The Fay Gale Centre for Research on Gender, The University of Adelaide.
Br J Sociol. 2012 Dec;63(4):747-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01435.x.
Critical studies of men and masculinities (CSMM) have burgeoned in recent times. For this reason, it seems to me a useful moment to reflect on what I see as some tensions, even contradictions, in these studies. In keeping with Chantal Mouffe's espousal of the advantages of agonism rather than consensus, I suggest that heterogeneous theoretical directions in scholarship attending to men/masculinities are by no means to be discouraged. However, the various theoretical tools employed in this scholarship may be incommensurable and thus produce a certain inconsistency or even incoherence. In this context, I suggest that in order to more clearly articulate current theoretical/terminological debates it is important to undertake analysis of key conceptual distinctions and widely used terms, such as notions of structure and patriarchy, gender identities/masculinities/men, hegemony and hegemonic masculinity, and relations between gender and sexuality, amongst others. The aim here is not to produce or require homogeneity in studies of men/masculinities but rather to provide an opportunity to consider the epistemological frameworks which inform the political intentions and goals of this sphere of scholarship.
近年来，男性研究和男子气概研究（CSMM）蓬勃发展。出于这个原因，我认为现在是反思我认为这些研究中存在的一些紧张关系，甚至矛盾的好时机。为了遵循尚塔尔·墨菲（Chantal Mouffe）对竞争而非共识优势的支持，我认为关注男性/男子气概的学术研究中存在的异质理论方向绝不应受到阻碍。然而，在这项学术研究中使用的各种理论工具可能无法协调，因此会产生一定的不一致性，甚至不连贯性。在这种情况下，我建议为了更清楚地阐明当前的理论/术语辩论，重要的是要对关键概念区别和广泛使用的术语进行分析，例如结构和父权制、性别认同/男子气概/男性、霸权和霸权男子气概以及性别和性之间的关系等概念。这里的目的不是在男性研究中产生或要求同质化，而是提供一个机会来考虑告知这一学术领域政治意图和目标的认识论框架。
