Part Two now also online...see http://www.gaiacharis.com/site/index.php/gender/164-multiple-masculinities-trilogy-part-2masculinity-as-not-femininitythe-reality-of-the-illusion
'Multiple Masculinities:the Postmodern Emperor's New Clothes' is an extended essay comprising three discrete but interlinking parts. Part One 'Multiple Masculinities:the No-Singularity Multiplicity' is published below. Part Two 'Masculinity as Not-Femininity:the Reality of the Illusion' is also available online ( see Latest Item link above ) and Part Three 'Multiple Masculinities: the Postmodern Emperor's New Clothes', from which this essay takes its overall title, will follow shortly.
NB. R.W.Connell, author of 'Masculinities', the key text referred to in this work is now Professor Raewyn Connell, a transgender woman. Professor Connell began publishing her work under this name in 2007. During the dates referred to in this text Professor Connell was still known as Robert Connell and I have thus used the male pronoun to refer to that time.
‘Multiple Masculinities: the Postmodern Emperor’s New Clothes.’
‘That masculinities are multiple and diverse is the one key and almost uncontested issue in the study of men and masculinity.'
Joseph Gelfer. ‘Numen, Old Men, Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy’, 2009
When the Second Wave feminist movement of the 1960s and ‘70s threw the spotlight onto the problematics of masculinity the Men’s Movement, and the advent of Men’s Studies in particular, arose as a reflexive male response. The singularity of masculinity as a unitary concept was, in true Postmodern pluralist fashion, swiftly replaced by the notion of ‘multiple masculinities’. This concept was rapidly adopted as the founding principle not only of Men’s Studies but of all other branches of gendered study that subsequently developed, spawning a vast plethora of writing on the subject and embedding it foundationally across a wide range of disciplines.
In this essay I argue that the concept of ‘multiple masculinities’ as derived from, and defined in, the work of its original theoretical proponent Bob Connell, is fundamentally flawed and that the evidence of this lies both in his exposition of the term and in the self-negating outcome of the progression of the concept through the works of subsequent gender researchers and theorists to the present day.
I present and explore both this assertion and its implications across three discrete but interlinking sections.
The first, ‘Multiple Masculinities: The No-Singularity Multiplicity’, examines the faultlines inherent in the original conceptualisation of ‘multiple masculinities’ theory, charts the confusion engendered by its deficiencies and posits its eventual outcome as self-negation.
The second section, ‘Masculinity as Not-Femininity: the Reality of the Illusion’, explores the reflexive and relational defining of the masculine as not-feminine on two levels.
On an empirical level it demonstrates its negative impact on male self-concept formation and the ways in which this serves to both drive and maintain male dominance in a continuing patriarchal social order.
On a theoretical level I explore the ways in which reflexive definition both constitutes and sustains the apparent paradox of masculinity as simultaneously a provable illusion and a powerful social ‘reality’.
The third section ‘Multiple Masculinities: the Postmodern Emperor’s New Clothes’, from which the essay takes its overall title, allies the content of sections one and two to illustrate the ways in which the concept of multiple masculinities has served as a powerfully effective, ideological smoke-screen for the perpetuation of gendered power dynamics in a continuingly patriarchal social order.
1. ‘Multiple Masculinities: The No-Singularity Multiplicity’.
The use of the plural term of ‘masculinities’ first appeared within the field of Men’s Studies in 1987 with the appearance of Harry Brod’s book ‘The Making of Masculinities’ and within Bob Connell's 'Gender and Power', published in the same year. The inception of the theoretical conceptualisation of ‘multiple masculinities’ is, however, credited to Bob Connell who explored the subject in specific depth in his 1995 publication ‘Masculinities’.
Although Connell does not overtly state that masculinity is definitively linked to biological maleness the whole tenet of the work leads the reader to conclude that he is discussing masculinity as primarily attributable to, or associated with, men, as embodied in references such as...
‘...the masculinity within women and the femininity within men.’1
and in the fact that all the case studies that he includes in exploring the subject of masculinity are male.
Connell begins his book by addressing the difficulties that had persistently bedevilled those seeking to explore the exigencies of gender.
‘The concepts “masculine” and “feminine” Freud observed...“are among the most confused that occur in science”.’2
Going on to observe that these terms...
‘...on logical examination, waver like the Danube mist.’3
Thus proving...
‘...remarkably elusive and difficult to define.’4
Two chapters later Connell produces a relational working definition of masculinity that went on to become the founding principle for its study up to the present day.
He states:
‘ “Masculinity”, to the extent that it can be briefly defined at all, is simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in bodily experiences, personality and culture.’5
On the basis of all the possible permutations of the variables that Connell cites he concluded that ‘masculinities’ must invariably be ‘multiple’ and there is a key paragraph in the book where he makes the epistemological leap from using the term masculinity in the singular to masculinities in the plural, premised on what he argues is the impossibility of understanding masculinity as a singularity.
‘...twentieth-century research...failed to produce a coherent science of masculinity. This does not reveal the failure of the scientists so much as the impossibility of the task. ‘Masculinity’ is not a coherent object about which a generalising science can be produced...If we broaden the angle of vision, we can see masculinity, not as an isolated object, but as an aspect of a larger structure. This demands an account of the larger structure and how masculinities are located in it.’6
This is, in itself, an extraordinary assertion, placing masculinity squarely alongside the quantum wavicle in its ability to outwit science. But whereas the quantum wavicle can be defined as one of two states of being, depending on the circumstance of observation and measurement, Connell’s assertion of the multiple nature of the masculine implies the possibility of an infinite number of manifestations or states of masculine being.
It is to this assertion that I would like to apply the ‘logical examination’ to which Connell refers in his introduction.
Logically, a plural (whether Postmodernistically relative or not) cannot exist without a singular. Thus how, for example, do we know if ‘masculinities’ are being manifested or enacted unless either we or its actors have some concept of a state of ‘masculine’ being or ‘masculinity’ by which to assess any given social enactment, regardless of whether that masculinity is defined relationally or contextually or not.
(This latter point is an important one to clarify lest I be misunderstood as arguing for an essentialist view of masculinity, which I certainly am not.)
Rather I am concerned with attempting to answer the conundrum of the question by an analysis of Connell’s conceptualisation which soon displays a faultline in its definitional logic when subjected to scrutiny.
Consider again...
‘Masculinity, to the extent that it can be briefly defined at all, is simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture.7
The singularity that opens his statement becomes, via his definition, a multiplicity because of the indeterminate number of permutations of the variables inherent in the definition and, in becoming a multiplicity, the existence of the singularity is negated.
Or to put it another way......from the alleged impossibility of defining masculinity as a singularity the conclusion is drawn that masculinity can only exist as a multiplicity. This assertion then logically removes all possibility of verifying those ‘multiplicities’ as definitively ‘masculine’ as it negates the existence of any ‘masculine’ parameter by which to assess them.
The statement, and indeed the whole book, asserts an irreconcilable and illogical paradox...that a singularity, masculinity, can only exist and be understood as a plurality, masculinities.
In the words of T.S. Eliot,
‘In my beginning is my end.’8
.....and this is certainly the case for the paradox of multiple masculinities as the logical faultlines of its no-singularity multiplicity conceptualisation presage its ultimate downfall, a fate which becomes ever more apparent as we follow its progress through to the present day.
There are two key problems inherent in the adoption of the no-singularity multiplicity concept.
The first is that its conceptualisation as non-singular means that no-one is ever able to pinpoint what it actually is...although much is subsequently written by many about what it is not.
The second is that its conceptualisation as essentially multiple means that it can, either in theory or practice, take any form at all...which could in all logical possibility include an embodiment of the ascribed qualities of the feminine.
The confluence of the two, the inability of anyone to state definitively what masculinity is, combined with the theoretical possibility that it could be manifested as qualitatively ‘feminine’, creates a third factor, that masculinity appears to have no logical, definitional connection to maleness....a proposition that belies the prevailing, linguistic definition that most of its lay practitioners employ as a directive for practice,
‘...manly, possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical or appropriate to a man..’9
.......and which also propels both the term and the concept towards self-negation.
It also belies the explosion of empirical studies of ‘multiple masculinities’ that have grown like a mushroom cloud since the inception of this concept which, in theory, is not intrinsically linked to men but which, in practice, has spawned a vast body of research on........men.
This progress of events may be briefly summarised thus...
‘MASCULINITY’
‘What the hell is it?’
↓
‘NON-SINGULAR’
‘Impossible to say.’
↓
MULTIPLE
‘Could be anything.’
↓
SOMETHING TO DO WITH MEN?
‘Theoretically, not necessarily, but in practice, almost exclusively.’
Looked at with a cool, dispassionate gaze this hardly seems to be the stuff of academic rigour, let alone the foundation of an empirical empire....but that’s exactly what it is. The study of ‘men and masculinities’ across a wide range of perspectives and disciplines, became a growth industry akin to an epistemological economic boom. But like so many booms it contains the seeds of its own destruction and the bust is not far down the line. To illustrate the inevitability of this outcome we need to turn the spotlight away from the researched and theorised-about and shine it directly onto those who research and theorise.
In order to do this I’d like to look first at Judith Halberstam’s widely acclaimed book ‘Female Masculinity’, published in 1998, as this really epitomises all of the problematic outcomes that arise from the definitional and logical deficiencies of a no-singularity multiplicity perspective. This book is a particularly pertinent subject for analysis in this respect as Halberstam asserts not only that ‘masculinity’ can be female but that it can be multiply enacted by females. If ever clarity of definition and understanding were required it must surely be here in the exposition of female multiple masculinities and would certainly be expected of someone who was an Associate Professor and a significant figure in the development of Queer Studies at the time of writing.
Unfortunately, the Danube mist of the masculine prevails from the outset.
The preface to Halberstam’s book states...
‘..there is remarkably little written about masculinity in women, and this culture generally evinces considerable anxiety about even the prospect of manly women.’10
She then goes on to say of herself...
‘...I was a masculine girl and I am a masculine woman.’11
In the combination of these opening lines Halberstam appears to adhere to a stereotypical ‘lay’ version of masculinity. ie. that it is an entity that derives its primary meaning from the ‘manliness’ of biological maleness. This, in itself, is surprising for an academic embedded in a perspective which embodies multiple masculinity conceptualisation as one of its key principles. Even more surprising is the fact that by the time we get to her introduction she is questioning this ‘masculinity’ that she has previously and confidently asserted as existing both in herself and in other biological females, only to then reveal that she does not really know what it is.....despite expressing views about what it should not be.
‘What is masculinity? If masculinity is not the social and cultural and indeed political expression of maleness, then what is it? I do not claim to have any definitive answer to this question, but I do have a few proposals about why masculinity should not reduce down to the male body and its effects.’12
What we are looking at here is the down-the-line, ontological train wreck that is the consequence of Connell’s faulty, no-singularity multiplicity thinking. The tangled wreckage of this legacy lies all over the opening pages of Halberstam’s book.
Halberstam tells us that she was a ‘masculine girl’ and is a ‘masculine woman’ but she also tells us that she does not know what masculinity is. So, one cannot help but wonder, how does this apparently intelligent woman know that she is masculine?
She refers to ‘manly women’ but tells us that ‘masculinity should not reduce down to the male body’ when that body, as we have seen, is exactly the definitional foundation of the ‘manliness’ that she cites as the basis of her masculinity.
Further, and despite stating that she does not know what masculinity is, she spends eight ensuing chapters writing about its manifestation in biological females, with the whole book perpetuating the defining thread of physical ‘manliness’ in both its content and photographic illustrations.
The confluence of having no fundamental defining concept of the ‘masculinity’ that she purports to be writing about coupled with the use of ‘manly’ physicality as a working substitute leads to some extraordinary statements by the time she reaches her conclusion, where she unquestioningly positions ‘masculinity’ in highly stereotypically gendered terms, transposed on to the female form.
‘If masculinity were a kind of default category for children, surely we would have more girls running around and playing sports and experimenting with chemistry sets and building things and fixing things and learning about finances and so on...’13
Oh, dear.
She clearly does not see the flaws and contradictions inherent in her stance and clearly neither did her reviewers or academic peers. But how does an established academic come to write a well-received book about a subject that she openly states that she has no definitional concept of whilst perpetuating such blatant gendered stereotypes?
To understand the absurdity of this position let us return to the four point ‘absurdity’ checklist generated by Connell’s no-singularity multiplicity concept of masculinity.
Masculinity – ‘what the hell is it?’
Halberstam openly states that she does not know.
Non-singular – ‘impossible to say’
Halberstam states what she believes it should not be but cannot determine what it is.
Multiple – ‘could be anything really’
Despite stating that it should not be reducible to biological maleness and that she does not know what it is she premises its existence in females.
Is it something to do with men?
Halberstam says no, masculinity should not be about men but her book is wholly premised on ‘manliness’ in women.
What Halberstam’s work does do is exemplify the tension that exists between the ‘lay’ assumption, adhered to by the vast majority of the human population, that masculinity must have something to do with biological maleness, and therefore men, and the fact that both empirical and theoretical analysis of this assumption have consistently shown it to be erroneous. From Halberstam’s own exploration of female physicality and sexuality and in the subsequent development of all branches of Queer Studies covering the lived experience of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersexed people, it is clear that there is nothing within the realms of the physical and sexual that can be exclusively claimed as the domain of biological maleness. Similarly, the rise in female educational achievement in recent decades across all fields of study to a point where females now continually outstrip males, even in areas previously considered to be stereotypically ‘masculine,’ points to a similar outcome within the intellectual domain, leaving only one possible conclusion to be drawn that the existence of ‘masculinity’ in based on nothing other than the fact of its historical and contemporaneous naming by, I would argue on the grounds of possession of ‘power to define’, men.
If we return to Connell’s original work he does acknowledge this point,
‘ “Masculinity” does not exist except in contrast with “femininity”’.14
.......which is exactly what he based his concept of ‘multiple masculinities’ upon,
‘Masculinity and femininity are inherently relational concepts which have meaning in relation to each other, as a social demarcation and a cultural opposite.’15
What he did not follow through, however, was the logical potential of this multiple entity to actually subsume its own defining opposite via the proliferation of its multiplicity, the point at which the patriarchally defined parasite could come to consume the oppositional host that it had created to sustain and justify its own existence. By defining masculinity as essentially multiple Connell laid the foundation for the day when at least some of its manifestations of multiplicity may come to either fully or partially encompass ‘femininity’ thus both negating itself and revealing its own illusory nature. The true ‘crisis of masculinity’ and the point at which Connell’s assertion that...
‘Masculinity does not exist except in contrast with femininity.’16
.....would need to be amended to the more accurate,
‘Masculinity does not logically exist.’
Which does, however, require the caveat...
....Except in the service of those who have the power to perpetuate this illusion for their own benefit and those whose sense of selfhood is dependent upon it...
....the former being founded on the latter and both of which are discussed in the next section of this essay.
Moving forward in time now to 2005, when Bob Connell, Jeff Hearn and Michael Kimmel, three of the founders of the study of men and masculinities, edited ‘The Handbook of Men and Masculinities’ we can see that the concept is alive, well and prospering nearly two decades on from its inception.
The ‘Handbook’ is a comprehensive publication featuring the work of nearly thirty international writers covering a huge diversity of issues from a variety of contemporary gender study perspectives, but with no significant departures from a multiplicity consensus. However, the no-singularity multiplicity slippage embodied in Connell’s original concept is evident right from the start as the authors make the introductory move from ‘masculinity’ to ‘masculinities’ without at any point defining their terms for the reader, referring instead to the visibility and problematics of ‘masculinity’ and to the recognition of the ‘specificity of different masculinities’. 17.Thus perpetuating a generalised tendency within the gender field to presume that everyone knows what is meant by the term ‘masculine’........when no-one really does.
The editors then describe the huge growth in research into the field of men and masculinities..
‘This investigation has now been active for more than twenty years and has produced a large and interesting body of research.’18
There are few dissenting voices in nearly five hundred pages and those that have questioned the orthodoxy of multiple masculinities appear to have had little impact upon its insistent trajectory.
David Collinson and Jeff Hearn give a short review of the ‘Limits of Hegemony and Multiplicity’ citing work that has premised the imprecision, vagueness and flexibility of definition (Donaldson, 1993) and the potential obsolescence of masculinity (MacInnes, 2001) but there is no questioning anywhere of multiple masculinities’ no-singularity multiplicity status.
In 2002, Stephen Whitehead raises the issue of the illusory nature of masculinity in his chapter on ‘Multiplicity, materiality – and illusion’ in his book ‘Men and Masculinities: Key Themes and New Directions’.
In answer to his question ‘Is masculinity illusion or reality?19’ he settles for both sides of the fence,
‘To put it succinctly, masculinity is both illusion and reality.’20
....and validates his conclusion with the same old slippage into plurality..
‘...it is coming to understand how this apparent paradox is sustained that is the key to appreciating the social, political and individual importance of masculinities.’21
...without seeing that it is precisely this slippage that is the source of its sustenance.
To conclude this section I want to move into the present day and look at the work of Joseph Gelfer, now currently Masculinities researcher at the School of Political and Social Enquiry, Monash University, Melbourne and who is the author of ‘Numen, Old Men: Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy’, published in 2009. He is also currently publishing a work-in-progress e-book entitled ‘The Masculinity Conspiracy.’
Gelfer’s work is of specific interest in this analysis as it is both contemporary and wholly grounded in multiple masculinities conceptualisation and, as such, it illustrates the inevitable endgame outcomes of this inherently flawed perspective. His developing e-book ‘The Masculinity Conspiracy’ is particularly interesting in this context as it incorporates a dialectic comments facility whereby his readers may engage in either critical or affirmative discussion with him. In this respect the content of his responses to readers is as relevant and revealing as the content of his prose.
But to return to the mainframe of multiple masculinities and the problematics of the no-singularity multiplicity paradox let us look first at ‘Numen, Old Men.’
Clearly, in a book that seeks to explore ‘masculine’ spiritualities the author’s working usage of the term ‘masculine’ is vital for the readers’ understanding and especially so as Gelfer is so openly committed to the concept of its existence in multiplicity.
In the preface he explains his authorial quest to....
‘...find a non-patriarchal spirituality that was not just lived by men, but also had something to do with being masculine.’22
Which leaves at least one reader, this one, thinking that this sounds very laudable but that the author really needs to define exactly what he means by the term ‘masculine’ in order that the reader may proceed with a clear understanding rather than an assumption.
There is, after all, a nagging disjunct between ‘not just lived by men’ and having ‘something to do with being masculine.’
As we go on into the introduction the possibility implied by this disjunct that ‘men’ and ‘masculine’ may not be synonymous appears to be resolved as Gelfer refers to masculine spirituality as being concerned with...
‘...articulations of masculinity and spirituality that are appropriate for and resonate with men.’23
As he then goes on to refer to ‘women’s spirituality and theology’ and to state that...
‘In an ideal world, expressions of masculine spirituality would complement feminine spirituality..’24
...the reader may be forgiven for assuming that he is drawing some correlation between ‘men’ and ‘masculine’, an assumption that is somewhat undermined by...
‘...masculine spirituality is not some stable ontological category, rather a social construction.’25
Hope is, however, at hand as the author promises that in the following section he will...
‘...examine exactly what these words mean.’26
For the purposes of this analysis it is the meaning of ‘masculine’ rather than that of spirituality that is at issue but although Gelfer gives a brief resume of the theoretical perspectives that have led to multiple masculinity conceptualisation he gives no indication at all to the reader as to what he is personally referring to when he uses the term ‘masculine’.
The ensuing sense of wandering in a fog is highly reminiscent of the opening pages of Halberstam’s ‘Female Masculinity’. Like Halberstam, there seems to be an association made between men and masculinity but, also like Halberstam, there is no clear sense at all of what the author is actually talking about when referring to the term and we find ourselves once again embroiled in the no-singularity multiplicity paradox as he states...
‘That masculinities are multiple and diverse is the one key and almost uncontested issue in the study of men and masculinities.’27
Which gives us no clue whatsoever as to how either he or we can know that any given social enactment, spiritual or otherwise, relativist or not, is actually a ‘masculinity’. ie. What actually makes it ‘masculine’?
The bulk of Gelfer’s book gives a comprehensive review of major spiritual movements and perspectives, all through the lens of multiplicity conceptualisation and theorisation. It differs from the example of Halberstam and from the vast bulk of work on masculinities in that he acknowledges, towards the end of the book, the problematics of contradiction and self-negation (as previously elaborated) towards which this concept inevitably leads.
‘But where does this actually take us? At an absolute level it becomes problematic to use the words masculine and feminine at all...’28
Gelfer’s answer to this question is both astonishing and depressing. He is standing here on the edge of the chasm that was once just a faultline in Connell’s definitional thinking. Over two decades that faultline has widened to the point that any given masculine multiplicity could both logically, theoretically and empirically embody ascribed ‘femininity’, as exemplified in Queer perspectives and specifically in the work of Judith Butler29 that Gelfer cites . The conclusionary void that Gelfer is staring into here is, in fact, the complete illusion of gender and particularly, as I will argue in the next section of this essay, the illusion of masculinity that is sustained by the quintessential defining of it as not-feminine.
But it is a void that he chooses not to face and instead of naming what he sees he steps backwards into the false security of that illusion.
‘While this space is graspable, and quite valid, it is not an easy one in which to live. A more sensible route is to maintain notions of masculine and feminine, of man and woman, but to assign them a much looser, more fluid state.’30
With which he pitches once again back into the Mobius strip of no-singularity multiplicity, closing his book where it began, with the vague allusion that masculinity must be something, although we still do not know what, to do with men, referring to the opening of a conversation about masculine spirituality that...
‘...resonates with any number of ways of being a man (or masculine)...’31
He concludes by stating...
‘What is needed now is for predominantly straight men to step up and play their part in a process which will benefit the vast majority of people. This is hardly a new or radical suggestion , but its realisation remains elusive. Such is the insidious nature of patriarchy.’32
It is insidious indeed and Gelfer’s next project ‘The Masculinity Conspiracy’ appears to be designed to counter its effects. This book is also premised upon a central exposition of ‘multiple masculinities’, despite him facing into the abyss of its conceptual deficiencies in the last one.
What makes men cling so desperately to a concept which is provably so tenuous, so insubstantial and so logically absurd?
In the subsequent sections of this trilogy I argue that the true insidiousness of patriarchy, and the root of its perennial reproduction, is the way that its founding paradigm of reflexive definition becomes embodied in the very heart of male being, in the deepest concept of the self, to such an extent that to dispense with its association produces a sense of annihilation so deep that it is akin to death.
Before moving on to this I want to look at Gelfer’s ‘The Masculinity Conspiracy’ as it evidences both the contradictions of no-singularity multiplicity thinking and the acute difficulties that men have in cutting the umbilical cord to the word ‘masculine’.
‘The Masculinity Conspiracy, however,’ begins hopefully.
‘For starters, what is masculinity? Getting into this is rather premature, as the manipulation of its meaning is at the very heart of the conspiracy. Nevertheless, some immediate definition is required to progress.’33
But we are pitched rapidly into exactly the same confusion that bedevils the beginnings of Connell’s original ‘Masculinities’, Halberstam’s ‘Female Masculinity’ and also Gelfer’s earlier ‘Numen, Old Men’.....a confusion which bedevils the study of masculinity per se and of which I am using these works only as examples.
Firstly, the reader is told that...
‘...masculinity is not what “men do”...’34
...which he further extends to...
‘The common assumption is that masculinity (even with its differing forms in space and time) is something done by men, whereas femininity is something done by women. Often this is true but it doesn’t have to be. Men can be feminine and women can be masculine...all men have feminine aspects and all women have masculine aspects.’35
Taking a deep breath, a step back and a clear view, let’s tease out exactly what we have been told here in answer to the opening question ‘What is masculinity?’
In the first quote we are told that it is not what men do but in the second one we are told that this is often true but doesn’t have to be...and that sometimes it is what men do and what women can do too, as men can be feminine and women masculine...although we still have no idea at all of what ‘masculine’ is. And we are none the wiser for the conclusion.
‘In short, masculinity is a vast spectrum of differing gender performances, something we enact. Indeed, to use the term “masculinity” in the singular is rather misleading; it should really be ‘masculinities’ in the plural. And masculinity can apply just as easily to women as it can to men.’36
Leaving aside the confluence of the semiotics of ‘doing’ and ‘enacting’ this conclusion still begs the question as to what masculinity actually is ( regardless of who is ‘doing’ it ).....or more accurately it leaves the reader begging the author to answer the question.
The reasons for him being unable to do so become clear if we analyse this introduction in terms of the masculinity ‘Absurdity Checklist’.
MASCULINITY: What the hell is it ?
This is Gelfer’s opening question but at the end of the introduction we still have no idea what the answer is, even though there have been some references to what it is not.
NON-SINGULAR: Impossible to say.
Our absence of understanding is justified by reference to multiplicity.
MULTIPLE: Could be anything really.
It’s not what men do...but sometimes they do and so do women and men can be it and so can women...even if we don’t know what ‘it’ is.
SOMETHING TO DO WITH MEN?
Well, theoretically, Gelfer has told us it isn’t but juxtapositions such as ‘men can be feminine and women masculine’ and ‘feminine gay men’ and ‘masculine gay women’ suggest that it is.
Comparing these checklist answers with those of Connell’s ‘Masculinities’ and Halberstam’s ‘Female Masculinity’ shows striking consistency of confusion and also explains the mist on the masculinity Danube. (But one is left wondering what other field of study could possibly get away with this.)
In ‘The Masculinity Conspiracy’ Joseph Gelfer positions himself (albeit somewhat wryly) as the Neo of the Masculinity Matrix but gives no clue as to how the alternative ‘multiple masculinities’ that he is promoting as the means of liberation from the hegemonic conspiracy can actually be recognized or defined as definitively ‘masculine’. And the future that he offers when we...
‘...open ourselves to multiple and fluid ways of being men and women, masculine and feminine...37’
... just closes the same old circle of definitional problematics that began with Connell and which have perpetuated ever since.
I queried these problematics with Dr. Gelfer at various times via the readers’ comments facility on the site, and our discussions remain (at time of writing) available for public viewing. I want to conclude by quoting one of his responses.
‘...I am comfortable with the meaning of ‘masculinity’ being stretched in extraordinary ways: as Deleuze says “a thousand tiny sexes”. In this context, a masculinity that does not look like masculinity, and which is redundant to most, still has meaning to me, even if that meaning is elusive (which is the case for most meanings of a significant order)...38
The problem for the outside observer is that, from Connell all the way to Gelfer, we never found out what it was that was being stretched in the first place and so have no hope of determining the validity of whatever it is allegedly being stretched to...which sums up the phenomenon of the no-singularity multiplicity quite nicely. However, in the terms posited here this appears not to matter as Dr. Gelfer's apparent mantra....
' I think I am masculine, therefore I am .'
.....comes in like the cavalry at masculinity's last stand. It also brings us painfully close to the truth, as we will see in Part Two. ( See link below.)
Gaia Charis, 13.2.2011.