The Question of Masculinity from a Philosophical Perspective: Power Relations Reiterated by Language in the Social and Working Context. An Analysis from the Studies of Raewyn Connell and Judith Butler

Abstract

Feminist reflections have led to a rethinking of many aspects of our contemporaneity, such as the concept of masculinity; the latter being ‘invisible’ from the beginning, thus being able to develop hegemonic practices. In Western civilisation, in fact, man is the archetype, making his supremacy part of the natural order of things, in an inevitable biologism that defines power relations and nails pre-established categories. It’s precisely this naturalness, discursively produced and performed, that has made man invisible and universal, therefore without the need to think - and think himself - in terms of gender. As a result, man has convinced himself that he’s not influenced by his own masculinity and can speak for all of humanity, becoming the logos through which he declines the rest. Declinations that have produced rigid and hierarchical categories that precede and define each person, prescribing ‘consonant’ ways of being a man or a woman. Historically, then, different power relations have developed, generating forms of violent masculinity that daily reiterate a hegemonic and sexist social model. This has led to the production of certain attributes that have subsequently flowed into different social dynamics, establishing different job roles and possibilities, starting with stereotypical categorisations, which have welded structural issues; such as the ‘glass ceiling’. The aim of this analysis, therefore, will be to reflect on the concept of masculinity and the consequent hegemonic structures, placing a specific focus in corporate structures, with the aim of producing anti-discriminatory and equal systems; fusing a theoretical-linguistic methodology with a collection of empirical data in the corporate sphere.