When it came to the 2008 Presidential election in the United States, the whole world was watching. It was an election buoyed by the promise of radical change, not least because such promises came from a black man and a white woman competing in a historic bid for the Democratic candidacy. Presidential election campaigns in the United States are typically ritualised performances of masculinity wherein candidates demonstrate gender ideals perceived as requisite for the office of US President (Fahey 2007: 135). Indeed, the US Presidency is highly gendered, intimately connected to conceptions of American manhood and bound up in a logic of masculinist protection (Young 20034). ‘First and foremost’ writes Suzanne Daughton, ‘the President is the national patriarch: the paradigmatic American man’ (1994:114). The gendered nature of the Presidency stems from its relationships to institutions which have historically privileged masculinity through the exclusion of women such as politics, the military and athletics (Parry-Giles & Parry-Giles 1996:343). However, the masculinisation of the Presidency must also be understood as a discursive construct; that is, a complex intersection of political rhetoric and media narratives (Anderson 2002:107). As such, an analysis of media coverage of the 2008 election should reveal something of the discursive construction of contemporary American masculinities.
R.W. Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is a useful framework through which media coverage of the 2008 election can be analysed. This paper will examine the concept of hegemonic masculinity before assessing its usefulness in analysing media representations of the Presidential hopefuls. Hillary Clinton will be discussed in terms of her representation as the ‘tough guy in the race’, which, I will argue, implicitly discredits femininity as a locus of power. Media insistence on the emphasised femininity of the potential first lady will also be addressed with particular emphasis on how the media reflect a tension between tradition and modernity in expectations of the first lady. Analysing media representations of Obama’s more ‘feminine’ style, it will be argued that feminised qualities of compassion, willingness to collaborate and inclusiveness have been co-opted into what I will argue is a new incarnation of hegemonic masculinity in the United States (Messner 2007).
R.W. Connell first advanced the concept of hegemonic masculinity in a 1979 paper entitled ‘Men’s Bodies’, however the concept was further developed throughout the 1980s and reformulated as recently as 2005 in an article co-authored with James Messerschmidt. Central to Connell’s formulation of hegemonic masculinity is her insistence that we speak of ‘masculinities’ rather than masculinity, as within a given society ‘there will be different ways of enacting manhood, different ways of learning to be a man, different conceptions of the self and different ways of using a male body’ (2000:10). For Connell, relationships between different masculinities are highly structured, some being dominant while others are subordinated and marginalised (2000:10). The hegemonic form of masculinity is the most revered or desired in a given culture, the culturally idealised form of masculine character (Cheng 1999:295). Significantly, the concept does not denote a type of masculinity, but a ‘configuration of gender practice’ in which the hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to femininities and subordinated masculinities (Connell 1995). The privileging of an idealised form of masculinity serves to maintain hierarchies of power, specifically, the subordination of women and marginalisation of non-hegemonic masculinities (Fahey 2007:134). The hegemonic masculinity ‘need not be the most common form, let alone the most comfortable’ (2000:11). Indeed, Connell suggests that many men live in a state of tension with the hegemonic form of masculinity in their culture (2000:11). For Connell and Messerschmidt, ‘gender relations are always arenas of tension. A given pattern of hegemonic masculinity is hegemonic to the extent that it provides a solution to these tensions, tending to stabilise patriarchal power or reconstitute it in new conditions’ (2005:853). Hegemonic masculinities come into existence in specific historical circumstances, therefore it is conceivable that older forms of masculinity might be displaced by new ones (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005: 832).
While Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity has found wide use within critical studies of masculinity, it has been criticised for its ambiguity. Margaret Wetherell and Nigel Edley claim that Connell has ‘left aside the question of how the forms he identifies actually prescribe or regulate men’s lives’ (1999:336-337). Hearn similarly suggests that the concept fails to elucidate the complex interplay between hegemonic, subordinated, complicit and marginalised forms of masculinity (2004:57). Demetrakis Demetriou has advanced a similar criticism, arguing that there is a blurring of what he calls external hegemony, which refers to the institutionalsation of men’s dominance over women, and internal hegemony, which refers to the marginalisation of particular masculinities (2001). For Demetriou, Connell’s formulation of internal hegemony is problematic in that it suggests non-hegemonic masculinities live in tension with but never penetrate or impact the hegemonic masculinity, effectively creating a binary of hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities (2001:347-349). This binary, Demetriou argues, fails to recognise that hegemonic masculinities incorporate diverse elements from subordinate masculinities deemed useful in the maintenance of patriarchy (2001:349). Demetriou theorises a process of hybridisation, arguing that the hegemonic masculinities’ ‘constant appropriation of diverse elements from various masculinities makes it capable of reconfiguring itself and adapting to the specificities of new historical conjunctures’ (2001:348). Demetriou’s formulation of hegemonic masculinity as a hybrid bloc that continually reconfigures itself will inform the following analysis of media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election as it goes some way to addressing the concerns advanced by Wetherell, Edley and Hearn.
Connell and Messerschmidt make the important point that the maintenance of a given pattern of hegemony ‘requires the policing of men as well as the exclusion or discrediting of women’ (2005:544). Media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election was consistent with such a process, particularly when it came to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s attempts to secure the Democratic nomination. Clinton has always been a controversial figure in American politics, derided for ‘transgressing the norms of First Lady comportment’ by pursuing her own career and largely suspected of pulling the strings during her husband’s time in office (Ducat 2004:134). According to Stephen Ducat, ‘nearly all the rhetorical assaults against Ms. Clinton directly or indirectly concerned her failure to be a properly subordinate female’ (2004:138). Indeed, in August 1992 The American Spectator published an article criticising her ‘consuming ambition, inflexibility of purpose, domination of a pliable husband, lack of tender human feelings and contempt for traditional female roles’. (Wattenberg 1992:26). Ironically, these are all qualities lauded in male Presidential candidates but were considered so insidious for a First Lady that in the 1996 election Bob Dole actually campaigned on the fact that, unlike Clinton, his wife would ‘not be in charge of anything’ (Ducat 2004: 135). While the emphasised femininity of the First Lady will be addressed elsewhere, of significance here is the media’s sudden legitimisation of Clinton’s ‘toughness’ once she emerged as a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
In contrast to representations of Clinton as the President’s ‘connivingly careerist wife’ (Kimmel 2006:196), during the Democratic primaries she was lauded as the ‘tough guy in the race… running her campaign with all the muscular vision and authority of the macho candidates of yesteryear’ (Scherer 2007). In The New York Times, Maureen Dowd suggested that Clinton and her husband were ‘double-teaming’ Obama – a sexual connotation not lost on readers who are accustomed to images of Clinton with a penis such as the infamous Spy magazine cover (Dowd 2007). Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker similarly suggested that Clinton’s performance in the Democratic primaries was ‘unflinching and steely’, arguing that she ‘exudes pure brawn’ (2008). Online publication The Salon seemingly offered an explanation, quoting Professor Georgia Duesrt-Lahiti who said, ‘The first woman has to out-masculine the man…just think about Ronald Reagan when he would tear up. Could a woman ever tear up? No. But a man can tear up’ (Scherer 2007). The article goes on to say that Clinton ‘must be careful to avoid gender traps, like the question famously put to vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro in 1984: ‘Are you strong enough to push the button?’ (Scherer 2007). In the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette Ellen Goodman similarly praised Clinton’s ‘aggressive’ campaign, observing that female candidates ‘have to prove and prove again their toughness’ (2008). Hegemonic masculinity is a useful frame of reference here as implicit in positive media representations of Clinton’s ‘toughness’ is a discrediting of her femininity. Indeed, as indicated in the above examples, Clinton’s femininity was seen as a liability when it came to proving her credibility as a Presidential candidate. The feminisation of the Presidency was seemingly so abhorrent that Clinton was legitimised in media representations only in terms of her ‘masculine’ qualities. Media representations of Clinton which discredit her femininity serve to maintain hierarchies of power by constructing discourses which support existing configurations of external hegemony (Demetriou: 2001).
Karlyn Kohrs Campbell has described the American Presidency as a two-person career in which an appropriately feminine first lady is needed to complement her commander-in-chief husband and serve as a testament to his masculinity (1996:188). In many ways, Campbell is describing a kind of gender performance that accommodates hegemonic masculinity, described by Connell in his 1987 work Gender and Power as emphasised femininity. Emphasised femininity supports internal hegemony by accommodating the interests and desires of those performing hegemonic masculinity and by preventing other femininities from gaining cultural articulation (Cheng 1999:3). The masculinity of the American President has historically been defined in contradistinction to the femininity of the first lady. Described by Germaine Greer as ‘the archetypal lipstick-skirt-high-heels beside the archetypal suit’, the first lady has historically had almost no political agency and many would happily keep it that way (1995:20). For Ducat, ‘American male political culture has always had a First Lady problem. The vexing question has usually been: how can a woman who is sharing the life of the most powerful man in the nation be kept from sharing any of that power?’ (2004:133). Gary Wills has shown that this is usually achieved by giving first ladies ‘pet projects’ such as encouraging volunteerism which are guaranteed to ‘threaten no vested interest, generate little debate and most importantly, confer no meaningful decision making power on the First Lady’ (1992:6). However, the political disenfranchisement of the first lady has been increasingly challenged by new configurations of women’s identity.
Interestingly, media representations of potential first ladies Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain reveal a unique tension between a desire to uphold a tradition of emphasised femininity and a desire to move on from the politically disenfranchised first lady of yesteryear. Commentators have criticised Cindy McCain for being ‘cartoonishly feminine’ with Ann Friedman of American Prospect declaring that it is ‘no longer in vogue for the First Lady to be only First Decorator’ (2007). However, Friedman’s suggestion that the First Lady must ‘have a cause’ is ultimately a backhanded compliment, as she suggests that the cause must be ‘a gentle one such as literacy or heart disease, with no political agenda’ (2007). Although she is clearly suggesting that Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain announce what ‘gentle’ cause they would take on in order to promote themselves as ‘the most suitable, most feminine first lady’, Friedman criticises the Republican Party for ‘acting like it’s 1950 and failing to acknowledge that modern marriage is a partnership’. Several commentators have suggested that Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain represent a tension between tradition and modernity with McCain the ‘unfailingly feminine image of conservative womanhood’ and Obama, the Chicago lawyer seen as something of a political loose cannon (Weber 2008; Shelton 2008; Puente 2008). Columnist Connie Schultz captured this tension best, suggesting that ‘Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are two sides of the same coin; heads, she’s a prop; tails, she’s a problem’ (2008). Michelle Obama was of course the problem, but even articles praising her ability to ‘hold her own’ on the campaign trail insisted on her emphasised femininity (Healy 2008). Writing in The New York Times, Patricia Healy praised Obama’s ability to hold rallies of up to 11 000 people in key swing states, but quickly reminded readers that, as first lady , this Princeton and Harvard educated lawyer would ‘focus on her family and then on the issues facing women’ (2008). Healy doesn’t elaborate on exactly what issues these would be, but noted that Michelle Obama ‘will not have a major policy role and does not plan to have an office in the West Wing’, essentially confirming that as first lady Obama will sit somewhere between Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton. Media representations still seem to advocate a certain compliance to patriarchy on the part of the first lady, however it is clear that emphasised femininity is no longer the only femininity gaining cultural articulation. The concept of emphasised femininity articulated in Connell’s formulation of hegemonic masculinity is useful in mapping this tension between tradition and modernity, a tension which can also be seen in representations of Barack Obama.
Media representations of Barack Obama during his 2008 election campaign are unique in that they show an unprecedented tolerance towards ‘femininity’ in a male Presidential candidate. Before elaborating on this further, it is necessary to situate the concept of hegemonic masculinity within discourses surrounding Presidential elections. Stephen Ducat and Michael Kimmel have both shown that since at least 1840, the assertion of a candidates’ masculinity has been central to American electioneering (Ducat: 2004; Kimmel: 2006). The strength and conviction of leaders has typically been measured by the kind of masculinity they perform, with military service, athleticism and their ‘strong hand, firm resolve and virile restraint’ in the political realm constructing a discourse of masculinist protection (Kimmel 2006:247; Young 2003). ‘In this political environment’ writes Cornelia Fahey, ‘to suggest that a male candidate is feminine is to hurl an insult’ (2007:135). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is useful here as discourses of Presidential masculinity are clearly a mechanism for the policing of men and discrediting of women. However, more interesting is the fact that femininity has been used positively to describe Obama, suggesting that the hegemonic masculinity underpinning discourses of Presidential masculinity is undergoing change.
Throughout the Democratic primaries in which Obama and Clinton competed for the nomination, Obama was described as ‘the female candidate’ (Scherer 2007). In contrast to Hillary Clinton who suggested that she wouldn’t hesitate to invade Iran, Obama advocated diplomacy with Middle Eastern leaders, leading some to suggest that Clinton is the man and Obama is the woman. Scherer’s article ‘Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus’, for example, suggests that Clinton is ‘the male candidate – tough, in your face, know-it-all, while Obama is warm, self-deprecating and tender’ (2007). Scherer also notes Obama’s propensity to play feminist folk songs at his rallies and suggests that ‘he does not appear to worry much about posing with guns’ (2007). In what is perhaps a reflection of the American public’s war fatigue, Obama’s calls for diplomacy with Middle Eastern leaders were not derided as wimpish but seen in terms of his ‘reputation for being good at seeing other people’s points of view’ (Killian 2007).Ellen Goodman similarly describes Obama as the candidate ‘who believes we can talk to anyone, even our enemies’, concluding that he has ‘finely honed a language usually associated with women’s voices’ (2008). While John McCain made sure not to repeat Bill Clinton’s mistake of describing his marriage as an egalitarian relationship, Obama was frequently quoted describing his wife as ‘smarter, better looking and meaner than he is’ and saying that if he ever ran against her for public office she would beat him without much difficulty (Ducat 2004: 19; Healy 2008). In the media, Obama’s relationship with his wife has been romanticised, bestowing a kind of legitimacy on their clearly egalitarian relationship (Healy 2008; Weber 2008).While it must be acknowledged that several commentators questioned his masculinity and headlines such as ‘Where’s his right hook?’ (Dowd 2007) and ‘Obama’s tough talk falls short’ (Killian 2007) abounded, Scherer, Goodman and Healy were full of praise for Obama’s traditionally ‘feminine’ qualities.
Indeed, Obama’s decision to forego typical displays of hypermasculinity was seen as endearing. The Pittsburgh-Post Gazette for example noted that Obama declined an offer to throw a football for the photographers during a photo opportunity at the University of Texas, ‘noting he’d probably be pretty bad at it’ (Carpenter 2008). The article goes on to quote a student of the University who suggested that it was ‘cool’ that Obama was not trying to project a masculine image (Carpenter 2008). The significance of the public’s acceptance of feminised qualities when performed by a man was not lost on some:
The transformative, inspirational and collaborative ‘female’ style has become more attractive, especially to a younger generation. And – here’s the rub – especially when it is modeled by a man. University of Wisconsin political scientist Kathleen Dolan sees Mr. Obama as ‘the embodiment of the gentle, collaborative style without threatening his masculine side’… ‘Both men and women are much more likely to accept a collaborative style of leadership from men than from women. From women it seems too soft’ she adds ruefully… So has the women’s movement made life easier, for another man? (Goodman 2008).
Goodman’s analysis here is interesting in that is shows a distinct awareness for the process of hybridisation theorised by Demetriou. Significantly, while media representations of Obama legitimised particular ‘feminine’ qualities, positive representations of Obama’s egalitarian relationship with his wife or his ‘feminine’ style of communication and approach to foreign policy does not necessarily advance the women’s movement. Indeed, Shawn and Trevor Parry-Giles have argued that a ‘feminine’ political style can be used to promote hegemonic masculinity in that it can be co-opted into the dominant form of masculinity (1996:337-353). This is evident in the fact that media representations of Obama’s ‘feminine’ qualities were not so much seen in terms of a loss of masculinity, but as a manifestation of a new and sensitive form of masculinity. For Messner, ‘hardness and violence plus compassion and care is a potent equation for hegemonic masculinity in public symbology today’ (2007:467). ‘Toughness, decisiveness and hardness are still central to hegemonic masculinity’ he argues, ‘but it is now linked with situationally appropriate moments of compassion’ (Messner 2007: 466). This is consistent with Demetriou’s theorisation in that the hegemonic masculinity is appropriating qualities from subordinated subject positions in order to maintain hegemony.
Hegemonic masculinity is a useful framework through which media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election can be analysed. American mass media have been shown to be complicit in the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity through the discrediting of femininity in female Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. While the media have reflected a tension between tradition and modernity in representations of potential first ladies Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain, such representations have maintained current configurations of gender practice. Positive media representations of Barack Obama’s ‘feminine’ qualities have been understood in terms of the process of hybridisation theorised by Demetriou. Designed to preserve internal and external hegemony, the media’s legitimisation of femininity when performed by a man does not signal an advancement of the women’s movement but a reconstitution of power in new conditions. Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is useful in that it reveals a degree of tension in the discursive construction of contemporary masculinities, while elucidating the mechanisms which serve to maintain the current configuration of gender practice.
References
Anderson, K.V. (2002) ‘From Spouses to Candidates: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Dole and the Gendered Office of U.S. President’, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Vol.5, No.1, pp.105-132.
Campbell, K.K (1996), ‘The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-person Career’ in M.J. Medhurst (ed.) Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, Texas, A&M University press, pp. 179-195.
Carpenter, M. (2008), ‘Obama’s Latest Persona: the King of Cool’, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 29 February, p.1.
Cheng, Cliff (1999) ‘Marginalized Masculinities and Hegemonic Masculinity: An Introduction’, Journal of Men’s Studies, Vol. 7, No.3, pp.295-315.
Connell, R.W. (1987) Gender and Power, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Connell, R.W. (1995) Masculinities, Cambridge, UK Polity Press.
Connell, R.W. (2000) The Men and the Boys, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Connell, R.W. and J.W. Messerschmidt (2005) ‘Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept’, Gender & Society, Vol 19, No. 6, pp.829-859.
Cooper, F.R. (2009) ‘Our First Unisex President?: Black Masculinity and Obama’s Feminine Side’, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Suffolk University Law School, http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1321479. (Accessed 1 June 2009)
Daughton, S. (1994) ‘Women’s Issues, Women’s Place: Gender-related problems in Presidential Campaigns’, Communication Quarterly. Vol. 42, pp.106-119.
Demetriou, D. (2001) ‘Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique’, Theory and Society, Vol 30, No.3, pp.337-361.
Dowd, M. (2007) ‘Where’s His Right Hook?’, The New York Times 3 May, p.15.
Ducat, S. (2004) The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity, Boston, Beacon University Press.
Fahey, A.C. (2007) ‘French and Feminine: Hegemonic Masculinity and the Emasculation of John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Race’, Critical Studies in Media and Communication, Vol. 24, No, 2, pp.132-150.
Friedman, A. (2007) ‘First Ladies in Two Modes’, American Prospect 1 October, p.53.
Goodman, E. (2008) ‘Trading Places: Obama is winning as the woman’, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 22 February, p.7.
Greer, G. (1995) ‘Abolish Her: The Feminist Case Against First Ladies’, New Republic, June 26.
Healy, P. (2008) ‘Michelle Obama on the trail: in her own fashion’, International Herald Tribune 29 October 2008, p.1.
Hearn, J. (2004) ‘From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men’, Feminist Theory, Vol.5, No.1, pp.49-72.
Killian, L. (2007) ‘Obama’s tough talk falls short’, Politico 2 August, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5222.html (Accessed 1 June 2009)
Kimmel, M.S (2006) Manhood in America: A Cultural History, New York, Oxford University Press.
Messner, M.A (2007) ‘The Masculinity of the Governator: Muscle and Compassion in American Politics’, Gender & Society, Vol.21, No.4, pp.461-480.
Parker, K. (2008), ‘The Democrats Hug It Out’, The Washington Post 17 May, p.17.
Parry-Giles, S.J and T. Parry-Giles (1996) ‘Gendered Politics and Presidential Image Construction: A Reassessment of the ‘Feminine Style’, Communication Monographs, Vol. 63, pp. 337-353.
Puente, M. (2008) ‘What’s a first lady to do?’, USA Today Otober 1, p.3.
Scherer, M. (2007) ‘Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus’, The Salon July 12.
Shelton, S.K (2008) ‘The President’s Wife’, New Haven Register 27 October, p.13.
Wattenberg, D. (1992) ‘Lady Macbeth of Little Rock’, The American Spectator August, pp.25-32.
Weber, C. (2008) ‘Judging a candidate by his wife’s fashion’, Financial Times 1 November, p.8.
Wetherel, M. and N. Edley (1999) ‘Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices, Feminism and Psychology, Vol.9, No.3, pp.335-356.
Wills, G. (1992) ‘A Doll’s House?’, The New York Review of Books September 22, pp. 6-10.
Young, I.M. (2003) ‘The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol.29, No.1, pp. 1-25.
R.W. Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is a useful framework through which media coverage of the 2008 election can be analysed. This paper will examine the concept of hegemonic masculinity before assessing its usefulness in analysing media representations of the Presidential hopefuls. Hillary Clinton will be discussed in terms of her representation as the ‘tough guy in the race’, which, I will argue, implicitly discredits femininity as a locus of power. Media insistence on the emphasised femininity of the potential first lady will also be addressed with particular emphasis on how the media reflect a tension between tradition and modernity in expectations of the first lady. Analysing media representations of Obama’s more ‘feminine’ style, it will be argued that feminised qualities of compassion, willingness to collaborate and inclusiveness have been co-opted into what I will argue is a new incarnation of hegemonic masculinity in the United States (Messner 2007).
R.W. Connell first advanced the concept of hegemonic masculinity in a 1979 paper entitled ‘Men’s Bodies’, however the concept was further developed throughout the 1980s and reformulated as recently as 2005 in an article co-authored with James Messerschmidt. Central to Connell’s formulation of hegemonic masculinity is her insistence that we speak of ‘masculinities’ rather than masculinity, as within a given society ‘there will be different ways of enacting manhood, different ways of learning to be a man, different conceptions of the self and different ways of using a male body’ (2000:10). For Connell, relationships between different masculinities are highly structured, some being dominant while others are subordinated and marginalised (2000:10). The hegemonic form of masculinity is the most revered or desired in a given culture, the culturally idealised form of masculine character (Cheng 1999:295). Significantly, the concept does not denote a type of masculinity, but a ‘configuration of gender practice’ in which the hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to femininities and subordinated masculinities (Connell 1995). The privileging of an idealised form of masculinity serves to maintain hierarchies of power, specifically, the subordination of women and marginalisation of non-hegemonic masculinities (Fahey 2007:134). The hegemonic masculinity ‘need not be the most common form, let alone the most comfortable’ (2000:11). Indeed, Connell suggests that many men live in a state of tension with the hegemonic form of masculinity in their culture (2000:11). For Connell and Messerschmidt, ‘gender relations are always arenas of tension. A given pattern of hegemonic masculinity is hegemonic to the extent that it provides a solution to these tensions, tending to stabilise patriarchal power or reconstitute it in new conditions’ (2005:853). Hegemonic masculinities come into existence in specific historical circumstances, therefore it is conceivable that older forms of masculinity might be displaced by new ones (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005: 832).
While Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity has found wide use within critical studies of masculinity, it has been criticised for its ambiguity. Margaret Wetherell and Nigel Edley claim that Connell has ‘left aside the question of how the forms he identifies actually prescribe or regulate men’s lives’ (1999:336-337). Hearn similarly suggests that the concept fails to elucidate the complex interplay between hegemonic, subordinated, complicit and marginalised forms of masculinity (2004:57). Demetrakis Demetriou has advanced a similar criticism, arguing that there is a blurring of what he calls external hegemony, which refers to the institutionalsation of men’s dominance over women, and internal hegemony, which refers to the marginalisation of particular masculinities (2001). For Demetriou, Connell’s formulation of internal hegemony is problematic in that it suggests non-hegemonic masculinities live in tension with but never penetrate or impact the hegemonic masculinity, effectively creating a binary of hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities (2001:347-349). This binary, Demetriou argues, fails to recognise that hegemonic masculinities incorporate diverse elements from subordinate masculinities deemed useful in the maintenance of patriarchy (2001:349). Demetriou theorises a process of hybridisation, arguing that the hegemonic masculinities’ ‘constant appropriation of diverse elements from various masculinities makes it capable of reconfiguring itself and adapting to the specificities of new historical conjunctures’ (2001:348). Demetriou’s formulation of hegemonic masculinity as a hybrid bloc that continually reconfigures itself will inform the following analysis of media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election as it goes some way to addressing the concerns advanced by Wetherell, Edley and Hearn.
Connell and Messerschmidt make the important point that the maintenance of a given pattern of hegemony ‘requires the policing of men as well as the exclusion or discrediting of women’ (2005:544). Media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election was consistent with such a process, particularly when it came to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s attempts to secure the Democratic nomination. Clinton has always been a controversial figure in American politics, derided for ‘transgressing the norms of First Lady comportment’ by pursuing her own career and largely suspected of pulling the strings during her husband’s time in office (Ducat 2004:134). According to Stephen Ducat, ‘nearly all the rhetorical assaults against Ms. Clinton directly or indirectly concerned her failure to be a properly subordinate female’ (2004:138). Indeed, in August 1992 The American Spectator published an article criticising her ‘consuming ambition, inflexibility of purpose, domination of a pliable husband, lack of tender human feelings and contempt for traditional female roles’. (Wattenberg 1992:26). Ironically, these are all qualities lauded in male Presidential candidates but were considered so insidious for a First Lady that in the 1996 election Bob Dole actually campaigned on the fact that, unlike Clinton, his wife would ‘not be in charge of anything’ (Ducat 2004: 135). While the emphasised femininity of the First Lady will be addressed elsewhere, of significance here is the media’s sudden legitimisation of Clinton’s ‘toughness’ once she emerged as a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
In contrast to representations of Clinton as the President’s ‘connivingly careerist wife’ (Kimmel 2006:196), during the Democratic primaries she was lauded as the ‘tough guy in the race… running her campaign with all the muscular vision and authority of the macho candidates of yesteryear’ (Scherer 2007). In The New York Times, Maureen Dowd suggested that Clinton and her husband were ‘double-teaming’ Obama – a sexual connotation not lost on readers who are accustomed to images of Clinton with a penis such as the infamous Spy magazine cover (Dowd 2007). Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker similarly suggested that Clinton’s performance in the Democratic primaries was ‘unflinching and steely’, arguing that she ‘exudes pure brawn’ (2008). Online publication The Salon seemingly offered an explanation, quoting Professor Georgia Duesrt-Lahiti who said, ‘The first woman has to out-masculine the man…just think about Ronald Reagan when he would tear up. Could a woman ever tear up? No. But a man can tear up’ (Scherer 2007). The article goes on to say that Clinton ‘must be careful to avoid gender traps, like the question famously put to vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro in 1984: ‘Are you strong enough to push the button?’ (Scherer 2007). In the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette Ellen Goodman similarly praised Clinton’s ‘aggressive’ campaign, observing that female candidates ‘have to prove and prove again their toughness’ (2008). Hegemonic masculinity is a useful frame of reference here as implicit in positive media representations of Clinton’s ‘toughness’ is a discrediting of her femininity. Indeed, as indicated in the above examples, Clinton’s femininity was seen as a liability when it came to proving her credibility as a Presidential candidate. The feminisation of the Presidency was seemingly so abhorrent that Clinton was legitimised in media representations only in terms of her ‘masculine’ qualities. Media representations of Clinton which discredit her femininity serve to maintain hierarchies of power by constructing discourses which support existing configurations of external hegemony (Demetriou: 2001).
Karlyn Kohrs Campbell has described the American Presidency as a two-person career in which an appropriately feminine first lady is needed to complement her commander-in-chief husband and serve as a testament to his masculinity (1996:188). In many ways, Campbell is describing a kind of gender performance that accommodates hegemonic masculinity, described by Connell in his 1987 work Gender and Power as emphasised femininity. Emphasised femininity supports internal hegemony by accommodating the interests and desires of those performing hegemonic masculinity and by preventing other femininities from gaining cultural articulation (Cheng 1999:3). The masculinity of the American President has historically been defined in contradistinction to the femininity of the first lady. Described by Germaine Greer as ‘the archetypal lipstick-skirt-high-heels beside the archetypal suit’, the first lady has historically had almost no political agency and many would happily keep it that way (1995:20). For Ducat, ‘American male political culture has always had a First Lady problem. The vexing question has usually been: how can a woman who is sharing the life of the most powerful man in the nation be kept from sharing any of that power?’ (2004:133). Gary Wills has shown that this is usually achieved by giving first ladies ‘pet projects’ such as encouraging volunteerism which are guaranteed to ‘threaten no vested interest, generate little debate and most importantly, confer no meaningful decision making power on the First Lady’ (1992:6). However, the political disenfranchisement of the first lady has been increasingly challenged by new configurations of women’s identity.
Interestingly, media representations of potential first ladies Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain reveal a unique tension between a desire to uphold a tradition of emphasised femininity and a desire to move on from the politically disenfranchised first lady of yesteryear. Commentators have criticised Cindy McCain for being ‘cartoonishly feminine’ with Ann Friedman of American Prospect declaring that it is ‘no longer in vogue for the First Lady to be only First Decorator’ (2007). However, Friedman’s suggestion that the First Lady must ‘have a cause’ is ultimately a backhanded compliment, as she suggests that the cause must be ‘a gentle one such as literacy or heart disease, with no political agenda’ (2007). Although she is clearly suggesting that Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain announce what ‘gentle’ cause they would take on in order to promote themselves as ‘the most suitable, most feminine first lady’, Friedman criticises the Republican Party for ‘acting like it’s 1950 and failing to acknowledge that modern marriage is a partnership’. Several commentators have suggested that Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain represent a tension between tradition and modernity with McCain the ‘unfailingly feminine image of conservative womanhood’ and Obama, the Chicago lawyer seen as something of a political loose cannon (Weber 2008; Shelton 2008; Puente 2008). Columnist Connie Schultz captured this tension best, suggesting that ‘Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are two sides of the same coin; heads, she’s a prop; tails, she’s a problem’ (2008). Michelle Obama was of course the problem, but even articles praising her ability to ‘hold her own’ on the campaign trail insisted on her emphasised femininity (Healy 2008). Writing in The New York Times, Patricia Healy praised Obama’s ability to hold rallies of up to 11 000 people in key swing states, but quickly reminded readers that, as first lady , this Princeton and Harvard educated lawyer would ‘focus on her family and then on the issues facing women’ (2008). Healy doesn’t elaborate on exactly what issues these would be, but noted that Michelle Obama ‘will not have a major policy role and does not plan to have an office in the West Wing’, essentially confirming that as first lady Obama will sit somewhere between Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton. Media representations still seem to advocate a certain compliance to patriarchy on the part of the first lady, however it is clear that emphasised femininity is no longer the only femininity gaining cultural articulation. The concept of emphasised femininity articulated in Connell’s formulation of hegemonic masculinity is useful in mapping this tension between tradition and modernity, a tension which can also be seen in representations of Barack Obama.
Media representations of Barack Obama during his 2008 election campaign are unique in that they show an unprecedented tolerance towards ‘femininity’ in a male Presidential candidate. Before elaborating on this further, it is necessary to situate the concept of hegemonic masculinity within discourses surrounding Presidential elections. Stephen Ducat and Michael Kimmel have both shown that since at least 1840, the assertion of a candidates’ masculinity has been central to American electioneering (Ducat: 2004; Kimmel: 2006). The strength and conviction of leaders has typically been measured by the kind of masculinity they perform, with military service, athleticism and their ‘strong hand, firm resolve and virile restraint’ in the political realm constructing a discourse of masculinist protection (Kimmel 2006:247; Young 2003). ‘In this political environment’ writes Cornelia Fahey, ‘to suggest that a male candidate is feminine is to hurl an insult’ (2007:135). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is useful here as discourses of Presidential masculinity are clearly a mechanism for the policing of men and discrediting of women. However, more interesting is the fact that femininity has been used positively to describe Obama, suggesting that the hegemonic masculinity underpinning discourses of Presidential masculinity is undergoing change.
Throughout the Democratic primaries in which Obama and Clinton competed for the nomination, Obama was described as ‘the female candidate’ (Scherer 2007). In contrast to Hillary Clinton who suggested that she wouldn’t hesitate to invade Iran, Obama advocated diplomacy with Middle Eastern leaders, leading some to suggest that Clinton is the man and Obama is the woman. Scherer’s article ‘Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus’, for example, suggests that Clinton is ‘the male candidate – tough, in your face, know-it-all, while Obama is warm, self-deprecating and tender’ (2007). Scherer also notes Obama’s propensity to play feminist folk songs at his rallies and suggests that ‘he does not appear to worry much about posing with guns’ (2007). In what is perhaps a reflection of the American public’s war fatigue, Obama’s calls for diplomacy with Middle Eastern leaders were not derided as wimpish but seen in terms of his ‘reputation for being good at seeing other people’s points of view’ (Killian 2007).Ellen Goodman similarly describes Obama as the candidate ‘who believes we can talk to anyone, even our enemies’, concluding that he has ‘finely honed a language usually associated with women’s voices’ (2008). While John McCain made sure not to repeat Bill Clinton’s mistake of describing his marriage as an egalitarian relationship, Obama was frequently quoted describing his wife as ‘smarter, better looking and meaner than he is’ and saying that if he ever ran against her for public office she would beat him without much difficulty (Ducat 2004: 19; Healy 2008). In the media, Obama’s relationship with his wife has been romanticised, bestowing a kind of legitimacy on their clearly egalitarian relationship (Healy 2008; Weber 2008).While it must be acknowledged that several commentators questioned his masculinity and headlines such as ‘Where’s his right hook?’ (Dowd 2007) and ‘Obama’s tough talk falls short’ (Killian 2007) abounded, Scherer, Goodman and Healy were full of praise for Obama’s traditionally ‘feminine’ qualities.
Indeed, Obama’s decision to forego typical displays of hypermasculinity was seen as endearing. The Pittsburgh-Post Gazette for example noted that Obama declined an offer to throw a football for the photographers during a photo opportunity at the University of Texas, ‘noting he’d probably be pretty bad at it’ (Carpenter 2008). The article goes on to quote a student of the University who suggested that it was ‘cool’ that Obama was not trying to project a masculine image (Carpenter 2008). The significance of the public’s acceptance of feminised qualities when performed by a man was not lost on some:
The transformative, inspirational and collaborative ‘female’ style has become more attractive, especially to a younger generation. And – here’s the rub – especially when it is modeled by a man. University of Wisconsin political scientist Kathleen Dolan sees Mr. Obama as ‘the embodiment of the gentle, collaborative style without threatening his masculine side’… ‘Both men and women are much more likely to accept a collaborative style of leadership from men than from women. From women it seems too soft’ she adds ruefully… So has the women’s movement made life easier, for another man? (Goodman 2008).
Goodman’s analysis here is interesting in that is shows a distinct awareness for the process of hybridisation theorised by Demetriou. Significantly, while media representations of Obama legitimised particular ‘feminine’ qualities, positive representations of Obama’s egalitarian relationship with his wife or his ‘feminine’ style of communication and approach to foreign policy does not necessarily advance the women’s movement. Indeed, Shawn and Trevor Parry-Giles have argued that a ‘feminine’ political style can be used to promote hegemonic masculinity in that it can be co-opted into the dominant form of masculinity (1996:337-353). This is evident in the fact that media representations of Obama’s ‘feminine’ qualities were not so much seen in terms of a loss of masculinity, but as a manifestation of a new and sensitive form of masculinity. For Messner, ‘hardness and violence plus compassion and care is a potent equation for hegemonic masculinity in public symbology today’ (2007:467). ‘Toughness, decisiveness and hardness are still central to hegemonic masculinity’ he argues, ‘but it is now linked with situationally appropriate moments of compassion’ (Messner 2007: 466). This is consistent with Demetriou’s theorisation in that the hegemonic masculinity is appropriating qualities from subordinated subject positions in order to maintain hegemony.
Hegemonic masculinity is a useful framework through which media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election can be analysed. American mass media have been shown to be complicit in the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity through the discrediting of femininity in female Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. While the media have reflected a tension between tradition and modernity in representations of potential first ladies Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain, such representations have maintained current configurations of gender practice. Positive media representations of Barack Obama’s ‘feminine’ qualities have been understood in terms of the process of hybridisation theorised by Demetriou. Designed to preserve internal and external hegemony, the media’s legitimisation of femininity when performed by a man does not signal an advancement of the women’s movement but a reconstitution of power in new conditions. Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is useful in that it reveals a degree of tension in the discursive construction of contemporary masculinities, while elucidating the mechanisms which serve to maintain the current configuration of gender practice.
References
Anderson, K.V. (2002) ‘From Spouses to Candidates: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Dole and the Gendered Office of U.S. President’, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Vol.5, No.1, pp.105-132.
Campbell, K.K (1996), ‘The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-person Career’ in M.J. Medhurst (ed.) Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, Texas, A&M University press, pp. 179-195.
Carpenter, M. (2008), ‘Obama’s Latest Persona: the King of Cool’, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 29 February, p.1.
Cheng, Cliff (1999) ‘Marginalized Masculinities and Hegemonic Masculinity: An Introduction’, Journal of Men’s Studies, Vol. 7, No.3, pp.295-315.
Connell, R.W. (1987) Gender and Power, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Connell, R.W. (1995) Masculinities, Cambridge, UK Polity Press.
Connell, R.W. (2000) The Men and the Boys, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Connell, R.W. and J.W. Messerschmidt (2005) ‘Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept’, Gender & Society, Vol 19, No. 6, pp.829-859.
Cooper, F.R. (2009) ‘Our First Unisex President?: Black Masculinity and Obama’s Feminine Side’, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Suffolk University Law School, http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1321479. (Accessed 1 June 2009)
Daughton, S. (1994) ‘Women’s Issues, Women’s Place: Gender-related problems in Presidential Campaigns’, Communication Quarterly. Vol. 42, pp.106-119.
Demetriou, D. (2001) ‘Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique’, Theory and Society, Vol 30, No.3, pp.337-361.
Dowd, M. (2007) ‘Where’s His Right Hook?’, The New York Times 3 May, p.15.
Ducat, S. (2004) The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity, Boston, Beacon University Press.
Fahey, A.C. (2007) ‘French and Feminine: Hegemonic Masculinity and the Emasculation of John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Race’, Critical Studies in Media and Communication, Vol. 24, No, 2, pp.132-150.
Friedman, A. (2007) ‘First Ladies in Two Modes’, American Prospect 1 October, p.53.
Goodman, E. (2008) ‘Trading Places: Obama is winning as the woman’, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 22 February, p.7.
Greer, G. (1995) ‘Abolish Her: The Feminist Case Against First Ladies’, New Republic, June 26.
Healy, P. (2008) ‘Michelle Obama on the trail: in her own fashion’, International Herald Tribune 29 October 2008, p.1.
Hearn, J. (2004) ‘From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men’, Feminist Theory, Vol.5, No.1, pp.49-72.
Killian, L. (2007) ‘Obama’s tough talk falls short’, Politico 2 August, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5222.html (Accessed 1 June 2009)
Kimmel, M.S (2006) Manhood in America: A Cultural History, New York, Oxford University Press.
Messner, M.A (2007) ‘The Masculinity of the Governator: Muscle and Compassion in American Politics’, Gender & Society, Vol.21, No.4, pp.461-480.
Parker, K. (2008), ‘The Democrats Hug It Out’, The Washington Post 17 May, p.17.
Parry-Giles, S.J and T. Parry-Giles (1996) ‘Gendered Politics and Presidential Image Construction: A Reassessment of the ‘Feminine Style’, Communication Monographs, Vol. 63, pp. 337-353.
Puente, M. (2008) ‘What’s a first lady to do?’, USA Today Otober 1, p.3.
Scherer, M. (2007) ‘Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus’, The Salon July 12.
Shelton, S.K (2008) ‘The President’s Wife’, New Haven Register 27 October, p.13.
Wattenberg, D. (1992) ‘Lady Macbeth of Little Rock’, The American Spectator August, pp.25-32.
Weber, C. (2008) ‘Judging a candidate by his wife’s fashion’, Financial Times 1 November, p.8.
Wetherel, M. and N. Edley (1999) ‘Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices, Feminism and Psychology, Vol.9, No.3, pp.335-356.
Wills, G. (1992) ‘A Doll’s House?’, The New York Review of Books September 22, pp. 6-10.
Young, I.M. (2003) ‘The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol.29, No.1, pp. 1-25.
No comments:
Post a Comment