Recent Critical Theoretical Approaches To The Study Of Masculinity Tend

Masculinity is a socially constructed perception about the set of attributes, activities, psychology and behaviour of men. Several theories and approaches have been constructed in order to describe the actual behaviour and psychology of masculinity. There are two famous approaches of masculinity such as Traditional Viewpoint of masculinity and Toxic Masculinity. Although the socially constructed concept of masculinity describes men with harsh approaches, strong beliefs, fearless attitude and anti-depression mentality, there are some theories that describe the emotional aspects of masculinity such as depression, fear, anxiety and loneliness. In this essay, relevant theories would be discussed in terms of describing how masculinity is associated with emotional aspects such as depression, fear, and anxiety.

As stated by Mary Leapor (2012), social perception about masculinity is based on the fact that men would be strong and highly dominating who would never be flowed into emotion. American Psychological Association focuses on the fact that there are two potential approaches to masculinity, such as Traditional masculinity and Toxic masculinity. Based on the psychological article on masculinity published by the American Psychological Association, the Traditional approach is associated with negative outcomes of masculinity such as anti-feminism, adventure, risk-taking approach, dominance, violence and harsh approaches. On the contrary, Crowley and Sandhoff (2017) argued that the traditional views of the masculinity are not mostly associated with describing the negative outcomes of masculinity, but also it highlights wrong prejudices that are constructed socially in order to describe only the negative side of men behaviour. In this aspect, the article ‘psychology of Men & masculinity’ published by the American Psychological Association stated that Toxic Viewpoint of masculinity highlights the positive and emotional side of men behaviour and psychology. As stated by Mary Astell (2012), these approaches represent the men can also be emotional, fearful, depressed and anxious like women. The Toxic Viewpoint of masculinity represents that masculinity is not confined to only the social sets of perception, but it is also affected by the situation of social interaction and health-related aspects. The viewpoint appointed out the emotional aspects that are also associated with masculinity like feminism, such as tear, feelings, emotions, depression, loneliness and suicidal approaches.

In this aspect, Mary Leapor (2012) mentioned that Toxic Viewpoint of masculinity is argued by the Hegemonic Masculinity. Hegemonic Masculinity approach is based on the power relation in sociality in order to analyse the male dominance over the women. There are two important theories associated with the Hegemonic concept such as Marxist hegemony and Cultural Hegemony. The two theoretical concepts depict the dominant and leading position of men in society. On the contrary, Mary Astell (2012) argued that there are different theories and concept which considers that the Hegemonic concept of the masculinity is based on fixed sets of men behaviour. Based on many sociologists, Hegemonic viewpoint is only associated with describing the socially constructed perception of the male behaviour and attitude, however, it is unable to discuss the effect different social, demographic, political and health-related issues on the behaviour, feelings and activities of male. Toxic masculinity has discussed that male characteristics are not fixed set of activities rather it changes with the ever-changing society, political approaches, and emotional aspects and health of the male. For example, male residing in the ethnic community in the UK is reported to be highly prevalent towards the anxiety, depression, suicidal approaches had psychological issues (Mary Leapor, 2012). Moreover, the recent studies also state that the aboriginal community residing in the UK face a high rate of male depression, fear, loneliness and health issues. Therefore, masculinity is not only confined to the fixed set of social perception that highlights the fact that male always has strong and fearless approaches as compared to women, rather it is dependent on surrounding consequences that effect on behaviour and activities of men.

Connel’s Theory of masculinity highlights the new concept of masculinity. According to Mary Leapor (2012), this theory depicts that, the masculinity is not equivalent to men; rather it is concerned with the position and designation of the male in the society. Based on this approach, recent sociologists suggest that masculinity is associated with the position or social class of men in the community and how men can interact with the class or designation in terms of meeting their basic needs (Mary Leapor, 2012). The case study of men residing in the rural and remote areas of a developed country such as the UK shows that majority of these men who are from the remote areas, are without any social power, respect and facilities in their community. This is the reason behind high rates of health issues and suicidal attempts by men in these rural communities. By applying this approach, the recent psychologists have made through researches on comparative behaviour of the men residing in different communities in the developing and developed countries. Recent studies have shown that men reside in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in Australia, are more poor, mentally sick, depressed, and anxious and with negative thoughts as compared to the men residing in an urban community in the UK.

On the contrary, Pozzebon et al. (2015) argued that, Connell’s Theory of masculinity although is able to represent the completely unique concept of masculinity which is different and from the social and traditional viewpoint about male behaviour and characteristics, it is unable to depict the aspects or factors that are associated with this difference (Mary Leapor, 2012). Different sociological studies have shown that different important factors such as social, political, demographic, health-related and emotional factors are associated with setting the behaviour, attributes and approaches of men. For example, the male who resides in the poorest and ethnic community in the UK are reported to suffer from depression, loneliness, depression, lack of self-confidence and mental strength. As compared to the men in the community, females in the urban and developed areas are more dominant, strong, confident and fearless. According to Roberts et al. (2014), Toxic masculinity can be applied in the real and practical example of masculinity in order to depict the drawbacks of socially constructed perception of masculinity. Moreover, Connell’s Theory of masculinity has provided strong support to the Toxic masculinity in order to highlight the different emotional characteristics that are associated with the men in society (Mary Astell, 2012).

Beecher-Stowe’ Theory highlights the masculine subordination, in which it has been a how the situation and current social status pose an impact on their behaviour, approaches and feelings. As stated by Tolman et al. (2016), men who reside in a community which suffers from unemployment, social isolation and social as well as financial inequality. In this community, masculinity represents the poor decision-making ability, anxiousness, fear and depression on men. This theory highlights the opposite viewpoint of Traditional masculinity and hegemonic masculinity. On the other hand, this theory supports the viewpoint of toxic masculinity which highlights the emotional side of men apart from there harsh and dominant approaches. According to Mary Leapor (2012), recent sociologist prefers the subordinate masculinity in terms of describing different approaches and behaviour of men in society. For example, Beecher-Stowe’ Theory assist sociologist to highlight the socio-economic, demographic and political factors that have a strong association with the setting of behaviour and approaches of men in society. For example, as compared to the men residing in urban areas in the UK, the men residing in the ethnic community have the characteristics of depression, lack of self-confidence and poor decision-making ability, this is because of their poor access to the healthcare facilities, unemployment, lack of education, poor social support and lack of social respect. In this aspect, the traditional viewpoint of masculinity cannot be applied to describe these kinds of behaviour and sets of attributes of men in society (Mary Astell, 2012). On the other hand, Beecher-Stowe’ Theory also counteracts the concept of Hegemonic theory of masculinity by representing the fact that men can have the characteristics which are considered by the society as feminism characteristics, such as fear, loneliness, lack of social power, poor self-confidence and depression.

On the contrary, Fieldset al. (2015) argued that Traditional masculinity has practical evidence which shows that men have a strong and dominant approach which assist them to make a leading position in the society. Moreover, the author also stated that the concept of the anxiety, depression and fear in case of men, is temporary behaviour or approaches that change over time. Therefore, these behaviours cannot be considered as the fixed sets of approaches of masculinity (Mary Astell, 2012).

Connell's theory represents the association between the masculinity and marginalisation in the community. Based on this approach Crowley and Sandhoff (2017) stated that there is a strong relationship between masculinity in subordinate classes and dominant classes. As compared to the masculinity in dominant classes the masculinity in subordinated classes is more likely to be prevalent towards fear, depression, and lack of dominance, polite approaches and poor decision-making ability (Mary Leapor, 2012). Recent studies have described the reason behind this difference, by highlighting the social, economic and demographic aspects that cause the permanent changes in the behaviour and approaches of men. In the sociality men who reside in the subordinate community are mire prevent towards unemployment, lack of social support, social isolation, marginalisation and lack of government support. This is the reason behind the high rate of male mortality and morbidity in poor and subordinate community. On the other hand, men reside in the dominant community are provided with proper social, governmental and demographic facilities which assist them to develop strong psychology and behavioural approaches.

In this aspect, another important approach that supports the Connell's theory is Marginalized masculinity approach, this approach highlights the roles, activities, behaviour and thoughts of black men in developed countries such as in the UK. Based on thus approaches Mary Astell (2012) mentioned that socially constructed or traditional approaches on masculinity cannot definite psychology, behaviour and roles of black men in society. On the other hand, Toxic masculinity and Connell’s theory are able to highlight that how different emotional and sociological distresses such as anxiety, fear and mental instability are associated with masculinity in society. As stated by Mustafaand Lines (2014) black men are considered as the marginalised individual in the society, who have zero dominance over the female. On the other hand, Pozzebon et al. (2015) depicted that, in most of the African cities, females are seen to be dominant over women, as they are associated with different occupation such as fishing, tree cutting and managing the homemaking activities. In this aspect, the traditional viewpoint of masculinity such as strong, dominant, highly arrogant and harsh cannot be appropriate to describe the general characteristics and behaviour of black men (Mary Leapor, 2012). On thecontraryRobertset al. (2014)argued that, although in developing countries, black men suffer from fear, lack of decisions and self-confidence, in their own community they are able to maintain strong dominance over the other female members of community,, moreover, based on the hegemonic masculinity approach, it can be stated that masculinity can be expressed as per social and economic situation. Basedonthisconcept it can be stated that masculinity in the community of black men is different from the masculinity of these black men residing in the other community. For example, majority of the black men residing in town and urban areas of the UK and USA have proper educational, employment and social facilities which make them able to achieve the good professional designation in near future. On the other hand, the African men residing in the poor villages and rural areas of the UK suffers from unemployment and lack of social and educational support which make them highly prevalent to psychological distresses such as self-confidence, poor problem-solving skill, fear, anxiety, depression, lone lineless and suicidal attitude.

From the above-mentioned discussion, it can be concluded that there are different approaches on describing behaviour, behavioural attributes and activities of men, Masculinity is associated with the socially constructed perception about acuities, behaviour, roles of men in society. On contrary to the traditional masculinity concept, the Toxic masculinity is based on the fact that masculinity not associated with men, rather it is concerned with social class and designation of men in the community. Based on the Connell’s theory it can be stated that, although traditional masculinity theory defines men as harsh, arrogant, dominant, strong and emotion-less persons in society, it is unable to define the contradiction of these characteristics in different men community. Based on the toxic masculinity and Connell’s theory, it can be stated that social, economic and demographic advantages impact on setting eh behaviour, activities and characteristics of men in a different community. Men residing in the poor and rural community have common characteristics of fear, loneliness, depression and anxiety. On the other hand, in the urban society in which men get proper advantages, they are highly strong and dominant over females. Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be stated that masculinity is associated with fear, anxiety and depression rather than harsh approach and dominance due to negative social, demographic and economic outcomes.

Reference list:

• Busch, M., Mattheiss, E., Reisinger, M., Orji, R., Fröhlich, P. and Tscheligi, M., 2016, April. More than sex: The role of femininity and masculinity in the design of personalized persuasive games. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 219-229). Springer, Cham.
• Crowley, K. and Sandhoff, M., 2017. Just a Girl in the Army: US Iraq War Veterans Negotiating Femininity in a Culture of Masculinity. Armed Forces & Society, 43(2), pp.221-237.
• Fields, E.L., Bogart, L.M., Smith, K.C., Malebranche, D.J., Ellen, J. and Schuster, M.A., 2015. “I always felt I had to prove my manhood”: Homosexuality, masculinity, gender role strain, and HIV risk among young Black men who have sex with men. American journal of public health, 105(1), pp.122-131.
• Hechavarria, D.M., Hechavarria, D.M., Ingram, A.E. and Ingram, A.E., 2016. The entrepreneurial gender divide: Hegemonic masculinity, emphasized femininity and organizational forms. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 8(3), pp.242-281.
• Hunt, Christopher John, Fabio Fasoli, Andrea Carnaghi, and Mara Cadinu. "Masculine self-presentation and distancing from femininity in gay men: An experimental examination of the role of masculinity threat." Psychology of Men & Masculinity 17, no. 1 (2016): 108.
• Mary Astell, from Some Reflections on Marriage (2012, vol C: 2420-24; or 2018, vol C: 249-52);
• Mary Leapor, ‘An Essay on Woman’, ‘An Epistle to a Lady’ (2012, vol C: 2783-87; 2018, vol C: 653-57)
• Mustafa, G. and Lines, R., 2014. Influence of leadership on job satisfaction: The moderating effects of follower individual‐level masculinity–femininity values. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4), pp.23-39.
• Pozzebon, J.A., Visser, B.A. and Bogaert, A.F., 2015. Vocational interests, personality, and sociosexuality as indicators of a general masculinity/femininity factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, pp.291-296.
• Roberts, A.L., Rosario, M., Calzo, J.P., Corliss, H.L., Frazier, L. and Austin, S.B., 2014. Masculine boys, feminine girls, and cancer risk behaviours: An 11-year longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), pp.373-379.
• Simon, R.M., Wagner, A. and Killion, B., 2017. Gender and choosing a STEM major in college: Femininity, masculinity, chilly climate, and occupational values. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(3), pp.299-323.
• Tolman, D.L., Davis, B.R. and Bowman, C.P., 2016. “That’s Just How It Is” A Gendered Analysis of Masculinity and Femininity Ideologies in Adolescent Girls’ and Boys’ Heterosexual Relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(1), pp.3-31.