THEORIES OF MASCULINITY AND ITS APPLICATION IN LITERATURE | Quick Homework Help

Introduction
The feminist movement that existed during the 1960s and 70s played an important role in highlighting the inequalities between men and women. In aIDition, the movement also raised public awareness regarding the definition of gender, sex and sexuality. An outcome of this process is that a number of scholars embarked on an exhaustive investigation regarding the definition of these terms and how they were constructed socially (Allwood 102). Despite the fact that a lot of information has been collected relating to the understanding of issues revolving around gender and sex, the realm of the social perspective of these concepts reveals that the meanings of gender, sex and sexuality are subject to change with the changes in the socio-cultural discourse. With the acknowledgement that the meaning of concepts such as gender and sex are subject to change, it is arguably evident that any attempt to explore the meaning of these concepts should be placed in a post modern context that takes into account the socio-cultural realities (Burke 105). This paper uses this as a theoretical basis for discussion of the theories of masculinity and its application to literature. This paper takes into account the evolutionary nature of masculinity theory and a review of its social construction. This makes it possible to expound on the role of the masculinity theory in the present day social context.

The origins of masculinity
According to the western culture, gender stereotypes classify men as being insistent, instrumental and competitive while women are usually considered as passive, submissive and expressive. Early thinking predisposed that the differences in between men and women were intrinsic. According to this viewpoint the measures of masculinity were deployed in the diagnosis of problems associated with gender identification. Current research has refuted this early thinking to assert femininity and masculinity are influenced by socio-cultural conditions. A study by the Anthropologist Margaret Mead aimed at resolving the differences in terms of temperaments that existed among the males and females (Choi 39). In her work Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies concluded that there are no essential differences in terms of traits among the sexes and that the observed differences were not connected with the biological differences among men and women. Instead, they were an outcome of the socio-cultural expectations required of each sex. Mead’s study was influential in transforming the perceptive regarding the nature of masculinity in the sense that the dissimilar gender roles, traits and characteristics were no influenced by biological sex.
An overview of masculinity theory
In explore the concept of masculinity, it is important to have a historical overview of the evolution of the theory of masculinity. An analytical review of literature relating to the development of the theory of masculinity reveals that it has been placed in a wider continuum of sociological research has laid emphasis the concepts of gender and sex. When reviewing some of the most significant highlights of the developmental research in masculinity, Allwood (77) affirms that the sex role theory and the social construction of gender were crucial stages relating to the developmental research on masculinity. From a specific point of Allwood (77) affirms that the sex role theory was deployed by early feminists who had the main objective of seeking for explanations for the differences that existed between men and women. These feminists developed a number of ideas relating to the social construction of gender and the underlying differences between masculinity and femininity. Allwood (78) states that the feminist attempted to explain how individuals learned to act and behave in ways that are gender appropriate through the influences of the family and school. Allwood (79) goes ahead to affirm that the concept of gender served as a INSERTment for the sex role theory. The development of the concept of gender resulted to an extensive analysis of the development of the concept of femininity. In aIDition, the concept of gender served as a framework for having an in depth analysis of masculinity. According to Allwood (93), the main distinction between masculinity and femininity depends on the particular social context that the ideology is being studied. As a result, men have been subsequently constructed and viewed as objects of study who are not gendered and that their gender identity is available in cases that involve power relations among the sexes. With this regard, the perspective of masculinity and the manner of its definition is perceived as entailing more complexities when compared to femininity. In aIDition, Allwood (95) argues that this approach to assessing the male sex role has resulted to the establishment of two predispositions relating to maleness and the behavior of males, which includes the view that the power of masculinity is usually maintained and reproduced.
From Allwood’s viewpoint, it is arguably evident that the development and conceptualization of masculinity is determined by social construction and the understanding of the gender and sex roles. In aIDition, the complexity associated with masculinity is increased by the fact that it entails the differences in terms of power that exists between and men. Therefore, masculinity extends beyond the particular individual behaviors and actions to take into account the power structures that influence the manner in which men relate to women in a socio-cultural context (Edwards 105).
Theories of masculinity
There are number of models that are used in the conceptualization of masculinity, with the most widely consented approach for explaining masculinity being that it comprises of a group of collection of social practices that have been positioned in the larger gendered power. The following are some of the theoretical models that have been used in explaining masculinity (Edwards 102).
Biological masculinity
In relation to the biological masculinity theory, the meanings associated with masculinity are based on the outward expressions that are connected to the biological sex. This implies that gender identity significantly depends on biological sex. Masculinity is therefore perceived as an outcome of genetic evolutionary processes. This approach to masculinity is rare to come across due to the fact that it has been ascertained that masculinity is mostly socially constructed (Zachary 256).
Role theories of masculinity
Sociological and psychological perspectives have challenged the biological significance in influencing human behavior and gender identity. The role theory attempts to resolve the behavioral differences that exist between the different sexes. The predisposition of the role theory of masculinity is that the social expectations regarding the status of an individual serve to conform to a particular role and its associated social functions. The accomplishment of these roles is reinforced using inherent rewards and sanctions aimed at encouraging conformity. There are potential difficulties in cases whereby the specific social roles are not accomplished (Edwards 258). For instance, the society may require that a man play the role of the family breadwinner, this implies that there is a strong relationship between the masculine identities with paid employment in that society. If this view is incorporated into individual self meanings, and then that person becomes unemployed, the outcome will be what Connell (78) refers to as Male Gender Role Strain. This implies that higher levels of internalization of masculinity roles, the greater the amount of the gender role strain in cases whereby the cultural norms of masculinity cannot be accomplished.
The explanation of masculinity using the sex role theory has been subjected to a number of criticisms. The first criticism is that role theory is absolutely homogenizing. Haywood (100) asserts that the sex roles do not have adequate historical perspective; as a result, they do not have an accurate understanding of change. Haywood further notes that individuals are usually perceived as empty vessels during conception, which are then socialized according to specific manners associated with masculinity, which in turn results to men’s homogeneity.
The second critic directed at the sex role theory is that they do not take into consideration the issues associated with power. The emphasis on the differences in the roles contradicts the fine distinctions that are involved in regard to the gender relations that functions within the power systems. The complexities in the dynamics associated with gender identity at the social and individual level usually disappear in the sex-role theory. This is due to the fact that abstract viewpoints relating to the differences serve as a INSERTment for the changing power relations that exist between men and women.
The third criticism associated with the sex-role masculinity theories is that they tend to polarize issues by promoting the sex differences. Haywood (101) notes that the sex-role masculinity theories fail to distinguish the biological sex from gender; as a result, they are a means for creating rigid viewpoints regarding the sex differences. Haywood defines the sex roles being reciprocal implying that polarization is an important element of the sex role theory. This increases the complexities when exploring gender relations especially when they are positioned at opposite ends of a spectrum. Polarization conceals other vital issues such as racial orientation and socio-economic class.
Haywood (105) outlined another criticism of the sex role masculinity theories in the light that they ignore the micro-level structure. The sex role theories lay emphasize on the macro elements of socialization, which in turn reduces the need to take into account core issues associated with structure and agency at the individual level.
Relational models of masculinity
In contrary to the biological and sex role masculinity theories, the relational models of masculinity suggest that men and women are not positioned at opposite ends of the femininity-masculinity spectrum. Connell (105) views gender as sets of relations that exist between men and women. Therefore, masculinity is a part of the gender order, and it is not distinct. This offers a framework through the similarities and the differences between men and women can be analyzed and how other aspects contributes towards the positioning of masculinity in the gender order. According to the relational view of masculinity, it is viewed as the configurations of social practices that have patterns and are arranged in a hierarchical manner. They are usually ordered in accordance to women, although there are groups of masculinity ideologies that are relevant and significant in any particular place and time. These are the hegemonic forms of masculinity practices. According to this view, an array of gender practices with masculinity included can be viewed as habitual practices, which are susceptible to change in various different scenarios. Connell argues that masculinity is a character or a personality trait that is not a reserve for men; rather they are historically contingent and not shaped by the biological sexes or the effects of socialization. As a result, masculinity is dynamic and arranged in a hierarchical manner with the most dominant configurations functioning collectively and become integrated into the society and the social institutions and thereby replicating themselves.
The development of masculinity
There are a number of theories that are used in the explanation of the development of masculinity including the psychoanalytic theory, cognitive-developmental theory and the learning theories that put much focus on direct reinforcement (Rachel and David 145). A universal trend among all the theories is that it entails a two-part process whereby the child initially knows that he/she is either male or female, after which the child terms knows what it means to be female or male according to femininity and masculinity.
The psychoanalytic theory proposes that an individual’s gender is created through identifying with the parent of the same sex. Gender identification is a result of the conflict that is intrinsic during the oedipal stage of psychosexual development (Rachel and David 152). At an age of about three years, the child usually creates a strong sexual connection towards the parent of the opposite sex. At the same time, negative feelings are exhibited towards the parent from the same sex mainly due to resentment and jealousy. At the age of six years, the child usually resolves the psychosexual conflict by associating with the parent from the same sex. As a result, boys usually learn masculine ideologies from their fathers while girls learn their feminine ideologies from their mothers.
The cognitive-development theory is also a gender identity development theory that proposes that there are pertinent events that usually imposes lasting impacts that shape the development of gender identity; however, they are cognitive and not psychosexual. In contrary to the psychoanalytic theory, individual gender identity development precedes the influence of the same-sex parent (Zachary 147). After the gender identity of an individual has been established, the individual is motivated to act and behave in accordance with the identified gender, before the onset of same-sex gender modeling, which only serves to enhance the process. Two important stages during the development of an individual’s gender identity include the acquisition of a fixed gender identity and the establishment of gender identity constancy. The initial stage usually commences with the individual’s identification as either male or female through labels such as boy or girl after which one applies to the self at an age of about three years (Rachel and David 147). Gender constancy entails the acknowledgement that the one’s gender is not likely to change irrespective of changes in age and outward appearance of the individual.
The learning theories are one of the most important theories that are used for explaining the development of gender identity. According to the learning theories, the social environment usually influences the gender identity of an individual. In this case, the parents teach the child on the aspects of masculinity and femininity directly using rewards and punishments and indirectly by serving as models. Direct rewards and punishments are used in the context of outward appearances in terms of what to wear, object of choice and behavior (Edwards 147). Children can learn suitable appearance and behavior when rewards and punishments are deployed. Indirect learning usually entails the imitation of the behaviors and thoughts of the same-sex model.
Sociological view for measuring masculinity
The symbolic interactionist approach to masculinity proposes that gender identity is best examined using the identity theory, which states that the self is usually organized self meanings and identities that are arranged hierarchically and function as a source of motivation for individual behavior (Rachel and David 245). Developments on the identity theory suggests that the identities are organized in the form of control systems, which serve to maintain congruency when the self meanings that have been internalized and the perceptions of social-cultural discourse regarding identity. The central point in this view is the individual’s self meanings.
An individual’s gender identity depends on the self-meanings that the individual has internalized as a result of the constant associations with the gender roles off males or females in the society. Owing to the fact that they are self-meanings, they cannot be observed directly and are usually inferred from the behaviors that the individual engages. Gender identity is considered as one of the role identities that people observe. In sociological context, it is assumed that the roles are not in isolation but are connected to counter roles (Edwards 202). The definitions of masculinity and femininity are essentially contrastive implying that to be masculine is not to be feminine and vice versa. Therefore, the gender meanings are placed in the opposite ends of a spectrum, which is somewhat similar to the bipolar conceptualization of masculinity. It is a fact that there is negative relation between masculinity and femininity, especially when individuals are asked to decide on being masculine or feminine. The contrastive nature of masculinity and femininity is not applicable in the case of individual behaviors due to the fact that individuals can navigate between masculine and feminine behaviors (Rachel and David 155).
The sociological interactionist view suggests that the self meanings that people adapt to determine their gender identity are important in some cases when determining their individual behavior. Gender cannot be used in accurately predicting the individual behavior when compared to gender identity. Despite the fact that gender identity may in some cases be accurate in determining behavioral outcomes, there is a possibility that gender and gender identity will result to different types of behavior. For instance, when analyzing the problem solving discussions between newly married couples, Jackson (55) reports that female individuals and those inclined towards masculinity were more likely to show signs of negative expression, dominant and oppositional behavior associated with complaining. Whilst masculinity more masculine identity should serve to increase dominance, the females were more dominating compared to the males. Jackson notes that the dominating behavior was exhibited by females who were perceived as weak and inferior in the society by the spouses. These women used coercive communication as a means of counterbalancing their inferior position in the society in order to attain some control. The significant problem is that when acting to counterbalance their weaker status by adopting masculine traits, women may be unknowingly informing the male individuals of the weak position in the society. Whilst the gender identity of an individual is likely to be stable over time, it is susceptible to change in accordance with the individual experiences…

Works Cited
Allwood, Gill. French Feminisms. London: Routledge, 1998.
Burke, Peter. “Stability and Change in the Gender Identities of Newly Married Couples.” Social Psychology Quarterly (1997): 102.
Choi, Namok. “Sex role group differences in specific, academic and general self-efficacy.” Journal of Psychology 138.2 (2004): 149-159.
Connell, R, W. “Growing up masculine: Rethinking the significance of adolescence in the making of masculinities.” Irish Journal of Sociology 14.2 (2005): 11-28.
Connell, R, W. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005.
Edwards, Tim. Cultures of masculinity. London: Routledge, 2006.
Haywood, Ghaill. Men and Masculinities: Theory, Research and Social . Buckingham: Open University Press, 2003.
Hoffman, Rose, Marie, Hattie John and Borders Dianne. “Personal definitions of masculinity and femininity as an aspect of gender self-concept.” Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development (2005): 66-80.
Jackson, Carolyn. “LaIDishness as a self-worth protection strategy.” Gender and Education 14.1 (2002): 37-50.
Leach, Mike. “The politics of masculinity: An overview of contemporary theory.” Social Alternatives 12.4 (1994): 36-39.
Phillips, Debby. “Masculinity, male development, gender and identity: Modern and postmodern meanings.” Issues in Mental Health Nursing 27.4 (2006): 403-420.
Rachel, Adams and Savran David. The masculinity studies reader. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2002.
Saunders, Neil. “State of masculinity.” Brand Strategy (2005): 37-39.
Steinberg, Warren. Masculinity: Identity, Conflict, and Transformation. New York: Shambhala, 2001.
Zachary, Buchholz. Masculinity: gender roles, characteristics and coping. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2009.