Page 128 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 128
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
which are invested in and practised on the otherwise unstable, fragment-
ed and changeable body. What remains unexplained in Foucauldian anal-
yses, as pointed out by Bahovec (2002, p. 184), is sexual difference, that is,
the question of why women’s bodies are more subjected to cultural norms
and ideals than men’s, why women are symbolically represented as beings
that are more exposed to the gaze of the other, and more burdened by
the “need” to take considerable care for their outfits. The answer may be
sought in the different ways of the disciplining of masculinity and femi-
ninity that take place through gender-specific practices of the regulation
of girls’ and boys’ bodies, producing different attitudes to the body and its
aestheticisation. I continue by comparing boys and girls in their attitude
to clothing practices to disprove the belief that boys, as opposed to girls,
are not under the pressure of being disciplined into the dominant models
of masculinity also through body practices, and to show that their disci-
plining takes place through techniques of the self that are different than
in girls.
Hegemonic and Subordinated Masculinities
The last decades have seen growing interest in research into masculinities,
which in gender studies has led to a sensible broadening of the focus from
an exclusive orientation to analyses of femininity to the study of the rela-
tional dynamics between genders and the heterogeneity within the cat-
egories of masculinity and femininity. Connell (2012) derives from the
heterogeneity of the category of men, from multiple masculinities, and
says that in every moment different models of masculinity are in the mu-
tual relationships of tension and competitiveness, but only one group of
men takes the dominant position of hegemonic masculinity. This group
is dominant both in its relation to women and to different modes of mas-
culinity. Although Conell defines the hegemonic masculinity as contex-
tual and relational, that is, as changeable, she points to some central at-
tributes or mechanisms of establishing the hegemonic masculinity that
are relatively stable in different contexts. On the relational level, these in-
clude radical otherness in relation to femininity, namely, the constant en-
deavours of men to emphasise and constantly demonstrate their differ-
ence from femininity, and normative heterosexuality or homophobia. The
inclusion of homophobia as an integral part of hegemonic masculinity es-
tablishes gay masculinity as a priori excluded from male hegemony. The
body is also an integral part of hegemonic masculinity and, according to
Connell (ibid.), in Western culture the sign of hegemonic masculinity is a
tall, muscular body. The lack of any of these highlighted features can place
126
which are invested in and practised on the otherwise unstable, fragment-
ed and changeable body. What remains unexplained in Foucauldian anal-
yses, as pointed out by Bahovec (2002, p. 184), is sexual difference, that is,
the question of why women’s bodies are more subjected to cultural norms
and ideals than men’s, why women are symbolically represented as beings
that are more exposed to the gaze of the other, and more burdened by
the “need” to take considerable care for their outfits. The answer may be
sought in the different ways of the disciplining of masculinity and femi-
ninity that take place through gender-specific practices of the regulation
of girls’ and boys’ bodies, producing different attitudes to the body and its
aestheticisation. I continue by comparing boys and girls in their attitude
to clothing practices to disprove the belief that boys, as opposed to girls,
are not under the pressure of being disciplined into the dominant models
of masculinity also through body practices, and to show that their disci-
plining takes place through techniques of the self that are different than
in girls.
Hegemonic and Subordinated Masculinities
The last decades have seen growing interest in research into masculinities,
which in gender studies has led to a sensible broadening of the focus from
an exclusive orientation to analyses of femininity to the study of the rela-
tional dynamics between genders and the heterogeneity within the cat-
egories of masculinity and femininity. Connell (2012) derives from the
heterogeneity of the category of men, from multiple masculinities, and
says that in every moment different models of masculinity are in the mu-
tual relationships of tension and competitiveness, but only one group of
men takes the dominant position of hegemonic masculinity. This group
is dominant both in its relation to women and to different modes of mas-
culinity. Although Conell defines the hegemonic masculinity as contex-
tual and relational, that is, as changeable, she points to some central at-
tributes or mechanisms of establishing the hegemonic masculinity that
are relatively stable in different contexts. On the relational level, these in-
clude radical otherness in relation to femininity, namely, the constant en-
deavours of men to emphasise and constantly demonstrate their differ-
ence from femininity, and normative heterosexuality or homophobia. The
inclusion of homophobia as an integral part of hegemonic masculinity es-
tablishes gay masculinity as a priori excluded from male hegemony. The
body is also an integral part of hegemonic masculinity and, according to
Connell (ibid.), in Western culture the sign of hegemonic masculinity is a
tall, muscular body. The lack of any of these highlighted features can place
126
