The concept of masculinity in the work of Raewyn ConnellAbstract
This article analyzes the development of the concept of hegemonic masculinity in the thinking of Raewyn Connell. Using a conceptual text interpretation procedure (PICT), three of the author’s works were analyzed: Gender and Power: Society, the person and sexual politics (1987), Masculinities (1995), “Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept” (2005). Based on these analyses, three interpretative syntheses were developed: masculinity and femininity—two poles of a continuum; the relationship between masculinities—a power dynamic; and rethinking the concept of hegemonic masculinity.
Keywords:
Masculinities; Hegemonic Masculinity; Power Relations
Resumo
Este artigo objetiva analisar o desenvolvimento do conceito de masculinidade hegemônica no pensamento de Raewyn Connell. Utilizando-se o Procedimento de Interpretação Conceitual de Texto (PICT), foram analisadas três obras da autora: Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics (1987), Masculinities (1995), Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept (2005). A partir das análises, elaboraram-se três sínteses interpretativas, a saber: masculinidade e feminilidade - dois polos de um contínuo; a relação entre masculinidades - uma dinâmica de poder; repensando o conceito de masculinidade hegemônica.
Palavras-chave:
Masculinidades; Masculinidade Hegemônica; Relações de Poder
Introduction
Based on discussions raised by the second wave of the feminist movement, historically situated between 1960 and 1980, both the naturalization of social gender roles and the elements contributing to male domination were problematized (Da Silva; Do Carmo; Ramos, 2021). These analyses fostered research focused not only on issues related to women in society, but also on the psychological and behavioral characteristics of men. It is tacit that issues related to male behavior had previously been discussed; however, the emphasis on understanding gender as a result of social relations, as proposed by the second wave of the feminist movement, made it possible to analyze male issues from a non-essentialist perspective, resulting in the development of new theoretical perspectives (Betz; Fitzgerald, 1993; Eagly, 1987).
Male behavior has been discussed from several perspectives, including psychoanalytic concepts, organicism, and the anthropological approach (Bem, 1974; Connell, 1995; Louro, 1997). Conceptual development and empirical research occurred concurrently, leading to the establishment of multiple conceptualizations and methods to study male behavior and masculinity (Cochran, 2010). This multiplicity of perspectives remains relevant today and offers different understandings of masculinity. For a more in-depth discussion of these topics, we recommend literature reviews conducted by Archer (2019), Schneider and Bos (2019), and O’Neil (2008).
In this context, the multiple conceptualizations of masculinity were established not only among different research areas, but also within the same theoretical-methodological bias (Bem, 1974; Ferreira, 1995). Therefore, this conceptual multiplicity enriches the debate on masculinity by expanding research possibilities; however, it is also a source of confusion, hindering, and sometimes opposing, dialogue between different research findings.
According to Cochran (2010), research on masculinity can be grouped into four paradigms: 1) essentialist, biological and evolutionary; 2) gender role identity; 3) gender role tension; and 4) social constructionist and hegemonic masculinity. Based on these paradigms, both convergence and divergence can be identified among theories of masculinity.
The essentialist, biological and evolutionary paradigm encompasses explanations that aim to understand male behavior and masculinity in terms of biological variables, i.e., organic factors like anatomical structure, neurotransmitters, and hormones are seen as determinants of male behavior (Buss, 1995; Cochran, 2010; Mackey, 2001). From this perspective, the relevance of cultural factors in explaining masculinity is disregarded, and a correspondence between male behavior and masculinity is inferred.
In contrast to the first paradigm, theories on gender role identity—considered to be the second paradigm—propose that culture plays a vital role in determining how men behave; however, culture only acts on the intrinsic potential of the organism, such that the development of gender identity begins at birth and develops throughout the subject’s life (Bem, 1974; Cochran, 2010; Rubinstein, 2003). This paradigm engages with psychoanalytic concepts and an internalist view of masculinity. Furthermore, it seeks to establish instruments that identify and classify subjects based on masculine and feminine characteristics (Bem, 1974; Rubinstein, 2003).
The third paradigm departs from perspectives of male behavior as determined by biological factors and considers masculinity as culturally defined; thus, it theorizes that the way men act is influenced by the tension of gender roles (Garnets; Pleck, 1979; O’Neil, 1981; O’Neil, 2008). Garnets and Pleck (1979) propose that tensions between the “real self” and the culturally defined “ideal self-concept” for the male gender cause the tensions of sex roles, and that these tensions are determining factors in men’s psychological suffering. From this perspective, it is worth noting that masculinity is perceived as an intrapsychic process that can be contradictory and inconsistent, with O’Neil (1981) proposing a set of hypotheses regarding these tensions and their impacts on men’s lives.
In the latest paradigm, the concept that masculinity is a cultural construct is maintained; however, the internalist conception is rejected as a way of explaining this phenomenon, and a bidirectional perspective is proposed in which masculinity influences the subject, but is also influenced by him, and can be challenged in social and interpersonal interactions (Connell, 1995; Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005; Emslie et al., 2006; Korobov, 2004). Based on this conception, it can be inferred that each culture establishes its own ideal of masculinity, so that there is no single masculinity, rather multiple masculinities coexist in the social environment (Connell, 1995; Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005; Silva, 2015).
Among the conceptualizations of masculinity in the fourth paradigm, the concept of hegemonic masculinity proposed by the Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell in her book Gender and Power: Society, the person and sexual politics (1987) stands out, since it presents masculinity as a dynamic relationship between masculinity and femininity, emphasizing a non-essentialist perspective, while also considering that the way men act is simultaneously a producer and a product of this masculinity (Connell, 1987). This conception of masculinity engages with different theories in the fields of sociology and psychology and has become widely used as a theoretical basis for numerous research projects (Bufkin, 1999; Connell, 1995; Guerra et al., 2015; Morris; Evans, 2001; Skelton, 1993; Souza; Lima; Ferreira, 2023; Valério, Castro; Florêncio, 2022). Thus, the concept of hegemonic masculinity has been modified throughout Connell’s work based on empirical results; however, new theoretical formulations of this concept have also emerged, which demand further research (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). These processes are not linear, so theoretical questions may remain open indefinitely, just as empirical results that contradict a given concept do not immediately refute the theory (Chalmers, 1993).
The diffusion of the concept of hegemonic masculinity across different areas of knowledge and its recurrent use in masculinity research further highlights the relevance of understanding the development of this concept so as to identify which aspects have empirical support, what questions it raises that demand scrutiny of the theory itself, and how this concept has been (re)examined in several research studies. Based on a search conducted in July 2024 in the SciELO, PePSIC, and LILACS databases using the descriptors “masculinidade hegemônica”, “hegemonic masculinity”, “masculinidad hegemónica”, “conceito”, “concept”, and “concepto”, no theoretical research was identified that addresses the shift in this concept in Connell’s work. Given the above, this article analyzes the development of the idea of hegemonic masculinity in the thinking of Connell.
The method of a theoretical research project generally outlines the path taken to identify sources, the process of analyzing the texts, and the structure of the results. It is understood that this methodological approach is directly related to the results obtained and the discussions conducted, so the theoretical synthesis resulting from the research is not an indisputable fact but rather a possible interpretation of a given concept (Araujo, 2016; Laurenti; Lopes, 2016).
To analyze the development of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, three works by Raewyn Connell were selected: Connell (1987), Connell (1995), and Connell and Messerschmidt (2005). These texts were used to delineate points of (re)elaboration of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, enabling the identification of (dis)continuities in the author’s thinking.
In summary, the book Gender and Power: Society, the person, and sexual politics, published in 1987, presents the initial definition of hegemonic masculinity, and is the most cited text when referring to this concept (Connell, 1987); the book Masculinities, published in 1995, expands the conception of masculinity, establishes new categories of analysis, and specifies the relationship between hegemonic, subordinate, complicit, and marginalized masculinity (Connell, 1995); finally, the article “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the concept”, published in 2005, rethinks the concept of hegemonic masculinity based on how it has been used in various research studies, responds to criticisms received over time, and updates the definition based on empirical findings and theoretical considerations (Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005). These are the reasons why these works were considered representative of the research. Furthermore, they contain excerpts that are representative of the author’s thought processes in relation to the elaboration, expansion, and re-elaboration of the concept of masculinity, as specifically organized below (Table 1).
After selecting and organizing the works, the Procedimento de Interpretação Conceitual de Texto (PICT) [Conceptual Text Interpretation Procedure] (Laurenti; Lopes, 2016) was performed to construct interpretations of the material read and the notion of masculinity in the thinking of Connell. The PICT is a form of analysis performed in four stages, namely: 1) identifying the main concepts, identifying the definitions present in the text itself; 2) characterizing the theses of the text, and identifying these as traditional theses, critiques, and alternative theses; 3) creating schemes based on the theses identified to establish a general overview of the text; and finally, 4) conducting an interpretive synthesis based on the previously established schemes. These steps should be followed for each source identified, such that the various interpretative syntheses enable a broad view of the (dis)continuities in the development of a concept, its theses (arguments), and its philosophical commitments (Laurenti; Lopes, 2016).
According to this model, three schemes were developed: traditional theses on masculinity, criticisms made of these theses, and new theses defended by the author. Table 2 presents Connell’s main theses on hegemonic masculinity.
Based on these frameworks, three interpretative syntheses were developed regarding the concept of hegemonic masculinity in Connell’s work: masculinity and femininity—two poles of a continuum; the relationship between masculinities—a power dynamic; and rethinking the concept of hegemonic masculinity. These summaries are presented below in terms of results and discussion.
Masculinity and femininity: two poles of a continuum
To analyze the relationship between masculinity and femininity, it is essential to understand the similarities and differences between masculinity and hegemonic masculinity. Herein, masculinity is understood as constituted by the elements of the universe defined as masculine, such as the way males express their feelings and solve problems, their relationship with work, family dynamics, affective bonds, and their relationship with appearance, among other attributes. For each element, a standardization of male behavior occurs: the ideal way a man should act is established. This ideal plays a normative role in male behavior (Connell, 1987).
All the elements mentioned for understanding masculinity are also present in the concept of hegemonic masculinity, so when you talk about masculinity, you are also talking about hegemonic masculinity. From this perspective, what differentiates the hegemonic concept from other forms of masculinity is the fact that the masculinity considered hegemonic is that which receives greater social support, occupying a central role in a given society, such that other conceptions of masculinity end up being compared with it (Connell, 1987, 1995).
From this perspective, when analyzing the concept of masculinity, it is vital to understand that the concept must be historically and culturally situated, since the notion of masculinity does not present as a constant over time, but rather as a polymorphic event that adapts to the demands of the era in which it is formulated (Connell, 1995). Similarly, the concept of hegemonic masculinity does not refer to a universal standard of masculinity, but rather to a conception of masculinity that predominates in a given culture and serves as a normative role model for men at a given time (Connell, 1987, 1995). In this lens, masculine and feminine are concepts that develop together, since, in Western culture, masculine behavior is often defined in opposition to feminine behavior, establishing these concepts as eminently relational (Connell, 1987).
By understanding masculinity and femininity as opposing poles on a continuum, the existence of multiple masculinities and femininities produced between these two extremes becomes perceptible. We observe that the relationship between these diverse ways of being masculine and feminine can be described as a “power game” whereby the hegemonic pattern of masculinity is constantly reaffirming itself and undoubtedly devaluing other possibilities. Given this power dynamic, it is evident that the domination of men over women, children, and other men does not occur naturally and uncritically, rather it is the result of an active process of constructing cultural and institutional practices that validate male domination (Connell, 1987, 1995).
Given the above, it can be inferred that the conception of hegemony adopted in this concept is not related to the use of force to subjugate women and eliminate other masculinities, even though force is sometimes used, but is associated with the elaboration of a notion of man, and therefore of masculinity, disseminated from the media, religious practices, the hierarchy of organizational power, salary structures, and so forth (Connell, 1987). It is important to highlight that hegemonic masculinity does not have to correspond to how most men behave, because by establishing how the “ideal man” should behave, it becomes the benchmark by which men are judged. In this sense, hegemonic masculinity may not be the most frequent embodiment in a society; nevertheless, it is supported by other masculinities that benefit from the male domination that this conception provides, with the latter denominated complicit masculinity (Connell, 1987).
Based on this concept of hegemony and complicity, it becomes possible to discuss both the relationship between masculinities and the relationship between femininities. However, Connell (1987) does not identify a hegemonic femininity, since femininities are produced in the context of male domination, such that a hierarchy is not established between femininities like that observed between masculinities, nor is female domination over other genders established. In this context, the concept of emphasized femininity developed, defining the feminine standard that receives the most cultural and ideological support. This pattern of femininity plays a normative role among women and is characterized by subordination to men, establishing an apparently harmonious relationship between hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity (Connell, 1987).
In identifying that the emphasized femininity develops in a way that accepts male domination, it became necessary to highlight that other femininities adopt the role of resistance to this domination. The fact that the emphasized femininity does not presuppose the negation or subordination of these other femininities, as occurs in the case of masculinities, results in a greater range of possibilities in relation to that which is socially understood as “being feminine” (Connell, 1987). These multiple femininities often amplify the tensions between femininity and masculinity, demanding that hegemonic masculinity reconfigure itself to minimize these conflicts, and from this reconfiguration new masculinities can be developed and dispute the position of hegemony (Connell, 1987; Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005).
It emerges that the relationship between masculinity and femininity is a factor that influences the development, maintenance, and modification of masculinities; however, the concept of emphasized femininity has been little explored in the literature, with discussions more commonly centered around the definition of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987, 1995; Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005). Thus, Connell (1995) broadened the discussion of the relationships between masculinities by presenting the relationships between hegemonic, subordinate, complicit, and marginalized masculinities, but does not situate these other masculinities in relation to emphasized femininity or other forms of femininity. These discussions surrounding the relationship between hegemonic masculinity, femininity, and other masculinities make it possible to identify pathways for the development of less oppressive masculinities that enable a rethinking of male domination.
The relationship between masculinities: a power dynamic
In her book Masculinities, published in 1995, Connell revisits discussions of gender relations, in particular the relationships between different masculinities. The author expands on the initial debate by analyzing how other characteristics, such as race, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic class, intersect to produce multiple gender hierarchies, both between different gender categories and within the same category (Connell, 1995). It is this intersectional relationship that enables us to understand the dynamics of masculinity across different social groups and to establish general categories that allow us to consider the unique relationships between individuals.
In revisiting the concept of hegemonic masculinity, Connell (1995) reiterates that it does not refer to a fixed, universal way of acting, but rather to a pattern of masculinity occupying the hegemonic position within a given configuration of gender relations. Thus, the masculinity that presents itself as hegemonic is the one that best answers questions concerning the legitimacy of patriarchy and that maintains male domination. This masculinity may not be the one expressed by individuals holding institutional or economic power, but the corporate display of masculinity generally permeates the correspondence between the cultural ideal and manifest masculinity; for example, the shareholders of multinational corporations, the military, and the government exhibit, in the form of groups, the hegemonic pattern of masculinity and successfully claim authority in a given culture (Connell, 1987, 1995).
While not the most common in a given society, hegemonic masculinity relies on the support of complicit masculinities to maintain its normative status. From this perspective, complicity is present when men do not meet the hegemonic standard, which quantitatively represents the majority of men, but benefit from the overall subordination of women without questioning their privileged position (Connell, 1995). It is worth noting that complicit masculinities in everyday life can establish more egalitarian gender relations; however, they maintain the hegemonic discourse and disregard critiques of male domination.
It is thus apparent that the relationship between complicit and hegemonic masculinity is based, among other factors, on the proximity between the established ideal and the real experience of masculinity. However, within this continuum between masculine and feminine, other masculinities may be closer to the feminine pole, occupying a subordinate role in relation to the hegemonic and complicit masculinity. From Connell’s perspective (1987, 1995), subordinate masculinity refers to the relationship of domination and subordination between men. Thus, the heterosexual character of hegemonic masculinity relegates gay men to a subordinate role. However, homosexual masculinities are not the only ones that occupy a subordinate role, since even when exercised by heterosexual men, other masculinities that approach the feminine pole are oppressed by the hegemonic standard. Hierarchy among groups of men occurs in the presence of a break with some significant characteristic of hegemony, such as sexual orientation, or through a greater approximation to factors linked to femininity.
Considering the hierarchy among men, Connell (1995) analyzes the intersection of masculinity, race, and social class, since numerous events throughout history have established dominant and subordinate ethnic groups and classes. The masculinities that emerge from these relationships between ethnic groups or economic classes occupy a marginalized role in relation to hegemonic masculinity. Marginalized masculinities can approximate the hegemonic pattern, but it is the dominant group’s regime of authorization that demarcates marginalization. For example, Connell (1995) points out that Black athletes, imbued with fame and purchasing power, can be taken as examples of hegemonic masculinity; however, this condition is validated by the dominant group and often does not result in social authority for other Black men.
Given the above, it is important to emphasize that the categories of masculinities presented are tools for thinking about the relationship between groups and individuals, rejecting any essentialist character that determines people’s behavior, since masculinity, regardless of how it is categorized, is a social construct and therefore must be analyzed from the relationships established in a given culture (Connell, 1987, 1995; Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005). Examining masculinity as a social construct does not imply disregarding biological or psychological variables, but rather situating these within the context in which they are analyzed, and not as the primary cause of masculinity. These considerations revisit Connell’s initial conceptualization of masculinity and respond to several criticisms directed at it; however, other criticisms have demanded a re-evaluation of that concept.
Rethinking the concept of hegemonic masculinity
A decade after the publication of the book Masculinities, in which the concept of hegemonic masculinity was revisited and discussions on masculinity were broadened by the conception of subordinate, complicit, and marginalized masculinities, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) reassess this concept in their article “Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept.” The authors conducted a historical review of the concept, focusing on its origin, formulation and application, they present the main criticisms of the concept and the underlying theory, and finally, they revise the concept, indicating what should be retained, added, or removed. By identifying what should be discarded or reformulated, it is possible to understand which criticisms actually imply a reworking of the concept.
Starting from the initial conception of hegemonic masculinity, as proposed by Connell (1987, 1995), four fundamental characteristics remain after the revision of the concept, namely: the conception of the existence of hierarchical masculinities; the view that the hegemony of a specific pattern of masculinity occurs from the diffusion of a conception of man through various institutions; the fact that hegemonic masculinity is not the most frequent embodiment in a given culture; and, finally, the understanding that hegemonic masculinity can be challenged by femininity and other masculinities and may undergo modifications as a result of these challenges. It is worth noting that the relational and mutable nature of masculinities persist, so the study of this phenomenon must be contextualized by several factors, including region, economic system, and historical period, and must break with any essentialist or universalizing perspective.
In this process of reformulating the concept of hegemonic masculinity, the notion that all masculinities and femininities revolve around a single pattern of male domination over women was discarded, as the relationships between men and women present nuances. By way of illustration, women can appropriate elements of hegemonic masculinity to assist in professional advancement; however, similar to men, this expression of domination entails both benefits and costs (Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005). It is worth highlighting that, from this perspective, hegemonic masculinity can be embodied by both men and women, breaking with the view that hegemonic masculinity is performed solely by men.
Regarding the reformulations of the concept, they occurred at four specific points. The first is a broader understanding of power relations between masculinities, since the hierarchy between masculinities exists across contexts; however, the orientation of local groups towards hegemonic masculinity varies, as do the masculinities developed within each group, which are distinct from one another (Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005). The authors also indicate that non-hegemonic masculinities can persist for long periods and exert pressure on hegemonic masculinity, such that the latter may incorporate elements of these other masculinities to maintain itself as the normative standard.
A second point of reformulation of the concept lies in how it now considers geographical regions in the analysis of masculinities, that is, hegemonic masculinity must be considered at local, regional, and global levels (Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005). On a global level, hegemonic masculinity influences regional masculinities, which, in turn, are directly related to the production of local masculinities. It is important to assert that this is not a one-way relationship and that multiple hegemonic masculinities can be established at the local level; however, these masculinities share common elements that unify them, forming a single regional hegemonic masculinity (Connell; Messerschmidt, 2005). This perspective enables us to consider the construction of multiple hegemonic masculinities in specific locations, while also highlighting that, in society at large, a hegemonic model of masculinity is established and creates tension with these other possibilities.
In a third stage, the authors rethink the relationship between masculinity and the body, since masculinity is experienced in certain bodies, but these bodies are also experienced within a social context. Thus, for Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), the body is both an agent and an object of social practices, and adherence to hegemonic masculinity prevails independent of a specific bodily characteristic. It is important to highlight that this concept breaks with any perspective that links masculinity to biological determinism.
Finally, the existing dynamics between masculinities were reformulated, since hegemonic masculinity exists in constant tension with other possibilities of being masculine. A particular pattern remains hegemonic because it is effective at addressing the tensions in gender relations. However, when the hegemonic pattern ceases to be effective in addressing these tensions, it is replaced by a new configuration of masculinity that assumes the normative role. From this perspective, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) suggest that a pattern of masculinity based on an equitable gender relationship may become hegemonic, indicating that hegemonic masculinity does not necessarily exist to sustain male domination.
Final considerations
This article sought to analyze changes in the concept of hegemonic masculinity in the thinking of Raewyn Connell, using three representative works in which the concept is presented, expanded, and reformulated. Based on our analyses, an initial overview of the concept, its fundamental elements, and key points for understanding the theory were presented. The primary focus was to expand the concept by discussing the relationships between hegemonic, complicit, subordinate, and marginalized masculinities, highlighting the particularities of each category and how they relate to one another. Finally, the reformulation of the concept was addressed, indicating which points were expanded, discarded, or modified, always with the clear intent to identify the implications of these changes for the overall understanding of the theory.
One limitation of this research is the possibility that the concept of hegemonic masculinity may have been altered in other works by Connell that were not included, even though the works discussed are considered representative of the author’s thinking. However, despite this limitation, the present research contributes to the discussion of masculinity by analyzing the concept of hegemonic masculinity in a way that opens new paths for theoretical and empirical research. Issues related to the use of the concept of emphasized femininity, the relationship between multiple femininities and masculinities beyond hegemony, and the construction of masculinities geared towards equitable gender relations can be addressed in research aimed at broadening the understanding of social relations from a masculinity perspective. Connell is not considered the only exponent to address the issue of hegemonic masculinity. Thus, for a broader understanding of the topic, future studies employing the Procedimento de Interpretação Conceitual de Texto (PICT) [Conceptual Text Interpretation Procedure] on other thinkers, such as Antonio Gramsci and Stephen Whitehead, for example, are recommended.
In closing, true to Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity, this article does not advocate for a definitive view of the concept investigated, rather it endeavors to contribute to future discussions on masculinity by establishing itself as a means, or an instrument, for further analysis.
References
- ARAUJO, Saulo. A investigação histórica de teorias e conceitos psicológicos: breves considerações metodológicas. In: LAURENTI, Carolina; LOPES, Carlos.; ARAUJO, Saulo (Org.). Pesquisa teórica em psicologia: aspectos filosóficos e metodológicos. São Paulo: Hogrefe CETEPP, 2016, p. 125-146.
-
ARCHER, John. The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences. Biological Reviews, v. 94, n. 4, p. 1381-1415, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12507
» https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12507 -
BEM, Sandra. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v. 42, [S.L.], p. 155-162, 1974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036215 -
BETZ, Nancy; FITZGERALD, Louise. Individuality and Diversity: theory and research in counseling psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, v. 44, [S.L.], p. 343-381, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.002015
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.002015 -
BUFKIN, Jana. Bias Crime as Gendered Behavior. Social Justice, v. 26, [S.L.], p. 155-176, 1999. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29767117
» https://www.jstor.org/stable/29767117 -
BUSS, David. Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, v. 50 n.3, 164-168, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164 - CHALMERS, Alan Francis. O que é ciência afinal? São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1993.
- COCHRAN, Sam. V. Emergence and development of the psychology of men and masculinity. In: CHRISLER, Joan; MCCREARY, Donald (Org.). Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology: Volume 1: Gender Research in General and Experimental Psychology. Nova York: Springer, 2010, p. 43-58.
- CONNELL, Raewyn. Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge: Polity, 1987.
- CONNELL, Raewyn. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
-
CONNELL, Raewyn; MESSERSCHMIDT, James. Hegemonic Masculinity. Gender & Society, v. 19, [S.L.], p. 829-859, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639 -
DA SILVA, Joasey Pollyanna Andrade; DO CARMO, Valter Moura; RAMOS, Giovana Benedita Jaber Rossini. As quatro ondas do feminismo: lutas e conquistas. Revista de Direitos Humanos em Perspectiva, v. 7, n. 1, p. 101-122, 2021. https://doi.org/10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2526-0197/2021.v7i1.7948
» https://doi.org/10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2526-0197/2021.v7i1.7948 - EAGLY, Alice H. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987.
-
EMSLIE, Carol; RIDGE, Damien; ZIEBLAND, Sue; HUNT, Kate. Men's accounts of depression: reconstructing or resisting hegemonic masculinity? Social science & medicine, 62(9), p. 2246-2257, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.017
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.017 -
FERREIRA, Maria. Questionário Estendido de Atributos Pessoais: Uma Medida de Traços Masculinos e Femininos. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, v. 11, [S. L.], p. 155-161, 1995. https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistaptp/article/view/17243
» https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistaptp/article/view/17243 -
GARNETS, Linda; PLECK, Joseph. Sex role identity, androgyny, and sex role transcendence: A sex role strain analysis. Psychology of women quarterly, v. 3, n3, p. 270-283, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1979.tb00545.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1979.tb00545.x -
GUERRA, Valeschka M; SCARPATI, Arielle S; BRASIL, Julia; LIVRAMENTO, André; SILVA, Cleidiane. Concepções da masculinidade: suas associações com os valores e a honra. Psicologia e Saber Social, v. 4, [S. L.], p. 72-88, 2015. https://doi.org/10.12957/psi.saber.soc.2015.14840
» https://doi.org/10.12957/psi.saber.soc.2015.14840 -
KOROBOV, Neill. Inoculating Against Prejudice: A Discursive Approach to Homophobia and Sexism in Adolescent Male Talk. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, v. 5, n. 2, p. 178-189, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.178
» https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.178 - LAURENTI, Carolina; LOPES, Carlos. Metodologia de pesquisa conceitual em psicologia. In: LAURENTI, Carolina; LOPES, Carlos E.; ARAUJO, Saulo (org.). Pesquisa teórica em psicologia: aspectos filosóficos e metodológicos. São Paulo: Hogrefe CETEPP, 2016, p. 41-6.
- LOPES, Carlos. Relações entre pesquisa teórica e pesquisa empírica em psicologia. In LAURENTI, Carolina; LOPES, Carlos; ARAUJO, Saulo (Org.). Pesquisa teórica em psicologia: aspectos filosóficos e metodológicos. São Paulo: Hogrefe CETEPP, 2016, p. 15-40.
- LOURO, Guacira. Gênero, sexualidade e educação. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1997.
-
MACKEY, Wade. Support for the existence of an independent man-to-child affiliative bond: Fatherhood as a biocultural invention. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, v. 2, n. 1, p. 51-66, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.2.1.51
» https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.2.1.51 -
MORRIS, Carol; EVANS, Nick. "Cheese Makers Are Always Women": gendered representations of farm life in the agricultural press. Gender, Place & Culture, v. 8, [S.L.], p. 375-390, 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09663690120111618
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09663690120111618 -
O'NEIL, James. Patterns of Gender Role Conflict and Strain: Sexism and Fear of Femininity in Men's Lives. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, v. 60, n. 4, p. 203-210, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1981.tb00282.x
» https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1981.tb00282.x -
O'NEIL, James. Summarizing 25 Years of Research on Men's Gender Role Conflict Using the Gender Role Conflict Scale: New Research Paradigms and Clinical Implications. The Counseling Psychologist, v. 36, n. 3, p. 358-445, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057 -
RUBINSTEIN, Gildi. Macho man: Narcissism, homophobia, agency, communion, and authoritarianism--a comparative study among Israeli bodybuilders and a control group. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, v. 4, n. 2, p. 100-110, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.2.100
» https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.2.100 -
SCHNEIDER, Monica C.; BOS, Angela L. The application of social role theory to the study of gender in politics. Political Psychology, v. 40, p. 173-213, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12573
» https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12573 -
SOUZA, Charles; LIMA, Marcus; FERREIRA, Diogo. Concepções de Masculinidade Hegemônica como Mediadora do Sexismo Direcionado às Mulheres. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, v. 39, [S.L.], p. 1-12, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e39506.en
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e39506.en -
SKELTON, Alan. On Becoming a Male Physical Education Teacher: the informal culture of students and the construction of hegemonic masculinity. Gender and Education, v. 5, [S.L.], p. 289-303, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954025930050305
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954025930050305 -
VALÉRIO, Alex; CASTRO, Danrley; FLORÊNCIO, Tiago. Reflexões sobre masculinidades: possibilidades de interpretação a partir de uma visão analítico-comportamental. Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento, v. 13, [S.L.], p. 41-53, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.18761/veem.13796
» http://dx.doi.org/10.18761/veem.13796
Edited by
-
Editors responsible for the evaluation process:
Natália Corazza PadovaniJulian SimõesLuciana Camargo Bueno
Data usage not disclosed; no research data generated or used.
