Inclusive masculinity

Inclusive Masculinity, underpinned by social constructionist theory, is concerned with how homophobia and homohysteria stratifies men’s gender. Its central concept is homohysteria, which describes the context where men avoid certain behaviors in order to avoid being publicly perceived as gay. Inclusive masculinity theory focuses on the impact of gender policing by homophobia, and the stratification of masculinity types that occur under different cultural configurations of homohysteria. It is argued that as homohysteria decreases, men no longer need to position themselves as hypermasculine in order to be thought heterosexual. When this occurs, men can engage in a variety of previously feminine practices without the fear of being perceived gay.

The theory was developed in 2009 by Professor Eric Anderson, University of Winchester, to account for changing patterns of masculinity in research that documented young, heterosexual men exhibiting a range of once-stigmatized behaviors. This included deep emotional connections in the form of bromances with other men; the acceptance of physical tactility including kissing and cuddling; metrosexual appearance; and the inclusion of gay male friends.

Inclusive masculinity theory focuses on hierarchies of masculinity, rather than the relationship between men and women. In conceptualizing intra-masculine domination, inclusive masculinity theory suggests that in periods of high homohysteria, one dominating, hegemonic, version of masculinity is culturally esteemed, and it will have homophobia at its core. However, as homohysteria decreases, stratifications of masculinity become less hierarchical, and a broader range of masculinities become valued. As cultural homohysteria further diminishes, multiple forms of masculinity can exist with very little gendered policing. Here, one or more forms of inclusive masculinity are shown to dominate numerically, but they are not reproduced through oppression or marginalization.

Application

Sport

Although inclusive masculinity theory was only first published in 2009, scholars are rapidly adopting it as a theoretical framework. For example, in an ethnography of a U.S. soccer team, Adi Adams used it to show high levels of homosocial bonding and pro-gay attitudes. He documented multiple examples of straight athletes adopting social behaviors once coded as feminine or gay, where they embrace the opportunity to openly value friendship and the expression of emotional intimacy. Grant Peterson, from Brunel University, applied it to examine the changing gender dynamics of British university dance floor settings, documenting heterosexual men dancing together in highly sexualized ways without concern as to how strangers perceive their sexual identity. Ellis Cashmore and Jamie Cleland used inclusive masculinity theory to document an erosion of homophobia amongst British soccer fans, and Dashper (2012) adopted it to show that middle-aged British men enact inclusive masculinities in the sport of dressage.

The theory has been utilized in populations apart from white, British men as well. Cavalier used inclusive masculinity theory to show the changing relationships in older men toward hegemonic masculinity in Canada, and Southall et al. show that some athletes of color in the U.S. exhibit inclusive masculinities. Here, they show that while White athletes in the U.S. maintain more inclusive attitudes than African-American athletes, there is a significant decrease in homophobia among both these groups of men.

Pro-gay attitudes and the promotion of inclusive masculine behaviors are documented among British soccer players and field-hockey teams. Anderson & McGuire use it to explain results of intra-masculine dynamics and homosocial bonding among British rugby players, and in other research Anderson, Adams and Rivers (2012) use the theory to explain how it is that 89% of heterosexual male undergraduates have kissed another male on the lips without being homosexualized by this activity; Filiault et al. (2014) show this number to be 29% in Australia.

Inclusive changes are also reflected in the way sport media reports upon gay male athletes (Kian & Anderson 2009; Kian & Anderson 2013), heterosexual soccer players (Vincent, Kian & Pedersen 2011), as well as how sport media reports upon the softening of masculinity in the National Football League (Anderson & Kian 2012).

Education

Inclusive masculinities are also found in educational settings.

Mark McCormack documents even more significant shifts in the masculine dynamics in British high schools. Using inclusive masculinity theory, he demonstrates that there has been an erosion of homophobia and a softening of masculinity among 16- to 18-year-old boys. In addition to documenting the inclusion of LGBT students, he finds boys engage in a great deal of homosocial tactility, and that they esteem acts of social inclusion. He also develops a class analysis to show that while class does act as a dampener on progressive attitudes, it does not prevent them. Thus, he supports inclusive masculinity theory’s central argument that these changes are the result of a substantial decrease in homohysteria in the broader youth culture.

Theoretical extensions

Mark McCormack has also contributed to inclusive masculinity theory by explicating how popularity is achieved in cultures where bullying and marginalization are not present. McCormack shows that what makes boys popular is not regulating others, but instead being inclusive and having charisma. Unique to a homohysteria free culture, he shows that males value the ability to socialize with boys from other groups, including gay youth. Thus, hegemony is replaced by heterogeneity.

Criticisms

While there has been a rapid and expansive uptake of inclusive masculinity theory, criticism also exists, see Steve Roberts edited book for a full discussion of this. The criticism around the theory generally regards whether one believes that such a gay-friendly culture exists among young men. Some have tried to disprove the theory by showing that homophobia still exists. But this is accountable by the theory, which specifically articulates that in locations of high homohysteria, hegemonic theory is correct; but in locations of low homohysteria, inclusive masculinities proliferate.

External links

• Good Men Project