socialist venezuelan leaders and the use of discourses of hegemonic masculinity
TRANSCRIPT
Hult International Business School
IRE 285: Decolonizing Latin America
Prof: Valeria Motta
Socialist Venezuelan Leaders
and The Use of Discourses of
Hegemonic Masculinity
Valeria Del Castillo
Fall 2013
Figure 1: Hegemonic Masculinity (Chávez) vs. Subordinate Masculinity (Capriles). Source: Globe Tribune
Introduction
Discourses of masculinity are used as a political strategy in situation of socio-‐political
unrest to affirm a position of power, dominance and superiority. This is because these
discourses, in order to be successful, need to be contrasted against other discourses
that infer inferiority and marginalisation. This marginalised and inferior ‘Other’ is usually
represented by women; however, masculinity studies have proposed the existence of
different hierarchical types of masculinities. These masculinities are marginalised and
positioned in a hierarchy measured against the normalcy of the ‘hegemonic
masculinity’.
Hegemonic masculinity is considered the ‘normalised’, ‘accepted’ and ‘standard’ type of
masculinity. The most prominent features of hegemonic masculinity, which are
embodied differently depending on the context and identity, are compulsory
heterosexuality, patriarchy and hypermasculinity/hypersexuality. This concept is
historically and culturally specific, which means that it is subject to change (Connell,
1995, p. 77).
Hegemonic masculinity is located in three levels: global, regional and local that are
intertwined and shape each other. Global hegemonic masculinity is constructed at the
transnational level and is influenced by world politics and economic relations; regional
hegemonic masculinity is constructed at the level of culture and the nation state; and
local hegemonic masculinity is constructed at the level of interpersonal relations and
every day practices (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 848).
The United States embodies the position of hegemonic masculinity on a global level.
This has been achieved through cultural and institutional legitimacy as well as through
military power and American-‐led political and economic globalisation. US leaders use
discourses of hegemonic masculinity to reassert its masculine and powerful figure in the
world system.
Venezuela, as a country that has a colonial and neoimperial past, has been shaped by
western cultural values that contribute to the maintenance and reproduction of western
hegemonic masculinity, in this case, US embodied hegemonic masculinity. Venezuela,
however, with its current socialist leaders also challenges the neoliberal hegemonic
masculinity promoted by the United States. For this reason, this essay aims to explain
why current Venezuelan government leaders, in a situation of socio-‐political unrest,
adopt discourses of hegemonic masculinity founded on Western culture and to what
extent they successfully do so.
This will be achieved by exploring the position Venezuelan socialist leaders in the
hierarchy of masculinities on a global and regional level through analyzing how
successfully they reproduce the western model of hegemonic masculinity. By explaining
the importance of discourses of masculinity as a political strategy and through a
comparison between the US and Venezuela, the position of Venezuela in the masculine
hierarchy is that of complicit and subordinate masculinity on a global level and a
protestant masculinity on the regional/local level. The examples analysed will be the US
led war on terror and April’s 2013 Venezuelan elections.
The Power of Discourse
The definition and purpose of discourse are important in order to understand why
Venezuelan leaders use discourses of masculinity as a political strategy in the country.
Discourses are defined as the assemblage of utterances, texts, symbols and institutional
and social practices that provide a specific way to perceive, talk about and understand
the world. Discourses are the lenses through which we perceive and understand our
reality. According to Michel Foucault, “a discourse is a regulated set of statements
which combine with others in predictable ways. Discourse is regulated by a set of rules
which lead to the distribution and circulation of certain utterances and statements”
(Mills, 2003, p. 54).
Discourses are regulated to delimit its inclusions or exclusions of meaning and practices.
This is because the inclusions are the normalised set of assumptions that individuals
take for granted as ‘truth’. Exclusions are made on two levels: firstly, discourses
inherently exclude certain utterances, texts and/or practices to maintain internal
coherence; secondly, discourses exclude and marginalize other competing discourses to
achieve a position of power. According to Rosenberg, “understanding specific discourses
involves appreciating the rules guiding what can and cannot be said, and knowing what
has been left out as well as what has been included. The silences of a text are often as
important as its inclusions” (Jackson, 2005, p. 18-‐19).
Discourses compete with one another to achieve hegemonic positions of power or
‘hegemonic truths’. Discourses exert power over institutions and individuals, which
produce knowledge about these discourses. This knowledge is used to maintain the
hegemonic position of the discourse. It is a process of co-‐constitution. “Discourses are
an exercise of power; that is, they try to become dominant or hegemonic by discrediting
alternative rival discourses, by promoting themselves as the full and final truth and by
downing out the sound of any other discourse” (Jackson, 2005, p. 19). This is because
discourses are for a specific group of people or institutions with specific interests.
For this reason, discourses are binarised in nature. This means that every dominant
discourse in our society has a subordinate or marginalised “other” which is considered
inferior, less accepted and less influential in society. Sometimes is even more extreme,
some discourses are marginalised, silenced and oppressed in a given society because of
their power to destabilize and disrupt dominant discourses in power.
In the case of this essay, the discourse being analysed is ‘masculinity’ (and a certain type
of masculinity) which is considered dominant in relation to its subordinate others. The
inferior or marginalised others of hegemonic masculinity as a discourse are ‘femininity’
and other types of subordinate masculinities (queer, effeminate, gay).
The Importance of Masculine Discourses in International Relations
As previously explained in an article named “Trauma and American Masculinity” (2013),
analytical feminism applies gender theory to demonstrate how states and their leaders
use discourses of masculinity to be in a position of power in international relations. This
happens more explicitly when these states or leaders are faced with a situation of socio-‐
political unrest since opposing discourses that might destabilize or disrupt their position
of power challenges them. In order to understand the privileged position of hegemonic
masculinity over femininity and other types of subordinate masculinities, the
importance of “man” in traditional western through needs to be clarified. Some
excerpts of the article Trauma and American Masculinity (2013) will be used here.
Following the Enlightenment, the role of the “autonomous rational individual” has been
considered as the footing for political action. This rational individual has its birth in the
separation between mind and body that serves as the foundation for traditional
western thought. As Charlotte Hooper (2008, p. 25) states, “[abstract] narratives of the
mind dominate discussions of the human subject – at least in the case of the male
subject, who stands in for the universal”. Women, associated with the narratives of the
body, are the opposite of man. This forms the dichotomy of “mind/body” in which the
first term has always superior or more accepted connotations that the subordinate
second term.
In the realist tradition, states are equated with the traits associated with “man” because
states are the rational actors in international relations. Structural realists believe that all
orders – the domestic and the international – are anarchical given the lack of a central
authority. For that reason, the state acts as a rational actor because it provides
hierarchy within the state to promote domestic order; and also, it builds military
capabilities to protect its sovereignty in the international arena. As a result, the state
acts as a rational actor that tames the anarchical “state of nature” found in both the
domestic and international arena (Hooper, 2008, p. 10). Thus, the dichotomy of
order/anarchy is created in which “order” is associated with the traits of man/mind and
state as rational actor and “anarchy” is associated with the traits of woman/body and
disorder that are considered inferior. “From a feminist perspective, the implication of
this man/state analogy is that rationality is equated with men’s behaviours and the state
as a rational actor bears a male-‐masculine identity” (True, 2009, p. 248).
Levels of analysis reveal that state leaders internalise the normalised masculine
behaviour of men in order to embody the masculinity of the state. This is because states
are the most influential actors in international relations, according to the realist
tradition. As Connell claims, “to the extent particular institutions become dominant in
world society, the patterns of masculinity embedded in them may become global
standards” (Kenway, Kraack, Hickey-‐Moody, 2006, p. 30). These traits are competence,
assertiveness, rationality, strength, agency, instrumentality, aggressive; and being
successful in economic negotiations and in the use of military power (Huddy &
Terkildsen, 1993, p. 122).
Discourses of Masculinity in Practice: The United States and the War against Terrorism
The United States is one of the states in the international arena that bears a male-‐
masculine identity. It embodies the superior characteristics of dichotomies such as
“sovereign”, “rational”, “strong”, “civilized”, and “developed”, among others. Since
gender identity is relational, for this identity to exist, it needs to be in opposition to an
Other that embodies the less valued characteristics of the dichotomies; for example, an
Other that is “barbaric”, “irrational”, “weak” and “dangerous”. Therefore, for the state,
identity is understood as the construction of boundaries through exclusionary practices
that separated the inside from the outside that is considered dangerous (Campbell,
1992, p. 68). One of the exclusionary practices that the United States employs to secure
its masculine identity is by creating a feminine Other through foreign policy.
For example, during the Cold War, the United States wanted to create a society of
security in which communists had to be excluded both within the country and outside of
it as an expression of loyalty. Thus, if the Other is barbaric, dangerous and weak; the US
used practices such as tests of loyalty and communist hunts to secure its masculinity
(Campbell, 1992, p.166). The United States over time has had different “barbaric”
Others, from the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, North Vietnam, Third World Dictators,
Saddam Hussein, AIDS, terrorism and so on. American foreign policy has played the role
in creating identity boundaries to secure the state against international disorder or
anarchy, characteristics valued as feminine.
In order to understand how the American government has used discourses of
masculinity to perform a gender-‐masculine state, the discourse on the war on terrorism
will be analysed. This discourse will be assessed through the speeches used by President
George W. Bush and media imagery to understand the gender-‐masculine language used
and how this reinforces the dichotomy that favours masculine over feminine.
Gender is used as a thematic frame for political issues to simplify the population’s
capacity to understand complex issues. The gender theme is usually used as a
framework for issues that are not gender-‐related at all. This is because certain gender
connotations of masculine or feminine are superimposed on other cultural forms. For
example, the ‘homeland’ is associated with feminine traits, especially in speeches of war
from the US, because it represents the need of women and children (back in the
homeland) to be protected from evil by the military. Also, the state is seen as a
masculine actor that ought to defend the nation or the ‘motherland’ (Christensen &
Ferree, 2008, p. 3). “Gender ideologies symbolically structure the social world, organise
power-‐relations, and provide a catalyst for historical change” (Christensen & Ferree on
Scott, 2008, p. 3).
The language of war and confrontation is extremely gendered to signify masculine
supremacy, mostly in military power; and feminine weakness, mostly through
victimization. This is what the United States did after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The US boosted its masculinity by portraying the men of the nation as brave heroes and
a courageous president and feminized the homeland, the women and children and the
women in Afghanistan that had to be protected, defended and liberated; respectively.
According to Richard Jackson (2005, p. 157), [the] discourse of the war on terror “is
actually an overwhelming masculine narrative full of stereotypical masculine heroes,
equally stereotypical female victims and an accompanying set of traditional masculine
behaviours and images”.
One of the most blatant justifications for the US to initiate the war on terrorism was the
oppression of Afghan women by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The Bush
administration constructed an Other-‐abroad that needed to be emancipated and
defended from its evil masculine leaders – the Taliban and Al-‐Qaeda – to be able to
reinstate its heroic masculinity and establish its moral righteousness. This vulnerable
Other was identified as Afghan women and, metaphorically, the nation of Afghanistan
itself. The First Lady, Laura Bush, made a radio statement speaking about the need “to
focus on the brutality against women and children by the Al-‐ Qaeda terrorist network
and the regime it supports in Afghanistan, the Taliban” (Faludi, 2007, p. 40). Therefore,
it is identifiable that the feminine Other, the women in Afghanistan, are being taken
away their human rights and dignities by their masculine oppressors: Al-‐Qaeda and the
Taliban regime.
The President of the United States, George W. Bush, was portrayed as a cowboy hero,
which represented the accepted standard of masculinity in the country at that specific
time. “The cowboy becomes an icon for a certain type of masculinity that presents
physical strength, linguistic simplicity and autonomy as “American” values” (Christensen
& Ferree, 2008, p. 15).
President Bush being depicted as a cowboy throughout the media sparked a
phenomenon in which American firefighters, policemen, and other men that aided
women and children in the attacks of September 11, 2001 were depicted as ‘”the
cowboys of yesterday”. This strategy used the same discourse of cowboy masculinity of
the President in ordinary American men to depict heroism and “American” hegemonic
masculinity. In a speech, Bush portrayed himself, his administration and American men
as heroes, this is best demonstrated by quoting him: “America would never abandon
Iraq or any nation that wasn’t capable of defending herself” (Faludi, 2007, p. 48).
Since being a cowboy signified
ultimate masculinity and since Bush
was the signifier for this masculinity,
the success in liberating Afghan
women was indebted to him and to
American men. A speech given by the
First Lady, Laura Bush in George
Bush’s campaign for reelection,
reassured how her husband and
American men serving in the military
liberated both Afghanistan women
Figure 2: Bush depicted as a cowboy in The Denver Post (March, 2006). Source: Mike Keefe.
and the US nation from evil, inferior and barbaric men (The Taliban). She said:
“After years of being treated as virtual prisoners in their own homes by the
Taliban, the women of Afghanistan are going back to work. After being denied an
education, even the chance to learn to read, the little girls in Afghanistan are now in
school” (Bush, BBC News, 2004).
“[We] need to reassure our children that our police and firemen, and military
and intelligence workers are doing everything possible to keep them safe. We need to
remind them that most people in the world are good. And we need to explain that
because of strong American leadership in the past, we don't hide under our desks
anymore” (Bush, BBC News, 2004).
The discursive construction of the US state, its leader and men as superior created a
dichotomy where the Taliban men were portrayed as inferior and barbaric and were
considered less masculine. By portraying Afghan women (and, metaphorically, the
nation of Afghanistan) as a feminine Other that needed to be rescued from masculine
evildoers, US men were portrayed as cowboy heroes, superior and more civilized than
the inferior, barbaric and oppressive men of the Taliban regime. This assures patriarchal
gender relations (masculine as superior and feminine as inferior) and heterosexuality as
the normative sexual orientation (US chivalry and heroism to rescue women and the
nation of Afghanistan). This dichotomy between different types of masculinity
represents the existence of a hierarchical multiplicity of masculinities.
There is not a single kind of masculinity but a plurality of masculinities that exist as
identity markers. The idealized and normative kind of masculinity, embodied by the
United States, is hegemonic masculinity. The foundation of western thought being the
“autonomous rational individual” does not represent not only to the “dependent”,
“irrational” and “invisible” women, but also the experiences of non-‐Western men. “By
oversimplifying and overgeneralizing from the rational/emotional dichotomy, this
approach tends inadvertently to universalize the experiences of white, middle-‐class,
Anglo-‐American, heterosexual men” (Hooper, 2008, p. 63). Other masculinities that do
not embody the hegemonic norm of masculinity are perceived as less masculine
(because of their position of subordination) and; consequently, are feminized or
equated to feminine traits.
Hegemonic masculinity is a notion that changes overtime, but as it is normative, this
kind of masculinity is the standard to which all other (subordinate) masculinities want to
achieve. Power-‐ knowledge nexus is an important concept: those that are powerful have
the possibilities of creating knowledge and institutions that reinforce their power in the
first place, creating hegemonic truths (Foucault Online, n.d.). Hegemonic masculinity,
embodied by the West -‐ England and the US – at some point in time, has been
represented by some (if not all) of these characteristics: military strength, class and
racial elitism and supremacy and economic development allowed by capitalism. Over all;
however, hegemonic masculinity’s most important features are patriarchy,
heterosexuality and hyper-‐masculinity.
Discourses of Masculinity: Why are they used by current Socialist Venezuelan Leaders?
In order to understand the specific case of Venezuela within Latin America, it is
important to differentiate between two levels of analysis of hegemonic masculinity.
Firstly, as a Latin American country with a colonial past, any type of dominant
masculinity in Venezuela is subordinate to Western hegemonic masculinity (Euro-‐
American values). This is an analysis of the global scale of hegemonic masculinity.
Secondly, within Venezuelan there are local forms of hegemonic masculinity that are
linked to regional forms of hegemonic masculinity, which have been shaped by western
hegemonic masculinity, and so, they are similar. This local/regional hegemonic
masculinity has its own subordinate, which is also related to the subordinate of
hegemonic masculinity on a global level. This is an analysis of the local and regional
forms of hegemonic masculinity. These multiple links are inherited from the colonial
past.
Parting from the analysis of the global scale of western hegemonic masculinity, current
socialist Venezuelan leaders use discourses of masculinity that originated from Western
culture because it encourages them to achieve the status of hegemonic masculinity.
According to Antonio Gramsci, the concept of hegemony “refers to the cultural dynamic
by which a group claims and sustains a leading position in social life” (Connell, 1995, p.
77). Hegemonic masculinity embodies the legitimacy of patriarchy as a form of gender
relations and of heterosexuality as the normative and accepted sexuality. Throughout
time, other kinds of masculinities (gay, effeminate, queer) that differ with the current
meaning of hegemonic masculinity (patriarchal gender relations, heterosexuality) can
become dominant and hegemonic.
The normativity of hegemonic masculinity disciplines subordinate masculinities to
achieve the standards of hegemony through the internalisation of hegemonic cultural
values. Western hegemonic masculinity has been dominant in Latin America, including
Venezuela, since colonial times. As Connell (1993, p. 612) argues, “This power [western
hegemonic masculinity] is the strongest force redefining men's place in gender relations
outside the North Atlantic world”. For this reason, the Venezuelan society has
internalised these discourses as hegemonic truths that organise social practices; thus,
Venezuelan leaders use discourses of masculinity as a political strategy.
Naturalised patriarchal gender relations and heterosexuality as the normative sexual
orientation – the corollary of hegemonic masculinity – were brought to what we know
today as ‘Latin America’ through colonialism. As part of the colonial ‘mission’ to civilise
the barbaric ‘Other’, the structure of the family was imposed upon the colonised by the
Catholic Church as the norm. As a result, social relations and practices privilege the
‘natural’ gender binary and the institutionalisation of heterosexuality as the normative
and ‘natural’ sexual orientation (Tlostanova & Mignolo, 2009, p. 135). These aspects of
hegemonic masculinity are still normative in Latin America (and of course, Venezuela)
and are continuously reinforced by political, economic, social and religious institutions.
Parting from the analysis about particular discourses of local and regional masculinities,
current socialist Venezuelan leaders reproduce discourses of ‘Machismo’ that have
originated from the mixture of cultures found in colonialism. According to Connell
(1993, p. 612), “[the] conquistadors provided both provocation and model; Spanish
Catholicism provided the ideology of female abnegation; and oppression blocked other
claims of men to power”.
Machismo – the normalised belief that men are superior to women (patriarchy), which
also encompasses homophobia, hyper-‐masculinity and misogyny – is the dominant and
hegemonic masculinity in Latin America. Even though these phenomena are common to
all hegemonic masculinities throughout the world (including western hegemonic
masculinity), individuals from abroad and within Latin America brand this kind of
hegemonic masculinity as machismo (Gutmann, 2003, p. 18). Thus, machismo is the
embodiment of local (Venezuela) and regional (Latin America) hegemonic masculinity.
Discourses of Masculinity in Practice: Venezuelan Socialist Leaders and Machismo
Current socialist leaders, late President Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, use
discourses of hegemonic masculinity as a political strategy to promote accepted cultural
norms of the country. This appeals to the masses in order to win votes, support the
regime or encouraging confrontation and antagonism between his supporters and the
opposition.
Just as leaders in the United States, Venezuelan leaders have inherited and adopted
traditional western modes of thought derived from modernity. This means that the
traditional way of thinking is shaped by dualisms where one term is superior, accepted
and considered the norm to strive towards, while the other term is considered inferior
and marginal. The use of binary thinking and discourses that are considered superior
given their exclusions are most prominent in situations of socio-‐political unrest in order
to favour one competing discourse over the other. This is the strategy used by the US (as
seen in the previous example about the war on terror) and by Venezuelan leaders
during electoral campaigns.
Since Chávez came to power back in 1999, his followers, the chavista media, ministers
and government officers have portrayed him as a masculine figure for the nation. This
was successfully achieved through the use of discourses of masculinity related to strong
leadership and heroism. Chávez reproduced narratives of strong caudillo and the
liberator of Venezuela and Latin America as Simon Bolivar’s predecessor. According to
Ingoldsby (1991, p. 57), “[each] macho must show that he is masculine, strong, and
physically powerful”.
The image of the Latin American caudillo is charged with elements of machismo. Hugo
Chávez reproduced the masculine discourse of cuadillo since he was a strong military
man, as his followers used to call him ‘Mi Comandante’, and an authoritarian leader
(even though this is debatable and
relative to opinion since he had been
elected ‘democratically’ several times)
(Guillermoprieto, 2004). Chávez was
also portrayed as the liberator of Latin
America as he was carrying Bolivar’s
legacy of liberating the region from
colonial rule (Wilpert, 2013). This Figure 3: Chávez Revolutionary in the Barrios, Caracas. Source: The Telegraph
reproduces the dualisms of masculine/feminine founded on western culture because
the liberator is a masculine figure of heroism and protection that will liberate a weak
‘Other’, which is ultimately feminised. This ‘Other’ is both Latin America as a region who
has suffered from the penetration of colonialism and imperialism and the marginalised
people in Venezuela – living at the margins of society because of the country’s
entrenched racism and classism from the ruling classes – that Chávez provided
recognition to. After his death early this year, supporters of his regime “feel that they
have lost not a president or a politician or a great leader but something else: a father, a
savior, a protector and soother of the orphan who lives in fright inside us all”
(Guillermoprieto, 2013).
The dualisms of masculine/feminine or hegemonic masculinity/subordinate masculinity
were reproduced in the electoral campaigns back in April 2013. Current Venezuelan
President Nicolás Maduro reproduced these dichotomies by reasserting his
heterosexual masculinity in a Presidential speech of his campaign. The President said, “I
have a wife, do you hear? I like women. And here she is” and he called Capriles a “little
princess” as well. Also, in 2012, as he was the Vice President
of Venezuela he called the opposition leader and his
followers “mariconsones” (faggots) during a speech and he
was applauded by his chavista colleagues (Padget, 2013).
The reason that Maduro needs to assert his masculinity in
public is because one of the most important features of
machismo is hyper-‐masculinity and sexual prowess. This
translates to hypersexual behaviour around women.
According to Ingoldsby (1991, p. 58), “The other major
characteristic of machismo is hypersexuality. The impotent
and homosexual are scoffed at – the culturally preferred goal
is the conquest of women, and the more the better”. For this Figure 4: Image used by
government supporters through social media. Source: La Havana
Times
reason, machismo is founded on a culture of heteronormativity, this means, that
heterosexual culture, acts and practices are privileged over other forms of sexuality.
Ingoldsby (1991, p. 58) affirms that one strategy to confirm and repeat one’s masculinity
and heterosexuality is through story telling and bragging about it, just how President
Maduro did in his speech.
Maduro was not the only one to utter homophobic slurs against the opposition leader.
Pro-‐government assembly deputy, Pedro Carreño, asserted the masculinity of the
government leaders by feminising the opposition through homophobia. According to
Connell (1995, p. 78), homosexual identities are considered to be at the bottom of the
gender hierarchy, both in feminine and masculine roles. “Gayness, in patriarchal
ideology, is the repository of whatever is symbolically expelled from hegemonic
masculinity […] Hence, from the point of view of hegemonic masculinity, gayness is
easily assimilated to femininity; and hence the ferocity of homophobic attacks”.
Deputy Pedro Carreño enthusiastically marginalised the opposition leader, Henrique
Capriles, as gay and drag in a culture where machismo (the ideology that oppresses
anything other than hegemonic masculinity) is prevalent in society. In machista
Venezuela, as in other countries with patriarchal cultures, to be gay calls morality and
position in society into question. Carreño firstly said in the assembly that opposition
representatives “lacked balls”, that “castration was a requisite to be part of the
opposition political party” and that men there were eunuchs (castrated men). This
feminized the men of the opposition party because they were portrayed as lacking the
male genitals that signify manliness. Secondly, Carreño directly addressed Capriles by
saying “[respond] to this, homosexual! Accept the debate, maricón (faggot)!” Thirdly,
Carreño alleged about pictures of “one of Capriles’ top aides dressed in drag and
cavorting with drug dealers and prostitutes” (Padgett, 2013).
Not only socialist leaders use discourses of hegemonic masculinity to prove their power
but the opposition leader, Henrique Capriles, responded to the government’s
homosexual accusations the same way. By living in a culture where machismo, rigid
gender roles and heterosexuality are pervasive, Capriles responded to the government’s
homophobic slurs by stating that his is a womanizer and that ‘women are his weakness’.
Opposition leader Henrique Capriles rejected the accusations made against him about
his supposed non-‐heterosexual sexual orientation because in order to remain popular
and in a position of leadership; and to appeal to the masses and normalised Venezuelan
culture he has to be a ‘man’. “Sometimes I stop here and I have a few young women
standing in front of me and I start to stare at them and I lose my focus. That is my
weakness. I am telling the whole country, right here and now, that women are my
weakness,” said Capriles (Aznarez, 2013).
Even though Capriles immediate reaction was to reassert his masculinity, in a press
conference he represented another form of masculinity, which is not hegemonic. He
with his speech he demonstrated a softer side, perhaps more comprehensive and
understanding form of masculinity, rather than the usual macho politics of Venezuela.
He said:
“I'd like to send a respectful and considerate message in rejection to the
homophobic remarks made by Nicolás [Maduro] today. It's not the first time. I believe in
a society without exclusion and that's the way I express it to the country. A society
where no one feels excluded based on the way they think, their race, their creed, their
sexual orientation. People should go out and reject it.”
“If that's how you want to attack me, let it be. But from here on I will always
demand respect for all Venezuelans. Because the society that we want to build in
Venezuela is a society without exclusion. You cannot talk of inclusion if there is
exclusion. There should be overwhelming rejection of something like that” (Capriles,
2013).
Even though the government since Chávez came to power has advocated for social
inclusion of marginalised groups, the homophobic slurs articulated by the government
itself provides a glimpse of the machismo underlying the Venezuelan (and Latin
American) culture. This machista culture reinforces homophobia and transphobia
against the LGBTQIA community and its individuals. Even though the current
government has been providing more recognition to this community, the homophobia
seen from both sides (government and opposition) represents hypocrisy. This should be
a wake up call about the work that needs to be done to address the marginalisation of
the LGBTQIA community in Venezuela and in Latin America.
Conclusion: Reproduction vs. Disruption of Hegemonic Masculinity
Hegemonic masculinity normalises discourses, practices and assumptions that privilege
patriarchy, hypermasculinity and homophobia. On the global scale, hegemonic
masculinity is embodied by the United States, not only given its military, political and
economic power but the cultural and institutional legitimacy of its actions and
discourses of masculinity. This type of hegemonic masculinity, which is patriarchal,
heterosexual and hypermasculine, is demonstrated in the US military power but also in
the influence of its socio-‐economic model throughout the world. This neoliberal
economic model and social organisation practices have been brought to Latin America
through imperialism and neo-‐imperialism.
The Venezuelan society has inherited discourses of hegemonic masculinity from
colonialism. Current socialist Venezuelan leaders have used strategies of hegemonic
masculinity, which in the region is understood as machismo, in a situation of socio-‐
political unrest, specifically, in the elections of April this year. Just as much as in the US,
Venezuelan leaders rely on hegemonic masculinity’s features (patriarchy,
hypersexuality/hypermasculinity and homophobia) as a political strategy to gain power
since these are the cultural values that underlie the Venezuelan society. This technique
portrays the opponent group as inferior and marginalised.
Both Venezuelan and American leaders have made their opponent seem inferior and
less moral through feminisation and/or homophobia, equating their opponent to
women. The common pattern is that these leaders find power through the use of
discourses of masculinity because these discourses are associated with strength,
leadership, courage, assertiveness, power, protection and heroism. In doing this, they
categorise their opponents as subordinate masculinities given their inferiority in the
hierarchy of masculinity because they are considered effeminate, queer or women.
Even though Venezuelan leaders have successfully adopted discourses of hegemonic
masculinity derived from Western culture, current Venezuelan socialist leaders are also
challenging the hegemonic masculinity embodied by the US. This is because the
meaning of hegemonic masculinity is not only influenced on a global level by the
masculine hegemon, but it also is culturally and historically specific in the region and
locality.
In Venezuela, the local masculinity, which is gaining regional legitimacy given other
similar government and leaders, is that of lower-‐class socialist men. This masculinity
started to emerge as a “protest masculinity” that is now gaining momentum and
cultural hegemony to achieve standard of hegemonic masculinity in the locality of
Venezuela. According to Connell (2005, p. 848), protest masculinity can be defined as
“[A] pattern of masculinity constructed in local-‐working class settings,
sometimes among ethnically marginalised men, which embodies the claim to power
typical of regional hegemonic masculinities in Western countries, but which lacks the
economic resources and institutional authority that underpins the regional and global
patterns”.
This kind of hegemonic masculinity in Venezuela has its subordinate masculinities, which
clearly exemplified throughout the essay, is constituted by the opposition groups and its
leaders since they are portrayed as ‘homosexual’. This local form of hegemonic
masculinity is machista, has been influenced by Western culture since colonialism and
continues to adopt these western discourses of masculinity.
However, this local masculinity, at the same time, challenges the US hegemonic
masculinity embedded in neoliberalism. This emerging hegemonic masculinity is a
cosmopolitan English-‐speaking businessman dressed in designer suits, travelling in
aeroplanes and spending business trips in hotels that can make all this happen thanks to
his neoliberal beliefs of limited government regulation and intervention of the economy.
“This has the additional effect of increasing the power of the hegemonic countries
within the global political and economic arena, since everyone, no matter where they
are from, behaves in the same way” (Kimmel, 2001, p. 25). The emerging local
hegemonic masculinity in Venezuela challenges this hegemonic model of masculinity
brought by American-‐led globalisation. As a result, the socialist local model of
hegemonic masculinity in Venezuela is an act of resistance.
For this reason, Venezuela and its machista culture, even though regionally and locally
hegemonic is considered to embed both a complicit and subordinate masculinity in the
global level; and protest masculinity on the regional and local levels. Firstly, Venezuela
embeds a complicit masculinity because by adopting discourses of hegemonic
masculinity derived and used by Western culture, they reproduce and reinforce the
oppressive systems of patriarchy, hypermasculinity and homophobia (Connell, 2005, p.
79). Secondly, Venezuela also embeds a subordinate masculinity in relation to western
hegemonic masculinity because, even though it successfully adopts discourses of
masculinity, the local meaning of hegemonic masculinity in the country, and perhaps the
region, is changing since it is culturally and historically specific. It is a subordinate
masculinity because socialist ideology is rejected by American neoliberalism and it is
categorised as inferior and barbaric, just as the men in the country that support this
ideology. Thirdly, on the regional and local level, Venezuela is a protest masculinity
because it is an act of resistance enacted by marginalised, lower-‐class men, represented
by the current government, against the imposition of American neoliberal hegemonic
masculinity.
Venezuela is a very interesting case for exploring the relations between masculinities on
a global level and the possibility for change in the meaning of hegemonic masculinity on
a regional and local level.
Bibliography
• Aznarez, J. (2013, March 19). Nicolás Maduro and Homophobia in Latin America.
El País in English. Retrieved from:
http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/03/19/inenglish/1363711540_386143.html
• Campbell, D. (1992). Rewriting Security: United States Foreign Policy and the
Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Christensen, W. & Ferree, M. (2008). Cowboy of the World? Discourse and the
Iraq War Debate. Special Issue on Political Violence. DOI 10.1007/s11133-‐008-‐
9106-‐0.
• Connell, R. (1993). The Big Picture: Masculinities in The Recent World. Theory
and Society 22(5). Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/657986?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&si
d=21103119124173
• Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
• Connell, R. & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking The
Concept. Gender and Society, 19(6). Retrieved from:
http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/6/829
• Del Castillo, V. (2013). Trauma and American Masculinity.
• Faludi, S. (2007). The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post 9/11 America. New
York: Metropolitan Books.
• Figure 1: No Author. (2012, February 15). Anti Capriles Cartoon. Retrieved from:
http://globetribune.info/2012/02/15/hugo-‐chavez-‐campaign-‐sinks-‐into-‐gay-‐
smears-‐and-‐jew-‐hatred-‐in-‐venezuelan-‐election/anti-‐capriles-‐cartoon/
• Figure 2: Keefe, M. (2002, March 23). Retrieved from:
http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/cc7e5411-‐093c-‐4757-‐b062-‐
ab1943d20e1c.html
• Figure 3: Blair, D. (2013, March 5). Hugo Chavez: Can the 'Bolivarian Socialist
Revolution' outlive its leader? The Telegraph. Retrieved from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/977985
4/Hugo-‐Chavez-‐Can-‐the-‐Bolivarian-‐Socialist-‐Revolution-‐outlive-‐its-‐leader.html
• Figure 4: Caridad, Y. (2012, September 24). Homophobia Chavista? La Havana
Times. Retrieved from: http://www.havanatimes.org/sp/?p=72066
• Foucault Online. (n.d.). Key concepts. Retrieved from: http://www.michel-‐
foucault.com/concepts/index.html
• Guillermoprieto, A. (n.d.). The Last Caudillo. The New Yorker Review of Books.
Retrieved from: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/mar/06/hugo-‐
chavez-‐last-‐caudillo/
• Guillermoprieto, A. (2010, February 24). The Return of Macho Politics? The New
Yorker. Retrieved from:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/02/the-‐return-‐of-‐
macho-‐politics.html
• Gutmann, M. (2003). Changing Men and Masculinities in Latin America. Durham
and London, UK: Duke University Press.
• Hooper, C. (2008). Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations and
Gender Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Huddy, L. & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of
Male and Female Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37(1).
Retrived from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111526
• Ingoldsby, B. (1991). The Latin American Family: Familialism vs. Machismo.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 22(1). Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41602120?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&
sid=21103119124173
• Jackson, R. (2005). Writing the War On Terrorism: Language, Politics and
Counter-‐Terrorism. New York, NY: Manchester University Press.
• Kenway, J. Kraack, A. & Hickey-‐Moody, A. (2006). Masculinity Beyond the
Metropolis. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kimmel, M. (2001). Global Masculinities: Restoration and Resistance. In B. Pease
& K. Pringle (Ed.), A Man’s World?: Changing Men’s Practices in a Globalised
World. Zed Books.
• Mills, S. (2003). Routledge Critical Thinkers: Michel Foucault. London, GB:
Routledge. • No Author. (2013, March 11). Venezuelan presidential candidate Henrique
Capriles: To discriminate against gays is absolute fascism. Blabbeando. Retrieved
from: http://blabbeando.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/venezuelan-‐presidential-‐
candidate.html#.Up3AtZHxTwI
• No Author. (2004, September 1). Full text: Laura Bush's speech. BBC News.
Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3617428.stm
• Padget, T. (2013, August 27). Homophobia and Birther Paranoia Take Venezuelan
Politics by Storm. World Time. Retrieved from:
http://world.time.com/2013/08/27/homophobia-‐and-‐birther-‐paranoia-‐take-‐
venezuelan-‐politics-‐by-‐storm/
• Tlostanova, M. & Mignolo, W. (2009). Global Coloniality and The Decolonial
Option. Epistemologies of Transformation: The Latin American Decolonial Option
and Its Ramifications. Duke University Press
• True, J. et. Al. (2009). Theories of International Relations. England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
• Wilpert, G. (2013, March 7). The Life and Legacy of Hugo Chavez. Venezuelan
Analysis. Retrieved from: http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8090