Masculinity at the Intersection: Exploring the Dynamics of Class and Race in Gender Performance

How does the performance of masculinity vary across class and race?

Class and race are an important element of masculinity because of the debates around which gender belongs to the upper social class and the race that is more masculine or superior than the other. Also, women have suffered because of patriarchy, while even working-class men of colour suffer from discrimination as compared to white people because they belong to ethnic minority groups. In this work, how performance of masculinity vary across class and race will be critically evaluated. Part of the analysis will involve looking into the main holders of class power in the society, that is, the highest cultural organizational, educational, economic and political levels. Additionally, the work will elaborate on the difference in performance of masculinity based on what many refer to as whiteness and blackness (race).

Research by Ruxton and van der Gaag (2013: 16) shows that men possess a large fraction of class power and as a result, they will be disproportionately situated in the top levels of economic, political, cultural organisations and educational positions. Furthermore, the research indicate that men are centrally placed in numerous class practices, either as collective or individual actors. Many key class theorists are also men, and it is appropriate to believe that their positions in gender hierarchies is also crucial in shaping and determining their views in the class systems. According to Ruxton and van der Gaag (2013: 16), almost all discourse of social science demonstrate that the idea of class is linked to the concept of masculinity. Furthermore, class practices, even though are open to difference or variation, in most cases portray these discourses. The researcher claims that class is definitely gendered where mean have been assigned the duty of acting as class agents.

First, research by Billman (2006: 5) elaborates that there is a strong link between masculinities, occupation and property. This individual says that with regard to property, historically, there has been a robust identification between the ownership of large and different forms of property, family and their name, inheritance and men. Additionally, concerning occupation, the research shows many if not all occupational titles, are linked to robust masculine connotations. For example, occupational titles like “a policeman” are gendered explicitly. There is also popular speech which still say that ‘send for man repair our broken sink’ and so forth. Furthermore, research by Billman (2006: 5) implies that some titles have a strong symbolic and historical association with special or prized masculine features or characteristics like group solidarity and physical strength, for instance, in steel working and coal mining. Additionally, even occupation that are less physical such as clerical work and bank clerks were initially linked to respectable male until they were feminised. This argument is true for numerous professions whose occupational boundaries were usually defended fiercely against being ventured by women by professional associations and trade unions. Therefore, the occupational boundaries and occupational titles were strongly policed by the activities or practices of the male gender making occupation to become an important indicator of class within the social structure. Consequently, Billman’s assertions as discussed above further imply that the relationship between masculinity, class, and property were usually assigned legal underpinnings. Therefore, male occupations and property became significantly dominant as compared to women’s property and occupations.

There are also other distinctions which reinforced or emphasised the masculinity of class including the private and the public distinctions. According to Slutskaya et al. (2016: 3), the terrain of class struggle and class is conventionally situated in the sphere of the public and that of employment, in which the distribution of property politics, property and wealth are more visible. The public was apparently also more male dominated as this gender largely engaged in political action, class and employment as compared to females. These individuals say that women were seen mostly as the “behind the-scenes” or backstage employees in the fight for class, where their class only represented or reflected the positions of their husbands in the society. In some instances, they offered obvious but significant support, only considered as support, which is secondary to the main activities or practice. According to Slutskaya et al. (2016: 3), it was rare for women to be seen as class actors in the public’s imagination, in their right.

Drawing from the above arguments, Weissman (2007: 434) say that the concept of the family wage and the breadwinner emerges. According to these researchers, households considered the man as the head of a home and he was considered the sole or main provider for his family, the children and the wife. Based on this notion, there were claims regarding ‘the family wage’ though the reality was very complicated in practice. Nonetheless, the idea of males being the main providers has remained persistent in many modern cultures to date, putting more pressure on them to be more successful financially. As a result, they even neglect family life or childcare to find better lives and conform to their gender responsibilities. It is important to also note that, from Weissman (2007: 434), the idea of the man being the provider for his family is an element that has been constructed based on masculine identity and is an economic as well as a moral category. This, in essence, is what has led to the devastating impacts of unemployment in many parts of the world.

Some working-class men even find it difficult and become less secure due to their less-paying jobs and the competition for the best social class. These make it more challenging for the working-class males to find sufficient family time. They even link parental leave to economic loss due to the income inequality they see, something also experienced by working class women. As a result, proletarian men who, due to social pressure, they even engage in domestic violence who see it as a way of dealing with different vulnerabilities and a means of asserting power in their houses. The domestic violence against children and women make up the resurrection of the lost gender identity of men. Research shows that domestic violence is the result of capitalist systems and bears the elements of social forces and political processes (Butler, 2005).

With regard to class, one should also note that the difference between reproduction and production should be considered as being critical in understanding the concept of class masculinity. This enables one to recognise the Marxist role in the analysis of class in relation to production and labour. In this case, the Marxist theory portrays a reproduction which is more metaphorical, only stressing class relationships reproduction instead of gendered relationship. The researchers claim that class led to a unified perspective of masculinity, conflictual and diffused masculinity model.

Men are identified within the sphere of production or the public sphere which comprises areas within the society that action take place. According to Dalley-Trim (2007), most men are the source of income and identify with the role of being providers, where moral responsibility is also implied in a sense. Simultaneously, class practices and experiences also portray different methods of being a man, varying ways of becoming incorporated as social actors. The research shows that the differences can be polarised between “us” and “them” or be embodied in different finer distinctions like between manual and mental, unskilled and skilled or employees in different offices or departments.

The principal component of whiteness includes the ideology of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ where non-white men are not included in this concept and are looked at as lesser men as compared to their privileged white males. According to Ruxton and Van der Gaag (2013: 16), masculinity has been historically constructed as being in charge or responsible for all issues, heterosexual and White Protestant Anglo-Saxon. This definition shows standards which are used to measure or evaluate men. The other definition of masculinity as provided by Ruxton and Van der Gaag (2013) shows that the masculine individuals are the white, married young, heterosexual, white, protestants with college education, those who have good complexion and are fully employed as well as with significant height and weight to take part in sports. This definition is what is known as ‘the hegemonic masculinity’ as it demonstrates a man with power, in power and of power.

On the other hand, the Caucasian individual is considered by research as only a person who can be helped to reach greater heights or their goals, if they possess certain peculiar abilities that can help them achieve those goals they aspire to. Further, these abilities or capabilities are what accord them otherness (Powell et al. 2016: 4 & 8). However, they are considered as people who cannot possess the entire package, particularly those linked to the white heroes. Further, African Americans, historically, have been considered to be hyper-masculine and have also been emasculated. The African Americans have been demonstrated as either being overwhelmingly aggressive sexual invaders, strong or harmless individuals who should not be feared. On the other hand, Asian Americans are depicted to evil minded, sneaky and malicious others who usually threaten to harm innocent white people. They are also considered not to be able to speak fluent English (Powell et al., 2016: 4 & 8).

Therefore, masculine identities which are based on race describe positioning processes which name the manner in which raced men are positioned in relation to their past, which has not only shaped them but also how it will shape their future. The people possess history and the power to transform the history and perform. According to Billman (2006: 16), the power to cause change and the manner that power is undermined or exercised as well as the power choices necessitates and relies on, need the postulation of what is required and the recognition of the future obligations on specific subjects. Consequently, the ideology of masculinity in relation to whiteness has been associated with patriarchy and heterosexuality. This individual says that this concept demonstrates the homogeneous branches of dominance, categorised into economies which have been historically differentiated. The researcher claims that although ideologically whiteness is invisible, it prevents autonomy and uniformity from being accepted or achieved and people remain divided based on, for instance, racial differences as whites are considered more masculine or superior than black people.

Research by Butler (2005: 4) shows denying whiteness cultural autonomy through asserting its particularities is not ignoring its power of autonomy-effects or the ways in which it seems a generality. The individual shows that things like white masculinity or masculinity based on race are specifically constructed historically and the application of masculinity in gender- and race-based criticism rely on its inscription in systematic performance. Therefore, gender and racial identities come out as a dynamic performance, practised and enacted before others. Butler’s research can be interpreted to mean that racial supremacy has been used to resolve self-doubt in white-middle-class male through the appropriation and uneasy fascination of the physicality of black male. The individual says that muscle-contoured bodies and skin colour are expressions or terms of control which also signify colonial hegemony because the root cause of the problem is colonialism and racism. In this line, power comes from the transcending and staging of hierarchies. The white male is considered a hero whose reign is supreme and is above the system under his rule. Therefore, he is considered both superhuman and hypermasculine, a conqueror of non-white men, the primitive and machine technology that are futuristic.

Institutionalised racism also plays a major role because being black makes pose a challenge to many black men who find it difficult to succeed in different career paths because of their class and race. There are also unequal opportunities for different races where black people find it easy to be employed in different positions while black men rarely find well-paying jobs. Most of the black people are also unemployed in countries like the UK and the US.

To conclude, this essay has shown that the benefits or advantages of patriarchy rely on the particular person or man and that the performance of masculinity is affected by the capacity or abilities of the man to conform to hegemonic masculinity. The differences in class has been shown to create pressure on men who then work hard to be successful and doing their gender roles. It can thus be concluded that race is a product of the struggles for class.

References

Butler, J., 2005. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity GT. Political Theory, 4, pp.4-24.

Butler, J., 2006. Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In The RoutledgeFalmer reader in gender & education (pp. 73-83). Routledge.

Dalley-Trim, L., 2007. ‘The boys’ present… Hegemonic masculinity: a performance of multiple acts. Gender and Education, 19(2), pp.199-217.

Powell, W., Adams, L.B., Cole-Lewis, Y., Agyemang, A. and Upton, R.D., 2016. Masculinity and race-related factors as barriers to health help-seeking among African American men. Behavioral Medicine, 42(3), pp.1-13.

Ruxton, S. and van der Gaag, N. (2013). Men's involvement in gender equality – European perspectives. Gender & Development, 21(1), pp.161-175.

Slutskaya, N., Simpson, R., Hughes, J., Simpson, A. and Uygur, S., 2016. Masculinity and class in the context of dirty work. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(2), pp.1-9.

Looking for further insights on life chances of children and how practitioners can address inequalities in their work with children? Click here.