‘Men and Masculinity Are Overlooked in Gender History’

Concerns for the inclusivity of men and masculinity in gender history were expressed early as 1975, with historian Natalie Zemon Davis asserting;

“It seems to me that we should be interested in the history of both women and men, that we should not be working only on the subjected sex any more than an historian of class can focus entirely on peasants.” Whilst a consensus exists in support of the notion that the disregard of studies into the fields of power in which women have operated historically is a product of intellectual fatigue which has put some narratives at risk of distortion, the extent to which gender history has overcorrected this error to the detriment of men’s history is disputable. Those of the belief that men and masculinity have been overlooked purport that the foundational work of gender history, predominantly centred around women, has been incorporated into traditional synthesis to the extent where most practitioners of multiple historical fields have integrated the experience of women into their work. By contrast, proponents of the inclusivity of gender history assert that, despite masculinity receiving little emphasis in previous gendered fields, this concept is at the core of the discipline and potentially summons more attention than femininity. This essay follows the latter line of argument, drawing on the context in which the discipline arose, its fundamental notions and alternative criticisms to reach the conclusion that gender history is highly encompassing of men and masculinity.

Through reviewing the historical significance of gender history, it becomes apparent that the neglect of men and masculinity would be counterintuitive to its purpose as, despite the discipline emerging in a movement designed to give precedence to women throughout history, it is the most gender encompassing of its counterparts, women’s history and feminist history. Likewise, by eradicating the blurred lines amongst these fields of study and enacting clear inter-disciplinary distinctions, the extent in which men and masculinity are encompassed within gender history is revealed as being considerable.

Upon its emergence in the era of second wave feminism, women’s history sought to rediscover women’s active roles in the past through rendering them actors in key institutions such as employment, sexuality, family life and unionism. In critically analysing primary sources which had previously been deemed insignificant as a result of their focus on women, historians, such as Sheila Rowbotham, challenged conventional perceptions of what was viewed as historically relevant and placed women within the framework of histories predominantly occupied by men, including industrialisation, electoral politics and warfare. Their aim was not to merely place women in the plot line of history but instead demand women were integrated into said plot line which, in turn, would have naturally meant men and masculinity would have been overlooked in the discipline that preceded gender history.

Likewise, feminist history, another term used interchangeably with gender history, also proved to be a separate entity as feminist historians questioned familiar chronologies by emphasising the role of family, emotions and relationships throughout history. Whilst the discipline proposed that power relationships between men and women were crucial to understanding social change and that investigating past conflicts could open new areas of enquiry, it is valid to argue concepts of masculinity received little emphasis within the field. This was also demonstrated by the belief that feminist historians identified as feminists and approached their discipline with socio-political motivations, seeking to project gender issues onto the past with the intention of portraying women as the subjects of a patriarchal system enforced by men who perceived themselves as the dominant sex.

As practitioners of these fields, informed by scholarship in anthropology and literary criticism, critically questioned their own methodologies and acknowledged their discipline’s tendencies to investigate women’s history in isolation from other developments, gender history emerged in the 1990s. This immediately suggests men are not overlooked in gender history as the discipline surfaced in response to previous criticisms of alternative fields being too exclusive, with historians, such as Jane Rendall, developing the subject as a gender encompassing outgrowth of women’s history. Furthermore, despite arguments suggesting the field emerged as a means to extend previous investigations into women’s history under the illusion of inclusivity, with the phrase ‘gender’ acting as merely a façade, the discipline displayed clear distinctions from its precursors as ideological systems and social constructions, not women, were placed at the foreground as a means of reflecting both genders. This shift was encompassed in the field’s first editorial, Gender and History, which sought to present male institutions alongside female institutions and to focus on concepts of gender construction through time and place. Likewise, advocacy for gender history was made apparent in the establishment of institutes for gender studies and gender history journals in the US and Britain. Proponents believed that a more comprehensive understanding of the past could be found through the application of gender as an analytical tool, with criticisms of women’s and feminist history rendering the field academically defective in their isolated approach to the past and in turn looking to gender history for a more definitive outlook.

In addition to criticisms of a women-orientated approach to interpreting the past, those who investigated women’s and feminist history also realised the need for a fully gendered perspective as a means of better explaining historical continuities and discontinuities. Such revelations came as a result of the highly descriptive nature of previous disciplines, with the expansion of case studies in women’s history calling for an advancement in theoretical formulations in an attempt to synthesise perspectives and account for enduring social imbalances between men and women. The deficiency of preceding field’s descriptive approaches was also reflected in the lesser status of their investigations which, despite being of high quality and possessing great explanatory power, was indicative of the limits of studies that failed to address traditional disciplines or dominant historical concepts. Further evidence of their perceived limited value is demonstrated in the fact that the word ‘women’ was substituted for ‘gender’ upon the development of gender studies in an attempt to depoliticise findings and assert scholarly legitimacy. It can thus be inferred that men and masculinity have been encompassed within gender history from the outset, as practitioners of women’s history and feminist history recognised merely proving women’s existence and contributions throughout history was inadequate in facilitating theoretical demands. Moreover, a shift to a more inclusive approach proved essential as proponents of previous discipline’s became aware that men and masculinity had to be integrated into studies if the field was to possess academic leverage. The success of this diversification was reflected in the fact that an increasing number of male historians partaking in gender history was recorded following its emergence, including David Fitzpatrick, Richard Evans and Brian Harrison.

Though counterarguments assert gender history is inherently concerned with documenting female agency and the accomplishments of women in the past, the field’s core assumptions suggest otherwise as the omission of biological determinism, emphasis on intra-gender relationships and shift from previous problematic, male-dominated historiographies force its studies to account for men and masculinity. When reviewing men’s place in gender history, it is evident that through the categorisation of women as a sociocultural group, essentially as a sex, men are correspondingly made visible as sexual beings as this area of exploration links the history of both categories. Likewise, the introduction of gender, a social construct intrinsically linked to both men and women, signifies the discipline’s awareness of concepts of masculinity as gender history comprehends more than humans as merely sexes but instead as subjects of deeply rooted societal structures and systemic inequalities. Through studying gender, the ways in which cultures assign social meanings to various biological characteristics of both men and women is revealed as the relational aspects of normative definitions of masculinity and femininity denote that if gender prescriptions have framed the experience of women historically, men’s experiences can be similarly interpreted. Moreover, as most societies of the past have constructed concepts of masculinity and femininity as binary opposites, it is vital these notions are investigated adjacent to one another if the cultural ideals and practices shaping their development are to be understood. Gender historians employ this comparative approach through investigating the significance of sex and gender roles through place and time, taking into account sociocultural factors and structural implications in hypothesising over each gender’s experiences, both exclusive and shared.

Furthermore, the subject matter of gender history suggests the discipline is highly inclusive as without the juxtaposition of men and women’s experiences, histories external to the realms of politics, military and economics are incomprehensive and new enquiries of study remain closed off. According to social anthropologist, Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo, “women must be understood in terms of relationships with other women and with men, not of difference and apartness”, which alluded to previous fields negligence in not only failing to integrate women’s history into a general history, i.e. gender history, but also overlooking the value in studying relations between men and women. Consequently, whilst traditional histories have accounted for male relationships and interactions in the context of war, politics and economic settings and amongst friends and family, gender history exceeds these boundaries through studying relationships on an intra-gender basis. Moreover, examining relationships between men and women, as opposed to those amongst solely males which traditional histories have been guilty of, or solely females, which women’s and feminist history were liable, the connotations of gender and sexual symbols throughout time and place are better understood. An example of this can be taken from gender history’s explanations of both aggressive and defensive wars, wars of liberation and civil wars as the field hypothesises over themes of prostitution, systemic rape and the implementation of sexual violence as a weapon; all of which are indicative of the power struggles and inequalities amongst both sexes. As a result, information concerning male-specific issues relating to masculinity that exceed narratives of merely confrontation amongst groups of men is realised within the field, thus enriching gender neutral understandings of the dynamics of warfare.

In addition to gender history encompassing men as a means of investigating relationships amongst sexes historically, the field also does so as “the history of men as men becomes visible only when seen in relation to women’s history and women’s thought and hence in a perspective of gender history.” Arguments for this are derived from notions of human plurality, whereby the diversity of any given society and subsequently the existence of disparate lifestyles, interests and convictions is reflected in plurality of sexes, making it imperative traditions of male oriented academia are diluted through contributions of women if men’s full interpretations of events are to be realised. Gender history’s roots in women’s and feminist history allow the profession to do so, and is thus not neglectful of men and masculinity, as in its comparisons of male dominated historiographies that risk anachronism and misogynism to that of female contemporaries, notable differences in male thinking and interpretation are revealed. Furthermore, gender history develops studies of men’s thought as through comparatively examining men’s philosophical dispositions and understandings of gender, which have tendencies of being more proscriptive and normative than descriptive, assumptions of each other’s gender realities and norms are challenged. The field therefore embodies the work of both men and women as only in doing so can peculiarities and inconsistencies in the interpretations of historical events be understood and, in turn, the notions put forth by each gender affirmed.

Finally, the emergence of debates regarding the inclusivity of gender history indicate the discipline not only accounts for men and masculinity, but perhaps to the point where it is women and femininity that are overlooked. Such criticisms have been put forth predominantly by women’s and feminist historians, who assert that, in an attempt to integrate the histories of both men and women on an equal basis through a gendered approach, academics have again fell foul to underemphasising women-specific experiences. According to those in opposition to the comprehensive nature of the discipline, men and masculinity are overstressed in gender history, as the groundwork and studies of women necessary for both genders to receive equal recognition from historians is insufficient. Subsequently, women risk becoming familiarly “lost in history and to history”, as the conversion of women historians to gender historians can lead to the magnification of the male experience as they attempt to neutralise decades of women-specific studies. Furthermore, the fact gender history has been perceived as the compromise of women’s historians who seek to secure the same academic acclaim for their field as their traditional, male dominated counterparts proves further indicative of the potentially one sided nature of the discipline, as motivations to bring the field into the forefront of historical relevance may demand the disregard of women.

In terms of further responses to the discipline, whilst the development of men’s history could indicate gender history was ineffective in dealing with men and masculinity, the fact the approaches employed show overlap suggests gender history was inclusive in its investigation of unconventional avenues to the extent where its studies manifested in a new field of enquiry. This assumption is based on the confirmation in men’s studies of what women’s studies had already demonstrated; gender realities and norms are unique, subject to historical change and explanatory of societal ruptures, inconsistencies and conflict. Enquiries in gender history in to masculinity, not as merely a conveyor of power but also abstract emotions and male specific pressures, has prompted themes such as fatherhood to be studied in the proceeding field of men’s studies. Likewise, much of the subject matter of this discipline draws inspiration from gender history in its considerations of male participation in female experiences and work, as reflected in books such as Pregnant Fathers: How Fathers Enjoy and Share the Experiences of Pregnancy and Childbirth which emerged in the era of men’s history. The supposition can thus be made that gender history proves highly inclusive of men and masculinity as its studies into the role of men in traditionally neglected settings was poignant to the point of inspiring a men’s history which employed a similar approach to the past.

To conclude, whilst some academics maintain gender history served as a continuation of women’s and feminist history under a false pretence of encompassing men in an attempt to gain academic recognition, men and masculinity are too deeply rooted in its foundations for these concepts to be overlooked. Historically, its introduction served to rectify previous academic shortfalls of male exclusion with the knowledge an investigation into both genders was imperative in interpreting the past and gaining the field scholastic merit. The multifaceted nature of gender, with it giving rise to previously unexplored lines of interest, demanded emphasis on both men and women as historians drew on the development of social constructions of gender and behavioural norms to explain the social, cultural and political climates of the past. This level of inclusivity was employed to the extent where criticism emerged claiming it was women and femininity that were overlooked in gender history which, despite not being of consensus, is further indicative of the field’s impetus to ensure men were given the same attention women had previously been granted in women’s and feminist history. It is thus valid to propose men and masculinity are deeply entwined in gender history, perhaps more so than their female counterparts, and that arguments alluding to their neglect are grounded in inter-disciplinary confusion, an unawareness of all that gender embraces and the notion that men are only relevant when studied in the traditionally masculine concepts of war, politics and economics.