Masculinity and Crime

Messerschmidt argues that masculinity is a social construct, or 'accomplishment', and men are constantly having to work at constructing and presenting it to others. In doing so, men have more resources than others to draw upon.

According to Messerchmidt, hegemonic masculinity is the dominant, prestigious form that most men wish to accomplish. It is defined through work in the paid-labour market, the subordination of women, heterosexism and the driven and uncontrollable sexuality of men.

Gay men, who have no desire to accomplish hegemonic masculinity, as well as lower-class and some ethnic minority men, who lack the resources to do so.

Messerschmidt sees crime and deviance as resources that different men may use for accomplishing masculinity. For example, class and ethnic differences among youths lead to different forms of rule breaking to demonstrate masculinity.

White m/c youths have to subordinate themselves to teachers in order to achieve a m/c status, leading to an accommodating masculinity. Outside school, masculinity takes an oppositional form, eg. through pranks, drinking and vandalism.

White working-class youths have less chance of educational success so their masculinity is oppositional both in and out of school. It is constructed around sexist attitudes, being tough and opposing teachers' authority. eg. Willis' lads.

Black lower working-class youths may have few expectations of a reasonable job and may use gang membership and violence to express their masculinity, or turn to serious propert crime to achieve material success.

White middle-class males commit white-collar and corporate crime to accomplish hegemonic masculinity. Poorer groups may use street robbery to achieve a subordinated masculinity.

1. Is masculinity an explanation of male crime or just a description of male offenders - Messerschmidt it in danger of a circular argument that masculinity explains male crimes (eg. violence) because they are crimes committed by males (who have violent characteristics).
2. Messerschmidt doesn't explain why not all men use crime to accomplish masculinity.
3. He over-works the concept of masculinity to explain virtually all male crimes, from joy riding to embezzlement.

Under postmodern conditions, organised professional criminal subculture has emerged as a result of new illicit business opportunities in night time economy.

To maintain reputation and employability, men must use their bodily capital. Winlow notes this is to 'look the part' to discourage competitors from challenging them and to use violence and win fights. He reflects that, in postmodern society, SIGNS take on reality of own independent things they supposedly represent.

Globalisation has led to a shift to postmodern de-industrialised society which has led to a loss in traditional manual jobs which w/c men were able to express their masculinity through providing for families and hard physical labour.

Expansion in the service sector (including night time leisure economy) means for some w/c mean that they have been provided with a combination of legal employment, lucrative criminal opportunities and means of expressing masculinity.

Winlow: study of bouncers in sunderland, area of de-industrialisation and unemployment. Working as bouncers gave them paid work plus illegal opportunities such as drugs, as well as allowing them to demonstrate their masculinity through violence.
Winlow's study shows how masculinity is a social construction.

Lyng (1990): Edgework: young males seek pleasure and like risk taking - thrills gained from acting in ways that are on the edge between security and danger (edgework), eg. joy riding.