We cannot understand men and masculinity without understanding power. I believe that views of men as an all-powerful homogeneous group have limited our understanding of men's relationship to power. First, because they have often argued or implied that all men are equally powerful when this is not so and second, because men's subjective experiences of power may not match their social position. A recognition of the complexities of power relations opens up new possibilities for feminist analyses and clearer implications of the ways in which men can change their subjectivities and practices in relation to power.
| Perhaps, many men lack inner power because they have focused so much on the exercise of outer power |
The starting point for critical studies of men's power involves a recognition that men stand in different relations to power. Hearn (1967) describes this in terms of 'hierarchic heterosexuality', to acknowledge that some men are more powerful than others. Connell (1987) distinguishes between hegemonic masculinity and various subordinate masculinities. Some men are in positions where they can impose their particular definitions of masculinity on others in order to legitimate and reproduce the social relations that generate their dominance.
Thus although large numbers of men benefit from patriarchy, we do not all benefit equally. Middle-class, white heterosexual masculinity becomes the standard against which other masculinities are measured. When Hearn (1992) set out to investigate the ways in which men maintained and reproduced their power in the public sphere, he made it clear that he was referring especially to able-bodied, heterosexual, middle-aged, middle/upper-class, white men. Such men not only dominate women, but also dominate different types of men, for example; heterosexual men dominate gay men, upper-class men dominate working-class men, white men dominate men of colour. This domination does not necessarily involve a conscious process of exploitation (although, of course, it may); it exists because of the relative privileges heterosexual, upper-class, white men have access to.
Clearly, forms of bonding across class, race and ethnic lines operate at the expense of women. Men in general are advantaged through the subordination of women, although different men are advantaged in different ways. This does not, however, deny the existence of anomalies consistent with the global subordination of women. There are sites where women hold power over men or are at least their equals. The intersection of gender with class, sexuality and race relations produces sites where dominant-subordinate relations are more complex, for example, where white upper-class women are employers of working-class men or are politically dominant over men of colour.
In describing and conceptualising men's power, we should also recognise that men's capacity to impose control over women and other men are not the only forms of power. We should distinguish between various forms of organisational, institutional and social power on the one hand and the subjective experience of powerfulness on the other. These distinctions have been articulated in a variety of ways including: power-over and power-to (Yoder and Kahn 1992) and outer power and inner power (Crespi 1992). It is said that men tend to experience power primarily as the former set of categories.
These distinctions help us to understand what Kaufman (1994) refers to as men's contradictory experiences of power. On the one hand, it is widely acknowledged that men predominantly dominate most forms of organisational, institutional and social power, thus constituting men's gender power. On the other hand, many men experience feelings of personal disempowerment. While for some men this may be a reflection of their subordinate position in class or race hierarchies, for others it is a recognition that their social or institutionalised power may not always correlate with their experience as individual men and their feelings of powerfulness.
Perhaps, many men lack inner power because they have focused so much on the exercise of outer power. Perhaps, the more inner power a man has the less he will feel the need to control others. This was a view expressed by two feminist women who met with a group of profeminist men to explore strategies of profeminist practice.
One woman said that she did not believe that 'men will be good to women until men are content within themselves and strong and powerful as people.' The other women also reflected that if we had a world in which men felt good and proud of themselves as men, they would not go around killing women and children. Both pondered whether men act so oppressively because they are living out some kind of inner tragedy and if men would feel better about themselves, they would be less likely to oppress women. The assumption here is that if men felt personally powerful, they would be less likely to engage in 'power-over' behaviours. Men were encouraged to find their own non-patriarchal power and become powerful men who are working with women to change the world.
One woman contrasted this vision with men disempowering themselves for women. In her experience, men who did that eventually resented it and became misogynist, which 'comes back in the face of women and I have had that experience.' The other woman also emphasised the importance of men 'celebrating a strong form of masculinity that is not dominating.' The notion of men finding non-patriarchal strength and power was a strong theme in this discussion.
There are many different ways that men can choose to feel good about themselves. Some powerful men who exploit others might feel great about themselves. A man owning a large company with the power to hire and fire, may feel good about himself through enjoying his power and control over other people. Furthermore, if men's self-esteem is formed on the basis of their access to social power and privilege, then these men are likely to experience a loss of self esteem if their social power and privilege is lost.
Trying to understand the complexities of men's relationship to power, I have turned to Michael Foucault (1977) who maintains that the traditional dichotomous understanding of power is insufficient. He challenges the polarisation of such categories as 'powerful' and 'powerless' because they fail to untangle the way in which power is manifested and constituted subjectively. In his view, power is not a thing or a commodity; it is not something that some groups have and use to control others who are powerless. Women's capacity for inner power and the capacity to develop 'power-against' through resistance means that women are not completely powerless. Thus power is not something that is solely exercised by those who hold institutional power.
This challenge to the notion that men are all-powerful in all aspects of their lives does not lead us to the conclusion reached by Farrell (1993) and others that male power is a myth. In recognising the importance of other forms of power, we should not deny the phenomenon of institutionalised gender power, nor of class and state power. Rather, we should explore how gender power relations can be transformed in local struggles by paying attention to the subjectivities that may influence these power relations at the everyday level of social relations.
It has been argued by some feminists that Foucault's notion of power privileges diversity and discontinuity while it silences unity and continuity. If we argue that power is widely diffused through networks of social relations, does it dissolve the feminist claim that men possess power over women?
I do not believe it does. To acknowledge that power is diffused does not mean that men's and women's powers are equal. Although Foucault's analysis of power undermines earlier feminist analyses of patriarchy as a monolithic power structure, his theory is compatible with many feminist perspectives. While rejecting the idea that power is centralised within a single system, (let alone a single position), Foucault does acknowledge that forms of global domination exist. However. he is concerned with the ways in which these global manifestations of power are shaped by decentralised and localised forms of power.
| Perhaps, the more inner power a man has the less he will feel the need to control others |
Such an analysis of power has implications for understanding patriarchy. It means rethinking the idea of patriarchy as being based on the conscious, rational decisions of a unified group of men. The implications of this analysis centres on the importance of studying the multiplicity of men's practices that oppress women.
I believe, along with Kupers (1993), that redefining what it means to be powerful is one strategy to challenge men's social dominance. The task that confronts us is to find ways to be powerful without oppressing anyone. Research demonstrates that the happiest men are those who feel comfortable with equality in relationships. We thus have to redefine power so that we can feel powerful through being in partnership with women rather than dominating them.
Because many men tend to define power very narrowly, as the power to impose one's will upon others, they must begin achieving positions of authority and influence in order to enhance their power. As long as we believe that we must be concerned above all else with our place in the hierarchy, we will continue to compensate for our inadequacies by oppressing women and continue to be uncertain about our adequacy no matter what heights we attain.
Personally, I have been involved in anti-sexist men's politics in Australia since the 1970's, from my first consciousness-raising group in 1975 through to being a father at home. reading feminist theory, redefining my relationships with women and men, teaching and writing about men and masculinity and involving myself in campaigns with the aim of reducing men's violence. I have continually moved between the arenas of personal change for men, community politics and academic work. In all three of these arenas, I have endeavoured to explore the implications of feminism for how I live my life.
Being engaged with the ideas of feminism has offered me the means of understanding aspects of my life in new ways. These are ways that offer the potential for change and enrichment. I believe that it is in men's interests to change towards gender equality.
Furthermore, I believe that in the process of engaging in that struggle, men transform themselves and reconstruct their interests. This has certainly been true in my life.
Growing up as a working-class man, I have occupied both oppressed and oppressor positions in relation to social power. I have suffered the indignities of a dehumanised workplace and experienced the lack of control over my own work processes. I have also had to come to terms with the challenges of feminist women to my gender power.
As a socialist who was involved in community politics in relation to housing, unemployment and health issues, I found it relatively easy at the intellectual level to see the justice of the feminist claims and my own complicity in the oppression of women. At the emotional level, I was deeply threatened by it. Listening to the experiences of women for the first time brought complex reactions from sorrow, to outrage, to confusion as to how to respond.
Working out ways to respond to men's power over women and understanding men's own experiences of power and powerlessness have been important projects in my life. Writing this article provides me with the welcome opportunity to rethink men's power.
Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective
If you've enjoyed reading this article on-line please consider subscribing to the magazine.
