Masculinity research has seen active debates about concepts and methods. In everyday speech we often measure informally, speaking of a very masculine or a less masculine man (or woman). Some people think that to make a concept scientific, it must be quantified. In the United States particularly, a number of ‘scales’ of masculinity have been devised. Statistical analysis has identified as many as eleven factors within these measures – it is not a simple field!

Another debate concerns the concept of masculinity itself. If our concern is basically with men, do we need a concept of masculinity at all? Some doubt it. But if our concern is basically with gender practices and the structures of inequality that they produce, then we do need a concept of masculinities. Another debate concerns the significance of the post-structuralist turn in social science and the humanities, which emphasises the discursive construction of identities. Some scholars see this as a decisive issue for studies of masculinity. Others see it as an addition to the tool kit but less important than postcolonial and practical issues about masculinities.

The most extensive debate has concerned the concept of hegemonic masculinity. This idea originated in research in schools, as a way of understanding the relations between different patterns of masculinity and the overall gender regime of the school. But it has found much wider application.

‘Hegemonic masculinity’ means the pattern of social conduct by men, or associated with the social position of men, which is most honoured, which occupies a central position in a structure of gender relations, and which helps to stabilize an unequal gender order as a whole. Especially, hegemonic masculinity confirms and enables the social and economic advantages of men in general over women. Crucially, this pattern of masculinity is distinguished not only from femininity, but also from the subordinated or marginalized masculinities that exist in the same society.

The concept of hegemonic masculinity thus relies on the research evidence that there are multiple masculinities; that different masculinities have unequal authority or social legitimacy; and that men and masculinity are usually privileged over women and femininity. The concept has been widely debated. My colleague James Messerschmidt and I published a review of this debate some years ago, proposing improvements to the concept.^[7]

The concept of masculinities has often been simplified into a psychological typology. That’s an easy slippage, because everyone is accustomed to talking about mental or cultural types – the introverted, Generation X, etc. But when we look closely at how gender hierarchies work, such an approach won’t do. Gender and gender inequalities involve complex social patterns of centrality and marginality.

Race, class and sexuality all have an impact. So does culture and region. For instance, the masculinity that is hegemonic at a local level may be significantly different from the hegemonic masculinity at a regional or global level – though there is usually some overlap.

Violence is in the background of these discussions, but is easily misunderstood. I think it currently is misunderstood in media talk about ‘toxic masculinity’.

The term ‘toxic masculinity’ has come into use in journalism quite recently, especially in the USA as a result of the #MeToo movement. There are certainly gender patterns in violent and abusive behaviour. Sexual harassment is widely experienced by women – in workplaces, and in public places – and it mainly comes from men. Some men experience sexual harassment; their numbers are smaller. Rape is a very persistent and widespread form of violence and is mainly by men targeting women, though some rapes target men. Domestic violence in the form of killings and violent assault is mainly of women by men. Homophobic murders are mainly done by men; in this case it is mainly men who are targeted, though some women are. There are other forms of violence by men in which mainly men are targeted. War was the classic example, before the development of strategic bombing and nuclear weapons which vaporize women and men equally.

Given these patterns, it is understandable why some people speak of ‘toxic masculinity’. But we cannot assume that a fixed type of masculinity is a simple cause of violence. Modern criminology doesn’t see the matter that way. Rather, it pays attention to the social circumstances in which violence can be used to construct masculinity and claim a position in the world.^[8] Violent and abusive behavior often have links with economic and institutional inequalities between women and men. Some patterns of violence are linked with cultural definitions of manhood – for instance physical confrontations in public places, or the way military forces have developed rhetorics of masculinity to keep their forces from breaking up. Homophobic violence is often done by groups of men who form an audience for each other.

Hegemonic masculinity does not equate to violent masculinity. A man who needs a gun to assert himself is not in a hegemonic position – he may have power but not legitimacy. Yet violence matters for hegemony. Guns in the hands of police or soldiers may, and often do, back up authority: they reinforce consent by making consent the prudent option. Antonio Gramsci, the Italian revolutionary who developed the modern concept of hegemony, spoke of society’s ‘common sense’ as a vehicle of hegemony. And in everyday mass culture, there is a great deal of masculinized violence and displays of force. Consider the prevalence of violent sports, Hollywood thrillers, television cop shows, military parades, and images of war. Generals notoriously die in bed; but a lot of their troops die on the front line, and die young.