Masculine Identity and Identification as Ethnomethodological Phenomena
Revisiting Cameron and Kulick
Keywords:masculinity, Cameron and Kulick, identity, identification, ethnomethodology, 'gross out'
The aim of this paper is to explore possible discourse and conversation analytical approaches to articulations of masculinity in and around sites of popular culture. The research presented in this paper arises from work on the relationship between men’s magazines, constructions/discourses of masculinity and lived cultures of masculinity. My particular interest in this paper is to explore the process by which we assign gendered identities to familiar cultural discourses, and in doing so, to engage critically with the ideas of Cameron and Kulick (2003; 2005) who have postulated a distinction between ‘identity’ and ‘identification’ as a means of reconceiving the relationship between discourse and sexuality. By adopting an ethnomethodological approach to conversational data, I will argue that it is possible to demonstrate how gendered identities - both the explicit alignments and claim-staking of ‘identity’ work, as well as the more ambivalent, shifting and contradictory footings that could be thought to characterise ‘identification’ - are available for analysis on the surface of talk. In a final analysis, I move beyond strict ethnomethodological principles in order to extend this consideration of ‘identity’ and ‘identification’ to a particular popular discourse - that of ‘gross out’ - whose intuitive labelling as masculine can be traced and supported by the forms and contexts of the various intertexts within which it occurs.
Benwell, B. (2003) ambiguous masculinities: heroism and anti-heroism in the men’s lifestyle magazine. in B. Benwell (ed.) Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazines 151–168. oxford: Blackwell.
Benwell, B. (2005) ‘lucky this is anonymous!’ men’s magazines and ethnographies of reading: a textual culture approach. Discourse and Society 16 (2): 147–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926505049616
Benwell, B. (2007) new sexism? readers’ responses to the use of irony in men’s magazines. Journalism Studies 8(4): 539–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616700701411797
Benwell, B. and stokoe, e. (2006) Discourse and Identity. edinburgh: edinburgh university Press.
Billig, m. (1999) Freudian Repression: Conversation Creating the Unconscious. cambridge: cambridge university Press.
Bucholtz, mary, and hall, Kira (2004a) Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society 33(4): 501–547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0047404504334020
Bucholtz, mary, and hall, Kira (2004b) review of cameron and Kulick’s Language and Sexuality. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10(4): 92–929.
Buchstaller, i., rickford, J., traugott, e., wasow, t. and Zwicky, a. (2010) The sociolinguistics of a short-lived innovation: tracing the development of quotative all across spoken and internet newsgroup data. Language Variation and Change 22(2): 191–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0954394510000098
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. new york: routledge.
Button, g. (1991) introduction: ethnomethodology and the foundational respecification of the human sciences. in g. Button (ed.) Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences 1–9. cambridge: cambridge university Press.
Cameron, d. (1997) Performing gender identity: young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. in s. Johnson and u. meinhof (eds) Language and Masculinity 47–64. oxford: Blackwell.
Cameron, d. (2005) language, gender and sexuality: current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics 26(4): 482–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami027
Cameron, d. and Kulick, d. (2003) Language and Sexuality. cambridge: cambridge university Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cBo9780511791178
Cameron, d. and Kulick, d. (2005) identity crisis? Language and Communication 25: 107–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.02.003
Cheshire, J. (2007) discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 155–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00317.x
Coates, J. (2003) Men Talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinities. oxford: Blackwell.
Edley, n. (2001) conversation analysis, discursive psychology and the study of ideology: a response to susan speer. Feminism & Psychology 11(1): 136–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353501011001007
Edwards, d. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. london: sage.
Edwards, d. (2006) discourse, cognition and social practices: the rich surface of language and social interaction. Discourse Studies 8(2): 41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059551
Edwards, d. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. london: sage.
Edwards, t. (1997) Men in the Mirror: Men’s Fashion, Masculinity and Consumer Fashion. london: cassell.
Frosh, s., Phoenix, a. and Pattman, r. (2003) taking a stand: using psychoanalysis to explore the positioning of subjects in discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology 42: 39–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466603763276117
Gardiner, J. (2000) Blue men, anality, and market masculinity. Men and Masculinities 2(3): 251–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1097184X00002003001
Gill, r. (2003) Power and the production of subjects: a genealogy of the new man and the new lad. in B. Benwell (ed.) Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazines 34–56. oxford: Blackwell.
Gough, B. (2004) Psychoanalysis as a resource for understanding emotional ruptures in the text: The case of defensive masculinities. British Journal of Social Psychology 43(2): 245–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/0144666041501651
Hollway, w. and Jefferson, t. (2005) Panic and perjury: a psychosocial exploration of agency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 (2): 147–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466604X18983
Kulick, d. (2003) no. Language and Communication 23: 139–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0271-5309(02)00043-5
Miller, J. and glassner, B. (1997) The ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’: finding realities in interviews. in d. silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice 99–112. london: sage.
Pomerantz, a. (1984) agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. in J. m. atkinson and J. heritage (eds) Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis 57–101. cambridge: cambridge university Press.
Rutherford, J. (2000) Keynote address to ‘Posting the male’ conference, liverpool John moores.
Schegloff, e., Jefferson, g. and sacks, h. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/413107
Schegloff, e. a. (1997) whose text? whose context? Discourse & Society 8: 165–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002
Speer, s. (2001a) reconsidering the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Feminism and Psychology 11(1): 107–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353501011001006
Speer, s. (2001b) Participants’ orientations, ideology and the ontological status of hegemonic masculinity: a rejoinder to nigel edley. Feminism & Psychology 11(1): 141–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353501011001008
Stokoe, e. (2008) ‘typical guy response’: categorial reference and the construction of gendered contexts. Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium, amsterdam.
Stokoe, e.h. and smithson, J. (2002) gender and sexuality in talk-in-interaction: considering conversation analytic perspectives. in P. mcilvenny (ed.) Talking Gender and Sexuality. amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Swann, J. (2002) yes, but is it gender? in l. litosseliti and J. sunderland (eds) Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis 43–67. amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wetherell, m. (1998) Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society 9(3): 387–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005
Whelehan, i. (2000) Overloaded: Popular Culture and the Future of Feminism. london: The women’s Press.