Whiter Shades of Pale: Masculinities and A Theory of Whitenesses

1. Whiter Shades of Pale: Masculinities and A Theory of Whitenesses Cliff Leek and Michael Kimmel Stony Brook University Correspondence to: cliffleek@gmail.com

2. The Question • What can the trajectory of critical studies of men and masculinities and critical studies of whiteness tell us about the future of the fields?

3. Similarities • History • Politics • Key Debates • Definitions • Bodies • Intersectionality

4. Definitions of Masculinity • Three competing notions of masculinity • Stereotype or norm • Has resulted in normative work • Discussions of what men actually are vs what they ought to be • Set of attributes • Has resulted in positivist work • Broad descriptive rather than analytical studies of men • Set of behaviors and/or practices • Has produced the broadest range of work and is most common Which behaviors and practices do we attribute to masculinity and which should be attributed to other factors?

5. Definitions of Whiteness • Two competing notions of whiteness • Whiteness as an experience • Specifically the experience of racial privilege • Whiteness as a set of practices • Often focuses on strategies to preserve privilege Which behaviors and practices do we attribute to whiteness and which should be attributed to other factors?

6. Bodies in Men’s Studies • What is the role of physical bodies in relationship to the practices and behaviors we are interested in? • Can people who do not have physically male bodies perform masculine behavior? • Female Masculinity, by Judith Halberstam (1998), changes the debate. • If we cannot rely upon bodies, how do we identify the practices that are to be analyzed as masculine?

7. Bodies in Whiteness Studies • What is the role of physical bodies in relationship to the practices and behaviors we are interested in? • Can people who do not have white skin perform white behavior? • Historical flexibility regarding the boundaries of whiteness (Hale 2010; Ignatiev 1995; Roediger 1999; Tehranian 2008) • Qualitative research in which whiteness is ascribed to folks of color (Ramos-Zayas 2001; Twine 1996; Warren and Twine 1997) • If we cannot rely upon bodies, how do we identify the practices that are to be analyzed as white?

8. Intersectionality in men’s studies • In the beginning studies of men and masculinity were ethnocentric and heteronormative (Brod 1987). • The rise multicultural feminism pushed men’s studies toward a notion of “masculinities.” • Four forms of masculinity • Hegemonic • Subordinated (positions beneath hegemonic) • Complicit (do not support or challenge the hegemonic) • Marginalized (denied authority/legitimacy by the hegemonic) Multiple masculinities both across and within individuals (Spector-Morsel 2006)

9. Intersectionality in Whiteness Studies • Growing concern about the lack of intersectionality • Hartigan argues that a weak point of theorizations of whiteness is their “rendering of white people as a homogenous cultural identity or order” (1997) • Need to answer “how the same white skin that has facilitated the integration, assimilation, and enrichment of some does not guarantee that others might not also experience deprivation…” (Rasmussen 2001) • Need to challenge the “tendency in much of the critical whiteness literature to overlook the differences and social divisions that exist within whiteness” (Pease 2004)

10. Intersectionality in Whiteness Studies - Continued For the most part whiteness studies still discusses whiteness as monolithic and heterogeneous. • Growing discussions of hegemonic whiteness • Do some white people/practices have power over others? • “a shifting configuration of practices and meanings that occupy the dominant position in a particular racial formation and that successfully manage to occupy the empty space of ‘normality’ in our culture” (Lewis 2004) No movement toward a notion of whitenesses.

11. A Theory of Whitenesses “Whiteness has multiple meanings and interpretations, which are further complicated with the inclusion of class, sexual orientation or other forms of identity.” (Hyde 1995) “Whiteness is not a monolithic formation – it is constantly made and remade through its participation in other unequal social relations.” (Shome 2003) “White racial identities cannot be distilled into static political formations that are distinct and separable; rather they share a common allegiance to dominant racial (and often racist) ideologies that transcend differing belief systems.” (Hughey 2010)

12. A Theory of Whitenesses - Continued • Hegemonic Whiteness • Subordinated Whiteness (poor whites) • Complicit Whiteness (“colorblind” whites) • Marginalized (not quite white)

13. Lingering Questions • How can we test this theory of whitenesses? • What are the implications of whitenesses? • What can men’s studies learn from whiteness studies?