Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://http://revistashipatia.com/index.php/mcs
Masculinity Research and Global Change
Raewyn Connell1
1) Faculty of education and social work, University of Sidney, Australia
Date of publication: February 21st, 2012
To cite this article: Connell, R. (2012). Masculinity Research and Global
Change. Masculinities and Social Change, 1(1), 418. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2012.01
To link this article: http://dx.medra.org/10.4471/MCS.2012.01
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons NonCommercial and NonDerivative License.
MCS – Masculinity and social change, 1(1), 418
Masculinity research and global
change
Raewyn Connell
University of Sidney
Abstract
The development of research on masculinity since the 1980s has
produced rich evidence of the diversity of masculinities. This is now an
established research field and has had many practical applications. It
has not yet fully absorbed the wealth of ideas and debates about
masculinities and social change that come from the colonized and post
colonial world. Power has always been an important issue in
understanding masculinities, and we now need to think about power
structures on a world scale. Research on neoliberal globalization, on
HIV/AIDS, and on elite masculinities, are significant sites for this work.
The concept of hegemonic masculinity is still useful, but it should not
be equated with violence. We need to pay attention to incoherences in
gender relations, and the politics of gendered institutions, in thinking
about inequality and change.
Key Words: masculinity research; globalization; hegemonic
masculinity.
2012 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 20143605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.2012.01
MCS – Masculinity and social change, 1(1), 418 5
The field of masculinity studies: from critique to ethnography to
global awareness
There is a familiar narrative of the development of our field of research.
The early stages of the field are found in cultural debates about gender
and masculinity, in psychoanalytic thought (especially Alfred Adler’s
theory of the ‘masculine protest’), in the anthropology of kinship, and in
sociological and psychological writing about ‘sex roles’ (Connell,
2003).
These discussions took a new shape in the 1970s, with the impulse of
Women’s Liberation and Gay Liberation towards a social critique of
masculinity. Studies of masculinity crystallized in the 1980s as a
research field, with new empirical work, analyses of multiple
masculinities, and attention to hegemony and hierarchy. A notable
example of the new genre was the book published in Germany in 1985
by two feminist researchers, Sigrid MetzGöckel and Ursula Müller, Der
Mann: Die BRIGITTEStudie, a comprehensive survey of gender
relations with a focus on the situation of men. The same year a team of
researchers in Australia published an extensive proposal for ‘a new
sociology of masculinity’ (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985).
In the 1990s the empirical research began to take on ideas from post
structuralism about the discursive construction of masculinities. By
then the ideas had reached fields such as health, social work and
education and began to inform practice there. The growth of masculinity
research was accompanied by a theoretical debate about the nature of
masculinities, the relation between masculinities and modernity
(Meuser, 1998), and concepts such as ‘hegemonic masculinity’
(Howson, 2006). I call this the ‘ethnographic moment’ in masculinity
research. Ethnography of the classic style, based on participant
observation and interviewing in a small community, was one of its
research methods, as shown for instance in Zhang’s (2010) recent study
of masculinities in a Chinese village. But there were other methods too.
Other studies were done by clinical interviewing, by largescale surveys,
by historians burrowing among documents, and by media analysts
observing mass culture. What all these studies shared was a focus on
documenting specific patterns of masculinity revealed in culture and
social relations in a particular time and place.
6 Raewyn Connell Masculinity research and global change
The rich ethnographic documentation proved that there is no single
masculinity, but rather multiple masculinities, both locally and on a
world scale. It also showed that masculinities can and do change. This
was important in overcoming the tendency in the mass media and
popular culture to treat ‘men’ as a homogenous group and ‘masculinity’
as a fixed, ahistorical entity. It was particularly important for the
development of applied forms of knowledge, based on the new
masculinity research.
Work on boys' education was one important example, given urgency by
a media panic about boys' ‘failure’ in schooling and the resurgence of
unscientific beliefs about boys' different ways of learning. Work on
violence prevention was another. Programs for violence prevention,
both at the level of domestic violence and at the level of civil conflict
and war, drew for guidance on the new masculinity research. A
discourse about men's health developed, in which masculinity research
provided a counterweight to the simple categoricalism predominant in
biomedical sciences when they spoke about gender. Psychological
counselling practice directed towards men and boys also spread widely.
Perhaps the most striking development in the new research field was
its rapid transformation into a worldwide field of knowledge. It is a
notable fact that the most sustained research and documentation
program on men and masculinities anywhere in the world was launched
in the mid 1990s, not in the global metropole, but in Chile. This
program drew in researchers from across Latin America, and it is
continuing today (Valdés and Olavarría, 1998, Olavarría, 2009). We now
have not just individual studies, but published collections of descriptive
research and applied studies of masculinity for practically every
continent or culturearea, including African masculinities (Shefer et al.,
2007), Islamic masculinities (Ouzgane, 2006), changing masculinities in
India (Chopra, 2007), and more.
If we look in the Web of Science database, we currently find 4133
items with ‘masculinity’ or ‘masculinities’ as a title word, a severe test.
It is not a gigantic field but it is a significant interdisciplinary enterprise
with a rich knowledge base already. Some 2309 of these titles appeared
in the decade 20002009, so the field is still growing.
MCS – Masculinity and social change, 1(1), 418 7
With the internationalization of the field, the documentation of the
diversity of masculinities moved to a new order of magnitude. The need
for a concept of social change to contextualize them has become more
apparent. In some of the literature, this is supplied by a narrative of
progress. A ‘traditional’ masculinity (often understood as patriarchal
and perhaps violent) is contrasted with a ‘modern’ masculinity (often
understood as more expressive, egalitarian and peaceable). Mass media
are often happy with this schema. Something like it underlies the
journalistic concept of the ‘metrosexual’.
The narrative of progress, moving from tradition to modernity, is a
familiar trope across the human sciences. It was foundational to the
European social sciences when they took shape in the nineteenth
century, and it continues in different forms today. The most familiar
contemporary version is the ‘globalization’ story, in which we are all
being swept up into a homogeneous global modernity spreading
outwards from its North Atlantic core. Or according to taste global
postmodernity, global risk society, or global network society, all
following the same track.
This story is being contested by the argument that there are multiple
modernities, not just a North Atlantic one. It is even more strongly
contested by the view, put by Maurício Domingues, Aníbal Quijano and
other Latin American thinkers, that there is indeed one modernity, but it
is global, and the European story is just one element in a much larger
whole (Domingues, 2008). In such a perspective it is imperialism, not
capitalism or the industrial revolution, that is the frame. To understand
power and hegemony we must reckon with the ‘coloniality of power’, to
use Quijano’s phrase.
When we look at the issue on a global scale, it is clear that
masculinities can be problematised in different ways. In the mid20th
century, the great Mexican poet and cultural theorist Octavio Paz, in The
Labyrinth of Solitude, problematised the cultural construction of
‘machismo’ through the unresolved tensions of indigenous and Spanish
culture, and the uncompleted Mexican revolution of the twentieth
century. About the same time, Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist who was not
yet the famous theorist of thirdworld revolution, in Black Skin White
8 Raewyn Connell Masculinity research and global change
problematised the construction of black masculinity under the pressures
of French colonial rule.
Black Skin, White Masks is a brilliant, bitter and troubling analysis of
racism both in metropolitan France and in the French colonial empire.
In the course of the book, Fanon analyzes the psychodynamics both of
white and black consciousness. Almost incidentally, the book is also an
analysis of white and black masculinities, and their relationship within
colonialism and racist culture. Women are present in the book, but only
in terms of their sexual relationships with black and white men, or as
objects of sexual fantasy. Fanon is clear that colonialism is a system of
violence and economic exploitation; the psychological consequences are
not a matter of discourse but arise from material relations. Within that
structure, black masculinity is marked by divided emotions, and a
massive alienation from original experience. This alienation is
produced as black men struggle to find a position, and find recognition,
in a culture that defines them as biologically inferior, indeed a kind of
animal, and makes them objects of anxiety or fear.
A decade later, in a sharp and witty anatomy of modern culture and
society in Iran, Westoxication, Ale Ahmad presented another critique of
the alienated, deracinated masculinity of the neocolonial world. Later
again but still before the first journal of masculinity studies existed in
the global North Ashis Nandy (1983) made a stunning historical
psychological analysis of the making of masculinities under the British
Raj in India, both among the colonized and the colonizers, in The
Intimate Enemy.
There are, of course, more sources than these. But I mention these, all
works of originality and even brilliance, to show how a southern theory
perspective (Connell, 2007) might help us rethink the structure of ‘men
and masculinity’ as a field of knowledge. We have many bases or
startingpoints for new perspectives. We have the possibility of a
polycentric domain of knowledge on a world scale.
MCS – Masculinity and social change, 1(1), 418 9
'Studying up' and thinking about power
In the familiar narrative of the field, masculinity studies arose from the
feminist breakthrough that created women’s studies and gender studies.
Feminism has, to a certain extent, functioned as a guarantor of critical
studies of men and masculinities. studies of men and masculinities.
Some practitioners, acknowledging the patriarchal character of
academic life in general, emphasise that their analysis is ‘profeminist’.
In applied fields such as antiviolence work, dealing with rape and
domestic violence, scrupulous men’s groups take care to work in concert
with women’s groups and acknowledge the needs and fears of
victimized women.
Feminism is radically plural, especially when seen on a world scale
(Bulbeck, 1998). It does not provide an uncomplicated guarantee of
anything; but it has possibilities of growth and diversity. Research on
men and masculinities is not a separate field dependent on feminism. It
is, rather, part of the feminist revolution in knowledge that has been
opening up in the last generation. Indeed it can be seen as a strategic
part of feminist research, the moment of ‘studying up’, the power
structure research that we need to understand the gender order.
Therefore, a key part of the enterprise is researching institutions in
which masculinities are embedded and which have weight in the social
order as a whole. This includes the state, the security services, the
corporations, and the capital markets. Two projects by Australian
sociologists, Mike Donaldson and Scott Poynting’s (2007) Ruling Class
Men, and Michael Gilding’s (2002) Secrets of the Super Rich, point in
this direction. Indeed, I think one of the key needs in the field of
masculinity studies right now is more economists! to give us a clearer
picture of the business world as an arena of masculinities, and the
economic stake in gender relations.
In the second half of the twentieth century, after a series of crises and
convulsions, capitalism was reestablished under US hegemony as a
global system of economic relations. Transnational firms, at first called
‘multinational corporations’ became the key institutions in production
and marketing. In the 1960s, initially because of multinational
10 Raewyn Connell Masculinity research and global change
corporations' needs for finance for international transactions, a new
body of stateless capital became visible. By the 1980s there was
growing integration of the capital and currency markets of major
economic powers, and multinational corporations had adopted strategies
of international sourcing of components, which amounted to a global
decentralization of industrial production. Lowwage economies and
development zones in Mexico, China, south Asia, and elsewhere were
suddenly important in the strategies of major corporations, and de
industrialization appeared in the old centres of heavy industry in Europe
and north America, such as the Ruhr and the north of England.
Business journalists in the 1980s began writing about ‘globalization’ as
a way of summarizing these changes. The idea was given force by the
rise of neoliberal ideology and politics, from the late 1970s, which
drove the growth of international trade and to a degree standardized the
policy regimes of different countries. In the 1990s the idea became
popular among sociologists and cultural theorists as well as economists.
A literature about the new form of society supposedly being produced
by globalization became influential (Connell, 2007).
The issue was also picked up by feminist scholars, and a literature
began to appear about globalization and gender (Chow, 2003). The
main concern of this research was documenting the impact of
globalization processes on the lives and political struggles of women.
By the late 1990s these concerns had also entered the field of
masculinity research, and a discussion of ‘masculinities and
globalization’ was beginning (Connell, 1998). This gave a way of
talking about change in the lives of men. Examples were the Latin
American discussions of the impact of neoliberal restructuring on
traditional models of patriarchal fatherhood, and the discussion in the
Arab world of cultural turbulence about masculinity resulting from
Western cultural and economic domination and local resistances
(Ghoussoub and SinclairWebb, 2000).
A focus on the transformation of lives in global restructuring is
proving fruitful in masculinity research in relation to the HIV/AIDS
epidemic. Some of the best ethnographic research on masculinities,
sexuality and violence has developed in response to the AIDS crisis.
MCS – Masculinity and social change, 1(1), 418 11
vital, not only around prevention but also around treatment and care. So
studies of inequality in local gender orders, and local gender orders’ role
in creating vulnerability among women, continue to be important (for
example Thege, 2009).
Yet HIV/AIDS is a world issue. And as Silberschmidt (2004) observes
on the basis of research in east Africa, the danger to women comes not
so much from the ‘traditional’ forms of men's gender privilege as from
postcolonial changes in gender relations. Risk of infection is created
by attempts to reassert men's power in changed circumstances. Yet this
is not a completely hopeless terrain. Sexuality can be negotiated, and
some new and more egalitarian relations emerge as well as relations of
domination and exploitation. As the recent research with youth in South
Africa shows (Morrell et al., 2009), change and resistance to power in
gender practices is also influenced by wider cultural and economic
change. The significance of men's sexuality in the epidemic, then,
cannot be understood without understanding gender relations in both
local and transnational arenas.
This perspective has increasingly influenced gender policy. Until
fairly recently, gender policy documents usually concerned the lives of
women and said little about men, except as perpetrators of violence or
beneficiaries of inequality. This has now been changing. For instance
in 2003, three United Nations agencies sponsored a broad discussion on
the role of men and boys in achieving gender equality. This drew
heavily on the ‘ethnographic moment’ research about masculinities
around the world. This initiative resulted in a policy document ‘The
Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality’, adopted at the
2004 meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (Connell,
2005; Lang et al., 2008).
At the same time, research has been building up about masculinity in
the dominant institutions of the global economy, among the corporate
elite. The pioneering study in this vein is Hooper's (2000) analysis of the
images of businessmen found in the pages of the neoliberal business
newspaper The Economist. A fascinating mixture of cooperative,
teamwork imagery, plus newfrontier, technocratic imagery, with
remnants of colonialist attitudes, emerged.
12 Raewyn Connell Masculinity research and global change
Donaldson and Poynting's more materialist Ruling Class Men (2007)
used not only journalistic accounts but also biographies,
autobiographies, and other sources to reconstruct the patterns of life of
men born to great wealth and privilege. It is a frightening picture, in the
light of their power, since human sensitivity and emotional involvement
are carefully eliminated from their upbringing.
Together with colleagues in Chile, Japan and South Africa, I have been
making a study of managerial masculinities in the context of the global
economy, for instance in the finance sector (Connell, 2010a, 2010b;
Olavarría, 2009). Interviews with managers in businesses oriented to, or
impacted by, world trade and capital flows, give a view of both the old
and the new processes shaping elite masculinities. These cases show
that the methods of the ‘ethnographic moment’ in masculinity research
are by no means obsolete, in studying the emerging world of
transnational institutions and processes. But these methods certainly
have to be rethought. In the interviews for this study we gave
considerable attention to international links, both in the life histories and
in current labor processes. Complex issues of comparability and
translation arise.
Recognizing the global dimension in gendered power gave new
relevance to research on masculinity as a factor in the creation of global
society. The earliest explicit study of ‘male culture’ in settler
colonialism was the work of the New Zealand historian Phillips, whose
first paper on this question was published in 1980 tellingly, in a
collection entitled Women in New Zealand Society. More and better
historical research followed, notably the classic work of Morrell (2001)
on the institutions of settler colonialism in South Africa.
What this historical research showed was that imperialism did not just
impinge as an external force on the gender orders of colonized societies.
Imperialism was inherently a gendered process, as Mies (1986) argued
in a powerful text. Specific masculinities, specific gender relations,
were inscribed in colonialism and imperial expansion themselves. The
construction of worldwide empires could not be regarded as something
that happened before gender effects were produced. Gender was
embedded, was formative, in imperialism, and thus in the initial
MCS – Masculinity and social change, 1(1), 418 13
construction of global arenas.
Both historical research, and questions arising from the application of
contemporary ethnographic research, thus converge on the idea that the
arenas of power in transnational space, for instance the institutions of
transnational business, politics and communication, are gendered from
the start. The gender regimes of these institutions are open to study, and
the gender order of the transnational space as a whole can be mapped.
On hegemonic masculinity
I now turn to the implications of these lines of thought for the familiar
concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’. This concept has been both widely
used and widely criticized. It is clear that the problems addressed by
this concept remain of importance. The reformulation of the concept
(Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005) has been cited over 600 times in
research literature in the six years since its publication.
In that paper we endorsed some of the suggestions made in the critical
literature, especially those that lead beyond the use of the concept as a
psychological typology. Complex social patterns of centrality and
marginalization, in which particular practices might migrate from one
configuration of masculinity to another, are involved. We argued on the
one hand for connecting the concept of hegemonic masculinity with an
analysis of social embodiment; on the other, for recognizing spatial
patterns in hegemony. The masculinity that is hegemonic at a local
level might be significantly different from (though usually overlapping
with) the hegemonic masculinity at a regional or global level (Connell
and Messerschmidt, 2005).
It is important that the relationship of hegemonic masculinity to
violence should not be misunderstood. ‘Hegemonic masculinity’ does
not equate to violent masculinity. Indeed, where violence is central to
the assertion of gendered power, we can be fairly certain that hegemony
is not present, because hegemony refers to cultural centrality and
authority, to the broad acceptance of power by those over whom it is
exercised.
14 Raewyn Connell Masculinity research and global change
Yet hegemony is not irrelevant to the understanding of violence.
Violence may be a sanction that backs up authority, that reinforces
consent by making consent prudent. Gramsci spoke of ‘common sense’
as a vehicle of hegemony.
Conversely, a pattern of masculinity may be hegemonic that does not
mandate personal violence, but is systematically open to violence –
celebrating mediated violence, employing practitioners of violence,
creating impunity, and supporting the institutional conditions of
violence.
In my view, this is the situation in Australia today, and perhaps
elsewhere. The hegemonic masculinities are those of the corporate
world, and contemporary corporate masculinity depends culturally on its
relation with mediated professional sports, especially football; on the
existence of a growing ‘security’ sector of practitioners of violence; on a
legal system in which the proof of rape, domestic violence or sexual
harassment remains extremely difficult; and on a callousness towards
poverty and social distress that is now institutionalized in the political
world as neoliberalism.
Attention to the questions about gender in transnational spaces
discussed above raises further questions about the concept of hegemonic
masculinity. Laurie (2005), in a study of the masculinities involved in
the ‘water wars’ in Bolivia, makes the important observation that
masculinity research in the global North has presumed a consolidated
social epistemology based on a coherent gender order. But this
assumption cannot be made in parts of the global South, where cultural
discontinuity and disruption is the condition of life. In such conditions a
dominant masculinity may not be ‘hegemonic’, because no hegemony is
possible. But in many circumstances some degree of hegemony is
possible, and here it is important to recall that hegemony means
hegemony, it does not mean social reproduction (as in Bourdieu) or
authoritarianism. Hegemony is a historically mobile relationship among
social groups. It is possible to challenge for hegemony, and something
like that has been happening with the proposals for engaged fatherhood
in Scandinavia and ‘paternidad afectiva’ in Latin America.
MCS – Masculinity and social change, 1(1), 418 15
So the gendered politics of masculinity is not a matter of assault on a
monolith from outside. It is a matter of existing complexities and
contradictions in the gender order, and those who pursue gender justice
have the task of finding directions of movement that can become large
scale movement. The goal is not to abolish masculinity, as some right
wing commentators claim, but to create a hegemony for forms of
masculinity that already exist in the lives of men, masculinities that are
peacemaking not warmaking and that flourish in a context of gender
equality.
I would now argue, not so much for a redefinition of the concept of
hegemonic masculinity, as for a change of emphasis in using it. It
seems to me, increasingly, that the strategic questions about change in
gender relations involve not only personal relations, identities and
intimate life, but also largescale institutions and the structural
conditions of social life. The politics of gender include the politics of
corporations, states, and transnational structures of communication,
trade and military power.
To recognize that, makes the task of achieving gender equality seem
harder; and indeed it is hard. But it also prevents gender politics
including the tasks of change in hegemony among masculinities from
being regarded as a narrow specialist field. It reconnects our tasks with
the wider issues of change in the world.
16 Raewyn Connell Masculinity research and global change
References
Ale Ahmad, J. (1982). Gharbzadegi (Weststruckness). Translated by
John Green and Ahmad Alizadeh. Lexington KY: Mazda
Publishers.
Bulbeck, Ch. (1998). Reorienting Western Feminisms: Women’s
Diversity in a Postcolonial World. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carrigan, T., Connell. R., & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of
masculinity. Theory and Society, 14 (5), 551604. doi:
10.1007/BF00160017
Chopra, R. (Ed.). (2007). Reframing Masculinities: Narrating the
Supportive Practices of Men. New Delhi: Orient Longman Private.
Chow, E.N. (2003). Gender matters: studying globalization and social
change in the 21st century. International Sociology, 18 (3): 443460.
doi: 10.1177/02685809030183001
Connell, R. (1998). Masculinities and globalization. Men and
Masculinities, 1 (1), 323.
Connell, R. (2003). Masculinidades. Ciudad Mexico: Programa
Universitario de Estudios de Género, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México.
Connell, R. (2005). Change among the gatekeepers: men, masculinities,
and gender equality in the global arena. Signs, 30 (3), 18011825.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of
Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. (2010a). Im Innern des gläsernen Turms: Die Konstruktion
von Männlichkeiten im Finanzkapital. Feministische Studien, 28
(1), 824.
Connell, R. (2010b). Lives of the businessmen. Reflections on life
history method and contemporary hegemonic masculinity.
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 35 (2), 5471.
Connell, R.; & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity:
rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19 (6), 829859. doi:
10.1177/0891243205278639
MCS – Masculinity and social change, 1(1), 418 17
Domingues, J.M. (2008). Latin America and Contemporary Modernity:
A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Routledge.
Donaldson, M. & Poynting, S. (2007). Ruling Class Men: Money, Sex,
Power. Bern: Peter Lang.
Fanon, F. (1967). Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press.
Gilding, M. (2002). Secrets of the Super Rich. Sydney: HarperCollins.
Ghoussoub, M. & SinclairWebb, E. (Ed.). (2000). Imagined
Masculinities. London: Saqi Books.
Hooper, C. (2000). Masculinities in transition: the case of globalization.
In: Marchand, M & Sisson Runyan, S. (Ed.), Gender and Global
Restructuring. (pp. 5973). London: Routledge.
Howson, R. (2006). Challenging Hegemonic Masculinity. London and
New York: Routledge.
Lang, J., Greig, A.; & Connell, R. (2008). The Role of Men and Boys in
Achieving Gender Equality. ‘Women 2000 and Beyond’ series.
New York: United Nations Division for the Advancement of
Women/Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
http.www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/w2000.html
Laurie, N. (2005). Establishing development orthodoxy: negotiating
masculinities in the water sector. Development and Change, 36 (3),
527549. doi: 10.1111/j.0012155X.2005.00422.x
MetzGöckel, S. & Müller, U. (1985). Der Mann. Die BRIGITTE
Studie. Hamburg: Beltz.
Meuser, M. (1998). Geschlecht und Männlichkeit: Soziologische
Theorie und kulturelle Deutungsmuster. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Mies, M. (1986). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale:
Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.
Morrell, R. (2001). From Boys to Gentlemen: Settler Masculinity in
Colonial Natal 18801920. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
Morrell, R., Epstein, D., Unterhalter, E., Bhana, D. & Moletsane, R.
(2009). Towards Gender Equality: South African schools during
the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Scottsvillle: University of KwaZuluNatal
Press.
18 Raewyn Connell Masculinity research and global change
Nandy, A. (1983). The Intimate Enemy. Loss and Recovery of Self
under Colonialism. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Olavarría, José, (Ed). (2009). Masculinidades y globalización: Trabajo
y vida privada, familias y sexualidades. Santiago: Red de
Masculinidiad/es Chile, Universidad Academia de Humanismo
Cristiano and CEDEM.
Ouzgane, L. (Ed.). (2006). Islamic Masculinities. London: Zed Books.
Paz, O. (1990). The Labyrinth of Solitude. Enlarged edition. London:
Penguin.
Phillips, J. (1980). Mummy's Boys: Pakeha Men and Male Culture in
New Zealand. In Bunkle, P & Hughes, B. (Ed.). Women in New
Zealand Society. (pp. 217243). New Zealand: Allen & Unwin.
Shefer, T., K. Ratele, A. Strebel, N. Shabalala & Buikema, R. (Eds).
(2007). From Boys to Men: Social Constructions of Men in
Contemporary Society. Lansdowne: UCT Press.
Silberschmidt, M. (2004). Men, male sexuality and HIV/AIDS.
Reflections from studies in rural and urban East Africa.
Transformation, 54, 4258.
Thege, B. (2009). Rural black women's agency within intimate
partnerships amid the South African HIV epidemic. African Journal
of AIDS Research, 8 (4): 455 doi:
10.2989/AJAR.2009.8.4.9.1046
Valdés, T. & Olavarría, J. (Eds.). (1998). Masculinidades y Equidad de
Género en América Latina. Santiago: FLACSO/UNFPA.
Zhang Xingkui. 2010. Studies of Men and Masculinities in
Contemporary China. PhD thesis, Faculty of Education and Social
Work, University of Sydney.
Raewyin Connell is University Chair at the Faculty of
Education and Social Work, University of Sidney
Contact Address: Direct correspondence to the author at
Education A35 University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia.
Email address: raewyn.connell@sydney.edu.au
