A Brief Assessment of The Masculinity Fieldwork
by Deniz Erdogan
Foregoing title keeps a discrepancy in itself and occasions some questions. First, can masculinity and feminism exist together as a synthesis of an academic research? Second, how can a feminist researcher have a masculinity diary? Contradiction arises from its own parts like; one part is as a solid barrel, which is functioning unceasingly on the feminism’s revolutionist action; that is masculinity as being as a shadow of patriarchy. On the other hand, the second part offers a proper way to feminist research in order to cope with the oppression system; having the eye of the oppressor, looking at world from the perspective of the abler.
I am a feminist researcher who has a masculinity diary. I am researching hegemonic masculinity in Ankara nightclub culture, trying to focus on the representation models of dominant masculinity from the feminist standpoint theory. So, it is obvious that I am naturally on an actual side of feminist perspective, in favor of the subordinated one. In this sense, there can be necessary to remind Diane Wolf’s key question; “When drawing into a new field or a different culture, what happens to women; especially to the women that are feminist researcher?” In academic research, fieldwork is a troublesome fact in general and the gender factor is equally controversial. In my condition, Ankara nightclub culture has separated into two parts as one part serves to everyone (I mean men and women can have fun together equally in bars, pubs or in nightclubs). However, the other part usually addresses to men that function as an oppression relationship, which in men’s favor. In this case, women are not equal with men in entertainment; they are the servants of the men’s pleasure. Men are the masters of their fun. But not all men; the men who collaborates with patriarchal bounds, try to idealize themselves with the widely accepted criterions of hegemonic masculinity by culture.
As Connell argues, hegemonic masculinity is a fluid concept that changes culturally, historically, regionally and locally. In Turkey, hegemonic masculinity is a phenomenon that is sidling with culture. On the other hand, society demands a proof of masculinity that can be demonstrated with heterosexuality. So in Turkey, one of the elements of hegemonic masculinity is being heterosexual, that offers men to have close relationship with women. Some nightclubs in Ankara also serve such kind of a collaboration relationship as a masculine proof. Accordingly, sexuality in this sense can be understood as a meta, can be bought by “wealthy men”. Also being a wealthy man and a “tough guy” are another building dynamics of hegemonic masculinity particularly in the local sense. So, being heterosexual, wealthy and a tough guy is the obvious public proof of masculinity, as ordering a drink to a servant woman is the indicator of the masculine pride in these kind of nightclubs.
There is no doubt that this field and its building stones sometimes make the researcher is faltered, also cause to have been getting reactions from feminist perspective, because of the research’s basis on field that women are the servants of the masculine fun. It can be a fair criticism, because of the truth that there can be evaluated more serious subjects to be studied as violence against women. However in my opinion, in understanding the patterns subordination can be more detailed if we get into the oppressor’s world, seeing our condition from the eyes of the patriarchy. I reference to Bourdieu’s reflective methodology that offers the relationship between structure and the researcher, which the researcher is a subject to structure, in a manner of being both the oppressor (to her research subjects) and the subordinated one (she is a woman). In my opinion, a critical approach in both feminist theory and the masculinity studies can be reasonable solution in composing a research synthesis, also can be quite essential in observation in field.