Exploring the Diverse Forms of Masculinities

When we hear the word “masculinity,” most of us think of a single, fixed idea – toughness, dominance, emotional restraint. But masculinity is far more complex than that. It is not one uniform experience shared by all men. Rather, it exists in multiple, often competing forms, shaped by power, culture, class, caste, and sexuality. Sociologist R.W. Connell, in her landmark 1995 work Masculinities, argued that there is no singular masculinity – instead, there are masculinities, plural, arranged in a hierarchy where some forms dominate while others are suppressed, sidelined, or made invisible. Understanding these different forms is essential for anyone studying gender relations, public policy, or social justice.

Why masculinity is not a single story 🔗

For decades, gender studies treated masculinity as a monolith – one set of traits, one way of being a man. Connell challenged this assumption by drawing on Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, which explains how dominant groups maintain power not through force alone but by making their values appear natural and commonsensical. Applied to gender, this framework reveals that masculinity operates as a hierarchy. Some ways of being a man are celebrated and rewarded, while others are punished or erased.

This insight matters because it explains why not all men experience power equally. A wealthy, upper-caste, heterosexual man in an urban setting navigates the world very differently from a Dalit man in a rural village or a gay man in a conservative family. Their masculinities are shaped by different structural forces, and the privileges (or penalties) they encounter vary enormously. Connell identified four key forms of masculinity: hegemonic, subordinated, complicit, and marginalized. Let us look at each one in detail.

Hegemonic masculinity: the dominant ideal 🔗

At the top of the masculinity hierarchy sits hegemonic masculinity. This is the culturally idealized form of manhood in any given society at any given time. It represents the standard against which all men are measured – and it demands submission not only from women but also from other men who fall short of the ideal.

Hegemonic masculinity is not just about individual traits. It is a configuration of gender practice that legitimises male dominance and the subordination of women. In contemporary society, it typically emphasises physical strength, emotional stoicism, heterosexuality, aggression, competitiveness, economic success, and authority. Think of the “provider-protector” model that families, media, and institutions constantly reinforce.

Here is the crucial point: very few men actually embody hegemonic masculinity fully. It functions more as a standard or aspirational ideal than a lived reality for most men. A Bollywood hero who is muscular, aggressive, romantically dominant, and financially successful represents a version of hegemonic masculinity on screen. Most men watching that film cannot and do not live up to that image – yet they are judged against it.

How hegemonic masculinity sustains itself 🔗

Hegemonic masculinity does not maintain its position through brute force alone. It works through culture, institutions, and everyday social interactions. Media portrayals celebrate aggressive and dominant male figures. Educational institutions often reward competitive behaviour in boys. Workplaces value assertiveness and long hours – traits coded as masculine. Religious and family structures frequently reinforce male authority as natural and divinely sanctioned.

This is what makes hegemony so effective: it does not feel like domination to most people. It just feels like “the way things are.” When a father tells his son not to cry, or when a workplace promotes a man over a more qualified woman because he “seems like a leader,” hegemonic masculinity is at work – not as a conscious conspiracy but as a deeply embedded cultural logic.

Subordinated masculinity: pushed to the margins of gender 🔗

If hegemonic masculinity defines what counts as a “real man,” then subordinated masculinity represents everything the dominant ideal rejects. Connell argued that gay men are the most visible example of subordinated masculinity. In a system that prizes heterosexuality as a core component of “true manhood,” men who are gay, bisexual, or perceived as effeminate are actively pushed to the bottom of the gender hierarchy.

But subordination is not limited to sexual orientation. Any man who displays traits culturally coded as “feminine” – emotional vulnerability, gentleness, interest in arts or fashion, reluctance to engage in physical aggression – risks being subordinated. The everyday policing of masculinity begins early. Boys who do not conform to expected norms face ridicule through taunts, social exclusion, and sometimes physical violence from their peers.

The mechanics of subordination 🔗

Subordination operates through both cultural and material mechanisms. Culturally, subordinated men are feminised – they are associated with qualities deemed inferior because they are linked to womanhood. Terms like “sissy” or the Hindi “chakka” function as tools of gender policing that enforce the boundaries of acceptable masculinity.

Materially, subordination translates into real disadvantages. In many contexts, gay men face legal discrimination, workplace harassment, housing insecurity, and family rejection. Research on men and masculinities shows that subordination is distinct from marginalisation because it is shaped primarily within the gender hierarchy itself, rather than by external structures like class or caste. A wealthy, upper-caste gay man still faces gender-based subordination even if his class and caste grant him other privileges.

This is what makes subordinated masculinity so revealing: it shows that gender hierarchies exist not only between men and women but also among men. The internal policing of masculinity – the fear of being seen as “less than a man” – is one of the most powerful forces maintaining patriarchal structures.

Complicit masculinity: the silent majority 🔗

Perhaps the most common yet least examined form is complicit masculinity. These are men who do not fully embody the hegemonic ideal – they may not be aggressive, dominant, or overtly sexist – but they still benefit from the gender order without challenging it. Connell described them as men who enjoy the “patriarchal dividend”: the systematic advantages that men collectively gain from women’s subordination.

Consider a man who treats his wife with respect, shares some household responsibilities, and believes in equality in principle. Yet he still benefits from being offered a higher starting salary than equally qualified women, being taken more seriously in professional meetings, and not having to worry about safety in the same way women do. He does not actively enforce male dominance, but he does not challenge the systems that produce these advantages either.

Why complicit masculinity matters 🔗

Research on complicit masculinities suggests that this category plays a critically active role in sustaining hegemonic masculinity. The system does not need all men to be overtly dominant – it only needs enough men to passively accept and benefit from the existing arrangements. When the majority of men quietly enjoy their privileges without questioning the structures that produce them, the gender order reproduces itself with remarkable efficiency.

In the Indian context, complicit masculinity is visible in many everyday situations. A man who privately supports his daughter’s career ambitions but does not speak up when his parents insist on a large dowry for his sister’s marriage is complicit. An office manager who personally respects his female colleagues but does not challenge the workplace culture that excludes women from informal networking events is complicit. The power of this form lies precisely in its ordinariness – it does not look like oppression, so it rarely gets challenged.

Marginalized masculinity: where gender meets other hierarchies 🔗

Marginalized masculinity emerges when gender intersects with other structures of power – class, caste, race, ethnicity, disability, and religion. This is where Connell’s framework connects with broader theories of intersectionality. Men from disadvantaged social groups may possess some characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity, but their access to its full benefits is blocked by their position within other hierarchies.

In India, caste provides one of the most powerful examples of marginalised masculinity. A Dalit man may embody traits of strength, hard work, and family responsibility – all valued within the hegemonic framework – but the caste system denies him the social recognition and authority that upper-caste men enjoy for the same traits. His masculinity is “authorised” or “de-authorised” depending on his caste position. Upper-caste men enjoy both caste and gender privilege simultaneously, while Dalit men face severe discrimination despite their male identity.

Class and masculinity 🔗

Class operates similarly. A daily wage labourer and a corporate executive are both men, but their experiences of masculinity are worlds apart. Working-class men often perform physically demanding labour that aligns with ideals of toughness and strength, yet they lack the economic power and social prestige that hegemonic masculinity demands. The businessman’s authority is taken for granted; the labourer’s physicality is exploited.

This creates a painful contradiction for marginalised men. They are expected to live up to masculine ideals of providing for their families and displaying strength, but the structural barriers they face – poverty, discrimination, lack of education, limited social mobility – make these expectations impossible to meet. The result is often a sense of emasculation that can lead to frustration, and in some cases, to the reproduction of violence within their own communities as a way of asserting whatever power they can.

Race, religion, and regional dimensions 🔗

Globally, race plays a similar role. Scholars have noted that masculinities of racial minorities are often stereotyped in specific ways – either as threatening (requiring control) or as exemplary in narrow domains like sports (to be appropriated by the dominant group). These stereotypical representations serve the interests of hegemonic masculinity by defining “acceptable” and “unacceptable” expressions of manhood along racial lines.

In the Indian context, religious minorities and tribal communities experience similar dynamics. A Muslim man’s masculinity is often constructed through stereotypes of aggression or backwardness in dominant cultural narratives, regardless of his actual behaviour. An Adivasi man’s ways of being masculine – often rooted in communal living, closeness to nature, and egalitarian gender relations – are dismissed as “primitive” rather than recognised as alternative and potentially healthier models of manhood.

How these forms interact with each other 🔗

One of the most important insights from Connell’s framework is that these four forms of masculinity do not exist in isolation. They are relational – each one is defined in relation to the others, and they work together to maintain the overall gender order.

Hegemonic masculinity sets the standard. Subordinated masculinity provides the contrast – by defining what is “not masculine,” it reinforces what is. Complicit masculinity provides the mass base of support, ensuring that the system functions smoothly without requiring active enforcement by every individual man. Marginalised masculinity demonstrates how gender intersects with other power structures, creating layered hierarchies that are far more complex than a simple men-versus-women binary.

This relational quality means that changes in one form affect all others. When social movements challenge caste discrimination, they also disrupt the way masculinity is organised along caste lines. When LGBTQ+ rights movements gain ground, they challenge the subordination of non-heterosexual masculinities and, by extension, the hegemonic ideal itself. This is why Connell and Messerschmidt later argued that hegemonic masculinity must be analysed at local, regional, and global levels, recognising that changes at one level can influence all others.

Criticisms and evolving perspectives 🔗

No theoretical framework is perfect, and Connell’s model has faced important criticisms. Some scholars argue that the typology can become too rigid, turning fluid gender practices into fixed boxes. Others suggest that the framework overemphasises the dominance of hegemonic masculinity and underestimates the diversity and agency within men’s everyday lives.

Postmodernist critics point out that in an increasingly globalised world, gender identities are more fluid, hybrid, and context-dependent than a four-part typology can capture. A man may perform hegemonic masculinity at work, complicit masculinity at home, and express vulnerability in private – all in the same day. These shifting performances complicate any neat categorisation.

Despite these critiques, Connell’s framework remains the most widely used and influential model for studying masculinities. Its core insight – that masculinity is plural, hierarchical, and relational – continues to shape research and policy. The framework has been particularly valuable in understanding issues like gender-based violence, workplace inequality, health behaviours among men, and the social costs that rigid gender norms impose on men themselves.

Why this matters for gender sensitisation 🔗

Understanding the multiple forms of masculinity is not merely an academic exercise. It has direct implications for policy, education, and social change. If we treat masculinity as a single, unchangeable trait, our interventions will be shallow and ineffective. But if we recognise that masculinity is constructed differently across contexts and that different men relate to the gender order in different ways, we can design more nuanced approaches.

For instance, programmes aimed at reducing gender-based violence need to address not just the small number of men who embody aggressive hegemonic ideals, but also the much larger group of complicit men whose passive acceptance allows the system to persist. Anti-caste movements that ignore the gendered dimensions of caste – how Dalit masculinity is constructed differently from upper-caste masculinity – will miss crucial aspects of the problem. Health interventions that fail to understand how men’s reluctance to seek medical help is rooted in hegemonic ideals of toughness and self-sufficiency will continue to struggle with poor uptake.

The goal of gender sensitisation is not to demonise men or masculinity. It is to show that rigid, hierarchical constructions of masculinity harm everyone – women who are subordinated, men who do not conform, and even men at the top who pay heavy psychological costs for maintaining the facade. A more equal society requires not the elimination of masculinity, but the recognition that there are many ways to be a man, and that no single version should dominate all others.

What do you think? Can most men realistically move from complicit masculinity to actively challenging gender inequality in their daily lives, or do structural barriers make individual change insufficient without broader institutional reform? And how do you see the interaction of caste, class, and gender shaping the experience of masculinity in your own community?

References

1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891243205278639
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/hegemonic-masculinity
4. https://sociology.iresearchnet.com/sociology-of-gender/hegemonic-masculinity/
5. https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/boyhood-studies/13/2/bhs130207.xml
6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18902138.2021.2001994
7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7756040/
8. https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/attach/journals/dec20stfeature.pdf
9. https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/Connell,%20Hegemonic%20masculinity_0.pdf