Masculinities is the plural sociological concept used to emphasise that there are multiple culturally situated ways of constructing, experiencing and expressing masculine identities and practices. The term challenges the assumption that masculinity is a single uniform category shared identically by all men. Different masculinities can coexist within the same society and can differ according to class, ethnicity, sexuality, age, occupation, disability, nationality, religion, historical period and institutional setting.
The plural also draws attention to relationships among masculinities, including hierarchy, marginalisation, complicity and contestation. Raewyn Connell's work is particularly influential because it conceptualises masculinities as configurations of practice within a gender order rather than simply collections of personality traits. The concept therefore directs attention away from asking what men naturally are and towards examining how particular forms of masculine practice are produced, valued and regulated within social contexts.
Hegemonic masculinity is central to many discussions of Masculinities. It describes a culturally dominant configuration that legitimises a particular pattern of gender relations and establishes an influential standard of masculine respectability or authority. Other masculinities may be subordinate, marginalised or complicit in relation to this dominant arrangement. Subordinate masculinity can refer to forms associated with lower status within a gender hierarchy, including masculinities stigmatised because of sexuality or other characteristics.
Marginalisation concerns the interaction between gender and other social structures, meaning that a man may possess masculine characteristics while being disadvantaged within a particular racial or class order. Complicity describes situations in which men may not embody the dominant ideal but still benefit from the wider gender order. These categories are analytical relationships rather than fixed personality types, and their meaning changes across societies and historical circumstances.
Masculinities are produced through institutions as well as interpersonal relationships. Family structures can teach particular expectations about fatherhood, authority and provision. Schools can organise sports, academic achievement and peer relationships in ways that communicate different masculine expectations. Workplaces can reward particular forms of leadership, competitiveness or availability. Military organisations may emphasise discipline, physical endurance and collective loyalty, while caring occupations may provide institutional contexts in which cooperation and emotional communication are more strongly valued.
Religious and community organisations can also establish specific expectations. The institutional setting therefore influences which masculine practices are considered legitimate, prestigious or problematic. Men can move among these environments and adapt their practices accordingly, meaning that one individual may enact different forms of masculinity in different contexts without necessarily experiencing those forms as contradictory.
Class is an important dimension of Masculinities because economic position shapes work, resources, cultural expectations and opportunities for status. Professional environments may value controlled communication, credentials and managerial authority, while other settings may place greater emphasis on physical competence, practical skill or occupational solidarity. These patterns are not universal, and class itself intersects with ethnicity, geography and historical conditions. Masculinities can also be shaped by unemployment, economic insecurity and changing labour markets.
Where traditional expectations of male provision remain strong, economic insecurity can create tension between cultural ideals and available opportunities. Conversely, changing employment structures can facilitate forms of masculinity centred on caregiving, flexible work or shared domestic responsibility. Analysing Masculinities therefore requires attention to material conditions as well as cultural representation.
Sexuality is another important dimension of Masculinities. Heterosexual masculinity has historically occupied a privileged position in many societies, while gay and bisexual men have often faced expectations that their masculinity must be demonstrated or defended. Homophobia and stigma can function as mechanisms through which particular forms of masculinity are policed. At the same time, gay masculinities are internally diverse and cannot be reduced to opposition to heterosexual masculinity.
Sexuality can intersect with race, class and age to produce different experiences of social recognition and exclusion. Contemporary changes in legal rights, media representation and public attitudes have altered some conditions, but the distribution of status remains context dependent. The study of Masculinities therefore treats sexuality as a dimension of gender relations rather than as a separate subject with no connection to masculine identity.
Masculinities can also change across the life course. Expectations concerning boys, adolescents, young adults, fathers, older men and retired men can differ substantially. Youth cultures may place particular emphasis on peer approval, appearance, sport or sexual reputation, while fatherhood can introduce expectations concerning care, provision and responsibility. Older men may encounter changing expectations concerning work, health, dependency and authority. Life transitions can therefore involve renegotiation of masculine identity. A man may move from an occupationally centred identity towards one organised around caregiving after retirement or parenthood, for example. These changes do not necessarily mean abandoning masculinity. Instead, they demonstrate that masculine identities are responsive to social roles, relationships and institutional circumstances.
The concept of Masculinities has been used to analyse both privilege and disadvantage. Men can benefit from gendered systems while simultaneously experiencing pressures generated by masculine expectations. For example, norms encouraging economic provision can support status for men who achieve financial success while producing strain for those facing unemployment. Expectations of toughness can confer status in some contexts while discouraging help seeking in others. These outcomes demonstrate that privilege and constraint can coexist.
Intersectional analysis further shows that some men have greater access to institutional power than others. The plural concept is therefore valuable because it avoids portraying men either as a homogeneous privileged group or as a homogeneous disadvantaged group. It examines the specific relations through which different masculinities acquire status.
Masculinities should not be interpreted as a catalogue of fixed types of men. The term refers to socially produced configurations of practice and identity that can overlap within individuals and change across contexts. One person can participate in several masculine practices without fitting a single ideal type. The concept also does not imply that all masculine behaviour is harmful or that masculinity itself should be treated as a social problem.
Instead, it provides analytical tools for examining how gendered expectations operate, how particular practices become dominant, and how people reproduce or challenge them. Its principal value lies in making variation visible. By using Masculinities rather than assuming one universal Masculinity, researchers can examine hierarchy within groups of men, relationships among gendered identities, institutional differences and historical change with greater precision.
