Name: Can masculine men make heart gestures? Speech Act Theory, Hegemonic Masculinity & Discourse of Power
Uploaded: 2024-08-23T03:11:57.000Z
Duration: 27 min 1 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Several days ago, Taiwanese actor Sonny Wong attended a fan promotion event where he responded to a fan wanting to make a heart gesture by giving them a high five instead.

That by itself is not that much of a problem, but later he posted on social media saying

I don't want to make that sissy gesture, which sparked controversy.

As a response to his comment, a New Power Party chairwoman Wang Wanyu commented, urging him to be mindful of his word, as a few careless words can hurt thousands of people.

The Taiwanese Gender Equality Education Association condemned Wang's statement, argued that while there's nothing wrong with Wang not wanting to make a heart gesture, the issue lies in his use of the derogatory term sissy to express this.

They point out that while in some contexts the term might be used positively or empower feminine quality, in many cases it carries discriminatory connotations, reflecting a disdain for femininity.

I believe this event presents a very good opportunity for us to reflect on the nature of gender roles and how, in our society, even something as simple as a heart gesture can make a person feel so insecure about their masculinity that he has to resort to using a derogatory term to distance himself from it.

We humans as language users tend to think about language as simply a tool for communication, but in reality, it's hardly the case.

So if you have been following me for a while, which I doubt any of you exist, according to analytics, the majority of you are one-time viewers who found my videos through YouTube search or Google search.

If you are one of my imaginative followers who has followed me for a while, you know

And today, I will introduce three big words that can help us understand the situation better.

Speech-act theory is a concept in linguistic and philosophy of language that refers to the action performed through speech.

Introduced by J.L. Austin in his 1962 book, How to Do Things with Words, the theory explains that when we speak, we are not just conveying information, but also performing action.

There are three main types of speech acts.

Locutionary act is the act of saying something with a specific meaning, focuses only on the literal meaning of the words, not the intention or effect.

Elocutionary act is the intention behind the statement, like requesting, promising or apologizing, which is more than just the words themselves, it's about what the speaker is trying to achieve through their statement.

The prolocutionary act is about the outcome or effect of the statement on the listener, which is separate from the speaker's intention and the literal meaning, such as persuading, frightening or amusing.

For example, imagine your friend just pulled out a fresh cheesy pizza, and you really want to have a piece of it.

You might say, wow, the pizza looks really good.

Here the locutionary act is simply expressing admiration for the pizza, you are literally stating the pizza looks appetizing, it's just the surface meaning of the words.

The elocutionary act here is actually a hint or a request, you are not just commenting on the appearance of the pizza, you are subtly trying to get your friend to offer you a slice.

The intention behind the statement is to prompt the friend to share, even though it's not explicitly stated.

The prolocutionary act is the effect this statement has on the pizza's owner.

Maybe your friend will feel guilty and say, ok, fine, you can have a slice.

Or maybe they laughed and said, nice try, but this one is all mine.

The effect on the listener, whether they decide to share the pizza or not, is the prolocutionary act.

The outcome depends on how the pizza owner interprets the hint.

Ok, so I think now we can start by breaking down a Sonny Wong statement using speech act theory to better understand the nature and the effect of his speech.

Sonny Wong said, I don't want to make that sissy gesture.

On the surface, the locutionary act is simply Sonny Wong stating a preference.

He don't want to perform a particular gesture.

The words themselves are just conveying his decision, which might seem straightforward.

However, the locutionary act here go beyond the surface meaning.

By choosing the term sissy, translated from the Chinese term niáng pào, Sonny isn't just setting a boundary.

He implicitly expressing disdain or rejection of certain behavior by associating it with negative stereotypes about femininity in men.

The locutionary act involves the intention behind his words to distance himself from anything perceived as unmanly and to reinforce traditional gender norm.

Additionally, in response to the criticism he faced for using the word, he later hinted on social media that it might have been part of the movie's promotion, suggesting that the intention could be to provoke outrage intentionally, aka rage baiting, which is an equally problematic intention if not more so.

Finally, the prelocutionary act is about the impact this statement has on others.

Hearing this, listeners might feel reinforcing their own biases against non-traditional gender expressions, or they might feel insulted or marginalized if they identify with or support more feminine behaviors in men.

The use of sissy can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, leading to the normalization of gender-based slurs, further stigmatizing those who do not conform to the rigid gender roles.

This can harm not only those directly affected by such stereotypes, but also those who adhere to traditional masculine roles, as it traps them in limiting and harmful expectations.

It discourages vulnerability in men who want to be perceived as masculine, suggesting that expressing gentleness or making cute gestures is incompatible with being seen as a quote-unquote real man.

Many have argued that such language affects those who don't conform to traditional gender norms, but I would argue they actually harm the men who do want to follow the traditional masculine gender role equally, if not more so.

Let me explain why in the following video, and share some research to back up this claim.

To explain why, I think it would be helpful to introduce another big word of today, hegemonic masculinity.

So let's start by explaining what this word means.

Hegemonic masculinity refers to the dominant form of masculinity in a given society, which often upholds certain ideals about male behavior and roles.

This concept, introduced by sociology R. W. Connell, suggests that hegemonic masculinity set the standards for what is considered normal or ideal masculinity.

It typically emphasizes traits like physical strength, authority, heterosexuality, emotional stoicism, and competitiveness.

These traits are often reinforced through cultural norms, media portrayals, and socialization process.

From a young age, boys are often socialized into this expectation through family, education, peer groups, and media.

For example, boys might be encouraged to engage in competitive sport, avoid showing vulnerability, and in this case, avoid cute gestures as a way to assert themselves in a way that aligns with traditional masculine roles.

But who is to say what specific actions, gestures, or demeanors are considered acceptable masculine behavior?

One big part of them was formed through the so-called discourse of power, which is our third big word of today.

The discourse of power refers to the way in which power is expressed, communicated, and maintained through language, idea, and social practices.

It is a concept rooted in the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault, who argued that power is not just about direct control or coercion, but also embedded in the way we talk about and understand the world.

Discourse shapes what is considered true, normal, or acceptable in influencing people's beliefs and behaviors.

Those who control the dominant discourse have the ability to define reality for others, determining what knowledge is legitimate and which voices are heard or silenced.

Through discourse, power is both exercised and resisted, meaning that while it can reinforce existing hierarchies, it also provides avenues for challenging or transforming them.

In this context, Sun Yat-sen's comment is an exercise of power through discourse, by labeling the hard gesture as sissy.

He is contributing to a discourse that polices and regulates acceptable masculine behavior.

This reinforces a social hierarchy where masculinity is narrowly defined, and deviates from this norm are stigmatized.

The use of derogatory language becomes a mechanism of control, marginalizing those who do not fit within the perceived boundary of gender norm.

On the other hand, those who push back on his comment can be seen as engaging in a form of resistance against the dominant discourse of masculinity.

By challenging Sun Yat-sen's comment, they are questioning the narrow definition of masculinity that his words uphold.

The resistance can create a space for alternative discourses that are more inclusive and diverse, allowing for a broader range of expressions of gender identity.

In this way, the discourse of power is not static, it's constantly being negotiated and contested.

Those who challenge the dominant discourse are attempting to shift the balance of power, opening up possibility for new ways of thinking and being.

This dynamic process underscores how power operates within society, not just through overt control.

Through the subtlety of languages, norms, and cultural practices that shape our understanding of the world, and our place within it.

I argue that this kind of attempt to narrow the definition of acceptable masculinity not only marginalized those who don't conform to traditional masculine standards, but also equally harmed, if not more so, those who do wish to follow traditional masculine gender roles by limiting men's ability to express vulnerability and emotional tenderness.

To explain why, I want to first present a statistic.

According to World Health Organization, men are nearly twice as likely to die by suicide as women.

In many countries, the suicide rate among men is significantly higher.

For example, according to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2022, in the United States, the suicide rate among men was approximately four times higher than that of women.

Specifically, while men represent about 50% of the population, they account for nearly 80% of all suicides in 2022.

While the reasons for high suicide rate among men are complex and multifaceted, many experts point to the societal expectation and rigid notion of masculinity as significant factors.

Traditional gender roles often emphasize stoicism, self-reliance, and emotional restraint in men.

This concept sometimes refers to as hegemonic masculinity, aka the term we just learned today.

It discourages men from seeking help or showing vulnerability, which can result in untreated mental health issues and tragically higher rate of suicide.

Research in psychology, sociology, and public health has explored this connection, revealing how the pressure of conforming to traditional masculine norms can have severe mental health consequences.

In practice, it can manifest in the following way.

Subtitles ListPlay Video

Can masculine men make heart gestures? Speech Act Theory, Hegemonic Masculinity & Discourse of Power

anxiety

specific

perceive

struggle