Economic Crisis and Masculinity (original) (raw)

How do the economic and institutional legitimacy crises affect negotiation (and questioning) of idealized types of masculinity and femininity? In order to answer to this question, primarily I consider the meaning the economic and institutional legitimacy crisis by reasoning with Marx's theory of value, then I use it as a driver for my analysis of the last 100 years in western countries. On the basis of the high rate of technological change that follow the second world war, I suggest that the economic and institutional crisis put under pressure the idealized types of masculinity. Actually, the following analysis gives a bird view of the co-evolution of capitalism and society and as result I partially explain the increasing rate of violence of men behaviour, against other people as well as against themselves. Eventually, I draw attention to the fact that given the indeterminacy of institutions in our time is important to redefine what being a man in the twenty-first century really means, given that the definition of masculinity developed to ensure the survival of offspring is old fashion and can be even dangerous. In this paper I am going to investigate the relationship between economic crisis and masculinity. I interpret here "economic crisis" as a very broad expression that refers to Capitalism as a whole, during the most part of his evolution; exactly, I am going to consider the evolution of capitalism just from the crisis of 1929 up to recent time, in western capitalistic countries. I analyse the evolution 1 of capitalism from that date because the high rate of technological change, that has been burst by the world wars, allows me to follow the potential of liberation enclosed in the process of globalization and hence in the system of production which drives this process; as consequence, I can inquiry clearly why today men have problem to deal with their own masculinity. As defined by Clinical Psychopathology, masculinity present itself in the three forms: being a fighter and a winner; being a provider and a protector; retaining mastery of control of everything possible in the world. But it's only been in the last 100 or so years that half of the humanity has dared to question men's rights to dominate the sphere of influence. What I am going to explore is at what extent the evolution of society and of Capitalism undermine the capacity of men to find their kind of new, sane masculinity. The fact that today men have problems to deal with the concept of masculinity is clearly expressed by the increasing number of men who have violent behaviour toward themselves (high rate of men suicide), toward other people, toward women, and eventually becoming bombers or foreign fighters. Adam Smith (1776), the founder of political economy show how European Modernity is inseparable from 1 Capitalism. He explains that the capitalist intends only his own gain but the invisible hand of the market promote an end which was no part of his intention. The invisible hand of the market work thanks to a state, minimal but effective, which makes the interest of private individuals coincide with the public interest, reducing all social function to one measure of value. Therefore, Smith's theory of value give the substance of the concept of modern sovereign state. In other world, since the beginning of Capitalism, it is clear how the process of production give the substance to the society, both at individual and at more aggregate level.