ABSTRACT
Hearn has been active in a number of profeminist men’s groups, including Profeministimiehet. Aside from his activism, Hearn has been a key figure in developing and driving forward the field of profeminist research. His analysis of men and masculinities has been wide ranging, and includes a number of critical studies of men in relation to the arenas of management, organisations, social welfare, reproduction and men’s violence (e.g. Hearn, 1983; 1987; Hearn and Parkin 1987; Hearn 1992; 1998a; Hearn and Pringle with members of CROME 2006). Charting and theorising gender power and men’s relationships to those networks have been the central planks of Hearn’s analysis of various gendered arenas. These critical studies of men, gender and power have helped inform his analysis of the implications of gender power for reconfigurations of men’s identities and profeminist strategies. Hearn’s (1983; 1987) early academic interventions traced the rela-
tionships between power and knowledge across the terrain of gender to expose how critical forms of social theory, such as Marxism, theorised class inequalities but failed to take proper account of the operation and effects of patriarchal power in the generation of social inequities. Hearn (1987) subsequently reformulated Marxist theories of power to develop a neo-Marxist theory of patriarchy. While Hearn has developed his analysis of men’s power beyond neo-Marxism, the concept of gender power has remained central to his analysis of men, profeminist politics and the possibilities of gender transformations (see 1992; 1998a). Hearn’s work on organisations has also influenced
his focus on the macro and public levels of power (see e.g. Hearn and Parkin 1987; Collinson and Hearn 1996; 2005; Hearn and Parkin 2001). Highly aware of the relationships between power and knowledge,
while sharing concerns with other analysts about the effects of the new interrogatory discourses around the concept of masculinities, Hearn has been at the forefront of investigating the epistemological foundations of studies of men. In response to feminist and profeminist anxieties about the direction of studies on men and masculinities, Hearn co-authored a set of ‘baseline’ principles for critical studies of men (Hearn et al. 1983). He later reiterated and expanded these principles with Morgan (Hearn and Morgan 1990). Hearn (e.g. 1998a; 1998b) has continued to highlight the importance of a critical orientation towards the generation of profeminist knowledges and activism. Hearn’s focus on gender power and his analysis of the constitution
of gendered knowledges about men means that he has developed a different model of profeminist politics to Seidler. Hearn’s theoretical framework has also meant that he has prioritised a set of analytical issues across the concepts of men, power, knowledge and gender transgression that are less prevalent in Stoltenberg’s work. He has therefore, been able to stretch profeminist analysis onto new conceptual terrains. The rest of this chapter discusses how Hearn’s focus on the
category of gender power and his attention to epistemological issues in profeminism has enabled him to develop a range of conceptual tools for profeminist analysis, which in turn, broadens profeminism’s reflexivity in relation to the movement’s political practice across private and public arenas. It also examines how Hearn’s general analysis of gender acts to question dimensions of more therapeutic approaches. The next section examines the development and application of the concept of gender power in Hearn’s profeminist interventions. Later sections expose how Hearn’s theory of gender power guides his analysis of profeminist epistemologies and allows him to reflectively mark arenas for profeminist politics.
