Hegemonic Masculinity vs. Pride Parades

With modern feminist discourses shifting away from the notion of “women’s studies” towards the idea of “gender studies,” there has been a great deal of interest in studying masculinity — or rather, in many theories, masculinities. For instance, one theoretical “model asserts that there are a variety of masculinities, which make sense only in hierarchical and contested relations with one another,” and “that men enact and embody different configurations of masculinity depending on their positions within a social hierarchy of power,” (C.J. Pascoe, pg 7).

There are a theoretically limitless number of different masculinities, but the one that comes up in theory most often, and the one which all others seem to construct themselves in relation to, is hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity, is defined as “the type of gender practice that, in a given space and time, supports gender inequality, is at the top of this hierarchy,” (C.J. Pascoe, pg 7).

It comes as no surprise, then, that in the land of “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,” where “contemporary meanings of heterosexuality also confer upon heterosexual individuals all sorts of citizenship rights, so that heterosexuality is not just a private matter but one that links a person to certain state benefits,” the dominant, hegemonic masculinity is one that assumes, even requires the embodiment of heterosexuality (C.J. Pascoe, pg 10).

There is no room in hegemonic masculinity for homosexuality — or is there? Current theory certainly suggests as much, going to far as to define an entire class of masculinity, namely “subordinated masculinity,” as a sort of masculinity which “describes men who are oppressed by definitions of hegemonic masculinity, primarily gay men,”(C.J. Pascoe, pg 7).

However, recent movements and ideas within the gay male community seem to be challenging this idea. Specifically, some more conservatively minded gay men have written critiques of the stereotypes and behavior associated with modern gay pride parades. Blogger J.J. McCullough laments that pride events have become a “most brazen display of freakshow non-conformity,” and romanticizes the past, when:

the marchers of those days, calmly holding hands with their same-sex partners in sensible polo shirts and penny loafers, were certainly subversive, but only to the extent they were seeking to remind a society in denial of the unavoidability of their existence, and the bland, non-threatening nature of it. Theirs was a call for inclusion in the most literal sense, the welcoming of homosexuals into society’s most central institutions: family, work, religion, politics, and the acceptance of their love as valid as any other sort.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with McCullough’s sentiment, his reasoning is rather interesting. I would posit that both the state of modern pride events, and McCullough’s ideas both serve as methods by which gay men attempt to embody and legitimize their own forms of masculinity, though they do so from completely different angles.

McCullough’s discourse is an attempt to make room for homosexuality within hegemonic masculinity. Despite claiming that past pride events were “subversive,” he emphasizes the ways in which gay men can be “non-threatening” to hegemonic ideals.

What of the “brazen display[s] of freakshow non-conformity,” that make up modern pride events, then? This is no less an attempt to embody and legitimize masculinity, and yet it is exactly the opposite of McCullough’s tactic. He speaks scornfully of “libertine attitudes towards sex, nudity, fetishism, and exhibitionism,” apparently believing that “that goal [of gay vilil rights] having now largely been achieved, […] the moderate LGBT middle class has drifted away from leadership of the tolerance movement, allowing the wild fringe to fill the void.”

I would suggest that the “wild fringe” is a political movement of its own, though. Rather than strive to blend in and become an invisible piece of hegemony, as McCullough seems to want, some gay people choose instead to challenge the social norms of that hegemonic masculinity, and of the “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,” as a whole.

Whether or not one agrees with this particular brand of activism, or shares McCullough’s more “prudish” preferences, it is foolishness to think that the exhibitionistic displays at pride events are just the uncontrolled “wild fringe” of the LGBT community. McCullough’s argument is simply using the logic of hegemonic masculinity, of the patriarchy — the same logic that was used for so long to oppress even “prudish” homosexuals such as himself — to denounce those in the LGBT community who refuse to conform to hegemonic ideology.