To hell with toxic masculinity?: a case for retaining a debated concept

Abstract

This article contributes to the literature on men and masculinities that debates the relative importance and definition of the concept of toxic masculinity. We argue that, despite some well-developed critiques, the concept retains potential analytic usefulness for scholars. We discuss toxic masculinity, including the genesis and evolution in scholarly thinking about this concept as an inherent trait, its overlaps and distinctions to Raewyn Connell’s prominent conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity, its use as an analytical tool in masculinity research and recent discussions of a digital form of toxic masculinity in the post-#MeToo era. We propose that a significant difference between hegemonic masculinity and toxic masculinity concerns that the former is achieved and practised consensually rather than simply through violence, whereas toxic masculinity is perpetuated coercively and violently towards others. Although hegemonic masculinity is harmful as it legitimates gender inequality, toxic masculinity, in its enactment of misogyny and violence, can be seen and used as part of a conceptual toolbox to understand and analyse men’s extremely harmful behaviours. Thus, we contend that the concept of toxic masculinity can be adopted as supplementary to the concept of hegemonic masculinity, and/or be seen as a radicalized product of the practice of hegemonic masculinity.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.