Welcome to the Men's Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity Author(s): Sharon R.

Bird Reviewed work(s): Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 120-132 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/189829 . Accessed: 26/11/2011 09:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and Society.

http://www.jstor.org

WELCOME THEMEN'S CLUB TO and Homosociality the Maintenance of HegemonicMasculinity

SHARON R. BIRD Washington State University

This on masculinities in a used studyfocuses multiple of conceptualizedterms sociality, concept to refer

attractions.Through male homosocialheterosexualinteractions,hegemonic to nonsexualinterpersonal masculinityis maintainedas the normto whichmen are held accountabledespite individualconceptuWhenit is understoodamongheterosexualmen in alizations of masculinitythatdepartfromthatnormn homosocial circles that masculinity means being emotionally detached and competitive and that masculinityinvolvesviewingwomenas sexual objects,theirdaily interactionshelpperpetuatea system that subordinatesfemininity and nonhegemonic masculinities. Nonhegemonic masculinitiesfail to influencestructuralgender arrangementssignificantlybecause their expressionis either relegated to heterosocial settings or suppressedentirely.

To understand genderinequality,one must do more thanstudy relationsbetween The natureof genderrelationsis such thatasymmetriesexist betweenmen genders. andwomen andamongmen andamongwomen (Connell 1987, 1992). Recognition of masculinity as a social construct began only a couple of decades ago, and from"non-normative" "normative" recognitionof a powerdynamicdifferentiating of masculinitiesbeganonly a few yearsago (Kimmel 1990). Investigation the many of masculinity conceptualizationshas been rare (Connell 1987; possible types Kimmel 1990). Connell's (1992) researchon homosexualmasculinitiesand their subordinationto heterosexualmasculinitiesis a notable exception. As Connell's work demonstrates,delineation of relations among masculinities is important of orderof gender because it facilitates a betterunderstanding how the structural is maintained. Hegemonic masculinity, or "the maintenanceof practices that in institutionalizemen's dominanceover women" and is "constructed relationto women and to subordinatemasculinities"(Connell 1987, 185-86), shapes the
AUTHOR'S NOTE: An earlier versionof this article was presentedat the 1993 annualmeetingof the Pacific Sociological Association, Portland, OR. I thank Leslie Atkins, Kendal Broad, Peter Burke, ValerieJenness, Lisa Mcintyre,MargaretAndersen,MiriamJohnson, R. W.Connell, the reviewersat Gender & Society, and especially Lisa Broidy,7im McGettigan,and Amy Wharton their helpful for criticisms and advice. Special thanksalso to the men interviewedforthis study. REPRINT REQUESTS: Sharon R. Bird, Department of Sociology, WashingtonState University,

WA Pullman, 99164-4020.
GENDER & SOCIETY,Vol. 10 No. 2, April 1996 120-132

in for C 1996Sociologists Women Society

120

Bird/ HOMOSOCIALITY 121

overall frameworkof gender relations. By problematizingmasculinity, Connell challenges typically undisputedmeanings associatedwith male dominance. In this study,I focus on how meaningsthatcorrespond hegemonicmasculinity to aremaintainedandhow meaningsthatdo not correspond hegemonicmasculinity to are suppressed.Withinthe existing genderorder,meaningsassociatedwith behaviors that challenge hegemonic masculinity are denied legitimation as masculine; such meanings are marginalized, if not suppressed entirely. Contradictions to hegemonic masculinityposed by male homosexuality,for example, are suppressed when homosexual masculinity is consistently rendered "effeminate"(Connell 1992). The maintenanceof hegemonic masculinityis exploredherethroughinvestigation of male homosocial interactions. Homosociality refers specifically to the nonsexual attractionsheld by men (or women) for members of their own sex (Lipman-Blumen1976). Homosociality, accordingto Lipman-Blumen,promotes clear distinctions between women and men through segregation in social institutions. I add, further,that homosociality promotes clear distinctions between hegemonic masculinities and nonhegemonic masculinitiesby the segregation of social groups. Heterosociality, a concept left untheorizedby Lipman-Blumen, refersto nonsexualattractions by men (or women)for membersof the othersex. held Also critical to this analysis is an investigation of the relationship between of sociality andthe self-conceptualization masculinity.As I arguehere,homosocial of to interaction,amongheterosexualmen, contributes the maintenance hegemonic masculinity norms by supporting meanings associated with identities that fit hegemonic ideals while suppressing meanings associated with nonhegemonic masculinity identities. I focus specifically on the connection between individual to masculinityand gendernormsin small groupinteractions capturesubtle mechanisms of control. When personal conflicts with ideal masculinityare suppressed both in the homosocial group and by individual men, the culturalimposition of hegemonic masculinitygoes uncontested(see Kaufman1994). of The following meaningsare crucialto our understanding how homosociality contributesto the perpetuationof hegemonic masculinity:(1) emotional detachment, a meaningconstructedthroughrelationshipswithinfamilies wherebyyoung men detach themselves from mothersand develop gender identities in relation to that which they are not (Chodorow 1978); (2) competitiveness,a meaning constructed and maintainedthrough relationships with other men whereby simple individuality becomes competitive individuality(Gilligan 1982); and (3) sexual objectificationof women, a meaningconstructedand maintainedthroughrelationships with other men whereby male individualityis conceptualized not only as differentfromfemale but as better than female (Johnson 1988). CONCEPTUALIZING MASCULINITIES Gender identity is distinguishedfrom the heavily criticized concept of gender role in thatthe latteris used to referto behavioralexpectationsassociatedwith more

122

GENDER SOCIETY April1996 & /

or less static social positions, whereas the former refers to a continualprocess whereby meanings are attributed and to individualsthroughsocial interaction. by Gender,in other words, is relational.Genderidentity originatesin early interactions, becoming more stable throughthe accumulationof meanings attributed by and to the self over time (see Burke 1980; Burke and Reitzes 1981). Information received throughinteractionsmay be used eitherto reinforceexisting self-notions of gender meanings or to weaken them. That is, mere socialization does not sufficientlyexplain how individualsconceptualizeidentity.Socializationprovides but the termsof social interaction does not determinehow individualsincorporate interactional of meaningsinto theirown conceptualizations gender(Connell 1987). The unique experiencesof men, embeddedwithin particular social institutions and subject to varying historicalcontexts, facilitateconceptualizationsof masculinities thatmay differconsiderably. Each male incorporates varietyof meanings a into his genderidentity,some of which areconsistentwith hegemonic masculinity and others of which are not (e.g., Connell 1992; Messner 1992b). The social ideal for masculinity,which in itself is a nonstaticnotion,maybe internalized (i.e., central to one's core self [see Chodorow1980]) or simply interiorized (i.e., acknowledged the by the self), enablingindividualsto understand gendernormsto which they are bothsocially shared held accountable.Ineithercase, eachmalecomes to understand meanings of masculinityand the idiosyncraticmeaningsthatcomprisehis unique of gender identity.Internalization hegemonicmeaningsprovides a base of shared meanings for social interactionbut also quells the expression of nonhegemonic meanings. The presumptionthat hegemonic masculinity meanings are the only mutuallyacceptedand legitimatemasculinitymeaningshelps to reify hegemonic normswhile suppressingmeaningsthatmightotherwisecreatea foundationfor the subversionof the existing hegemony.This presumptionis especially prevalentin male homosocial interactions,which are critical to both the conceptualizationof of masculinityidentityand the maintenance gendernorms. MALE HOMOSOCIAL INTERACTIONS: EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT,COMPETITIVENESS, AND SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN via Three of the sharedmeaningsthat are perpetuated male homosociality are emotional detachment, competition, and the sexual objectification of women. These meanings characterizehegemonic masculinitybut are not always internalized as centralto individualidentity.First,emotionaldetachment(i.e., withholding expressions of intimacy) maintains both clear individual identity boundaries (Chodorow 1978) and the normsof hegemonicmasculinity.To express feelings is to reveal vulnerabilities and weaknesses; to withhold such expressions is to maintain control (Cancian 1987). Second, competition in the male homosocial group supportsan identity that depends not on likeness and cooperationbut on separation and distinction (Gilligan 1982). Competition facilitates hierarchy in relationships, whereas cooperation suggests symmetry of relationships

Bird/ HOMOSOCIALITY 123

(Messner 1992a). Finally, the sexual objectification of women facilitates selfas conceptualization positively male by distancingthe self fromall thatis associated with being female. The objectificationof women provides a base on which male superiorityis maintained(Johnson1988), whereasidentificationwith women (and what it means to be female) helps remove the symbolic distance that enables men to depersonalizethe oppressionof women. Individualconceptualizationsvary in the extent to which these meaningscharacterize one's masculinity.Masculinitiesthat differ from the norm of hegemonic dissatisfactions" rather masculinity,however,aregenerallyexperiencedas "private than foundationsfor questioningthe social constructionof gender (Thomas 1990; see also Kaufman 1994). Hegemonic masculinitypersists, therefore,despite indifrom the hegemonic form. vidual departures

METHOD The datacollected for this study were gatheredthroughpersonalinterviewsand field observations.Eight in-depthinterviewswere conductedin the fall of 1992 in a small northwesterncity in the United States. Later,additionalfollow-up interviews were conductedwith four new respondentsto clarify how male homosocial of and heterosexualinteractionsfacilitatethe perpetuation hegemonic masculinity, on the one hand, but suppressnonhegemonicmasculinity,on the other. in The men who participated the interviewsfor this study were all selected from withinthe academiccommunityof thecity in whichthe studytook place. Responses to questions, therefore, may reflect a level of education higher than that of the generalpopulation.The findingsof this study,however,areconsistentwith findings of previous studies regardingthe meaningsassociatedwith masculinity(e.g., Lehn 1992; Messner 1992a, 1992b; Phillips 1986). The men's educationallevel ranged from three years of undergraduate study to graduatelevel and post-Ph.D. The men rangedin age from 23 to 50 years.All but one of the intervieweeswere native-born Americans from various geographicalregions of the country.The other male, a native of East Africa, had maintainedresidence in the United States for approximately two years before the time of the interview. Although the data received throughthe interview with this respondentwere consistent with accounts offered by the respondentsfrom the United States,this informationwas excluded from the analysis because of culturaldifferencesthatcould contributeto misleadingconclusions. Most of the men reported middle-class family origins, although three Two of the men interviewedwere Black, and reportedworking-classbackgrounds. All of the menwereraisedprimarily female caretakers, the othernine were white. by and all were heterosexual. The primary focus of the interviews was on the development of perceived consensual masculinity and the corresponding relationship between selfand conceptualizations hegemonic masculinity. Respondentswere firstaskedquestions about childhood. Each was asked to describe childhood memories of time spent with playmates,with siblings, andwith parents.Responses to these questions

124

/ & GENDER SOCIETY April1996

provided general informationfrom which more specific inquiriescould be made regardingthe meaningsassociatedboth with masculinitypersonally(i.e., identity) and with masculinitymore generally(i.e., the beliefs, attitudes,and expectations of the group and of society). for To establish the parameters the discussion duringthe interviews,each man he was askedto considerthe kindsof relationships would find most desirablegiven non-work-related situations.'Each was then promptedto elaborateon his experiences within groups, especially those experiences within the male homosocial group.Althoughthe men variedin how muchthey desiredmale homosocialgroup interaction,each explainedthatsuch groupshave had a significantimpacton their beliefs, attitudes,and behaviors.The men were askedto elaborateon whatexactly desirable or undesirable,for or would be considered appropriate inappropriate, conversation among men and what interests were commonly or not commonly shared within their homosocial groups. The topics of sports, women, business, politics, anddrinkingwere most commonlyspecified as desirablefor conversation, while the topics of feelings and gossip were most frequentlymentionedas undesirable.Each man was then asked to explain his views on the degree to which his to personalinterestscorresponded interestsmore generallysharedby the group.I also made inquiriesaboutwhy certaininterestsand topics are so prevalentamong men in homosocial groups and whetherthey had experiencedany repercussions when normsfor male homosocial interactionwere disregarded. Additionaldatawerecollectedduringthe fall of 1992 throughfield observations of male homosocial interactionsin small-groupcontexts. Observationsand interviews were conductedwithinthe same academiccommunity,butthe men observed 25 were not the same as the men interviewed. Approximately hoursof observations The majorityof the observationswere made at a single location: were conducted. a deli/barfrequented men associatedwiththe universitybutalso visitedregularly by by men not associatedwith academia.Remainingobservationswere conductedat two coffee shops and three taverns,all located in the same academiccommunity. The focus of the observationswas on the interactionsamong male customers, including their conversations.Field notes were taken in one- to two-hour time periods at varioustimes of the day and/ornight and on variousdays of the week. Because the locationsin whichobservationswere madeareconsistentlypatronized by students and universityfaculty,the recordingof observationswent unnoticed. betweenmen seated thattranspired A runningdescriptionwas kept of interactions a few feet away). Observawithin hearingdistanceof the researcher (usually only tions were made of groups rangingin size from two to eight men. Observations were also made of groups that were initially all male but were temporarily interruptedby a woman. Most of the conversations were recorded verbatim. Gestures,facial expressions,andthe physical location of each groupmemberwere also noted. The meaningsdescribedin the interviewsand that emerged from the observations have been organizedunder the following subtopics: (1) emotional detachof ment, (2) competition,and (3) sexual objectificationof women. The remainder which these meaningsare sustained this article focuses on the processes through

Bird / HOMOSOCIALITY

125

and the processes through which alternativemeanings are suppressed in male homosocial interaction.

EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT: "WE WERE MASCULINE LITTLE KIDS!" The rules thatapplyto homosocialfriendshipsandto masculinityareso familiar that they are typically taken for grantedby men and women alike. Rarely does anyone (otherthanthe social scientist) seriously questionthe expectationsassociated with genderidentityor gendernorms.Instead,it is assumedthat"boys will be boys" and will just naturallydo "boy things." By the same token, "men will be men" and will continueto do "menthings."Doing men things or "doingmasculinity" is simply the commonplace activity of men's daily lives, recreatedover and again, maintainingthe normsof social behavior(Westand Zimmerman1987). The men interviewedandthose observedexplainedthatbeing "oneof the boys" is a key principleof symbolic and, in some cases, physical separation "theboys" of from "thegirls." One man, for example, explainedhow, as a youngster,he and his pals "wererough and rugged ... masculinelittle kids."He said, Whenyou'rea littleboy,you hangout withotherlittleboys andyou do littleboy things.Youknow,you bur antsandthingslike that.Youjust don'thangout with femalesbecause don'twantto be a wuss,you don'tplaywithdolls,you don't you whine,youdon'tcry... youdo boythings,youknow,guystuff. Being masculine,in otherwords,meansbeing not-female.The masculinityideal involves detachmentand independence.The men interviewedindicatedthatemotions and behaviorstypicallyassociatedwith women were inappropriate withinthe male homosocial group. Among the emotions and behaviors considered most and inappropriate, most highly stigmatized, were those associated with feminine of intimacy (e.g., talking "feelings").As one of the men interviewed expressions explained, "I usually talk about 'things' ratherthan getting into your head and asking, you know, thatreal intimatestuff." This suppressionof feminine emotions is more than merely a means of estabEmotionaldetachmentis one way in which gender lishing individualmasculinity. hierarchiesare maintained.Expressingemotions signifies weakness and is devaland ued, whereasemotionaldetachment signifies strength is valued(Cancian1987). In theirdiscussions of feelings, the men hesitated;none of them madeconsistent use of the wordfeelings. Insteadof feelings, they referred "personal to stuff,""those and "those matters,"and when asked, many indicated that "ultimately things," you're doing it alone." The expectation is that "because you're going to be in situationswhere you're away from any supportsystem... you're going to have to handle your stuff alone." What these men explained was that within the male homosocial group, emotional detachmentis viewed not only as desirablebut as imperative.Those who do express their intimateemotions are excluded. On this point, the intervieweeswere

126

GENDER SOCIETY April1996 & /

quite clear: "If I was having a beer with a friendand they startedcrying, I would suspectthatthatperson,if it were a male... I'd suspectthatthatpersondidn'thave a very good definition of the social situation."If a guy did start crying, this intervieweewas asked,wherewould thatputhim in relationto otherguys? "Hmm, well, since ... actually that would put him on the outs." The repercussionfor in violatingthe hegemonicmeaningof emotionaldetachment, otherwords,is to be "put on the outs," that is, to be ostracizedfrom one's male homosocial group. Intervieweesexplainedthatviolationsof the normof emotionaldetachmentdo not resultin an alterationof the normbut insteadresultin the exclusion of the violator (see Schur 1984). Data collected throughobservationsclearly supportedthe patterndescribedby the men interviewed. Emotional detachment was exercised in even the most rathermatter-of-fact sensitive of topics. Two men observed,for example,appeared as they discussed the maritalproblems that one of the men was experiencing: "Thinkof it this way, ya got a toothache.... You've got to have it taken out or you're gonna live with the bitch. Unless you bite the bullet and get the goddamn thing pulled out, you're gonna live with the pain."Feelings, as discussed by these two men, were somethingto "getover,"not to experience-much less express.One man, when questionedaboutthe possible repercussionsfor expressing feelings in the context of the male homosocial group,explainedthat feelings are "something for us all to joke about"because too and don'twantto takethings seriously haveto dealwiththeheavy youcertainly side are side,theheavyemotional to it.... Tears a veryextreme thingin thesemale soft it's because messy... Ithasa lotto do withnotlooking andweak circles,partly with for becauseif you do ... it makesit difficult mento haverelationships each other. He explainedthat"developingemotionaltypes of relationshipswith each other"is somethingmen stereotypicallydo not do. Hegemonicmasculinityis not expressed This distinctionseparatesthe boys andmaintained throughexcessive emotionality. from the girls as well as the men who fit the hegemonic normfrom those who do the not. Throughemotionaldetachment, meaningsformedin regardto masculinity are exaggerated so as to distinguish clearly that which all men are not, that is, difference is on those trying to avoid the female. The burdenfor demonstrating defaultmeanings.Differencebecomesan aspectof self in which men have a valued investment. from the normof emotionaldetachment, however,do exist. IndividDepartures of reflect an understanding the dominantmeanings but not necesual departures sarily an incorporationof them into one's self-concept. One man explained that althoughmost men "do whatthe culturesays andhide it" (i.e., hide theirfeelings), he had hoped to be able to expresshis feelings with othermen: "A couple of times when I was hurting,uhm, I did kind of seek out a couple of male friendsand I was you really disappointed ... It was like they were embarrassed, know, to talk about that shit, and so, uh, fuck it!" Five of the men who participatedin the in-depth interviews and three of the four who participatedin the follow-up interviews

Bird/ HOMOSOCIALITY 127

expressed discrepanciesbetween hegemonic masculinityand their own masculinity. Each explained that although they knew they were supposed to separate themselves fromthingsconsideredfeminine,they did not assess theirown identities to be as polarized as the hegemonic form would suggest. As It wasreallyunfortunate. I grewolder,I reallywishedthatI wasn'tso detached frommy mom.I'm notthatwaynow,though. Aftera while,I stopped about caring I whateverybody thought. mean,theintimate got pushed else side asideforso long men to becausethat'snot what"real" aresupposed do. I got overit, though.... I men to guessI'm notwhat"real" aresupposed be. The degree to which the masculinitymeaningsindividualshold for themselves correspondto the meaningsof hegemonicmasculinitymay varyover time andfrom personto person.Thepoint,however,is thatalthoughindividualconceptualizations of masculinity depart from the hegemonic norm, nonhegemonic meanings are masculinity.Even in a community suppresseddue to perceptionsof "appropriate" where notions of the "new man"are common and where antisexist attitudesare often expected, hegemonicpatternsof masculinityprevail.One whose masculinity conceptualizationis nonhegemonic still understandshimself as "not what 'real' men are supposed to be" (emphasisadded). The men who made the distinction between self-masculinity and hegemonic masculinity made three things clear.First, they explained that hegemonic masculinity was the form that prevailedin their interactionswith other men throughout childhoodand adolescence.Second, they assertedthatwhen they foundthemselves in homosocial situations in the present,the expectation of emotional detachment continued to prevail. Third, they described themselves in the present as more heterosocially than homosocially oriented.These men explained that they did not preferexclusively male social interaction groups.In sum, homosocialandheterosocial masculinity meanings are clearly differentiated.For these men, homosocial masculinity was characterizedby emotional detachment, whereas heterosocial masculinitydownplayedthese factors. COMPETITION: "IT'S A PECKING ORDER BETWEEN MALES" Competition with other men provides a stage for establishing self both as an individual and as appropriatelymasculine. Competition also contributesto the perpetuationof male dominance.When asked to explain what competitionmeant to him, one interviewee replied, I'm I around the By nature terribly competitive. supposeone's ego gets wrapped for thingsthatyou do. Its prettyimportant me to win becauseI do have my ego and or wrapped in that[games] so, uhm,youknowwhenI playa gameat a party up I whatever kindof expectto winandplaypretty fiercely. To establish self as not female, young men seek out other men with whom to (Johnson 1988). Homosocial groupinteractions provide display "non-femaleness"

128

GENDER SOCIETY April1996 & /

feedbackand supportfor masculinityself-conceptualization. this sense, mascuIn linity conceptualizationis itself a form of competition.Four men describedcompetition as a critical part of their self-conceptualizationsand stressed that the competitions they preferredwere those with men. Men, they believed, could the understand intensity and importanceof competition,whereaswomen seemed less acceptingand less understanding. When asked aboutparticipating athletics in with women, one interviewee respondedthat "women startgetting angry at you and it gets ugly" when "you start getting really intense." Another added that "womentypicallydon't want to play [basketball] sort of want to but feel they'll or be intimidatedor whatever." The men who describedthemselvesas less competitive(or noncompetitive),on the otherhand,explainedthatthey consideredthe intensitywith which othermen for engaged in competitions (especially sports) as relatively unimportant themselves. At the same time, however, these men recognized the expectations of masculinityto be competitive.One manexplained, Even not Guysdon'tknowwhatit means to be competitive. thosemenwhotell you It's is that gonna you're competition sillyknowtheyhaveto [compete]. likeotherwise as that. on. getwalked Nobody appreciates I'mnotasaggressive mostguys,butI can sureactit. Again, the norms and expectations of hegemonic masculinity and individual do among the less competitivemen, conceptualizations not necessarilyfit; further, nonhegemonicmasculinityand hegemonicmasculinitymeaningsdiffer by sociality. Men whose conceptualizationsof masculinitywere nonhegemonic specified in theirlack of preferencefor homosocial interactions both sportingand nonsportof whose conceptualizations masculinitywere consistent with ing activities. Men the hegemonic form specified a clear preferencefor homosocial interactionsin sports. Homosociality correspondedwith a focus on competitiveness, whereas heterosocialitydeemphasizedcompetition.Homosocialandheterosocialmeanings In were clearly differentiated. male homosocial groups,a man risks loss of status and self-esteem unless he competes.The meaningof competitionis assumedunder male homosocial circumstances,and violatorsof this normare disadvantaged. SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION: "YOU KNOW, WOMEN WERE 'OTHERED' EARLY" The competitionsthat supporthegemonicmasculinitycontinuethroughoutlife in a varietyof forms. Among the forms of competitionsin which men engage are those that involve the objectification of women. Men often compete with one anotherin efforts to gain the attentionand affections of women and in boasting about their sexual exploits. Observationsrevealednumerousstories about sexual referenceswere made objectificationof women. In malehomosocialconversations, as to women as "them,"as clearly "other," the nonthreatening "girl,"and/or as to be used for sexual pleasure.While the use of these termsmay or may not objects

Bird / HOMOSOCIALITY

129

imply a conscious effort on the part of the speaker to objectify, they promote meanings that supporthegemonic masculinitynonetheless. The men not only explicatedthe objectificationof women, they also explained and demonstratedthe competition for objectified women. These competitions of illustratethe interconnectedness the meanings of emotional detachment,competition, and objectification.Conversationsoverheardat the deli/lounge, for example, shifted frequentlyfrom"shoptalk"to competitivesex talk.Banteringsessions, in which one-upsmanshipon stories of sexual exploits was the name of the game, were frequentlyoverheard.For example, one man began, I've runacross thosekind.... I'll tell 'em,"I'llbuyya a beer." [Andthehypothetical womanreplies,] ThenI'm thinkin' she'sreadyto get outa "Na,I'll buyyou a beer." therewithme. I just wantone I canstepout with,shootup her,andget backin the barin 5 or 10 minutes. Anotherman then addedhis own story: Aw,shit,I hadone downnearVegas.... Well,to makea longstoryshort,whenit of wastimeto hittherackwe wentbackto herroom.... Wefounda bucket ice and to at a bottleof liquor thedoorwitha notefromsomeother attached it.... I just guy the her! and wentahead drank stuffandscrewed Not to be outdone, the remainingparticipantin the discussion followed with an account of his own: and Yeah,one nightI hada coupleof beers,thenwentoutto thatcountry western all there. bar.... Shewasa bartender I'mtellin' shewashanging overmeso much ya, on had thatthe otherbartender to get on to her.Thenlater,she cameknockin' my "What hell,Judywon'tfindout,let'shopto it."She was the door.I thought, trailer a wickedthing. Such conversations,accordingto the men interviewed,occurfrequentlybutareless likely to be carriedout with verbalexplicitness when a woman or women actually join the interaction.In this case, the conversation will likely shift; but, as my interviewees explained, the competition will continue. The question, "What happens if a woman enters the scene where you are engaging in a conversation with another man or men?" prompted the following response: "Weird.Weird setup... because everybodyis checking everybodyelse out... it's uncomfortable for everybody. You know, people are checking each other out. We'd see her as an issue of conquest."The men interviewedexplainedthatmen in homosocial groups both objectify and compete for women. When asked to describe the nature of interactionsbetween men when an "available" woman is presentamong the group, one man explained, "It's competitive, you see, and it's a pecking order between men. If you do not peck, you get pecked.And so, one of the things over which there is a great deal of pecking is women." To be "pecked"is an undesirable experience-one to be avoidedif a man wishes to maintainstatuswithinthe male homosocialgroup.Objectification women and of men's competitivenessover objectifiedwomen constitutethe very essence of what hegemonic masculinity means in this society (Connell 1992). Not all men view

130

GENDER & SOCIETY / April 1996

themselves in accordancewith hegemonicmasculinity, however,when it comes to objectifyingwomen. Even so, men often go along with hegemonicnormsto avoid being pecked. All of the men interviewed,when asked how an individual man avoids being pecked by other membersof the group, explained that, on the one hand,they knew what the rules of the game were because there's Always .... Someguyswill go goingon in thegroup. alwaysanassessment themselves. when But women comment about makea degrading alongbutwouldn't it of to because want bea member thegroup, becomes, someguysayssomething, you You "Yeah." followthelead. Some men argued, however, that these hegemonic rules did not fit their own identities: me much because interest terribly doesn't of stuff[sexual That objectification women] and thosethings I don'thangoutwithmen I forthemostpart don'treallytalkabout who do. It's a verynastytypeof chat,andthe goal seemsto be to hurtsomebody anyway. Although the rules of hegemonic masculinityincluded sexual objectification, its minimizedand/ordisregarded importance. some individualconceptualizations Even among those men who rejected hegemonic masculinity for themselves, however,the hegemonicnormfor sexual objectification prevailedin male homosocial groups. In fact, none of the men in the study, for example, mentioned ever verballyrejectingthese hegemonic meaningsin theirall-male groups. The meancompetitiveness,andsexual objectificationall were ings of emotionaldetachment, understoodand behaviorallyfollowed. Hegemonic masculinity was maintained despite individualdeparturesfrom the norm, as individualdepartureswere suppressed in homosocial settings. Nonhegemonic masculinity was subordinated throughrelegation to heterosocial settings. Emotional detachment,competitiveness, andthe sexual objectificationof womenremainedas the criteriato which men are held accountable,especially in all-male interactions. CONCLUSIONS: HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY AND THE GENDER ORDER Hegemonic masculinityis consistently and continuallyrecreateddespite individual conceptualizationsthat contradicthegemonic meanings. Violations of the normsof hegemonic masculinitytypicallyfail to producealterationsin the gender attentionto the order;instead,they result in penaltiesto violators.With particular that help sustain a pecking orderamong men, I have outlined some of meanings the processes thatpose barriersto genderequalityin the United States, that is, the devaluationof meanings consideredfeminine, the suppressionof these meanings in male heterosexual homosocial settings, and the relegation of nonhegemonic as here, masculinityto heterosocialsettings.Hegemonicmasculinity, demonstrated even in an academic community where ideals of gender equality are prevailed continuesdespite generallypromoted.Reificationof existing genderarrangements

Bird / HOMOSOCIALITY

131

individual conflicts with hegemonic masculinity. The contradictionsthat nonhegemonic masculinitymeanings(e.g., expressionof intimateemotions, cooperation, and identification with women) potentially pose to dominant masculinity patternsare suppressedin male homosocial heterosexualinteractions,inhibiting from dominantmasculinity are experienced change. When individualdepartures as privatedissatisfactionsratherthan as reason for contesting the social construction of masculinity,hegemonic patternspersist. that Because the barriers distinguishappropriate frominappropriate masculinity of are not accomplishedthroughreconceptualization individualmascugenerally linity alone, recastingthe genderorderin more favorabletermsmust also involve changes instigatedat levels of social organizationbeyondthatof social interaction. Subversionof widely acceptedgenderbeliefs, attitudes,and expectationsrequires Thatwhich special attentionto the processesthatfacilitatetheirinstitutionalization. must be continually challengedand ultimatelyeradicatedin terms of masculinity, therefore,is the taken-for-granted assumptionthat being male means being emotionally detached, competitive, and supportive of the sexual objectification of women as well as the assumptionthat men whose identitiesdo not embody these meanings are not true men. These changes must take place not only within heterosocialcontexts but also withinhomosocialcontexts andthroughout social all institutions.In even broaderterms, the goal yet to be accomplishedis the degenderization of meanings. In other words, emotional detachment,competitiveness, and the sexual objectificationof women must cease to exist as criteriaby which being a man is measured.Indeed,the beliefs, attitudes,andexpectationsthatdecree the valuation and/ordevaluationof distinctive masculine and feminine meanings in the first place must be deconstructed. NOTE
1. Leisure situations,ratherthan work-relatedsituations,were focused on to specifically highlight social interactionpreferences.

REFERENCES
Burke, Peter J. 1980. The self: Measurementrequirementsfrom an interactionistperspective.Social Psychology Quarterly43:18-29. Burke, Peter J., and Donald C. Reitzes. 1981. The link between identity and role performance.Social Psychology Quarterly44:83-92. Cancian, Francesca M. 1987. Love in America: Gender and self-development. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press. Chodorow,Nancy. 1978. The reproduction mothering.Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. of . 1980. Gender,relation,anddifferencein psychoanalyticperspective.In Thefutureof difference, edited by HesterEisenstein and Alice Jardine.Boston: G. K. Hall. Connell, R. W. 1987. Genderandpower: Society,theperson, and sexualpolitics. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

132

GENDER & SOCIETY / April 1996

. 1992. A very straightgay: Masculinity,homosexualexperience,and the dynamics of gender. AmericanSociological Review 57:735-51. voice: Psychological theoryand women'sdevelopment. Gilligan,Carol. 1982. In a different Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress. Johnson,Miriam.1988. Strongmothers,weak wives. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Kaufman,Michael. 1994. Men, feminism,and men's contradictory experiencesof power.In Theorizing ThousandOaks, CA: Sage. masculinities,edited by HarryBrod and Michael Kaufman. Kimmel, Michael S. 1990. After fifteen years: The impact of the sociology of masculinity on the masculinityof sociology. In Men, masculinities,and social theory,edited by Jeff Hear and David Morgan.London:Unwin Hyman. and Lehn,GregoryK. 1992. Homophobia amongmen:Supporting definingthe male role. InMen'slives, edited by Michael S. Kimmeland Michael A. Messner.New York:Macmillan. Lipman-Bluman,Jean. 1976. Towarda homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanationof the sex and segregationof social institutions.Signs: Journalof Women Cultureand Society 1:15-31. of Messner,Michael A. 1992a. Boyhood, organizedsports,and the construction masculinity.In Men's lives, edited by Michael S. Kimmeland Michael A. Messner.New York:Macmillan. . 1992b. Power at play: Sportsand the problemof masculinity.Boston:Beacon. AmericanBehavioralScientist Phillips, GeraldM. 1986. Men talkingto men abouttheirrelationships. 29:321-41. Schur,EdwinM. 1984.Labelingwomendeviant:Gender, stigma,andsocial control.New York:Random House. Thomas, Alison. 1990. The significanceof genderpolitics in men's accountsof their"genderidentity." In Men, masculinities,and social theory,edited by Jeff Heam and David Morgan.London:Unwin Hyman. West, Candace,and Don H. Zimmerman.1987. Doing gender.Gender & Society 1:125-51.

Her doctoral State University. SharonR. Bird is a Ph.D. candidatein sociology at Washington researchfocuses on gender relationsas they relate to the workplace.She is also interestedin microprocessesof gender conceptualization.