Raewyn Connell – «Men, masculinity, God »

When the diversity of masculinities became apparent, some way of ordering them became necessary. A narrative of progress was one way to do this. A ‘traditional’ masculinity (often understood as patriarchal) was contrasted with a ‘modern’ masculinity (supposed more egalitarian). Mass media are often happy with this schema, especially when patriarchal masculinities can be folded into the image of bearded Islamist terrorists.

The crude propaganda function of such ideas can’t be overlooked. But a more important problem with this kind of thinking has been pointed out by the South African psychologist Kopano Ratele. As he observes, it is a mistake to think that ‘tradition’ is uniform and always patriarchal. Traditions about gender are multiple, and are constantly being re-negotiated. Some traditions are indeed patriarchal but others are democratic and inclusive. Tradition offers resources for gender equality, too.^[9]

We should abandon the idea that the world is divided into ‘modern’ and ‘pre-modern’ cultures. Latin American thinkers especially argue that we are all part of one modernity – a world modernity, where the European and North American story is one thread in a larger pattern. In this perspective it was imperialism, not capitalism or the industrial revolution, that was the driving force of global modernity. And imperialism was (and is) a strongly gendered process. Colonial conquest was carried out by masculinized workforces. Colonial society smashed or transformed existing gender orders around the world, creating distinctive new gender arrangements, not simply reproducing those of the imperial centre. Consider, for instance, the importance of race in the gender barriers of colonial societies. The colonial and post-colonial dynamics of masculinity are now seen as an important problem.

This question too has a history. In 1952 the first book by a young psychiatrist and war veteran from Martinique was published in Paris.^[10] Its publication went almost unnoticed at the time, but the author, Frantz Fanon, later became an icon of third world revolt. Black Skin, White Masks is a brilliant, troubling analysis of the psychology of racism in France and its colonial empire. The book is also an analysis of white and black masculinities. Fanon is clear that colonialism is a system of violence and economic exploitation – with psychological consequences. Within that structure, black masculinity is marked by divided emotions, and a massive alienation from original experience. This alienation is produced as black men struggle to find a position, and find recognition, in a culture that defines them as biologically inferior, indeed a kind of animal, and makes them objects of anxiety or fear.

Thirty years later, similar themes were picked up by the Indian psychologist Ashis Nandy in another remarkable book, The Intimate Enemy.^[11] Nandy wrote about British rather than French colonialism, but like Fanon he tried to combine cultural and psychological analysis with a realistic view of imperialism. Nandy analyzes, through brilliant case studies, masculinities among both the colonized and the colonizers. He argues that their dynamics are closely linked. Colonialism tends to exaggerate gender hierarchies, and to produce simplified, power-oriented masculinities among the colonizers. There is historical research from other parts of the British empire that supports this view.

There is now a considerable body of research and thought from the postcolonial world about men and masculinities. It highlights the long-term effects of colonization, the impact of racial hierarchies, and the cultural and psychological consequences of economic dependence.^[12] In Latin America, for instance, there have been important discussions of the impact of neoliberal restructuring on masculinity and patriarchal fatherhood. As the attempts to create balanced, autonomous economies were replaced by a focus on profitable exports into global markets, many working-class men’s jobs vanished and employment became more precarious.

The ‘breadwinner’ model of working-class masculinity became unsustainable. In the Arab world, researchers documented cultural turbulence about masculinity resulting from cultural and economic domination by Europe and North America, long after formal independence. The search for viable new forms of masculinity has fuelled both democratic and authoritarian movements.

The postcolonial world not only gives us a richer picture of masculinities, obliging us to think of different dynamics of change. It also challenges our concepts and frames of thought. We are now in a position to consider alternatives to Northern dominance in many areas of knowledge.

Critiques of Northern dominance include postcolonial theory, whose best-known practitioner was Edward Said; the decolonial approach, focussed on Latin America; and attempts to form multi-centred knowledge practices. An important movement has emphasized the value of indigenous knowledges, marginalized by colonialism, as locally-based alternatives to the dominant international positivist knowledge system. But we also need to consider the intellectuals of colonial and postcolonial societies who work from the experience of new social forms. My overview in Southern Theorycalls attention to the creativity and power of their intellectual work, and the importance of the historical experience of colonial and postcolonial societies.^[13]

Masculinity research is one field that needs this approach. Gender research in the global North has generally presumed a coherent gender order with continuity through time – for instance in concepts like ‘patriarchy’. But this assumption cannot be made for colonial societies, with their history of massive violence and disruption; nor for many parts of today’s postcolonial South, where cultural discontinuity and disruption is the condition of life. In such conditions a dominant masculinity may not be ‘hegemonic’, because no settled hegemony is possible.^[14]

With this in mind, we should think of gender hegemony not as an automatic process, but as a historical projectundertaken by different social groups at different times. Even where some hegemony has been established, it is possible to challenge it.

A progressive challenge is illustrated by the proposals for engaged fatherhood in Scandinavia – given a material form in paternal-leave laws – and paternidad afectiva in Latin America. But social change is not all in one direction. It is also possible to promote a more power-oriented, sexist masculinity. Something like that has happened with the rise of authoritarian populism, featuring displays of a hard masculinity from leaders like Putin, Trump and Modi.

If we are looking for the elite levels of masculine power in today’s world, we have to go beyond the spectacle of politics to the gritty world of economics. Especially to the transnational corporations that are now our dominant economic institutions. They include the banks, hedge funds and financial brokers, the oil, coal and gas companies, the tech giants, the bulk transport firms, the great property trusts and the armaments manufacturers.

This is a heavily masculinized social world – over 95% of the CEOs of large transnational corporations are men. The few women have to ‘manage like a man’. There is some research on managerial masculinities, though it is difficult to get access to the very top levels. What strikes me most strongly is the collectivism of managerial work, which is often tightly integrated into corporate intranets, and subject to constant surveillance. It is a pressured, competitive, and unforgiving world. A high level of gender conformity is not surprising. Though managers can be tolerant of limited sexual diversity (for instance, including gay men in transnational managerial roles), we should not expect any major movement from them towards gender equality. Capitalism doesn’t work that way.