Young Men's Negotiation of Hetero-Masculinity Within the Contemporary UK
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Young men’s negotiation of hetero-masculinity within the contemporary UK Mary Elizabeth Marks Robson Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy The University of Leeds Sociology and Social Policy September 2019 i The candidate confirms that the work submitted is her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. The right of Mary Elizabeth Marks Robson to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by Mary Elizabeth Marks Robson in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. ii Acknowledgements I have looked forward to (and dare I say it, dreamt of) writing these acknowledgements, as had it not been for the support of many of my colleagues, friends and family over the years of writing this thesis, I am not sure it would have been completed. I would firstly like to thank my supervisors, Dr Sharon Elley and Professor Sally Hines. Particular thanks to my primary supervisor Sharon, who has seen me through my academic journey from when I started at Leeds university ten years ago with just my GCSE’s, through to the completion of this thesis. She has provided consistent encouragement, guidance and academic insight throughout my time at Leeds and has steadfastly encouraged me to recognise my own capabilities. I hope the completion of this thesis goes some way towards highlighting the importance of widening participation schemes in universities, of which you were so importantly a part. I would also like to say a big thank you to Sally for her invaluable academic expertise, as well as her continuous support, enthusiasm, and belief in my work. I feel very lucky to have had you both as supervisors throughout this PhD. I would also like to thank my dear friends for their encouragement, reassurance and laughs over the years, but also for their unwavering support, particularly through the times when I have struggled. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, Vanessa Mcknight, Mary Naylor, Nancy McCarthy, Fran Coard, Abi Goater, Toby Goater, Rory Wells, Meg Beckett, Tom Kat, Robert Wingfield, Hannah McDonald, Paris Angeli and Suzanna Stewart. Also, thanks to my partner Tom Woodland, for being a force of calm throughout this thesis. My Leeds colleagues in the sociology and social policy department have also provided solace, intellectual food for thought, and camaraderie over the years. Jess Wild, Sally-Anne Beverley, Inga Julia Reichelt, Josephine Serotzin and Mostafa Kamal, I feel fortunate to have met you all and look forward to years more friendship to come. Thanks also to my mum, Margaret Robson, and my dad, Alan Marks, for their love, support, wise words and kindness. I hope this piece of work makes you proud and I know you’ll both be pleased that I am finally finished! Thanks also to my extended family, Lyndall Stein, Jay Paine, Carole Moss and Lisa Zychowicz, not least for offering me a home at various points in my life, and to my sisters, Lauren Robson, Georgia Green and Grace Green. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank the young men who took part in this research. Thank you for offering your time and for so candidly and openly sharing your lives with me. iii Abstract This thesis draws on feminist theory and critical men and masculinities scholarship to consider young men’s negotiations of hetero-masculinity in the contemporary UK. It utilises qualitative data from focus groups and one-to-one interviews with twenty-five predominantly white, heterosexually identified men between the ages of 18 and 24, exploring how young men understand and experience hetero-masculinity on subjective and relational levels. It examines how young men understand and experience gender and sexual norms, and to what extent, and in what ways, young men disrupt and challenge these. The thesis contextualises contemporary shifts of gender and sexuality in relation to wider gender equality and power, through analysis of, gender politics, (hetero)masculine subjectivities, sex and sexuality, which inform the empirical chapters of this thesis. With a focus on power and gender (in)equality, the thesis critically explores how contemporary transformations of masculinity, whilst superficially appearing to signify social change, may, on closer inspection, reveal how power and inequality are reworked and reframed in current times (Bridges and Pascoe, 2014). The thesis also seeks to address the absence of theoretical and empirical research on postfeminism (Gill, 2007; McRobbie, 2009; O’Neill, 2018) within the field of critical men and masculinities. The thesis points to a wealth of diverse and often conflicting understandings of gender and sexuality. Whilst gender equality was often favoured, binarised and essentialist understandings of gender endured, ultimately limiting the possibilities of social change as men and women were viewed as inherently different based on biological ‘fact’. Where feminism was supported, this was often confined to second-wave projects as more recent feminist politics, which emphasise gender fluidity and the diversification of gender identities, conflicting with essentialist understandings. Notions of ‘natural’ sex difference also paradoxically coalesced with significant reflexivity of gender and sexual norms and how these come to delineate gender and sexual performances and practices, though participants were often reticent to acknowledge that they were affected by these discourses. Moreover, some interviewees discursively distanced from normative masculinity, whilst simultaneously maintaining investments in traditional masculine identities. Participants articulated choreographing their gendered performances so as to signify ‘correct’ masculinity. This was closely related to affirming their heterosexuality and avoiding adopting traditionally feminine styles, which were seen to potentially signify same-sex desire. Gender and sexuality were, therefore, regularly conflated as gendered expressions were seen to indicate sexual preference. Despite a desire to transcend gender boundaries amongst many of the young men, gender policing and homophobia remained a prevalent feature in their lives as gender and sexuality were regarded heavily regulated spheres. iv Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ii Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 ‘Setting the scene’ ..................................................................................................................... 1 Research questions and chapter overview ............................................................................... 9 1. Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 12 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 12 1.2 Hegemonic masculinity ............................................................................................... 12 1.3 The sex/gender binary ................................................................................................ 16 1.4 Heterosexuality and young men ................................................................................. 21 1.5 ‘Inclusive’ masculinities .............................................................................................. 27 1.6 ‘Hybrid’ masculinities .................................................................................................. 30 1.7 Postfeminism .............................................................................................................. 34 1.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 40 2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 42 2.1 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................... 42 2.2 Research design .......................................................................................................... 43 2.3 Sample ......................................................................................................................... 43 2.4 Recruitment ................................................................................................................ 44 2.5 Research Methods ...................................................................................................... 46 2.5.1 Focus groups ....................................................................................................... 46 2.5.2 One-to-one interviews ........................................................................................ 48 2.5.3 Communication style .......................................................................................... 49 2.6 Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................