Small Hands With Big Consequences: Strategic Masculinity In American Politics

In this dissertation, I ask how presidential primary candidates embody hegemonic ideals in their performance of masculinity during debates. I develop a theory of strategic masculine performance and argue that masculine performance among political candidates is compulsory, strategic, and dynamic. Candidates who fit the stereotypical expectations of presidents (white, cisgendered, heterosexual men) share the descriptive qualities of hegemonic masculinity. Candidates with marginalized identities are still able to embody the abstract qualities of hegemonic masculinity by conveying them through their rhetoric. I conduct a qualitative content analysis of the 2016 Republican primary debates. I operationalized my theory into a coding instrument, that includes four groups of three traits each: Physical Force and Control (toughness, physical fitness, and dominance), Occupational Achievement (success, credibility, and work ethic), Familial Patriarchy (protector, advocate, and enforcer), and Rugged Individualism and Frontiersmanship (self-reliance, pursuit of status, and smarts). I define each trait and how it can be used to masculinize a candidate or emasculate their opponents. I find that candidates increase and decrease their use of particular masculine traits dependent upon elite feedback in the post-debate environment to better align themselves with hegemonic masculinity. Contrary to my expectation that candidates would shift their performance of masculinity to favor traits aligned with elite feedback on what their previous debate performance lacked, I find that all candidates favor one group of traits over all of their debate performances, performing masculinity in a manner best suited to their initial proximity to hegemonic masculinity and professional histories. Candidates with common professional histories, however, shared the same vulnerabilities to emasculating attacks from their opponents. I find that the Governors all used their professional history as state executives to assert their unique masculine performances and received attacks that alleged weak success in bipartisan efforts or poor enforcement capacity. The Senators referenced their national security and budgeting experience and were emasculated by allegations of a lack of self-reliance or work ethic. The Outsiders noted their private sector experience and received attacks about their success or smarts.