Subordinating hegemonic masculinity
Subordinating hegemonic masculinity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/136248060200600103
复制
发表时间：
2002-02-01
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Jefferson, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jefferson, T
本文从一个悖论开始，即人们广泛谈论“男性气概危机”，同时强烈支持鲍勃·康奈尔的“霸权男性气概”概念，这个术语暗示（在葛兰西使用霸权之后）危机的对立面。这就产生了本文的第一个目标，即批判性地审视霸权男性气质一词的起源及其随后的用法。这发现它在几个方面存在问题：它倾向于被使用归因（尽管康奈尔坚持男性气质的关系本质），并且在犯罪学中，特别关注负面属性；它以单数形式使用，意味着它不是一个偶然的、特定于上下文的概念；及其对男性气质的过度社会学观点。最后一个问题产生了本文的第二个目标，即开始发展一种更充分的、社会心理的男性气质观点。它分几个阶段进行。它首先进行了两次尝试，以对男性气概进行心理上更复杂的描述：其中一项是韦瑟雷尔和埃德利的，它主张（受拉康启发的）心理话语主体的想法，但未能产生一个真实的内心世界；另一项是由韦瑟雷尔和埃德利提出的。麦金尼斯的另一篇文章区分了性起源（由女人和男人出生）和性别差异（由女人或男人出生）。这承认了“超越社会建构”（性起源）的内心世界，但未能解决这与性别关系中的位置的特定投资（生物性别差异的社会意识形态）之间的关系。最后一部分试图将对男性气质进行更充分的心理社会理解的基础放在一起，首先是性起源的重要性以及由此引起的早期脆弱性和焦虑，以及必然引发的无意识防御。对无意识的对比说明如下：弗洛伊德的基于压抑的俄狄浦斯帐户，其中本质上涉及性别，而克莱因的前俄狄浦斯分裂/基于投射的帐户，其中不涉及性别。弗洛伊德性别解释的问题为走克莱因路线提供了基础。此后，通过乔多罗、雷顿和（尤其是）本杰明的著作探讨了如何概念化（心理）焦虑和（社会）性别之间的联系。我认为，正是在这个幻想与社会共存但又不可还原的领域，需要对男性气质产生更充分的社会心理理解。
This article starts with a paradox, namely, the widespread talk of a 'crisis of masculinity' alongside the strong endorsement of Bob Connell's concept of 'hegemonic masculinity', a term which implies (following Gramsci's use of hegemony) the opposite of crisis. This produces the article's first objective, namely, a critical look at the origins of the term hegemonic masculinity and its subsequent usage. This finds it problematic on several grounds: its tendency to be used attributionally (despite Connell's insistence on the relational nature of masculinity) and, within criminology, focused specifically on negative attributes; its use in the singular, implying it is not a contingent, context-specific notion; and its oversociological view of masculinity. This last problem produces the article's second objective, namely, to begin to develop a more adequate, psychosocial view of masculinity. It does this in several stages. It starts with two attempts to produce more psychologically complex accounts of masculinity: one by Wetherell and Edley, which argues for the (Lacanian-inspired) idea of a psycho-discursive subject, but fails to produce an authentic inner world; another by MacInnes which distinguishes between sexual genesis (being born of a woman and a man) and sexual difference (being born as a woman or a man). This recognizes an inner world 'beyond social construction' (sexual genesis), but fails to address how this is related to particular investments in positions within gender relations (the social ideology of biological sexual difference). The final section attempts to put together the rudiments of a more adequate psychosocial understanding of masculinity, starting with the importance of sexual genesis and the early vulnerabilities and anxieties to which this gives rise, and the unconscious defences necessarily precipitated. Contrasting accounts of the unconscious follow: Freud's Oedipal, repression-based account in which gender is inherently implicated versus Klein's pre-Oedipal splitting/projection-based account in which gender is not implicated. The problems with Freud's gendered account provide the basis for taking the Kleinian route. Thereafter, how to conceptualize the link between (psychic) anxiety and (social) gender is explored through the writings of Chodorow, Layton and (especially) Benjamin. It is on this terrain, I contend, where both fantasy and the social are co-present but irreducible, that a more adequate, psychosocial understanding of masculinity needs to be produced.