Man has been the norm and representative of the human species for the longest time which has led to the invisibilization of their gender as well as the ideological framework that constitutes and constructs it- masculinity. 

Nigel Edley in his work on masculinities attempts to engage with the subject using diverse theoretical perspectives that provide a deeper sense of how masculinity functions and manifests itself in social, material and political relations. Since women and other genders co-exist in a paradigm of power, taking cognisance of and interacting with each other, it becomes essential for feminist politics to understand how each of them shape the other in an intertwined process. 

As ironic as it might be but feminist study of relations of exploitation and power structures that perpetuate them is incomplete without the study of masculinities. Not only does it foster the possibility of a conversation with the ‘other side’ but without developing a finer comprehension of masculinities, change such as feminists imagine it cannot be realised. 

I shall be looking at the five theses of masculinity as compiled by Edley and look at how they explain/highlight observable social phenomenon. The application of these theories to the everyday mundane events facilitates a critical engagement with the common sensical- Why are men the way they are? Is it a result of an inherently sadistic psychological tendency, a consequence of their male body, socialization or a cumulative effect of all? 

In a consumer society such as ours the body has become a medium or platform for communicating who we are as individuals. The body has become the focal point of people’s identity. The male body tracing back to the Grecian tradition of glorifying it, has always had a privileged position. This however was possible only by contrasting it to the female form as an aberration or exotic. The question of biology has thus been returned to time and again whenever this power dynamic is threatened. Maleness is often seen as a direct consequence of the male body or specifically the condition of having a phallus- as a reasonable explanation of men’s behaviour. Masculine behaviour is thus seen as an extension of the body, something which men can’t help. Such a biologically deterministic understanding of masculinity often results in reinforcing violent tendencies of men, giving rise to ideas such as the ‘rape gene’ or ‘warrior gene’ which essentially projects certain behaviours as inevitable with little scope for change. As feminists it becomes important due to our own struggles to challenge the idea that body is destiny.

The idea that masculinity is predicated on a flight from everything feminine (Object relations theory) not only projects masculinity as an antithesis to femininity but also provides a fractured view of human psychology. Freud’s analysis of successful masculinity as predicated on a moving away from a sexual desire for the mother due to the threat of violence from the father is problematic to say the least, its critique nonetheless provides us with fertile grounds to explore the genesis of a masculine identity in humans.

While some theorists inform us that the dual processes of dis-association from the mother and a counter association with the father results in the formation of a masculine identity. This proposition of defensiveness against the feminine flies in the face of the contemporary concept of gender fluidity, questioning the depth and seriousness of psychological foundations of masculinity. Such discourses construct men as helpless victims of their own flawed psyche, as something they have to be constantly at war with- offering little opportunity any real change.

Margret Mead’s study of primitive societies sheds light on how sex roles are socially and culturally constructed and not biologically determined. If then all human beings start as tabula rasa before they undergo social training, the institutions responsible for their socialisation provide an explanation for the construction of masculine identity as behaviour as we know it today. From family to school sex stereotypical behaviour is encouraged through policing.

An excellent example of creating such trained responses in the Army. Not only is individuation challenged but men are policed and pigeonholed into specific roles that represent a particular sort of man. These characteristics are socially determined and men who embody them are validated. Stoicism, big wheeling, rebelliousness and homophobia become some of the important markers of a male sex role. Such a theorisation makes us question why social institutions promote a certain kind of masculinity regardless of the complications that ensue from its practise? It also informs us that on an individual level awareness of these narratives can influence our own response to them, providing room for social change.

Power lies at the heart of what it means to be a man. Masculinity can then be interpreted as an effect of power and power stems from the ability to control and manipulate access/rights of others or simply the ability to perform violence. The term hegemonic masculinity explains how culturally exalted or privileged ways of conducting oneself as a man creates hierarchies by othering non hegemonic masculinities. The infantilization and/or hyper sexualization of non- European masculinities through colonial discourses is an excellent example of establishing control over the women and men of a community by delegitimizing the masculinity of the men of that community.

The notions/qualities of hegemonic masculinity are generally considered desirable and bear markers of the dominant class. They however are constantly in flux and contested by as well as created in response to other (subsumed, marginalised and complicit) masculinities. This explains the outbreak of violence when a member/s of a marginalised masculinity, for example a Dalit man attempts to transgress notions associated with their own and embody those associated with hegemonic masculinity (hindutva/ brahmin masculinity in this context), for he threatens the hierarchy by blurring the differences that were put in place essentially to set him apart.

Contrary to popular belief masculinity does not reside in the male body but rather in the day-to-day practices as a manifestation of an all-pervasive ideology. We all as members of a patriarchal civilization subscribe to it in varying degrees by participating in discourses and engaging with structures of power such as language and institutions (social, civil and legal). Gender performance is thus a symptom of masculinity. Gender as a practice becomes second nature to us, a practice sustained over a lifetime because gender is an accomplishment- something we have to repeatedly establish- not who we naturally are. Viewing masculinity as a discursive practice can be very destabilizing to the general belief that gender is God given, it unsettles the understanding of what it means to be a man. This provides space for resistance since it places some agency with the individual as to the extent of their participation in these practices- since they are largely a matter of habit (that are often internalized) and thus subject to personal acceptance/ rejection.

Sanjay Dutt’s popular advertisement Mardangiri highlights the anxieties men experience due the rapidly changing socio-economic milieu in the last few decades. The confrontation with an increasing feminization of work, accommodation of women’s rights in public and private spheres, changing paradigms of masculinity with respect to men’s role as fathers as well as the ideal neoliberal citizen subject has resulted in a crisis. This has resulted in a discontinuity and thus a loss of sense of identity as well as expression for most men causing collective mental and physical distress. It is not so much about the traumatization of individual men but rather the destruction of cultural ideas of masculinity that becomes the source of anxiety. As a feminist this disquiet for me is an opportunity for men as well as women to deconstruct and restructure notions of masculinity we have normalized thus far.

Growing conversation around the subject provides scope for critical engagement with masculinities as a phenomenon that shapes our world, bringing it to the focus of theoretical and analytical frameworks. Masculinity studies as a discipline thus brings in a dimension of socio-cultural critique that holds the possibility of explanation of multitudes of our experiences as gendered beings.

A certain kind of conception of human beings shapes our relationship with each as well as the changing world around us. This response is guided by gender, dictating our identities and practices. Given that theory is developed in relation to common every day ideas it is important to establish first that knowledge systems shape our understanding of the world. This knowledge becomes common sense over time - one of the biggest challenges to socio-political change. 

Androcentrism of knowledge systems especially the dominance of western epistemology ensures the normalisation, persistence and favouring of certain masculinities as well as the practices associated with it. Theorisation of these practices has led us to critically engage with the experiences and dimensions of being a man in the contemporary world.

Edley, Nigel. Men and Masculinity: The Basics . New York : Routeledge , 2017.

Mardangiri. Perf. Sanjay Dutt. 2008. You Tube. <