Can we measure homosociality?
Anyone who has heard the phrase “locker room talk” is familiar with how men’s conduct is presumed to shift in male-dominated spaces. Hakeem Jefferson, assistant professor of political science at Stanford, is at work on a new project that interrogates exactly how “homosociality” operates and shapes men’s political attitudes and social behaviors. At a recent meeting of the Clayman Institute’s Faculty Research Fellows, Jefferson shared his preliminary research into how we can define and measure homosociality as a distinct orientation.
Jefferson’s innovative scholarship blends social science methods with humanistic ideas. In foregrounding the concepts of masculinity and homosociality, he pays tribute to the pathbreaking work of scholars in feminist studies, queer theory, and history. Rather than treat “gender” as synonymous with “women,” many of these humanists have pushed for a broader view that, in the famous formulation of historian Joan Wallach Scott, treats gender as a “useful category of analysis” for examining the social construction of identity, inequality, and power. Social scientists have been slower to embrace the same theoretical turn, said Jefferson, and have traditionally studied gender in terms of attitudes toward women.
Jefferson’s project breaks new ground by treating “the relationships among men that structure many of our institutions and everyday interactions” as the “central object of analysis.” The commonness of the phenomenon is both an asset and a challenge to its study. Jefferson’s research asks whether the familiar concept of homosociality can help explain the attitudes and behaviors that shape society in a way that is distinct from other influences.
To test these questions, Jefferson and his research team conducted an exploratory study into men’s views of homosociality. They asked 417 individuals, all of whom identified as men, a series of questions gauging their level of comfort in homosocial settings, sensitivity to the opinions of other men, and connection to a group identity. Across 22 items, three factors rose to the fore: The first, status and approval orientation, captures respondents’ regard for their standing among other men and other men’s views of them. The second, male affinity, describes a sense of ease around other men and a gravitation toward male settings. And the third, collective male reputation, connotes concern for how men are seen by outsiders and how men’s behavior can reflect on the group as a whole.
The exploratory study also assessed the correlation between homosociality and other key concepts related to gender and politics. For instance, Jefferson noted a significant correlation between men who exhibited a greater homosocial orientation and those who emphasized the importance of their male identity or put a premium on masculine norms. In contrast, the study revealed only a moderate degree of correlation between homosociality and “hostile sexism,” suggesting that the concepts are connected but not quite as overlapping. “This tells us that homosocial orientation is not merely proxying for hostile sexism,” Jefferson explained. “So, when we ask men about their preferences for these male spaces or their concern about what other men think about them, we are not just asking them what they think about women.”
One of Jefferson’s next steps is to investigate how other dimensions of identity influence men’s homosocial orientation. In the pilot sample of participants, half of whom identified as Black and half as white, scores of homosociality were roughly comparable across racial groups, with Black men demonstrating only a slightly higher homosocial orientation than their white counterparts. Jefferson plans to break down this data in more detail and conduct additional research into how racial identity intersects with different dimensions of homosociality. Jefferson also expressed eagerness to consider how gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion may affect participants’ responses and shape the “idealized prototype” of manhood.
Jefferson’s future research promises to advance our understanding of how men evaluate one another, particularly when faced with misconduct allegations or other fraught circumstances, and how they behave in male-dominated settings, from locker rooms to internet chat rooms, corporate board rooms, and the halls of politics.
