PAR T F I VE

REAIlING MEDIATEDMASCULINITY

13 Redesigning Men Hegemonic Masculinity in Transition

ROBERT HANKE

Culture is a struggle for meanings as soci ety is a struggle for power. John Fiske (1987a)

The strugg le for meaning is here, and il is a s l ru ~ le of and for political criticis m . .. Stephen Heath ( 1990)

This chapter attempts to think throug h some issues pertaining to the critical cultural analysis o f the represent ation of men and mascu linity on American prime-tim e television. There arc many pitfalls that arise in such an endeavor. and there is a need to be reflexive about the location from which one (in my case . as a while, male. hetero sexua l acade mic) speaks and writes abo ut mascu linit y, or as Tulloch ( 1990, p. 6) has pUI it. the "desires. practices, assumptions and discourses which make up one's agency as an author.vlest we reproduce the hegemon ic (masculin­ ist) culture we seck to interrogate, challenge, and transform. Nevertheless,

AUTIlOR"S NOTE: I w"uld like 10 thank SIeve Craig. Larry Gn,,~ . and Del.ana Bro.... nin g rur Iheir help .... ilh lh i ~ chapter.

18S 186 Hegemonic Masculin ity in Transition ROBERT HANKE 187

such work is necessary and vital if we are to advance our understanding have largely been oriented towa rd "the 'depiction' (picturing) of fe­ of the gender regime of televisio n and questions of male power. I males on television in relation to presumed cultural realities and norm s." The main difficulty that male scholars face is similar to the one For the most par t, as Fejes's ( 1989) review indicates, most em pirical Richard Dyer has elucidated in his work on the representat ion of white ness research on men and the media utilized and was limited to the sex-ro le as an ethnic category in mainstream fil m: "White power secures its framework of functiona list sociology, addres sing the nature and effects dominance by seeming not 10 be anyt hing in particu lar," "whiteness" is of stereotyped male and female role portraya ls. Feminist theory and constructed as the norm agai nst which non-dominant groups are defined scholarship has, for obv ious rea sons, concentrated on women 's deva l­ as "other" (Dyer, 1988). "Masculinity," like " whiteness," does not appear uation in communica tion processes, the soc ial con struction of feminin­ to be cultural/historical category at all, thus rendering invisible the ity, and women's efforts and abilitie s to resist or challenge patriarchal privileged positio n from which (white) men in general are able to arti­ ideology, in order to account for women' s subordination or oppre ssion cuiate their interests to the exclusion of the interests of women, men and women's cultural experience (cf Brown, 1990: Rakow, 1990: Steeve s, and wome n of color, and children. 1987). While much more work on these issues remain s to be done, there Since Williams ( 1977) and Gitlin (198 7) first explored the operations is also a need for media scholars to exa mine and analyze how media of cultural hegemo ny, there has been a substantial body of feminist and institutions, through their speci fic represen tational forms and practices, nonfeminist scholarship on television and gender from a variety of theo­ are involved in the produ ction and re-production of mascu linity as a ret ical perspect ives and methodological approaches (for an overview, cultural category.How, in short, is masculinity itself defined and rede­ see Buck & Newton, 1989). While Gi tlin ( 1987) stressed that hegemo ny fined in order to sec ure a position of do minance for men within the "is reasse rted in different ways at different times, even by different sex/gender system? Is there a single, unified masculine discourse, which logics," his main goal was to examine these processes in relation to liberal construc ts masculinity in opposition to a (usua lly subordinated) fem i­ capitalism and consumer, bourgeoi s ideo logy. However, if we are to ninity, or, as Hall (1989, p. 5 1) suggests, are discursive systems always advance the theory of cultural hegemony, it is clear that we need to give the product of articu lations , alway s contradictory, containing possibil­ separate attention to questions of the relati ons between television and ities for transcoding and decod ing the dominant definitions? In this gender, to analyze the express ion of patriarchal ideology and genderl chapter, following Connell's (1987) work, I explore hegemonic, co nser­ sex ual politics on its own terms. Any theo ry ofcultural hegemony must vati ve, and subordinated masculinities in three areas: gender and genre, also take account of the cultural studies perspective on the aud ience, the "new view of manhood," and heterosexual ideology. Television's rep­ specifically, the thesis that subordinate members of the audience are able resentation of "femininized" masculi nity as well as homos exuali ty will to resist the hegemonic thru st of media cult ure. It is not my intenti on to be taken as "indic ative features of wha t the hegemonic process has in offer a synthesis of the theory of hegemony and the theory of resistance, practice had to work to control"(Williams, 1977, p. 113). but rathe r to suggest some revisions in the theory of hegemony in order to conce ptualize a "moving state of play in meanings, which is then articul ated to a state of play in the field of power" (Hall, 1989, p. 5 1). Gender and Genre This revision entails drawing upon the critical study of men and mas­ culinities (see Hearn & Melech i, this volume; Hearn & Morgan, 1990). According to Gi tlin ( 1987), ge nres are one of the concrete form s More specifica lly, I would like to consider whether the concept of " hege­ through which cultu ral hegemony operate s. Perhaps the most sophisti­ monic masc ulinity" can be usefu lly employed to analyze the dialectics cated treatment of the "engendering work" of television has been of domination and resistance that charac terize television culture and its Fiske 's (1987a, 19S7b) examination of ge ndcrcd genres . From an ethno­ discursive co nstruc tion of mascul inity. gra phically informed, structuralist-acce nted, cultural studies perspec­ Medi a studies has not co nsidered mascul inity as a pro blematic or tive, Fiske offers a compara tive, dialec tical analysis of the basic narra­ historicall y troubled catego ry until recently (Penley & Willis, 1988). tive form of soa p opera and cop adventure prog rams that includes Grossbe rg and Treichler (1987) suggest that studies of media and gender evidence from ethnographic studies of viewi ng practices. Fiske argues 188 Hegemon ic Masc ulinity in Tra nsition ROBERT HAN KE 189 that tele vision helps to produce a "c rucial categorization of its viewe rs sented but how it is represen ted"(p. 222) . However. from the point of into masculine and femi nine subjects" ( 1987a. p. 179) through particu­ view of cultural hege mony. Miami Vice's re-ceding of mascu linity and lar generic co nventions and the negotiated or oppositional read ings they the "pleasures of style. look . and appe arance" it offers may be less of a invite. In his view, soap operd lends itself to resistant readings by wom en, challenge to patriarchal value s. less of an opportunity for men to who occupy a subordi nate position within pa triarchy, while the co nven­ interrogate those value s. than a co nstruct ion of a masculine consumer tions of cop adventure shows, which are designed to addre ss men, pri­ subject. As Ebert ( 1988) has argued from a postmodern feminist cult ural maril y rei nforce dominant ge nder ideology throu gh the articulation of perspective: gender difference s (such as senstuvenough. domestic/professional, and so on). For example. Fiske argues that masculi nity in programs like The d ifferentiations be tween masculine and feminine increasingly collapse Magnum. P. I.• is primarily de fined along two dimensions: self-sufficiency under the pressure of capitalism. yel patriarc hy finds new ways to perpetuate and asserti vene ss. yet different subordinated groups (boys. black men. male privilege, make sure thai wages. property ow nership, conrrol ove r pro­ and women) will negotiate masculine ideology toward their interests. For ducnon and political powe r remain largely gender differentiated. (p. 21) Fiske . the "polysemy" of media texts and the heterogen ity of audiences thus explains why hegemonic ideology is always under "threat," why tele­ In Fiske's analys is. exac tly how Miami Via's co ntradictory image of vision. as popu lar culture. makes possible a kind ofsemiotic democracy. men articulates with any specific soc ial formation and the larger context Fiske does avoi d the categoricalis m of a purel y structuralis t analys is of postindustrial. tran snational co nsumer capitalism is not examined. of gende r. since he shows how masculine ideology ove rlaps with ideo l­ From Fiske 's perspective (and possibly that of U.S. cultural studies ogies of race and nation. Yet. further analysis within the category mascu ­ as a whole). heg emonic ideology appears to have great difficulty insert­ linity seems necessary since masculinity is inflected not only by race ing itself into our everyday. cultural expe rie nces in a way that would and nationality. but also by class. etbnicity, generation. and sexual prer­ de fine mosl people's commonsense under stand ings of the ge nder re­ erence (Mo uffe. 1983). Not only are women exs cribed out of mascu line gime . Fiske. for exa mple. concludes that "despite the power ofideology narratives. but gay men (and lesbian women ) are as well ; het ero sexual to reproduce itself in its subjects. despite the hegemonic force of the masculinity is also defined. in part . by its distance from homosexualit y dominant classes. the people still manage to make their own meanings (Kimmel. 1987b). and to construct the ir ow n culture within, and ofte n against. that wh ich Fiske also acknow led ges that othe r programs combine masculine and the indu stry pro vides them" (I987b. p. 286). This co nclusion seems to femin ine forms. and that genres evolve histo rically. suggesting perhap s co ntradict his earlier claim that oppositional viewers would be unlikely that the meani ngs of masculinity and femininity cannot be ea sily reduc­ to watch popular T V programs {p. 266). Budd.Entman, and Steinm ~n ed to a syste m of binary oppositions. Other scholars have noted the ways (1990) have also recently pointed out oth er difficulties with the them in which partic ular texts. performers. or forms ha vc blurred the bound­ that audiences routinely resist the hegemon ic thrust of med ia content aries of masculinity and femininity (d. Aufderheide. 1986: Modleski. as often as cultural studies proposes. Mor eover, in this form ulation 1990; Wernick. 1987). Fiske suggests that even within masculine nar­ "men" appear to be charac terized as member s ofthe "dominant cla sses" rativ es. there is cvidcn cc of the destabli zation of " masc ulinity" as a who hold power ove r women , alt hough not all "masc ulinities" have the category. which may allow male viewers to experience the " feminine" same relation to discourses and institutions of powe r (Penley & Willis. pleasures that co ntradict. if not deconstruct. the do minant ideo logy. He 1988). These considerations. as well as other criti cisms of "ludic post­ clai ms, for instance, that the image of men in show s like Miami Vice. modern" theory (see Zavarzad ch, 1991) or "resistance" theory (see Sholle. while conforming to the masculine ideology of act ion-orie nted ge nres. 1990). lead us to ask whethe r the cultural studies' conce ptualization of has red efined masculinity as appearance, concl uding that "Miami Vice's the hegemo nic process in television is adequate 10 the task of a critical ch allen ge to the mea ning of masculinity may be the most insidious and cultural analysis of tele visio n and gender. poli tica lly effec tive beca use it occurs not at the level of what is rcp rc- 190 Hegemonic Masculinity in Transition ROBERT HANKE 191

Hegemonic Masculinity construction of a hypermasculine idea l of toughne ss and dom inance" (1987, p. 80). Moreover, in the 1980s, these definitions of masculinity were The concept of "hegemo nic masculinity" originates within recent aligned with the politic s of the New Right. Schwichtenberg (1987), for work in the soci ology of gender. Carrigan, Co nnell, and Lee ( 1987) and example, suggests how The A-Team's en coding of masculinity and Con nell ( 1987) argue that hege monic masculinity should not be under­ femininity en abled the Right to align " what it mean s to be man" with a stood as the "male role" but as a particular variety of masculi nity to notion of "the will of the people" and the "national interest." The se which wom en and oth ers (young, effeminate, or homosexual men) are representati ons of masculinity secure ruling-class heg emony by neu­ subordinated. For Carrigan et al. (1987), hegemoni c masculinity is a tralizin g c lass antago nisms and harnessing working-class resistance to question of "how particular men inhabit positi ons of pow er and wealth authorit ari an ends . Thi s form of ge nder stereotyping, as a number of and how they legit imate and reproduce social relati onships that gener­ analys ts have pointed out, was a cultural expression of the atte mpt to ate dominance" (p. 179). Hegemonic masculinity thus refers to the restore the loss of masculine authority in the post-Vietnam era. soci al asce ndancy of a particular version or model of masculinity that The action-adventure ge nre clearly repre sents a popular genre that operates on the terrain of co mmon se nse and conventional morality that continued to define men in relation to power, authority, aggression. and defines "what it means to be a man," thus securing the domin ance of technology. Other television genres express the values of hegemonic mas­ some men (and the subordination of women) within the sex/gender system. culinity as well. Sports programming represents meninrelation to compe­ The ascendancy of men as a ruling bloc wit hin cap italist patriarchy is tition , strength, and discipline, while news programming features men in achieved not only through violence and coercion but also through a relation to achievement, leadership, and control. Even the television cultural process in which masculinism, the dom inant ideology of patri­ Western, whic h defines masculinity in terms of the co wboy ima ges and archy, mee ts with resistance and challe nge . For this reason , the analysis the myth of the West, has been revived in prime time (e.g., Young Riders, of hegemonic masculinity is also a question of how oppositional ge nder Guns ofParadise ). ideo log ies (such as libera l feminism or gayllesbian polit ics) becomes The relationship between such genres, the hege monic prin cip les they absorbed, contained, and rearticulated . Moreover, as Connell (1987) articulate. and audiences is, of co urse, complex . According to Cantor argues, the "j ustifying ideo logy for the patriarchal core co mplex and (1990), images of gender vary according to genre and the intended the overrall subordination of women requires the creation of a gender­ audience ; the dominating, authoritive male is unco mmon in domestic based hierarchy amo" g men" (p. 110). This hierarchy has three elements: comedy. Her analysis suggests a pattern of continuity and change in the hegemonic masculini ty, conservative masculinity, and subordinated mas­ portrayal of men as fathers and husbands, one that perpetuate s the myth culinities. Whil e this hierarchy is supported and maint ained by a variety of female dominance and the loss of male authority as well as the myth of institutions of patriarchy, it is the institutionalize d cultural ex pressio n of fatherhood . In Cantor's view, domestic comedy is a vehicle for cul­ of this hierarchy in the mass media, and prime-time tel evision in par­ tural myths, portrayi ng men in roles in the TV world they do not occupy ticul ar, that concerns me here. in the real world. However, against this func tionalist thesis. some Som e scholars have begun to foc us on the patterns of hege monic cultural analys ts have argued that "myths" of female dom inance, as part masculi nity in prime -time tel evision. For example, the male- oriented of feminine discourse . may appeal to women and men who reject pater­ action-adve nture ge nre has evolved to the point where wo me n figure nal stereo types (e.g.. Coach) and some aspects of traditional sex roles more directly into the plot (as the hero's buddy or love interest); howeve r, (e.g .. Who sthe Boss ?). A more complex view of the relationship between these "tales are still very much male-dominated and male-defined: In hegemoni c principles and popu lar fictions, such as situation co medy, is fact, most feature an aggressive masculini ty, expresse d through guns, suggested by Woollacott (1986). According to her, only historicalanal­ tanks, armed helicopters. and other instruments of death. Emphasis is ysis ca n spec ify whether situation com edi es work to stabilize eX ls t ~ ng placed on the male body, its muscul ature and strength, and its ability to subjectivit ies, or whet her they "come to pro vide a nexus th~ou gh which with stand torture and to kill efficiently" (Marchetti, 1989, p. 191). Thi s ideo logie s may be actively reorganized, shifting the subjec tivities at analys is supports Co nnell's claim that patriarch al power "requires the 192 Hegemonic Masculinity in Transition ROBERT HANKE 193 their core" (p. 2 17). Indeed, the ' 80s "se nsitive man" see ms to provide of working-cl ass series (e .g ., Family Matters, Roseanne, The Simpsons , an opportunity to explore this que stion furth er. and Married with Children) . Images of white-collar professionals and managers defin e the particular "masculinity" of upwardl y mobile, white, libera l, middle-class men. In middle-class domestic co medy series, as Conservative Masculinity well as in some dramas, (eg ., L.A. La w), midd le-cl ass codes valorize the construction of images of "soft" men. Some popular critics have focused on changing images of men and For example, the se ries thirtysomething represent s a form ofdom estic have hail ed the advent of images of "liberated" masculinity on televi­ situation melodrama that di scursivel y co nstructs an image of men that sion. Lehrer's ( 1989) selective examination ofmale characters in thi rty­ clearly deemphasizes sig ns of domin ance and authori ty. Middle-class som ethin g, L.A. Law, and the short-lived series Men, leads him to codes of therapeutic culture valorize the ex pression of emot ions, an open ­ wonder whether "t hemes of male liberation" have become a staple of ness to domestic co ncern s, and greater responsiveness to interpersonal televis ion drama (Lehrer, 1989). According to him, thi rtysomething, relatio nships. thirtysomething's "new view of manhood" en tails a ver­ broke "new ground in portrayi ng the conflicts and feelings of its male sion of mascu line discourse that incorporates ele ments of the criti que characters," prese nting a "new view of manhood" in which "sensitive, of do mestic patriarchy, enabling it to more efficaciously address the nurturing men, aware of themsel ves and their feelings, take the spo t­ soc ial situation of white, middle-clas s, professional, heterosexual mem­ light" (Lehrer, 1989). While this reading implies a recon struction of bers of the "baby boom" generation living withi n dual- career mar­ mascul inity that is not marked by the repudi ation of the femini ne, there riages. As Loeb (1990) suggests, the notion of "provid er" is "defined to are at least two difficulties with such ge neralization s. First. the critic inclu de sensitivity, support, and commitment to the emotional need s of mistakes the synchronic variety of images of men for diachronic change . the family"; yet, the images of quasi-equality between men (and women ) From a historical perspective , there have always been image s of men in thirtysomething support and maintain core e lements of patriarc hal who do not fit the hegemonic patt ern (just as there have always been ideology. Unlike tradit ional melodrama, which problematizes female images of wo me n who do not fit con ven tional femi ninity) . Second, as sex uality, the se ries is crucia lly conce rned wi th male (hetcro)sex uality with much popular criticism, the critic fails to acknowledge that unre­ (Torres, 1989). In fact, the regular male characte r (Gary Sheppard) who co nstructed male characters have not disappea red from prime-ti me was the most politically liberal, who occasionally gave voice to the critique television with the advent of liberated male charac ters (Tankel & Banks, " of the do minant mode of male sexuality (and there fore might have bee n 1990). Furthermore , while television may offer a range of images of seen as being on the side of wo men's desires), was killed in the February men, such redemp tive readings do not address the ideo logical wo rk that 12, 199 1, episode. In this way, thirtysomething co nstructs a co nservative exce ptions to the hegemonic pattern do, within a relatively stable frame­ masculinity that remains complicit with patriarch al ideology, masking work of patriarchal eodings of ge nder roles and rel ations, marriage , and and displacing real ge nde r ineq ualitie s, and effacing any further cri­ the family. tique of do minant gende r ideology. The se cod ings of masculinity also intersect wi th social c lass in way s In Hall' s terms, this fo rm of televisual discou rse works hegemonic­ that e xpress the tension between the gender regime and the soc ial class ally to produce an "achieved complementarity bet ween hegemonic and structure. In this regard , it is important to keep in mind Aronowitz' s subordinate classes and their culture s" ( 1982, p. 334). In thirtysome­ (1989) argument that the represent ation of working-class males disap­ , thing, the relations between the genders arc made sense of not in terms peared in the mid-1970s as "working class identity was displaced to of male domin ation and female subordination, but in terms of the organi­ other upwardl y mobil e occ upations (e.g. police, football players, and zation of affect-feelings of solidarity and jealousy among friends and other sites where conventional masculin e roles are ubiquitous)" (p. 141). marri ed and unmarried co uples-and relations of co mpatibility and in­ Acco rding to Butsch (\991 ), the numhers of wor king-class domestic compatibility with other members of the professional, managerial cla ss. situation comedies peaked in the mid-1950s and the early 1970s; middle­ Moreover. there is a close correspondence between thirtysomething's defi ­ class series predominated throughout the 1980 s, despite the recent revi val nition of ge nder relations and the reorganization of wo rk within an 194 Hegemonic Masculinity in Transition ROBERT HANKE 195

expanding pos tindustrial economy. As more and more people arc em­ prime-ti me television series. More than likely, as Gross argue s, gay men ployed in the managerial -service sector, more of us do work that are negatively stereotyped as villain s or victi ms of ridicule (e.g., In depends on emphatic communication and for which therapy ser ves as a Living Color). model rather than a contrast (Bellah. Mad sen , Sullivan, Swirlier & Tipt on, However, there have been some exc eptions to this pattern of invisi­ 1986, p. 123). Furthermore : bility that sugges t that hegemonic masculinity operates thro ugh inclu­ sion as well as exclusion: Lo ve, Sydney; Dynasty; Hooperman; Doctor The same sort of interpersonal co mmunication runs the gamut from work to Doctor; Roseanne;the cable television show Brothers; The Tracey Ullman love and hack aga in. Co -workers "gi ve eac h other therapy" to cement team­ Show; and thirtyso mething have featured regu lar major or minor gay work. Indi viduals who meet only on the job make use of intimacy as a meth od male characters. For example, the series thirtysometh ing feat ured one to become more effec tive as a working "u nit." Thei r sensi tive and caring con­ minor gay charac ter, and his positionin g as the friend of one of the versation is not a brea k fro m the job. It' s part of the jo b (Bellah et al.. 1986. regular, single, female characters appeared to add an ele ment of urban p. 123). realism to the courtship situation of single women searching for single, heterosexual men. Instead, this portrayal perpetuates the stereotype that The middle -class verbo sity of thirtysome th ing's characters, and the only peop le involved in the art world mai ntain friendships with homo­ mediations they typically engage in at home or at work, symbolically sexua ls. Other series' subplots have invo lved the one-time appeara nce condens e and displace the whole field of orga nizational and pro fes­ of gay male cha racters; for instance, L.A. Law has had subplots dea ling sional politics into the dom ain of personal motivations and feel ings. In with an AIDS-related "mercy killi ng" and the issue of "outing," refe r­ this way, thirtysomething's ima ge of manh ood is complementary with encing real- life stories in the news. There has also been the occasional posti ndustrial capitalis m and the changing organ izati on of work. gay story in made-for-TV movies (e.g., An Early Frost, Welcome Home So while the men of thi rtysome thin g appea r to be less sexis t than Hobby). Such representations of gayness, however, do not necessarily thei r more macho counterparts in masculi ne narrati ves, the series per­ assume a gay perspective. In fact, as Henry (19 87) points out , such pet uates the myth that middl e-cla ss, profession al men are less sexist programming "typically takes the poi nt of view of straights struggling than working-class me n or third world men (Brod, 1987).Moreover, to understand" and constructs gay masculinity as a "moral" problem that according to Hearn ( 1987), the profession s are one of the four majo r ca uses co nsiderable angui sh and pain for straight cha racters. Gay (and institutions of patriarch y (along with hierarchic sex uality, fatherhood , lesbian) characters rare ly appear when his/her gay ness is not a problem, and the state) . The "new view of manhood" is the expressi on of the a subject of controve rsy, or associated with AIDS. In general, while the cultural asce ndancy of the professionallmana gerial class, tha t is to say, appearance of some gay malo characters or themes may suggest a certain white, middle-cla ss, men's concerns, on the terrain of yuppie co mmon level of acce ptance of homosexu al individu als, the way in which gay ­ sense. ness is cons tructed tend s to define ho mosexuali ty as a nega tive symbol of mascul ine ide ntity.

Su bordinated Masculin ity Conclusions Having considered hegem onic and conse rvat ive mascu linity, I shall no w turn to a brief discussion of te levision's construction of subcrdi­ The abo ve ana lysis sho uld be considered prelimi nary. I have tried to nated masculinity, through its images of gay men. sugges t that the process of cultural hege mony may be far more expa n­ In the case of gay men (and lesbian women), hege mon ic ideology sivc than the analyses of action advent ure or law enforceme nt/crime ge nres works through exclusion (Gitlin, 1987), or what Gross ( 19R9) and others have sugges ted . Tele vision works hcgemcni call y, not only by imposi ng have termed "sy mbolic annihilation." By and large, gay men (and lesbian dominant (masculinist) ideo logy but also by "a rticulating the relation s wome n even more so) are rarel y featured as reg ular major characters in between a series of ideologies (subordinate as well as dom inant), 196 Hegemo nic Masculinity in Transition ROBERT HANKE 197 ove rlapping them on to one another, so as 10 bring about certain move­ (often violent) oppression of gay men . The overall cultural effect ofthis mcnts and reformations of subjectivity" (Bennett & w oollacou. 1987, ongoing process is that questions of power. real gender inequ ities. capita­ p. 5). Th us. one way in which confl icts in gende r relations may be list wor k relation s. and sexual politics are glossed over. Apparent modi ­ handl ed and de fused is throu gh the construction of a soc ial definition fications ofhegemon ic masculinit y may rep resen t some shift in the cul­ of masculinity (sensitive. nurturing, emotiona lly ex pressive ) thai is tural mean ings of masculinity without an accompanying shift in domi ­ more ope n to the work of mainta ini ng interpersona l relationship s and nant social structural arrangements, thereby recuperating patriarchal ide­ child rearing and more accom modating of traditionally feminine con­ ology by making it more adaptable to contemporary social conditions notations and values. The key question is not whether such a versio n of and more ab le to accommo da te co unter-hegemonic forces. such as masculi nity is more modern or less (hcrerojscxisr than traditional. hege­ Iiberal- feminist ideology and gay/lesbian politics. mon ic co nceptions of the male role (naturalized in the form of the hero Thi s analy sis is a tentative step towards understandin g television 's or hero ream). but how mascul init y is defined and re-defined in order discursive construction of masculinity. The exact relationship between to rema in hegemonic (see Gitlin. 1987). As Brittan (1989. p. 187) has hegemon ic. conservative. and subordinated mascu linit ies cannot be arg ued. "hegemonic masculinity is able to defuse crisis tendencies in determined by textual analysis alone; whether television works ideo­ the gende r order by using counter and oppositional discourses for its logically to stabilize (or modify) gendered subject positions can only own purposes: ' be determined through historical analy sis. We might expect. perha ps. Hege monic masculinity thus work s through a varie ty of representa­ that these social defi nitions of mascu linity may be ignored. negotiated, tional strategies. incl uding images of feminized mascu linity and the or resisted hy some viewers and not others; different strategies of construction of negative symbols of masculinity. in order to win the represe ntational practi ce may articulate in different ways to historically co nsent of male and female viewers. who. as socia l agents. may be specific "subject" positions, social identities. or social formations. How­ situated very differently. The gen der regime of television is mar ked by ever. if Press's ( 1989) wor k is any indication. it appears that hegemonic a de gree of instability and co ntradiction; however. hegemonic mascu ­ ideology reaches male and female viewers in cla ss (and other soc ially) linity must co ntinually be reconstituted through specific representa­ specific ways. tions ofmascu linity. and the strateg ies by which hegemonic masculinity Finally. followi ng Ebert' s (1988) advice . male scholars seeking to is achieved. and ideological co nsent won or lost. varies. ad vance the critical study of gender and the medi a should be careful to A.. some structuralist-thinking analysts have shown. patri archal ide­ avo id falling prey to the "progressive" fall acy in which any changes in ology in television is encoded throug h the representation of clear-cut images of male and female characters are taken as the displacement of differences that define masculi nity and its characteristics as "s trong:' dom inant gender ideologi es . In this regard , Galperin (19 88) notes that and femininity and its characteristics as "weak:' Hegemonic masculin­ the "feminization" of prime-time is unlike ly and "that prime-time soaps ity may also work through the inversion of diffe rence s. as it doe s in such as Dallas and Dynast)' actively mitigate the revolution ary currents popu lar culture ex press ions of antifeminist ideology. As Ehrenreich of their day time counterpa rts ..." rp. 160). Sign ifican t social ch ange ( 1983. p. 163) slates. " S ew Right ideology inverts the traditional imagery in the d irection of gender equality will require more than the ..new vie w of gender roles: Men arc ' passive: 'frag ile'; while women are 'active' of manhood" offered by prime-time television. T here is also a need for and 'can do everything.' ,. Or. as I have tried to sugges t here. hegemon ic male scholars to engage in co unter-hegemonic "readin gs" and political masculin ity can work through the leveling of some gender differences. critiques of tele vision's ideological practices in orde r to better under­ by constructing feminized men who arc more open to domestic con cerns stand television 's ro le in the reproduction of powcr relati ons-the and interpersonal relat ionships. This form of masculine/feminine dis­ power of men over women, or the power of he terosexuals over ho mo­ course represe nts male and female interests as basically identical. sexuals. For male scholars interested in the relationship bet ween tele­ Finally. the hege monic pro cess also operates through the exclusion, as vision and gender. this will not be possible as long as " masculinity" well as inclusion. of subordinated masculinities. thus supporting and main­ remains invisibl e to ourselves. taining a gender hierarchy among men that j ustifies and legitimizes the 19!'! Hegemonic Masculinity in Transition

Nofe

I. The term " end.., regime, which refers 10 the "st ate of play in gender relations in ~ given inslilulion ," is (WID Connell ( 1987 ).