NCJ Number
224263
Journal
British Journal of Criminology Volume: 48 Issue: 5 Dated: September 2008 Pages: 641-666
Date Published
September 2008
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This paper explores the larger sociocriminological question in attempting to understand why previous data depicts rural men as presenting a relatively high risk for inflicting harm upon themselves and others and examines this in relation to the processes of community formation that shape the everyday architecture of rural life.
Abstract
Destabilizations of the architecture of rural life are challenging the rural/masculine discourses that elevate rural masculinity as the essence of manhood, brute strength and physicality. In such sociocultural circumstances, monologic (individual reasoning) expressions of masculinity may compensate for sense of loss, but it may also lead to higher rates of self-harm, injury, and interpersonal violence in rural settings. Performing acts and rituals that exaggerate male physicality and brute strength are one strategy available to defend men’s positioning in traditional fields of masculinity under threat. The articulation of a desired masculinity sometimes finds expression in harmful activities that compromise the safety of men themselves, others, and their communities. To understand the relationship between rurality, masculinity, and violence, there is the need to understand masculinity in relation to structured discourses that are often incoherent, contradictory, and mutually exclusive. The meanings associated with masculinity vary historically and culturally, with the results that multiple meanings of masculinity exist at any one moment, many of which are ambiguous. Even in the face of widespread sociostructural challenges, strategies employed to articulate masculinity show greater consistency. Violence is one such strategy among others. Violent men express a ‘psychic complexity,’ though destructively and, often, to their own and others’ detriment. This paper attempts to theorize the connections between masculinities, rurality, and violence at a time when former certainties grounded in the rural gender order are being threatened by socioeconomic and cultural destabilizations. Table, figures and references