Abstract
The article focuses on the masculinity-in-crisis phenomenon as examined in the author’s PhD study on the manifestations of Afrikaans masculinity in Afrikaans magazines read by men from 2005 to 2015. Magazines such as Huisgenoot, Landbouweekblad, Sarie, Kuier, Weg!, Plaastoe, and Intiem vir mans were studied for this purpose. It delves into how gender relations are influenced by political, social and economic changes, emphasising the idea that constructions of masculinity are continuously shaped and changed (Whitehead 2002:5; Alexander 2003:536). The term masculinity in crisis refers to men experiencing uncertainty or instability, often related to unattainable ideals set by society (Connell 2018; Viljoen 2008).
The aim of the research is to determine whether the construction of masculinity in the chosen magazines sheds light on the so-called South African masculinity in crisis. It employs a social constructivist approach, utilising ATLAS.ti software and a multimodal critical discourse analytical research method. Textual analysis methods allow for meaningful interpretations of discourse in a context. I adopt a multimodal critical discourse analytical approach, integrating insights from Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001), Bezemer (2012) and Jewitt (ed.) (2012). This approach examines how visual images and written text collaborate to convey messages, as seen in magazine articles. I analyse the data through multimodal critical discourse analysis – my synthesis of discourse analysis, multimodal discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis.
The theoretical framework of the article involves a multidisciplinary methodology, combining gender theory, various theories within masculinity studies, and grounded theory. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the construction of masculinity in Afrikaans magazines and its relation to the phenomenon of masculinity in crisis.
The article discusses changes in masculinity, the emergence of new masculinities, and the phenomenon of masculinity in crisis, attributed to events such as the rise of feminist movements, global shifts away from traditional male roles, and changes in consumerism. These changes are seen globally and exacerbated by events like the world recession of 2007. In South Africa these changes are intertwined with socio-economic reforms post-apartheid, leading to a unique manifestation of masculinity in crisis.
Studies on masculinity have traditionally been less prevalent than studies on femininity, but there has been increased research since the 1990s (Reid and Walker 2005:1). South African studies have examined various contexts, including the portrayal of Afrikaans men in magazines, violence in mining environments, and the role of crime, sexuality and power (Dunbar Moodie, Ndatshe and Sibuji 1988; Hood-Williams 2001; Niehaus 2002; Gear 2007). Researchers like Stella Viljoen (2003; 2008; 2011; 2012; 2014) have focused on masculinity in magazines like GQ, MaksiMan, Bl!nk and Scope, highlighting the significance of magazines in shaping notions of masculinity.
Drawing heavily on the works of Judith Butler and other scholars in the field, the theoretical framework explores gender research and hegemonic masculinity. Judith Butler’s (1990) definition of gender is foundational in gender research, viewing gender as performative rather than an inherent trait possessed by individuals. This perspective sees gender as enacted by individuals across various levels rather than as an intrinsic characteristic (Butler 1990:9,10,24).
Hegemonic masculinity, as traditionally conceived, revolves around the subjugation of women and the denigration of homosexual men. Scholars like Cleaver (2002:7), Visagie (2004:20) and Hearn (2005:57) define hegemonic masculinity as the dominant manifestation of gender practices that maintain a higher social position for certain groups of men, regardless of the gender with which the oppressed identify. It is characterised by the maintenance of dominant positions by men over marginalised groups, reflecting prevailing societal norms and values.
Connell (1995, 2005) describes hegemonic masculinity as both the dominant form of masculinity and the means by which men uphold their dominant position. It serves as the idealised image toward which a group of men aspires, representing the epitome of masculinity within a given society. However, hegemonic masculinity is not static; it evolves over time and varies across different social contexts.
In addition to hegemonic masculinity, Connell (2005:78–81) outlines three other approaches to masculinity within gender systems: subordination, complicity and marginalisation. These approaches shed light on the diverse ways in which masculinity is constructed and experienced within specific contexts and relationships, providing insights into the fluid and dynamic nature of masculinity.
The concept of masculinity in crisis refers to the anxieties and uncertainties experienced by men due to the undermining of traditional male gender roles. This phenomenon can manifest both externally, in perceived threats to men’s positions in families or communities, and internally, through emotions such as insecurity and powerlessness. Men experience this crisis across various domains, including work, education, violence, family, sexuality, health and representation (Edwards 2006:7–8, 8–16).
Scholars like Viljoen (2008) and Connell (2018) discuss the shifts and disruptions in masculinity, reflecting changes in societal norms and structures. They argue that while masculinity may not be in crisis per se, there are disruptions within the gender system that lead to uncertainty and instability for men, particularly as traditional roles evolve.
The theoretical frameworks of Wiegman (2002) and Anderson (2009) contribute to understanding masculinity by examining alternative constructions and inclusive approaches to masculinity. Wiegman’s (2002) first approach to masculinity rejects the normative association between gender and sex. This results in alternative or imagined masculinities (Wiegman 2002:50). By following this approach in analysis, alternative constructions of masculinity can be explored (Wiegman 2002:50–1). The second approach builds directly on Judith Butler’s (1990) performative understanding of gender and rejects the direct connection between gender and genetic sex (Wiegman 2002:51), emphasising the performative nature of gender as action. The last approach provides space for masculinity to shift from the realm of bodily actions to identity development, fostering new and alternative types of masculinity not tied to traditional patriarchal and normative views of men (Wiegman 2002:51).
Anderson’s Inclusive Masculinity Theory (IMT) examines evolving heterosexual masculinities, notably the acceptance of homosexual men in contexts like sports groups. It illuminates changing dynamics between men and their masculinities in social settings (Anderson and McCormack 2018:547). IMT assumes a decline in homophobia, leading to genuine shifts in masculine practices and fostering inclusive attitudes towards homosexual individuals (Anderson and McCormack 2018:549). This decrease in homohysteria has reduced cultural homophobia and prompted younger men to question homophobic norms. IMT’s relevance lies in its ability to prevent selective constructions of masculinity and accommodate social change, advocating for the combined use of theories to better understand gender constructions (Anderson 2009:32, 33). These frameworks allow for a more nuanced analysis of masculinity, considering social and contextual factors.
Overall, the theoretical framework provides a comprehensive overview, highlighting the multidimensional nature of masculinity and its construction within various social, cultural and historical contexts.
The article reveals five observations shedding light on Afrikaans masculinity in crisis: (1) alternative ways in which men cope with masculinity in crisis; (2) the absence of changing gender identities indicating potential shifts in the global gender landscape; (3) the heteronormative portrayal of relationships creating an ideal that some men find unattainable, leading to identity crises; (4) societal expectations for men to lead a generally healthy lifestyle causing pressure to conform; and (5) the media’s depiction of expanded gender roles, acting as a facilitator in readers’ processing of these roles.
In conclusion, the discourse surrounding Afrikaans masculinity in crisis has expanded, highlighting the media’s crucial role in introducing alternative gender roles. From 2005 to 2015, Afrikaans publications depict Afrikaans masculinity as embracing diverse roles and openly acknowledging failures. Despite a slow process, media portrayal of developing masculinities contributes to societal acceptance of new norms. Although Afrikaans media’s portrayal of sexualities is limited, “boer” (farmer) Damian’s inclusion in the reality TV show Boer soek ’n vrou (Farmer seeks a wife) signals progress. Coverage in magazines as well as on news platforms (Hough-Coetzee 2019; Lion-Cachet 2019; Van Zyl 2019; Du Toit 2020), highlights changing attitudes.
Keywords: Afrikaans media; critical discourse analysis; discourse analysis; masculinity; masculinity in crisis; multimodal critical discourse analysis
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans
Vyf waarnemings oor die Suid-Afrikaanse manlikheid-in-krisis-verskynsel