Intersectional Approach to Hegemonic Masculinity and Internal Hegemony
Introduction
The study uses an intersectional framework to investigate social categories intersecting with hegemonic masculinities and internal hegemony in South Africa.
South Africa's history of racial hierarchy during Apartheid and subsequent encouragement to amalgamate differences in masculinities provides a relevant context.
External vs. Internal Hegemony
External hegemony perpetuates inequality by institutionalizing male dominance over women.
Internal hegemony refers to power relations between different masculinities, creating a hierarchy among men.
Exploring internal hegemony reveals complexity and contradiction between different hegemonic masculinities.
Research Focus
The research focuses on intersectionality to uncover social categories forming hegemonic masculinities in South Africa.
It explores internal hegemony to identify social categories contributing to hegemonic masculinities.
The aim is to generate knowledge to challenge internal hegemony and curb general hegemonic attributes.
Hegemonic Masculinities
Hegemonic masculinity is a transcultural concept embodying the accepted answer to the legitimacy of patriarchy.
It guarantees men's dominant position and the subordination of women and other groups of men.
Dimensions of Hegemony
External hegemony: Male dominance over women through culture, institutions, and persuasion.
Internal hegemony: Hierarchical classification of masculinities between men.
Other Masculinities
Complicit: Men who benefit from the patriarchal dividend without actively representing a hegemonic position.
Subordinated.
Marginalized.
Social Identities
Formed through in-grouping and othering processes.
In South Africa, historically decisive social identities include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, and birth.
Intersectionality
Recognizes the complexity of co-existing social groups and their contribution to identity.
People are often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression based on different social groups.
People experience and perform/live within multiple, intersecting, and concurrent positions of privileges and oppressions.
Masculinities in the South African Context
Dominating masculinities exhibit direct control through physical force.
Dominant masculinities emphasize their concept of masculinity as the norm, marginalizing alternative masculinities.
Historical Context
During colonization, dominating masculinities involving brute oppression prevailed.
Post-colonial, dominant colonial masculinities persisted, destabilizing indigenous masculinities.
South Africa's colonization involved multiple European nationalities and the introduction of diverse races, religions, and ethnicities, leading to its popularization as the 'rainbow nation'.
Apartheid enhanced the lingering effect of colonization.
Current Agency
South African men generally have the agency to define themselves and their roles through hegemonic masculinities.
Research focuses on multiple racial identities and masculinities, challenging views of both Black and White masculinities.
Hegemonic sense-making is diverse, complex, and contradictory, suggesting multiple hegemonic forms.
An intersectional framework assists in developing a nuanced understanding of hegemonic masculinities in colonized nations, particularly in South Africa.
Internal Hegemony Between South African Men
The end of colonial occupancy did not lead to democracy but to Apartheid.
The Afrikaner nationalist government popularized new concepts of masculinity, shifting power dynamics among White colonizers.
The Apartheid government favored certain Black men's ethnicities, creating more layers of hierarchy.
Despite democracy after 1994, privilege continues based on skin color, with Whites having the greatest social- and economic privileges.
Land reform, affirmative action, and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment are attempts to correct this legacy.
Study Challenges
Challenges the notion that no one identity is held at higher importance than another.
Reveals the prominence of some social identity categories for their intersection with hegemonic masculinities and internal hegemony.
Methodology
An interpretivist paradigm was used, based on the belief that reality is multi-layered and accepts the complexity of phenomena.
The study aims to understand phenomena from the subjective experiences of individuals.
An implicit thematic analysis was used with self-report data to understand the intersectionality of social categories with masculinities.
The analysis was conducted using themes to overcome the shortcomings of arranging data based on counts of phrases or words used.
Implicit thematic analysis avoids explicit meanings, and data are arranged based on implied or inferred themes for coding.
Interviews were unstructured, with minimal directed inquiry, aimed at identifying social categories that functioned as stressors.
Participants
Participants voluntarily took part in a weekend training program with a masculinity 'community of practice'.
Interviews were conducted before and after the program to match perspectives on masculinity and verify consensus.
A non-South African interviewer was considered ideal to encourage participants to educate the interviewer and ensure a lack of bias.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical concerns were addressed by informing participants of the nature of the research and assuring voluntary participation.
The right to privacy and confidentiality were assured, and informed consent was obtained.
Sampling
South Africa was chosen due to its diversity and history of forced segregation.
Men were encouraged to amalgamate after democracy, highlighting differences in masculinities.
The pilot study faced difficulties in data gathering due to participants' inability to address the subject matter.
Participants were sought from the 'community of practice', focusing on shared learning, meanings, and social relationships.
Diversity of social categories was difficult to achieve due to segregation in South Africa.
Mankind Project International (MKPI) South Africa was chosen for its social and cultural diversity and focus on masculinity, leadership, and multiculturalism.
South Africa is known as the Rainbow nation due to its immense diversity.
Data Analysis
Interviews were conducted in English, transcribed verbatim, and open coded to capture the essence of participants' statements.
Data were categorized and structured thematically using axial coding to group common themes.
Categories and themes were tabulated based on analytical interpretation, and the most commonly agreed categories and themes were selected for discussion.
Results
There was consensus regarding prevalent hegemonic masculinities in South Africa.
External hegemony was recognized to be inherently linked to internal hegemony.
Marital status and number of children reflect power over women and leadership of the household respectively, thus are viewed as evidences of external hegemony.
An absence of explicit external hegemony by any man, including non-heterosexuality, has an amplified impact on internal hegemony. Participants elaborated on the reasons for hiding his sexuality to not be seen as effeminate or rendering him less of a man; thus presenting evidence of heteronormative sexuality and internal hegemony.
Several social categories such as sexuality, marital status, number of wives, and number of children influence internal hegemony by signals of external hegemony to other men.
Several social categories emerged to directly influence internal hegemony. The participant explicitly links disability with masculinity, where being disabled leads to a lower rank in internal hegemony as it reduces the ability to conform to the generalized notions of masculinity in the South African context.
Age is referred to as a ranking order in families and communities. Consequently, those social categories that intersect with hegemonic masculinities directly through internal hegemony, emerged to have a hierarchy of prominence, as exhibited in the cases of disability and age.
Preliminary analysis revealed race to be an important social category contributing to hegemonic masculinities.
While discussing the masculine characteristics of fellow South African men, participants declared different types of South African men:
Afrikaans South African man
Coloured South African man
Black South African man
Muslim
Confusion arises due to the description of cultures based on racial profiling in South Africa.
Race continues to have political, social, and economic currency in South Africa, participants agreed that race did not affect their understanding of masculinity, but the respective cultures of men did.
Our research participants were unanimous in their opinion that hegemonic masculinities were founded on the culture.
Participants stated that no human being has control or power over another human being.
Masculinity and Culture
When questioned regarding the characteristics of fellow South African men, our participants denied the existence of a uniform idea of a South African man.
The most emphasized aspects shared by the participants are discussed:
Rites of passage
Role of elders
Male companionship
Rites of Passage
Several cultures are accustomed to initiation ceremonies to mark the end of youth and progression to adulthood.
The concept of ‘indoda’, from Xhosa and Zulu languages, refers to a man who has been initiated into manhood, especially one who has undergone the crucial ritual circumcision in a ceremony known as ‘ulwaluko’.
‘Inkwenkwe’ (meaning boys or uncircumcised men) and medically circumcised men embody ‘subordinate’ forms of masculinity and are victims of stigma and discrimination. Thus, ‘ulwaluko’ represents an important element in indigenous cultures that is prominent to internal hegemony.
Participants unanimously agreed that male rites of passage are needed by modern-day boys and men. Those who did not undergo ‘ulwaluko’ shared their perception of the ceremony as remained untainted and idealized.
Role of Elders
The role of elders in hosting ‘ulwaluko’ is evident, but guidance from elders is not limited to the ceremony itself.
The role of elders is expected from men throughout their time spent in the community. Leadership must be displayed by ordinary people in the community, not just political figures.
The youth no longer elevated the elders to their traditional level of rank, to enable them to transfer knowledge to the youth.
Thereafter, when the youth attempt to take on the role of elders, the knowledge is unavailable to them and they do not have the time to spend with other youth, due to the pressures of modern society; thus, breaking this vital cycle of knowledge transfer through storytelling.
The conflict between tradition and modernity contributes to the ambiguity of South African masculinities, in addition to the growing prevalence of children-headed households (with no parents present, and particularly fathers or grandfathers absent) due to the scourge of HIV/AIDS
Kids don’t listen to their dads anymore.
Male Companionship
Guidance need not necessarily be from a specific elder but can be generated through male group conversations.
Male companionship or groups are possible substitutes where an ‘elder figure’ is not available.
Groups can be of use in creating connections with other men, which could help one feel supported and less isolated.
Hegemonic masculinity dictates the importance of this relationship.
Men today don’t take time to sit down with a buddy
Discussion
Intersectionality and hegemonic masculinity
Research findings on Intersectionality and hegemonic masculinity
Social categories that prominently contribute to hegemonic masculinity include ethnic or social origin and culture.
Due to colonization and Apartheid, the prominence of race as a social category is evident in South African life in general.
Several aspects make it difficult to assess the true intersection of race with masculinity:
Vast variations between hegemonic masculinities between the races exist
Interchangeable use of racial categories for ethnic and social origin, and culture, make it challenging to assess the true degree of prominence of race to hegemonic masculinity, due to continued references to racial categories in the language of the participants.
Racial divisions inhibit perceptions of the participants to view another racial group as a collection of different cultures or ethnicities.
Interdependence entails that being able to financially and socially support other family and extended family members are seen as markers of manhood for Coloured, Black, and Asian men, and not being able to do so, renders the male as selfish and childish in their eyes.
Our analyses were founded on the principle that men subscribe to those masculinities that allow them to benefit from the privileges associated with adherence to the culturally dominant expectations.
The basis of this determines the social category prominent in their definition of masculinities.
Since communities continue to be segregated by physical separation based on race, as a legacy of Apartheid, the inter-racial cultural exchange continues to be limited.
While race provides observable significant differences between hegemonic masculinities, the hegemonic masculinities are grounded in each cultural group within the race and are reinforced through the community environment, to develop into unique hegemonic masculinity associated with the cultural group.
As such, racial differences play a broader role in dictating the perceptions of other men through social and cultural judgements associated with racial differences; however, race is profoundly less contributory for men in defining their own masculinity, as cultural and ethnic identities more dominantly intersect with masculinity to form men’s identities.
Intersectionality and internal hegemony
Despite multiple hegemonic masculinities, there is evidence and consensus on the prevalence of generalized external hegemony in South Africa.
External hegemony is inherently linked to internal hegemony.
Power, leadership over- and oppression of women all influence the hierarchal positions, and rank of men amongst each other.
Sexuality, marital status, number of wives or girlfriends, and the number of children is evidence of external hegemony, the absence of which has an amplified effect on internal hegemony.
Participants acknowledge decisive direct influences on internal hegemony based on social categories of disability, race, ethnicity or social origin, culture, and age.
In general national context of South Africa, many observable impairments are regarded as un-masculine as these are seen to lead to an inability to fulfill masculine roles, and accorded labels of asexuality, dependence, and an inability to protect the family.
Rank based on age is founded on respect for elders and different roles assigned to men based on their age. As such, age presents an important social category within different ethnic origins and cultures for internal hegemony.
Regarding race, the disarmament of warriors during the colonial conquests and Apartheid effectively stripped African men of many of the most prominent roles that were associated with manhood, making indigenous Black African men subservient to Caucasians.
Regarding race, while race was questionable as the fundamental contributor of social identity for defining hegemonic masculinity, it remains a prominent factor for internal hegemony.
Observable differences in race require the use of traditionally recognized biological senses from a distance while understanding differences in cultures requires knowledge of differences in socialization between people.
Attributes from Culture contribute to internal hegemony: The Xhosa right of passage (‘ulwaluko’) to be transformed into a man (‘indoda’) assigns rank based on having participated in an initiation ceremony. Additionally, surgically circumcised men rank lower than those initiated, thus generating a clear internal hegemony based on cultural values.
Race is decisive in internal hegemony, which requires comparing one’s masculinity with those of others.
In addition to our participants expressing that their respective cultural norms are key for them to regard themselves as men, they also showed respect and, in most cases, a clear admiration for other cultures regarding a contrary view of masculinity from that of their own culture.
Intercultural knowledge and contact emerged as having an egalitarian potential that dilutes internal hegemony between men, by providing deep insights into ‘another way of being a man’.
Messerschmidt’s (2012) term of ‘equality masculinities’ can find leverage in promoting deeper cultural understanding of different masculinities, so that they do not contribute to internal hegemony