This paper deals with the concepts of male domination by Pierre Bourdieu and hegemonic masculinity by Robert W. Connell. The background of the comparison presented here is based on the assumption of a connection between the theoretical perspectives.
The paper aims to clarify some central questions: How did male hegemony emerge or has been constructed? How were these structures able to secure their self-evidence and legitimacy over centuries? Why are patriarchal structures still ubiquitous today? How can the structures of male hegemony or male domination be changed or even ended?
In order to answer these questions, both concepts will be examined individually in terms of method and theory in the following, and then analysed together. In the last part of the paper, the concepts are critically examined, discussed and included in current references.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Construction of Masculinity – Bourdieu and Connell
2.1 Pierre Bourdieu: Male rule
2.1.1 Construction of body, incorporation of domination and masculinity
2.1.2 Male habitus, male domination, violence and female complicity
2.2 Robert W. Connell: Hegemonic masculinity
2.2.1 Social construction of gender and masculinity
3 Comparison and summary
4 Criticism, reference and discussion
5 Conclusion
6 Bibliography
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the social construction of masculinity by comparing the sociological theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Robert W. Connell. It aims to clarify how male hegemony is constructed, maintained, and legitimized over time, while exploring whether these patriarchal structures can be challenged or dismantled.
- The concept of "Male Rule" in Pierre Bourdieu's work.
- "Hegemonic Masculinity" as developed by Robert W. Connell.
- The role of habitus and symbolic violence in perpetuating gender disparities.
- The historical and social institutionalization of gender roles and divisions of labor.
- The potential for social change and the deconstruction of traditional masculinity.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.1 Construction of body, incorporation of domination and masculinity
"In reality, everything is completely different" (Proust)
Kabyle society knows the social differentiation and domination only according to gender (cf. Rademacher, 2002, p.146). For them, sexuality is not constituted and the gender order is divided into dichotomies. Bourdieu describes that these dichotomies are natural and homologous opposites: high/low, up/down, hot/cold, indoor(private)/outside(public), active/passive etc. (cf. Bourdieu, 2005, p.18, Flashar, 2006, p.315, Gottschalch, 1997, p.32 ff.). These dichotomies of the sexes can be traced back to antiquity. In them lies the origin of the sexual assignment of homologous opposites. Due to the physical differences between the sexes, the assignments seem natural and normal. Male and female represent a contrast, are unequal and corresponding connotations can be attributed. "They are alike [...] present throughout the social world – in incorporated state – in the bodies, in the habitus of the actors, which function as systematic schemes of perception, thought and commerce." (Bourdieu, 2005, p.20). Consequently, the body is a gender-different fact that allows gender dissenting principles and thus creates a "real" relationship with the world and makes the practice of the sexes appear natural and natural. Unquestioned and legitimate remains the power of the male order. As a result, the androcentric view achieves neutrality. Bourdieu addresses in the same way the social order, which is related to social practice (practical sense) and which has androcentric structures. From the social order follows the gender division of labor, namely the distributions of the works by place, time, space and means. Thus, the men are responsible for the outside (meetings or the market), for the women the inside (the house). The body with its biological differences serves as a legitimation of the "[...] socially constructed difference between the sexes [...]" (Bourdieu, 2005, p.23). Furthermore, the phallus acquires a symbolically outstanding importance. Virility, the idea of the perfect procreation power, gives rise to conceptions of finding a connection between the fertilization of the earth, in the form of plowing and fertilizing the woman, in the form of the sexual act.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the core premise that gender is a social construction and outlines the focus on Bourdieu’s and Connell’s theories regarding male domination.
2 Construction of Masculinity – Bourdieu and Connell: This section provides a detailed theoretical analysis of Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of male rule and Robert W. Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity.
2.1 Pierre Bourdieu: Male rule: This chapter explores how Bourdieu uses his ethnographic research in Kabyle society to explain the persistence of male dominance through symbolic violence and the habitus.
2.1.1 Construction of body, incorporation of domination and masculinity: This sub-chapter details how gender dichotomies are rooted in the physical body and social practices, legitimizing the androcentric order.
2.1.2 Male habitus, male domination, violence and female complicity: This section discusses how gender classifications become part of the individual habitus and how women’s own complicity helps reproduce these power structures.
2.2 Robert W. Connell: Hegemonic masculinity: This chapter introduces Connell’s social constructivist approach, focusing on power dynamics and the position of men within gender relations.
2.2.1 Social construction of gender and masculinity: This section examines the historical emergence of gender orders and how institutions contribute to the reproduction of differentiated masculinities.
3 Comparison and summary: This chapter synthesizes the two theories, highlighting their compatibility and their shared view of a patriarchally structured society while noting their distinct focuses.
4 Criticism, reference and discussion: This section critiques the limitations of the discussed theories and incorporates current sociological perspectives and modern references.
5 Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the findings and reflects on the possibilities of shifting away from traditional patriarchal consciousness.
6 Bibliography: This chapter lists all cited academic sources used for the development of the work.
Keywords
Masculinity, Hegemony, Pierre Bourdieu, Robert W. Connell, Social Construction, Habitus, Male Rule, Gender Relations, Patriarchy, Symbolic Violence, Gender Roles, Sociology, Power Structures, Social Practice, Masculinity Research.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this academic paper?
The paper investigates the social construction of masculinity and male domination by comparing and analyzing the key sociological theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Robert W. Connell.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The work covers themes such as the definition of gender as a social construct, the mechanisms of symbolic violence, the formation of the male habitus, and the historical emergence of hegemonic masculinity.
What is the central research question?
The primary research aim is to understand how male hegemony is constructed and secured over centuries, and to investigate whether or not it is possible to dismantle these patriarchal structures.
Which scientific methods are applied in this research?
The paper utilizes a comparative theoretical method, analyzing and synthesizing existing sociological concepts from Bourdieu and Connell, while grounding them in critical discussions of social practice and history.
What is discussed in the main body of the work?
The main body breaks down the individual theories of Bourdieu and Connell, exploring their specific views on power, the division of labor, emotional attachment, and the role of institutions in reproducing gender inequality.
Which key terms characterize this study?
The study is characterized by terms like 'hegemonic masculinity', 'male habitus', 'symbolic violence', 'gender projects', and 'social practice'.
How does Bourdieu's concept of 'habitus' contribute to the understanding of gender?
Bourdieu uses 'habitus' to explain how gender-specific power relations are unconsciously internalized by individuals, making male domination appear as a natural, self-evident social order.
What does Connell mean by 'hegemonic masculinity'?
Connell defines it as a configuration of gender-based practice that provides the currently accepted response to the legitimacy problem of patriarchy, ensuring the dominance of men and the subordination of women.
What is 'female complicity' in the context of this study?
It refers to the idea that women, through the internalization of patriarchal myths and socialization, often unintentionally participate in the reproduction and legitimation of male rule.
Is the current social structure still seen as strictly patriarchal?
The author discusses the ongoing transformation of gender relations but suggests that despite some egalitarian trends, patriarchal structures and the institutionalized dominance of men remain deeply embedded in society.
- Citar trabajo
- Stefanie Neidhart (Autor), 2011, Pierre Bourdieu's and Robert W. Connell's Construction of Masculinity. Male Domination and Hegemonic Masculinity, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1156939
