are beginning to arise with changes that are taking place currently in societies. First, how does the pressure to maintain an essentialist state of manhood impact, for instance, on Christian men in ensuring that they retain the enacted general set standards of who a real man should be? Second, if changes arose at the end of the second World war that necessitated new expressions of masculinities, what then are the changes taking place in current contemporary societies, influencing emerging masculinities? It is interesting to explore how social, political and economic transformation in South Africa, for instance are currently forcing, and informing new models of functionalism and whether such have effects on roles for men. Further, do these changes portray new expressions of masculinities?
In what follows, I turn to examine the Sexual Anatomy theory that has contributed to social scientific knowledge towards the study of masculinity, thereafter analysing its implications to constructions of masculinities.
theorists who hold this gender ideology seek to arrive at a better understanding of the relation between men’s bodies and masculinity. Drawing on the language of biological science, some sociobiologists insist that true masculinity is almost always thought to proceed from men’s bodies (Connell 1995).22 In this case, brains are ‘hardwired’ to produce masculinity; men are genetically ‘programmed’ for dominance; and aggression is in men’s ‘biogram’ (see Connell 1995:48). Within this approach therefore, true masculinity is seen as natural (since the body is a natural machine which produces gender difference—through genetic programming, hormonal difference or the different role of sexes in reproduction). Poignantly, Connell concludes that according to sexual anatomy theory:
Mass culture generally assumes there is a fixed, true masculinity beneath the ebb and flow out of daily life....Since religion’s capacity to justify gender ideology collapsed, biology has been called to fill the gap....We hear of ‘real man’, ‘natural man’ and the ‘deep masculine.’ This idea is now shared across an impressive spectrum including...the mythopoetic men’s movement, the Christian fundamentalists, the essentialist school of feminism and the Jungian psycho analysts (1995:45).
2.3.1 Criticisms of the Sexual Anatomy Theory
I begin by raising a question of the extent to which sexual anatomy theory proves problematic in understanding how the masculine gender is constructed. Refuting this theory, Connell (1995:47) has shown that this is almost entirely fictional and that the views are mistaken. Accordingly, she suggests, both biology and social influence combine to produce gender differences in behaviour (Connell 1995). As such, to understand masculinity, we must study changes in social relations (Connell 1995:29) and such changes will indicate that gender (and masculinity) is not fixed in advance of social interaction but is constructed in interaction (Connell 1995). Unless this is understood, she argues, it will be accepted that patriarchy is based in a hormonal “aggression advantage” which men hold over women (Connell 1995:47).
22 According to this conventional theory, men’s bodies are bearers of a natural masculinity produced by the evolutionary pressures that have borne down upon the human stoke. Hence, men are believed to inherit with their masculine genes tendencies to aggression, family life, competitiveness, political power, hierarchy, territoriality, promiscuity, and forming men’s club (Connell 1995:46).
We need to consider a number of essentialist arguments at this point. The understanding of masculine behaviour as biologically constituted and ‘natural’ advance an essentialist and a ‘naturalistic’ approach to gender (and masculinity). In this case, masculinity is understood based on biological anatomy. Diana Fuss (1989:2) and Serene Jones (2000:26-29) have defined essentialism as “a belief in true essence, that which is most irreducible, unchanging, and therefore constitutive of a given person or thing.” Although we could argue that biological sex should be considered as a factor that might influence male behavioural patterns among other factors in a social setting, strict essentialist thinking emphasises male, female differences that eventually define masculinity as superior while femininity as subordinate. Further, if masculine practices and behaviour are explained from a naturalistic perspective, then male dominance is justified and patriarchal structures will be considered normal. This would suggest that masculinities pre-exist apart from social, cultural (and religious) influence. Also, evident within the essentialist paradigm, masculinity is unchanged by social, cultural and historical processes and the differences between men and women are seen as universal and enduring (Kaminer and Dixon, 1995 in Attwell 2002:11), a position which Connell (1989) strongly opposes.
Important to consider at this point is Sean Gill’s (1999:162) suggestion, that in a research of this kind, one must seek to elucidate the ways in which religious doctrines, symbols and practices (and I add—‘gender scripts’)23 function in the creation and in maintaining ideas about masculinity. Equally important, is also the need to engage and examine how social and cultural constructions of gender influences theological discourses that normalise religious ideologies of masculinities.
In the previous sections I have examined the three major scientific theories that have influenced discussions on issues of masculinity. I have highlighted how theorists have gradually moved from theories of psychology, psychoanalysis, and social-biology in theorising masculinity. Evident is the limitation that such theories have in theorising
23 Using Robert Abelson’s (1976) definition, Godfrey Phetla (2007:4) states that “a script is defined as ‘a coherent sequence of events expected by the individual involving him [sic] as either a participant or an observer’.” According to script theory, Phetla (2007:4) argues that “people typically pattern their social responses in order to maximise their control over given situations.” Gender scripts therefore refer to a particular reasoning that people and institutions will use to guide, for example traditional gender roles assigned for men and women. In this case, ‘faith discourses’ seem to reinforce socio-cultural gender scripts which seek to conceptualise masculine expectations on how to respond within a set socio-economic and political context among Charismatic Evangelical Christians.
masculinity from a religious perspective. In what follows, I explore the contours of a social constructionist approach as a theoretical perspective in studies of gender and masculinity.