Todd Reeser, Ch.

3 “Sexing Masculinity”
📝 Key Concepts: "Sexing Masculinity"

1. The Central Problem: Deconstructing "Sex"

The chapter challenges the common assumption that while gender (masculinity) is a fluid
social construct, sex (biological maleness) is a stable, natural, and fixed given. The author
argues that "maleness" itself is a complicated and problematic concept, not a simple
biological fact.

2. The Assumed "Natural" Trajectory (And Its Flaws)

We typically assume a linear, three-part movement that the author argues is not natural:

Sex $\rightarrow$ Gender $\rightarrow$ Desire

1. Sex: A baby is born biologically male (in the womb).

2. Gender: Because he is male, he learns "boy" behaviors (e.g., throws baseballs, wrestles).

3. Desire: His gender then naturally leads to heterosexual desire (e.g., notices girls, dates
girls).

 Critique of "Gender Fluidity": Even when we discuss "gender fluidity"—like a man

being "nurturing" or "in touch with his feminine side"—we often reinforce the norm.
These are seen as exceptions to a stable, dominant "masculine side," rather than
proof that the core itself is unstable.

3. The Main Thesis: Reversing the Trajectory

The chapter proposes a radical reversal of the common assumption. It asks:

What if gender leads to sex? What if our preconceived ideas about masculinity create what
we think the male body and the male sex are?

 Example 1: The Penis

o Our idea of gender (masculinity) involves concepts like sexual virility and
penetration.

o Therefore, our culture assigns immense symbolic importance to the penis,

making it a key definitional aspect of the male body. The word "manhood"
itself links the biological part to the social identity.
 o The author argues the penis is just "a piece of flesh". Other male-specific traits
(like the Adam's apple or beard) aren't given the same symbolic weight
because our gendered ideas don't prioritize them in the same way.

 Example 2: Strength

o Our idea of gender (masculinity) is defined by strength.

o Therefore, we see the male body's "relative larger size" as a primary,

biological definitional element of the male sex. Our gendered perception
creates this idea of sex.

 Example 3: Viagra

o This concept is reinforced by discourse. Medical and capitalist discourse

around Viagra produces and constructs the idea that erections are a central,
natural component of masculinity.

o This discourse makes gender (masculinity) seem like a natural result of sex (an
erection), when in fact the discourse (a form of gender) is creating the
importance of that aspect of sex.

4. Judith Butler's Concepts: "Assuming" Sex

The text draws heavily on theorist Judith Butler to explain how this construction of sex
happens.

 "Assuming a Sex" (from Bodies that Matter) This phrase has a double meaning:

1. To "Take On": A person has to become or be made into a man. The doctor's
announcement, "It's a boy!" is not a statement of fact but a performative act
that creates the sex of the child through language.

2. To "Take for Granted": Once the sex is announced (assumed), it is taken for
granted as a natural, pre-existing truth. Subsequent gendered acts (like buying
blue clothes) are seen as reflections of this "truth," not as acts that are
actively constructing it.

 Repetition: This "assuming" of sex is not a single event at birth. It is "repeatedly

assumed" through daily acts, like using the pronoun "he".

 Creation Narratives (e.g., Genesis): Foundational myths, like Adam being created first
from the earth, are narratives that invent maleness as the origin. Pre-existing ideas
about gender (masculine superiority) led to a creation story that retroactively
constructs sex (maleness) as primary, privileged, and "prediscursive" (existing before
language).
5. Why Stabilize Sex? Maintaining Hegemony

Why does culture work so hard to make "sex" seem natural and biological?

 The "Risk": If sex is constructed by gender, then maleness is not the "exclusive
domain of men".

 The Motive: To maintain masculine hegemony. By insisting that "sex" is a natural,

biological origin, masculinity can claim a "biological or natural superiority".

 Example (The Butch Woman): This logic allows a "very butch woman" to be seen as
possessing masculine qualities (gender), but she can "never be a man" because she is
denied access to the "core of maleness" (sex).

6. Performing Masculinity (Gender as "Performative")

If there is no "natural core" of gender or sex, what is it? The text uses Butler's concept of
performativity (from Gender Trouble).

 What it ISN'T: It is not a "performance" like an actor choosing a role. It is not a

conscious fabrication or "choice".

 What it IS: A "reiteration of a norm or set of norms".

o Example (The Football Player): A football player tackling other men is not
expressing an "inner core" of masculinity. He is performing acts that echo and
refer to a long history of previously established cultural associations between
football and masculinity.

o It is this series of repeated acts that constitutes his masculinity.

 The "Hollowness" of Repetition: The necessity of repeating these acts over and over
(playing every day, watching on TV) doesn't prove it's natural. Rather, it reveals the
"hollowness" or "gender emptiness" underneath. The repetition is an anxious
attempt to convince himself and others that a natural essence exists when it doesn't.

7. Gender as "Corporeal Style"

A helpful way to think about performativity is as a "corporeal style".

 Like a Literary Style: It's a collection of recurring acts and traits that get simplified
under one label (e.g., "jock"). This label is just an approximation and ignores all the
acts that don't fit the style (e.g., the jock getting straight As).

 Like a Fashion Style:

 o It's changeable: Styles of masculinity (like the medieval "knight") can be "in
style" and then go "out of style".

o It circulates: Old styles aren't gone forever; they can be appropriated in new
contexts (e.g., "my knight in shining armor").

 Hybridity: This "style" is a complex and inseparable hybrid of cultural scripts (like The
Metrosexual Guide to Style) and individual variation.

8. The Breakdown of Performance (Drag, Parody & Overdetermination)

Because masculinity is just a performance with no "original," it can be exposed or

deconstructed.

 "Performance" vs. "Performativity":

o Performativity: The day-to-day, ideological repetition of norms (e.g., the

football player).

o Performance: Intentional stagings (like theater, film, or drag) that can resist
and expose those norms.

 Drag: A drag king (a woman performing as a man) can function as an allegory for all
gender. It reveals that "originary masculinity" doesn't exist and that all gender is an
imitative performance.

 Parody:

o Parody can expose the lack of an original.

o Example: A muscular jock wearing an apron to make a turkey.

o Example: TV sitcoms (Home Improvement) where men constantly fail to

perform the masculine ideal.

 Overdetermination (Excess): Acting too masculine or hyper-masculine can also

expose the performance. It becomes comic and calls attention to itself as a
performance.

o Example: The film Talladega Nights.

 Ambiguity (James Bond): Is James Bond a parody of masculinity or a classic

performance of it?. The text suggests masculinity itself is this constant, unstable
movement between performing a norm and parodying it.

EXAMPLE QUESTIONS:
❓ Question 1: Short Answer

According to the text, what is the commonly assumed "three-part trajectory" of identity, and
how does the author propose to reverse it?

Answer:

The commonly assumed trajectory is Sex $\rightarrow$ Gender $\rightarrow$ Desire1. This
is the linear belief that biological sex (being born male) naturally leads to culturally specific
roles (gender, like wrestling or playing with trucks), which in turn naturally leads to a specific
desire (like male heterosexuality)2.

The author reverses this by asking: "What if gender led to sex?"3. The argument is that our
preconceived ideas about what masculinity is (gender) are what create our understanding of
what the male body (sex) is4444. For example, because our gendered idea of masculinity
values virility, we assign immense symbolic importance to the penis, making it a definitional
aspect of biological sex5.

❓ Question 2: Concept Explanation

Explain the two-part meaning of Judith Butler's concept of "assuming a sex," using the "It's a
boy!" example from the text.

Answer:

The phrase "assuming a sex" has a double meaning6:

1. To "Take On": This means a person is not born with a pre-existent sex but must
become or be made into a man7. The doctor's or parent's announcement, "It's a
boy!", is not a statement of fact but a performative act. It is this linguistic
announcement that creates the sex of the child8888.

2. To "Take for Granted": Once this sex has been "taken on" (announced), it is then
taken for granted as a stable, natural, and pre-existing truth9. All subsequent
gendered acts, like dressing the child in blue, are then seen merely as reflections of
this "natural" maleness, rather than as acts that are continuing to construct it10.

❓ Question 3: Compare & Contrast

The text differentiates between "performativity" and "performance." Define and contrast
these two terms.

Answer:

 Performativity: This is the day-to-day, often unconscious, repetition of norms that

creates and constitutes our gender1111. It's not a choice but an echo of previous
cultural associations (e.g., a football player tackling)121212. This constant repetition is
necessary because there is no natural core, and it attempts to hide this "gender
emptiness"131313131313.

 Performance: This refers to an intentional staging of gender, such as in theater, film,

or drag14.

The key difference is their relationship to norms: Performativity is the ideological process
that reiterates and conceals norms to make them look natural15. A performance, in contrast,
can be an intentional act (like drag) that resists norms and exposes all gender as an imitative
construct with no "original"16161616161616.

❓ Question 4: Short Answer

According to the text, why does culture (and specifically male subjects) have an interest in
making "sex" (maleness) seem like a stable, natural, and biological "origin"?

Answer:

The primary motive is to maintain masculine hegemony17.

If "sex" (maleness) is seen as a fixed, natural, and biological origin, then "gender"
(masculinity) can be given a "biological or natural superiority"18. This logic allows men to
"maintain their hold over a core of maleness"19.

This is a "risk" to male hegemony because if sex is just as constructed as gender, then
maleness is not the "exclusive domain of men"20. By insisting maleness is a fixed biological
fact, a "very butch woman," for example, can be seen as having masculine qualities (gender)
but can "never be a man" (sex), thus protecting male privilege21.

❓ Question 5: Essay Prompt

The text argues that masculinity is a "performative" construct. Define this concept and
explain three ways this construction can be revealed or "break down," using examples from
the text.

Answer (in study-note/bullet form):

 Definition of "Performative": Masculinity is "performative," meaning it has no "inner

core," "essence," or "biology" behind it2222222222. Instead, it is constituted through a
"reiteration of a norm or set of norms"23. It's a series of repeated acts (like a football
player tackling) that echo previous cultural associations242424242424242424. This constant
repetition is necessary precisely because there is a "gender emptiness" underneath,
and the acts are an anxious attempt to create the very naturalness they claim to
express252525252525252525.

This performance can be revealed or "break down" in several ways:

1. Drag: A drag king (a woman performing as a man) can function as an allegory for all
gender26. It exposes the fact that "originary masculinity" doesn't exist and that all
gender is just an imitative performance, "performing performance" itself27.

2. Parody: Parody can expose the lack of an original2828. This can happen in everyday life
(e.g., a muscular jock in an apron) or in media (e.g., sitcoms like Home Improvement
where the man constantly fails to meet the masculine ideal)29292929.

3. Overdetermination (Excess): When a man acts excessively or "too masculine," the

performance becomes "overdetermined"30. This hyper-masculinity can become comic
and calls attention to itself as a performance rather than a natural state31. The film
Talladega Nights is given as an example of this32.

❓ Question 6: Concept Definition

What does the text mean by "gender as corporeal style," and what are the advantages of
thinking about masculinity this way?

Answer: "Gender as corporeal style" is a concept (from Judith Butler) that describes
masculinity not as an essence, but as a collection of repeated acts and traits that, over time,
are perceived as a coherent identity.

The advantages of this "style" metaphor are:

 It's Approximate, Not Absolute: A "style" (like "jock") is a simplified label for a
collection of traits (excels at sports, dresses in sports garb). It usefully ignores all the
acts that don't fit coherently into that rubric (like the jock getting straight As).

 It Changes Over Time: Like a fashion style, a gendered style can be popular in one era
(like the medieval "knight") and then go "out of style" or change.
  It Can Be Re-used: Just as old clothing styles can be re-worn, old masculine styles can
be appropriated in modern contexts (e.g., calling a man a "knight in shining armor").

❓ Question 7: Short Answer

How can clothing, or even cross-dressing, function as a performance of masculinity?

Answer: Clothing is a key aspect of how masculinity is constructed and performed.

 Donning a Norm: Putting on a "coat and tie" is a way to consciously perform a certain
style of masculinity.

 Donning an "Unmarked" Norm: Avoiding stylish clothes (e.g., wearing a T-shirt, jeans,
and a baseball cap) is also a performance of a different, "unmarked" kind of
masculinity.

 Cross-dressing (Counter-intuitive performance): A man wearing a dress can,

paradoxically, perform his masculinity by contrast. When his "chest hair sticks out
where [his] cleavage should be," it can show that his performance of femininity is
"fake" or impossible. This "reverse-performance" shows that he cannot be a woman,
thereby reaffirming his masculinity.

❓ Question 8: True/False and Explain

Statement: "A man performing his masculinity must be following a strict cultural script or
code, like the rules for being a 'metrosexual'."

Answer:

False. The text argues that masculinity is not like following a strict script or code.

 Hybridity: Masculine performance is a complex hybrid of culturally defined

performances and individualized variations. It's nearly impossible to find the line
between the two.

 Codes are Incomplete: Even when written codes exist (like The Metrosexual Guide to
Style), they can't cover all situations. Men might only appropriate certain aspects of a
code rather than following it fully.

 Scripts Change: These "scripts" are not fixed; they are constantly being rewritten over
time and across cultures.

Therefore, it's more accurate to talk about "performance" (which allows for individual
variation and change) than "scripts" or "codes" (which imply a fixed, rigid set of rules).

Raewyn Connell, “The Social Organization

 of Masculinity”
📚 Class Notes: R.W. Connell's "The Social Organization of Masculinity"

1. The Problem: What is "Masculinity"?

Connell argues that "masculinity" is not a single, fixed, or coherent "object" that science
can study. Instead, we must understand it as an "aspect of a larger structure".

 It's Relational: 'Masculinity' does not exist on its own. It only exists in contrast with
'femininity'.

 It's Historically Specific: The modern concept of masculinity is a recent historical

product, only a few hundred years old. It is not a transhistorical or universal truth. It's
tied to the 19th-century bourgeois idea of "separate spheres" for men and women.

2. Four (Failed) Strategies for Defining Masculinity

Connell critiques four common ways masculinity has been defined, arguing that all are
flawed.

1. Essentialist: Picks a "core" feature or essence that defines all masculinity (e.g.,
aggression, risk-taking, "Zeus energy").

o Why it fails: The choice of the "essence" is totally arbitrary.

2. Positivist: Defines masculinity as "what men actually are" based on empirical facts or
averages (e.g., psychological M/F scales that measure statistical differences between
men and women).

o Why it fails:

 It rests on pre-existing assumptions about gender just to create the

test.

 It can't explain "masculine" women or "feminine" men, which are

crucial concepts for gender analysis.

3. Normative: Defines masculinity as a standard or "what men ought to be" (e.g., the
"blueprint of manhood" like John Wayne).

o Why it fails: It creates a paradox: If "hardly anyone meets" this "norm," how
can it be considered "normative"? It implies the majority of men are
unmasculine.

4. Semiotic: Defines masculinity through a system of symbolic difference: masculinity is

simply "not-femininity". It is the "unmarked" term, the place of symbolic authority.
 o Why it fails: This is useful for cultural analysis but is too limited. It can't
analyze real-world structures like gendered labor, institutions, or economic
production.

3. Connell's Framework: Gender as Social Practice

Instead of defining an "object," Connell focuses on processes and relationships.

 Connell's Definition of Masculinity:

"Masculinity... is simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which

men and women engage that place... and the effects of these practices in bodily experience,
personality and culture."

 Gender: Gender is a way social practice is ordered. It organizes our lives in relation to
the "reproductive arena"—the bodily structures and processes of human
reproduction (e.g., childbirth, sexual intercourse, bodily sex difference).

 Gender Projects: Masculinity and femininity are not fixed identities but
"configurations of gender practice" or dynamic "gender projects" that people are
actively involved in.

 Gender is Not Biology: Gender exists precisely because biology does not determine
social life.

The Three-Fold Structure of Gender Relations

Gender is an internally complex structure. Connell proposes a model of three key

"structures" of relationship:

1. Power Relations: This is the main axis of patriarchy—the overall subordination of

women and dominance of men.

2. Production Relations: This refers to the gender divisions of labor. This includes who
does what work (e.g., women washing inside windows, men washing outside ) and its
economic consequences (e.g., unequal pay, men controlling corporations).

3. Cathexis (Emotional Attachment): This refers to the practices that shape and realize
sexual desire (e.g., heterosexual and homosexual desire).

Intersectionality: Gender constantly interacts with race and class. For example, white men's
masculinities are constructed not only in relation to white women but also in relation to
black men.

4. Relations Among Masculinities: The Core Model

This is the most critical part of Connell's theory. Recognizing "multiple masculinities" (e.g.,
working-class, black) is not enough; we must analyze the power relations between them.
1. Hegemonic Masculinity

o This is the form of masculinity that is "culturally exalted" at any given time.

o Definition: "the configuration of gender practice which embodies the

currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy...".

o It's the "ideal" that guarantees the dominant position of men and the
subordination of women.

o It is not a fixed character type; it is "historically mobile" and changes over

time.

o It relies on a successful "claim to authority" more than direct violence. The

exemplars might be film stars or athletes, and very few men may actually
embody it.

2. Subordination

o This describes the relations of dominance between groups of men.

o Key Example: The dominance of heterosexual men over homosexual men.

o This is a material, not just symbolic, relationship involving street violence,

legal violence (sodomy laws), economic discrimination, and cultural exclusion.

o In patriarchal ideology, gayness is symbolically linked to femininity.

3. Complicity

o This concept explains the "masses of people".

o Definition: Masculinities that are complicit in the hegemonic project.

o These are men who do not embody the hegemonic ideal themselves but still
benefit from it.

o They benefit from the "patriarchal dividend"—the advantage men in general

gain from the overall subordination of women—without being the "front-line
troops" of patriarchy.

4. Marginalization

o This describes the relationship between masculinities in dominant and

subordinated classes or ethnic groups.

o This is the interplay of gender with class and race.

o Example: Black masculinities in the U.S. are marginalized in relation to the

authorization of hegemonic white masculinity. Even if a particular black
athlete becomes an exemplar of toughness for the hegemonic ideal, this "has
 no trickle-down effect" and does not grant social authority to black men in
general.

5. Historical Dynamics & Crisis Tendencies

The gender order is not static; it changes over time.

 Patriarchal Dividend: Men receive a massive material dividend (e.g., double the
income of women, control of capital) and social dividends (e.g., honor, prestige) from
patriarchy . This inequality must produce social struggle.

 Role of Violence: Violence is used to sustain this dominance.

1. Violence Against Women: Used to sustain dominance (e.g., harassment,

domestic assault, rape).

2. Violence Among Men: Used to enforce boundaries (e.g., homophobic attacks)

or assert masculinity in marginalized groups (e.g., youth gang violence).

 "Crisis Tendencies" in the Gender Order:

o Connell rejects the simple idea of a "crisis of masculinity". Masculinity is not a

"system" that can have a crisis.

o Instead, the gender order as a whole has crisis tendencies.

o These crises implicate masculinities, often provoking reactionary responses to

"restore" a dominant masculinity (e.g., the Rambo films in response to
feminism and the Vietnam defeat).

 The Three Main Crisis Tendencies:

1. Power: A "historic collapse of the legitimacy of patriarchal power" due to the

global women's movement.

2. Production: A contradiction between women's equal contribution to

production and the unequal (gendered) appropriation of wealth.

3. Cathexis: The stabilization of gay and lesbian sexuality as a public alternative,

which challenges the heterosexual order.

EXAMPLE QUESTIONS:

❓ Question 1: Concept Explanation

Connell states that "masculinity is not a coherent object about which a generalizing science
can be produced". Why does he make this claim, and what does he propose as an alternative
way to understand it?

Answer: Connell argues that masculinity cannot be a "coherent object" for science because it
is not a fixed, isolated thing. Instead, he claims:

 It is relational: "Masculinity" does not exist by itself; it is inherently relational and

only has meaning in contrast with "femininity".

 It is an aspect of a larger structure: We can only understand masculinity if we see it

"as an aspect of a larger structure," which is the overall system of gender relations.

 His Alternative Definition: He proposes we should focus on "the processes and

relationships" and defines masculinity as "simultaneously a place in gender relations,
the practices through which men and women engage that place... and the effects of
these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture".

❓ Question 2: Compare & Contrast

Compare the "Positivist" and "Normative" definitions of masculinity. What are they, and
what major flaw does Connell identify in each?

Answer:

 Positivist Definition: This approach defines masculinity as "what men actually are"
based on empirical facts, statistics, or averages. It's the basis for M/F
(masculinity/femininity) scales in psychology.

o Flaw: It's circular. To compile a list of "what men do," researchers must
already have a common-sense idea of who fits in the "men" category. It also
rules out our ability to describe a man as "feminine" or a woman as
"masculine," which is a crucial concept.

 Normative Definition: This approach defines masculinity as a standard or "what men

ought to be". It's the "blueprint of manhood," often seen in media exemplars like
John Wayne.

o Flaw: It creates a paradox. If this is the "norm," "What is 'normative' about a

norm hardly anyone meets?". This definition would force us to conclude that
the majority of men are "unmasculine".

❓ Question 3: Concept Definition

What is Hegemonic Masculinity? Does this mean that most men are hegemonic?
Answer:

Hegemonic Masculinity is not what most men are, but what is "culturally exalted" or held up
as the ideal.

Connell defines it as: "the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently
accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is
taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women".

Very few men may actually practice the hegemonic pattern. The bearers of it might be
fantasy figures or exemplars, like film actors. Its success comes from being seen as the model
for authority, not from being the statistical average.

❓ Question 4: Short Answer

What is the "patriarchal dividend," and how does it relate to the concept of Complicity?

Answer:

 The "Patriarchal Dividend" is the advantage that men in general gain from the overall
subordination of women. This includes material benefits (like higher average
incomes) as well as honor, prestige, and the right to command.

 Complicity describes the position of the majority of men. These men do not
rigorously embody the hegemonic ideal themselves. However, they are "complicit"
because they still receive and benefit from the "patriarchal dividend" without having
to be the "front-line troops" of patriarchy.

❓ Question 5: Concept Explanation

List and briefly describe the three main structures of gender relations that Connell
identifies.

Answer: Connell proposes a "three-fold model" to understand the complexities of the

gender order:

1. Power Relations: This is the main axis of patriarchy, concerning the "overall
subordination of women and dominance of men".

2. Production Relations: This refers to the gender divisions of labor. This includes not
just the allocation of tasks (like who washes which part of the windows) but also the
economic consequences, such as unequal pay and men's control of capital.

3. Cathexis (Emotional Attachment): This refers to the practices that shape and realize
sexual desire. This structure organizes emotional attachments and sexual practices,
such as the division between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
❓ Question 6: Short Answer

How is the relationship of "Subordination" different from the relationship of

"Marginalization"? Give an example of each.

Answer:

 Subordination refers to relations internal to the gender order, specifically relations of

dominance between groups of men.

o Example: The dominance of heterosexual men and the subordination of

homosexual men. This is enforced through material practices like legal
violence, street violence, and cultural exclusion.

 Marginalization refers to the relations between masculinities from different classes

or ethnic groups. It is the interplay of gender with class and race.

o Example: The way black masculinities are marginalized relative to the

"authorization" of white hegemonic masculinity in a white-supremacist
context.

❓ Question 7: Application

A working-class man works at a factory, is heterosexual, respects his wife, and never uses
violence. He believes feminism is "extremist" and enjoys watching professional football on
TV. How would Connell's theory most likely categorize this man's masculinity?

Answer: Connell would most likely categorize this man's masculinity as Complicit.

 He does not embody Hegemonic Masculinity in its full, "front-line" form (he's not a
CEO, a top athlete, or a political leader).

 He is not Subordinated, as he is heterosexual.

 He is Complicit because he "realize[s] the patriarchal dividend" (e.g., benefits from

the "family wage" system or his wife's domestic labor) without taking on the
"tensions or risks" of being a primary enforcer of patriarchy. His belief that feminists
are extremists reinforces his complicity in the system that benefits him.

❓ Question 8: Concept Explanation

Does Connell believe there is a "crisis of masculinity"? Explain his position on the concept of
"crisis."
Answer:

No. Connell argues that we "cannot logically speak of the crisis of a configuration".
Masculinity is not a "coherent system" that can have a crisis.

Instead, he argues that the gender order as a whole has "crisis tendencies". These are
structural contradictions, such as:

1. Crisis of Power: The "historic collapse of the legitimacy of patriarchal power" due to
feminism.

2. Crisis of Production: The contradiction between women's equal contribution to work

and their unequal share of the rewards.

3. Crisis of Cathexis: The public emergence of gay and lesbian sexuality challenging the
heterosexual order.

These system-level crises don't disrupt masculinity itself, but they implicate it. They often
provoke "attempts to restore a dominant masculinity," such as the rise of "cults of true
masculinity" (e.g., Rambo films) in response to feminism and military defeat.

Kingsley Amis, Lucky Jim Questions

❓ Question 1: Connell's Hegemonic Masculinity
Using the provided passage where Bertrand Welch defends rich people and later claims
Christine as "his right", analyze his character through the lens of R.W. Connell's theory. Which
type of masculinity does Bertrand represent?

Answer: Bertrand Welch is a clear example of what R.W. Connell terms Hegemonic
Masculinity. This is not the most common form of masculinity, but rather the "culturally
exalted" form that "embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the
legitimacy of patriarchy".

Bertrand performs this hegemonic role in several ways:

1. Asserting Cultural Authority: He positions himself as a "painter" and a defender of

"the arts". His defense of rich people is linked to this, as he claims "they've learnt to
appreciate the things I happen to like myself". This aligns with hegemony's claim to
cultural dominance.

2. Asserting Dominance: He explicitly frames his relationship with Christine as one of

ownership and power. He tells Dixon, "Christine is my girl and she stays my girl" and,
most tellingly, "I’m having Christine because it’s my right".

3. Policing Other Men: He attempts to subordinate Dixon by dismissing him as "your

sort" , a "lousy little philistine" , and "not up to my weight". This is an attempt to
enforce the hierarchy that places his "superior" artistic masculinity above Dixon's
"complicit" one.

❓ Question 2: Butler's Performative Breakdown

In the text, Dixon's "Merrie England" lecture descends into chaos as he finds himself
"imitating the Principal" and adopting "an unnameable foreign accent". Using the theories of
Judith Butler (as described in the Reeser text), how can we analyze this scene as a
breakdown of masculine "performativity"?

Answer: According to the Reeser/Butler text, masculinity is "performative"—it's not an inner

"essence" but a "corporeal style" constituted by a "reiteration of a norm or set of norms".

Dixon's job as a lecturer requires him to perform a specific, authoritative academic

masculinity. The lecture is a high-stakes, intentional "performance" of this role. However,
under the combined pressure of stage-fright , alcohol, and his contempt for the material, his
performance collapses.

 Parody and Repetition: Instead of performing his own identity, he begins to

involuntarily imitate the authorities he resents: first Welch , then the Principal. This
reveals his "performance" as just a hollow echo of other performances.

 Breakdown of the "Original": The Reeser text notes that parody can mock "the very
idea of an original". Dixon's final shift into an "unnameable foreign accent" and
 "sarcastic, wounding bitterness" is a total breakdown. He's no longer performing the
required role.

 Revealing the "Hollowness": This collapse reveals the "hollowness" of his academic
persona. The fact that his "performance" can disintegrate into parody and "animal
noises" proves that the serious lecturer was just a "role" and not his "natural" self.

❓ Question 3: Connell's Complicit Masculinity

Dixon is openly contemptuous of his own academic article, describing it internally as

"niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts". He also admits he
specialized in medieval history because it was a "soft option". How does this attitude place
him within R.W. Connell's model as an example of Complicit Masculinity?

Answer: Dixon is a perfect example of Complicit Masculinity. Connell defines this as the
position of the majority of men who do not embody the hegemonic ideal themselves but still
benefit from the "patriarchal dividend"—the advantages men gain from the overall
subordination of women.

 Dixon is not Hegemonic; he holds little power and internally rejects the "culture"
(Welch's madrigals , his own article ) that the hegemonic figures in his world (like
Welch) value.

 He is not Subordinated; he is a heterosexual man who, for example, physically

defends his "honor" against Bertrand .

 He is Complicit because he participates in the system to gain its benefits. He writes

the "niggling" article and agrees to give the "Merrie England" lecture specifically to
keep his job . He does the work required by the patriarchy (in this case, the academic
patriarchy headed by Welch) but does so with cynicism. He is "complicit in this
sense," realizing the dividend without the "tensions or risks" of being a "front-line"
believer like Bertrand.

❓ Question 4: Butler's Private Counter-Performance

The text repeatedly describes Dixon making private "faces" when alone or unobserved, such
as his "ape imitation" , his "Eskimo face" , or the face he promises to make "when next
alone" . How do these private actions relate to the Reeser/Butler theory of gender as a
public performance?
Answer: These private "faces" are counter-performances that highlight the strain of Dixon's
public masculine performance.

The Reeser/Butler text argues that masculinity is a "corporeal style" performed for a public
audience. In his public life, Dixon must perform a specific role: the deferential junior
colleague. He knows he "must try to make Welch like him" and must strain to make his face
"smile and show interest".

His private "faces" are a form of parody that rejects this public role.

 When he makes his "ape imitation" or the "Evelyn Waugh face" , he is parodying "the
very idea of an original" serious, academic self.

 These faces are a physical release from the "tautening with anarchic fury" that his
public performance costs him.

 The fact that he has a "public" face (polite, smiling) and a "private" face (anarchic,
grotesque) proves that neither is his "true" essence. It reveals that his "normal"
masculinity is also a performance, just one that is socially required, while the "faces"
are a performance for himself.

❓ Question 5: Connell's Subordinated Masculinity

While Professor Welch holds institutional power, his style of masculinity is focused on "a little
piece by Dowland" for "recorder and keyboard" and his "fawn fishing-hat". How might Welch
be seen as representing a form of Subordinated Masculinity in Connell's framework, despite
his professional status?

Answer: According to Connell, subordination exists between groups of men. While the
primary example is the subordination of gay men , the "circle of legitimacy" also expels some
heterosexual men —those marked by the "rich vocabulary of abuse: wimp, milksop, nerd,
sissy...".

Despite his professorship, Welch's gender performance is subordinated.

 Symbolic Femininity: Hegemonic masculinity defines itself against anything coded as

"feminine." Welch's passions—playing the recorder , madrigals , and "arty get-
togethers" —are culturally coded as "sissy" or effeminate.

 Physicality: His physical description as "tall and weedy" contrasts with hegemonic
ideals of strength.

 Dixon's Contempt: The hegemonic/complicit group enforces subordination through

contempt. Dixon (as the complicit man) feels this contempt for Welch. He internally
refers to Welch's interests as "rubbish" and has violent fantasies of attacking him
("plunge the too-small feet... into a lavatory basin") .
Welch has institutional power, but his masculine style is non-hegemonic and thus
symbolically subordinated and "blurred with femininity".

❓ Question 6: Butler's Performance of Excess (Overdetermination)

Analyze Bertrand's first appearance: "a tall man wearing a lemon-yellow sportscoat...
displaying a large beard... a vine-patterned tie" , and his subsequent speech about being a
painter: "pictures tout court, or, as our American cousins would say, pictures period". How
does this exemplify "overdetermination" (performance as excess) from the Reeser/Butler
text?

Answer: The Reeser/Butler text argues that a masculine performance can be exposed as a
construction when it becomes "overdetermined" or "excessive" . When a man "acts
excessively masculine or performs too much or too well, it can become clear... that he is
performing his gender".

Bertrand's performance of "the artist" is a perfect example of this.

1. Costume: His "corporeal style" is an over-the-top costume of the artist: the "lemon-
yellow sportscoat," "large beard," "vine-patterned tie" , and later his "blue beret". It
is not a natural expression but a deliberate assemblage of props.

2. Speech: His speech is similarly excessive. He doesn't just say he's a painter; he
delivers a prepared, self-important monologue: "pictures tout court... pictures
period".

3. Effect: This "overdetermination" makes his performance "appear as comic" and

inauthentic to Dixon. Dixon is not impressed; he is immediately hostile and views
Bertrand as a "slob". Bertrand tries so hard to perform "the artist" that he reveals it
as just a performance, not an authentic identity.

❓ Question 7: Connell's Relations Among Masculinities (The Fight)

In their confrontation, Bertrand tells Dixon, "Christine is my girl and she stays my girl" and "I
don’t allow people of your sort to stand in my way". Analyze this fight using Connell's
framework of "relations among masculinities."
Answer: Connell argues that "multiple masculinities" exist in a social hierarchy and that we
must examine the "gender relations among men". This fight is a direct and physical contest
for dominance between two of these masculinities.

 Bertrand (Hegemonic): Bertrand attempts to assert his Hegemonic Masculinity. He

frames the conflict in terms of class ("people of your sort" ) and cultural capital (the
"artist" vs. the "lousy little philistine" ). His claim on Christine is one of patriarchal
"right" , and he uses threats of physical and institutional violence ("I’ll break your
horrible neck... and get you dismissed from your job") to enforce his "claim to
authority".

 Dixon (Complicit/Rebellious): Dixon, representing a Complicit masculinity, refuses to

be Subordinated. He rejects Bertrand's authority by challenging his legitimacy.

 The Counter-Attack: Dixon attacks Bertrand's hegemonic performance. He calls him

"a twister and a snob and a bully and a fool" and, most importantly, exposes his
hypocrisy by revealing the affair with Carol Goldsmith ("carrying on with some other
chap's wife").

 The Physical Struggle: The physical fight is the literal expression of this power
struggle. Dixon's victory is a successful contestation of Bertrand's hegemonic claim.

❓ Question 8: Synthesis (Butler & Connell)

Dixon feels "drawn into the Margaret business by a combination of virtues he hadn’t known
he possessed: politeness, friendly interest, ordinary concern...". He later tells Christine, "I’m
sticking to Margaret because I haven’t got the guts... because I’m afraid to". Using both the
Reeser/Butler and Connell frameworks, analyze this "politeness" as a required masculine
performance.

Answer: This scenario shows how the performance of masculinity (Butler) is used to uphold
its social structure (Connell).

1. Reeser/Butler (The Performance): Butler's theory states that masculinity is a

"performative" "reiteration of a norm". Dixon's "politeness" and "ordinary concern"
are a performance of a specific masculine "cultural script" —that of the decent,
protective man. His admission that he's "afraid" and his internal desire to avoid this
role reveal the "hollowness... underneath". His "politeness" is not an "essence" but a
"false position" he is forced to perform.

2. Connell (The Structure): Connell's framework explains why this performance is

required. Hegemonic Masculinity "guarantees... the dominant position of men and
the subordination of women". A key part of this "answer" is the performance of
chivalry or protection, which casts women as (emotionally) weaker and in need of
male support. Dixon, as a Complicit male, is performing his part in this hegemonic
script. By "sticking to Margaret" , he is (unwillingly) playing the role of the male
protector, which reinforces the very gender order that is causing the "Margaret
business" in the first place.