Exploring the Origins of Masculinity: Essentialism vs Social Constructionism

Masculinity

“Qualities or attributes regarded as characteristics of men.” (Oxford)

Essentialism

“Essentialists argue that the collections of attitudes, behaviors, and social conditions that we call masculinities are “hard-wired” into males through biology (see Thorhill & Palmer, 2000) and/or the heritability of human psyche (see Jung, 1959/1989; Bly, 1990). They view masculinity as static, transhistorical, cross-cultural, and cross-situational. From this perspective, gender change is either impossible, or it involves the use of powerful force to constrain what is seen as “naturally” male. (Masculine Self pg. 19)

Social Constructionism “a constantly changing collection of meanings that we construct through our relationships with ourselves,

What we do know from each of these statements is that masculinity is a quality or a behavior, what is left up for discussion is if these qualities or behaviors are biologically driven or historically driven. In my opinion there is no right answer to this because it is a belief and we are all entitled to them, right or wrong. What we can do is educate ourselves on both sides of the matter and form our own opinion on the matter with our findings. Take for example essentialism, what does that mean in conjunction with masculinity? This is the way of looking at masculinity as something that is inborn within us, something that would be difficult to alter with just simple interactions. This is something that has been ingrained within this person biologically and is a part of the individual not necessarily by choice but by genetics or nature. Then you have the view of masculinity through the social constructionism, this view based on masculinity through social views and settings. The view that masculinity is something that is every changing throughout an individuals life and that each interaction, both with one’s self or those around them, helps shape this view of