In recent years there have been a number of attempts by different researchers to study men and masculinity using a combination of discourse theory and psychoanalysis. The main reason for this development is the sense that, on its own, discourse theory provides an incomplete account of masculine subjectivity. Psychoanalysis is thought to be able to fill those gaps. In this paper I reviewed these arguments, provided an outline of the alleged deficiencies in discursive approaches to men and masculinity, and examined some of the work that has attempted the above synthesis. I argued that, for a number of reasons, such attempts are bound to fail. Instead, I argued that better progress can be made in studies of masculinity by remaining within the theoretical boundaries of Discursive Psychology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Discursive Psychology involves a radical reconsideration of the relationship between words and the world. Instead of seeing the world as reflected in language, discourse theorists see it as constituted or constructed in and through discourse. The major sense in which this is meant is epistemic—how we come to know or understand the world is inevitably shaped by discourse. However, discourse is also seen as onto-formative (Kosík, 1976); that is, it is seen as capable of bringing objects and events into being. For further information about the central assumptions behind and major developments of Discursive Psychology see Edwards and Potter (1992), Potter (1996) and Edwards (1997).
Although there is an obvious paradox here—for whilst DP has been criticised for exaggerating the extent of human agency, other post-structuralist theorists have been “hauled over the coals” for implying exactly the opposite. For example, Laclau and Mouffe (1985) have been criticised for suggesting that discourse is the principal or primary agent and that “we” (i.e., human subjects) simply follow in its wake.
Whilst Tyson was both world famous and a multi-millionaire, his aggressive behaviour outside of the ring led to the failure of his marriage and then, later on, a prison sentence having been charged and found guilty of rape.
Interestingly, in a 2002 edition of the New Statesman, the British gay activist, Peter Tatchell, speculates as to whether or not Tyson himself was a repressed homosexual (Tatchell, 2002).
Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.). (1998). Identities in talk. London, UK: Sage.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. C. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Augustinous, M., & Walker, I. (1995). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London, UK: Sage.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1985). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Pelican.
Berger, M., Wallis, B., & Watson, S. (Eds.). (1995). Constructing masculinity. London: Routledge.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M. (1997). The dialogic unconscious: Psychoanalysis, discursive psychology and the nature of repression. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 139–159.
Billig, M. (1998). Dialogic repression and the Oedipus complex: Reinterpreting the little Hans case. Culture and Psychology, 4, 11–47.
Billig, M. (1999). Freudian repression: Conversation creating the unconscious. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London, UK: Sage.
Bowers, J. (1988). Review of Potter and Wetherell’s discourse and social psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 185–192.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Carrigan, T., Connell, R., & Lee, J. (1985). Towards a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society, 14, 551–604.
Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Crossley, M. L. (2000). Narrative psychology, trauma and the study of self/identity. Theory & Psychology, 10, 527–546.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43–65.
Derrida, J. (1973). Speech and phenomena and other essays on Husserl’s theory of signs. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, subject positions and ideological dilemmas. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide to analysis. London: Sage.
Edley, N. (2002). The loner, the walk and the beast within: Narrative fragments in the construction of masculinity. In W. Patterson (Ed.), Strategic narrative: New perspectives on personal and cultural narratives. London: Lexington Books.
Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1997). Jockeying for position: The construction of masculine identities. Discourse and Society, 8, 203–217.
Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1999). Imagined futures: Young men’s talk about fatherhood and domestic life. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 181–194.
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Freeman, M. (1993). Rewriting the self: History, memory, narrative. London: Routledge.
Frosh, S. (1993). The seeds of male sexuality. In J. Ussher & C. Baker (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on sexual problems. London: Routledge.
Frosh, S. (1999). What is outside discourse? Psychoanalytic Studies, 1, 381–391.
Frosh, S. (2000). Intimacy, gender and abuse: The construction of masculinities. In U. McCluskey & C. Hooper (Eds.), Psychodynamic perspectives on abuse: The cost of fear. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2000). ‘But it’s racism I really hate’: Young masculinities, racism and psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 17, 225–242.
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2002). Young masculinities: Understanding boys in contemporary society. London: Palgrave.
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2003). Taking a stand: Using psychoanalysis to explore the positioning of subjects in discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 39–53.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gough, B. (1998). Men and the discursive reproduction of sexism: Repertoires of difference and equality. Feminism & Psychology, 8, 25–49.
Gough, B. (2004). Psychoanalysis as a resource for understanding emotional ruptures in the text: The case of defensive masculinities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 245–267.
Greenson, R. (1968). Dis-identifying from mother: Its special importance for the boy. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 49, 370–374.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association, narrative and the interview method. London: Sage.
Illingworth, M. (1992). Mike Tyson; Money, myth and betrayal. London: Grafton.
Jefferson, T. (1996). From “little fairy boy” to the “compleat destroyer”: Subjectivity and transformation in the biography of Mike Tyson. In M. Mac An Ghaill (Ed.), Understanding masculinities: Social relations and cultural arenas. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Jefferson, T. (1997). The Tyson rape trial: The law, feminism and emotional “truth.” Social and Legal Studies, 6, 281–301.
Jefferson, T. (1998). Muscle, “hard men,” and “iron” Mike Tyson: Reflections on desire, anxiety and the embodiment of masculinity. Body and Society, 4, 77–98.
Johnson, S., & Meinhof, U. H. (Eds.). (1997). Language and masculinity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kessler, S., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. New York: Wiley.
Klein, M. (1988a). Love, guilt and reparation and other works, 1921–1945. London: Virago.
Klein, M. (1988b). Envy and gratitude and other works, 1946–1963. London: Virago.
Kosík, K. (1976). Dialectics of the concrete: A study on problems of man and the world. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical, democratic politics. London: Verso.
Macdonell, D. (1986). Theories of discourse: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Moscovici, S. (1976). La psychoanalyse, son image et son public (2nd ed.). London: Academic.
Nayak, A., & Kehily, M. (1996). Playing it straight: Masculinities, homophobias and schooling. Journal of Gender Studies, 5, 211–230.
Parker, I. (1997). Discourse analysis and psychoanalysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 479–495.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. London: Sage.
Redman, P. (2000). Tarred with the same brush: Homophobia and the role of the unconscious in school-based cultures of masculinity. Sexualities, 3, 483–499.
Seidler, V. J. (1989). Rediscovering masculinity: Reason, language and sexuality. New York: Routledge.
Tatchell, P. (2002). What’s eating Mike Tyson? New Statesman, 15–16 (10th June).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender. Newbury Park: Sage.
Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism and Psychology, 9, 335–356.
Willott, S., & Griffin, C. (1997). Wham bam, am i a man? Unemployed men talk about masculinities. Feminism and Psychology, 7, 107–128.
I would first like to thank Margaret Wetherell for her support and, more specifically, for reading through an earlier draft of this paper. Secondly I’d like to thank Zoe Moorhouse for her help in converting this manuscript into something more compatible with APA format.
Appendix: Transcription Notation
Appendix: Transcription Notation
The following transcription notation represents a simplified version of that developed by Gail Jefferson (see Atkinson & Heritage, 1984 for a more comprehensive account).
Short untimed pause.
Material deliberately omitted.
Indicates the absence of a discernable gap between.
The end of one speaker’s utterance and the beginning of the next.
- text :
Inaudible or some doubt about accuracy.
About this article
Cite this article
Edley, N. Never the Twain Shall Meet: A Critical Appraisal of the Combination of Discourse and Psychoanalytic Theory in Studies of Men and Masculinity. Sex Roles 55, 601–608 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9116-x
- Discursive psychology
- Subject positions