Embedded Files
appropriate bodily performances required for the successful acquisition of masculine status. There was a strong sense that many elements of this agreed-upon idealized masculinity had a distinct effect on how men think they would like to look. Shared aspects of idealized appearance were learned from men they met in person or encountered through mediated imagery. For example, Tom stated: “it’s hard to know what I look like, so I base my self-perception on other men’s appearances. I find myself Rosemary Ricciardelli and Philip White 959 drawn to men who have attributes that I wish I had. How could I look like Brad Pitt though?” All interviewees were aware of male celebrities, such as Brad Pitt or David Beckham, who they considered exemplars of both physical attractiveness and financial success. Citing exemplars was inevitably connected with an awareness of not having what it takes to approximate these ideals. Probyn (2000) identifies shame as an important factor in the construction of identity. She explains that shame itself can refigure the body and by doing so it’s conceptual possibilities and the associated self-identification. Failure to achieve a successful bodily display of masculinity provokes feelings of inadequacy or embarrassment, even the threat of ridicule (Probyn). Specifically, studies looking at men’s magazines and other media have found that male body portrayals insist that all men should be fit, muscular, lean and fashionable – which can be achieved by diet and self-control (Jackson, Stevenson, & Brooks, 2001; Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000). Thus, considering the common perception that body shape is something men can control, failure to meet ideals of masculinity can have an effect on other areas of men’s lives; particularly their self-identification. These types of comparisons harken back to Paechter’s (2006) argument that identity is experienced and constructed through interactions between the body and mind in the social world. Some men spoke of comparing themselves to other men at the gym, in bars, or while engaging in daily living. These comparisons could be in terms of body shape, clothing, or apparent toughness. As Mike explained, “say you’re walking down the street and you see another guy walking down the street. Like maybe girls don’t do this, I don’t know, but this is something that I do. I’m a guy. So I walk down the street and there is another guy there … so I have to evaluate myself, like do I feel I could take this guy if I needed to. I just evaluate other guys on the street like that.” Here we see another element of masculine physicality that is based on ranking others in terms of their potential for physical violence and physical domination. Although actual violence almost never occurs, this comparison is rooted in a dimension of hegemonic masculinity – dominance via physical domination (Connell, 2005). The valence of latent aggressive physicality presents masculinity juxtaposed in diametrical opposition to femininity and most subordinated masculinities. Scholars have long argued that aggression is central to the social performance of masculinity even if the potential is almost never actualized, save for sanctioned social spaces like combat and contact sports (Connell, 1993; Pronger, 2002; Wellard, 2006). During youth, sports are often central to establishing or reinforcing masculinity (Connell, 1993). Although confrontational masculinity was identified by Mike as an explanation for his self-evaluation vis-à-vis other men, bodily comparisons were common to all the men in the sense that their appearance affected how they related to each other. For example, Mark, a heterosexual athletic Christian male in his early twenties was concerned that he had gained weight in recent months due to overeating and stress, stated that “it’s like society has created an image in their minds about what they [people] want and what they [people] like. And what they want affects how they act.” Appearance was perceived to be critically important for how men feel about themselves, and how they relate to others. When befriending others there was a preference for attractive men. As Patrick explained, “when you see someone good looking you want to approach them a lot more, like you want to get to know them. It’s like this person looks cool and I want to get to know them. As opposed to someone who is ugly, like let’s face it, there are ugly 960 The Qualitative Report July 2011 people in the world.” In turn, they also felt they were more likely to be liked by attractive men if they, too, were attractive. Overall, physical appearance clearly helped to define men’s identities and their social interactions with other men. Although studies looking at the effect of physical appearance on likeability among men are scarce, the responses of the interviewees above are consistent with the effects of physical attractiveness on other life outcomes (Eagly et al., 1991; Jackson et al., 1995; Mulford et al., 1998). Eagly et al. in their meta-analytical review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype found that participants ascribed more favorable personality traits and more successful life outcomes to attractive rather than unattractive people. Moreover, they documented that attractive people had advantages in interpersonal interactions. Similarly, Jackson et al. (1995) found that people were more likely to associate and cooperate
Google Sites
Report abuse