CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPING THE THEORETICAL LENS OF THE STUDY
2.4 Section 2: Understanding gender as a concept of feminist engagement
2.4.3 Unpacking Connell’s gender regimes
2.4.3.1 Mapping Connell’s gender regime and liberal feminism
I have used a liberal feminist theory to explore the learning experiences of the female students in relationship to the gender regimes present in a Mauritian higher education institution. The additional adoption of the gender regimes theory by Connell (2002) helped in terms of analysing the division of labour among the academic staff, gender relations of power among the students, emotions and human relations among women and the gender culture and symbolism that existed in the class. The feminist theories enabled me to unpack the multiple and interrelated student, faculty, and institutional cultures that influence the learning experiences of female engineering students. Adopting a feminist theory as my theoretical framework enabled me to explore the statements and experiences embedded in power relations, which form part of the gender regimes within the higher education institution in relation to femininity and masculinity.
A gender identity can be defined as masculine or feminine (Burke, Stets & Pirog- Good, 1989). Feminine and masculine identities are created based on society rather than on the sex of the individual (Stets & Burke, 2000, p.1). Femininity and masculinity do not exist separately, because their existence depends on each other, although masculinity denotes power and control (Stonyer, 2002, p. 393).
According to Connell (1995, p. 71) masculinity is about gender relations, practices, personality and culture. Connell (2000, p. 29) further argues that masculinity is configured within an organisation and is, therefore, institutionalised. Van Hoven and Hörschelmann (2005, pp. 10-11) argue that masculinity is above biology and sex.
According to Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2006), masculinity and femininity are no longer considered as inborn types of sex differences but as behaviours that have been instilled and acquired. According to Connell, masculinity is usually associated with
“honour, prestige and the right to command,” material wealth and state power (Connell, 1995, p. 82). Physically, men are motivated to encourage hegemonic masculinity to protect their governing position over women (Coles, 2009, p. 31).
Masculinity revolves around hegemonic masculinity, which, according to Connell (1993, pp. 90-92) is “a question of how particular groups of men inhabit positions of power and wealth, and how they legitimate and reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance”.
Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony although initially meant to inform political understanding, has been used in Connell’s formulation of hegemonic masculinities.
However, a case is being made for a closer alignment as Gramsci considers hegemony as positive hegemony. Initially, he describes hegemony as being based on both force and consent, such that when force has to be deployed, it receives consent from civil society.
Burawoy’s (2003) distinct definition of hegemony and the possibilities, which it offers, acts as a guide to operationalise hegemonic masculinity. However, Burawoy’s definition also protects us from the “pessimistic tendency to reduce hegemonic masculinity to behavioral and discursive legitimation of patriarchy” (Yang, 2020, p.
325). Following Burawoy’s (2003) interpretation of hegemony, Yang (2020, p. 325) states that hegemonic masculinity focuses on the agreeable relationship of domination between dominant masculinity and subordinate masculinity. Thus, hegemonic masculinity is the dominant masculinity present in a hegemonic and in a hierarchy of masculinities, subordinating other types of masculinities with an incorporation of force and consent. When force is adopted, most of the followers of the gender regime consent. Even those who represent subordinate masculinities and are conscious of their subordination may still consent to the patriarchal dividend.
Therefore, according to Hennen (2008), even subordinate masculinities with rebellious characteristics can contribute to the existing hegemony.
Hegemonic masculinity describes “the persistence of male power and the potential for social change” (Duncanson, 2015, p. 2). Most often, hegemonic masculinity embraces new practices to allow some men to maintain power over others (Messerschmidt, 2015). Hegemonic masculinity symbolises and enacts power over
other masculine identities as well as over women (McVittie, Hepworth & Goodall, 2017, p. 6). In Western societies, the ideal hegemonic masculinity is considered
‘macho’, being “assertive and aggressive, courageous, almost invulnerable to threats and problems, and stoic in the face of adversity” (McVittie, Hepworth & Goodall, 2017, p. 7). Thus, masculinity is constructed by the behaviours of man depending on culture, race and ethnicity and age and some men have the tendency to benefit from the general subordination of some women.
In his critique of Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinities, Demetriou argues
“men do not constitute a homogenous or internally coherent bloc” (2001, p. 340).
However, Paechter (2006, p. 257) positions femininity as being without power and this also concurs with Roy (2013, p. 25) who associates failure with femininity and powerlessness. According to Singh (2017, p. 110), femininity theoretically is all about what masculinity is not and which “incompetent” masculinities may fall into.
Singh (2017, p. 111) further argues that hegemonic masculinity is thus at an unreachable height where it can easily effeminate, incorporate and oppress.
According to Moller (2007, p. 266), Connell’s work on hegemonic masculinity thematises power by equating power with domination and by attributing this power to typical men. Although, all men may not practise power, many may benefit from it through the patriarchal dividend. However, Brown (1995, p. 194) indicates that masculinity operates through the rejection of power and privilege. According to Moller (2007, p. 266), men and women subject themselves to the restrained modes of contemporary power when power is being referred only as domination practised by some men.
Connell (2000, p. 10) indicates that gender relations form an identifiable pattern or system and that there is not only one pattern of masculinity. Connell (2000, p. 11) states that masculinities are described collectively in culture and are continued in institutions. Connell (2000, p. 12) does not agree with the idea that men’s bodies
“determine the patterns of masculinity” and that men are the authors of masculinity.
Instead, men are followers of masculinity and they are not designers of masculinity.
Based on Connell’s statements about the patterns of masculinity, I have used the term hegemonic masculinity because hegemonic masculinity is a pattern of masculinity, which is created by an institution. In this study, hegemonic masculinity
being performed by the male students is formed by the regime present at the higher education institution.
Connell (1987) claims that femininity is formed in relation to the image of the female body that results in Connell’s anti-essentialist view of male and female.
Furthermore, Connell (1987, p. 187) also states that all the types of femininity are established according to the context of “subordination of women” to men and
“dominance of men” to women, thus creating no position of hegemonic femininity among women. According to Finley (2010, pp. 360-361), the notion of hegemony/dominance is related to power and femininity cannot be linked to hegemony as women have inadequate existing power connections over other women and therefore, this gave rise to the concept of emphasised femininity. Emphasised femininity describes the arrangement with the most cultural support and is organised through obedience with gender relations. Heterosexuality is fundamental in emphasised femininity and it consists of the interests and needs of men through weakness, delicateness, tolerance of marriage, sexual interest and motherhood (Connell 1987, p. 188). As Connell (1987) suggests, in a male-dominated social context, femininity means subordination in relation to masculinity. What gets considered as masculine and feminine depends on the dominant roles, values and norms prevalent in a social set up at a given time.
The centrality of patriarchy and masculinity is being decentralised with a gender difference in interests in male-dominated fields such as STEM (Diekman, Weisgram
& Belanger, 2015, pp. 57-58). This process is taking place gradually in engineering fields at a higher education where female students have started to engage in different engineering fields (Huyer, 2015, p. 91). However, the engineering fields in higher education are still male dominated (Huyer, 2015, p. 85). The three clusters of educational settings, which are curricular experiences, classroom experiences and out-of-class experiences were examined, using liberal feminism and the gender regimes theory to explore them.