Class and Masculinity

Home , Class stratification, Upper middle class

10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 165

CLASS AND MASCULINITY

DAVID MORGAN

Students of gender tend only to see gender; class analysts tend only to see social classes. The research questions are often crudely put as being questions of gender or class instead of asking how gender and class interact in the lives of historically situated social groups. —Marianne Gullestad (1992, p. 62)

lass is one of a number of social some kind of hierarchical organization and hierarchies or systems of social stratifi- inequalities of power. They are structured in that C cation that have represented core ele- they, to a greater or lesser extent, exist outside ments in sociological analysis. Other systems individuals and persist over time. And they are, include slavery and caste and feudal systems, again to varying degrees, seen as significant dis- and these are usually seen as being distinct from tinctions in the societies in which they exist. class relationships in that they are associated Sociological analysis, until fairly recently, has with particular historical epochs or geographical tended to focus on class and class relationships, areas. Class stratification is seen as the form although there may be considerable variation in most closely associated with industrial and cap- the ways in which these terms are understood. italist societies, although elements of other This is partly because of the influence of at least systems may also be present. In addition, there two of the discipline’s “founding fathers,” Marx are hierarchies that can overlap and coexist with and Weber, and partly because of sociology’s any of these particular systems of stratification. central interest in the defining and distinctive These can include gender, age, and generation, characteristics of “modern” societies. as well as race and ethnicity; some more recent It should be noted at the outset that there is analyses would argue for the inclusion of hier- a particularly British or European focus in this archies based on sexualities and forms of ability chapter, although the chapter does not, as we and disability. shall see, exclude wider considerations. This is All these sets of differences have some fea- partly because of my own intellectual back- tures in common. They are relational in that the ground as a British academic but also partly various elements (working class, slave, women, because many of the key debates and modes of black, etc.) cannot be considered apart from analysis originated in Britain, although they other, usually opposed, elements. They refer to made use of some of the key theories from other

165 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 166

166 • STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES

parts of Europe. Class has sometimes been seen Toward the latter part of the 20th century, there as a particularly British obsession, and this in appeared to be a general impression, at least part relates to its historical position as the first within the United Kingdom, that class analysis industrial capitalist society, a point recog- no longer had a “promising future.” This was nized by Marx and many of the early socialists. in part a consequence of a recognition of other, However, questions of origin are here less at least equally important, social divisions, such important in a chapter that is exploring the inter- as those of gender or race and ethnicity. Class relationships between masculinities and class, analysis also appeared to be less relevant with and I hope that, in the course of this discussion, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the erosion of some general principles may be developed that many communist societies. With a developing may be found useful in analyzing a wide range global perspective, many of the traditional, often of social and historical contexts. eurocentric, class divisions seemed to be less Questions about the relationships between able to explain social inequalities and conflicts different social hierarchies developed in the all over the world. Class increasingly has global last part of the 20th century, and one of the more dimensions, and these do not necessarily link heated sociological debates has revolved around easily to categories developed in other times issues of class and gender, more specifically and under other conditions. Even within the about whether women have been marginalized countries where class analysis had originated, in traditional class analysis. Joan Acker (1973), there was a growing suspicion that although in an influential article, claimed that the relative inequalities clearly persisted, the old language invisibility of women in class analysis was a of class was inadequate when it came to under- case of “intellectual sexism”; John Goldthorpe standing these inequalities. The development of (1983) presented a vigorous defense of the terms such as “underclass” and “social exclu- traditional view. One important issue raised in sion” seemed to bear witness to a diffuse sense the course of this debate was whether the of unease about traditional class categories. individual or the “family” should be treated Finally, there was a growing popular perception as the unit of class analysis (Crompton, 1993; that class divisions were old-fashioned and that Lee & Turner,1996; Morgan, 1996). the remaining remnants would be swept away in As was so often the case when gender a fluid, increasingly open, postmodern society. was discussed, the focus was almost wholly More recently, however, class analysis seems on women and their marginal position within to have returned, albeit with some important traditional class analysis. As such, the debate modifications (Devine, 1997; Savage, 2000). could be seen as part of the wider feminist One interesting question, however, remains. critique of conventional social science and the How far was this apparent erosion—or at least way in which, whatever the topic, women were transformation—of class analysis linked to either marginalized or stereotyped. What was shifts in the gender order and the possible ero- not explored in the course of the debate was sion of patriarchal structures? If, as the class and the position of men within class analysis. Yet a gender debates suggested, class had been fairly moment’s thought would seem to suggest that strongly linked to themes of men and masculin- men and masculinity were heavily implicated in ity, were there links between changes in the gen- class analysis, where, in British iconography at der order and changes in the position of class least, the bowler hat of the upper middle class within the analysis of social structures? hangs between the cloth cap of the working man In this chapter, I shall enquire what it was and the top hat of the traditional upper class. about class, and class analysis, that seemed to Was it simply an accident that led to men being encourage a particularly strong identification presented as the key class actors, or were the with men and masculinities. However, this iden- connections between class and masculinity tification was implied rather than explicit, latent closer than might first have been suspected? rather than manifest. Part of the story is the way About the same time as the gender and class in which questions about the gendering of class debate, there was another loosely associated were avoided or remained invisible for so long. debate concerning the centrality (or otherwise) I shall present a fairly closely integrated and rel- of class analysis (Devine, 1997; Lee & Turner, atively stable model closely linking the two and 1996; Pakulski & Waters, 1996; Savage, 2000). contrast this with a more fluid and open set of 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 167

Class and Masculinity • 167

connections that may be said to be characteristic and inequalities. A kind of more or less explicit of late modern times. Before this, however, I Weberian analysis would seem to be at the heart shall need to consider what is meant by class of much empirical class analysis. This entails and some differences in emphasis and approach looking at the unequal distribution of life chan- within class analysis. ces in so far as these deal with the ownership or nonownership of different forms of property and different levels of income. Weberians DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS would argue that such a mode of analysis is more inclusive than a more strictly Marxist Picture a first-year sociology class in, say, the analysis in that Marxist class and class action 1980s or even later. The topic for discussion is remains a potentiality within Weber’s categories, what we mean by class. Is it income? But what although not the only one. about the rock star or a sports personality who Within class analysis, there are a range of may, at his peak, be earning more than the prime qualifications and distinctions, some of which minister? Is it occupation? If so, on what basis have a particular relevance when it comes to do we say that one occupation ranks higher than considering the relationships between mas- another? Perhaps it is education. But does this culinity and class: not depend on income and occupation? Then, especially if the discussion is taking place in a • Objective and subjective understandings of British university, someone will raise questions class. This is the distinction between the cate- of accent and how a person talks, arguing that gories that are established in class analysis and you can place individuals as soon as they open the way in which class is actually understood their mouth. and experienced by individuals or, indeed, Much of the discussion, you conclude, whether the term class has any meaning at all. • revolves around particularly British obsessions Class in itself and class for itself. This well- known distinction, deriving from Marxist to do with relatively fine distinctions, snobbery, analysis, contrasts class as a category, a mode Oxbridge, and the old school tie. The concern of distinguishing and classifying people and seems to be more at the individual level, about class as the basis for some form of collective how to place that individual in relation to action. This entails the development of some another, rather than more abstract concerns form of class consciousness, an awareness of about social structure. When British social crit- some shared fate, and collective experiences, ics refer to “outmoded” class distinctions, it is together with some understanding of the possi- usually these distinctions, which are manifested bilities of challenging or even changing the at the interpersonal level, that are being refer- class system. • red to rather than wider structural differences Bipolar models of class and more complex associated with a capitalist society. But a little hierarchical models. This may refer to sociological accounts or social actors’ own per- reflection on these debates might suggest that ceptions of the class structure. Bipolar it is important to distinguish the particular his- models may be more or less simple descrip- torical experiences of any one particular society tions (mental-manual) or imply some degree of from understandings of class in a more general, class antagonism (bourgeoisie-proletariat) or structural sense. fall somewhere in between (them-us). The In this chapter, I am less concerned with the more complex models see the class structure as differences between different theoretical tradi- a sort of ladder with three or more levels. tions—notably the Marxist and the Weberian— • Class and status. Although, strictly speaking, and more concerned with some of the more this takes us beyond class analysis, it is impor- common features of and issues within class tant, as several popular and social-scientific understandings of class contain elements of analysis. Thus there will be general agreement both. Roughly speaking, class in this instance that we are dealing with inequalities that are the refers to the unequal distribution of life chances; products of social structure rather than the pres- status refers to the social distribution of honor ence or absence of individual attributes, such as or prestige. It could be argued that the popular intelligence, physical strength, and so on. There and widely used distinction between upper, is also a general agreement that in talking about middle, and working contains elements of both class, we are talking about economic divisions class and status. 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 168

168 • STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES

• Class as based on individuals and class as individual or collective class actors. But we based on families or households. This is a dis- may also see men involved in the central distinction with particular relevance for a gen- courses about class power. Many of the key dered analysis of class (Curtis, 1986). Much theorists of class have been men, and it is rea- class analysis takes individuals as the units and sonable to suppose that their location in gender then aggregates them. However, several sociol- hierarchies is as important in shaping, if not ogists have argued that the family or the household should be the unit of analysis, although in determining, their worldviews as their loca- the matter becomes complex once one moves tions within a class system. Of course, in real- away from assuming that the class position of ity, this distinction becomes a little blurred, a household is determined by the class of the as discourses and practices are always closely main (male) breadwinner (Morgan, 1996). related. Put another way, modes of understand- • One final distinction deals with the historical ing and researching class may reflect gendered location of the idea of class. The Communist perspectives just as the class practices them- Manifesto famously begins with the words selves will also be gendered. “the history of all hitherto existing society We may see these issues below the surface is the history of class struggles” (McLellan, of the gender-class debate already mentioned. 1988, p. 21). Much of its actual focus, however, is on classes under capitalism. Socio- Goldthorpe’s (1983) defense of the “conven- logical analysis has tended, explicitly or tional view” of class claimed that he was repre- implicitly, to limit the idea of class to capi- senting the world as it was rather than the world talism and postcapitalism. Thus there is a dis- as we might like it to be. If that world be male tinction between an almost timeless notion of dominated or patriarchal, then, to simplify con- class divisions, popularly outlined in terms of siderably, that is how we should represent it. the “haves” and the “have nots,” and one that is Up to a point, Goldthorpe’s argument was much more historically situated and identified correct in its generality, if not in its particul- with modernity. arities. In everyday as well as in social science discourse there does seem to be something What I have presented here is a highly particularly masculine about the idea of class. simplified version of some complex debates. And class practices, although much more open Their relevance for the exploration of the rela- to variation, might seem to reflect these dis- tionships between class and masculinity will, courses, at least for much of what we describe I hope, emerge in the subsequent discussion. as modern times. Put simply, class is gendered, One final set of issues remains for clarification. and men have assumed, or have been allocated, In common with much current discussion, the role of class agents. reflected elsewhere in this volume, I shall hence- How has this identification, albeit often sub- forth write of masculinities rather than mas- merged, between men and class come about? culinity, although I recognize that there are There are several overlapping reasons. some difficult issues associated with this move. If we return to the key elements in the Within this framework, as will appear later, the (broadly Weberian) model of class, we find idea of hegemonic masculinity is important. strong connections between property, occupa- These ideas are discussed at greater length else- tion, and masculinities. In the case of property, where in this volume. we find, historically, strong identifications between ownership of different kinds of property, family and family name, and inheritance THE MASCULINITIES OF CLASS and the male line. In the case of occupation, the connections are perhaps less strong, although it There is one further distinction that should be can be argued that most occupational titles have made before continuing with the analysis. We strong masculine connotations. Some occupa- may see, as has already been suggested, men as tional titles (e.g., policeman) are explicitly gen- holders of class power. Thus men will be found dered, and popular speech still talks of sending disproportionately located in the highest levels for a “man” to come round and repair the central of political, economic, educational, and cul- heating or the dishwasher. Other titles have tural organizations. In this respect, we may see strong historical and symbolic associations with men as centrally involved in class practices, as prized masculine characteristics such as physical 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 169

Class and Masculinity • 169

strength or group solidarity, coal mining and modern cultures, right up to the present day steel working, for example. Even less physical (e.g., for Warin, Solomon, Lewis, & Landford, occupations, clerical workers for example, or 1999; also, Hobson, 2002). It can be argued, in bank clerks, initially were associated with fact, that the idea of the provider is a major ele- “respectable” men until these occupations ment in the construction of masculine identity; became feminized (Lockwood, 1958). The same it is a moral as well as an economic category. is true for a whole range of professions, and Hence the devastating personal effects of unem- many of these occupational boundaries were ployment that have been documented by many often fiercely defended against the incursions researchers over many years. of women through the practices of trade unions In a somewhat more abstract vein, we may and professional associations (Walby, 1986). We consider the contribution of the ideological can say, therefore, that occupational titles and construction, which sees men, in contrast to occupational boundaries were policed by the women, as effective actors. This is partly practices of men and that, insofar as occupation because the public sphere, as outlined earlier, is became a key indicator of social class, the iden- not simply different from the private sphere but tification of masculinities and class can be seen is also seen as being, in many ways, more sig- as having deep historical roots. The same is also nificant than the private sphere. The elevation of true in terms of property, the other basis of class the economy and the spheres of war and politics distinctions, where the links between property, are accompanied by the downgrading of the class, and masculinity were often given legal domestic. Thus public statues celebrate warriors underpinnings. This is not to say that women did and statesmen, and the large-scale heroic canvas not have occupations or property but that male is given greater significance than the miniature property and male occupations became the more or the still life. On the one side there is risk and dominant. danger, the possibilities for heroic achievement Another set of distinctions reinforced the or spectacular downfalls; on the other side there masculine character of class: those between the is the routine and the everyday (see Morgan, public and the private. Conventionally, the ter- 2003). The very word “actor” (which has been rain of class and class struggle is located in the taken over into sociological analysis) still has public sphere, the sphere of employment, where some masculine connotations. Wherever the the deployment of wealth and property and pol- “action” is, it is not in the home. Action and itics is easily seen. The public sphere was also actor merge with active, which in its turn con- the sphere dominated by men as they engaged trasts with passive. in employment or class and political action. Finally we need to emphasize the distinction Women might be seen as backstage or “behind- between production and reproduction, which the-scenes workers” in class struggles, their own some writers see to as a key to understanding class position reflecting that of their husbands the masculinization of class. O’Brien (1981), in (Porter, 1983). In some cases they provided very particular, recognized the contribution to class obvious and significant support, but this was analysis made by Marx and Engels, but she also usually defined as “support,” secondary to the demonstrated how the Marxist tradition tended main action. Only rarely, in the public imagina- to focus on labor and production and played tion, did women appear as class actors in their down reproduction. Indeed, it could be argued own right. that, within Marxism, reproduction tended to be Drawing together the two last points, we seen in more metaphorical terms (stressing the have the development of the idea of “the bread- reproduction of class relationships) rather than winner” and “the family wage.” Conventionally, as something to do with gendered relationships or so it emerged from the early 19th century, the (O’Brien, 1981). head of the household was a man, and he con- It can also be argued that class contributed to stituted the main or sole provider for his wife both a unified sense of masculinity and more and children. It was on this basis that claims diffused, perhaps more conflictual, models of were made in terms of “the family wage.” In masculinities. On the one hand, we have the practice, the reality was much more compli- identification of men, all men, with the public cated, but the idea of the man as “provider” sphere, the sphere of production, which con- remains remarkable persistent in a wide range of tained those areas in society where the action 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 170

170 • STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES

was. Many men, whatever the amount or source said that the class struggle was represented in of their income, could identify with the provider terms of these contrasting versions. role and the sense of moral responsibility that Within the writings on men and masculini- this implied. But at the same time, class experi- ties, class and gender converge in the concept of ences and practices pointed to different ways of “hegemonic masculinity” (Connell, 1995). The being men, different ways of being constituted main argument here is that the recognition of a as effective social actors. These differences diversity of masculinities should not obscure the (which will be explored in more detail later) fact that in a particular social formation, certain could be polarized between “them” and “us” or masculinities are more dominant, more valued, become embodied in a range of finer dis- or more persuasive than others. In part, these tinctions, such as those between “mental” and refer to characteristics that have little directly to “manual,” “skilled” and “unskilled,” or even do with class, such as heterosexuality or respon- workers in different departments or offices. sibility. But in part, they also have strong con- Other masculine themes that might be woven nections with class. A good example of this is into class analysis are notions of collective soli- the idea of rationality. However defined (and darity (traditionally associated with the working this is clearly a complex, multistranded con- class) and individual achievement and risk tak- cept), rationality is associated with the practices ing, associated with the classic bourgeoisie, or of men and, increasingly, with the public life the middle classes. Yet again, we can contrast a and with those most visibly or actively involved sense of masculinity that derives from having in public life. It is associated with the abstract authority or control over others and the solidar- logic of the market, the dominant principles ities of the shop floor or the coal face. of bureaucratic organization, and the general Representations of class struggle and class conduct of private life. The idea of rationality differences traditionally drew from masculine is an ideological theme that brings together imagery. Although the rhetoric might refer to both class and gender, forming a core feature “working people,” the representations of the of modern hegemonic masculinity. working class frequently included masculine symbols (such as the hammer or clenched fists) and emphasized collective solidarity. At the very THE CLASS OF MASCULINITY least, such representations of solidarity dis- solved gender differences in a large class iden- One of the earliest books in the recent flood tity and frequently went further than this to of texts on men and masculinities specifically convey collective, embodied masculinity. The placed class and class differences at the centre language was the language of struggle, of class of its analysis (Tolson, 1977). To a large extent, war and conflict. Representations of the opposi- Tolson takes it for granted that class provides a tion also deployed masculine, if negatively major framework within which masculine expe- valued, images of wealth and luxury. riences and contradictions may be explored. Media representations of industrial disputes Thus he begins a section titled “Working-class in the latter part of the 20th century frequently masculinity” with these words: “The paradox of seemed to play on these understandings. On masculinity at work is most apparent within the the one hand, we have the raised arms of the experience of manual labor” (p. 58). mass meeting; on the other, we have men in A later section within the same chapter suits, more individualized, leaving or entering focuses on the distinctive features of middle cars or making public statements in an abstract class masculinity. As already noted, we can see language of rationality (Philo, 1995). Here, in two contrasting ways of “doing” masculinity, contrast to the working class images, workers and these are easily recognized within certain were presented as sheep who were easily led by constructions of social class. The one is collec- politically motivated leaders or group pressure. tive, physical and embodied, and oppositional. Management, on the other hand, was presented The other is individualistic, rational, and rela- as dealing with some of the key issues in the tively disembodied. These can be broadly national economy. However valued, both sets of described as working class and middle class representations drew on different strands in the masculinities, respectively. Of course, more construction of masculinities, and it could be detailed probing will reveal complexities and 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 171

Class and Masculinity • 171

ambiguities. There are, for example, the middle models, comes to be seen as something that class (and often embodied) solidarities of clubs, is played out in different sites that do not sports teams, public schools, and so on. And necessarily have much to do with each other. there are working class individualities repre- Divisions at the workplace, in terms of skills, sented in popular social types such as “Jack the pay, privileges, and so on do not necessarily lad,” “the cheeky chappie” and “the hard man.” carry over into the areas where these individuals It is, indeed, difficult to come to terms with live their family lives or enjoy their leisure some of the contradictions within constructions activities. Class as experience needs to be fil- of masculinity without taking on board some tered through particular agencies, such as hous- sense of class distinction. Masculinities are both ing, residential area, educational experience, solidaristic and individualistic, both embodied and so on. Further, although masculinities may and disembodied. An understanding of class and be shaped by or play a part in shaping these dif- of historically constructed class differences ferences, this is by no means inevitable. Some helps us to explore some of the tensions and divisions, indeed, such as the divisions between ambiguities of masculinity. the “rough” and the “respectable” working class Up to now, we have tended to focus on a or the fine gradations recorded by Robert bipolar, largely oppositional model of class, Roberts (1971) in his account of The Classic and it may be argued that this focus on struggle Slum may be as much maintained by the work of or opposition conforms to one influential model women as by the occupational status of men. of masculinity. However, there are other models Further, one of the key features of a class of class and class differences that point to three system, as opposed to feudalism or a caste or more classes. Clearly, the very notion of the system, is its relative openness and the degree “middle” class implies at least three classes, of mobility, both social and geographical, which although much sociological analysis that uses is allowed. Recognizing the possibilities of class classifications tends to leave out the upper social and geographical mobility does open up class, largely because the numbers involved are the possibility for more complex masculinities assumed to be too small to influence analysis of, and their relationship to class. Here we have the say, health or voting patterns. However, more “failed” masculinity of the downwardly mobile structural analysis should include the upper class individual whose failure in class terms may be (or power elite or any alternative term), as it is read as indications of a weakness of character, clearly highly influential, if numerically small. which might also be gendered (lack of ambition, Moreover, such a class is both constructed by alcoholism, etc.). Here we have the defensive and has a major role in constructing dominant or and uneasy masculinity of the recent arrival into hegemonic notions of masculinity to do with middle class occupations, localities, or lifestyles. control, the exercise of power, rationality, and so This may contrast with the apparently more on. C. Wright Mills’ (1959) The Power Elite, for stable masculinities of those who have managed example, can be read as a study of masculinities. the easier passage from the middle class family, Once we move beyond the bipolar model, a through school and university, into a middle range of possibilities become open to us. There class occupation and a lifestyle enhanced by an is, first, the possibility of three or more classes, appropriate marriage and the “right” location. usually based on some classification of occupa- This may also contrast with the, probably dwin- tions. Occupations are implicated, in different dling, traditional working class communities ways, in the classifications developed by the that provide another basis for the reaffirmation British Registrar General, Goldthorpe, and Erik of masculinities through shared experiences Olin Wright (see, e.g., Marshall, Rose, Newby, and lifestyles. Geographical mobility (with or & Vogler, 1989, pp. 13-62). The trouble with without social mobility) may also play its part many of these classifications is that they do not in blurring or sharpening masculine identities. necessarily map easily into class experiences; Community studies have explored differences the fact that certain occupations may be grouped between the “established” and the “outsiders” together for the purposes of analysis does not that, to some extent, cut across class divisions necessarily mean that the individuals so grouped (Elias & Scotson, 1994). will understand their commonalities in class Watson developed the useful term “spiralist” terms. Class, once we move from bipolar to describe those who are both geographically 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 172

172 • STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES

and socially mobile (Watson, 1964). Such terms, a relatively tight association between mobilities may now, increasingly, take on a class and masculinity may be characteristic of global dimension. Whether such complexities modern or capitalist societies (for a historical contribute to an overall eroding of hegemonic analysis, see Davidoff & Hall, 1987). Some of masculinity or whether they open up the possi- the relevant features of these societies are rela- bilities for a much wider range of masculine tively clear distinctions between home and practices is a matter for further investigation. work, clear and relatively stable occupational It might also be argued that the experience titles, the dominance of a male breadwinner and practice of mobility itself is related to model, and the continuing importance of heavy the construction of masculinity in opposition and manufacturing industry. With a return to to femininity and the experiences of women. more blurred distinctions between home and Thomson (1997), using more qualitative oral work, the decline of clear occupational titles and historical material, argues (in the British con- jobs or careers for life, the decline of the male text) that the generation of men born in the breadwinner model, and the growth of a service 1930s and 1940s experienced some modest economy, we may also have a weakening of the improvements in the course of their life. This relationship between masculinity and class. This was not the case with the women in the sample. will be explored in the next section. For women, marriage often has a depressing effect on social status. Thompson argues for the importance of considering the interplays MASCULINITY AND between family, occupation, and gender in CLASS IN LATE MODERNITY exploring the processes of social mobility and the numerous, often unrecognized or unacknow- The last three decades has seen a ledged ways in which women assist in men’s subtle reworking of the relationship experiences of upward mobility. between class, masculinity and the We may reach an interim conclusion at individual. this point. We have seen a two-way interaction between class and gender, with particular refer- Mike Savage (2000, p. xi) ence to masculinities. Masculinity remains a relatively underexplored aspect in the examina- Probably one of the most significant influ- tion of class practices. Yet the position that class ences on the changing relationship between analysis plays, or at least has played, in socio- class and masculinity has been the decline of logical analysis as a whole and the continuing the male breadwinner model in practice and, importance of class as a social division may in although perhaps to a lesser extent, in ideol- part derive from this close but largely unrecog- ogy. In the past, it might be argued, men were nized masculine character of class. Conversely, more strongly “classed” than women because one of the reasons why it has been found neces- they had closer associations to the key practices sary to pluralize “masculinities” is that ways of and institutions that maintained class. For many doing masculinity are always mediated through men, of course, this might be an illusion; never- other social divisions, of which class remains one theless it might be possible for the more weakly of the most important. The connection between “classed” men (perhaps because of unemploy- class and masculinity is an intimate one. When ment, disability, or simply having a wife who I see a middle class man, I do not see some- was the main breadwinner) to continue to derive one who is middle class and then someone who some class identity from their more fortunate is a man, or vice versa. I see both at the same brothers. Hence there was some partial justi- time. The major social divisions—class, gender, fication for the traditional practice of locating ethnicity, age, and so on—may be likened to a household in terms of the class of its head primary colors, which are more often seen in and for women to be allocated class posi- their many combinations than individually. tions on the basis of their husband’s or Up to now I have suggested a relatively close father’s class position. With a weakening of association between class and masculinity, men’s attachment to the labor market and a although the last few paragraphs have pointed strengthening of women’s attachment, some to some possible complexities. In very broad revision was clearly necessary. 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 173

Class and Masculinity • 173

As has already been noted, two analytical objective measures of class might not necessarily strategies emerged in response to the growing translate into more subjective processes of class involvement of married women in the labor experiences and identities. However, the presence market and the related decline in relevance (but of cross-class households constituted one piece not always in ideological importance) of the of a larger jigsaw that, when completed, would male breadwinner model. The first was to state show a much more complicated relationship clearly that the unit of class was the individual between class and gender. rather than the household. Various consequences One relatively underexplored theme might followed. Both men and women could be seen be mentioned. Classically, class (based on eco- as units within the class structure, although men nomic criteria) was distinguished from status, tended to occupy higher class positions than where issues of prestige and esteem were cen- women. It is also likely that the issues around tral. However, as both were aspects of social which everyday class struggles were fought stratification, it was frequently the case that the became more various. Notions of “the family distinctions became blurred. Status considera- wage” became less important and issues to tions could reinforce class distinctions (as in do with working conditions, hours of work, cases where we get a merging of economic and parental leave, and so on came more and more cultural capital) or could cut across them and, to the fore. It would not be true to say that class presumably, weaken their political effective- itself became feminized, but it could certainly ness. In the male breadwinner model, it could be argued that it became less masculine. almost be said that class and status frequently The other strategy was to take seriously the overlapped and, further, that the distinction idea of the household as a unit and to explore between them was gendered. Thus men tended the consequences of this. However, there were to be to the fore in matters of class and class also shifts in the idea of the household as a struggle, and women were involved in maintain- unit so that new models no longer treated the ing and reproducing everyday status distinctions household as an undifferentiated “black box” through their domestic labor, their parenting, and came to take account of differences within their organization of consumption, and their the household. For example, an interest in general moral demeanor within the local com- “cross-class marriages” (in which husbands munity. Partly as a result of the changes already and wives were, in terms of occupation, of discussed, men come to be more involved in different classes) developed, and the conse- status work and women in class work, and the quences of these differences were explored in distinction between the two modes of stratifi- a variety of ways (McCrae, 1986). Particular cation, always difficult to maintain in practice, attention was paid, as might be expected, to becomes even less easy to maintain. those households wherein the wife was of a It is likely, in fact, that the tensions between higher social class than her husband. One might class and status have always been present and argue that this might further lead to the weaken- that a gendered understanding of stratification, ing of the association between class and mas- especially one that takes masculinities seriously, culinity or serve to remind us that, in interactional might highlight some of these. Thus it can be terms, the impact of class and the elaboration of argued that different ways of doing masculinity class-based identities might vary according to or of “being a man” can themselves constitute the different sites within which an individual status divisions. This, indeed, is one of the con- was involved. Thus a working class man mar- sequences of thinking about hegemonic mas- ried to a middle class women might have a culinities. One complex set of examples may be different sense of class at home than at work, derived from considering issues of sexualities. where some of the more traditional solidarities Studies of young men, in particular, have shown might still be relevant. how a notion of aggressive heterosexuality may Such conclusions, however, may be prema- be the basis of positive and negative status ture. For one thing, the class differences within (Mac An Ghaill, 1994). However, sexual status many cross-class households were relatively hierarchies might not necessarily correspond small and were based on occupational criteria to conventional notions of heterosexuality or that might not necessarily be of any relevance, homosexuality, as Lancaster’s (2002) study of certainly outside the workplace. In short, the Nicaraguan men indicates that what is often 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 174

174 • STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES

more important is a distinction between taking international top-level gatherings to become the active or passive role rather than the gender aware that we are dealing with the practices of the sexual partner. Clearly, such distinctions of men and the reproduction of hegemonic take place within conventional class divisions, masculinities. although they do not necessarily undermine At the lowest level, we have those with them. relatively little economic and cultural capital What of the alleged decline in the centrality (certainly little economic capital!) and with of class and its possible impact on hegemonic highly uncertain life chances. Terms such as masculinity or patriarchy? Speaking very gener- underclass or the socially excluded have been ally, it is possible to talk about a late-modern developed to capture this group, although both development whereby class and class divi- terms have their problems. Thus Devine (1997, sions became less central and more complex. pp. 220-221) concludes, along with numerous Alternatively, we may talk of a late-modern other commentators, that the idea of an “under- development in which class has become more class” is flawed, although it is possible to simplified. In terms of the first, the lines of recognize the growth of a sizable minority argument have already been indicated. This (sometimes estimated as around 20%) of people includes a decline in the overall salience of in poverty in both the United States and the class (especially as related to occupation); a United Kingdom. This is, clearly, not an exclu- growing emphasis on other social divisions; a sively masculine group, and, indeed, it is often fragmentation of class divisions, identities, and the case that the burdens rest more heavily the sites where class work is performed; and on women, whether as single parents or as a blurring of the distinction between class and workers in low-paid, uncertain jobs. The domi- status. This last reflects a context within which nant characteristics of this “class” become consumption and leisure assume greater impor- magnified when seen through a global lens. tance. We may also note organizational changes; It is doubtful whether there is a single mas- for example, the development of “flatter” culinity that can be identified with the socially hierarchical structures, which might be seen as excluded, although certain public representa- having the consequence of a reduction of class tions are highly gendered. Thus media represen- and status divisions at the place of work. These tations stress themes of masculine violence, factors, in combination, might contribute to a either collective (as in rioting) or more individ- weakening of patriarchal structures in general ualistic. Or there are themes that concern absent but will certainly undermine the masculinity of fathers and the lack of a stable adult male role class. However, these finer, more complex class model. Dominant themes are those to do with and status divisions might still be important in either a failed masculinity, the lack of opportu- exploring the varieties of masculinities present nity to live up to what is expected in terms of in a late modern society. being a provider, or stigmatized forms of mas- A more simplified model, however, emerges culinity. Thus Savage (2000) writes: “working- if we take the idea of “life chances” seriously. class work has been constructed as ‘servile’ Here we look at different combinations of work, which no longer bestows mastery or economic and cultural capital and assess the autonomy on its incumbent” (p. 153). However, consequences of these for the life chances of even attempts to live up to hegemonic models of individuals. Theoretically, a large number of masculinity (as in the case of asylum seekers combinations may be possible, but in practice, who might otherwise be characterized as heroic we may talk of three major divisions. At the individuals) also become stigmatized. highest level, we have those with considerable Between these two extremes, there is the amounts of cultural and economic capital and more fluid class situation characterized by who are at the highest level of private organiza- different mixes of economic and cultural capital tions and state bureaucracies. This is clearly a and different life chances. The middle group minority, but also, increasingly, a global minor- (which is not the same as some theoretical ity. For the most part, we are talking about notion of “the middle class”) may, for example, men so that there are clear interactions between be ranged in terms of relative stability, and masculinities and class and status situations. certainty of life chances, from the very stable One only has to look at the photographs of or predictable at the top to the highly uncertain 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 175

Class and Masculinity • 175

at the bottom. It is here that the links between very particular historical events, can simply be masculinities and class are becoming more translated to this more global framework. various or more fluid. Although there are con- Similarly, it is doubtful whether a simple siderable differences within this broad middle upgrading of the class struggle from the national category, whether these differences coalesce to the global arena can be anything more than into class differences is a little more difficult to a first approximation of what is an increas- determine. Clearly, there are some occupations ingly complex situation. Thus Waters (1995), in that are still shaped around strong constructions a useful survey of globalization theories, argues of masculinity; on both sides of the Atlantic, against the strong model for the development fire-fighters constitute one such occupational of transnational classes. There are, however, an identity (Baigent, 2001). But whether members increasing variety of transnational class experi- of such occupations construct themselves in ences (which also have relevance for the terms of wider class identities remains open to constructions of masculinities). A more fruitful question. The same might also be said of some line of analysis would seem to be to explore the newer occupational identities, such as “bounc- different interpenetrations of the global and the ers” or doormen, associated with developing local and the ways in which these shape and are leisure industries. shaped by classed and gendered experiences. Up to now, apart from a few passing refer- For example, Waters notes how processes of ences, the analysis has been based largely in consumption and production mingle in global material and theories developed in the United cities: “Under globalization, migration has Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, the United brought the third world back to the global cities States. In terms of traditional class analysis, where its exploitation becomes ever more there might be some justification for this, as has apparent” (p. 93). Such meetings do not neces- already been argued. However, there are good sarily undermine the close associations between reasons to doubt whether such an analysis can masculinities and other social divisions; indeed, be straightforwardly transplanted to countries they may well intensify it. outside Europe and Anglophone nations. For example, Scott (1996) argues for a variety of capitalist classes and suggests that the variations CONCLUSION as such the “Latin” model might be shaped by familistic and kinship ties to a greater degree This chapter has argued that there has been a than late-modern models in the West. Such relatively underexplored theme in the analy- models of the capitalist class also deploy differ- sis of social class; namely, its association with ent constructions of masculinity. Bertaux (1997) the construction of masculinity. Very broadly, it argues that most studies of social mobility (the could be argued that in the early stages of indus- kinds that have proliferated in Britain and the trial capitalism and up until the late 20th cen- United States) tend to assume a relatively stable tury, there was a relatively strong association political order, within which such class move- between class and class practices and mas- ments take place. However, notions of mobility culinities. As we move close to our own times, become much more problematic for those coun- these connections have, in some cases, perhaps tries (such as the formerly communist nations of become more apparent, although in other cases, Eastern Europe) that experienced revolutionary the links have become more obscure. The grow- upheavals that challenged notions of privilege ing uncertainty in class analysis perhaps reflects and inequalities. The gendered implications of and has an impact on what is sometimes, rather these major transformations have not been too loosely, called the crisis of masculinity. explored to any large extent. This is not the place to elaborate on the prob- A further challenge emerges when we aban- lematic idea of that “crisis,” which is discussed don the implicit assumption that the nation-state elsewhere in this volume. However, very simply, is our unit of analysis and, instead, begin to we may identify a model of stable masculinity explore flows and movements on a global scale against which any sense of crisis might be mea- (Urry, 2000). It remains an open question as to sured. Such a model would include a relatively whether the class models, developed from the high degree of congruence between public dis- core writings of Marx and Weber and reflecting courses about masculinity and the public and 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 176

176 • STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES

private practices of masculinity. For individual makes clear that such a program would be men, there would be a sense of ontological secu- worthwhile. rity—a relatively stable sense of “being in the world.” Even where a man may feel that he has fallen short of his responsibilities as a man REFERENCES (reflected, perhaps, in notions of dishonor or unmanliness), the standard by which he is seen Acker, J. (1973). Women and social stratification: A to have fallen short remains relatively clear. case of intellectual sexism. American Journal of Such an ideal, typical model of masculinity Sociology, 78(4), 936-945. could clearly accommodate and interact with Baigent, D. (2001). One more last working class hierarchies based in social class. Class divisions hero: A cultural audit of the UK fire service. may have underlined the fact that there were Cambridge, England: Fire Service Research and different ways of “doing” masculinity (collective Training Unit, Anglia Polytechnic University. versus individual, hands versus brains, and so Bertaux, D. (1997). Transmission in extreme on), and these different modes of masculinity situations: Russian females expropriated by were reinforced by clear distinctions at work and the October Revolution. In D. Bertaux & P. Thompson (Eds.), Pathways to social class: between communities. To some extent, however, A qualitative approach to social mobility these differences might be seen as variations on (pp. 230-258). Oxford, England: Clarendon a theme; the “respectable” breadwinning work- Press. ing man and the sober, rational member of the Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: bourgeoisie might have a lot in common in terms University of California Press. of a sense of what it is to be a man, despite the Crompton, R. (1993). Class and stratification. large differences and oppositions in class terms. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Put another way, class might be seen as a prob- Curtis, R. E. (1986). Household and family in theory lem in terms of Marxist contradictions or more on inequality. American Sociological Review, liberal notions of citizenship and social justice, 51, 168-183. Davidoff, L., & Hall, C. (1987). Family fortunes. but masculinity was not seen in this light. Hence London: Hutchinson. class analysis remained ungendered for a long Devine, F. (1997). Social class in America and period of time, and it has been only in relatively Britain. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh recent times that any discussions of gender and University Press. class have come to focus on the practices of men Elias, N., & Scotson, J. L. (1994). The established rather than on those of women. and the outsiders (2nd ed.). London: Sage. It is part of the argument of this chapter that Goldthorpe, J. H. (1983). Women in class analysis: the undermining of a relatively stable sense of In defence of the conventional view. Sociology, masculinity (at least in its more public dis- 17, 466-488. courses) was associated with growing uncer- Gullestad, M. (1992). The art of social relations: tainty about the nature and significance of class. Essays on culture, social action and everyday life in modern Norway. Oslo, Norway: Scandi- Thus, the growing “presence” of women in all navian U. P. areas of social, political, and economic life pre- Hobson, B. (Ed.). (2002). Making men into fathers: sented a problem for conventional class analy- Men, masculinities and the social politics of sis, just as it presented a problem for established fatherhood. Cambridge, England: Cambridge or hegemonic masculinities. Both class and University Press. gender became challenged by the recognitions Lancaster, R. (2002). Subject honor, object shame. In of other social divisions, such as race and eth- R. Adams & D. Savran (Eds.), The masculin- nicity, age, sexualities, disabilities, and abilities. ity studies reader (pp. 41-68). Oxford, England: A great sense of fluidity in social life, brought Blackwell. about by flexibilities in working practices and Lee, D. J., & Turner, B. S. (Eds.). (1996). Conflicts about class: Debating inequality in late indus- the various complex strands of postmodernity trialism. Harlow, England: Longman. and globalization, provided yet further chal- Lockwood, D. (1958). The black-coated worker. lenges to both class and gender. More detailed London: Allen & Unwin. historical and social analysis will be required Mac An Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: to unravel the connections between class and Masculinities, sexualities and schooling. masculinities, but it is hoped that this chapter Buckingham, England: Open University Press. 10-Kimmel.qxd 3/5/2004 6:21 PM Page 177

Class and Masculinity • 177

MacCrae, S. (1986). Cross-class families: A study Scott, J. (1996). Patterns of capitalist development. In of wives’ occupational superiority. Oxford, D. J. Lee & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Conflicts about England: Clarendon Press. class: Debating inequality in late industrialism Marshall, G., Rose, D., Newby, H., & Vogler, C. (pp. 159-170). Harlow, England: Longman. (1989). Social class in modern Britain. London: Thompson, P. (1997). Women, men and trans- Unwin Hyman. generational family influence in social mobil- McLellan, D. (Ed.). (1988). Marxism: Essential writ- ity. In D. Bertaux & P. Thompson (Eds.), ings. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Pathways to social class: A qualitative approach Mills, C. W. (1959). The power elite. New York: to social mobility (pp. 32-61). Oxford, England: Galaxy Books. Clarendon Press. Morgan, D. H. J. (1996). Family connections: An Tolson, A. (1977). The limits of masculinity. London: introduction to family studies. Cambridge, Tavistock. England: Polity Press. Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Morgan, D. H. J. (2003). Everyday life and family Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: practices. In E. B. Silva & T. Bennett (Eds.), Routledge. Contemporary culture and everyday life. Durham, Walby, S. (1986). Patriarchy at work. Cambridge, NC: Sociologypress. England: Polity Press. O’ Brien, M. (1981). The politics of reproduction. Warin, J., Solomon, Y., Lewis, C., & Langford, W. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (1999). Fathers, work and family life. London: Pakulski, J., & Waters, M. (1996). The death of class. Joseph Rowntree Foundation/Family Policy London: Sage. Studies Centre. Philo, G. (Ed.). (1995). Glasgow Media Group reader Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. London: Routledge. (Vol. 2). London: Routledge. Watson, W. (1964). Social mobility and social class in Porter, M. (1983). Home and work and class con- industrial communities. In M. Gluckman (Ed.), sciousness. Manchester, England: Manchester Closed systems and open minds: The limits of University Press. naivety in social anthropology (pp. 129-157). Roberts, R. (1971). The classic slum. Manchester, Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd. England: Manchester University Press. Savage, M. (2000). Class analysis and social transformation. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.