Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique

The originality of Connell's "social theory of gender" has established him as one of the leading theoreticians in the general area of gender relations and more particularly in the emerging field of the sociology of masculinity. His formulation of the concept of "hegemonic masculinity" represents the most influential and popular part of his work. It has been used in empirical research ranging from the areas of sexuality and gay studies to that of criminology and prison sociology. Yet, although numerous empirical researchers have made use of this concept, there has been almost no attempt to evaluate its theoretical merit.1 This article offers a detailed theoretical exposition as well as a critique of the concept of hegemonic masculinity. In the first part, I show that the notion of hegemonic masculinity was developed in an attempt to give an account of what the sex role framework left largely untheorized, that is, the questions of patriarchal power and social change. I then suggest an alternative way of conceptualizing hegemonic masculinity that draws on Gramsci's concept of historic bloc and Bhabha's notion of hybridity. I argue that hegemonic masculinity is not a purely white or heterosexual configuration of practice but it is a hybrid bloc that unites practices from diverse masculinities in order to ensure the reproduction of patriarchy. In the third and final part of this article, I undertake a brief case study in order to show the contribution of gay masculinities to the formation of the contemporary hegemonic bloc.