Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Raewyn Connell
To cite this article: Raewyn Connell (2014) Margin becoming centre: for a world-centred rethinking
of masculinities, NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9:4, 217-231, DOI:
10.1080/18902138.2014.934078
Introduction
Thirty years ago the US black feminist writer bell hooks published a notable book called
Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Hooks introduced her argument with memories
from her childhood in a poor black community in a Kentucky town. It was literally across
the railroad tracks from the richer white community, where many blacks worked as
maids, janitors or prostitutes but where they were not allowed to live. This situation,
hooks argued, gave the black people an understanding of the whole society, both margin
and centre, which was denied to the whites. ‘We looked both from the outside in and
from the inside out’ (hooks, 1984, ix). Feminist theory, she observed, had mainly been
constructed from a position of social privilege, and needed the perspective of the margin
to gain this larger view.
It is well recognized that this problem exists on a world scale (Bulbeck, 1998). On
this scale, the ‘margin’ on the other side of the tracks is not the minority, like the black or
Hispanic communities in the USA. It is where the large majority of the world’s people
live, where most of the world’s cultures have flourished, and where most economic
activity occurs. Yet the metropole – the ‘centre’ of the global economy – dominates the
international arena of knowledge and theory as it has for the past two centuries.
*Email: raewyn.connell@sydney.edu.au
© 2014 The Nordic Association for Research on Men and Masculinities
218 R. Connell
Language distinguishing global ‘North’ from global ‘South’ was popularized in the
1960s, as a counter to the Cold War division of East vs West, and is still valuable as a
counter to the homogenizing language of ‘globalization’ (Dados & Connell, 2012). It
names a structure of relations between the centre of economic power, military power and
cultural authority in Western Europe and North America, and the rest of the world – the
scene of imperial expansion over the last 500 years, resistance, and neo-colonial power
and influence. The global South is a scene of enormous diversity, including former
colonies of conquest (e.g. Mexico, India, Indonesia, Egypt), former settler colonies
(e.g. Australia), combinations of conquest and settlement (e.g. South Africa), and regions
not directly ruled but subject to military coercion and economic and cultural colonization
(e.g. Iran, China). The South includes dire poverty and considerable wealth, and it is
changing rapidly, even leading the North in social change (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2011).
What is common to these societies is the formative role of colonialism in their histories
and their contemporary position outside the global centre.
These features are, I will argue, of great importance for understanding masculinities.
Calls to rethink ideas about masculinity from post-colonial or global-South starting points
have been increasingly heard in recent scholarship (Jolly, 2008; Ratele, 2013a; Vieira de
Jesus, 2011). In this article I examine the global structuring of knowledge in this field, the
wealth of ideas about masculinities produced in the South, historical changes in relations
shaping masculinities, and a possible future for the field.
paradigm’ and emphasized power, multiplicity and hegemony. A useful marker is the
empirical work of two feminist researchers in Germany, Sigrid Metz-Göckel and Ursula
Müller, who published in Der Mann (1985) the first comprehensive quantitative survey of
gender relations with a focus on the situation of men.
Sociological, historical and psychological studies about patterns of masculinity built
up quickly, especially in the US but with active work also in Germany, Britain,
Scandinavia, and the rich settler-colonial countries Australia and New Zealand. In the
1990s the field began to acquire specialized journals (masculinities, 1993), took on ideas
from post-structuralism about the discursive construction of masculinities, and addressed
questions about masculinity’s place in modernity. At the same time the research findings
and concepts were reaching applied fields such as health, social work, education and anti-
violence programmes. (For a recent overview see Aboim, 2010.)
I have called this the ‘ethnographic moment’ in masculinity research. Classic
ethnography was one of the research methods, used in studies of masculinity in schools,
gyms, workplaces and residential communities. Other researchers used life-history
interviewing, large-scale surveys, archives of documents, and mass media content. They
shared a focus on documenting specific patterns of masculinity revealed at a particular time
and place.
The rich ethnographic documentation proved that there was not one universal
masculinity, but rather multiple masculinities. The research also showed that masculinities
change historically. This was important in contesting the essentialism of pop psychology,
and particularly important for applied work on boys’ education, men’s health, counselling
and violence prevention.
Within a very few years, studies of masculinity were transformed into a world-wide
field of knowledge with research from Brasil (Arilha, Unbehaum Ridenti, & Medrado,
1998) to the eastern Mediterranean (Ghoussoub & Sinclair-Webb, 2000). The most
sustained research and documentation programme on men and masculinities was
launched, not in the global metropole, but in Chile. This programme drew in researchers
from across Latin America, as well as making intensive studies of Chilean youth,
fatherhood, elite masculinities, and more (Olavarría, 2009; Valdés & Olavarría, 1998).
There are now collections of research and applied studies of masculinity for practically
every continent or culture-area. In the last decade this includes volumes on African
masculinities (Ouzgane & Morrell, 2005), changing masculinities in India (Chopra,
2007), South-east Asia (Ford & Lyons, 2012), and more.
Most of this research has the same methodological character as the ‘ethnographic
moment’ in masculinity studies in the metropole, as we see in such notable studies
as Taga Futoshi’s (Taga, Mitsumari, Masanori, & Yohei, 2011) life-history work on
changing ‘salaryman’ masculinities in Japan, Robert Morrell’s (2001) classic history of
colonial masculinity in Natal, or Sayed Md Saikh Imtiaz’s (2012) detailed and moving
ethnography of young men, sexuality and AIDS in Bangladesh.
To recognize the shared methodological norms of the ethnographic moment is,
however, to pose a problem about the knowledge system in which such studies have been
achieved. Intellectual workers in the periphery are pushed towards a stance that
Hountondji (1997) calls ‘extraversion’. To function successfully as a scientist in post-
colonial Africa, Hountondji points out, one must read the leading journals published in
the metropole, cite the metropole’s leading theorists, learn the research techniques taught
there, and gain recognition in the metropole. Desirable career paths include advanced
training in the metropole, attending conferences in the metropole, and for the more
220 R. Connell
successful, getting jobs in the metropole. The theoretical hegemony of the North is
simply the normal functioning of this economy of knowledge.1
Through these mechanisms, imported intellectual frameworks are routinely prioritized
in scholarship across the global South. This creates a discontinuity in intellectual culture
that, ultimately, replays the discontinuity of colonization itself. Powerful accounts of
masculinity are among the casualties, as will be seen shortly.
However there are studies that have looked to pre-colonial history for concepts useful in
understanding contemporary masculinities. The work of Kam Louie (2002) on Chinese
cultural frameworks for representing masculinity, highlighting the wen–wu (literary–
martial) polarity and its transformations, is the outstanding example. There are also studies
that have taken research on masculinities conducted by the familiar methods, but have
embedded it in a different conceptual framework. Morrell and Swart’s (2005) deployment
of the post-colonial critique of global inequalities is the outstanding example here.
In recent years the mainstream economy of knowledge has been increasingly contested
by scholars who pay attention, not just to cultural difference, but to world inequalities of
wealth and power, to the traumatic histories of colonialism and the neo-liberal globaliza-
tion, and to their consequences in the realm of knowledge. This contestation includes
research on southern theory (Connell, 2007; Rosa, 2014), alternative traditions in social
science (Alatas, 2006), post-colonial sociology (Reuter & Villa, 2010), indigenous
knowledge (Odora Hoppers, 2002), de-colonial thought (Quijano, 2000), and more.
Northern social science has generally assumed that modernity was autonomously
produced in Europe and North America. An increasingly influential counter-argument
holds that modernity was global, though unequal, from the start (Domingues, 2008).
Colonial conquest and imperial rule were its incubators. The concept of the ‘coloniality of
power’ developed by the Peruvian sociologist Aníbal Quijano (2000) emphasizes the
continuity of global hierarchy in the post-colonial world. As Marina Blagojevic (2009)
points out, this hierarchy applies also to semiperipheral regions like Eastern Europe, and
shapes the available ways for imagining and researching gender issues.
So, rather than speaking of the globalization of gender, it is more accurate to speak of
the coloniality of gender. This term has recently been introduced by the philosopher
María Lugones (2007) as an adaptation of Quijano’s idea. Lugones’ account is very
abstract, and seems to make an absolute opposition between the colonial and the
indigenous; she speaks of gender as ‘a colonial imposition’. This is too simplified; we
must also recognize the vigour of pre-colonial gender orders, the complex structure of
gender relations, and the turbulent history of colonial societies.
In colonization, native bodies were coerced to form plantation, pastoral and domestic
workforces; land was seized; new power structures were built around the colonial state.
These processes disrupted indigenous gender orders, often with great violence.
Nevertheless the creation of a colonial gender order was not the simple transplantation
of a European patriarchy. As Kopano Ratele (2013a) points out, social and cultural
traditions among the colonized, and their complex politics, have remained important for
the making of masculinities. As Ashis Nandy (1983) points out, colonial conquest
generates novel versions of masculinity both for the colonized and for the colonizer.
Robert Morrell’s (2001) history of British settler masculinity in colonial Natal traces the
institution-building, the harsh and insistent definitions of gender, and the continuing
violence against indigenous people, that was required. Mara Viveros (2007) notes the
way colonialism wove together gender relations and racial hierarchy with an intensity
absent from the global North.
NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies 221
Colonial and neo-colonial societies also generated their own reform movements.
Projects of modernization often included education and employment for women,
requiring troubled reconstructions of masculinity (Mernissi, 1975/1985). This is the
background to the field of ‘gender and development’ that has increasingly wrestled with
dilemmas about masculinity (Edström, Das, & Dolan, 2014).
To come to terms with these processes, a Northern-centred economy of knowledge is
not adequate. But what other resources are there? In fact, there are tremendous resources
that come from the intellectual production of the global South itself.
Creative literature
As in the North, some of the most striking analyses of masculinity in the colonial and
post-colonial world have come from novelists and playwrights. Imaginative work does
not directly report social experience. But it builds on social experience, it documents
cultural problems, and in some circumstances may be the most forceful way to present a
troubled reality. One thinks of the plays of Athol Fugard in apartheid-era South Africa.
In the dying days of Spanish imperialism, the colonial authorities in the Philippines
arranged the judicial murder of a young indigenous doctor, José Rizal, on charges of
treason. Rizal’s real crime was to have written two novels. The first and most famous,
Noli Me Tangere (1887/2006), was a melodramatic coming-of-age novel showing the
gradual disillusionment of a young middle-class man in the Philippines, who hopes to do
good in the world and uplift his society, but is frustrated by the power and corruption of
the colonial state and the equally colonial church.
Noli Me Tangere is a lively satirical picture of a decaying imperial elite. It is also a
picture of the struggle by the hero, Crisóstomo Ibarra, to construct a coherent and liveable
masculinity in the turmoil of colonial rule and attempts at change and resistance. In the
sequel, El Filibusterismo (1891/2011) (the title means ‘subversion’ or ‘piracy’), Rizal
shows the central character later in life, enmeshed in conspiracies and deception, himself
corrupted by wealth and the struggle for power. These novels sent shock waves through
Philippine colonial society, at least the literate part of it, and created a reputation for Rizal
as a dangerous radical. The authorities made a terrible mistake. The execution made Rizal
into a national hero and inspired a violent anti-colonial struggle.
More famous internationally is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. First published
in 1958 it is now regarded as a classic of post-colonial literature. The novel tells the story
of Okonkwo, a leading man in a Nigerian village who rises to wealth and prominence in
village society in the late nineteenth century. He performs to perfection all the
222 R. Connell
Psychosocial analysis
Genres fade into each other, and cultural critique often leads into psychological
speculation; but another quality is added by a professional knowledge of clinical
psychology. Frantz Fanon became world-famous for his final book, The Wretched of the
Earth (1961/1967), the most influential analysis ever written of colonialism and anti-
colonial struggle. Well before that came Black Skin, White Masks (1952/1967), based on
NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies 223
his experience as a young psychiatrist and war veteran. Its publication went almost
unnoticed at the time.
Black Skin, White Masks is a brilliant, bitter and troubling analysis of racism both in
metropolitan France and in the French colonial empire, especially Martinique. Fanon
analyses the psychodynamics both of white and black consciousness. Almost incidentally,
the book is also an analysis of white and black masculinities, and their relationship within
colonialism and racist culture. Women are present in the book, but only in terms of their
sexual relationships with black and white men, or as objects of sexual fantasy.
Fanon is clear that colonialism is a system of violence and economic exploitation. The
psychological consequences are not a matter of discourse but arise from material
relations. Within that structure, black masculinity is marked by divided emotions, and a
massive alienation from original experience. This alienation is produced as black men
struggle to find a place and recognition in a culture that defines them as biologically
inferior and makes them objects of anxiety or fear.
A generation later, the theme of transformation of masculinities was picked up by the
Indian psychologist Ashis Nandy in another remarkable book, The Intimate Enemy: Loss
and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism (1983). Like Fanon he tried to combine cultural
and psychological analysis, within a realistic view of imperialism.
Focusing on India under the British Raj, Nandy developed an analysis of the
dynamics of masculinity among both the colonized and the colonizers, and argued that
these dynamics are powerfully linked. The colonizer and the colonized become in a sense
dependent on each other. With notable case studies of Rudyard Kipling and Sri
Aurobindo, Nandy shows how colonialism produces stressed and distorted masculinities,
preoccupied with relations of power and mythologized gender hierarchies.
Such psychosocial analyses take us into the realm of emotion, which as Kopano
Ratele (2013b) has recently argued, is vital for understanding issues of violence,
vulnerability and masculinity in a post-colonial context. As he notes, young black men in
urban South Africa have much to fear – from the violence of the state to the violence of
other men, and the structural violence of poverty and exclusion. The same was surely true
for the whole history of colonialism.
always support women economically, and eroded the spatial segregation of the sexes. From
this comes trouble around notions of family honour, one consequence of which is renewed
aggressive attempts to control women.
None of the texts just mentioned is much cited in the anglophone literature on men
and masculinities. Taken together, they highlight the effects of colonization, the
consequences of racial hierarchies, and the cultural and psychological correlates of
global economic dependence. If we take such concerns, not as marginal but as central to
the analysis of masculinity, a major change in the field of study becomes possible.
But the course of events is not straightforward. Waetjen’s story centres on the highly
ambiguous politics of Zulu nationalism. Thokozani Xaba (2001) tells a tragic story of the
‘young lions’ involved in the armed resistance to apartheid, who after the triumph of
1990–1994 find it difficult to re-integrate into South African society. Their education
and their relationships with women disrupted, their struggle masculinity of little use in
a peacetime economy, many turned to peer groups or gangs for survival. A significant
proportion of those engaged in violent crime, and in response were targeted by police and
by vigilante violence.
In the wake of conquest, the creation of a worldwide capitalist economy became a
continuing basis of masculinity formation. Colonialism transformed societies with very
different kinds of economy, ranging from subsistence agriculture, pastoralism and hunter–
gatherer economies to established urban economies. The remarkable historical ethno-
graphy of the South African gold mines by Dunbar Moodie and Vivienne Ndatshe (1994)
shows one path of transformation, in which distinctive patterns of masculinity were
created among the black workforce. Moodie and Ndatshe further show how masculinities
changed as the economics and politics of the mining industry altered. With the growth of
unions, rising wages, and decline of the rural economy, there was a marked shift towards
a breadwinner model and a more essentialist, heterosexually-defined masculinity.
The breadwinner/housewife division only gradually emerged, even in the global
North (Rose, 1992), but did become a leading feature of gender ideology and circulated
globally. It was intriguingly institutionalized in the settler colony of Australia through the
‘Harvester Judgment’ of 1907, in which an industrial court judge established the support
of a family – a wife and two or three children – as the basis for fixing a national basic
wage. The male worker was socially defined as a husband. Women did not have wives,
and the male judges and union leaders assumed that women did not support families.
When they got around to fixing a female basic wage, in 1919, it was set at 54% of a
man’s wage – a famous statistic in Australian history (Kingston, 1977).
In other parts of the colonial world the breadwinner model did not have economic
growth and union power to back it. Margrethe Silberschmidt’s (2004) research in East
Africa shows one consequence. Low wage rates in the colonial and post-colonial
economies made the breadwinner function difficult or impossible for most men to
perform. In other parts of the periphery, the development strategy of state-based import
replacement industrialization created a masculinized industrial workforce. But this
development strategy, widespread in the periphery from the 1940s to the 1970s, was
vulnerable. The rise of neo-liberalism radically disrupted it. Mara Viveros (2001) points
to the gender consequences of recent neo-liberal restructuring in Latin America, with
mass unemployment undermining working-class men’s position in family relations as
well as in the economy.
In other ways too, post-independence development strategies troubled masculinities.
Women were active in independence struggles, and the male elites of most post-colonial
states agreed to include girls and women in the expansion of education systems
(Unterhalter, 2007). A tremendous worldwide growth of women’s literacy and workforce
readiness has followed, with continuing implications for men. Indeed Mernissi (1975/
1985, 172) concluded wryly that in Morocco the state had become the main threat to
men’s supremacy. Re-negotiations of domestic authority are a pervasive feature of post-
colonial gender relations. Recent research on masculinities and gender-based violence has
been documenting the multiple paths these negotiations have followed (Fulu et al., 2013).
226 R. Connell
exploitation and injury of impoverished young men, and attempts to construct a new
entrepreneurial masculinity among those more privileged.
At the same time, the integration of the world economy by transnational corporations,
international trade and global finance, has created new elites that are heavily
masculinized. We are still at an early stage of research on the masculinities produced in
these arenas, which partly ‘offshore’ and so less embedded in local gender orders. It is
already clear, however, that elite levels of power, mobile and high-technology as they are,
involve power-oriented, not egalitarian, masculinities (Connell, 2010; Tienari, Søderberg,
Holgersson, & Vaara, 2005).
We cannot expect to find a unified global model of gender relations. There are some
transnational arenas, like transnational management and electronic media, where
standardized practices and common imagery can be found. But there is also immense
diversity of culture, historical experience, and economic trajectory across the post-
colonial world. What we require is not a single new model of masculinity but, as authors
like Vieira de Jesus (2011) argue, a new approach to understanding the making of
masculinities. And we are now in a position to have it.
Acknowledgements
This article began as a keynote address to the Nordic Conference on Men and Masculinities in
Reykjavik, June 2014. I am grateful to organizers and participants in this conference.
Note
1. My own experience shows a variant of the pattern. I come from a settler-colonial country in the
global periphery that is culturally and economically dependent, though comparatively rich
(Connell, 2013). The research that gave rise to the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ was done
under the eucalyptus trees in Australian cities and originally published in Australia. The idea
only gained attention, however, when it was published some years later in metropolitan journals
and in the US and British editions of my books, and was then taken up in metropolitan debates.
Many readers simply assumed that I was American. There is some excuse for them, as Gender &
Power especially is strongly extraverted, in Hountondji’s sense.
Notes on contributor
Raewyn Connell is Professor Emerita at the University of Sydney, a Fellow of the Academy of
Social Sciences in Australia, and one of Australia’s leading social scientists. Her most recent books
are Confronting Equality (2011), about social science and politics; Gender: In World Perspective
(with Rebecca Pearse, 2014); and Southern Theory (2007), about social thought on a world scale.
Her other books include Masculinities, Schools & Social Justice, Ruling Class Ruling Culture,
Gender & Power, and Making the Difference. Her work has been translated into 18 languages. She
has taught at universities in Australia, Canada and the USA, in departments of sociology, political
science, and education. A long-term participant in the labour movement and peace movement,
Raewyn has tried to make social science relevant to social justice. Details at website: www.
raewynconnell.net
NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies 229
References
Aboim, S. (2010). Plural masculinities: The remaking of the self in private life. Farnham: Ashgate.
Achebe, C. (1958). Things fall apart. London: Heinemann.
Agarwal, B. (1994). A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Alatas, S. F. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to eurocentrism.
New Delhi: Sage.
Al-e Ahmad, J. (1962/1982). Weststruckness. Lexington, KY: Mazda.
Alexeyeff, K. (2008). Neoliberalism, mobility and Cook Islands men in transit. The Australian
Journal of Anthropology, 19(2), 136–149. doi:10.1111/j.1835-9310.2008.tb00118.x
Arilha, M., Unbehaum Ridenti, S. G., & Medrado, B. (Eds.). (1998). Homens e masculinidades:
Outras palavras [Men and masculinities: Other words]. Sao Paulo: ECOS/Editora 34.
Blagojevic, M. (2009). Knowledge production at the semiperiphery: A gender perspective.
Belgrade: Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research.
Blagojevic, M. (2013). Transnationalization and its absence: the Balkan semiperipheral perspective
on masculinities. In J. Hearn, M. Blagojevic, & K. Harrison (Eds.), Rethinking transnational men
(pp. 163–184). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bulbeck, C. (1998). Re-orienting western feminisms: Women’s diversity in a postcolonial world.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chopra, R. (Ed.). (2007). Reframing masculinities: Narrating the supportive practices of men. New
Delhi: Orient Longman Private.
Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. L. (2011). Theory from the south: Or, how Euro-America is evolving
toward Africa. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science.
Cambridge: Polity.
Connell, R. (2010). Im Innern des gläsernen Turms: Die Konstruktion von Männlichkeiten im
Finanzkapital [Inside the glass tower: the construction of masculinities in finance capital].
Feministische Studien, 28, 8–24.
Connell, R. (2013). The shores of the southern ocean: Steps toward a world sociology of modernity,
with Australian examples. In S. A. Arjomand & E. Reis (Eds.), Worlds of difference (pp. 58–72).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dados, N., & Connell, R. (2012). The global South. Contexts, 11(1), 12–13. doi:10.1177/153650
4212436479
Domingues, J. M. (2008). Latin America and contemporary modernity: A sociological interpreta-
tion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Duvvury, N., Nayak, M. B., & Allendorf, K. (2002). Men, masculinity and domestic violence in
India: Summary report of four studies. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on
Women.
Edström, J., Das, A., & Dolan, C. (Eds.). (2014). Undressing patriarchy: Men and structural
violence. Special issue of IDS Bulletin, 45(1).
Elias, J. (2008). Hegemonic masculinities, the multinational corporation, and the developmental
state: Constructing gender in ‘progressive’ firms. Men and Masculinities, 10, 405–421. doi:10.
1177/1097184X07306747
Epstein, D., Morrell, R., Moletsane, R., & Unterhalter, E. (2004). Gender and HIV/AIDS in Africa
south of the Sahara: Interventions, activism, identities. Transformation, 54, 1–16. doi:10.1353/
trn.2004.0017
Fanon, F. (1952/1967). Black skin, white masks. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Fanon, F. (1961/1967). The wretched of the earth. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Ford, M., & Lyons, L. (Eds.). (2012). Men and masculinities in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.
Fulu, E., Warner, X., Miedema, S., Jewkes, R., Roselli, T., & Lang, J. (2013). Why do some men
use violence against women and how can we prevent it? Quantitative findings from the United
Nations multi-country study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: UNDP,
UNFPA, UN Women and UNV.
Gerschick, T. J., & Miller, A. S. (1995). Coming to terms: Masculinity and physical disability. In
D. Sabo & D. F. Gordon (Eds.), Men’s health and illness (pp. 183–204). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
230 R. Connell
Ghoussoub, M. (2000). Chewing gum, insatiable women and foreign enemies: Male fears and the
Arab media. In M. Ghoussoub & E. Sinclair-Webb (Eds.), Imagined masculinities (pp. 227–235).
London: Saqi Books.
Ghoussoub, M., & Sinclair-Webb, E. (Eds.). (2000). Imagined masculinities: Male identity and
culture in the middle east. London: Saqi Books.
Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Hountondji, P. J. (1997). Introduction: Recentring Africa. In P. J. Hountondji (Ed.), Endogenous
knowledge: Research trails (pp. 1–39). Dakar: CODESRIA.
Imtiaz, S. M. S. (2012). Young men in a colourful city: Masculinity, young men’s sexual practices,
and HIV/AIDS in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Jolly, M. (2008). Moving masculinities: Memories and bodies across Oceania. The Contemporary
Pacific, 20(1), 1–24. doi:10.1353/cp.2008.0010
Kingston, B. (1977). My wife, my daughter and poor Mary Ann: Women and work in Australia.
Melbourne, VIC: Thomas Nelson.
Laurie, N. (2005). Establishing development orthodoxy: Negotiating masculinities in the water
sector. Development and Change, 36, 527–549. doi:10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00422.x
Liu, L. H., Karl, R. E., & Ko, D. (Eds.). (2013). The birth of Chinese feminism: Essential texts in
transnational theory. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Louie, K. (2002). Theorising Chinese masculinity: Society and gender in China. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lugones, M. (2007). Heterosexism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia, 22, 186–219.
Meekosha, H. (2011). Decolonising disability: Thinking and acting globally. Disability & Society,
26, 667–682. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.602860
Mernissi, F. (1975/1985). Beyond the veil: Male-female dynamics in modern Muslim society.
London: Saqi Books.
Metz-Göckel, S., & Müller, U. (1985). Der Mann. Die BRIGITTE-Studie [Man: The “Brigitte” Study].
Hamburg: Beltz.
Moodie, T. D., & Ndatshe, V. (1994). Going for gold: Men, mines and migration. Johannesburg:
Witwatersrand University Press.
Morrell, R. (2001). From boys to gentlemen: Settler masculinity in colonial Natal 1880–1920.
Pretoria: University of South Africa.
Morrell, R., Epstein, D., Unterhalter, E., Bhana, D., & Moletsane, R. 2009. Towards gender
equality: South African schools during the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Scottsville: University of
KwaZulu-Natal Press.
Morrell, R., & Swart, S. (2005). Men in the third world: Postcolonial perspectives on masculinity.
In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities
(pp. 90–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nájera-Ramírez, O. (1994). Engendering nationalism: Identity, discourse, and the Mexican charro.
Anthropological Quarterly, 67(1), 1–14. doi:10.2307/3317273
Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy: Loss and recovery of self under colonialism. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Odora Hoppers, C. A. (Ed.). (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge
systems. Claremont, CA: New Africa Books.
Olavarría, J. (Ed.). (2009). Masculinidades y globalización: Trabajo y vida privada, familias y
sexualidades [Masculinities and globalization: Work and private life, families and sexualities].
Santiago: Red de Masculinidiad/es Chile, Universidad Academia de Humanismo Cristiano &
CEDEM.
Ouzgane, L., & Morrell, R. (Ed.). (2005). African masculinities: Men in Africa from the late
nineteenth century to the present. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Patil, V. (2009). Contending masculinities: The gendered (re)negotiation of colonial hierarchy in the
United Nations debates on decolonization. Theory and Society, 38, 195–215. doi:10.1007/
s11186-008-9076-y
Paz, O. (1950/1990). The labyrinth of solitude. London: Penguin.
Peteet, J. (1994). Male gender and rituals of resistance in the Palestinian Intifada: A cultural politics
of violence. American Ethnologist, 21(1), 31–49. doi:10.1525/ae.1994.21.1.02a00020
NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies 231
Phillips, J. (1987). A man’s country? The image of the Pakeha male – a history. Auckland: Penguin
Books.
Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International
Sociology, 15, 215–232. doi:10.1177/0268580900015002005
Ratele, K. (2013a). Masculinities without tradition. Politikon: South African Journal of Political
Studies, 40, 133–156. doi:10.1080/02589346.2013.765680
Ratele, K. (2013b). Subordinate black South African men without fear. Cahiers d’Études africaines,
53, 247–268.
Reid, K. (2007). Gender, crime and empire: Convicts, settlers and the state in early colonial
Australia. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Reuter, J., & Villa, P.-I. (Eds.). (2010). Postkoloniale soziologie: Empirische Befunde, theoretische
Anschlüsse, politische Intervention [Postcolonial sociology: Empirical results, theoretical connections,
political interventions]. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Rizal, J. (1887/2006). Noli me tangere. New York, NY: Penguin.
Rizal, J. (1891/2011). El filibusterismo. New York, NY: Penguin.
Rosa, M. C. (2014). Theories of the South: limits and perspectives of an emergent movement in social
sciences. Current Sociology. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0011392114522171
Rose, S. O. (1992). Limited livelihoods: Gender and class in nineteenth-century England. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Santamaria, F. A. (1985). El machismo y sus identificaciones [Machismo and its identifications].
Revista de psicoanálisis, 42, 1127–1144.
Shefer, T., Ratele, K., Strebel, A., Shabalala, N., & Buikema, R. (Eds.). (2007). From boys to men:
Social constructions of men in contemporary society. Lansdowne: UCT Press.
Silberschmidt, M. (2004). Men, male sexuality and HIV/AIDS: Reflections from studies in rural
and urban East Africa. Transformation, 54, 42–58. doi:10.1353/trn.2004.0026
Sinha, M. (1995). Colonial masculinity: The ‘manly Englishman’ and the ‘effeminate Bengali’ in
the late nineteenth century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Stauffer, R. H. (2004). Kahana: How the land was lost. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Taga, F., Mitsunari, H., Masanori, S., & Yohei, M. (2011). Changing lives of salarymen. Kyoto:
Mineruvashobo.
Tienari, J., Søderberg, A.-M., Holgersson, C., & Vaara, E. (2005). Gender and national identity
constructions in the cross-border merger context. Gender, Work & Organization, 12, 217–241.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00271.x
Unterhalter, E. (2007). Gender, schooling and global social justice. London: Routledge.
Valdés, T., & Olavarría, J. (Eds.). (1998). Masculinidades y equidad de género en América Latina
[Masculinities and gender equity in Latin America]. Santiago: FLACSO/UNFPA.
Vieira de Jesus, D. S. (2011). Bravos novos mundos: uma leitura pós-colonialista sobre
masculinidades ocidentais [Brave new worlds: A postcolonial reading of western masculinities].
Estudos Feministas, 19, 125–139. doi:10.1590/S0104-026X2011000100010
Viveros, M. (2007). De diferencia y diferencias. Algunos debates desde las teorías feministas y de
género [On difference and differences: Some debates from feminist and gender theory]. In
L. G. Arango & Y Puyana (Eds.), Género, mujeres y saberes en América Latina [Gender, women
and knowledges in Latin America] (pp. 175–190). Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Viveros Vigoya, M. (2001). Contemporary Latin American perspectives on masculinity. Men and
Masculinities, 3, 237–260. doi:10.1177/1097184X01003003002
Waetjen, T. (2004). Workers and warriors: Masculinity and the struggle for nation in South Africa.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Xaba, T. (2001). Masculinity and its malcontents: The confrontation between ‘struggle masculinity’
and ‘post-struggle masculinity’ (1990-1997). In R. Morrell (Ed.), Changing men in southern
Africa (pp. 105–124). Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.
Yan, H. (2008). New masters, new servants: Migration, development and women workers in China.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Yunupingu, G. (Ed.). (1997). Our land is our Life. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Zingoni, E. L. (1998). Masculinidades y violencia desde un programa de acción en México
[Masculinities and violence, from an action programme in Mexico]. In T. Valdés & J. Olavarría
(Eds.), Masculinidades y equidad de género en América Latina [Masculinities and gender equity
in Latin America] (pp. 130–136). Santiago: FLACSO/UNFPA.