This paper examines the sociological and criminological dimensions of masculinity, tracing the intellectual history from early philosophical conceptions of manliness through Freudian psychology, feminist theory, and contemporary criminology. Central to the discussion is James Messerschmidt's influential work in Masculinities and Crime (1993), which synthesized Connell's theory of hegemonic masculinity with West and Zimmerman's concept of "doing gender" to explain why men disproportionately commit crime. The paper also addresses gender gaps in offending, the extension of masculinity theory to female crime, and the limitations of existing research, calling for more inclusive empirical studies that incorporate both men and women.
The paper skillfully uses theoretical synthesis — combining Connell's structural approach with West and Zimmerman's interactional "doing gender" framework to build toward Messerschmidt's criminological theory. This layering of compatible theories, each addressing a different level of analysis (cultural, structural, interactional), is a hallmark of advanced sociological writing and shows how multiple frameworks can reinforce a single argument.
The paper opens with crime statistics to establish urgency, then moves backward historically to survey foundational theories of masculinity before progressing forward to contemporary criminological applications. It transitions from macro-level structural theory to micro-level behavioral analysis (doing gender), applies the framework to specific crime contexts, and closes with a critique and call for expanded research. This arc — from context to theory to application to critique — is a classic and effective structure for a social science literature review.
That the prisons in the United States are bursting at the seams comes as no surprise, considering that more violent crimes occur here than in any other industrialized country and incarceration has become the customary form of punishment for a wide range of offenses. In 2007, 75.8% of all persons arrested were male, 81.8% of persons arrested for violent crime were male, and 66.6% of persons arrested for property crime were male (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). This is nothing new, nor is it unusual for most countries around the world.
Perhaps this is why not many studies have been conducted on what makes men more crime-oriented. According to Hagedorn (1998), for whatever reason, within the realm of the social sciences, research has analyzed characteristics of women and how they relate to men rather than focusing on men themselves. Because men have long been more prone to committing crime, this characteristic has somehow been overlooked. Recently, academicians in the field of criminology, such as James Messerschmidt, have questioned the validity of stereotypes rooted in biology — where "women are good, men are bad, plain and simple. And it is this essential badness that leads to patriarchy and violence against women" (Messerschmidt, 1993, p. 43). Instead, it is relevant to also examine cultural factors, where males are socialized very early in their lives into what is culturally deemed masculine, with the understanding that if they do not conform to this norm, they will be ostracized.
Despite the dearth of studies on masculinity, the subject of what denotes "manliness" has long been addressed throughout human history. The Greeks had the term thumos, for example, which was used to explain the animal-like spirit in humans that makes them fight back when threatened. All human beings share this essence of thumos regardless of their background. However, those who are considered manly possess a great deal more of it — sometimes to an extreme degree, as noted: "It is the energy and initiative in their nature that may make them uncivilized. If you treat it properly it should make them brave, but if you overstrain it, it turns them tough and uncouth, as you would expect" (Plato's Republic, ln. 410).
The debate about Nietzsche's underlying beliefs regarding gender, and women in general, will most likely continue indefinitely. Was he truly a sexist and misogynist, a product of his German culture, or was he actually stating many of his anti-feminist comments tongue-in-cheek? Regardless of which of these is actually true, in Book Five of The Gay Science (2001, p. 227), Nietzsche writes about "our faith in the masculinities of Europe" and how the "classic age of war" made "man in Europe become the master over the businessman and the philistine — perhaps even over 'woman,' who has been spoiled by Christianity and the enthusiastic spirit of the eighteenth century, and even more by 'modern ideas.'"
The first true advancement toward a modern analysis of masculinity was seen in the works of Freudian psychoanalysis, which showed that adult character was not only biological and determined by the body, but also built through emotional relationships with others in a chaotic growth process. Later, anthropologists such as Malinowski and Mead stressed cultural distinctions and the importance of social norms (Connell, 1994). Similarly, from the viewpoint of role theory, Parsons (1968) called the sex roles of men "instrumental" and those of women "expressive." He also stated that young children learned and internalized these roles, which conveniently perpetuated the established division of labor and reinforced societal structure over time.
Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963) is often credited with initiating the women's movement that led not only to an emphasis on females' function in society, but also to subsequent "male studies." Yet, ten years before Friedan, Mira Komarovsky had already redefined Parsons' theory by stressing dysfunction, conflict, and change. She observed how the American woman's role changed radically after World War II. After supporting the war effort by working in factories at home and nursing on the battlefields of Europe, women were immediately ousted from these jobs and relegated back to the role of wife and mother, left to live in the suburbs and wonder "what is wrong with me that home and family are not enough?" (1953, p. 77). As a professor at Barnard College, Komarovsky urged all her female students to prepare for careers. She also supported universally available nursery schools so that women could re-enter the job market, and urged men to accept their fair share of domestic work — a goal she was still pushing for as late as 1985.
It has only been in the past several decades, and especially since the turn of the century, that a significant number of studies have been conducted on men and masculinity, with the social sciences producing the predominance of this research. It was in the 1970s that the topic of masculinity began to be studied seriously, emerging as part of the women's movement and its emphasis on breaking away from the confines of the patriarchal society that males had established to keep females in defined roles. With the development of the "Men's Movement," masculinity research began appearing in greater numbers. Tolson (The Limits of Masculinity, 1976) emphasized that masculinity was no more uni-dimensional than femininity, and that it existed for reasons beyond merely sustaining the patriarchal society. For the first time, it was proposed that masculinity should not be recognized as a basic essence but rather as a product of cultural and historical forces.
In the 1980s, Connell (1987) established the concept of hegemonic masculinity to explain the hierarchical relationship among several masculinities and the way some males make it appear normal and necessary that they dominate most women and other men. In the construct of gender relations, hegemonic masculinity concerns the actual system and structure in place that acts to reproduce masculine domination. Connell drew many of his insights from feminist researchers who examined how gender relationships mold social structures. He aimed to show not only how some men easily established their dominant positions, but also why other women and men allowed themselves to be oppressed by these individuals, and by what means hegemonic masculinity could be diminished to promote gender equality and improve societal circumstances.
Connell (1985) argued that there is no single overriding form of masculinity or femininity in Western industrialized countries, and that these change according to historical context. Masculinity, despite being a concept closely related to femininity, is wrongly established as its opposite. Connell identified four separate ways to view the concept of masculinity: 1) Essentialist, where one masculine characteristic is given more importance than others, but there is no consensus on which characteristic that is (for example, the notion that men are inherently aggressive); 2) Positivist, founded on what men do as men, but without consideration of how cultural context renders these behaviors different (for instance, male/female psychological testing); 3) Normative, or what men are told they should or should not do, which is built into symbolic representations of the ideal man (for example, male sports stars); and 4) Semiotic, or what masculinity includes that femininity does not: "The phallus is master-signifier and femininity is symbolically defined by lack" (Connell, 1985, p. 70).
According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), the concept of hegemonic masculinity was applied to research in the field of education to better understand behaviors such as resistance and bullying among boys in the classroom. The theory also helped illuminate problems with gender-neutral pedagogy (Martino, 1995) and teacher planning. It further helped theorize the relationship between masculinities and a variety of crimes (Messerschmidt, 1993), in addition to research on specific crimes committed by boys and men.
Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) also write of the influence that hegemonic masculinity theory has had on the study of media representations of men, such as the interconnection between sports and war imagery. As a result, media researchers began examining the relations among representations of different masculinities. "Commercial sports are a focus of media representations of masculinity, and the developing field of sports sociology also found significant use for the concept of hegemonic masculinity" (Messner, 1992). The hegemonic theory was therefore used to better understand the popularity of body-contact confrontational sports — such as football and hockey — that function as a continually renewed symbol of masculinity. It also helped explain the violence and homophobia frequently found in sporting environments. Violence has been an integral part of movies and television, and, most recently, electronic gaming.
Also in the 1980s and 1990s, social scientists began to extend the understanding of masculinity and femininity by examining the connection between gender and crime. Some of these ideas were rooted in Parsons (1968), who argued that masculinity was internalized during adolescence and encouraged boys to participate in more delinquent behavior than girls. Similarly, Cloward and Ohlin (1960) proposed the differential opportunity theory, which suggests that younger gang members acquire both lawful and unlawful conduct from older male role models — behaviors such as acting tough and demonstrating dominance. More recently, Miedzian (1991) studied peer pressure, the socialization process, and military influences that have resulted in violence becoming standard behavior in males, while Thompson (1991) demonstrated that violent acts are more often performed by males with stronger masculine gender orientations.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.