Subscribe ▶️ YouTube @philosop-HER

Masculinities Studies

Gig Φ Philosophy: Published March, 2026

Primary Academic Sources for Further Reading

Anderson, Eric. Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities. Routledge, 2009.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990.
Connell, R. W. Masculinities. University of California Press, 1995.
Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. "Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept." Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 6, 2005, pp. 829-859.
Curry, Tommy J. The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood. Temple University Press, 2017.
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, 1959.
Kimmel, Michael S. Manhood in America: A Cultural History. Free Press, 1996.
Messner, Michael A. Politics of Masculinities: Ideologies in Conflict. Sage Publications, 1997.
Rotundo, E. Anthony. American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era. Basic Books, 1993.

Introduction

Masculinities Studies is an interdisciplinary field that emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s, primarily as a response to Second-Wave Feminism and the development of Women's Studies.

Rather than viewing "manhood" as a biological inevitable, this field analyzes masculinity as a socially constructed category that is fluid, historical, and deeply intertwined with power dynamics.

Core Theoretical Foundations

The field is anchored by several foundational concepts that moved the needle from "men's history" to a critical analysis of gendered power.

Hegemonic Masculinity

Proposed by R.W. Connell in the seminal work Masculinities (1995), this is arguably the most influential concept in the field.

Definition: It is the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy.
The Hierarchy: Connell argues that masculinities do not exist in a vacuum but in a hierarchy. Hegemonic masculinity sits at the top, subordinating not only women but also "marginalized" masculinities (based on race or class) and "subordinated" masculinities (such as gay identities).

The "Mask" & Performance

Drawing from Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity (Gender Trouble, 1990), masculinity is viewed as a repeated "act" rather than an internal essence.

Erving Goffman also contributed by discussing the "front" men must maintain to appear competent and dominant.
Michael Kimmel, in Manhood in America (1996), argues that masculinity is often a "homosocial enactment" (men perform for the approval of other men, driven by the fear of being seen as unmanly or "feminine").

Summary of the Field

Masculinities Studies does not seek to "defend" or "attack" men. Instead, it functions as a critical tool to understand how patriarchy functions as a system that harms women while simultaneously policing and restricting the emotional and social lives of men.

Key Themes in Contemporary Research

The field has expanded significantly to address how being a man intersects with other identities.

Crisis of Masculinity: Scholars like Eric Anderson and Michael Messner have explored the "crisis" narrative, investigating how shifts in the global economy and the rise of women’s rights have challenged traditional male roles, leading to "inclusive masculinity" or, conversely, a "retributive" return to dominance.
Intersectionality: Modern scholarship emphasizes that there is no singular "masculinity". A Black working-class man, a white corporate executive, and a trans man experience gender through wildly different lenses of privilege and oppression.
Toxic vs. Healthy Masculinity: While "toxic masculinity" is a popular term, academic sources often prefer the term "protest masculinity" (from Alfred Adler and later Connell) to describe exaggerated claims to virility by men who feel disempowered by their social or economic standing.

In recent years, the field has been significantly challenged and expanded by Tommy J. Curry, whose work establishes Black Male Studies (BMS) as a distinct subfield. Curry argues that traditional Masculinities Studies (and broader gender theory) often relies on "white reality" to define what it means to be a man, thereby mischaracterizing the lived experiences of Black men.

bell hooks - Men, Masculinity, & Love

Key Concepts in Black Male Studies

The "Man-Not"

In his 2017 book, The Man-Not, Curry argues that Black males have never been allowed to inhabit the category of "Man" as defined by Western patriarchy.

The Theory: Because "Manhood" in the West is synonymous with power, protection, and the capacity to contract with other men to dominate women, Black men, who are systematically denied these powers, function as a "Man-Not".
Genre vs. Gender: Curry proposes using "genre" instead of "gender" to describe Black male existence, as the standard gender binary is a product of white colonial thought that views Black males only as "bodies" or "biological threats" rather than human subjects.

Social Dominance Theory & Out-Group Males

Curry critiques the "Mimetic Thesis": the idea that Black men simply want to mimic white patriarchal dominance.

Instead, he utilizes Social Dominance Theory to show that Black men are "out-group males" targeted for elimination or extreme subordination by "in-group" (white) males.
He highlights that Black males are often the primary victims of both lethal violence and sexual victimization, a reality he claims is "conceptually erased" when theory assumes all males hold patriarchal privilege.

Racist Misandry

Curry introduces the term "racist misandry" to describe the specific hatred and fear directed toward Black males. This is distinct from general misandry because it is tied to white supremacist "phallicism": where the Black male is simultaneously feared as a predator and fetishized, leading to unique forms of state and social violence.