).
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HUMANITIES LIBRARY, Men's Studies Bibliography (MIT, 4th ed. Cambridge Mass., 1979).
D MORGAN, 'Men, masculinity and the process of sociological enquiry' In H Roberts ed. Doing Feminist Research (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1981).
M O'BRIEN, The Politics of Reproduction (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1981).
C PEARSON, 'Some problems in talking about men', Paper. British Sociological Association Annual Conference on Gender and Society, April (1982).
V SOLANAS, SCUM Manifesto (New York/ London, Olympia, 1968/1971).
D SPENDER ed. Men's Studies Modified (Pergamon, Oxford, 1981).
L WEISBERG, 'Curriculum raising consciousness on campus', Advertising Age 4 October (1984).
Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective
If you've enjoyed reading this article on-line please consider subscribing to the magazine.
