Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Very Straight Gay Connell PDF

    Uploaded by

    Yasemin Ertugrul
    127 views18 pages

    Original Title

    a very straight gay connell.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    127 views18 pages

    A Very Straight Gay Connell PDF

    Uploaded by

    Yasemin Ertugrul

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 18
    A Very Straight Gay: Maseut Dynamics of Gender ity, Homosexual Experience, and the R.W. Connell American Sociological Review, Vol. 57, No. 6 (Dee., 1992), 735-751. Stable URL: bhtp:flinks,jstor-org/sici?sici~0003-1224%28199212%2957%3AG%3C135%3 AAVSGMHE3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 American Sociological Review is currently published by American Sociological Association. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at htp:sseww jstor org/aboutiterms.html. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you hhave obtained prior permission, you may aot download an entie issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and ‘you may use content in the ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use Please contact the publisher eegarding aay futher use ofthis work, Publisher contact information ray he abained at fiupiovwrjstororgoumnalfasa en Each copy of any part ofa JSTOR transenission must contain the same copyright tice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission, ISTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive ot scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact suppom@jstor org. up:thrww jstor.orgy Wed Mar 23 22:22:15 2005 A VERY STRAIGHT GAY: MASCULINITY, HOMOSEXUAL EXPERIENCE, AND THE DYNAMICS OF GENDER’ RW. Comet University of California, Santa Cruz 1 develop aconceptua approach a changes in masculinity that emphasizes the dynaics of the gender arderasawhole. Homesenial masculinity an important locus ofthe drat ies. After aertque of convemional discourses of masculinity | develop a theortzed Uife- history method for researching gender. Analysis of eight life histories from an Australian ‘gay community finds (1) initial engagement with hegemonic masculinity, (2) sexuality as the hey site of difference, and (3) gradual clasure based on relationships or on bodily experience that eroticizes similarity, Conventional masculinity is an aspect of the object of desire, yet is subverted his objecchoice:«conraictory masculinity ts produced. Thaughtke men in this study do not directly contest the gender order, the reification of “gayness” provides a social basis for sexual freedom. and the stabilieaton ofa dsdent sexual opens psi ties for change in the sacial structure af gender. cent media attention to masculinity and male initiation, fueled in the United States bby enommous sales of fron John: A Book About Men Bly 1990), doesnot representa sudden dis- ‘covery. Over the last 20 years, in the wake of the new feminist, debates on men’s position in sexual polities have taken place in most Western ‘countries, including Britain (Tolson 1977), Ger- ‘many (Brzoska and Hafner 1990), Sweden, Bengtsson and Frykman 1987) and Australia ‘Lewis 1983), These debates have given rise toa body of descriptive research, temmed “male sex role” or “masculinity” research in the United States (Kimmel 1987; Brox 1987). ‘Within this iterature, change in men’s charac- ter or in the “male role” have most often been explained by the psychological discomfort of the individual or by generalized processes of mod- ‘mization and technological change. [argue thst ‘We must focus on the social dynamics generated within gender relations. Te gender order itstfis the site of relations of dominance and subordina- * Direct all correspondence to R. W. Connell, ‘Stevenson College, Cniversiy of California, Santa Cruz CA 95064. T am deeply indebted to the men interviewed, to Norm Radican and Pip Martin for imerviewing, and colleagues Tim Carigan, Gary Dowsett, Mark Davis, Rosemary Pringle, Marie (O'Brien, Mike Messner, Alice Mellin, andthe late Jon Lee, This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Grants Commitee with supplementary funding from Macquarie University and Harvard University “American Sociologia! Review, 1992, Vol 1 (December TASS) tion, struggles for hegemony, and practices of resistance, explore these issues by examining. gender <@ynamics among a group of men who have sex with men, Using eight ie histories Finvestigate theie encounters with conventional masculinity, the comadictions of sexuality and identicy, and the potential far change in the gender order that their social practice implies. Their bomasexual masculinity simultaneously depends on and dis- rupis the existing gender orc in way’ that ilu- rminate long-term possibilities of change in the structure of gender relations. ‘MASCULINITY IN GENDER DYNAMICS ‘The current popular literature “about men” has ‘an unrelentingly psychological focus. Authors speak of archetypes and “father wounds,” of ‘men’s pain and healing: they offer therapeutic pro- ‘grams to resolve crises of emotion and personal ‘meaning, They have lite to say about the social dimensions of these issues, and most are start- lingly ethnocentric and class-bound in outlook. ‘The rescarca literature has a broader perspective — thas begun to document masculinites in a range of class and ethnic contexts. The concep- tual framework is usually based on the idca of a “male sex role” (strictly, a masculine gender role) and masculine identity. The conceptialization of gender through role theory, however, eifies ex- pectations and self-descriptions, exaggerates con- sensus, marginalizs questions of power, and can- 7S 736 ‘ot analyze historical change (Stacey and Thorne 1985; Connell 1987). ‘But gendcr is an area to which the classic so- iological questions of poster, instinutionalized inequality, and dynamics of social change do ap- ply, These questions have been posed in an inter- national feminist teranwe centering on the con- cept of “paziarchy” (Walby 1989). Sccing gen deras a sinicaure of social power has immediate implication for research on men. To understand aasystemof inequality, wemnustexamine its domi- rant group — the study of men is as vital for ‘gender analysis asthe study of ruling classes and cites i for class analysis. With this perspective ‘he scope of research “about men" expands fram the conventions of gender — the focus of gen- der-role studies — to the full eange of ways in ‘which men’s social practices shape the gender order, including economic relations, institutions ‘Goch asthe state) and sexuality (Segal 1990). ‘This is an important advance, yet masculinity ‘cannot be trated as asimple reflex of patriarchal power, fortwo reasons. First, the concept of “pa- triarchy" has been sharply criticized within femi- nism Rowbotham 197) as ahistovieal,emplying an unchanging, universal domination of women ‘by men, This is inconsistent with the historical record, Second, some of he very writing that idea tifies men as holders of social power (MacKinnon 1987) rests on acategorical model of gender that treats men as an undifferentiated class. This view isinconsistent with contemporary research, which documents aconsiderablerange of masculiites, ‘both in tems of cultural representations of men, and in terms ofthe institutionalized practices of men in gender relations. Differences are found notonly across cultures Hert 1982) and through historical time (Roper and Tosh 1991}, but also —a point vital for theory — within a particular culture at any given time, eg. eterosexual and ‘homosential masculinities and che masculinities ‘of diferent ethnic and age groups (Kimmel and “Messner 1989) “The problems of change and difference are closely connected, The possibilities of historical ‘change in a gender order are reflected in divie sions among men a5 well as in the practices of ‘women, At the same time, differences among men can only be understood with reference (0 the stricture of the gender order. The recognition ‘of multiple“ masculinites”in recent research net not reduce the sociology of masculinity to a postmodem kaleidoscope of lifestyles. Rather, it points to the relational characicr of gender. Dif- ferent masculiities are constituted in relation to igh the stricture of gender relations (Connell 1987, 1p. 175-88) and through otber social. structures (notably class and colonialism, Philips. 1987; cthnicity, Blauver 1989). In modern. social for- ‘mations, certain constructions of masculinity ae hegemonic, while others are subordinated or ‘marginalized. ‘My approach to social change is besed on this relational perspective on masculinity. Relations ofhegemonyreflectand produce a social dynantic: struggles for resources and paver, processes of ‘exclusion and incorporation, spliting and recon- stitution of gender forms. To analyze this dynamic is to explore the crisis tendencies of the gender conderas 2 whole. (The concept of “crisis tenden- cies” is borrawed from Habermas 1976), who did not, however, apply itto gender.) In the dynamics of hegemony in contempo- rary Western masculinity, the relation between heterosexual and homosexual men is central ¢ar~ ‘ying aheavy symbolic freight To many people, hhomosexuality isa xegation of masculinity, and homosexual men must be effeminate. Given tat assumption, antagonism toward homasexual men ‘may be used to define masculinity, a stance Herck (1986) summed up inthe proposition that "to be “aman in contemporary American society is 0 be hamophobie — that is, 10 be hostile toware homosexual peesons in general and gay men in particular (p, $63). The resulting oppression of ‘ay men, as Pleck (1980) observed, provides 2 symbol forall eases of hierarchy among men. While Herek’'s formulation is oversimplified, it captures the significance of heterosexual- versus-homosexual relations for heterasexuality ‘The emergence of “the homosexual” asa social (ype inthe last (wo centuries of European and ‘Atnerican culture and 2s documented in the new say history (Kinsman 1987; Greenberg 1988) has @ reciprocal, In the same historical process, erotic contact between men was expelled from the legitimate repertote of dominant groups of men, and hegemonic masculinity was ts rede- fined as explicitly and exclusively heterosexual. ‘The process of expulsion consincted hegemonic masculinity as homophobic, in Herek's sense. ‘The view that homophobia is a means of polic- ing the boundaries of a traditional male sex role (Lehne 1989) grasps the dynamic character of the process but misconstrues its history: Hetero- sexual masculinity did not predate homophobia but was historically produced along with it Herck’s formulation misses the significance of gay masculinities, Some groups of openly gay MASCULINITY men eraphasize masculinity 2s part oftheir cul- tual style (Humphries 1985). Closeted gay men ‘enjoy the general advantages of masculine gen- de and even effeminate gay men may draw eco- nomic benefits fom the overall subordination of ‘women, In our culture, men who have sex with ‘mca are generally oppressed, but they are not definitively excluded from mascutinity. Rather, they face structurally induced conflicts about masculinity — conflicts between tir sexuality and their social presence as men, about the mean- ing of their choice of sexual object, and in theit construction of relacionships with ‘women and ‘with heterosexual men. Out of these conflicts have come unusually sharp observations of het- erosexual men and pioneering movements in sexual polities, ‘The experiences and practices of homosexual ‘men, therefore, are important for understanding contemmorary gender dynamics and the possi- bilities for change, Research on masculinity must explore how gender operates for those men most vehemently defined ss unmasculine: how mas- culinity is constructed for hem, how homosexual and heterosexual masculinites interact, and how homosexual men experience and respond to change in the gender ordec DISCOURSES OF HOMOSEXUALITY “These questions have nor been central tothe a= ditional discourses about “homosexuals” in the human seiences. (Using the term “homosexual” asa nounalready teifcs sexual object choice nto 4 type of human being) Yer there is a conver- gence with gender analysis, especially in recent cntiques. ‘The discourse of homosexuality most familiar to sociologists is the sociology of deviance. In classics of this field, one routinely encounters lists like “alcoholics, mentally disordered per- sons, tutterers, homosexuals, and systematic check forges” (Lemert 1972.78; cf. Becker 1963; Goffman 1963). The “labeling” approach in the sociology of deviance raised useful questions bout the apparatus of social contro, the process of stigmatization, the moral entrepreneurs who stigmatized, and the need to negotiate assigned identities. But placing homosexuality within a “nomnality/deviance” framework vitally erased the dimension of gender and sexual polities. For ‘example, Goffinan (1963, pp. 98-99) quoted an ‘episode in which a gay man was severely bashed for revealing his relationship with a man passing 4 straight, but dismissed the episode with a joke m as an example of “disciplinary action”, failing to seea dramatic and violent moment inthe polities of masculinity. When Plummer (1975) applied {teractionist labeling theory in fine detail to gay men, the result as a useful catalogue of pres- sures experienced in the individual life-course, bot 2 conceptual retreat from the structural and dynamic questions being raised by gay move- ment theorists (Altman 1972). Flomosexual men have been the objects of a more individualistic discourse in psychiatry, psy- choanalysis, and psychology. The focus ere is the “etiology” ofhomasexunlity —bormosexual- ity being understood as a condition ofthe indi- ‘vidual for which causes must be found, whether family pathology. gender aberration, or biologi- cal predisposition (Friedman 1988). Gender was «emphasized by psychoanalysis, but the social di- ‘mension of gender was ignored, Lewes's (1988) temarkale history of psychoanalytic conceptions cof homosexualcy showed how Fread’s radical ‘but ambiguous formulations, which linked ho- ‘mosexuality to the universal bisexuality of hu- ‘man beings, were gradually displaced by a doc- trine of homosexuality as a specific condition, and an inherently pathological onc to boot. Psy- choanalysis thus merged with the medical and juridical apparatus that treated male homosext- ality 5 “other” oa “natural” heterosexuality. Tris discourse was challenged in the 19605 ‘nx 1970s by therapists who found no particular pathology among homosexual men, trough some among the homophobic (Weinberg 1973), and by gay liberationists, who considered psychia- tristsatterpcing to “cure” homosexuality as di- rect agents of oppression. This positon was given support by studies of ex that docimented Wide spread same-sex experiences and failed to find (Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin 1948, Bell and Weinberg 1978). Kinsey's positivist sexual science, however, left litle space for de~ sire, culture, of social relations. I-was displaced in tum by social constructionist views, which saw homosexuality 28 scripted sexual perfor- ‘mance (Gagnon and Simon 1974) oras the effect ‘of an apparatus of surveillance and classification (Foucault 1980). The social constructionist view of homosexu- ‘ity (Plummer 1981; Greenberg 1988) has be- come the meeting point of sexology, sociology, ‘anthropology, history, and gay theory. Ithas the conceptual power to integrate a wide range of evidence from 2 range of disciplincs, and has became so accepted that itis row the target of dissenting polemics (Stein 1990), The central 738 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW claim of social constructionism — that homo- sexual elations exist only within culture and show ‘deep historical and cross-cultural variation — is ‘s0W well established (Altman et al. 1989), So- cial consmctionism underpins a widespread view ‘of homosexuality as an identity formed gradu- ally through a series of steps or stages (Troiden. 1989) and asa subculture (or set of subeultures) maintained in a pluralistic society by socaliza tion and boundary negotiation (Hesat 1992) However, a focus on identity and subculture takes the emphasis off large scale social strc- ture, in this case structural questions about gen- der. In this respect, social consruetionisea has followed the sociology of deviance in leaching sender out of group process. Paradoxically (given the HIV epidemic) it also takes the emphasis off sexuality, which in much of this literature is pri- marily 2 criterion of group membership. These. tendencies are clear in recent work on gay cul- ture and identity in Noth America Egstein 1987, Herde 1992) ‘These ends have tured gay studies away fom questions about masculinity and the large-scale dynamics of gender. There are, however, alter- native versions of social constructionism. BBlachford (1981) reflected om the interplay be tween the gay world and te cultureof male domi ‘ange in society. He found both reproduction of that dominance, and resistance to it, im what is ultimately a “controlled space.” Weeks (1986) recast social constructionism by treating sexual- ity as the domain of a complex and constantly changing political sirugele. A poststructuralist view of social order allowed Weeks to see sexual subealtures as more diverse and having ereater Potential for change than did Blachford. Weeks Also emphasized the agency of gay men in the construction of sexual subcultutes. This brings ‘Weeks closer tothe Sartrean view of social pro- cess, which emphasizes collective practice inthe ‘making of history (Sante 1976). Finally, even the subcultural approach can lead back to gender if it focuses on gay subcultures that dramatize sender issues, Klein (1990) and Levine (1992), studying hypermascaline bodybuilders and gay “clones (a syle of dress and interaction evolved inthe 1970s), point to significant contradictions -within hornosexual experiences ness of exploring how those contradictions get resolved. ‘Although these debates about the nature of homosexuality have not focused on gender, they help refine the research agenda.on gay masculin- ity, Tounderstand the construction ofhomosexual ‘masculinities requires an examination of gender selations in the family (the terain of psychoana- lytic discourse) and the shared social life of gay men (the terrain of subculeyral studies). The con struction of sexuality, in its problematic relacion- ship with identity and subculture, must be on the agenda. Finally, the debates on etiology as well as some recent subcultural research indicate that ‘contradictory social and emotional processes are likely to be involved. METHOD Four issues are the foci ofthis study: the con- struction of masculinity inthe lives of gay men the construction of sexuality and its relationship toidentity and subculmie: the interplay between heterosexual and homosexual masculinities; and the experience of change in gender relations. “This agenda requires close-focus methods. The classic approach ta the dynamics of sexual ob- Jeet choice is through life-history case studies (Of these, Freud's (1955) “Wolf Man” case study remains the model exploration of internal con- tradictions in masculinity Life history saudies are enjoying a revival as @ way toinclude formerly unheard voices in public discourse (McCall and Witiner 1990), The ‘method has problems, including the limitations of conscious memary (Rubin 1986), difficulties cof corroboration, laborious data gathering, and time-consuming analysis. Atte same time ithas virtues as a tool of verstehen that is flexible in ‘design and application Plummer 1983) Those the life-history method because ofits capacity — less discussed in the methodological literature ‘but clear in classic Tife-history research (Thomas and Znaniecki 1927) —to document social strue- ‘ure, collectivities, and institutional change at the sante tne as personal lf. The fundamental con- nection between life-history and social structure has been theorized by Sarre (1963), whose con ‘ception of personal practice as project develop- ing through time underpins the method of this study. ‘To decode structural effects in personal prac- tice, the basic unit of study must be the single case, Personal trajectories reveal the interplay of constraints and possibilities, and the interaction of structures. Accordingly, the single case isthe basis of this study. However, ifthe research prob Jem concems the dynamics operating in a given, Social location, a group of cases from that Toca- tion must be examined so thatthe range of prac- tical possibilities and the character of collective MASCULINITY 739 practice become cleat. Further, exploring a dy- namic lke the reconstruction of masculinity that ‘operates across different social locations requires comparison of a range of groups. Accordingly, the study design had three levels the single case, ‘2 group of cases from a pantcular location, and Comparisons between groups in different loca- tions. This report focuses on a group of cases from a panicular location, but refers to te other levels. ‘This logic requires features of design and in- teapretation that take the life history well beyond unstructured narrative. The socially theorized life history, to give the approach a’ name, requires prior analysis of the social structure invoived. Interviews in this study were based on an analy- sis of gender asa structure of socal practice and of its three main substructures: the division of labor, the structure of power, andthe structure of cauttexis (Connell 1987), each realized at both collective and personal levels. For the substance of the autobiographical narative, interviewers sought descriptions of concrete practices (€¢. ‘what a boy and his father actually did in interac tion, not just how the relationship was expeci- enced), We used institutional transitions ¢e-g, ‘entry to school, entry to workforce) asthe frame- work for memry, and asked for descriptions of interactive practice in institutions (particularly families, schools, and workplaces). We explored the sequencing ofrelationshipsin ordet tounder- stand the construction of gender as a project ‘through time, To gai clues to emotional dynam- ics, we also sought accounts of early memories, ‘amily constellations, and relationship exses. ‘Tae mode of analysis in life-history research is asimportant asthe interview design. Inthis study, the individual cases were intensively worked over and written up before the analysis of groups was underaken, A standard format forthe case stud- ies was developed with three main compkmnents, ‘each examining the whole interview material from different point of view: (1) the life course (it the narrative sequencing oF events); (2) astruc- ‘ural analysis, usinga grid ofthe substructures of ‘gender relations defined by the tneoretical model; and (3) a dynamic analysis that traced the con- sinuction (and deconstruction) of masculinity in the individual life. ‘After the case studies were completed, the group analysis began. The goal was to explore the similarities and differences between the tra- Jectories’of men in a given location and theit collective involvement in te historical dynamic, of gender. Cases were systematically compared by mapping them on a synoptic grid that, for each topic, kept all cases in view while presery- ing the gestalt of each life-course Because this project concemed contemporary transformations in masculinity, four social loca- tions were chosen in which the insttuionaliza- tion of masculinity was likely to be under pres- sure, and thus criss tendencies might be decoded: urban gay community networks; environmental cor'‘grcen activism (alocation witha strong fem nistinftuence); unemplayed working-class youth; and knowledge-based occupations outside the ol professions. My is similar to. what Glaser and Strauss (1967) called “theoretical samn- pling.” I judged that about 10 cases from each location would revel the diversity of dynamics without being unmanageable in terms of funding and reporting, Thirty-six casestudies were com- pleted. ‘This report presents the results for one loca tion — 2 group of eight men recruited from an urban gay community in Sydney, Australia, The aim was to find respondents who had a reason- ably well defined, shared location in gender re- lations. This group reflects the social character ‘of the Sytney gay community as established in a subsequent quantitative study (Connell et al. 1989), The group also refleets the predorinant style of sexuality. It includes no drag queens, leatheren, or aficionados of sexual exotica, (Such sexual styles may be prominent on the gay cultural scene, but anly a small proportion of the ‘gay community is commited to them in practice {Connell and Kippax 1990] Although represen tativeness is not measurable with a small group ‘of case studies, | am confident that these cases are not atypical. Interviews, lasting one to two hours, were conducted from 1985 through 1986; interviews were tape recarded and transcribed. Reporting on a study lke this s difficult, The design emphasizes intensive analysis, rather than rumbers of cases, while focusing on social pro- ‘cess. Condensation is essential but condensa- tion can undermine the goal ofthe life-history method — to show life courses. In addition, a ‘project on gender tensions related to sexuality can hardly avoid sensitive material that places ‘ethical constraints on reporting. Its not easy « achieve a faithful representation of such data My approach to writing this text is @ compro- mise: Foreach research question Iselect enough detail from one or a few eases 10 document the ‘main process revealed by the full data set while giving enough of other cases to indicate varia- ‘ons oralteratives, Although all cases were con- 40. sidered in the analysis of each topic, notall eases ae quoted, ‘Although the smdy is ser in Australia, the analysis centers on topics having close parallels in North America and Westem Europe. ‘These regions are similar in the overall patterns of gen- der relations Bottomley, de Lepervanche and ‘Martin 1991) and the recent history of homa- sexta masculities (Aldrich and! Wotherspoon 1992) because of shared cultural history and contemporary global economic and media ite sation. ‘THE PARTICIPANTS. ‘The participants were recruited by word of mouth through interpersonal nexworks in the Sydney gay community, inviting participation in a study of “changes in the lives of men.” Paricipants came from mixed class and regional backgrounds, though their present lives converge. ‘Mark Richards isin his cary twenties, unmar- ried, and a nurse trainee. The oldest child of a ‘business family, his childhood. was dominated ‘by conflict between his parents their separation, and his mother’s illness and death, He bore heavy responsibilities early. Sent t0 a boys" private schoo, he formed his first long-term sexual rela- tionship there and failed his exams, Rejecting social conservatism and a career, he went olive, inaradical communal houschold, Women friends stiggested nursing, and he stated work in @has- pice for the dying. ‘Dean Carrington is in his mid-twenties, un maried, and works 6 2 heavy-vehicle driver. ‘The youngest child of aclase-Knit family thatran a small business, he had a religious upbringing but lost faith after a sibling died. His family mi- arated several times. (He is the only ane of the ‘ight men wito was bom outside Australia.) His parents encouraged education, but he failed uni- versity and then supported himself in a variety of ‘manual jobs. He eventually migrated alone 10 join the gay commanity in Sydney. ‘Alan Andrews is in bis late twenties, unmat- ried, works as a technician, He was a younger ‘child ina large family in a stall county town. His father, tradesntan in a family business, and his mother, a housewife, were embedded in an extended family. Successful in school, he moved ‘away to attend college and began to break with ‘country conservatism. He worked inthe city be cause no jobs were available in the region, He linked up with gay social networks and eventu- ally formed a long-term couple relationship. AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW Jonathan Hampden isin his late twenties, un- mmartied, and is a tradesman's assistant. The ‘middle child in an affluent professional family. be was sentto private schools where he did poorly His anxious relationship with an overworked fa ther meant that his father's death precipitated an ‘emotional breakdown as well as a family eco nomic crisis. He made a slow recovery through a series of relationships and casual jobs. Recently the has been deeply involved in growit-move. ment therapy. Dannien Outhwaite is in his early thirties, un- ‘marred, and is an unemployed taxi driver (works ‘only occasionally). He was the mide child in a ‘working-class family in a emote country town. He moved tothe regional city for higher educa tion and to escape country conservatism. A flam- ‘boyant student, he was pushed aut of his profes- sional course on suspicion of being gay. He ‘moved to Sydney and discovered the gay com rmusity, but Jost his white-collar job for being ‘ay. Living on the dole and working periodically ‘asa driver, he has become involved in creative ans, ‘Adam Singer is in his early thirties, unmarried, and works inthe city office ofa large organiza tion as a professional specialist. His family was Upwardly mobile from the working clas; he was ‘shed toward a profession and succeeded. at university, but lacks emhusiasm for the work. However, the environment is secure, and he has stayed with the same employer. His main en- thusiasms lic in an active and varied sex life and «strong interest in the art world, Gordon Anderson is in his early fortes, di voreed,a father, and is a company manager. He was the oldest child im a rural family that was isrupted by his fathersaleoholism and supported by his mother's manual work. From school he Went to white-collar work in the city, married, and started a family. He entered the “yuppie” (his word) social world, but disliked its snob- ‘ery. He became prominent working fora volun- tary organization that had a high public profile. His marsiage gradually broke down and separa- tion followed; he keeps in touch with the chil- ‘ren, He shifted his career to business manage- ment He has established a long-term couple re- lationship, but remains closeted. ‘Gerry Lamont isin his late forties, maaried, 2 father, and is professional in private practice. He was the oldest child inva working-class family raked by violent conflict. Rejecting this back- ground he became upwardly miobile via school- ing and religion. He entered a conventional mat= ‘MASCULINITY riage and built a successful, but increasingly unsatisfying, bureaucratic professional career Personal crises and encounter groups led to 4 “period of transition” in which he consciously ‘econstucted bis sexuality, personal relations, and ‘workinglife. He formed gay relationships during and afer this period. CONSTRUCTING MASCULINITY “Traditional discourses of homosexuality hve been. preoccupied with the “causes” of homosexuality, ‘The psychiatric discourse in particular has con- nected the “etiology” of homosexuality with some abnormality in family relations or gender devel- ‘opment, although debate has raged sbout what that abnormality is. Recent opinion has been ine ‘uenced bya San Francisco study that found litle supportfor the seductive-mother/weak-fatherthe- sis Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith 1981). However, homosexual men in the study often reported gender nonconformity in childhood. [Neither view of the origins of homosexuality throws ight om the life histories in this study. All the men grew up in families with a conventional division of labor and a conventional power struc- (ure. Dean Carsington jokingly refers to his fa- ther as 2 “Victorian male.” One-half of the fac thers were physically abusive toward their wives, “The mothers worked as houscwives and child caregivers; afew had occasional paid jobs. The family consellations ofthese eight men clearly fell within the range of what was numerically “normal” or socially conventional in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s (Game and Pringle 1979) ‘There is little evidence of “gender non- conformity” ether. The masculinizing practices in these families parallel those in the study's heterosexual life histories. What have called the “moment of engagement” withhegemonicmnsscu- liity (Consel} 1990) also aceurred for these men. "Their mothers putthem in pants rather than skirts, ther fathers taught them foosball, and they leamed sexual difference, After leaving te family, they ‘were inducted into the usual ex typed peer toups, received the usual sexist informal sex education, were subjected to the gender dichotomies that pervade schol life (Thome forthcoming) Jonathan Hampden’s father, for example, was the dominant person in his household, although he increasingly withdrew as his energies focused ‘on building up his professional business. Jonathan's father had been an academic and sport- ing success atthe private boys’ school to which he later sent Jonathan, end Jonathan was pees- 71 sured to perform. sirilarly. Rebellious and e- sentful in early adolescence, Fonathan became involved — even something of a leader — in a school resisting peer nerwork that engaged heavy smoking, groupsex play playground fight- ‘ng, antagonism toward teachers, and poor aca- demic performance. In puberty, Jonathan grew physically large and became a successful footballer. He recalls episodes of violence onthe football field in which he bashed opposing play- ‘rs, a practice that sin tune with pighy’s hyper ‘masculine culmie (Dunning 1986). "Thus, Jonathan Hampden was engaged in the public construction ofa hegemonic form of mas- ‘ulinty — entering a set of interpersonal and instetional practices that connected. him to a pablic world and gave him a masculine postion and stance within it. These practices are resilient: Jonathan remains socially masculinized, despite {remmendous turbulence in his personal life since Jeaving school —his Father did, his Family faced economic disaster, and he suffered @ neac-psy- -chotic episode. He's, for instance, working com- fortably in a male-dominated manual trade, A similar social masculinization is seen with other men in the group, Dean Carrington drives heavy vehicles. Regardless of his sexual preference for smen, Dean defines masculinity as sexual agency, ice, taking an active and directing part. Gordan ‘Anderson runs hisoffee along conventional boss- and-secretary lines and has the controlled, au- hortative manner that goes with the well-cut aray suite wore when interviewed, Gordon isa skilful business tactician and a knowledgeable ‘commentator on polities. He isas effective apar- \icipantin the public world of hegemonic miascu- linity in business as Jonathan Hampden was in the adolescent peer world of hegemonic mascu- Tinity asa rebel. ‘Yetpsychanalysis cautions us motto take such 28 for granted, The fundamental point ‘of Freud's “Wolf Man’ study i that adult mas- ‘elinity isthe product of a long, complex process that Jeaves a layered and contradictory structure ‘of emotions. {nstitutional contradictions also ‘emerge. For example, competitive sport insttu- ‘tonalizes masculinity in contemporary Australia ait does in North America, But if skill and suc- ‘cess are masculine, nos participants are distanced from hegemonic masculinity as well a inducted into it, because the hierarchy of competitive sont thas many more places for the unsuccessful than for champions (Messner 1992). Moreover, he enistence of amasculinized pub- lie culaure —in peer groups, schools, workplaces, a2 sport organizations, media — makes gender 2 candidate for resistance. Resistance may mean seizing on a hypermasculine persona, as did Jonathan Hampxen and others (Connell 1991), Resistance may also mean doing something out: rageously unmasculine. Damien Outhwaite, who moved from a stifling rural background 0 col- legeinthe city, broke outby dyinghishair, wear- ing ser eas, wating iis and king ing. Mark Richards, uncontrollable and Isle as 2 teonager, reversed peas asa young Adult and became ¢ urs. “The curremt popular literature. on masculinity argues that true masculinity is formed only by initiation among men and urges men to with- draw psychologically from women (Bly 1990; Keen 1991), The psychoanalytic discourse. on homosexuality and Chodorow's (1978) psycho- ‘analytic/sociological theory of the reproduction of gender have a more accurate perception of the importance of boys’ and men’s relations with ‘women (especially their mathers) in the produc- tion of masculinity. But these relations should nt he treated as deterministic, The eight cass in this study all show thatthe family setting is a field of relationships within which gender is ne gotifed — and the configuration of the field often changes. Given hooseholds with a conven- tional division of labor, relations with matters and sisters are the primary means of marking sexual difference and the source of idenifica- tions that provide altematives to identification withthe father. Thus, the conventional structure of the patriarchal houschold opens up range of possibilities in emotional relations andi te con- struction of gender ‘Thus, in Jonathan "sca, there is a ‘powerfil identification with his father, but also-a distinct identification with his older sister — a relationship that developed as his father’s affec- tion was withdrawn. At a later stage, Fonathan vehemently repudiated che relation with his sis- ter. Alan Andrews, a country boy like Damien Outhwaite, was always closer to his mother, had iainly gris as fiends in childhood, and gener- ally admires and feels close to women. While Alan had to be pushed out of the nest by his ‘mother, Damien dodged his mother's contol and ‘escaped to the city, although he remains emo- tionally linked to her, “The construction of masculinity, then, is apow- cesful dynamic in these men’s lives. Their homo- sexuality is clearly not built om a lack of mascu- linity. All the men had some engagement with hegemonic masculinity. But the constriction of, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW ‘gender operates simultaneously through a vari- ety of relationships and cultural processes (West ‘and Zimmerman 1987). The complexity of the process allows ittobe inflected in different ways. In these men’s lives, the important occasion usu- ally was a sexual experience — a discovery of sexuality, ora discovery in sexuality, SEXUALITY AND IDENTITY For the majority ofthe participants, the first ma jor sexual encounters were heterosexual. Two have been martied and have children, othershave been close to marriage. For Alan Andrews, rov- ing up in the country, sexuality was effectively defined as relationship with a gitl, His mother and his peer group pressured him to find a girl- fiend. His mates tried to find one for him, He tellsacomic ale about being pushed into the girls? tent —one night when the pecr group was carmp- ing out in the bush — and grabbing the wrong girl. What Rich (1980) called “compulsory het- ‘rosexuality” was taken for granted as part of growing up ‘There was alovof pressiceon boys athe age of 16 ‘0c 17 to pot be ving, and Twas 2 vitgn, So T lays thought ic il be really good hen T meet the righ girl Bult happened tobe a boy. ‘The public discourse of sexuality is un- reflectvely betcrasexual but compulsory hetero- sexuality was not always realized in practice. The ‘men’s narratives document childhoods in which ‘both same-gender and cross-gender experiences are common. Adam Singer recalls being “very sexual from as young as I can remember." He tells of sex games with peers of both genders in primary and secondary school, including a de- lightful vignete of a “nudist colony" set up by primary school boys in the bush just beyond the sciool fence, Likewise, Jonathan Hampden re- ‘alls childhood sex play with both genders, though less idyllic — he was caught. ‘Such childhood sexual experiences with part ners of both genders appear in ie histories of Ieterosexual adultsas well as homosexual adults. Eaily sexual contact with boys or men docs not in itstfdisrupe heterosexuality. General popula- tion surveys find that many more adults have had such contact chan become wholly or mainly ho- moserual (Tamer 1989), Freud (1953) pointed to free-form childhood sexuality (his joke about the polymorphousty perverse disposition” of the child is usually aken asa solemn theoresicalstate- ment), but confined it to early childhood, Cases MASCULINITY 743 like those of Adam Singer and Joaathan Hampden show polymorphous sexuality extending up 10, ‘and sontetimes well int, adolescence. ‘Adult homosexuality, like adult heterosexu ity, represents claswe of this structured-but-open field. It is something that hanpens, that is pro duced by particular practices, and is not prede- termined, The sexual closure involves choice of ‘an object (in Freud's sense), and this narrowing ‘0 focus ean be traced in some ofthe interviews. ‘With Mack Richards, a period of severe adoles- cent unhappiness and rejection of authority was resolved by falling in love with a classmate after hie was sent to an all-boys boarding school. He cals ita classic boarding-house story... avery close friendship and on top of that... quite a strong sexual relationship as wel.” I was fure tive, bot intense: ‘We dida’c geccaughi—and where we didn't da it mean, uaderthe Assembly all ander te stats retook up music lessons ust because was taking music lessons; we'd go auton the same days. (id peopte in the schoo! know abou it?) ‘Oh God no. No, Absauely not. [don't knox how, iurno. From then on, Mack's choice of men as objects cof cathexis was never in doubt. This choice was not afeishistc fixation ona particular feature of the objec; rather it represented. a consolidation ‘of Mark's sexuality around the relationship, ee: ating astracture chat Mark wansfered to ater at- tachments. Mare’ ex life has, accordingly, been conducted chrough several relatively long-term relationships. He ejects fast-ane sexuality and speaks with heavy izay of the “wonderful” ef- fects of AIDS, which “stop everyone fucking around everywhere." ‘Sexual closure can happen, as in Mark's case, ‘without any reference to homasexual identity oF any social definition as gay — the relationship itself is its basis. Adam Singer's sexuality, free- form to an extreme in childhood, also consoli- dated around emotional relationships, including relationships with women but placing.rauch more ‘emphasis on men, In high school Adam became sexually aware of the masculine aura of senior students: “They were students just like me, but theirmaleness was very, very strong.” Asan adult heexpresseshis desir, factiously buteffectively: ‘hig muscley man who I fee! can cuddle upto; and [love being mirared ‘The choice of object here is defined through a contradictory gender imagery — eon ventionally contradicts “nurtured” — and (hi contradiction is at abstract, but embodied. ‘The social process here cannot be capcured by notions of “homosexual identity" or & “homo- sexual role" The sexuality concems gendered bodies — the giving and receiving of bodily plea- sures, The social process is conducted mainly through touch. Yet itis unquestionably a social process, an interpersonal practice governed by the large-scale structure of gender. Dean Carrington, who has had relationships “with men and Women, evokes a siilar pattem. ‘When asked about the dference, his answer fo- cused on bodily sensation: In the traditional sense it's been the same. I mean anal sex, or anything else- Kissing, rouching, suck. ing, licking, the whole works has beea the same physically. Bu T've decided to think perhaps haw mulchmoreexciting tis with aman. Because Tknaw Tean simulate aman, Tkaow how [hike tobe sia laced. And that’s good, i's fantastic, I'm actually relating more, Whereas my lover B (female) never ‘would say. She loved everything but she wouldn't Point out one thing and say" ike you todo tts ‘way, like you to put pressure on, or do acerain thing, or wearcenainclothes ..” [fel Lean late mace to @ man because his body's the same as mine... Having sex with a man, I'm able 1a find ‘out how I feel bester.... Tim actually finding aut ‘more aboutmy body... Pyedevelopedewobweasts, Tanow whatthey'relike, hese twos there: They're nocvery big, they're very fat butthey’rebeantiful. ‘And Tve missed out on so many things. Such a shame, sucha Bloody was ‘Dean's answer rocks back and forth beween siri- larity and difference. He experiences no categori- cal erotic difference between the sexes and does not engage in different practices with the two sexes. His answer is in accord with the conclu- sions of our quantitarive study of the sexual rep ‘ertoire among gay and hiseaual men in this mi- Tieu (Connell and Kippax 1990); The most com- ‘mon practices in male-to-male sex in tis culture ‘kissing, erotic hugging, and so on) ae the same ‘as those in female-to-male sex. What s different with a man, Dean makes clear, is the gestalt of the body — a configuration whose similarity is both disourbing and reassuring. The similaricy al- lows exploration oF anather’s body to he a means cof exploring one's own. ‘A gendered sexuality, the evidence implies, is likely to be a gradual and provisional construc tion, But the social identity of being gay is an- thar matter. The category is now sa well-formed and readily available that ic can be imposed on a4 people. As a late-adolescent rebel, Damien ‘Outhwaite experienced the process that labeling theory describes, when he was still actively in- terested in women: ‘There was one gy stcollegethainumediately iden Aifed me a being gay, and he used ro give me ait of a hassle about it , used to identify things T ‘would doo being gay. One ofthe things was rat ‘was one ofthe fretco wear hipster jeans when they ‘armen —hediought of hatas being gay. And the other thing that I did was that T sed to carry my ‘books around in a shoulder bag — he thought chat was pasticalary gay too, In due course, Damien embraced this definition ‘of himself, which was confirmed by oppression — losing jobs — and by increasing embedded- ress in gay social networks, Gayness is now so reified that i is easy for sen to experience the process of adopting this social definition as discovering a ruth about them- selves. Gordon Anderson speaks of having “real- ied” he was gay, Alan Andrews uses the same term. Alan offers classic coming-out narrative encompassing six stages. Prehistory: Growing up in 2 country town: a relaxed, conservative family: no particular tensions. Preparation: Ado- lescent uncertainties — liking to be with girs, bout not having @ grltiend; sex play with a boy- friend who backs off. Contacr: Age 19, he stumbles across a beat (a venue for semipublic encounters, similar to the U.S, “tea-room") and has sex with men. Then e goes looking for beats, ‘getsbetir ait, hasa “wonderful” sex-filed beach holiday. Acknowledgement: Age 20, “finally ‘came tothe conclusion I was gay, and [ went to my first gay dance.” Immersion: Does the bars ‘on his own, has multiple relationships. Consol dation: Age 22, meets Mr. Right and settles into ‘couple elationship; as more gay male friends; joins some gay organizations; comes ut to his parents. ‘Although these sound very mu ike the stages ‘of “homosexual identity formation” in the mod- cls proposed by Cass (1990) and Troiden (1989). the neatness of the sequence is deceptive, and the ‘outcome isnot the homogeneous identity posited by the ego-psychology on wich such models are based. Alan’s first sexual experiences on the beat were dissppointing — it took time for him to become skilled and to experience much plea- sure, When he hit the bar scene in Sydney — “notoriously antisocial... very cok places" — hhe was exploited. A big, handsome, slow talking ‘country bay, he must have been something of a AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW ‘Phenomenon around the Sydney bars al did not Jack for partners. He was looking for love and affection; his partners wanted sex. He even feels hhe was “raped” by couple of partners —"T was forced inca anal sex by them.” He became criti-

    You might also like