Sticky Masculinity: Post-Structuralism, Phenomenology & Subjectivity in Critical Studies on Men (2014) PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by EnchantingTopaz4027
UCL
2014
Kalle Berggren
Tags
Summary
This article argues that incorporating post-structuralist feminist and feminist phenomenological frameworks into critical studies of men offers valuable insights. Analyzing the work of John Stoltenberg and Victor Seidler, the author highlights the theoretical benefits of such perspectives, particularly with regards to understanding masculinity.
Full Transcript
Article Men and Masculinities 2014, Vol. 17(3) 231-252 ª Th...
Article Men and Masculinities 2014, Vol. 17(3) 231-252 ª The Author(s) 2014 Sticky Masculinity: Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Post-structuralism, DOI: 10.1177/1097184X14539510 jmm.sagepub.com Phenomenology and Subjectivity in Critical Studies on Men Kalle Berggren1 Abstract Despite the consolidation of ‘‘critical studies on men’’ or ‘‘masculinity studies’’ in recent years, critics have pointed to a kind of feminist theory deficit due to the relative lack of engagement with contemporary developments of feminist theory. By focusing on post- structuralist feminist and feminist phenomenological accounts of subjectivity, this article seeks to contribute to the emerging body of work that brings such theories into critical studies on men. I argue that making use of these perspectives is not only a matter of repla- cing dominant theories, but rather offers possibilities for creative rereading of earlier work on masculinity, which may not have been sufficiently appreciated from the view- point of dominant structural perspectives. My argument proceeds through a reading of John Stoltenberg as a post-structuralist feminist, and a reading of Victor Seidler as a feminist phenomenologist. I suggest that the study of masculinity can benefit from both traditions, and as an example I consider Jonathan Salisbury’s and David Jackson’s work on ‘‘boys’ work.’’ Drawing in particular on Sara Ahmed’s innovative combination of post- structuralism and phenomenology, I suggest an understanding of masculinity as ‘‘sticky.’’ Keywords subjectivity, masculinity, post-structuralism, phenomenology, John Stoltenberg, Victor Seidler, Sara Ahmed, queer phenomenology 1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Corresponding Author: Kalle Berggren, Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, P. O. Box 624, 751 26 Uppsala, Sweden. Email: [email protected] 232 Men and Masculinities 17(3) Introduction ey, why do you want to fight with me? ey, varför vill ni tjafsa med mig? but if you’re looking for war, that’s just fine men är det krig ni vill ha så är det helt okej ‘cause I’m not backing away from no one för jag kommer aldrig backa för nån but if you feel like trying, just come, come... men om ni känner för att testa, kom, kom... (Blues, ‘‘Helt okej,’’ 1999) In a study of constructions of masculinity in Swedish hip-hop, I encountered this dis- course about being hard, not backing away from violence, and even anticipating war (see also Berggren 2012, 2013). These elements are not limited to the specific con- text of hip-hop, but rather form part of more widely recognized cultural norms of ‘‘masculinity.’’ This raises the question of how we can account theoretically for such performances of masculine subjectivity. The main theoretical perspectives used in masculinity studies would describe this discourse in terms of either a ‘‘sex role,’’ ‘‘hegemonic masculinity,’’ or an ‘‘interpretative repertoire.’’ However, these per- spectives all have known drawbacks regarding subjectivity, and in this article I would like to consider instead what could be gained from two important strands of feminist theory that have been used to a lesser extent within critical studies on men: post-structuralist feminism and feminist phenomenology. ‘‘Critical studies on men,’’ or alternatively ‘‘masculinity studies,’’ has been con- solidated as a research area in the last decade. This can be seen in the publication of prestigious books such as the 500-page Handbook of Studies on Men and Mascu- linities and the 700-page International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities (Kimmel, Hearn, and Connell 2005; Flood et al. 2007). To this we can add an increasing number of international anthologies (Pease and Pringle 2001; Hearn and Pringle 2006; Donaldson et al. 2009; Ruspini et al. 2011; Hearn, Blagojevic, and Harrison 2013). In spite of these achievements, the research field is still grappling with the lingering accusation that it does not engage sufficiently with the rich and varying developments of contemporary feminist theory. Alan Petersen wrote in 1998 that ‘‘those male writers who claim to be pro-feminist have engaged with only a fragment of the vast number of feminisms that have emerged over the last two decades’’ (Petersen 1998, 2, original emphasis). Reviewing the Handbook eight years later, Thomas Johansson (2006, 351) concluded that although gender studies on men is ‘‘an interesting and empirically innovative field of research [... ] the theoretical development seems quite slow.’’ Comparing different areas of gender research, Chris Beasley contrasted in 2005 the ‘‘slightly ‘old-fashioned’ feel’’ of masculinity studies with the ‘‘dizzying variety of positions, writers, con- cepts, debates and topics’’ that characterize feminist research in general (Beasley 2005, 191; see also Beasley 2012, 2013). Berggren 233 To some extent, this is now changing, as a new generation of researchers schooled in post-structuralist feminism, intersectionality, and queer theory appears within critical studies on men. For instance, in the United States, Pascoe (2007) seeks to combine these theoretical perspectives with masculinity studies in her valuable school ethnography. In the United Kingdom, Ann Phoenix, Stephen Frosh, and Rob Pattman (2002) draw on Discursive Psychology (DP) and intersectionality in study- ing boys. In Sweden, Linn Sandberg (2011) combines a range of feminist theoretical perspectives in her study of old men and heterosexuality. Similarly, in a recent Swedish anthology edited by Lucas Gottzén and Rickard Jonsson (2012), contribu- tors draw on theorists such as Agamben, Deleuze, and Grosz in studying men rather than the more familiar line up of Connell, Kimmel, and Hearn. However, this widen- ing of theoretical influences is only at its beginning, and gender research on men is still dominated by critical structuralist perspectives. Stephen Whitehead (2002, 111) argues that while these perspectives have been important in drawing attention to men’s power and oppressive practices, they are still unsatisfactory in terms of sub- jectivity, being characterized by ‘‘their inability to provide a theory of the (gendered) subject (individual) as an active yet constrained factor in the reproduction of dom- inance, and in the resistance to dominance.’’ Thus, one important promise of con- temporary feminist theories in relation to masculinity studies is to ‘‘bring the subject back in.’’ In the following, I will first discuss the benefits and shortcomings of the main theorizations of subjectivity in men and masculinity research. I will then offer an alternative way of understanding subjectivity, which combines insights from post- structuralist feminism and feminist phenomenology. Here, I build upon the work of Sara Ahmed, whose idea of stickiness combines the post-structuralist point about subjects being positioned by competing discourses with phenomenological insights about how we are shaped by our lived experience. I arrive at this argument by rereading the works of primarily John Stoltenberg and Victor Seidler but also Jonathan Salisbury and David Jackson. This strategy shows some of the interesting connections between feminist theory and masculinity studies which have not been made sufficiently visible, and thus complicates narratives in which masculinity research is constructed as inherently backward. It is also a way of illustrating the potential of post-structuralism and phenomenology for the study of men and mas- culinity. In addition, it sheds some new light on the work of masculinity theorists whose work is often considered interesting but hard to place theoretically. Subjectivity in Gender Studies on Men: Role, Hegemony, and Repertoire Whitehead (2002) neatly summarizes the main theoretical trajectory of the sociology of masculinity, in terms of three waves. First, there was sex role theory, then struc- tural perspectives in conjunction with hegemony theory, and most recently post-per- spectives.1 In the 1970s, sex role theory proved useful for questioning the inevitability 234 Men and Masculinities 17(3) of gender. Conceptualizing masculinity and femininity as ‘‘roles’’ highlighted the arbitrariness and constructed nature of gender, as opposed to seeing gender as innate and inevitable, a view often legitimated with reference to biology. Accord- ing to David and Brannon (1976), the male sex role consisted of four basic rules: no sissy stuff, be a big wheel, be a sturdy oak, and give ‘em hell. In other words, masculinity was about distancing from femininity and being emotional, striving for success through competition, being in control, and acting aggressively. Critics of sex role theory did not disagree so much with the description of traits commonly associated with masculinity, but rather with the theoretical framework that under- pinned these descriptions. Connell, among others, took issue with the lack of any account of men’s power and women’s subordination on behalf of role theory. Just as ‘‘race role’’ would be an inadequate concept for describing discrimination against people of color, it was argued that the notion of ‘‘sex role’’ is insufficient in accounting for men’s structural privileges (Connell 1995). As a response to the limitations of role theory, in the second wave a structural perspective emerged (Carrigan, Connell, and Lee 1985; Connell 1987, 1995; Hearn 1987, 1992). Drawing on theories of patriarchy and incorporating parts of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, researchers in this tradition emphasized men’s structural posi- tion of power and strived to render visible and critique men’s oppressive practices across many different domains of social life. Connell’s theory of ‘‘hegemonic mas- culinity’’ has been by far the most influential theory of masculinity. It took into account not only power hierarchies between genders but also between men, in terms of class, race/ethnicity, and sexuality. The notion of hegemonic masculinity has been widely popular and has provided masculinity scholars with conceptual tools for examining masculinity and men’s practices in different settings (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Hearn et al. 2012). However, Connell’s theory has also been thoroughly dissected. Many critics take issue with specific aspects but remain largely within the conceptual space of hegemony theory (Aboim 2010; Beasley 2008; Demetriou 2001; Hearn 2004; Howson 2006). Critics more attuned to ‘‘post-perspectives,’’ however, have been more wary: how can a large-scale theory of hegemonic masculinity account for the contradictory and inconsistent positioning that occurs in talk and interaction? (Wetherell and Edley 1999) Does a theory of ‘‘masculinities’’ in the plural not lead researchers toward classification of traits rather than focusing on processes, even though this may not have been the intention? (Pascoe 2007, 8) How can we account for the instability of sexual categorizations and the complex interdependencies of inequalities, as pointed out by queer and inter- sectionality theory, if we reify dominated as well as dominating groups? (Berggren 2012, 2013) Furthermore, Connell inherits Gramsci’s contradiction between stres- sing the openness of hegemonic struggles while presuming a fundamental unchan- ging structure (Laclau and Mouffe 2001). There are difficulties in reconciling an attempt to capture historical variability with the presumption of a transhistorical structural notion of men’s power over women, as Whitehead (2002, 93–94) sum- marizes: ‘‘The fundamental inconsistency in the term hegemonic masculinity is that, Berggren 235 while it attempts to recognize difference and resistance, its primary underpinning is the notion of a fixed (male) structure.’’ In response to the accumulated points of criticism against the dominant structural perspectives, researchers in the emerging third wave tend to draw on so-called post- perspectives. In general, these perspectives focus on how norms and subjectivity are constantly negotiated in contradictory processes of power. This work is itself heterogeneous, and includes work building on queer theory, attempts at synthesiz- ing Foucault, Deleuze and Lacan, as well as work making use of consciousness raising and memory work from a post-perspective (Pascoe 2007; Whitehead 2002; Pease 2000). The most influential approach so far, though, has been DP (Wetherell and Edley 1999; Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman 2002). Researchers in the DP tradition focus on how subject positions are constructed and negotiated in discourse (in the sense of ‘‘spoken or written language’’), and influential concepts include ‘‘interpreta- tive repertoire’’ and ‘‘troubled subject position.’’ The main contribution of DP to crit- ical studies on men has been to open up a space for investigating the complex and contradictory positioning that is not easily captured by structurally oriented concepts such as ‘‘hegemonic masculinity.’’ While I acknowledge the significance of this con- tribution, I would also like to draw attention to its limitations, which have not been discussed so much in relation to the study of masculinity. The most extensive DP study of masculinity is Young masculinities (Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman 2002). This book draws on DP in order to consider the com- plexities of subject positions available to boys, and the contradictions involved in boys’ different self-presentations in individual interviews as compared to group inter- actions. The authors criticize the stereotype that boys cannot talk about emotions, since they should rather be seen as ‘‘flexible discourse users’’ who can employ tough- ness in some settings and vulnerability in others: ‘‘the identities the boys were con- structing [... ] were flexible and dependent on the situation they were in’’ (Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman 2002, 114). However, the study also describes being loud, funny, and aggressive as ‘‘narrow though extremely influential discursive construc- tions’’ (Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman 2002, 49). There is an impression that these extremely influential discursive constructions, or interpretative repertoires, are not only flexibly drawn on in particular interactions but also stick to or shape the subjects that make use of them. Consider this description of fathers’ emotional unavailability: Complaints about fathers’ emotional unavailability are very common in our data; so consistently was it represented to us by the boys, that it seemed to rank as one of the most solid characteristics of adult men. When their sons turn to them, they get an absence or something almost as bad: simplistic, playground-level advice which reveals an incapacity to listen or hold onto and manage distress. (Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman 2002, 239, my emphasis) This raises the question: how do flexible interpretative repertoires turn into solid characteristics? There is an important issue about discourse shaping subjectivity 236 Men and Masculinities 17(3) here; an issue that the DP framework is unable to account for (Baxter 2003, 49). Per- haps to address this, Frosh, Pattman, and Phoenix incorporate some aspects of psy- choanalysis. However, this synthesis is not exhaustively explicated, but rather introduces new problems such as the incompatibility of ontologies (Edley 2006). Instead of offering some refinement of these theories, I will now turn to post- structuralist feminism and feminist phenomenology—two major traditions of con- temporary feminist theory that have been important in advancing our understanding of subjectivity but that have been comparatively little discussed within critical studies on men. In order to distinguish their respective contributions, I will first consider these traditions separately, reading Stoltenberg as a post-structuralist and Seidler as a phenomenologist. Then, I will argue for the possibility of a synthesis of these two perspectives, based on the work of Sara Ahmed and illustrated in the work of Salisbury and Jackson. Post-structuralist Feminism: Rereading Stoltenberg Post-structuralist perspectives have been enormously influential in gender studies over the last twenty-five years, with their characteristic ideas about gender being inessential and performed (e.g., Butler 1990). However, they have been much less used in critical studies on men. According to Beasley, it is the relative lack of post-perspectives that gives masculinity studies an ‘‘old-fashioned feel’’ (Beasley 2005, 191). There is, however, some work that makes use of post-structuralist fem- inist theory, but there is little cross-referencing or sense of a post-structuralist tradi- tion or body of work on men (Collier 1998; Jackson 1990; Petersen 1998; Pascoe 2007; Whitehead 2002). My way of approaching the potential contribution of post-structuralist feminism to the study of men will be through a deconstructive reading of parts of the work of self-identified radical feminist John Stoltenberg (2000), particularly The end of manhood, humorously framed as a self-help book for men of conscience. There are two reasons for choosing this strategy: first, Stolten- berg offers a more focused understanding of the conflictual aspects of subjectivity than existing post-structuralist work on men, and second, there are interesting fea- tures of his writing that have not been sufficiently explored (Hearn 1998). My argu- ment will be that a deconstructive reading of Stoltenberg reveals a model of (masculine) subjectivity that quite clearly renders visible the potential of post- structuralist feminism. Reading Stoltenberg (2000, xii) as a post-structuralist may seem counterintuitive. He is generally understood as a radical feminist writer on masculinity, who distances himself somewhat disdainfully from the ‘‘esoteric [... ] mumbo-jumbo’’ of post- structuralist feminist theory. Furthermore, he operates with an existentialist notion of ‘‘authentic selfhood’’ that is antithetical to post-structuralist thought, and critics also point to his failure to take multiple axes of domination into account (Messner 1997; Ashe 2007). Despite these major shortcomings, it has been noticed that there is also a radical constructivism at the heart of Stoltenberg’s position. For instance, in Berggren 237 a brief comparison with Foucault, Hearn (1998, 795) notes that ‘‘there is a very inter- esting article to be written on the link between these two positions.’’ While there are different versions and variants of post-structuralist thought, in this article I will be concerned with the influential writings of Foucault (1990), Laclau and Mouffe (2001), and Butler (1990, 2005). Although there are internal differences between these theorists on psychoanalysis and other issues, taken together they can neverthe- less be said to put forward a view of subjectivity in terms of (a) constitution, (b) inco- herence, and (c) opacity. (a) Constitution: The most important and distinguishing feature of post- structuralist social thought is the claim that subjects are constituted in dis- course. This involves a critique of representational theories of language, as it is claimed that categories such as ‘‘homosexual,’’ ‘‘criminal,’’ or ‘‘man’’ do not represent a pre-discursive reality. There is thus no essence or authenticity to subjects: instead, discursive categories establish the conditions of possibility for the emergence of different forms of subjectivity. Foucault (2002) developed the analysis of such discursive formations, arguing that discourses are practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak. Butler (1990, 33) employed this analysis on gender, famously claiming that ‘‘[t]here is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively con- stituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its result.’’ In this formula- tion, the iterative nature of gender as an accomplishment is underlined. How do Stoltenberg’s views fit into this perspective? Stoltenberg, drawing on Dworkin, rejects the categories of ‘‘man’’ and ‘‘woman,’’ and claims that believing in such gender categories is equivalent to believing in an Aryan race. While he acknowledges bodily differences which merit descriptions such as ‘‘a penised being,’’ he sees the gender categories of ‘‘man’’ and ‘‘‘woman’’ as socially enforced. As socially constructed, these categories can be undone and rejected, Stoltenberg argues. ‘‘Men of conscience’’ should take action by ‘‘refusing to be a man,’’ in effect refusing to comply with normative expectations of masculinity or ‘‘manhood.’’ This is a refusal that has to be sustained, even in the face of occasional failure. While Stol- tenberg does not situate his views on gender in relation to post-structuralist femin- ism, on this point his views are consistent with Butler’s notion of gender as performatively constituted. (b) Incoherence: A second feature of a post-structuralist account of subjectivity is incoherence. Post-structuralists follow structuralism in arguing that subjects are constituted, but diverge from that tradition in stressing that discourses are always partial, contested, and shifting, never settling neatly and permanently as a ‘‘structure.’’ In their post-structuralist reading of the Marxist tradition, Laclau and Mouffe combine post-structuralist ontology with a Gramscian stress on hegemonic struggles. This leads to an emphasis on discourses as always 238 Men and Masculinities 17(3) contested, with rival discourses struggling to ‘‘fixate’’ meaning in an unambig- uous way. The inevitability of such discursive struggles places constructions of reality and subjectivity permanently under threat from alternative articulations. For Stoltenberg, the subject is not only discursively constituted but also con- stantly contested. Stoltenberg describes men as being torn between two different modes of relating; modes he terms ‘‘manhood’’ and ‘‘selfhood.’’ Unless we accept the existentialist connotations of the notion of ‘‘selfhood,’’ it makes perfect sense to understand these two ‘‘modes’’ in terms of two competing discourses. The ‘‘self- hood’’ discourse involves elements such as vulnerability, reciprocity, and justice in relating to others, whereas the ‘‘manhood’’ discourse prescribes hierarchy between men and women, being strong and scary, and treating women as objects. Subjects who have been ‘‘raised to be a man’’ bear the imprints of having been positioned by these incompatible but competing discourses. For Stoltenberg, it is this incoher- ent positioning that explains why men who are otherwise ‘‘kind’’ and ‘‘decent’’ can commit ‘‘hurtful’’ and ‘‘deceitful’’ actions against women. Furthermore, he stresses that men’s oppression of women is not random but a logical consequence of man- hood positioning: When a man has decided to love manhood more than justice, there are predictable con- sequences in all his relationships with women. [... ] Any woman who believes she is his ‘partner’ may actually be a sitting duck for some put-down or betrayal that he may ‘inadvertently’ or ‘unpredictably’ commit owing to his prior allegiance to [... ] man- hood. (Stoltenberg 2000, 39) Stoltenberg’s views can thus be said to be consistent with post-structuralism also when it comes to an understanding of subjectivity as split between the contradictory positioning of rival discourses. (c) Opacity: Finally, post-structuralism maintains that subjects are not transparent to themselves. It is not that subjects are individual rational actors at a distance from external discourses of social life, but rather that such discourses are already part of us, in ways that we cannot fully ‘‘know’’ or account for. As But- ler (2005, 20) puts it: ‘‘If we are formed in the context of relations that become partially irrecoverable to us, then that opacity seems built into our formation and follows from our status as beings who are formed in relations of dependency.’’ A distinguishing feature of Stoltenberg’s model is his call for men to reject the manhood discourse, and instead become men of conscience. Critics have seen this move as invoking a notion of a rational independent actor, implicitly alluding to the idea of the firm decisive man. Beasley (2005, 208) thus argues that there is ‘‘a strange resurgence of gender identity in Stoltenberg’s work at the very point of its disavowal.’’ However, this reading does not fully acknowledge the iterative Berggren 239 dimension of subjectivity. In fact, for Stoltenberg ‘‘refusing to be a man’’ is not a one-time decision, but an iterative process bound to failure. Even with the best inten- tions of being a ‘‘man of conscience,’’ ‘‘fucking up’’ in some way is inevitable. This could rather be read as disclosing a post-structuralist view of subjectivity as an effect of repeated action in which the subject is partially opaque to itself. I have argued that despite the commonsensical classification of Stoltenberg as a radical feminist, there are elements in his writing which can productively be read as basically consistent with post-structuralist feminism. While commentators have pointed to Stoltenberg’s radical constructionism, my reading also uncovers the dimensions of discursive struggle and partial opacity. In this reading, Stoltenberg argues that subjectivity is discursively constituted, that is, the category of manhood is a social construction; and that the subject is torn between competing discourses, to which it is attached in ways that it cannot fully know or control. ‘‘Manhood’’ is not inevitable but has often been acquired through a series of interpellations involving ‘‘both bribe and trauma’’ (Stoltenberg 1998, 146). Its dissolution requires critical feminist reflection on one’s complicity and oppression, but also on the processes through which the manhood discourse came to stick: ‘‘We must honestly diagnose what has been ‘scary’ about other men’s judgment on our lives, and we must rigor- ously analyze our complicity in the exclusions and derisions committed to feel ‘safe’ in other men’s company’’ (Stoltenberg 2000, 23). I have argued that parts of Stolten- berg’s work can be read as an application of post-structuralist feminism to masculi- nity, and as such it renders visible what post-structuralism contributes to an understanding of masculinity: men as complex and contradictory, positioned by dis- courses that construct them as both oppressors and equals. Before assessing the ben- efits and drawbacks of this model more thoroughly, I will first consider some central ideas of feminist phenomenology, another tradition of feminist thought that has been influential in terms of subjectivity, but which is often positioned in opposition to post-structuralism. Feminist Phenomenology: Rereading Seidler Phenomenological perspectives have been influential in gender studies from Simone De Beauvoir to Iris Marion Young, which have emphasized experiences and bodily aspects of gender. However, they have only been used occasionally in relation to masculinity (Butt and Hearn 1998). There is thus no entry for phenom- enology in the International Encyclopedia (Flood et al. 2007). Conversely, fem- inist phenomenologists have not written specifically on the question of masculinity (Fisher and Embree 2000). I would like to consider the potential con- tribution of feminist phenomenology to the study of men by offering a reading of the work of socialist feminist Victor Seidler. I am focusing on Seidler because his main arguments are to a large extent consistent with feminist phenomenologist perspectives, although he does not situate his work in this context himself. Furthermore, these similarities have not been discussed by either critical or 240 Men and Masculinities 17(3) sympathetic commentators. My argument will be that this reading of Seidler uncovers a model of (masculine) subjectivity that makes visible the potential con- tribution of feminist phenomenology to the study of men. The assessment of Seidler’s contribution to masculinity studies is rather ambig- uous. On the one hand, critics are dissatisfied with the political implications of his writing. The emphasis on men’s experiences in his works is considered to be too uncritical, and to draw attention away from a much-needed critique of men’s oppres- sive gender practices (Ashe 2007). On the other hand, commentators praise his writ- ing as a ‘‘detailed and insightful account of men’s selves’’ (Whitehead 2002, 157). As Edley and Wetherell (1995, 159) put it: ‘‘Of all the current literature on men and masculinity, Seidler’s work provides some of the best illustrations of how various cults of masculinity have come to structure the ordinary, everyday lives of Western men.’’ However, neither side engages thoroughly with Seidler’s theoretical views, which is surprising given his wide range of theoretical interlocutors: Marxism and critical theory, structuralism and post-structuralism, as well as mainstream sociolo- gical theory, Connell’s theory of masculinity, Weil’s ethics, Wittgenstein’s theory of language, and consciousness-raising oriented feminism. I will argue, however, for a reading of Seidler as offering a feminist phenomenological account of masculinity. There are of course important differences between feminist theorists who engage with various aspects of the phenomenological tradition (Fisher 2000). Besides the general emphasis on lived experience, I will also draw on Toril Moi’s (1999) out- line of a feminist phenomenological alternative to post-structuralism, which shares some key ideas with Seidler. This version of feminist phenomenology can be sum- marized in terms of (a) lived experience, (b) language as use, and (c) grounding knowledge in situations. (a) Lived experience: The central thrust of feminist phenomenology consists of emphasizing embodiment and lived experience. Feminist phenomenologists draw on Merleau-Ponty’s insistence on the centrality of the lived body inhabit- ing its world, rather than being simply a disembodied mind or a mechanical physical entity. At the same time, they reject his normative assumptions about gender and sexuality, and develop a feminist analysis that incorporates female embodiment and women’s experiences (De Beauvoir 2010; Grosz 1994; Heinämaa 2003; Young 2005). In foregrounding embodiment, there is a stress on experience as bodily and as lived in a way that cannot simply be captured by language or representation, which puts feminist phenomenologists at odds with the post-structuralist tendency of treating experience as a ‘‘discursive effect’’ or a ‘‘linguistic event’’ (Alcoff 2000). Gendered lived experience also includes ‘‘pervasive patterns of gendered emotion,’’ the description of which constitutes ‘‘a contribution to the phenomenology of oppression’’ (Bartky 1990, 84). How does Seidler’s position resonate with this perspective? Seidler argues that Western culture is ‘‘rationalist.’’ He argues that there is a cultural division between Berggren 241 reason and emotion, which has been associated with masculinity and femininity respectively (see also Lloyd 1993). This tradition permeates theories ranging from Kant to mainstream sociological theory as well as structuralism and post- structuralism. In different ways, these theories privilege mind and reason in terms of ‘‘consciousness’’ or ‘‘discourse’’ over embodiment and lived experience. Seidler holds consciousness-raising–oriented feminism in high regard, praising its ability to ground knowledge through sharing and validating experience: The power of consciousness-raising comes in the very ways it challenges the conven- tional distinctions between ‘psychology’, ‘experience’ and ‘social power’. My ideas, thoughts, desires and feelings come from the situations I find myself in. They don’t simply come from inside of me. (Seidler 1991a, 68, my emphasis) On one hand, Seidler criticizes a range of theoretical perspectives for failing to take embodiment and experience into account properly, and on the other hand, he is con- sistently concerned with the gendered implications of the reason/emotion divide. While men have had, and still have, access to positions of power from which women have been excluded, men have also faced cultural ideals of masculinity. Seidler emphasizes emotional regulation, and in particular the effects of sanctions against expressing vulnerability. This often leads to difficulties in sharing emotions and developing close relationships, he argues, as well as to gender imbalances in emo- tional work and support. Neither role theories nor structural perspectives pay suffi- cient attention to men’s embodied emotional history: ‘‘we have to engage with the lived experience of the men themselves’’ (Seidler 2006a, 51, my emphasis). Conse- quently, men’s transformation in response to feminism cannot be achieved as merely ‘‘an act of will’’ but requires engagement with embodied emotional experience. Both Seidler’s critique of rationalist social theory and his emphasis on men’s lived expe- rience is thus strikingly consistent with feminist phenomenology. (b) Language as use: A second aspect of feminist phenomenology concerns lan- guage as use. In critiquing post-structuralism for reducing everything to dis- course and language, phenomenologists maintain that ‘‘experiences are not perfectly coextensive or coincident with the realm of discourse or language’’ (Alcoff 2000, 50). Toril Moi criticizes structuralist and post-structuralist the- ories of language for treating language as signification, and thus invoking an abstract system of relations between signs which cannot be observed. For Moi, drawing on the later Wittgenstein, this is a misleading abstraction, since words get their meaning from their use in particular situations. In this view, words such as ‘‘man’’ and ‘‘woman’’ are not problematic since it is often clear what meaning they are used to convey in particular conversations. The problem is oppression of women, not the category itself: ‘‘No matter how bizarrely a woman would behave, de Beauvoir would not deny her the name of woman’’ (Moi 1999, 77). 242 Men and Masculinities 17(3) The same perspective is found in Seidler, who criticizes post-structuralism for its totalizing use of discourse. Commenting on Foucault he notes: ‘‘Since it is language that is said to constitute experience, this forecloses the possibilities of tension between language and experience’’ (Seidler 1994, 158, original emphasis). For Seidler, language can be used in different ways, to shield oneself from concealing vulnerability, but also in order to express one’s experiences and emotions in more liberating ways. Similarly to Moi, he finds an alternative to post-structuralism in Wittgenstein’s views on language as use. Hence, what is considered problematic is not the categories of men and masculinity themselves, but rather what is done to ‘‘authentic individuality’’ in the name of masculinity (Seidler 1989, 12): It is important to recognize that what is at issue here is a particular social and historical experience, in which the processes of damage and distortion of identity (rather than simply its constitution) are central theoretical and personal questions; the point, in other words, is that what is significant is not the category of ‘masculinity’ per se, but rather the ways in which the category normalizes a distorted life experience. (Seidler 1989, 8) Seidler’s views can thus be said to be consistent with feminist phenomenology also when it comes to an understanding of language of use rather than deconstruction. (c) Grounding knowledge in situations: A third aspect of feminist phenomenology concerns grounding knowledge in concrete situations. In line with the emphasis on the lived body and lived experiences is the recognition of our bodies as sin- gular. Bodies are not just an instance of an abstract and ‘‘general’’ pattern, such as a discourse, but have a real and singular existence of their own. The abstract and general is only reached through inference from concrete lived situations. This is why Moi argues that feminist theory should not start with discussion of abstract concepts such as ‘‘sex’’ and ‘‘gender’’ which only serve to obscure lived experience. Instead, she advocates engaging with women’s experiences, and grounding knowledge in concrete situations, and such phenomenological description is one of the virtues of Simone De Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. One distinguishing feature of Seidler’s writing on masculinity is that critiques of phi- losophy and social theory are often interlaced with everyday episodes, presumably drawn from his engagement in men’s consciousness-raising. For example: For instance, men have tended to feel that when their women partners express sadness or unhappiness, what they are looking for is a ‘solution’ to their problems. Since this is often the way men have dealt with their own distress or anxieties, they can assume that this is what they are being asked for, and are surprised when their partners say they are not looking for solutions but just to be listened to. Often they say that this is enough. They recognise that the experience of being listened to can move a situation on, and might allow them to find a resolution when the time is right. (Seidler 2006b, 49) Berggren 243 Such narratives can give an antitheoretical impression. But I would suggest that they can also be read as a phenomenological strategy of grounding knowledge, not in abstract general considerations, but in concrete situations of lived experience. I have argued that Seidler’s theoretical position has not been thoroughly recog- nized by commentators and that his model of masculine subjectivity can produc- tively be read as basically consistent with feminist phenomenology. My reading underscores Seidler’s emphasis on lived experience, as well as his views on lan- guage in use and on the importance of grounding knowledge in concrete situations, which are all central themes in feminist phenomenology. In this reading, Seidler argues for taking seriously men’s emotional embodiment. Men’s power is inter- twined with particular histories, experiences, and embodiments. The transformation of men in response to feminism thus cannot be reduced to a level of mind, reason, consciousness, or discourse. Instead, Seidler advocates engagement with lived expe- rience. While this should be situated in a larger context of power, it is important to acknowledge one’s history of living with masculinity: Unless we are clear about the relationships of power involved, we will be in danger of invoking a false parallelism between the situation of women and men, or else we will talk generally about men, ignoring the specificities of sexual orientation, race, class and ethnicity. It is important to argue the case against prevailing notions of masculinity without seeking in any way to minimize the injustices perpetrated against women, gay men and lesbians. But it is also crucial for heterosexual men to take responsibility for their own masculinity. (Seidler 1991b, 26) I have argued that Seidler’s model can be read as an application of feminist phenom- enology to masculinity, and as such it renders visible what phenomenology contri- butes to an understanding of masculinity: men not as rational actors but as carriers of embodied lived experience. Sticky Masculinity Post-structuralism and phenomenology thus bring different contributions to the study of men and masculinity. They are, however, often imagined as diametrically opposed to each other: Foucault describes his project as anti-phenomenological, while Moi explicitly opposes the post-structuralist tradition. Recent debates in feminist theory, though, increasingly challenge the inevitability of this split. For instance, Judith Butler (1988, 1989) engages not only with Foucault but also with Merleau-Ponty, and from a slightly different angle, Iris Marion Young (2005) seeks a middle posi- tion between Butler’s post-structuralism and Moi’s phenomenology. The aim of Johanna Oksala’s (2005) work is to inquire into the connections between phenom- enology and Foucault, and Sara Ahmed (2004, 2006) offers a post-structuralist (or queer) phenomenology. These discussions are complex and cannot be fully recap- tured here, but I would nevertheless like to point to some of the central points. 244 Men and Masculinities 17(3) The overall merit of phenomenology is to take seriously lived bodies and lived experience. As Moi (1999, 68) summarizes: ‘‘The body is a historical sedimentation of our way of living in the world, and of the world’s way of living with us.’’ How- ever, notions of ‘‘authenticity,’’ whether explicit or implicit, and the corresponding reluctance to engage in critical inquiry into the productive effects—the performative dimension—of categorizations such as ‘‘woman’’ or ‘‘masculinity,’’ have less cred- ibility today. As Young (2005, 8) puts it: ‘‘After reading Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva, Deleuze, Irigaray, and Bourdieu, we cannot be so innocent as to believe that phenomenology can discover a ‘pure’ embodied experience prior to ideology and science.’’ This points to the strength of post-structuralism: to foreground sub- jects as positioned by various intersecting and conflicting cultural norms (dis- courses) and to deconstruct that which is seemingly intact or stable. However, the strength of post-structuralism—the centrality it gives to discourse—is also its source of dissatisfaction. It is increasingly felt, across a range of feminist theoretical posi- tions that ‘‘discourse’’ as a linguistic metaphor does not fully capture the dimensions of experience, embodiment, and emotion/affect (e.g., Koivunen 2010). It could be concluded that phenomenology needs post-structuralism’s deconstructive critique of power and discourse, while post-structuralism simultaneously needs phenomen- ology’s recognition of embodiment and lived experience. The question of how structures and bodies are entangled is of course not new in social theory (and also not one likely to find one definite solution).2 The work of Sara Ahmed, however, offers interesting developments on the relation between post-structuralism and phenomenology, in the context of feminist, queer, and anti- racist critique. Central works in this respect are The Cultural Politics of Emotion (CPE) and Queer Phenomenology (QP; Ahmed 2004, 2006). In these works, Ahmed offers a post-structuralist reading of phenomenology which brings together the post-structuralist critique of discourses of race, gender, and sexuality, with a phenomenological understanding of bodies inhabiting a world. In CPE, she applies Butler’s ideas on materialization to emotions. It is not that emotions originate in us and are then expressed, nor that they originate outside of us and are then interna- lized, but rather that discourses shape the surfaces and boundaries of things and bodies, of ‘‘objects,’’ and ‘‘others.’’ In this way, there are no essences and no authenticity. At the same time, she follows phenomenology’s stress on bodies as being shaped by their experiences. In Ahmed’s terminology, bodies are shaped by what they come into contact with, by encounters that make ‘‘impressions.’’ What is significant is that the way things impress depends also on how they are read. In this way, Ahmed retains the phenomenological recognition of bodies in a world, while incorporating the post-structuralist focus on the formative role of discourse. In QP, there is a further stress on how bodies are directed, focused on the notion of orientation: orientations involve different ways of registering the proximity of objects and others. Orientations shape not only how we inhabit space, but how we apprehend this world of Berggren 245 shared inheritance, as well as ‘who’ or ‘what’ we direct our energy and attention toward. (Ahmed 2006, 3) The general thrust in Ahmed’s work is to treat bodily and discursive dimensions as intertwined. In CPE, she uses the concept of impression ‘‘to avoid making analytical distinctions between bodily sensation, emotion and thought as if they could be ‘experienced’ as distinct realms of human ‘experience’’’ (Ahmed 2004, 6). And in QP: ‘‘orientation for me is about how the bodily, the spatial and the social are entangled’’ (Ahmed 2006, 181, note 1, original emphasis). For Ahmed, bodies are oriented in the world, directed toward certain things that appear as within reach, as well as away from others. But the orientations are simultaneously tied to discourse or cultural interpretations which govern the unequal distribution of comfort. While discursive attributions are thus central to Ahmed, her post-structuralist reading of phenomenology complements the centrality given to discourse in post-structuralist thought with an understanding of bodies as carriers of a history of ‘‘sticky’’ impres- sions: ‘‘what sticks ‘shows us’ where the object has travelled through what it has gathered onto its surface, gatherings that become part of the object, and call into question its integrity as an object’’ (Ahmed 2004, 91). We can now return to the question of masculinity. The post-structuralist model— as illustrated in Stoltenberg’s writing—gives us the discursive dimension: there is a cultural attribution of masculinity to bodies read as ‘‘men.’’ However, discourses are always contested and permanently unstable, and there is a conflict with a more ega- litarian discourse. None of these discourses can manage to fix meaning completely, but a politically conscious subject should strive to refuse the positioning offered by the ‘‘manhood’’ discourse, and the implied actions. In contrast, a phenomenological account of masculinity centers on the bodily dimension. For Seidler, there can be no automatic incorporation of masculinity by men. Instead, there is a history of experi- ences of living with and acquiring masculinity. There are embodied effects of the taboo against ‘‘emotionality’’ and vulnerability which have negative consequences for both genders. A politically conscious subject cannot while away its lived experi- ences, but should engage with them in order to come to terms with them and thereby transform subjectivity. My point here is that what Sara Ahmed offers in this context is the possibility to have it both ways and to avoid the false choice between discourse, norms, and power on one hand, and bodies, emotions and lived experience on the other. In this way, I suggest thinking of masculinity as ‘‘sticky.’’ Bodies culturally read as ‘‘men’’ are oriented toward the culturally established signs of ‘‘masculinity,’’ such as hardness and violence. The repeated sticking together of certain bodies and signs in this way is what creates masculine subjectivity. This is always a contested, variable, and uncertain process, but one in which the repeated enactment of masculinity tends to be sticky and naturalized: This paradox—with effort it becomes effortless—is precisely what makes history dis- appear in the moment of its enactment. The repetition of the work is what makes the 246 Men and Masculinities 17(3) work disappear. It is important that we think not only about what is repeated, but also about how the repetition of actions takes us in certain directions: we are also orientating ourselves toward some objects more than others, including [... ] objects of thought, feeling and judgment, as well as objects in the sense of aims, aspirations, and objec- tives. (Ahmed 2006, 56, original emphasis) The point of conceptualizing masculinity as sticky is to be able to give an account of power, conflicting positioning as well as of lived experience, without recourse to either language-only metaphors or a notion of authenticity. It should be said that there is of course also work on masculinity that has been able to pull together an under- standing of the experiences of boys and men with a firm critique of their oppressive practices. Such understandings can be found, for instance, in the work of Messner and Sabo on men and sports, or in hooks’ writings on men and love (hooks 2005; Messner and Sabo 1994). However, such work has rarely been informed by post- structuralist perspectives. One fine example, though, which can be said to prefigure the notion of sticky masculinity that I am advocating here, is Jonathan Salisbury and David Jackson’s work on ‘‘boys work’’ (Salisbury and Jackson 1996). Salisbury and Jackson do not stage an explicit theoretical encounter between post-structuralism and phenomenology, but their work does indeed manage to balance the central aspects. It is very clear about the power of boys and men and its destructive effects on women and girls, paying explicit attention to sexual harassment and violations of bodily integrity. At the same time, there is also a profound recognition of boys’ experiences of the pressures to conform and embody dominant models of masculinity, as well as motives and strategies involved in boys’ negotiations of gender. What distinguishes Salisbury and Jackson’s work is that it also incorporates a post-structuralist under- standing of subjectivity that stresses incoherence and conflicting demands: Boys aren’t just brainwashed by macho values. They don’t just swallow the dominant models of manliness in a docile, passive manner. Instead, they have a much more wry, contradictory approach—half-mocking, half-accepting—both contesting and buying into these models. (Salisbury and Jackson 1996, 13) In effect, this piece of action research on doing progressive ‘‘boys’ work’’ shows us what a post-structuralist phenomenological model of masculine subjectivity means in practice. It recognizes both that boys/men are positioned as gendered oppressors in contradictory processes and the lived experience behind the taking up of cultural norms of masculinity; the path of transformation involves both contesting oppres- sive gender practices and ‘‘[b]roadening out boys’ feelings range’’ (Salisbury and Jackson 1996, 221). In this way, it illustrates an Ahmed-inspired understanding of masculinity as sticky. Masculinity shapes the bodies it encounters as ‘‘men’’; it impresses on them, directs, and orients them. But at the same time, masculinity is not the only ‘‘discourse’’ positioning ‘‘men,’’ and so ‘‘there is a conflict between the fiction of a fixed, ‘real me’, masculine self, and more fluid, alternative selves’’ Berggren 247 (Salisbury and Jackson 1996, 7). While there is flexibility and contradiction, this does not leave subjects unattached; the circulation of norms stick to bodies, and the more masculinity is performed, the stickier it becomes. Conclusion In this article, I have argued that the dominant theories within critical studies of men are insufficient when it comes to conceptualizing subjectivity. Instead, the traditions of post-structuralist feminism and feminist phenomenology both have interesting insights to offer. Focusing on these traditions entails not only bringing new feminist theorizing into men and masculinity research but also offers an opportunity to shed some new light on what has already been said. I have argued that there are interesting connections between feminist theory and masculinity studies that have not been made sufficiently visible. Rereading parts of the work of Stoltenberg and Seidler, I have thus shown that there are elements in their writing which can be understood as basi- cally consistent with the understandings of subjectivity offered by post-structuralist feminism and feminist phenomenology. Finally, I have argued that the respective merits of these traditions can be rendered compatible through an engagement with the theoretical vocabulary of Sara Ahmed. In particular, conceptualizing masculinity as sticky allows us to see both that subjects are positioned by competing discourses, and that through repeated enactment, the cultural signs of masculinity tends to stick to bodies. Finally, while this article has proposed some ways of thinking about subjec- tivity that could be useful in studying men and masculinity, it is important to stress that empirical analysis also needs to be situated in relation to the intersecting inequal- ities of race, class, sexuality, age, and ability (e.g., Hill Collins 1990; Yuval-Davis 2011). As Sirma Bilge (2010, 24) has pointed out, intersectional approaches need to engage with current theoretical debates on power and subjectivity, while the latter need to be anchored in the ‘‘larger picture provided by intersectionality.’’ I have argued elsewhere that we need an integrated, intersectional approach to masculinity in order to address the various degrees to which such inequalities intersect (Berggren 2013). But much more effort needs to go into thinking through how our understanding of men and masculinity can benefit from available theoretical resources, in order to facilitate progressive change in our unequal world. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Elisabet Näsman, Keith Pringle and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 248 Men and Masculinities 17(3) Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Notes 1. This historiography leaves aside psychoanalytical perspectives. Although they have often been suggestive, they often involve unresolved issues of power, ontology, and verifiability. 2. Most consecrated in this regard is perhaps the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1977). His injec- tion of the phenomenological concept of ‘‘habitus’’ into a quite structuralist understanding of class resonates with my argument here insofar as it acknowledges the embodied nature of social structures. However, feminist theorists have pointed out several problems in Bourdieu, for instance: his privileging of class at the expense of gender, sexuality, and race; his often mimetic accounts of norms; and the lack of emotions and lived experience more generally in his phenomenology (Adkins and Skeggs 2004). References Aboim, Sofia. 2010. Plural Masculinities: The Remaking of the Self in Private Life. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Adkins, Lisa, and Beverley Skeggs, eds. 2004. Feminism after Bourdieu. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Ahmed, Sara. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Ahmed, Sara. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Alcoff, Linda Martı́n. 2000. ‘‘Phenomenology, Post-structuralism, and Feminist Theory on the Concept of Experience.’’ In Feminist Phenomenology, edited by Linda Fisher and Lester E. Embree, 39–56. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Ashe, Fidelma. 2007. The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance. London, UK: Routledge. Bartky, Sandra Lee. 1990. Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall. Baxter, Judith. 2003. Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Feminist Methodology. Basing- stoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Beasley, Chris. 2005. Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. London, UK: Sage. Beasley, Chris. 2008. ‘‘Rethinking Hegemonic Masculinity in a Globalizing World.’’ Men and Masculinities 11:86–103. Beasley, Chris. 2012. ‘‘Problematizing Contemporary Men/Masculinities Theorizing: The Contribution of Raewyn Connell and Conceptual-terminological Tensions Today.’’ British Journal of Sociology 63:747–65. Beasley, Chris. 2013. ‘‘Mind the Gap? Masculinity Studies and Contemporary Gender/Sexu- ality Thinking.’’ Australian Feminist Studies 28:108–24. Berggren 249 Berggren, Kalle. 2012. ‘‘‘No Homo’: Straight Inoculations and the Queering of Masculinity in Swedish Hip Hop.’’ Norma—Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies 7:50–66. Berggren, Kalle. 2013. ‘‘Degrees of Intersectionality: Male Rap Artists in Sweden Negotiat- ing Class, Race and Gender.’’ Culture Unbound—Journal of Current Cultural Research 5: 189–211. Blues. 1999. Samhällstjänst. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Records. Bilge, Sirma. 2010. ‘‘Beyond Subordination vs. Resistance: An Intersectional Approach to the Agency of Veiled Muslim Women.’’ Journal of Intercultural Studies 31:9–28. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Butler, Judith. 1988. ‘‘Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenol- ogy and Feminist Theory.’’ Theatre Journal 40:519–31. Butler, Judith. 1989. ‘‘Sexual Ideology and Phenomenological Description: A Feminist Critique of Merleau-ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception.’’ In The Thinking Muse: Feminism and Modern French Philosophy, edited by Jeffner Allen and Iris Marion Young, 85–100. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Butler, Judith. 2005. Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press. Butt, Trevor, and Jeff Hearn. 1998. ‘‘The Sexualization of Corporal Punishment: The Con- struction of Sexual Meaning.’’ Sexualities 1:203–27. Carrigan, Tim, Raewyn Connell, and John Lee. 1985. ‘‘Toward a New Sociology of Mascu- linity.’’ Theory and Society 14:551–604. Collier, Richard. 1998. Masculinities, Crime and Criminology: Men, Heterosexuality and the Criminal(ised) Other. London, UK: Sage. Connell, Raewyn. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Cambridge, MA: Polity in association with Blackwell. Connell, Raewyn. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Connell, Raewyn, and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. ‘‘Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.’’ Gender and Society 19:829–59. David, Deborah S., and David Brannon. 1976. The Forty-nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. De Beauvoir, Simone. 2010. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Demetriou, Demetrakis Z. 2001. ‘‘Connell’s Concept of Masculinity: A Critique.’’ Theory and Society 30:337–61. Donaldson, Mike, Raymond Hibbins, Richard Howson, and Bob Pease, eds. 2009. Migrant Men: Critical Studies of Masculinities and the Migration Experience. New York: Routledge. Edley, Nigel. 2006. ‘‘Never the Twain Shall Meet: A Critical Appraisal of the Combination of Discourse and Psychoanalytic Theory in Studies of Men and Masculinity.’’ Sex Roles 55: 601–8. Edley, Nigel, and Margaret Wetherell. 1995. Men in Perspective: Practice, Power and Iden- tity. London, UK: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. 250 Men and Masculinities 17(3) Fisher, Linda. 2000. ‘‘Phenomenology and Feminism: Perspectives on Their Relation.’’ In Feminist Phenomenology, edited by Linda Fisher and Lester E. Embree. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Fisher, Linda, and Lester E. Embree, eds. 2000. Feminist Phenomenology. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Flood, Michael, Judith Kegan Gardiner, Bob Pease, and Keith Pringle, eds. 2007. Interna- tional Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. London, UK: Routledge. Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1, The Will to Knowledge. Harmonds- worth, UK: Penguin. Foucault, Michel. 2002. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London, UK: Routledge. Frosh, Stephen, Ann Phoenix, and Rob Pattman. 2002. Young Masculinities: Understanding Boys in Contemporary Society. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Gottzén, Lucas, and Rickard Jonsson. 2012. Andra Män: Maskulinitet, Normskapande Och Jämställdhet. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indi- ana University Press. Hearn, Jeff. 1987. The Gender of Oppression: Men, Masculinity, and the Critique of Marxism. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Hearn, Jeff. 1992. Men in the Public Eye: The Construction and Deconstruction of Public Men and Public Patriarchies. London, UK: Routledge. Hearn, Jeff. 1998. ‘‘Theorizing Men and Men’s Theorizing: Varieties in Discursive Practices in Men’s Theorizing of Men.’’ Theory and Society 27:781–816. Hearn, Jeff. 2004. ‘‘From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men.’’ Feminist The- ory 5:49–72. Hearn, Jeff, Marina Blagojevic, and Katherine Harrison. 2013. Rethinking Transnational Men. London, UK: Routledge. Hearn, Jeff, Marie Nordberg, Kjerstin Andersson, Dag Balkmar, Lucas Gottzén, Roger Klinth, Keith Pringle, and Linn Sandberg. 2012. ‘‘Hegemonic Masculinity and Beyond: 40 Years of Research in Sweden.’’ Men and Masculinities 15:31–55. Hearn, Jeff, and Keith Pringle. 2006. European Perspectives on Men and Masculinities: National and Transnational Approaches. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Heinämaa, Sara. 2003. Toward a Phenomenology of Sexual Difference: Husserl, Merleau- Ponty, Beauvoir. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Hill Collins, Patricia. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Pol- itics of Empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. hooks, Bell. 2005. The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. New York: Washington Square Press. Howson, Richard. 2006. Challenging Hegemonic Masculinity. London, UK: Routledge. Jackson, David. 1990. Unmasking Masculinity: A Critical Autobiography. London, UK: Unwin Hyman. Johansson, Thomas. 2006. ‘‘Book Review: Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities.’’ Acta Sociologica 49:351–52. Berggren 251 Kimmel, Michael S., Jeff Hearn, and Raewyn Connell. 2005. Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Koivunen, Anu. 2010. ‘‘An Affective Turn? Reimagining the Subject of Feminist Theory.’’ In Working with Affect in Feminist Readings: Disturbing Differences, edited by Marianne Liljeström and Susanna Paasonen, 8–27. London, UK: Routledge. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London, UK: Verso. Lloyd, Genevieve. 1993. The Man of Reason: ‘‘Male’’ and ‘‘Female’’ in Western Philosophy. London, UK: Routledge. Messner, Michael A. 1997. Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Messner, Michael A., and Donald F. Sabo. 1994. Sex, Violence and Power in Sports: Rethink- ing Masculinity. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press. Moi, Toril. 1999. ‘‘What Is a Woman?’’ In What Is a Woman and Other Essays. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Oksala, Johanna. 2005. Foucault on Freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pascoe, C. J. 2007. Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pease, Bob. 2000. Recreating Men: Postmodern Masculinity Politics. London, UK: Sage. Pease, Bob, and Keith Pringle. 2001. A Man’s World? Changing Men’s Practices in a Glo- balized World. Global Masculinities. London, UK: Zed. Petersen, Alan R. 1998. Unmasking the Masculine: ‘‘Men’’ and ‘‘Identity’’ in a Sceptical Age. London, UK: Sage. Ruspini, Elisabetta, Jeff Hearn, Bob Pease, and Keith Pringle, eds. 2011. Men and Masculi- nities around the World: Transforming Men’s Practices. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Salisbury, Jonathan, and David Jackson. 1996. Challenging Macho Values: Practical Ways of Working with Adolescent Boys. London, UK: The Falmer Press. Sandberg, Linn. 2011. Getting Intimate: A Feminist Analysis of Old Age, Masculinity and Sexuality. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Gender Studies. Seidler, Victor J. 1989. Rediscovering Masculinity: Reason, Language and Sexuality. London, UK: Routledge. Seidler, Victor J. 1991a. ‘‘Men and feminism.’’ In The Achilles Heel Reader: Men, Sexual Politics and Socialism, edited by Victor J. Seidler, 63–76. London, UK: Routledge. Seidler, Victor J. 1991b. Recreating Sexual Politics: Men, Feminism and Politics. London, UK: Routledge. Seidler, Victor J. 1994. Unreasonable Men: Masculinity and Social Theory. London, UK: Routledge. Seidler, Victor J. 2006a. Transforming Masculinities: Men, Cultures, Bodies, Power, Sex and Love. London, UK: Routledge. 252 Men and Masculinities 17(3) Seidler, Victor J. 2006b. Young Men and Masculinities: Global Cultures and Intimate Lives. London, UK: Zed Books. Stoltenberg, John. 1998. ‘‘Healing from Manhood.’’ In Feminism and Men: Reconstructing Gender Relations, edited by Steven P. Schacht and Doris W. Ewing, 90. New York: New York University Press. Stoltenberg, John. 2000. The End of Manhood: Parables on Sex and Selfhood. London, UK: UCL Press. Wetherell, Margaret, and Nigel Edley. 1999. ‘‘Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imagin- ary Positions and Psycho-discursive Practices.’’ Feminism and Psychology 9:335–56. Whitehead, Stephen. 2002. Men and Masculinities: Key Themes and New Directions. Malden, MA: Polity. Young, Iris Marion. 2005. On Female Body Experience: ‘‘Throwing Like a Girl’’ and Other Essays. New York: Oxford University Press. Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2011. The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Author Biography Kalle Berggren is a PhD candidate in sociology at Uppsala University. His research inter- ests revolve around intersectional inequalities in theory and practice. His current research explores the interface between contemporary feminist theory and the sociology of masculi- nity, through the case of hip-hop in Sweden. Recent publications include ‘‘‘No Homo’. Straight Inoculations and the Queering of Masculinity in Swedish Hip Hop,’’ Norma—Nor- dic Journal for Masculinity Studies 2012, 7(1); and ‘‘Degrees of Intersectionality: Male Rap Artists in Sweden Negotiating Class, Race and Gender,’’ Culture Unbound—Journal of Current Cultural Research 2013, 5.