Sociology of Sport Journal, 2010, 27, 319-322

© 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature

of Masculinities
By Eric Anderson, New York, Routledge, 2009, 190 pages, ISBN10: 0-415-80462-0
Reviewed by: Richard Pringle, Critical Studies in Education, University of Auck-
land, Auckland, New Zealand.

Eric Anderson’s text explores the intersections between masculinities, sport,

sexuality and homophobia in a vibrant, provocative, and insightful manner. Many
researchers have previously explored these intersections but Eric asserts his text is
significant as it reveals that the former narratives that portrayed university sportsmen
as homophobic, violent and sexist are dated. His text draws on rich ethnographic
data to illustrate that seemingly radical changes have occurred in diverse sporting
contexts with respect to how young, white, educated men relate to each other,
females and gay men and how they express emotions and identify themselves.
This text, accordingly, counters the repeatedly negative images of sportsmen that
have peppered the sociological study of sport. Michael Messner relatedly states on
the back jacket of the book it “gives us some cause for (dare I say it?) optimism.”
The back jacket, moreover, is replete with unabashed praise for the text from the
leading scholars who helped canonize the concept of hegemonic masculinity and
popularize masculinity studies. Michael Kimmel describes Inclusive Masculinity
as “an astonishing book—one with insights and suffused with hope.” Don Sabo
states that it is “a touchstone for readers to rethink their assumptions about men
and masculinities” and Alan Klein praises the text as a bold and nuanced work
that will become a “benchmark for studies of masculinities.” I agree that Inclusive
Masculinity is important and should be read by gender and sport scholars yet I am
more reserved about its potential of becoming a benchmark in masculinity studies.
The prime thesis of the text, drawing from a somewhat promiscuous array of
social theories and academic disciplines, rests on the reductive claim that homopho-
bia is the “most important policing agent of masculinity” (p. 8). Homophobia,
as such, is theorized as central to the production of “orthodox” masculinities
which reject expressions of femininity but demand hypermasculine displays and
compulsory forms of heterosexuality. At a broader level, Anderson theorizes that
homophobic societies encourage what he calls “homohysteria” or the fear of being
“homosexualized” or stripped of one’s masculinity. In recent years, however, Ander-
son reveals that the conditions that once produced homohysteria have decreased
so that orthodox masculinities are no longer dominant. These developments have
allowed the growth of an oppositional form of masculinity, “inclusive masculinities”,
which celebrate or at least accept the tenets of feminism, gay rights and allow greater
emotional and physical intimacies between men. Anderson explains further that
given the existence of “two oppositional masculinities, each with equal influence,
co-existing within one culture” (p. 93) that the concept of hegemonic masculin-
ity is no longer an appropriate tool for analyzing contemporary masculinities. In

319
 320 Pringle

replacement he proposes “inclusive masculinities” as a new masculinity theory with

its central focus for analysis revolving around fluctuating levels of homohysteria.
Anderson boldly summarizes: “Claiming that inclusive masculinities exists, expli-
Downloaded by QUEENSLAND UNIV TECHNOLOGY on 07/10/18, Volume ${[Link]}, Article Number ${[Link]}

cating the claim through rich, qualitative data from a variety of men in a variety
of geographical locations, and framing it with a sophisticated new gender theory,
is the project of the book” (p. 9).
Inclusive Masculinity is divided into three parts. The first section, orthodox
masculinities, somewhat ironically provides a rather orthodox reading of mas-
culinities, gender relations and sport. Chapter one provides a broad brush stroke
history of homosexuality and sport to argue that sport was designed, promoted and
used throughout the 20th century “as a homosocial institution principally aimed
to counter men’s fears of feminism and homosexuality” (p. 29). Chapter two
extends this meta-narrative by arguing that the institution of sport is “a perfectly
integrated, self-reinforcing system with few internal contradictions or conflicts” (p.
17) that “serves as an efficient and resilient mechanism for the political project of
promoting orthodox masculinity at the expense of women and gay men” (p. 76).
This well-worn thesis continues in chapter three, with discussion of how orthodox
masculinity is not only harmful to gay men and women but also to those men who
adhere to its rigid ideologies. The concluding chapter in this section draws intrigu-
ingly from Zimbardo’s (1971) experiment on the psychology of imprisonment and
power and Milgram’s (1974) psychological study on authority and obedience, to
infer that sport teaches males to be complicit to authority and to “accept and inflict
masculine policing” (p. 17). Overall, the first section gives little hint that the text
is aiming to offer a new way of conceptualizing sport, masculinity and sexuality
relations. Indeed, its prime argument vociferously acts to reaffirm readings of
sport and masculinities that have drawn on the concept of hegemonic masculinity.
The second section, inclusive masculinity theory, consists of two chapters that
aim to illustrate how contemporary western societies have become increasingly gay
friendly or, at least, refreshingly tolerant. The first chapter draws on a fascinating
and somewhat eclectic range of sources to illustrate how broad understandings of
homosexuality have changed over the last century. Anderson makes specific use of
John Ibson’s (2002) extensive photographic history of men’s relationships to reveal
the changing nature of physical intimacy between men. He states that “prior to the
1920s his photographs show athletes hugging, laying their heads in each other’s laps,
holding hands, or draping their arms around each other” (p. 82). In other words, men
were supposedly not homophobic within the time period that sport was becoming
institutionalized. Such evidence seemingly counters Anderson’s earlier claims that,
modern sport was designed and developed at the turn of the 20th century to counter
men’s fears of homophobia and that “the construction of sport as a masculine and
homophobic enterprise was both deliberate and political...” (p. 30).
The final section, inclusive masculinities, is the strongest, most captivating
and convincing section. Within three chapters, Anderson reveals findings from his
extensive ethnographic studies of gay athletes, heterosexual male cheerleaders,
men in a mainstream fraternity, and male university rugby and football players.
The results overwhelmingly suggest that “inclusive masculinities are increasingly
dominating university settings, and that the homophobia, misogyny, violence
and homosocial separation associated with orthodox masculinity is increasingly
unfashionable” (p. 153). Although I was not overly surprised by these broad
 Inclusive Masculinity 321

findings, some of the results were eye-openers. For example, within Anderson’s
study of a UK male football team he reveals that the heterosexual men would
typically engage in prolonged, public kissing involving tongues with other men.
Downloaded by QUEENSLAND UNIV TECHNOLOGY on 07/10/18, Volume ${[Link]}, Article Number ${[Link]}

In addition, I was surprised to read how several so-called “orthodox” men indulge
in same-sex sex with belief that it is an acceptable sexual recreation that does not
pose threat to their heterosexual identities.
Overall, the text argues that gender/sexuality power relations are fluid and a
more tolerant or progressive phase is underway that is positively shaping masculini-
ties and gender relations. This, of course, sounds optimistic. Anderson is, however,
careful (at times) not to generalise his results but encourages other researchers to
help document if similar changes are taking place in other social contexts.
A strength of the book is related to Anderson’s underpinning argument that
social theory is always contingent on social context and given the evident changes
in contemporary masculinities, there is a need to develop new ways of theorizing
about masculinities. In this manner he observes that the prime weakness of structural
based theories is that their tools are only effective if the “known” social structures
remain the same (e.g. the gender order remains unchanged). Anderson’s text, how-
ever, indirectly highlights another weakness of structuralist theories, which is that
it is difficult for researchers to know with any certainty what the social structures
actually are. Prior to Anderson’s work, for example, few sociologists would likely
claim that male fraternities or rugby teams would promote masculinities that are
supportive of gay rights and feminist thinking. Anderson, nevertheless, resorts to
developing and using a structuralist theory. And this leads to my prime concerns
with the text, which is not simply that he employs a structuralist lens, but that his
attempt to meld diverse and competing forms of knowledge, disciplines and theo-
retical perspectives into a coherent theory of masculinities is not wholly successful.
Anderson draws, for example, on psychological and psychoanalytical studies
and theories but then suggests that he principally relies “upon a social constructionist
framework” (p. 32) and anti-essentialist theorizing for understanding masculinities.
He rejects Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity for its inability to explain
his contemporary findings but suggests that in times of high homohysteria Connell’s
theoretical lens is still suitably robust. From a sociological perspective I find this
contention difficult to understand. Is he suggesting that the social structures are
prone to radical change so that the workings of power, as tied to ruling groups and
ideological domination, can on occasion break down and then re-build? In addition,
Anderson attempts to combine Gramsci and Foucault to make his book “accessible
to a wide body of scholars and readers” (p. 34). To do this difficult theoretical task
he crudely challenges each theoretical lens. He rejects Gramsci’s observation that
power is unevenly distributed according to hierarchical positioning and mistakenly
accuses Foucault of suggesting that “all people share in power equally” (p. 34)
(Foucault was blatantly clear that power is not a possession that people could hold
and therefore share). And, within two sentences, he proclaims “I therefore suggest
that instead of having two paradigmatic camps, we blend these epistemologies to
nuance social constructionism while keeping its political viability” (p. 34).
In this broad manner, Anderson recognizes various theoretical limitations but
then still attempts to work within them. For example, he accepts that understand-
ing gender via binary categories is problematic but nevertheless decides to use the
“polarized categories of orthodox or inclusive archetypes because these concepts
 322 Pringle

prove useful … in understanding a macro analysis of men ...” (p. 32). Similarly, he
accepts “the limitations of identity categorization” (p. 32) but still decides to talk
as if singular male archetypes exist as “this simplifies the complexities of describ-
Downloaded by QUEENSLAND UNIV TECHNOLOGY on 07/10/18, Volume ${[Link]}, Article Number ${[Link]}

ing men’s gendered attitudes and behaviours and permits me to make meaningful
discussion of an otherwise nebulous social matrix” (p. 32). In addition, Anderson
undertakes qualitative ethnographic studies but tends to make generalized statements
about men and homosexuality. As an example, Anderson draws on psychoanalytic
explanations to imprudently suggest, “I am quite nearly ready to say that any
university-aged man who exhibits homophobic attitudes is concealing same-sex
desires” (pp. 110-11).
The overall effect in drawing from such a wide range of disciplines and theoreti-
cal perspectives is that Anderson is not able to clearly articulate the social processes
associated with the construction of masculinities. I am unsure whether this complex
social process, for example, is understood by Anderson to be achieved via the
workings of ideologies, discourses, power relations, essentialized traits or desires,
agentic interpretations of lived experiences or some combination of all these factors.
It is with respect to this concern, that I suggest that inclusive masculinity theory is
not, as yet, wholly coherent and is in need of further refinement. Relatedly, I am
concerned that the central tenet of inclusive masculinities theory (i.e. masculinities
are primarily constructed in relation to prevailing attitudes about homosexuality)
simplistically overestimates the significance of homosexuality in shaping men’s
lives, identities and gender relations. This circumscribed focus neglects the social
importance of gender as a relational concept (e.g. masculinities and femininities)
and other important social variables (e.g. globalization, capitalism, governmentali-
ties) that shape how men understand themselves and socially interact.
Finally, having raised my critical concerns, I still encourage others to read
the book as Anderson’s prime ethnographic findings need to be grappled with.
Moreover, as I have already stated, the text is thought provoking, boldly written
and refreshingly unique!

Note
This review was completed before Richard Pringle became a Sociology of Sport Associate Editor.

Reference
Ibson, J. (2002). Picturing men: A century of male relationships in everyday life. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Books.