Masculinity in Flux: Media Representations and the Shaping of Gender Norms Across Cultural Contexts

Masculinity in Flux: Media Representations and the Shaping of Gender Norms Across Cultural Contexts

Mashaekh Hassan

Center for Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Florida Atlantic University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020188

Received: 27 January 2025; Accepted: 04 February 2025; Published: 10 March 2025

ABSTRACT

This literature review explores the portrayal of masculinities in popular media, focusing on how these representations reflect and shape broader cultural, political, and social norms across diverse cultural contexts. By examining media portrayals of hegemonic and alternative masculinities, the review addresses two key questions: how masculinities are represented in popular culture and how these representations reinforce or challenge traditional gender norms. The analysis draws on scholarship from media studies, sociology, and gender studies, highlighting the dual role of media as both a site for subverting dominant gender narratives and reinforcing existing stereotypes. Key themes include the intersection of masculinity with race, the emergence of alternative masculinities, and the tension between media’s potential for societal change and its role in perpetuating traditional norms. The review concludes that while progress has been made in representing diverse masculinities, true subversion of hegemonic ideals remains complex due to cultural, racial, and generational factors, as well as the interpretive dynamics of media audiences.

Keywords: Masculinities, Popular media, Hegemonic masculinity, Gender norms, Intersectionality

INTRODUCTION

As the existing body of literature across disciplines such as media studies, sociology and gender studies suggest, the nuanced phenomenon that is the portrayal of masculinities in popular culture reflects broader cultural, political, and ideological realities and shifts. Such portrayals can manifest in two possibilities: firstly, along with showing what is traditionally expected in a given societal setting but often these portrayals can be seen as a tool that promote certain kinds of ideas which ultimately lead to the reinforcement of stereotypes surrounding the construction of masculine identities. Secondly, the portrayals with conventionally progressive agendas possess the potential to open up a space where subversion of the dominant narratives becomes possible. Together, these works highlight the complex interrelationship between media portrayals and social ideals that enables the cultural construction of masculinity – the formation of which can be intersectional and at times, contradictory.

This literature review is structured around two research questions: (1) How are different forms of masculinity portrayed in popular culture and media? (2) In what ways do these portrayals reinforce or challenge traditional gender norms in real-world social contexts across various cultural settings? To address these questions, I analyze scholarly articles that examine media representations of gender, portrayals of hegemonic and alternative masculinities across cultural contexts, traditional frameworks for constructing masculine identities in diverse societies, and male audiences’ perceptions of masculinity in media.

A critical aspect of analyzing media representations of masculinity is establishing clear definitions of key terms. Masculinity, as a sociological concept, refers to the socially constructed behaviors, attributes, and roles associated with men in a given society (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Connell’s (1995) framework of hegemonic masculinity is particularly relevant, as it highlights how dominant ideals of masculinity sustain gender hierarchies and marginalize alternative expressions of male identity. Similarly, gender norms are the societal expectations that dictate appropriate behaviors based on one’s perceived gender, reinforcing structures of power and inequality (West and Zimmerman 1987).

Popular culture, in this context, serves as both a mirror and a mold for societal beliefs, representing dominant ideologies while also shaping audience perceptions through repeated exposure to specific narratives (Storey 2018). By engaging with these definitions, this study ensures a comprehensive understanding of how masculinities are constructed, contested, and transformed in media representations.

Judith Butler’s (1990) theory of gender performativity offers a crucial lens for analyzing masculinity in media. Butler argues that gender is not an innate identity but rather a repeated set of performances reinforced by societal norms. Queer theorists, including Halberstam (1998) and Sedgwick (1990), have further complicated rigid gender binaries by highlighting how alternative masculinities disrupt normative expectations. Halberstam’s (1998) concept of female masculinity, for instance, critiques the assumption that masculinity is exclusive to male bodies, demonstrating how alternative masculinities can exist outside traditional frameworks. By incorporating these theoretical perspectives, this study situates media portrayals of masculinity within a broader discourse on gender fluidity and resistance to normative power structures.

With a view to offering insights into the ways through which alternative masculinities are both represented and stereotyped within popular culture, Chambers (2009) offers a framework for analyzing television as a medium that engages with heteronormative and queer identities across different cultural contexts. Specifically, in their case study of two shows “The L Word” and “Desperate Housewives”, he critically highlights the potential of othering the queer identities through making the cis-heteronormative frameworks as the frame of reference, even when on the surface the shows’ main theme align more with the conventionally progressive agendas. As Chamber states, “The L word is a heteronormative show about homosexuals” (Chambers 2009, 86), which highlights that heteronormativity are essentially considered as the ideals here, and what might be considered as deviance in reference to such understandings are although shown as entities that are subverting the narratives but the binary of acceptable versus unacceptable remains.

In contrast, “Desperate Housewives” questions the ideas surrounding quintessential American “family values” – and this calling out results in “a subversion of heteronormativity” (Chambers 2009, 106). In this case, the subversive tropes destabilize the hetero-patriarchal gender roles by directly challenging the heterosexual matrix. Studying both shows shed light on the duality of how masculinity is portrayed in popular culture. Sometimes the portrayal challenges the normative frameworks, other times they just reflect the frameworks and potentially contribute to reinforcement of those legitimized ideas – ultimately making television as a site of both resistance against and reproduction of social norms. This critique also aligns with the broader feminist television criticism framework. As the framework highlights the importance of analyzing television as not merely as a site of representation, but also as a tool used to construct and reinforce societal categories, its contribution to endorsing certain ideals surrounding masculinity is an inevitable aftermath (Brunsdon, D’Acci, and Spigel 1997).

Similarly, Feasey’s (2008) work explores how the portrayals of masculinities in various American and British series are shaped by not only the traditional narratives of male dominance and masculinity, but also by alternative masculine ideas and ideologies, Feasey highlights the importance of pluralization of masculinity, challenging the monolithic understanding of what it essentially means to be a masculine man. The author analyzes a diverse range of media productions (soap operas, family sitcoms, crime dramas, for instance) and argues that popular media have portrayed various kinds of masculinities. Such portrayals are not only limited to stereotypically stoic male; in fact, there are more vulnerable and more emotionally expressive male characters as well – and such ingredients do not exist in the traditional recipe of a “manly man”.  For example, soap operas, traditionally perceived as feminine genres, often show men as vulnerable and someone trying to navigate their emotions within a relational dynamic – such portrayals position emotional expression within a masculine framework.

In Faesey’s observation, such portrayals not only destabilize the rigid boundaries of hegemonic masculinity, but also indicate a broader cultural shift where the ideas surrounding alternative masculine characteristics are more well-accepted. Although the portrayal and acknowledgement of such masculinities are there in popular culture, the dominant narratives surrounding hegemonic masculinity set certain criteria to be fulfilled by these alternatively masculine men to be acceptable.

Extending this discussion, in their analysis of “acceptable” male types, Milestone and Meyer (2012) build on these discussions by categorizing media depictions into stereotypes that reflect and reinforce societal expectations. Using the cultural scripts as a frame of reference, the authors analyze the figures like the “old man”, the “metrosexual”, and the “heroic doctor”, and argue that although these categories may look diverse on the surface, the traits possessed by these characters reflect what is socially acceptable. Constructing these figures using the cultural archetype limits the representation of alternative masculinities within certain boundaries; and the authors consider this as a shortcoming of popular media. Although the “metrosexual male”, a relatively new trope emerging in popular media, are shown as more emotionally expressive and fashion conscious, the portrayals explicitly indicate the character’s narcissism and effeminacy – which ultimately establishes the boundaries between traditional and alternative masculinity. Therefore, according to Milestone and Meyer (2012), although media is introducing new categories of both traditional and alternative masculinities, these representations are still following the dominant cultural scripts in a way that significantly obstructs the potential to portray a redefined form of masculinity altogether.

A major topic of discussion within these discourses is the intersection of masculinity and race, particularly in the portrayal of Black masculinities. Goodwill et al. (2019) and Butler (2021) offer insights into how popular media depictions of racialized masculinities (Black masculinities, in this case) not only reflect but also shape cultural understandings surrounding Black male identity. Goodwill et al. (2019) critically examines the popular figures in media who are shown in light of a role model – athletes, social leaders, and entertainers, for example – and argues that despite the positive portrayal the consequent realities that the African American male audiences inevitable navigate come with dual pressure caused by both positive representation and negative stereotyping. While these viewers find these figures as sources of inspiration and find no discomfort with identifying themselves with these archetypes, there are themes like hypersexuality and aggression associated with the portrayals of Black masculinity that the research participants find damaging.

While Goodwill et al. (2019) acknowledge the possible downsides of such portrayals, they also emphasize that positive portrayals might allow black viewers to construct a nuanced sense of masculinity (or Black masculinity, to be specific) which would ultimately enable them to challenge the negative stereotypes which have been made the dominant narratives. Echoing a similar sentiment, Butler (2021) highlights their exploration of Isaac Hayes, specifically the figure of Black Moses, as a symbol of alternative Black masculinity. As the figure of Black Moses shows vulnerability, sensitivity, prioritization and relational intimacy over dominance, it is visibly different from the “Black Macho” stereotype. Hence, according to Butler (2021), the Black Moses figure can provide Black male audiences with a model for empowerment, mainly because this model rejects the violent and hyper-masculine stereotypes that are typically portrayed in popular media.

Another critical theme across the existing body of literature is the relationship between masculinity and crisis. This theme is particularly connected to the portrayal of “new man” and “soft masculinities”. In exploring the themes of “crisis of masculinity”, Lemon (2022) delves deeper into the phenomenon of the rise of more expressive and emotionally available masculine types. They call this “new man” trope and argue that although this category appears to be deviating from the traditional masculinity, its portrayal is done in a way that it essentially endorses the patriarchal standards. She also argues that while there are portrayals of these men as domestic and nurturing, qualities which are traditionally associated with femininity, the portrayals fail to acknowledge the inegalitarian societal structure that upholds masculine privilege. This argument is in alignment with Chamber’s (2009) and Feasey’s (2008) argument that even the seemingly progressive portrayals of alternative categories ultimately conform to the societal expectations surrounding acceptability. Louie (2012) extends this analysis to East Asian contexts where, due to neocolonialism and globalization, masculinity is shaped by both local and global influences – as the author calls it: internal and external pressures. The author examines the idea of “soft masculinity” particularly within the Chinese, Japanese and South Korean contexts. One of the soft masculine categories –  “metrosexual” trope, for instance, is a reflection of hybrid traditional expectations (heavily endorsed through local cultural norms) and global aspirations (heavily diffused through globalization). In this context, Louie (2012) argues that although new forms of masculinity may emerge in the portrayals, they are rarely free from existing cultural norms as these emergences cannot possibly happen in a vacuum.

Moreover, the overemphasis on the cultural norms often generates a specific form of cultural anxiety surrounding masculinity, particularly about youth and teens, which is explored by Newkirk (2002). He critiques the societal fears of aggression in boys being perceived as something that can be directly taught through artefacts these young minds consume (from books to movies). He argues that young boys have the capability to resist the simplistic portrayals of violence across media and that societal fear limits the space for navigating and constructing their identities as passive or inherently aggressive.

Furthermore, the role of youth-dominated online spaces in shaping contemporary understandings of masculinity is also critical in the existing literature. Kanai and Zeng (2024) analyze how the discourses surrounding feminist knowledge productions and cultures ongoing on social media shape the female youths’ ideas surrounding non-toxic masculinities – a category which is also an alternative masculine category as it deviates from the hegemonic masculinity archetype. The study shows that the youth communities engage in various forms of discussions on gender across virtual platforms; and such discussions are inclusive of many nuanced differences and intersectionalities. These discourses also challenge the traditional masculine norms are more in support of the alternative norms, and the norms that are considered more progressive as opposed to traditional and cis-heteronormative. In reality, the production of new knowledge and paradigm shifts in social values are prominent in such spaces; and such shifts are subject to the interpretation of the audiences who are consuming the knowledge.

Kanai and Zeng’s (2024) work complement the findings of Goodwill et al. (2019) and Milestone and Meyer (2012), for their focus on the role of the audience’s (re)interpretation of the media productions of masculine ideals or masculinity as a whole. The perception regarding whether a portrayal is catering to the stereotype or attempting to subvert the dominant narratives heavily depends on the audiences’ view – something that happens slightly differently in the social media platforms as the discourses taking place on the online corners are perceived as “real knowledge” as opposed to movies or soap operas which are based on fictions. While there are hierarchies of who is voicing the particular kind of feminist statements, and based on the speakers’ class identities as perceived by the audiences, certain statements and knowledge gain more acceptance than the ones who are viewed as belonging to a lower stratum. Against this backdrop, Kanai and Zeng (2024) point out that these online discussions are not universally accessible. Based on criteria like class, linguistic proficiency, there is a constant hierarchization of expertise and authenticity regarding “speaking” the knowledge within online spaces. This highlights the argument that social media is not inherently democratic; and simultaneously, though it enables a space for discussions about and inclusive space for alternative masculinities, there, too, are certain boundaries and exclusions which in spite of the exclusions happening significantly differently from the way it happens when traditional cis-heteronormative framework is kept as the absolute frame of reference.

In synthesizing these works, it becomes clear that the non-uniform and dynamic portrayal of masculinities in popular culture is contested and shaped by cultural, racial and generational factors. Although there are portrayals of alternative masculinities that show a broader range of expressions which essentially deviate from the hegemonic masculine archetype, the existing traditional norms still play a role that limits the potential for a drastic transformation and/or genuine subversion. The constant tussle between conformity and subversion makes the popular media a place for two contradictory tools: one that can enable cultural change, and another that can reinforce the normative framework. Existing literature highlights the multidimensional portrayal of masculinity attempting to deconstruct hetero-patriarchal ideals across diverse cultural contexts (Western, East Asian and African American). Ultimately, the scholarship suggests in spite of the visible progress in representing diversity in the masculine categories, the journey towards ensuring a genuine representation of liberated masculinities is going to be a complex one due to the complex interaction between media, culture, and audience’s interpretations.

REFERENCES

1. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
2. Butler, J. Michael. 2021. “‘The Epitome of Black Masculinity’: Isaac Hayes, Black Moses, and the Long Freedom Struggle.” Journal of American Studies 55 (5): 1019–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021875821000268.
3. Chambers, Samuel A. 2009. The Queer Politics of Television. 1st ed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
4. Connell, R.W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender and Society 19 (6): 829-859. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27640853.
5. Goodwill, Janelle R., Nkemka Anyiwo, Ed-Dee G. Williams, Natasha C. Johnson, Jacqueline S. Mattis, and Daphne C. Watkins. 2019. “Media Representations of Popular Culture Figures and the Construction of Black Masculinities.” Psychology of Men & Masculinities 20 (3): 288–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000164.
6. Feasey, Rebecca. 2008. Masculinity and Popular Television. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
7. Halberstam, Jack. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press.
8. “Introduction.” 1997. In Feminist Television Criticism: A Reader, edited by Charlotte Brunsdon, Julie D’Acci, and Lynn Spigel, 1-16. New York: Clarendon Press.
9. Kanai, Akane, and Natasha Zeng. 2024. “Influence and Expertise: Distancing and Distinction in Online Youth Feminist Knowledge Cultures.” Journal of Youth Studies 27 (8): 1097–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2023.2199149.
10. Lemon, Jennifer. 2022. “Popular Culture and the ‘Crisis of Masculinity.’” Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa 11 (2): 5–20. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v11i2.1976.
11. Louie, Kam. 2012. “Popular Culture and Masculinity Ideals in East Asia, with Special Reference to China.” The Journal of Asian Studies 71 (4): 929–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021911812001234.
12. Milestone, Katie, and Anneke Meyer. 2012. “Representing Men.” In Gender and Popular Culture, 113-150. Cambridge: Wiley.
13. Newkirk, Thomas. 2002. Misreading Masculinity: Boys, Literacy, and Popular Culture. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
14. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15. Storey, John. 2018. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction. 8th ed. New York: Routledge.
16. West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society 1 (2): 125–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002.