By Claes Ekenstam
Despite belonging to a superior gender in relation to women, many men feel powerless; this is a paradox often pointed out within men’s studies (Kaufman 1994, Seidler 1994, 1997, Faludi 1999). Even if men by their gender affiliation ”automatically” have a better starting point than women in society, many fail to appreciate the feminist thesis that men as a collective group are privileged while women as a group are discriminated against. One explanation provided by feminists to clarify this paradox is that it is most difficult for the privileged themselves to see and admit their privileges.
Hegemonic masculinity and powerlessness
Another way of understanding men’s experience of power/powerlessness is implicit in R.W. Connell’s idea of the existence of various masculinities, where a dominant form of hegemonic masculinity is superior to other masculinities (Connell 1999). In practice, most men are thus situated in a subordinate position in relation to a relatively small privileged group of powerful men with plentiful resources. At the same time, the gendered superiority is always true for Connell’s men in relation to women, and they are thus never totally powerless.
However, other researchers have underlined the dominant experience of subordination and powerlessness that a majority of men actually come up against in their lives because of class, lack of resources and other reasons, such as other people (bosses, politicians, teachers, superiors, parents) and social forces (the market, development, the economy) which seem to decide the fates of individual men (Holter 1998, Seidler 1997).
In his history of North American manhood, Michel Kimmel takes as the point of departure for his study the feminist notion that masculinity should be regarded as being linked to a struggle for power and control. Gradually, however, Kimmel found that for men themselves, masculinity seemed to be less about the drive to dominate than about their fear of others controlling them. Above all, he realized that men were stricken with a terror of failing. Kimmel associates this with the fact that modern manhood to a very large degree has come to mean an incessant struggle to live up to certain ideals. Masculinity has become something that must continuously be proven, something that must be achieved. Men who fail in this respect are seen as suspicious and quite often they are discarded and marginalized (Kimmel 1996).
The relations between various groups of men
Even if masculinity is mostly formulated in relation to women and femininity, many men’s studies researchers have found that masculinity is also to a large extent defined between various groups of men. The relations between various groups of men are sometimes of a more direct relevance than the relation to women/the feminine. Masculinity is thus defined in relation to femininity, often in terms of contrasting or distancing, but also in relation to features regarded as unmanly in other men. The group of unmanly men is thus an important category in the definition of masculinity.
Historian George Mosse has used this relation as his starting point when noting that modern masculinity, or what he calls the masculine stereotype, needed a contrasting image or a countertype for its own definition. Those positioned outside of the social norm or the marginalized ones, provided the characteristics that this contrasting stereotype was seen to represent. All those who through their lifestyle, ethnic origin, religion or language broke the accepted norms (for example Jews, vagabonds, criminals and those who were mentally ill) were connected with the countertype. Attributes declared as typical for this category were instability, ugliness, cowardice, lack of emotional control and honesty. The countertype was assumed to be controlled by his passions, lecherous, wanting in strength of character and manliness. Significantly, those men who were regarded as unmanly created great anxiety. From the middle of the 19th century onwards this category was also often associated with homosexuality (Mosse 1996). Even if Mosse’s concept of the countertype has wider references than just unmanliness, this aspect seems to constitute an essential component of the definition and the upholding of masculinity.
Cultural differences
It is, however, above all the historian Jonas Liliequist who has demonstrated the relevance of the concept of unmanliness for men’s studies (Liliequist 1999, 2003). In the same way as masculinity has been constructed socially and culturally, notions of unmanliness have been created through history. Liliequist reveals, for example, interesting differences between an older, traditional South European male image and its Nordic counterparts during the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. In the Mediterranean region, masculinity has, ever since Antiquity, been strongly connected with sexual potency, virility and the power of initiative. Correspondingly, men who are not active and do not take initiatives in neither social nor sexual respects are regarded as unmanly. A real man must also control the sexuality of his wife in order not to fall into the category of the unmanly. Here, we clearly see the outlines of the so called macho ideal.
Liliequist notes that in a Scandinavian context, for its part, cowardice and physical or social weakness were the central characteristics of unmanliness. In the Viking Sagas, a man’s honour and masculinity seem to be more dependent on courage and strength than on sexual exploits and potency. Moving on to the 17th century, we find that lewdness and sexual excesses were repeated markers of unmanliness, in a clear contrast with perceptions of normative masculinity in the Mediterranean region.
Liliequist’s study into the connotations of the concept of unmanliness in various contexts thus points to essential differences in the notions of manliness and construction of gender in various cultural contexts.
Other Nordic researchers within the field of men and masculinity have, partly based on the work of Mosse and Liliequist, also underlined the relevance of the concept of unmanliness. For example, in his thesis on middle-class masculinities in 19th century Sweden, David Tjeder points out that focusing on countertypes brings the history of unmanliness to the foreground of his study (Tjeder 2003). Like Mosse, Tjeder finds that various kinds of male ideals are defined as opposites, countertypes that appear as shifting versions of unmanliness. However, the construction of countertypes proves to be increasingly complex.
Unmanliness within the middle-class man
Firstly, Tjeder distinguishes a larger number of different male ideals in his material than the single masculine stereotype that Mosse explores. Thus, the number of countertypes is also larger and more varied than those in Mosse’s work. Secondly, Tjeder thinks that the concept of the countertype was not only used to strengthen a certain male ideal by pointing out other distinct groups as subordinate and unmanly. The threat of unmanliness also lurked within the individual middle-class man himself, either by him not managing to emerge from the unstable identity of the youngster phase and reach male maturity, or by later losing this maturity and becoming unmanly. This could happen, for example, by the man becoming addicted to alcohol or gambling, or through a promiscuous lifestyle. The threat of unmanliness lay, so to say, constantly in wait within the middle-class man; a threat that was all the larger since many men had quite an ambivalent attitude to the dominant ideals.
Even if these men in principle mainly embraced the same ideals, they could still also consider a condemned behaviour, such as heavy drinking, as manly. In practice, it was to no effect that moralists and others that moulded public opinion argued for the culpability and innate unmanliness of drinking, as men themselves thought that a real man both could and should drink alcohol!
The significance of age categories
One further aspect that emphasizes the complexity of the cultural notions of masculinity within the bourgeois middle-class is the significance of age categories. Those who wrote about masculinity in the 19th century paid particular attention to the youth stage. During these formative years, youngsters were regarded as being particularly inclined to being seduced by dangerous passions, such as abuse of alcohol and uncontrolled emotions. Therefore, every effort should be made to compel the young men to avoid such errors and instead control themselves in order to be able to develop stable male characters. At the same time, there was a kind of double account in relation to male youth. It was quite usual to tolerate young men drinking, gambling, swearing, fighting and running riot – behaviour that was not accepted in adult men. The middle-class male ideal comprised a notion of strong emotional control and respectability, but many thought that this was something that could be attained only after the passions had been given a free run during the years of youth. Men thus needed to run wild, at least to some degree, in their youth before the desired male character could be formed.
Ethnologist Ella Johansson has earlier revealed similar patterns in traditional Nordic peasant culture (Johansson 1996). Youngsters had a masculinity that was based on bodily attributes such as physical strength and spectacular dressing styles. This also includes a great deal of fighting and drinking bouts, ready wit, challenges and breaches of various taboos in peasant society. Totally different criteria pertained to the masculinity of married men in peasant society. As master of his own household, the focus was on a man’s ability to take responsibility, provide for his family and take care of all everyday practical problems. Attributes expected of an autonomous house-owner was respectability, quietness and ability to negotiate.
Losing one’s grip and becoming unmanly
Access and relation to power has evidently varied considerably between different groups of men. The strong hierarchy existing
between various types of masculinity has often left many men more or less powerless in relation to numerically smaller groups
of more powerful and wealthier men. However, it also seems that for many men, modern constructions of masculinity as such
have created complex relations to their own male identity, as well as to power and authority. For the same reasons, the various
social relations in which men participate have become more complicated. The strong emphasis on masculinity being something
that must be attained, something that must be performed and continually accounted for, often in direct competition with rivalling
masculinities, seems to have burdened modern masculinities with an inherent ontological insecurity. The fear of falling, of
losing one’s grip and becoming unmanly is a constantly shadowing threat for men both as individuals and as a group. An openly
proclaimed superiority seems to have in no way made masculinity less vulnerable in this sense; the case is rather to the contrary.
The notions of manly/unmanly therefore seem to be intricately linked.
Making a conscious use of the concept of unmanliness can thus perhaps shed new light on various cultural constructions of
masculinity. It is a historical fact that views on unmanliness have, at least since Antiquity, been ubiquitous and of strategic
importance in public discussions on masculinity (Liliequist unpublished 1999, Svahn 1999).
A driving force for male objectives
Above all, a focus on the concept of unmanliness allows for a deeper understanding of the emotional and personal costs that specific male ideals can cause individuals or groups of men. A man can never be sure of his masculinity, but must constantly prove his gendered value in order to be affirmed, both as a human being and a man by the surrounding world. The fear of being demasculinised and thus regarded as unworthy of the label “real man” is something that is implanted in men from an early age. 1 The stronger the emphasis on the importance of men being truly “masculine”, the stronger is also the fear of being seen as effeminate, a small boy or soft and feeble. The fear of falling into unmanliness is thus present as a constantly accompanying shadow and as a hidden driving force underlying men’s objective of upholding their male identity, at least in those dominant masculinities which have been created by modernity.
Seeing and exploring these circumstances does not necessarily mean disregarding or ignoring those dimensions of power characterizing the relations between the sexes within a certain gender order. On the contrary, this creates an opportunity to analyse the important but complex connection between, on the one hand, male aspiration for and exercise of power as an individual and structural phenomenon and, on the other, those patterns of socializing and disciplining that form the basis of such dispositions, as well as the personal consequences and existential costs that such processes cause many men. Thus, the concept of unmanliness opens for a more concrete phenomenological and processual understanding of masculinity than the Connellian paradigm now dominating research.
1. The significance of the fear of being de-masculinised is one of the main themes explored in literature researcher Jørgen Lorentzen’s thesis Manlighetens muligheter (Oslo, 1998) and has later also been discussed by historian Anders Ottosson in ”Avmaskulinisering. Ett alternativ till omkodning av kön?”, Kvinnovetenskaplig tidskrift, 1-2 2004. The concept is closely related to that of unmanliness, as in my own discussion of men’s fear of falling, that is, of losing control, see Ekenstam et al. Rädd att falla: Studier i manlighet (Hedemora, 1998).
Kilder:
Connell, R.W (1999): Maskuliniteter, orig. 1996 Masculinities (Göteborg).
Ekenstam, Claes et al, (1998): Rädd att falla: Studier i manlighet (Hedemora).
Faludi, Susan (1999): Stiffed:The Betrayal of the Modern Man (London).
Holter, Øystein G (1998), Han, hon, den, det – om genus och kön. In Bengt Westerberg (ed.) Mansforskningen 197097 (Stockholm).
Johansson, Ella (1996): Fräcka ynglingar och rejäla karlar: historiska maskuliniteter och moderna mansidentiteter, Nordnytt
no 63.
Kaufman, Michael (1994): “Men, Feminism, and Men´s Contradictionary Experience of Power”. In Harry Brod & Michael Kaufman
(eds.) Theorizing Masculinities (Thousand Oaks).
Kimmel, Michel (1996): Manhood in America (New York).
Liliequist, Jonas (1999): “Från niding till sprätt: En studie i det svenska omanlighetsbegreppets historia från vikingatid
till sent 1700-tal”. In Ann-Marie Berggren (ed.) Manligt och omanligt i ett historiskt perspektiv. Forskningsrådsnämnden,
Rapport 99:4 (Stockholm).
Liliequist, Jonas (2003): Omanlighet som retorisk strategi. Ett sätt att analysera manlighet och makt med utgångspunkt från
1600- och 1700-talets svenska samhälle. Unpublished conference paper 2003.
Liliequist, Jonas: “Omanlighetsstereotyper i 1800-talets Sverige (Norden)”, unpublished draft/chapter for the anthology Män
och modernitet (to be published 2006).
Lorentzen, Jørgen (1998): Mannlighetens muligheter (Oslo).
Mosse, George L (1996):The Image of Man:The Creation of Modern Masculinity (New York).
Ottosson, Anders (2004): “Avmaskulinisering. Ett alternativ till omkodning av kön?”, Kvinnovetenskaplig tidskrift, 1-2 2004.
Svahn, Margareta (1999): Den liderliga kvinnan och den omanliga mannen: Skällsord, stereotyper och könskonstruktioner (Stockhom).
Seidler, Victor (1994): Unreasonable Men: Masculinity and Social Theory (London).
Seidler, Victor (1997): Man Enough: Embodying Masculinities (London).
Tjeder, David (2003):The Power of Character: Middle-class Masculinities, 1800-1900 (Stockholm).
