"You Start It, We End It": An Exploration of Hegemonic Masculinity in a Philippine Public University

• In Event: "Mirror, Mirror on the Walls": Co-Interrogating Heteronormativity, Bodies, Masculinities, and Power in Multiple Educational Contexts

Abstract

Purpose
This paper explores how university cultures perpetuate and reproduce power relations and toxic masculinities. Specifically, I interrogate the formulation of masculinities, their effects on the gender regimes, and the gender order of Philippine society (Connell, 1987) through a case study in one Philippine public university.

Theoretical Framework
The complicated colonial history of the Philippines impacts notions of gender in the Islands. Initially, education became a tool by the colonizers (Spain from 1565 to 1898; Americans from 1898 to 1946) to serve colonial interests or the interests of the local elite. Current university gender cultures are created and maintained by the interplay of power relations between its administrators, staff, teachers, students, and outside pressures from funders, public officials, and greater society. Connell’s (1987) gender order helps conceptualize masculine ideologies within these institutions as part of a shared symbolic system (p 25). The gender order’s dimensions, specifically power, production/labour, cathexis/emotion, and symbolic dimensions (Connell, 1987, 2002; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005), frame the paper’s discussion of significant phenomena in Philippine universities. These contribute to understanding hegemonic masculinity in the Global South context.

Methodology
Using a feminist methodology, I conducted nine (9) semi-structured interviews with policy-makers, non-teaching staff, lecturers, and students.

Three themes emerge through this study:
(1) In-group and Out-group Culture;
(2) Ideologies of Family in the University Space;
(3) The Conception of Hegemony in a Post-colonial Society through a Colonial Institution such as the University.

Argument
The Filipino’s complex identity makes hegemonic masculinity context-specific, informed by local, regional, and global power structures. There is no monolithic and dominant masculinity in Philippine society. Instead, patriarchal family systems and strong community ties serve as a marker for identity that makes up for the lack of a unified masculine archetype in the archipelago (Angeles, 2001). The data shows the importance of understanding values reinforced by male-dominated groups that complement patriarchal family structures, which informs our rethinking of hegemonic masculinity. While the university reinforces this social pattern, it also offers ways to resist macho-patriarchal notions of dominance within the greater gender order of society.

Scholarly Significance
Knowledge from the global North showcases significant developments in the critical studies on men and masculinities. However, this may not capture the situation of those living in post-colonial societies, such as the Philippines. The identities present in theorizations of masculinity create binaries where all non-hegemonic masculinities exist as alternatives (Demetriou, 2001; Yea, 2015) but may not encapsulate the exploitation and inequality (Yea, 2015) men experience, nor the “imperialism, colonialism, nation-building and economic development programs” (Ford et al., 2012, p. 7) that influences how one defines hegemonic masculinity in the Global South context. Here, “the concept of hegemonic masculinity considers dominant, subordinate and marginalized masculinities at the structural level without taking into account men’s lived realities” (Ford et al., 2012, p. 7). Structure and agency play a role in the neo-colonial construction of masculinity (Tengan, 2002), while personal and societal values influence decisions on who is hegemonically masculine.

Author

• Ara Marie Leal Rodriguez, University of Auckland
  Presenting Author