Feminism & Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Speer, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Feminism & Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 1, 107-135 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0959353501011001006

Reconsidering the Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: Discursive Psychology, Conversation Analysis and Participants’ Orientations

Susan A. Speer

Brunel University, Susan.Speer{at}brunel.ac.uk

This article provides a critical review of Wetherell and Edley’s (1999) discursive reformulation of the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’. While I retain some familiar features from Wetherell and Edley’s approach, I develop a discursive perspective that is located more firmly in the technical, conversation analytic tradition - as outlined in the recent exchange between Schegloff (1997, 1998) and Wetherell (1998). In particular, I argue that previous research is based on the assumption that we need to venture further than the limits of the text to explain why participants say what they do, and go beyond participants’ orientations to be able to say anything politically effective. Using data from two semi- structured interviews with men in their early 20s, I explore how participants construct masculinity and situate themselves (and others) in relation to those constructions. This involves an analysis that is more attentive to participant orientations and gendered category membership than that used in the analysis of masculinity so far. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of this approach for feminist psychology.

Key Words: conversation analysis • discursive psychology • gender identity • hegemony • masculinity • participant orientations


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Health PsycholHome page
R. de Visser and J. A. Smith
Mister In-between: A Case Study of Masculine Identity and Health-related Behaviour.
J Health Psychol, September 1, 2006; 11(5): 685 - 695.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Feminism PsychologyHome page
J. SMITHSON
'Full-timer in a Part-time Job': Identity Negotiation in Organizational Talk
Feminism Psychology, August 1, 2005; 15(3): 275 - 293.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Sport and Social IssuesHome page
R. Pringle
Masculinities, Sport, and Power: A Critical Comparison of Gramscian and Foucauldian Inspired Theoretical Tools
Journal of Sport and Social Issues, August 1, 2005; 29(3): 256 - 278.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
SociologyHome page
S. A. Speer
The Interactional Organization of the Gender Attribution Process
Sociology, February 1, 2005; 39(1): 67 - 87.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Body SocietyHome page
S. A. SPEER
Sports Media and Gender Inequality
Body Society, March 1, 2001; 7(1): 109 - 114.
[PDF]


Home page
Feminism PsychologyHome page
M. Toerien and K. Durrheim
Power through Knowledge: Ignorance and the 'Real Man'
Feminism Psychology, February 1, 2001; 11(1): 35 - 54.
[Abstract] [PDF]