Psychology of Men & Masculinities © 2022 American Psychological Association

2023, Vol. 24, No. 2, 83–93 ISSN: 1524-9220 https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000417

Deploying Hegemonic Masculinity: A Study of Uses of the Concept in the

Journal Psychology of Men & Masculinities
Nikki Wedgwood1, Raewyn Connell2, 3, and Julian Wood2
1
Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
2
School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney
3
National Tertiary Education Union, University of Sydney

Questions about men and masculinities have arisen in psychology before, but it is only recently that a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

distinct research field has emerged. This field has made use of the concept of “hegemonic masculinity”; but
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

in what way? The 26 papers published in Psychology of Men & Masculinities (PMM) from 2000 to early
2022 that mention this concept were examined. Over this period both the pattern of authorship and the
balance of methods have changed. Most of the empirical work involves either quantitative scale-based
studies or, increasingly, qualitative studies with smaller groups but more intensive methods. Considered as a
whole, this literature convincingly documents the diversity of masculinities to be found among groups of
men within the USA. There is a tendency to define hegemonic masculinity as a set of personal traits, rather
than as a position in a structure of gender relations involving the subordination of women. Problems arise
about the relation of hegemony to violence, and about the costs versus benefits of occupying a hegemonic
position among men. Some directions in which the research field might develop are suggested, including
greater attention to postcolonial perspectives in psychology.

Public Significance Statement

Research on men and masculinities has value for education, health work, counseling, and public
policy. For this knowledge to be most effective, careful conceptualization and links with other fields of
knowledge are needed. This article reviews all the research about hegemonic masculinity published in
Psychology of Men & Masculinities, brings together its findings, corrects some misunderstandings,
and suggests useful directions for the future.

Keywords: hegemonic masculinity, psychology, masculinities, gender, methodology

The concept of hegemonic masculinity developed in a specific For instance, a national survey, Der Mann, was published in
cultural moment. In the 1970s, the women’s liberation movement Germany (Metz-Göckel & Müller, 1985), and Scandinavian
had brought public attention to entrenched gender inequality, and research was also growing (e.g., Bengtsson & Frykman, 1987). It
the gay liberation movement had revealed a politics of difference became evident that there were multiple masculinities, not just
among men. By the 1980s, the need for a reconceptualization of one, as shown by research in schools (Kessler et al., 1982) and
masculinity was apparent. Familiar ideas about the “male sex role” by anthropological fieldwork (Herdt, 1992).
came under strong criticism (e.g., Pleck, 1981). Backlash in the The concept of hegemonic masculinity may be briefly defined
era of Reagan showed that patriarchal power was resilient and as the configuration of practices (meaningful actions with conse-
would not be removed by a simple change in social norms. At quences, see below) that represents the most honored way of being
the same time, empirical research on men and masculinities grew. a man in a given social context, distinguished from less respected
masculinities and providing legitimacy for the overall subordination
of women in the society. This concept had interdisciplinary roots,
drawing on feminist, gay liberation, psychoanalytic, and sociologi-
This article was published Online First December 15, 2022. cal thinking, and on a range of empirical material and was developed
Nikki Wedgwood https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1928-7860 against this background, in a wider reformulation of gender concepts
Raewyn Connell https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8001-2375 (Carrigan et al., 1985; Connell, 1987). It was defined in relation
Julian Wood https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3822-5606 to other structural positions in gender relations: to emphasized
The authors have no known conflict of interest to disclose. None of the femininity and to subordinated, complicit, and marginalized mas-
ideas or data appearing in this article have been previously disseminated
culinities (Connell, 1995, pp. 77–81). This idea of multiple mascu-
anywhere else.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nikki
linities in relations of hegemony involved hierarchies of cultural
Wedgwood, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and authority and respect, as distinct from inequalities directly based
Health, University of Sydney, Level 7, Susan Wakil Building D18, on force. (The relationship of hegemony to violence will be
Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: nicole.wedgwood@ considered later.) “Hegemony” in this analysis referred to the
sydney.edu.au cultural stabilization of an unequal structure of gender relations.

83
 84 WEDGWOOD, CONNELL, AND WOOD

This approach kept a connection with feminist analyses of power, It is not surprising, then, that the concept has also been adopted in
offering an account of the resilience of overall gender hierarchy, while psychological research and in applied fields such as counseling.
recognizing that different patterns of masculinity coexisted. It also Yet, questions arise about this particular adoption. Among them,
helped turn the spotlight onto the dominant group, the approach how does psychological research or practice use a concept whose
Nader (1972) called “studying up,” thereby shifting some of the onus main point of reference is inequality in gender relations? What
for egalitarian gender relations onto men as a group. psychological research methods are of value for researching rela-
The idea of hegemonic masculinity circulated widely as research tions between masculinities? To answer such questions, we need
on men and masculinities grew through the 1990s. It has been used in to examine a body of psychological research that uses the concept
the global South as well as the global North (e.g., Madrid et al., 2020), of hegemonic masculinity, and that is the task undertaken by this
raising issues about masculinities in postcolonial conditions, to which article.
we will return. It has been taken up in a range of applied fields, We look at all the articles published in the journal Psychology of
including criminology, school teaching, men’s health work, anti- Men & Masculinity/ies, from its foundation to 2022, that use the term
violence programs, and more (Connell, 2000; Wedgwood, 2009). “hegemonic masculinity” or a close variant. We consider the broad
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

A few examples from a large literature may help illustrate the characteristics of this literature, including its methods; the way it
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

concept. In “An Iron Man,” Connell (1990) discusses a life history interprets the concept of hegemonic masculinity and the difficulties it
interview with a surf sports star, whose exemplary status and has encountered; and the strengths and limitations of the approaches
income are established by media celebrity. Maintaining this posi- taken. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we discuss some
tion, however, is hard work and produces emotional and relational implications for the future of the field: questions of method, both
tensions, including tension with peer group expectations. In Work- qualitative and quantitative; and the significance of postcolonial
ing Construction, Paap (2006) presents a participant observation perspectives for the psychology of men and masculinities.
study of working-class men in the U.S. building industry. Here, a
vigorous occupational culture supports the dominance of White Procedure
men over women and Black men, at the cost of insecurity and
harm, both economic and bodily. In one of the rare studies of a Database searches were conducted in February 2022 of both
Psychology of Men & Masculinity (2000–2018) and Psychology
highly privileged group, Madrid (2016) traces the making of
of Men & Masculinities (2019–2022; henceforward PMM for both
masculinities among graduates of elite private schools in Chile.
together) via the APA PsychInfo database for the two keywords
Among the patterns of entitlement is a sharp distinction between
relevant to our review. The keyword hegemonic was found in 25
working-class women, who can be used for short-term sexual
articles. The related term hegemony was found in three articles, two
relationships, and women of their own elite status, who are entitled
of which also appeared in the hegemonic search, thus only adding
to respect, though not equality.
one more article. In summary, between 2000 and early 2022 a
In such research, the focus is on actions or behaviors in social
total of 26 articles were published in either Psychology of Men &
contexts, rather than on identities or meanings alone. Concern with
Masculinity or Psychology of Men & Masculinities with hegemony
gender inequalities requires a concern with the downstream con-
or hegemonic as keywords. Of these 26 articles, only four (15%)
sequences, the results of actions. Therefore, theoretical discussions
were published in the first 10 years of the journal, compared with 13
of hegemonic masculinity speak of “configurations of practice”
in the second decade (50%) and nine (35%) in just the first 2 years of
rather than “stereotypes” or “identities.” As the concept of hege- the third decade (Figure 1). In contrast to gender studies in some
monic masculinity circulated, its meaning often shifted (an issue other fields (Wedgwood, 2009), PMM authors have only taken up
discussed below) and debates arose. Whether the concept of the concept of hegemonic masculinity on a regular basis since 2015
masculinity itself is useful has been questioned (e.g., Hearn, (Figure 1).
2004). So has the use of the Gramscian concept of hegemony This group of 26 articles is the main basis of our discussion. All
(Demetriou, 2001; Howson, 2006). Modifications and alternatives these texts were read by the three authors. We also paid attention
have been proposed, especially in a fruitful recent discussion of to other texts in this journal, and searched more widely in other
“hybrid masculinities” (Bridges & Pascoe, 2018). Reformulated psychological journals, since some of the literature closely related
(e.g., Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Messerschmidt, 2018), the to PMM’s concerns is found in sources such as Journal of Counseling
concept of hegemonic masculinity continues to be a prominent Psychology and American Journal of Men’s Health.
concern in research and application. Applications can be found in For a broader context, we conducted a manual count of the gender
practical fields such as school education, including the understanding of each author of all PMM articles (Volume 1, Issue 1 to Volume 23,
of peer group life (Toledo & Carvalho, 2020) and the evaluation of Issue 1 inclusive), based on their first name or, where ambiguous, an
curricula (Eckstein & Sabovik, 2021). In applying the concept, it is internet search for the author. Of course, some authors with names
important to remember that any hegemonic masculinity exists in a common among women may not identify as female, some with
context of other masculinities. In curriculum development, it is names common among men may not identify as male and some may
important to recognize that full context. For instance, health and safety identify as gender nonbinary or transgender. Nevertheless, given the
education that emphasized the risks in driving fast or driving while number of articles, this fact is unlikely to change our overall findings
drunk, but ignored the way risky practices might separate a hegemonic that the trend of the gendered division of PMM authorship was for
masculinity from others, were likely counter-productive (Walker men to consistently outnumber women between 2000 and 2013,
et al., 2000). Safety education informed by masculinities research, becoming more equally balanced between 2014 and 2018, with the
such as the Australian dangerous driving campaign “Speeding. No-one number of women authors becoming consistently higher than the
will think big of you,” can now address this (Watsford, 2008). number of men authors from 2019 onward (Figure 2).
 DEPLOYING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 85

Figure 1
26 PMM Articles With Keywords Hegemony*ic
6

Number of Articles Fitting Search Criteria 5

2
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Year of Publication

Note. PMM = Psychology of Men & Masculinities.

This trend in the gendered division of authorship over time for quarter (N = 5) of our studies recruited participants from American
the journal as a whole differs slightly from that of our 26 articles. Of higher education institutions. Well over half of our studies (N = 12,
the 87 authors of the 26 articles we reviewed, 53% were men and 60%) specified the sexuality of participants, though, of those that
47% women. However, when the figures are observed over time, did, between 80% and 100% of their participants identified as
men consistently outnumbered women between 2000 and 2014 with heterosexual. Two-thirds (N = 13, 65%) of our studies had partici-
over 70% of the 21 authors being men. Though the proportion of pant groups comprising between 67% and 100% White American
women authors increased from 2015 onward, authorship remains participants. This slightly improved participant diversity is not
slightly skewed toward men (Figure 3). unexpected given that the articles Wong et al. had reviewed were
While three of the papers reviewed were theoretical papers and published between 2000 and 2008, whereas all but one of our
three were reviews, the majority (77%) were based on empirical empirical studies were published between 2009 and 2022.
research. An analysis of participants in these 20 empirical studies Unsurprisingly given that PMM is an American journal, around
reveals a slightly improved participant diversity when compared to two-thirds (13) of our empirical studies were conducted in the
Wong et al.’s analysis of 154 articles published in PMM between United States. When added to the four studies conducted in either
2000 and 2008 (Wong et al., 2010, p. 175). For instance, only a the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia, 85% (N = 17) of these

Figure 2
Author Gender of All PMM Articles 2000–2021
160

140

120
Number of Authors

100

80

60

40

20

Year of Publication

Male Authors Female Authors

Note. PMM = Psychology of Men & Masculinities.

 86 WEDGWOOD, CONNELL, AND WOOD

Figure 3
Author Gender of 26 Articles With Keywords Hegemony*ic
14

12

10
Number of Authors

8
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

6
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

0
2004 2009 2010 2013 2014 2015 2017 2019 2020 2021 2022
Year of Publication

Male Authors Female Authors

empirical studies were conducted in Anglo-dominated developed These, usually Likert-type scales, measure assent to or rejection of
countries. Only one (5%) of the 20 empirical studies was conducted discrete statements that are taken to represent male role norms,
in a developing country (South Africa). This is a matter we will return masculine ideology, attitude to gender issues, or “masculinity”
to later, along with the fact that all but one of the studies were based on as such. The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (Mahalik
samples entirely comprised of men (N = 19, 95%). et al., 2003) is a well-known contemporary example. The proce-
Another notable shift over time is in research method. Of the six dure in such research generally involves developing or adapting a
empirical articles with the keyword hegemony or hegemonic pub- scale; administering it to a sample of men through interviews or,
lished in the first 15 years of the journal (2000–2015), most (N = 4, more usually, a questionnaire; studying the intercorrelation of items to
66.7%) were based on data collected via psychometric data only, demonstrate scale coherence; and studying the scales’ covariation
one was based on qualitative data (16.7%) and the other based on with some dependent variables of interest. The findings of such
both psychometric and qualitative data. This is fairly similar to a studies concern a wide range of issues, from help-seeking behavior
content analysis of all PMM articles published between 2009 and (Berger et al., 2013) to political attitudes (Wilkinson, 2004).
2013 which found that only 21% of empirical articles were based The second group of studies uses semistructured or clinical inter-
on qualitative research (Wong & Horn, 2016, p. 242). In contrast, views to explore issues in respondents’ lives. The number of respon-
between 2016 and 2022 over three quarters of the 20 empirical PMM dents in such studies are generally far fewer than in scale-based
articles with the keyword hegemony or hegemonic were based on studies—samples of 9, 14, or 17 for instance—in a familiar trade-off
qualitative research while only a fifth were based on psychomet- for depth and complexity of information. The value of very close-
ric data. focus work is clear in papers such as Chen and Dognin’s (2017) study
of U.S. military veterans, which includes a highly interesting case
study of one soldier who was injured as a result of showing
Broad Characteristics of This Literature
compassion in a conflict situation. McDiarmid et al.’s (2017) study
Six of the 26 articles in PMM that relate to the concept of of friendly insults (including homophobic and misogynist speech)
hegemonic masculinity are nonempirical papers, including evalu- exchanged among young rural men in Australia shows how interview
ative papers that thoughtfully review and criticize this tradition of material can illuminate person-to-person interactions as well as
research (Cuthbert, 2015; Thompson & Bennett, 2015). The other emotions. In some studies, interviews with participants provide
20 articles are empirical reports of recent research projects with rich information about broader social or institutional context. Notable
groups of men. All but one mixed methods study, fall into one examples are Seaton et al. (2019) on workplace mental health in
of two groups; either quantitative studies (N = 7) or qualitative masculinized industries, and Richard and Molloy (2020) on the
studies (N = 12). The first group, which forms part of a definite impact of gender-equity policies in the U.S. military.
methodological tradition in social psychology and personality These two groups of studies make up the large majority of the
research, uses quantitative methods in the form of self-report scales. papers examined, but not all. Several other methodologies also
 DEPLOYING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 87

appear in the journal. They include a content analysis of posts on an The hegemonic traits, roles, and norms commonly examined among
Incel [involuntary celibate] website—not the most extreme such site adolescent boys have included, but are not limited to, instrumentality
on the Web—that teases out the themes of Incel gender ideology and assertiveness, emotional stoicism, competition and status-seeking,
(Glace et al., 2021). The authors credibly interpret these posts as aggression when threatened, physical competence and strength, hetero-
sexuality, sexual conquest, and the avoidance of femininity. (p. 356)
constructing not a hegemonic but a hybrid masculinity that is full of
grievance. Wetherell and Edley (2014) give an excellent brief Some of the definitions of hegemonic masculinity comprise qualities
exposition of the poststructuralist “discursive psychology” approach from this list, with no acknowledgment there may be tensions
and its application to masculinity research. As well as doing inter- between them, or that qualities like aggressiveness or heterosexual-
views, Seaton et al. (2019) use an interesting variant of focus groups ity might be complex psychological formations in themselves (for
in their study of male-dominated industries. They call their meetings the complexity in heterosexuality, see Chodorow, 1994; Segal,
“consultation groups,” making the workers co-researchers with the 1997). Other definitions include, as if they were personal qualities,
professional researchers. the relational pattern of power or dominance over others, particu-
Over the two decades of PMM’s contribution, what picture
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

larly over women. Another tendency in the literature is to use the

emerges from the journal’s content as a whole? Perhaps the most
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

term hegemonic masculinity interchangeably with terms like tradi-

general conclusion to be drawn from this archive is the variety of tional masculinity and masculine stereotypes and norms.
men’s gendered situations and responses in the social groups in the On the face of it, the thinking embodied in these definitions draws
USA that were sampled in the bulk of these studies. This conclusion from the tradition of trait psychology going back to classics such as
comes from two main sources. Many criticisms have been made Cattell’s 16PF personality test (Cattell & Mead, 2008), as well as to
of the quantitative masculinity-scale studies. Yet, when we look the masculinity–femininity scales. Research in both these traditions
closely at the technology of scale construction and use, we see that it tries to abstract from specific situations and arrive at generalized
depends absolutely on finding a diversity of response among the dimensions of personhood—even, in some formulations, patterns
group studied. Without such diversity there is no interitem correla- that are presumed to be cross-cultural universals. This method is
tion to demonstrate scale cohesion and no variance for multivariate largely incompatible with the study of hegemonic masculinity, espe-
methods to partition. So, the mere existence of the scales tells us
cially research that depends on standardized testing and the construc-
something about diversity of responses. In the other main group of
tion of scales.
studies, close-focus interviewing reveals in great detail the speci-
When research with masculinity scales appeals to the concept of
ficity and complexity of situations in which respondents are
hegemonic masculinity, the concept almost inevitably becomes
involved, and the range of their responses to them. As qualitative
operationally defined as scores toward one end of scale values.
research has tended to increase over time in PMM and a wider
The concept thus becomes locked to the set of traits that were, when
variety of situations has been studied, the force of this conclusion
the given scale was being constructed, thought to be normative
has increased.
and exemplary. The idea of “hegemony” then ceases to be one of
We may say, therefore, that the small body of research on
relation and becomes one of difference. “Hegemonic masculinity”
hegemonic masculinity we found in PMM provides, collectively,
becomes a concept no longer anchored by practical relationships
a notable refutation of a widespread assumption, common from the
to a hierarchy of historically specific nonhegemonic masculinities
1950s to the 1970s and even beyond, that there is a singular “male
and to a range of femininities. We will discuss the effects of these
role” and that most men conform to it. (This was recognized in 2019
omissions in the next section.
when the editorial group changed the journal’s name to the plural!)
The problems created by a certain incompatibility between the
Since a recognition of multiple masculinities is the logical basis of
concept of hegemonic masculinity and psychometric technology
the concept of “hegemonic masculinity,” we may also say that the
have been mitigated over the past 5 years by a substantial decrease
empirical material in PMM is, in this important respect, compatible
in the proportion of PMM articles about hegemonic masculinity
with this concept. We will consider the conceptual aspect of the
literature in the following section. based on quantitative data, along with a concomitant increase in
the proportion of studies based on direct interviewing (Figure 4).
Interview-based studies have their own problems, of course, but
they have greater capacity to reflect gender relations on the ground.
The Interpretation of “Hegemonic Masculinity” They may thus reveal changes in what actually constitutes hegemonic
Among the PMM articles, we reviewed that offer a definition of masculinity over time in a particular gender order or document the
hegemonic masculinity, there is a good deal of common ground. Most different configurations of masculinities in different contexts. We
treat the term as referring to a set of personal characteristics or traits, discuss below the variations that emerge in some of the more recent,
whether actual or ideal. Collectively, the definitions emphasize mostly qualitative, studies in PMM.
six personal qualities: aggressiveness, competitiveness, physical Another difficulty in using the concept of hegemonic masculinity
strength, toughness/invulnerability, emotional coolness or control, arises in relation to violence and coercion, particularly against
and being heterosexual. Different articles make different selections women. This has recently been highlighted by the spread of the
from this list, often formulating a definition as a list of adjectives. #MeToo movement and the circulation of the term “toxic masculinity.”
Galli and Reel (2009, p. 96), for example, citing another author, define Some commentary, and indeed some academic literature, treats
the concept by saying: “Males who embody hegemonic masculinity hegemonic masculinity as a direct source of violence. A number of
are heterosexual, aggressive, and competitive.” Rogers et al. (2021), the trait-based definitions in the literature (discussed above) list
citing many authors, summarize hegemonic masculinity based on the aggressiveness, physical strength, and dominance among the traits
literature on youth in a similar way: composing hegemonic masculinity. For instance, Liao et al. say
 88 WEDGWOOD, CONNELL, AND WOOD

Figure 4
PMM Empirical Articles With Keywords Hegemony*ic

Number of Articles 3

1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Year of Publication

Scales Qualitative

Note. PMM = Psychology of Men & Masculinities.

that “In Western society, White hegemonic masculinity is the norm The strength of a psychological focus is shown, for instance, in
in which men are expected to be aggressive, highly muscular, and Ravenhill and de Visser’s (2019) exploration of how gay men
tough” (2020, p. 333). On the face of it, traits like physical strength, negotiate their masculine identities in a heterosexist society. Where
combined with aggression and/or dominance, suggest physical domi- hegemonic masculinity provides a dominant discourse for conceptu-
nation. Yet, violence as such is not part of hegemony. On the contrary, alizing masculinity, these men experience unavoidable tension since
the concept of hegemony, going back to Gramsci (Hoare & Smith, many of their lived experiences fall outside the discourse. In their in-
1971), concerns social dominance being sustained by cultural depth interviews with Israeli men who identified as victims of intimate
means as an alternative to brute force. It involves ruling by consent. partner violence, Gueta & Shlichove find another pattern of psycho-
Obtaining or maintaining men’s power over women through rape, logical tension. They argue that some of the barriers to seeking
wife-beating and use of weapons suggests not hegemony, but rather a help are “rooted in hegemonic masculinity norms,” such as not
failure of hegemony. For most men, there is a large gap between the identifying as victims because victimhood is associated with
power they may feel entitled to simply on the basis of being men and femininity (2022, p. 2).
the comparatively little power they have in practice, due to the way We noted earlier how the technology of scaling itself rests on a
in which the social structure of gender intersects with other social pattern of variation in response. The creation and successful deploy-
structures like class, ethnicity, indigeneity, and ability. ment of a variety of scales in itself provides broad evidence of
At most, we might see hegemony and physical force as working diversity of response in the populations studied, and thus contributes
in tandem to sustain a structure of oppression. For instance, a set of to overcoming stereotyped views of masculinity. The interview-
social practices (such as the mass media promotion of sports where based studies published in PMM, taken collectively, reinforce this
overcoming other bodies is of the essence of success) might be point, dealing with a diversity of specific groups. Their range of
seen as creating background conditions for interpersonal violence. topics, too, documents the diversity of situations to which an analysis
However, it is not generally the rapists or murderers who gain of masculinity is relevant.
social respect and can be said to hold a hegemonic position; their Richard and Molloy (2020) provide a striking example in their
activity intimidates but it does not create consent. study of the impact of gender-equity policy in the U.S. military.
Military forces have, historically, had strong institutional definitions
of hegemonic masculinity and this study, based on telephone inter-
Evaluation
views with a small number of young soldiers, shows the turbulence
We consider that, taken as a group, the 20 empirical PMM papers created for the soldiers when new institutional imperatives come into
make a substantive contribution to the understanding of problems conflict with the old pattern of hegemony. Their study documents
about hegemony in gender relations, and to the understanding of some resistance to change, which supports the conventional view, but
masculinities in general. Broadly, they create a focus on psycho- also notes that on most indicators, the resisters are not going to be well
logical realties within a consistently social constructionist analysis, placed for promotion. Seaton et al. (2019) look at mental health and
never falling back on the biological speculation seen (for instance) mental health practices in male-dominated industries. They find that
in “evolutionary psychology.” They have a salutary emphasis on masculine workplace cultures impact not only male workers’ mental
variation of situation and responses, whereas in some other genres of health but also their willingness to disclose poor mental health and/or
masculinity research there is a tendency to exaggerate conformity or to participate in practices which may prevent or reduce mental health
produce a typology. problems. They therefore suggest that, to be successful, mental health
 DEPLOYING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 89

promotions in male-dominated workplaces need to be tailored spe- “unfortunately, the most macho guy sort of sets the tone at the
cifically to the gender context of such industries. safety meeting and, ‘Well, I don’t want to seem less tough than
We also identify some general problems in the PMM literature on him,’ you know?” Denying the need for health care, safety
hegemonic masculinity. First, few of the papers provide relational precautions, psychotherapy or preventative health measures not
analyses of the reproduction of gender power via everyday practices only helps some men to assert their place in the masculine
and relationships. We think this is connected with the common view hierarchy. It may also signify that men are constitutionally superior
of hegemonic masculinity, noted above, as an idealized traditional to women and, by implication, that women are the “weaker” sex.
form of masculinity defined as a collection of traits. We think this Thus, as argued by Courtenay (2000, p. 1397), a leading researcher
makes it difficult to focus on specific relationships with other on masculinity and health, taking care of their physical and mental
groups, including the impacts on women. health can “undermine men’s privileged position and threaten their
For instance, McDiarmid et al.’s (2017) study of the use of power and authority in relation to women.”
homophobic, heterosexist, and other insults as an expression of It is understandable that some, even many, men opt for the social
affection in male friendships addresses their role in sustaining privilege despite the health costs. There is evidence that conforming
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

interpersonal relationships. This produces interesting reflections to a rigid definition of masculinity can have detrimental impacts on
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

on the joking and perhaps ironic uses of hostile language; but the men’s health and longevity (Courtenay, 2000). Whittle et al. (2015),
analysis hardly moves on to consider the role of such language though mainly following the usual men’s health formula, also note
in sustaining actual oppression of women and gay men. Other that adopting hegemonic masculinity may provide a positive path
articles, however, have explicitly connected hegemonic masculin- out of depression. This is a thought-provoking indication that there
ity to relations with women. Smith et al.’s (2015) article on sexual can be health advantages in holding the hegemonic position. It is
aggression is a case in point. In this quantitative study, hegemonic evident in the “social determinants of health” literature that holding a
masculinity is understood as a normative ideology and violence privileged position in terms of social class has major health advan-
against women is understood as a tactic enforcing social subordi- tages (Germov, 2019). While in most countries men on average live a
nation. Whether this is properly understood as “hegemony” is few years less than their female counterparts, in industrialized nations
problematic, as noted above. But the legitimation of force might be with ever-increasing social inequities like the USA and Britain, there
understood that way. is a gap of almost a decade in life expectancy between the most
Although hegemonic masculinity was originally conceptualized socioeconomically disadvantaged and the most socioeconomically
in terms of a hierarchy among multiple masculinities, most of the advantaged groups of men (Isaacs et al., 2021; Marmot, 2020). In
papers address hegemonic masculinity separately from other mas- Scotland, that gap is 13.5 years (National Records of Scotland,
culinities. There are however valuable exceptions, including the 2021). Moreover, while the difference in life expectancy in developed
Isaacs and Swartz (2022) study of stutterers. Taking a discursive countries between women and men appears to be gradually closing,
psychology approach, Isaacs & Swartz illuminate the contradictions the gap between the most and the least deprived men is increasing
in constructing masculinity and the varied responses, including the (Isaacs et al., 2021; Marmot, 2020; National Records of Scotland,
construction of alternative, affirmative masculinities. Ravenhill and 2021). Clearly, an intersectional lens is essential for the study of
de Visser (2017) explore discursive constructions of gay masculinity health differences between men and women.
in heteronormative contexts, to see how hegemonic masculinity Psychology has increasingly moved beyond the old pattern of
plays out in the gender identities and lives of gay men. An excellent research based on convenience samples of White middle-class
example of a relational study that considers the impact of hegemonic college students. Quantitative studies now go beyond the classroom,
masculinity on both women and other men is Glace et al.’s (2021) and interview-based studies have sharply increased the diversity
article on Incels. Glace et al acknowledge that, although being self- of their subjects. Concern with “intersectionality” in the human
confessed beta males means that Incel ideology differs to an extent sciences strongly supports this trend. PMM has recently added
from what the authors call “the hegemonic masculinity framework,” submission guidelines requiring authors to address issues of diver-
it is nevertheless firmly anchored to hegemonic masculinity. They sity and equity; and over a quarter of the editorial team is now
also link the consistent expressions of blatant hostility by Incels based in institutions outside the United States (Wong, 2022, p. 1).
toward women to gender power relations more broadly. However, although there have been improvements since previous
Another problem arises when the idea of hegemonic masculinity critiques about lack of diversity (Whorley & Addis, 2006; Wong
is used as a discrete concept divorced from a broader analysis of et al., 2010), absences remain.
gender relations, making it possible to understand men (or some The most notable absence in a literature concerned with hege-
groups of men) as victims of hegemonic masculinity as a result of monic masculinity is that none of these studies examines rich,
conforming to it. A case in point is research on men with poor health prestigious, and powerful men—those who most obviously occupy
behaviors (Galli & Reel, 2009) or who avoid help-seeking, safety a hegemonic position in the gender order. Though not easy, it is
precautions, or health care (Berger et al., 2013). The tendency here is possible to study such men, and some of the psychological issues
to position them as casualties of hegemonic masculinity without are notable (Horton, 2022).
examining the agency involved in conforming to these social ideals, As already noted, the concept of hegemony in gender relations
nor the advantages that might be derived as a result. crucially includes hegemony over women as well as over men. Yet,
Yet, it is clear that men can choose gendered power and status all but one of the 20 empirical studies of hegemonic masculinity are
over help-seeking, safety, or good health. In the study by Seaton et al. based on men only as participants. If we think of masculinity in any
(2019, p. 546), for example, working-class men describe making but the most essentialist terms, it is clear that women can enact
conscious choices between looking after themselves or being masculinities (Halberstam, 1998). More generally, it is clear that
ridiculed by colleagues in their male-dominated workplaces: women’s responses to men and masculinities constitute a very
 90 WEDGWOOD, CONNELL, AND WOOD

important issue for understanding hegemony. Research that looks at rich resources in psychoanalytic case studies that trace emotional
both sides of that relationship, such as Gutmann’s (1996) classic vicissitudes through life histories, often directly relevant to gender
ethnography of “being a man” in a poor informal settlement in issues. For instance, the relationship between hegemonic and subor-
Mexico, is highly illuminating. dinated or marginalized masculinities often has a very high charge of
When it comes to racial diversity, only one of our papers emotion (expressed as homophobia, racism, demands for “social
specifically recruited a minoritized racial group, Asian Americans cleansing,” etc.). Research questions arise: where does that emotion
(Liao et al., 2020). None looked at African Americans specifically, come from, and how does it become intense? The psychoanalytic
though some studies included African American participants in the tradition has continued its interest in masculinity and femininity,
mix of recruits. None looked specifically at Indigenous people. exploring their internal complexities and tensions (notably Chodorow,
Cultural variations in masculinity are not often addressed. Research 1994). Psychoanalytic ideas can be combined fruitfully with survey
on other forms of diversity could also be expanded. Only one of our and group methods, as in Frosh et al.’s excellent British study Young
studies focused on how hegemonic masculinity impacts a particular Masculinities (2002).
life phase. Rogers et al. review the psychology literature on adoles- This is one of the ways that quantitative studies can be extended.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

cence as “a critical period of development shaped by experiences There are others. The analysis of hegemony is concerned with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

with masculine role socialization” (2021, p. 354). None of our practices that relate to both individuals and groups. Practices and
group of studies provided a class analysis, exploring the role of their effects can be counted—must be counted, if we wish to know
hegemony in the lives of men with differing levels of socioeconomic their scale or distribution in a mass society and/or whether they are
dis/advantage. Only one of our studies deliberately recruited people increasing, decreasing or remaining static. Statistics in criminology,
with disability (Isaacs & Swartz, 2022). Two of our studies focused for instance, are largely of that kind. Among quantitative questions
specifically on heterosexual men, two studied gay men in particular related to hegemonic masculinity are exclusion and inclusion in
and one studied bisexual men. elite institutions, time changes in intergroup attitudes among men
and between women and men, acceptance or rejection of specific
sexual practices, changes in representations of masculinities in mass
Directions for the Future of the Field
media, levels of inequality in resources, and many more. Quantita-
In his inaugural editorial, Wong (2022) expressed the hope that tive methods can be valuable even in decolonial research, as shown
PMM would serve as a “journal of big ideas.” We strongly endorse by Walter and Andersen’s remarkable Indigenous Statistics (2016).
this hope, and conclude this article with some suggestions on how The criticism of masculinity-scale research made above is not a
issues about hegemonic masculinity might be developed for the criticism of quantitative method per se, but of abstract and decon-
future. textualized versions of it.
In the research for this article, we sought “green shoots,” that is, Given that PMM is a journal of the American Psychological
beginnings that might move beyond the main current discourse. We Association, it is hardly surprising that most of its contributors come
call attention again to Wetherell and Edley’s (2014) exposition of a from the USA and that most of its research, though not all, deals with
discursive psychology approach to studies of masculinity. They men from the same country. Psychology, like other disciplines, is
emphasize fragmented and changing masculinities, against the more embedded in a global economy of knowledge where there is a major
usual view of masculinity as a stable, well-integrated pattern. We underrepresentation of research from the global South in leading
note also those interview-based studies, such as Seaton et al. (2019) journals. In recent decades, the global politics of knowledge has
and Richard and Molloy (2020), which use individual-level data to been increasingly recognized, and debates are occurring about
illuminate not just interpersonal interactions, but a whole institu- what responses to make (Connell, 2019; Reiter, 2018). Psychology
tional context. There is much potential here, since social dynamics is now part of this debate (see Pillay, 2017, for a very clear and
such as rapid organizational change, economic transformations or well-documented South African contribution). Research on mas-
the impact of colonialism, can all be considered and researched from culinities in postcolonial contexts gained impetus in the 1990s and
a psychological point of view. There is room, also, for new work in has continued to grow in recent decades: for instance, in the Middle
developmental psychology. The construction of masculinities in East (Tabatabaie, 2015), Polynesia (Rodriguez, 2014), and other
childhood and adolescence is of professional concern to teachers regions.
and counsellors, as well as posing fascinating questions for research- For the psychology of men and masculinities, we think a crucial
ers. For instance, by what steps do different versions of masculinities, reason to decolonize is to introduce not just new data but also new
and hierarchies among them, emerge in childhood? What effects do problems, themes, and conceptualizations. Imperial conquest meant
different classroom and school environments, or social education massive trauma to colonized peoples (see e.g., Somerville & Perkins,
curricula, have on this process? What happens when the process of 2010) which could hardly fail to affect the construction of mascu-
formation of masculinity is interrupted, for instance by traumatic and linities. A truly groundbreaking study of exactly this question was
disabling events (Wedgwood et al., 2020)? undertaken by the Indian psychologist Ashis Nandy, in a book that
Historically, a main source of psychological thinking about the should count as a classic of research on masculinities: The Intimate
making of masculinity is psychoanalysis. It was Freud (1918/1955) Enemy (1983). Nandy traced biographically the changing strategies
who provided the first model of the construction of masculinity of resistance and conceptions of manhood. Most unusually, he
through developmental stages, in his theory of the oedipal crisis and addressed the impact of colonialism not only on colonized men,
its various resolutions; while Adler (1928) developed the idea of a but also on the colonizers, in this case the British.
“masculine protest” that has also had influence. Empirical psychology The notion of “traditional masculinity” is often blended into the
now tends to disregard psychoanalysis, and we too are critical of idea of hegemonic masculinity, without attention to what “traditions”
dogmatic thought in that tradition. But we also consider that there are actually mean. South African psychologist Ratele (2013a) has paid
 DEPLOYING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 91

attention to that issue and has shown how traditions are multiple and Chodorow, N. (1994). Femininities, masculinities, sexualities: Freud and
may be quite ambivalent. Further, that traditions are open to creative beyond. University Press of Kentucky. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j
reworking in the present—citing the example of an African gay .ctt5vkjww
couple who deployed traditional celebratory marriage practices to Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual
confirm their relationship in the community. Ratele (2013b, 2014) politics. Polity Press.
Connell, R. (1990). An iron man: The body and some contradictions of
has explored a range of other issues around masculinities, including
hegemonic masculinity. In M. Messner & D. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men and
the chronic problem of violence in South African society and the the gender order (pp. 83–95). Human Kinetics. https://doi.org/10.1080/
continuing fear that Black men must cope with, even in post- 00948705.1992.9714497
Apartheid conditions. Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Polity Press.
The United States has its own colonial history, involving con- Connell, R. (2000). The men and the boys. Allen & Unwin.
quest of Indigenous peoples and the appropriation of slave labor Connell, R. (2016). Masculinities in global perspective: Hegemony, con-
from Africa. The global history of imperialism raises the question of testation, and changing structures of power. Theory and Society, 45(4),
the complex relationship between force and consent: in colonial 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-016-9275-x
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

societies created by violence, could hegemony be established? Since Connell, R. (2019). The good university: What universities actually do and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

colonization involved the remaking of gender orders, the question why it’s time for radical change. Zed Books.
Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking
applies to masculinity too: How far does the concept of hegemonic
the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/
masculinity apply in colonial and postcolonial conditions (Connell,
0891243205278639
2016)? Many researchable questions arise, including the relation- Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence
ship of local constructions of masculinity to masculinities that on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science &
circulate in transnational spaces such as global media and sports, Medicine, 50(10), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)
as well as transnational corporations and military forces. Research 00390-1
on hegemonic and other masculinities is not an ivory-tower irrele- Cuthbert, A. (2015). Current and possible future directions in masculinity
vance. It is professionally valuable to schoolteachers, counselors, ideology research. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 134–136.
psychotherapists, public health professionals, antiviolence workers, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038998
architects, urban planners, and policymakers in many fields. Sound Demetriou, D. Z. (2001). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A
understanding of masculinities can usefully inform debate on a critique. Theory and Society, 30(3), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1017596718715
variety of public issues, too: questions about children and adoles-
Eckstein, J. J., & Sabovik, E. (2021). Still just hegemonic after all these
cents, about violence, even about environmental issues (Pulé & years? “Worst thing s/he thinks about me” predicts attitudinal risk factors
Hultman, 2021). It is of value to parents and to citizens in general. for high school healthy relationships program. Boyhood Studies, 14(1),
Psychologists have a role to play in the public culture as well as in 6–24. https://doi.org/10.3167/bhs.2021.140102
professional spheres, and we encourage researchers to speak to these Freud, S. (1955). From the history of an infantile neurosis. In J. Strachey, A.
wider publics. Freud, A. Strachey, & A. Tyson (Eds.), Complete psychological works,
standard edition (Vol. 17, pp. 3–123). Hogarth Press. (Original work
published 1918).
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2002). Young masculinities: Under-
References
standing boys in contemporary society. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Adler, A. (1928). Psychologie der Macht. In F. Kobler (Ed.), Gewalt und 978-1-4039-1458-3_9
Gewaltlosigkeit (pp. 41–46). Rotapfelverlag. Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2009). Adonis or hephaestus? Exploring body image
Bengtsson, M., & Frykman, J. (1987). Om maskulinitet: Mannen som in male athletes. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(2), 95–108. https://
forskningsprojekt (JÄMFO Rapport No. 11). doi.org/10.1037/a0014005
Berger, J. L., Addis, M. E., Green, J. D., Mackowiak, C., & Goldberg, V. Germov, J. (2019). The class origins of health inequality. In J. Germov (Ed.),
(2013). Men’s reactions to mental health labels, forms of help-seeking, and Second opinion: An introduction to health sociology (pp. 88–110). Oxford
sources of help-seeking advice. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), University Press.
433–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030175 Glace, A. M., Dover, T. L., & Zatkin, J. G. (2021). Taking the black pill: An
Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2018). On the elasticity of gender hegemony: empirical analysis of the “Incel.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 22(2),
Why hybrid masculinities fail to undermine gender and sexual inequality. 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000328
In J. Messerschmidt, P. Y. Martin, M. Messner, & R. Connell (Eds.), Gueta, K., & Shlichove, T. (2022). Barriers to and facilitators of help-seeking
Gender reckonings: New social theory and research (pp. 254–274). New behavior among Israeli men who experience intimate partner violence: A
York University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwtb3r.21 qualitative study. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 23(2), 233–244.
Carrigan, T., Connell, R., & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000384
masculinity. Theory and Society, 14(5), 551–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Gutmann, M. (1996). The meanings of macho: Being a man in Mexico City.
BF00160017 University of California Press.
Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Duke University Press.
questionnaire (16PF). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men.
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Feminist Theory, 5(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001040
Vol. 2—Personality measurement and testing (pp. 135–159). Sage 40813
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n7 Herdt, G. (Ed.). (1992). Gay culture in America: Essays from the field. Beacon
Chen, C. K., & Dognin, J. S. (2017). Addressing the influence of hegemonic Press.
masculinity on veterans through brief dynamic interpersonal therapy. Hoare, Q., & Smith, G. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(3), 238–242. https://doi.org/10 Antonio Gramsci [Prison notebooks] (Q. Hoare & G. Smith, Trans.).
.1037/men0000118 Lawrence & Wishart.
 92 WEDGWOOD, CONNELL, AND WOOD

Horton, L. (2022). Men of money: Elite masculinities and the neoliberal Ratele, K. (2013b). Subordinate black South African men without fear.
project. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://books.google.com.au/ Cahiers d’Études Africaines, 53(1–2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.4000/
books?id=qK2-zQEACAAJ etudesafricaines.17320
Howson, R. (2006). Challenging hegemonic masculinity. Routledge. https:// Ratele, K. (2014). Currents against gender transformation of South African
doi.org/10.4324/9780203698921 men: Relocating marginality to the centre of research and theory of
Isaacs, D., & Swartz, L. (2022). “Stammering less so that I can be more of a masculinities. Norma, International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9(1),
man”: Discourses of masculinities among young adult men in the Western 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2014.892285
Cape, South Africa, who stutter. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 23(1), Ravenhill, J. P., & de Visser, R. O. (2017). “There are too many gay
74–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000302 categories now”: Discursive constructions of gay masculinity. Psychology
Isaacs, K., Li, Z., Choudhury, S., & Nicchitta, I. (2021). The growing gap in of Men & Masculinity, 18(4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/men000
life expectancy by income: Recent evidence and implications for the social 0057
security retirement age. Congressional Research Service. https://hdl.handle Ravenhill, J. P., & de Visser, R. O. (2019). “I don’t want to be seen as a
.net/1813/79506 screaming queen”: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of gay
Kessler, S., Ashenden, D., Connell, R., & Dowsett, G. (1982). Ockers and men’s masculine identities. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 20(3),
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

disco-maniacs: A discussion of sex, gender and secondary schooling. 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000163

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Inner City Education Centre. Reiter, B. (Ed.). (2018). Constructing the pluriverse: The geopolitics
Liao, K. Y.-H., Shen, F. C., Cox, A. R., Miller, A. R., Sievers, B., & Werner, of knowledge. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478
B. (2020). Asian American men’s body image concerns: A focus group 002017
study. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 21(3), 333–344. https://doi.org/ Richard, K., & Molloy, S. (2020). An examination of emerging adult military
10.1037/men0000234 men: Masculinity and U.S. military climate. Psychology of Men &
Madrid, S. (2016). La formación de masculinidades hegemónicas en la Masculinity, 21(4), 686–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000303
clase dominante: El caso de las sexualidad en los colegios privados de elite Rodriguez, L. (2014, July 13–19). Constructing transnational polynesian
en Chile. Revista Latinoamericana Sexualidad. Salud y Sociedad, 22, identities: Soldiers, sportsmen and illegitimate masculinities [presentation].
369–398. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-6487.sess.2016.22.17.a XVIII ISA World Congress of Sociology, Yokohama. https://isaconf.confex
Madrid, S., Valdés, T., & Celedón, R. (Eds.). (2020). Masculinidades .com/isaconf/wc2014/webprogram/Paper50174.html
en América Latina: Viente años de estudios y políticas para la igualdad Rogers, A. A., Nielson, M. G., & Santos, C. E. (2021). Manning up while
de género. Ediciones Universidad Academia de Humanismo Cristiano. growing up: A developmental-contextual perspective on masculine
Mahalik, J., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M., Scott, R., Gottfried, M., & gender-role socialization in adolescence. Psychology of Men & Mascu-
Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms linity, 22(2), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000296
inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/ Seaton, C. L., Bottorff, J. L., Oliffe, J. L., Medhurst, K., & DeLeenheer,
10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3 D. (2019). Mental health promotion in male-dominated workplaces:
Marmot, M. (2020). Health equity in England: The Marmot review 10 years Perspectives of male employees and workplace representatives. Psy-
on. The BMJ, 368, Article m693. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m693 chology of Men & Masculinity, 20(4), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/
McDiarmid, E., Gill, P. R., McLachlan, A., & Ali, L. (2017). “That whole men0000182
macho male persona thing”: The role of insults in young Australian male Segal, L. (1997). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changing men
friendships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(4), 352–360. https:// (2nd ed.). Virago.
doi.org/10.1037/men0000065 Smith, R. M., Parrott, D. J., Swartout, K. M., & Tharp, A. T. (2015).
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2018). Hegemonic masculinity: Formulation, refor- Deconstructing hegemonic masculinity: The roles of antifemininity, sub-
mulation, and amplification. Rowman & Littlefield. ordination to women, and sexual dominance in men’s perpetration of
Metz-Göckel, S., & Müller, U. (1985). Der Mann: Die BRIGITTE-Studie. sexual aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 160–169.
Beltz. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035956
Nader, L. (1972). Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying Somerville, M., & Perkins, T. (2010). Singing the coast. Aboriginal Studies
up. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 283–311). Pantheon Press.
Books. Tabatabaie, A. (2015). Constructing the ideal Muslim sexual subject:
Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy. Loss and recovery of self under Problematics of school-based sex education in Iran. Sex Education,
colonialism. Oxford University Press. 15(2), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2014.992066
National Records of Scotland. (2021). Life expectancy in Scotland 2018– Thompson, E. H., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity
2020. https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/statistics/life-expectancy-in- ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2),
scotland/18-20/life-expectancy-18-20-report.pdf 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038609
Paap, K. (2006). Working construction: Why white working-class men put Toledo, C. T., & Carvalho, M. P. (2020). The peer group’s agency in a
themselves—And the labor movement—In Harm’s way. Cornell University Brazilian school. Boyhood Studies, 13(2), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.3167/
Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501729294 bhs.2020.130206
Pillay, S. R. (2017). Cracking the fortress: Can we really decolonize Walker, L., Butland, D., & Connell, R. W. (2000). Boys on the road:
psychology? South African Journal of Psychology. Suid-Afrikaanse Masculinities, car culture, and road safety education. Journal of Men’s
Tydskrif vir Sielkunde, 47(2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/00812463 Studies, 8(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0802.153
17698059 Walter, M., & Andersen, C. (2016). Indigenous statistics: A quantitative
Pleck, J. (1981). The myth of masculinity. MIT Press. research methodology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131542
Pulé, P. M., & Hultman, M. (Eds.). (2021). Men, masculinities, and earth: 6570
Contending with the (m)anthropocene. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ Watsford, R. (2008, September 18–19). The success of the ‘Pinkie’ campaign—
10.1007/978-3-030-54486-7 Speeding. No one thinks big of you: A new approach to road safety
Ratele, K. (2013a). Masculinities without tradition. Politikon: South African marketing [Conference session]. Joint ACRS-Travelsafe National Confer-
Journal of Political Studies, 40(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/ ence, Brisbane. https://acrs.org.au/files/papers/33%20Watsford%20The
02589346.2013.765680 %20success%20of%20the%20pinkie%20campaign.pdf
 DEPLOYING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 93

Wedgwood, N. (2009). Connell’s theory of masculinity—Its origins and Wilkinson, W. W. (2004). Authoritarian hegemony, dimensions of mas-
influences on the study of gender. Journal of Gender Studies, 18(4), 329– culinity, and male antigay attitudes. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230903260001 5(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.121
Wedgwood, N., Smith, L., Hendl, T., & Shuttleworth, R. (2020). Boy Wong, Y. J. (2022). Psychology of men and masculinities: The journal of big
Interrupted—Biographical disruption during the transition to adulthood. ideas. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 23(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ men0000376
1467-9566.12984 Wong, Y. J., & Horn, A. (2016). Enhancing and diversifying research
Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (2014). A discursive psychological framework methods in the psychology of men and masculinities. In J. Wong &
for analyzing men and masculinities. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 231–
15(4), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037148 255). American Psychological Association.
Whittle, E. L., Fogarty, A. S., Tugendrajch, S., Player, M. J., Christensen, Wong, Y. J., Steinfeldt, J. A., Speight, Q. L., & Hickman, S. J. (2010).
H., Wilhelm, K., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., & Proudfoot, J. (2015). Content analysis of psychology of men & masculinity (2000–2008).
Men, depression, and coping: Are we on the right path? Psychology Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(3), 170–181. https://doi.org/10
of Men & Masculinity, 16(4), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/a003 .1037/a0019133
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

9024
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Whorley, M. R., & Addis, M. E. (2006). Ten years of psychological research

on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant methodological Received July 10, 2022
trends. Sex Roles, 55(9), 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006- Revision received October 29, 2022
9120-1 Accepted November 1, 2022 ▪