Men don’t cry?
A discourse analysis perspective on masculinity
Author(s):


Caroline Ng Tseung, Faculty of Social Studies and Humanities
Kristel Bissessur, Student, Department of Social Studies
From a traditional trait framework, masculinity has been equated with success,
dominance, sturdiness and lack of emotions (Pollack, 1998) constituting the hegemonic
view. Empirically, it is then measured by deriving a total score from the four dimensions.
However, in their everyday life, young men may not embrace such stereotypical
masculine norms in the kind of straightforward manner they are asked about them.
Leading Wetherell (1996) to argue that it is more appropriate to talk of ‘masculinities’
that reflect the different ways of being a man. Discourse analysis (DA) provides an
appropriate lens through which to explore how men negotiate issues surrounding
manhood, power and their bodies. DA stems from the social constructionist approach
that holds the following assumptions: a critical stance towards taken for granted
knowledge, cultural and historical specificity, knowledge as sustained by social processes
and finally knowledge and social action as working together (Burr, 1995). As such this
approach relies on qualitative methods and looks at how language is used-function,
constructed-how we construct and warrant our knowledge of the social world and variedeach of us construct different versions of reality in other words anti-essentialism (Potter
& Wetherell, 1990). Using a discourse analysis framework allows the exploration of the
patterns of knowledge construction concerning masculinity thereby providing a more
textured but not necessarily contradicting, account to masculinity when compared with
the trait approach.
Mauritius provided an interesting context in which to explore masculinity because the
country is a crossroad of Eastern and Western traditions making Mauritian men familiar
to different discourses/positions on masculinity. Would they be more accepting of
difference or on the contrary be threatened by contrasting discourses and thereby firmer
on their own position? Four themes that are recurrent in the study of masculinity: what is
a man, man and power, man and emotional closeness and man and his body were
discussed. Twelve men working in traditionally male occupation, mixed occupation and
university students took part in the study. They were placed in three focus groups of four
participants in order to encourage discussion (Grogan & Richards, 2002). Each interview
lasted approximately one hour in the presence of a female moderator. Participants’ talk
were analysed by looking for patterns and functions of language used in their
construction of masculinity. Across the focus groups and work occupations, the
participants tended to hold a mostly traditional view of men, albeit showing ambivalence
in their positions especially with regards to aesthetics and emotions. For instance the
stretch of talk of participants suggested that biology is a key determinant in defining
masculinity, toned down later by viewing aggressivity as an option to masculinity similar
‘to a cosmic rim on a car’. The results were discussed in terms of the benefit of using a
discursive approach in order to capture the variegated ways of being a man.
*Correspondence concerning this poster should be addressed to Caroline Ng Tseung,
Psychology Unit, Department of Social Studies, Faculty of Social Studies and
Humanities, University of Mauritius, Réduit, Mauritius.[e-mail: c.ngsteung@uom.ac.mu]