R. W. Connell, chapters 6 and 7

In chapter 6 of R. W. Connell’s “Masculinities,” the author examines the relationship between straight and gay men. Connell introduces the chapter by offering a brief history of society’s public acceptance of homosexuality. In the late 1960s and early 70s, Connell notes a “greater sexualization of the general culture,” providing a basis for the emergence of gay communities in the 1970s and 80s. Social-scientific views of homosexuality began to progress as well, with male homosexuality moving from being viewed as a form of “deviance” to an understanding of a separate identity.

Chapter 6 results from Connell’s interviews with 8 men from the gay community in Sydney, Australia. Ranging from early 20s to late 40s, these men had all had relationships with both women and men. Connell intertwines excerpts from these men with historical and current discourses on homosexuality. He begins by noting that homosexuality was caused by an “abnormality in development,” but that no one had determined what exactly that abnormality was. Distant fathers and seductive mothers were suggested to be the cause, but Connell points out recent studies have found little support. In Connell’s study, all 8 men had family relationships considered to be socially conventional. Their childhoods were also found to be socially normal, as there wasn’t much gender nonconformity (146). Moving into their adulthoods, Connell describes their work lives as socially masculine. With these two possible suggestions for an “abnormality” critiqued, Connell writes of the men’s “moment of engagement,” as stemming from “a sexual experience- the discovery of sexuality, or a discovery in sexuality” (147). The author continues on to describe several men’s early heterosexual and homosexual relationships by referencing that public discourse takes heterosexuality for granted (148). He writes of adult homosexuality, “It is something that happens, that is produced by specific practices, not something predetermined” (149).

Further sections of the chapter focus on the men’s experiences of “realizing” their homosexuality or their “coming out” stories. Usually these dialogues include thoughts of “sexual freedom,” and later, wishing for a long-term relationship. Other stories focus on feelings of “change,” such as change in living situations, or more personal, such as working to change specific parts of one’ s personality.

I was interested in the last parts of the chapter, when Connell focuses on the men’s opinions on feminism, especially when it is noted the their attitude and the level of ignorance of the subject matches those of heterosexual men interviewed. Connell illustrates, “Their usual position is to express some support for feminism, but to qualify it by disapproving of Those Who Go Too Far” (159).

Chapter 7 focuses on hegemonic masculinities, with reference specifically to rationality. Connell introduces, “A familiar theme in patriarchal ideology is that men are rational while women are emotional” (165). By critiquing this in light of men’s experiences (9 men, aged early 20s to mid40s) constructing their own masculinity, especially in the workplace, Connell illustrates the complexity of this issue.

A majority of the men interviewed recount childhoods with a great understanding of distinct gender roles, usually played out by their mothers and fathers. These reflections often connect directly to their current understanding of men and women’s roles, typically very traditional views.

Connell writes of two men’s vastly different job training experiences, with one educationally more advance, and the other having worked his way up from position to position based on previous skill and knowledge. The author goes on to describe how rationality can be “accomplished” in the workplace. One way is a hierarchically organized workplace, where the most knowledgeable people work at the top. In contrast, the other structured workplace focuses on common goals, rather than the authority in control. Connell concludes, “We may argue, then, that the relation between expertise and hierarchy in the workplace is a characteristic difficulty encountered by this group of men” (174). I found this section of Connell’s chapter most applicable to my own understanding and experience in a workplace, and believe many women, and young adults share this problem. Feelings of both inadequacy and, in contrast, superiority, both plague the workplace environment, creating an arena of uncertainty and disinterest.

Connell concludes with a section on the rationality of a workplace and the place the issue of sexuality holds. He writes, “Though diverse in their practice of sex, the men share a cultural experience about sex”(175). This translates into difficult workplace “sexual etiquette,” the next section Connell discusses.

Connell concludes by restating his argument, that rationality “is part of the modern legitimation of patriarchy” (180). However, he notes, this must be examined in light of sexuality in modern practice and in the workplace. He notes that there have, in fact, been attempts at reform and modernization, though still within well-defined limits (181).

I’m curious to hear what the class thinks about these two chapters of Connell. Though chapter 6 focused more on homosexuality and the interplay between sexual orientation and masculinity, I think its interviews were more critical to Connell’s discussion than those in chapter 7. Other points to consider: what did you think of the authority vs. experience workplace debate? To what extent is that problem similar to women’s experiences in the workplace? Women’s sexuality in the workplace?