2.5 Intersectionality
2.5.3 The Rationale Underling Intersectionality Approach for Masculinity Studies . 49
and open-endedness of ‘intersectionality’ may be the very secret to its success.” Also, among the methodological solutions that Shields (2008:307) offers is that there is clearly no one-size-fits-all methodological solution to incorporating an intersectionality perspective, and a both/and strategy seems the best way forward. Further, McCall (2005) and Winker and Degele (2011) have delineated a range of methodological premises applicable in multiple, intersecting and complex social relations which I have applied as a method of analysis in my next chapter. Before concluding, I aptly capture what underpins intersectionality for this study as relates to constructions of masculinities.
2.5.3 The Rationale Underling Intersectionality Approach for Masculinity
given time find themselves at intersections where social, cultural, political, economic and religious factors/variables or dimensions cut-across identity categories of race, class, gender, sexuality and ethnicity. Second, because all discourses of masculinity are fluid and complex, multiplicity and change cannot be avoided, making it difficult to conceptualise construction of masculinity in a linear manner, but as in an interwoven web of activities.
Third, therefore, these social factors and identity categories operate together to influence construction of masculinities.
I am keen to state that Kimberle Crenshaw (1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 2011) and Patricia Hill Collins (1990, 1998, 2000) originally applied the concept of intersectionality to analyse how variables of race, class and gender form interlocking forces which mutually overlap to inform experiences of oppression and subordination among women of colour. I borrow the same thought pattern from Crenshaw’s analogy of discrimination as traffic in an intersection to facilitate my extension of using intersectionality as an analytical lens towards understanding how various social, political, cultural, economic and religious forces (factors/variables/dimensions) mutually constitute/inform and reinforce27 identity categories of race, class, and gender in constructing masculinity.
Building on my thesis above, unlike Crenshaw who placed at the centre of her analysis black women’s experience of discrimination like traffic through an intersection which may flow in one direction or it may flow in another; I place constructions of masculinities and the masculine gender identity of Christian men at the centre of my analysis like traffic at an intersection. I follow the traditional argumentation from intersectionality literature by using categories of gender, ethnicity, race and class not as oppressive categories but gender constructional categories. In conversing with Crenshaw and Collins, it is my conviction that there are possibilities that a number of social factors will intersect with categories of identity thereby operating together to mutually reinforce each other. These influence the representation and construction of emerging forms of masculinities in a given context. The thought here is the need to understand that formation of gendered identities must be understood, analysed and explained, by taking multiple dimensions of variables that interact with identity categories to shape
27 I use these phrases as described by Shields (2008:302) where “mutually constitute” means that one category of identity, such as gender, takes its meaning as a category in relation to another category.
“Inform” and “reinforce” means that the formation and maintenance of identity categories is a dynamic process in which the individual herself or himself is actively engaged.
masculinities. This then enables me to examine and explain the “matrix” under which the MMC seek to reconfigure and recreate masculinities. Figure 1 below illustrates the sum total of the thesis described above.
Figure 1: An illustration of an integrated analysis of factors in intersections of perceptions and construction of masculinity (Kennedy Owino 2014).
With reference to centring (and decentring) gender as the master category and axis of formation in this study, two pertinent questions arise in relation to examining constructions of masculinities using an intersectionality approach. First, what other identity categories are deemed necessary in attempting an analysis of multiple categories which inform contemporary masculinities simultaneously? Second, how do I determine theoretically and empirically the vital points of intersection between identity categories and social variables (factors/dimensions)? I have pursued these questions in chapter five on methodological design of the study, but in summary I wish to highlight four
GENDER
SEXUALITY
CLASS and AGE RACE
ETHNICITY
Religious &
Theological Beliefs
Cultural Patterns & ideals
Colonial histories& Political Structures
Economic Power dynamics
Patriarchal, & Kyriarchal ideologies
important reasons for an intersectional approach.
First, intersectionality as an approach supports both qualitative and quantitative methods of doing research. I have applied this theoretical approach as a critical and analytical tool since it supports not only an interdisciplinary perspective but is multidisciplinary in orientation with a capacity to ‘house’ a number of interpretive lenses. In this case, McCall notes:
The pressing issue then is to overcome the disciplinary boundaries based on the use of different methods in order to embrace multiple approaches to the study of intersectionality (2008:1795).
This has been significant for other theorists of intersectionality as well (Yuvol-Davis 2006; Ludvig 2006; Shields 2008; Nash 2008; Winker and Degele 2011). As an approach that is able to travel across borders and disciplines, I find intersectioanlity applicable in examining constructions of masculinities within CEPC in a South African Context. In view of the nature of intersectionality approach, this study falls within a wide range of disciplines, focusing mainly on masculinity but from an inter-and-multidisciplinary approach of religion, theology, gender studies and feminism. Winker and Degele (2011:51-52) allude to this nature of researching by contending that the concept of intersectionality has become a new paradigm in gender studies where its comprehensive approach offers the potential to look beyond the different theoretical currents and offer up further perspectives for utilization.
Second, an intersectionality approach enables an intersectional analysis of masculinity. I would argue that every male individual occupies multiple categories of gender, race, class, and other social categories. Also, men are situated differently at intersections of social factors and identities and as such, perception of what it means to be a man varies with context. Conceptualising masculinities from an intersectional perspective situates my analysis of masculinities within the sociological strand of intersectionality.
Third, intersectionality will aid me to analyse how power is generated and maintained within the masculine religious space of Charismatic/Evangelical men. The impression here is that every male person has a masculine identity that is shaped by interlocking systems of power relations. Religious spaces are sub-cultural spaces in and through which
representations of masculinities are constructed and maintained through power dynamics. For example, the case study of the MMC adopted for this research depicts intersections of power dynamics that inform negotiations of “godly manhood” within the Charismatic/Evangelical context. Arguing against “double blindness” where most contemporary gender studies remain extraordinarily “religion-blind,” Ursula King (1995:6, 12) has underscored the significance of religion for gender formation, specifically urging for a critical examination of the influence of religion on masculine gender construction. This draws attention to the dangers of isolating gender from religion and from other social factors and identity categories.
Finally, intersectionality is squarely focused on praxis and has a propensity to promote social change. Because masculinities are a social construct, not static and ‘divinely given’
but dynamic, fluid and changing, intersectionality’s critical edge enhances its inquiry to be effective as an ‘active science.’ Shields (2008:309) argues that the goal of an active science is not to create dogma and policies but to inform them. Further he argues, “Research undertaken from an intersectionality perspective does originate from a point of view which includes an agenda for positive social change but the agenda requires data to support it” (Shields 2008). Torres et al (2009:588) presses that the intent and outcome of an intersectional approach and analysis is the transformation of practice to address inequalities and promote change. The scope of this study is clearly situated within this action oriented praxis in seeking to support change and transformation in arguing for alternative non-patriarchal and harmonious masculinities which promote life. This will be achieved by exploring whether there are alternative Christological counter-models of
‘ideal’ masculinities as compared to emerging contemporary ones in the Charismatic/Evangelical contexts.
Chapter Summary
My objective in this chapter has been to critically present some theoretical debates on constructions of masculinities by discussing the four central theories which have dominated the field of masculinity studies. I have described and analysed some major psycho-social and scientific theories of masculinity as I primarily drew from the works of key scholars and theorists in the field of religion, gender and masculinity studies. The key focus has been to highlight how theorists have gradually moved from theories of psychology, psychoanalysis, and social-biology in theorising masculinity to a social
constructionist approach of gender and masculinity which now inform my study in religion and gender. By grounding my study within an interdisciplinary perspective, I have discussed the value of the theory of intersectionality as a lens of analysis within a social constructionist perspective. I conclude with Laura Levitt (1997:3) who observes that: “Theory can enable us to explore the seams in the construction of our identities within the constraints of various social, cultural, and political configurations of power and desire.”
In the following chapter I focus on masculinities in the South(ern) African context.
CHAPTER THREE
MASCULINITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF SOUTH(ERN) AFRICA
Manhood is an evolving social construct reflecting some continuities but many more changes. In talking about manhood, we are inevitably talking
about history (Stearns 1990:3).
3.0 Introduction
Representation and constructions of masculinities among the Mighty Men’s Conference (MMC) must be situated within the ongoing debates on men and masculinity studies in the South(ern) Africa context. Could it be that there are significant socio-cultural, political, economic and religious histories that shape and continue to shape changes which inform representations of masculinities in South Africa? It is important to take note of the socio-economic, cultural and political histories of masculinity in the South African context in order to engage Buchan’s faith discourses which seek to recreate Christian masculinities among Charismatic men. I therefore present in this chapter a brief overview of literature on masculinity in South(ern), South Africa.