Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:

http://mcs.hipatiapress.com

Interculturality and Masculinities: Critical Approaches to the

Teaching of English as a Foreign Language

Esteban Francisco López Medina

1) Instituto de Investigaciones Feministas

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

Date of publication: February 21st, 2022

Edition period: February 2023 – June 2023

To cite this article: López Medina, E.F. (2023). Interculturality and

Masculinities: Critical Approaches to the Teaching of English as a Foreign
Language. Masculinities and Social Change, 12(1), 1-24
https://doi.org/10.17583/MCS.2023.10460

To link this article: https://doi.org/10.17583/MCS.2023.10460

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and to
Creative Commons Attribution License(CC-BY).
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 12 No.1 February 2023
pp. 1-24

Interculturality and Masculinities:

Critical Approaches to the Teaching of
English as a Foreign Language
Esteban Francisco López Medina
Instituto de Investigaciones Feministas
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Abstract
The urge to turn the teaching of English as a foreign language into an inclusive
and diverse space has recently become greater. For a few decades now, it has
been highlighted the need for learners to develop not only their
communicative competence, but also the intercultural one. However, the gap
between these abstract expectations and specific teaching practices shows
how much renovation is still a necessity. Understanding interculturality in its
broadest sense, the article aims to evidence the little importance masculinities
have been given in gender-critical educational research into foreign language
teaching. To do so, a theoretical presentation of such concepts is carried out,
as they are key to identify the related discourses that can be found in the world
of English language teaching. As a conclusion, it suggests the assumption of
these analytical categories in order to complement intercultural approaches,
thus favouring diversity in English-teaching contexts for speakers of other
languages. Finally, a list of possible themes as specific variables of upcoming
empirical analysis is also proposed.
Keywords: diversity; teaching of English as a foreign language;
interculturality; masculinities.

2023 Hipatia Press

ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.17583/MCS.2023.10460
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 12 No.1 February 2023
pp. 1-24

Interculturalidad y Masculinidades:
Aproximaciones Críticas a la
Enseñanza de Inglés como Lengua
Extranjera
Esteban Francisco López Medina
Instituto de Investigaciones Feministas
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Resumen
La urgencia de hacer de la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera un
espacio diverso e inclusivo se ha intensificado recientemente. Desde hace
algunas décadas, se insiste en la necesidad de desarrollar la competencia
intercultural del alumnado, además de la comunicativa. Sin embargo, la
distancia entre estas aspiraciones teóricas y la práctica educativa concreta a
menudo revela la necesidad de renovación. Entendiendo la interculturalidad
en un sentido amplio, a partir del desarrollo teórico de las masculinidades en
general y la hegemónica en particular, el artículo llama la atención sobre la
poca importancia que se ha dado a estos conceptos en la investigación
educativa crítica con perspectiva de género aplicada a la enseñanza de lenguas
extranjeras. A modo de conclusión, se propone adoptar esta categoría analítica
para complementar los enfoques interculturales y favorecer así mayor
diversidad en las aulas de este tipo de enseñanza, enumerando tanto posibles
campos temáticos como variables específicas de análisis para un futuro
estudio empírico.
Palabras clave: diversidad; enseñanza de inglés como lengua extranjera;
interculturalidad; masculinidades.

2023 Hipatia Press

ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.17583/MCS.2023.10460
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 12(1) 3

I
n the last decades, research into diversity and interculturality in
the teaching of English as a foreign language (TEFL) has
undeniably gained ground. As a matter of fact, both concepts
have been included as competences for learners to develop both
in the European Union’s guidelines (Council of Europe, 2002, 2018) and in
Spanish educational legislation in the last two decades (Ley Orgánica 2/2006;
Ley Orgánica 3/2020; Ley Orgánica 8/2013), which is the context this paper
is thought for. Moreover, from a gender perspective, the yearn for equal
representation of men and women has often been highlighted as well.
This said, it is not so frequent to find research that explicitly questions the
“hegemonic masculinity” embedded in English language teaching. Based on
recent literature around this issue, the article aims to relate the concepts of
masculinity/ies and hegemony with those of diversity and interculturality, as
a way of supporting their role not as much as descriptive categories, but as
analytic ones, thus fundamental to face a gender-critical study of both explicit
and hidden realities in the teaching of foreign languages in general, and of
English in particular.
To achieve this objective, a theoretical presentation and discussion of such
concepts is carried out. In fact, this article is the first in a series that aims at
first theoretically discussing the validity of masculinities —and
femininities— as proper analytical variables to approach the teaching of
foreign languages from a gender-critical perspective, eventually supporting
later empirical research from this stance as a logical follow-up.
The article first faces the theoretical presentation of the concepts of
masculinity and hegemony as well as some of their interrelated embodiments,
to later claim their rightful place in the context of foreign language teaching
and research, as essential correlates of diversity and intersectionality. After
discussing all these axes in the reality of today’s teaching of English as a
foreign language, it concludes supporting their assumption as valid variables
to achieve a critical insight into both the explicit and hidden messages around
gender that populate its practices. Furthermore, it suggests specific topics and
areas such empirical research should focus on.
4 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

From Masculinity to Masculinities

Traditionally, men used to be understood in an abstract and anthropocentric

way, as the reference for humanity as a whole. Therefore, they were singularly
labelled as “the man” and have been the frequently single object of culture,
science and society in general. Besides, traditional Western thought has
tended to understand reality as a set of binary oppositions. This logic applied
to men, the belief was held that there should be a universal and immutable
“abstract masculinity”, the focus of epistemology and social relations
(Hartsock, 2003), opposed to embodied masculinities. Following the
“perverse logic” of a hierarchical dichotomous dualism (Braidotti, 2017), this
supposedly abstract masculinity was consequently defined in opposition to
physical “othernesses”, such as children, women and ethnic or non-human
realities (Nardini, 2014), which, contrarily, were usually identified with just
materiality or a continuum ranging from less human to non-human (Ahmed,
2000). As a result, masculinity, conceptualised as immateriality, rationalism,
universality, culture, politics and even humanity itself, has for centuries
hidden otherness, synonymous to inferiority, non-human and less human,
comprising women, children, ethnic “minorities” and non-human beings.
It is logical then that, with the rise of post-structuralism and decolonial and
feminist theories, universal, abstract, rationalist masculinity became
questioned both in science and in social relations (Nardini, 2014). This is how
the awareness of the gendered nature of real men arose: like women, they are
far from essence or nature. In fact, rephrasing Simone de Beauvoir, you
“become a man”, just like you “become” a woman (de Stéfano, 2015). This
switch meant the emergence of “masculinities”, as opposed to the previous
paradigm of “abstract masculinity”.

Possible and Impossible Masculinities

In this new stance, masculinities —as well as femininities— are socially

constructed gender identities that underpin the apparently natural experiences
of sex, which implies they are contingent or, in other words, circumstantial
(Otegui, 1999). The supposedly natural and biological essence of masculinity
becomes irrelevant as now what matters is to give up sterile universalistic
dichotomies to, instead, understand the varying ways gender identities are
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 12(1) 5

assimilated and embodied, closely influenced by other social identities like

social class, ethnicity or race, among others (Otegui, 1999).
We should then pose the question of whether a definition of masculinities
can be worded or not. Minello (2002) asserts that a clear definition is not yet
possible. However, some common features and plausible classifications can
be attempted.
Firstly, there seems to be agreement on the relational nature of
masculinities. As Jociles (2001) states, the masculine is socially constructed,
especially against the feminine. Though, evidently, this can be also said of
femininity, as the author points out, the relational construction of masculinity
seems especially negative, since to reinforce the masculine identity is, above
all, to prove that you are not a baby, gay or, most importantly, a woman. All
this does not work the same way in the case of women. Becoming a man, then,
is a process that is problematic and far from effortless, which debunks the
theoretically natural and essential nature of the masculine gender identity.
Then, it can’t be surprising that many men need to take part in dangerous
situations in order to publicly demonstrate their own manhood (Jociles, 2001;
Otegui, 1999). Jociles (2001) also points out that the troublesome character of
masculinity makes it an unstable construction, heavily affected by the changes
in other social factors like, for example, feminine identities.
It should be clear that here masculinities are being described from a
constructivist standpoint. Jociles (2001) summarises the main features of this
perspective as follows:

- Masculinities necessarily affect the interaction between men and

women, which always entails the dominant power of the former over
the latter. This is why Otegui (1999) explains that the learning of
masculinities is never neutral.
- There is a “hegemonic masculinity” in all societies.
- It is impossible to understand masculinities out of their historical,
social, geographic or economic contexts, to mention just a few.
Connell (1993) emphasises the influence of institutions like the state,
the labour market and the family.
6 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

- Masculinity is usually associated with a set of symbols and behaviours,

different in each society. In Western contexts, for example, muscle
mass or economic success are good stances of this.
- Lastly, societies tend to interpret such symbols and behaviours as
natural, thus justifying the dominance of those who embody
masculinities. Genitality seems to play an important role in this
process, according to Otegui (1999), who claims that the evident
—[genital] difference— becomes an excuse for the existent
—inequality— (p. 154). It can’t be surprising, then, that Connell
(1993) stresses the importance of the link between masculinities as a
social construct and sexuality.

Minello (2002) differentiates three different approaches to masculinities:

functionalism, psychoanalysis and gender perspective. The latter, within
which this paper is conceived, agrees with everything presented so far from a
constructivist perspective:

Gender perspective, with Gayle Rubin’s 1975 article —which presents

sociological, anthropological and psychoanalytical research—, discusses the
conflictive relational character of masculinity, the need to study power
relations and the historical nature of gender as well as the fundamental
problem of the subordination of women. (Minello, 2002, p. 13, author’s
translation)1

Minello (2002) has also explained sociological, political, anthropological

and biological attempts to classify masculinities. On the other hand, Connell
(1995) suggests five different approaches: essentialist, positivist, normative,
structural linguistics and her own, the “political sociology of men in gender
relations” (1993). This last perspective understands masculinities within the
sex-gender complex and is organised around four dimensions: power,
production, desire and symbols. Consequently, this discipline aims at studying
the practices and spaces that embody masculinities or, in Butlerian terms,
perform them (Butler, 1990). However, we should remember that these spaces
and practices change in time and even within the same social group.
In light of the above, it seems to be core to the concept of masculinities to
be an intellectual and political challenge that is always under construction
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 12(1) 7

(Minello, 2002). This challenge is even greater if we take into account how
this term has succeeded in many different contexts, from research and
communication to political activism. Unfortunately, this success hasn’t
contributed to the conceptual clarity of the word. Contrarily, its popularity has
reinforced even more, if possible, its polysemic character (de Stéfano, 2021).
Despite all these shortcomings, the following description of masculinities
can aptly summarise everything said so far:

Not only are masculinities not biologically or psychologically determined,

but they must be understood as social practices and representations whose
only common feature is that they all tend to justify male domination. As a
result, masculinity can be defined as the group of behaviours, symbols, ideas,
values and behavioural norms built around men’s sexual difference. (Jociles,
2001, p. 8, author’s translation)2

Masculinities and Hegemony

The previous section explained how difficult it is to define and classify

masculinities. Be that as it may, it is considerably more important to highlight
the overwhelming consensus around the existence of a hierarchy within the
universe of possible and impossible masculinities (de Stéfano, 2021; Minello,
2002).
The label “hegemonic masculinity” was coined in the 1980s by the
Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell, based on her empirical studies on the
role of men in contexts like schools and the workplace. Her work described
the interaction of multiple hierarchies built around gender, class or ethnicity,
among others. Supported by the feminist theories about patriarchy, the debate
about the role of men in its eradication and the Gramscian notion of
“hegemony” as a means of social control, she suggested a new model of
diverse masculinities, necessarily linked with power relations. In fact, the
connection between hierarchy and masculinities stems from findings about the
violence of heterosexual men over homosexual ones (Connell &
Messerschmidt, 2005).
8 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

Connell’s definition of hegemonic masculinity is the most widely spread:

Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender

practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the
legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the
dominant position of men and the subordination of women. (Connell, 1995,
p. 77)

The next paragraph deepens into the features of hegemonic masculinity,

which may not appear so obvious when reading this definition for the first
time. Connell herself revised her original concept and remarked on the
following characteristics (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
Firstly, it is a pattern of practices that realise social expectations in order
to reinforce the patriarchal system. The fact that, statistically speaking,
hegemonic masculinity is not necessarily the most common one, should not
be disregarded. Contrarily, it is the privileged or normative one: “It embodied
the currently most honored way of being a man, it required all other men to
position themselves in relation to it, and it ideologically legitimated the global
subordination of women to men” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832).
Another intriguing aspect of hegemony is that it doesn’t always resort to
violence, but to persuasion, culture and institutions. Finally, hegemonic
masculinity is changing and diverse: it is constantly adapting to different
circumstances both in time and different synchronous contexts. This change
takes place through an unsteady balance of forces in which hegemonic
masculinity and other masculinities fight for predominance, this process
resulting in new forms of hegemonic masculinity. Even if this, theoretically,
may open the door for a positive change from a gender perspective, it is still
improbable as “challenges to hegemony are common, and so are adjustments
in the face of these challenges” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 835).
This supports the importance of research about hegemonic masculinity, as it
is always in search of subtler and more “acceptable” ways to perpetuate
patriarchy.
In short, based on history and society, Connell (1995) described hegemonic
masculinity as far from a mere list of physical, behavioural or psychological
features, focusing instead on its circumstantial, dynamic, unstable, relational
and changing nature (de Stéfano, 2021). It is then time to describe the possible
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 12(1) 9

dynamics between masculinities, which Connell (1995) reduces to four:

hegemony, subordination, complicity and marginalisation.
Hegemonic masculinity, that “horizon of desirability” (de Stéfano, 2021)
has already been sufficiently explained. Subordinated masculinities are
usually identified with those of gay men, while BAME (Black, Asian and
Minority Ethnic) men are thought of as marginalised. On the other hand, those
men that benefit from the “patriarchal dividend” are considered accomplices
of hegemonic men: even if they don’t belong to the latter privileged minority,
they are still their allies as long as they reinforce the system of inequalities
and take advantage of their own “benefits” (Connell, 1995).
De Stéfano (2021) criticises the naïve tendency to simply identify
masculinities with specific social groups according to, for example, their
ethnicity, sexual orientation or social class. What is more, the concept of
hegemonic masculinity itself has been critiqued.
Demetriou (2001) differentiates between external and internal hegemony.
The former is the one of men over women, while the latter is the one of men
over other men. This useful concept of internal hegemony sheds light on the
interaction between hegemonic, subordinated, marginalised and accomplice
masculinities: through an intricate process of negotiation, translation and
reconfiguration known as “dialectical pragmatism” they don’t build “a unitary
pattern of hegemonic masculinity but a ‘historic bloc’ involving a weaving
together of multiple patterns, whose hybridity is the best possible strategy for
external hegemony” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 844).
Demetriou (2001) makes it clear how internal hegemony helps reinforce
external hegemony. He provides examples of how Western hegemonic
masculinity has progressively incorporated elements traditionally associated
with the subordinated masculinities of gay men, this way adapting to changing
circumstances. However, as Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) point out,
“such an appropriation blurs gender difference but does not undermine
patriarchy” (p. 845).
The concept of hegemonic masculinity is clearly complex. As a matter of
fact, Raewyn Connell, the original author, has admitted the need to reject,
keep and reword some of her own ideas. Firstly, she has posed the need to
reject the univocal association between masculinity and men, as it is also
10 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

possible for some women to “appropriate aspects of hegemonic masculinity”

(Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 847). Additionally, she has insisted on
the need to reject the link between hegemonic masculinity and certain
physical, behavioural, psychological and social features. This would be totally
inappropriate as masculinity “represents not a certain type of man but, rather,
a way that men position themselves through discursive practices” (Connell &
Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 841).
Unfortunately, this simplistic approach to hegemonic masculinity has
sometimes wrongly led to understand it as embodied by, for instance, “a
young, married, white, urban, northern heterosexual, Protestant father of
college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight and height,
and a recent record in sports” (Goffman, 1963, p. 128) in the context of the
United States. Contrarily to this, Kimmel (1994), who prefers the term
“hegemonic manhood”, suggests that the embodiment of hegemonic
masculinity is better described as “a man in power, a man with power, and a
man of power.” (p. 61, italics in the original).
Additionally, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) suggest the core ideas
within the concept of hegemonic masculinity that should be kept. Firstly, the
hierarchy of multiple masculinities, of which one is hegemonic —not
necessarily by means of force, but in cultural, discursive, institutional and
social ways—. Secondly, the ideal aura that this hegemonic masculinity has
for all men, which makes it fit only for a privileged elite minority. Lastly, its
ability to reproduce and produce new manifestations which help it adapt to
changing circumstances, still preserving the patriarchal order.
Concerning certain reformulations of the concept of hegemonic
masculinity, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) list these: “the nature of
gender hierarchy, the geography of masculine configurations, the process of
social embodiment, and the dynamics of masculinities” (p. 847).
Exploring this list exceeds the scope of this article but its presentation is
enough to identify some of the many challenges the study of masculinities
faces. This originally theoretical concept has experienced such huge success
that it is no longer merely academic. It has also become a tool to analyse social
realities from scientific and popular perspectives, often spread by the media
(Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
Such has its success been that nowadays the meaning of hegemonic
masculinity is not always clear. In fact, it is not uncommon to read definitions
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 12(1) 11

which still reduce it to a set of psychological, individualistic factors,

describing it as stable and immutable (de Stéfano, 2015, 2021) as if it was the
stereotype (Minello, 2002) of a traditional chauvinist macho (Otegui, 1999).

The real risk is that the greater the success, the higher the exposure to the
reaction of patriarchy, which resists change by constantly renewing its tricks,
reinforcing its peculiar “common sense”, and turning our conceptual tools
into empty instruments, thus eroding the criticality in our reflections. (de
Stéfano, 2015, p. 14, author’s translation)3

Hegemonic Masculinity, Diversity, Interculturality and TEFL

The concept of hegemonic masculinity has shown to be a useful tool to

describe different embodiments of masculinity, at the same time it can
question its processes of production and reproduction of gender relationships
(de Stéfano, 2021). These, of course, also take place in educational contexts,
even if, like in society in general, other variables should also be considered.
In the case of this article, centred on the teaching of English as a foreign
language, interculturality and diversity become paramount factors that
deserve to be studied.
Even if, intuitively, they don’t seem to be connected, it is important to
make it clear that interculturality isn’t just about the interaction between, for
example, a Japanese and a Colombian, but also about what happens between
a man and a woman, a child and an elderly person, the rich and the poor, a
Marxist and a liberal, a gay man and a straight man, or many other instances
like these (Soto, 2019, p. 47).
If we resort to the systems theory as focused on people (Bateson, 1979) to
understand foreign language teaching situations, interculturality in its
broadest sense, as described in the previous paragraph, becomes relevant.
According to this theory, the way the whole —the group formed by teachers
and learners together with the school— behaves, depends on each individual,
based on their personal interpretations, and mediated by social rules and their
physical and social contexts, as well as their history (Soto, 2019).
The experience of “otherness” (Byram, 1997) is intense when learning a
foreign language. This is so because of the development of the intercultural
12 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

communicative competence which, through a foreign language, leads the

student to experience the familiar and the unknown at the same time, to
challenge their own ideas, and to accept ambiguity, the lack of certainties, and
world views different from theirs, too (Pérez et al., 2021). As a result, while
developing this intercultural communicative competence, through the
production of new meanings in the foreign language, learners and teachers
also develop a “third culture” (Kramsch, 1993).
What is more, teachers of English as a foreign language, aware of their
own traditionally colonial perspective (Lorenzo, 2000), have made an effort
to overcome it in the last decades. This explains why they currently admit their
role in the reproduction of unfair situations connected to domination and
power, and now strive to also represent postcolonial subjects and groups,
traditionally silenced and disregarded (Pérez et al., 2021). They even attempt
to include a variety of accents regardless of their origin, thus fighting the bias
that favours “native speakers”, known as native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006).
This change stems from an intersectional perspective (Hill Collins, 2015).
This view intends to identify those messages that contribute to reproducing
and reinforcing layers of privilege and oppression, mediated through
language, in cooperation with other variables like ethnicity, age, educational
level, social class or religion, to mention just a few (Pérez et al., 2021).
It can be concluded that diversity in all its forms —ethnic, cultural,
linguistic, affective, sex-gender and many others— is an intrinsic property of
the teaching of foreign languages in general and of English in particular (Liu
& Nelson, 2017). Still, this conceptual belief, heavily supported by theory and
research and widely spread among professionals, doesn’t seem to be an
effective reality at schools: at least in the case of English as a foreign language
classrooms, the reality (re)presented and communicated continues to be rather
uniform and colonial (Pérez et al., 2021).
This becomes even more remarkable when we consider that the
competence in a foreign language is no longer a luxury, but a necessary means
to access a wide range of (inter)cultural practices, essential in the globalised
21st-century world (Pérez et al., 2021). Therefore, diversity must be an integral
part of educational practices, aiming not just at non-critical inclusion but,
more ambitiously, at social justice, thus helping overcome inequalities and
oppression (Freire, 2005).
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 12(1) 13

In short, based on sociocultural theories (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014) and

critical pedagogy (Giroux, 2020), and following Pérez et al. (2021), diversity
can be understood as follows:
- Diversity is an inherent feature of humanity, as shown by identities,
points of view, beliefs, needs or languages, among others.
- As a result, diversity should always be a characteristic of all the different
elements of educational contexts.
- Educational situations with a critical perspective must aim at enacting
more inclusive societies.
- Critical approaches to diversity must uncover biases, prejudices,
discriminations, injustice and inequalities in the education system, even if they
are unconscious.
- The development of intercultural competences and the exercise of
democratic principles when teaching English as a foreign language is an
opportunity to make diversity visible and, consequently, fight against
hegemonic dominance of all sorts (masculine, heterosexual, ageist, ableist and
many more).
As presented here, the most updated literature around English language
teaching heavily supports the critical and emancipatory potential of
intercultural perspectives that favour diversity, coupled with communicative
teaching methods (Martínez Lirola, 2022). Furthermore, in recent years the
call for teachers of English as a foreign language to include new cultural
groups in a broader sense has been intense. This is the case of, for example,
queer people, frequently absent in most educational resources (Goldstein,
2015; Gray, 2013; López Medina, 2020, 2021, 2022; Moore, 2020; Nelson,
1999, 2009; Nemi, 2018; Paiz, 2019; Sunderland & McGlashan, 2015).
Besides, we should not forget everything stated so far about the analytical use
of the category of hegemonic masculinity when critically studying foreign
language teaching practices from a gender perspective.

Discussion

Throughout these pages, the most important ideas around hegemonic

masculinity and its relationship with interculturality and diversity in TEFL
14 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

have been presented. At least in Spain, the potential of foreign languages is

significant. It is one of the few subjects that are taught throughout the entire
education system, both compulsory and non-compulsory levels. Besides, with
the progressive implementation of bilingual teaching programmes, the
presence of foreign languages is even more relevant. This extensive presence
in the education system explains the strength of foreign languages to convey
an incredibly wide range of messages, both explicit and implicit, which
contribute to the social construction of identities at the intersection of culture,
gender and language, to mention just a few. Considering that English is the
most frequently studied foreign language nowadays, its role in the
aforementioned process of social construction of identities proves undeniable.
Focusing just on English as a foreign language, the emphasis placed on the
combination of communicative and intercultural approaches in the last
decades, even if rather theoretical and little practical, is more than evident.
The claim has also been to incorporate numerous other perspectives: critical
(Giroux, 2020), sociocultural (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014), social justice
(Freire, 2005), intersectional (Hill Collins, 2015), intercultural (Kramsch,
1993), gender (Sunderland, 2015), queer (Nemi, 2018) or “usualising”
(Sanders & López Medina, 2022). However, these well-intended calls are, in
most cases, still waiting for more enthusiastic practical applications in the
classrooms (Pérez et al., 2021).
In light of the above, it seems surprising that no one has yet claimed for
hegemonic masculinity to become an important analytical category to be
considered in foreign language teaching and research. This would be essential
to improve both teaching practices and resources. It must be admitted, though,
that teaching materials have been studied from a gender perspective, Jane
Sunderland (2015) being an outstanding example of this. However, it is still
hard to find explicit questioning of the hegemonic masculinity they very
frequently contain as one of their cultural contents. What realisations of
masculinities can be found in foreign language teaching materials and
resources? What messages around different ways of embodying manhood do
teachers convey and favour in their classes?
This kind of studies and their conclusions would benefit everyone involved
in education. It has been remarked before how hard and tiresome the process
of enacting hegemonic masculinity can be, needing continuous external
demonstrations (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; de Stéfano, 2021; Minello,
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 12(1) 15

2002; Otegui, 1999). Adopting this perspective, therefore, would benefit,

firstly, all men who assume hegemonic masculinity. But those who enact the
other masculinities already described —accomplice, marginalised and
subordinated— would also benefit from these analyses, too. Finally, as long
as masculinities strengthen and perpetuate the male dominance over women
(Connell, 1995), it can’t be questioned that women would be the most
benefited from this kind of critical studies.
The challenge could not be bigger. Focusing just on the publishing
industry and the production of mainstream teaching materials, as Goldstein
(2015) well explains, it is a global market in which companies, foreseeably,
privilege their economic results. In consequence, given the choice between
producing more ethical, diverse and inclusive resources, and the plausible loss
of market share that could entail, they tend to opt for a merely methodological
and aesthetic renovation of their own materials. This frequently results in their
leaving aside issues like gender, sexuality, interculturality, social justice or
sex-gender diversity, among others. This way, given that many teachers of
English as a foreign language tend to choose these mainstream materials for
their lessons, publishers end up contributing to reinforcing and reproducing
hegemonic masculinity and the dominance of some cultures over others.
Can any solutions be posed for this situation? It can’t be denied that, in the
long term, better initial training for future teachers of English must be
provided, so that they are able to discover the sociocultural messages hidden
in materials to then question them from communicative, intersectional,
intercultural, critical and inclusive perspectives. This way, instead of
perpetuating, naturalising and essentialising inequalities, they will be able to
didactically unveil them (Pérez et al., 2021).
However, in-service teacher training should not be disregarded either. It
should contribute to enabling them to “usualise” minoritised groups,
flagrantly absent in current mainstream classrooms of English as a foreign
language. “Usualising” refers to simply representing individuals and groups
traditionally omitted because of their gender, sexual orientation, abilities,
ethnicity or culture, among others. It is a strategy that helps implicitly question
privileges and prejudices in day-to-day classroom practice, as effective
16 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

training for later actively critical activities, which can be named as

“actualising” (Sanders & López Medina, 2022).
In the short term, more research is needed by applying the analytical
potential of the concept of hegemonic masculinity. This kind of research could
worthily complement what has already been done around interculturality,
gender and disability. Otegui’s words can help us understand this need:

The “old macho” isn’t fashionable any longer, but the “new man” shares a lot
of those features of old masculinity. The behaviours have changed, but have
the core elements changed so much? […] In a world where appearance is the
most important, this helps reshape the representations of “manhood”. It is true
that softer and milder behaviours and practices are expected […] but in our
postmodern world what matters is appearance, not essence. (Otegui, 1999, p.
156, author’s translation)4

Why is it so important to carry out more significant research about

hegemonic masculinity? Because, as the author makes clear, hegemonic
masculinity is able to mute for the sake of its own survival. As a result, it is
vital to keep alert so as to discover the masculinity references that are
conveyed in the education system in general and in lessons of English in
particular.
Though this critical research has been started in education as a whole in
Spain (Díez, 2015), the teaching of foreign languages seems not to have
started yet. Still lacking empirical research about this specific field, it can be
guessed that the traditional chauvinist stereotype will not be found in them,
but subtler, milder forms will probably be: the old values in new wrapping
(Otegui, 1999, p. 157).
Mainstream publishing companies have already been referred to. As
Minello (2002) and Pérez et al. (2021) well point out, documents are a
valuable source of information about the messages conveyed in classrooms:
teaching materials are valuable evidence of them, either explicit or hidden. In
consequence, materials and resources are a very important field to which to
apply the kind of research suggested here, with the aim of tracking these old
values in new wrapping.
Logically, the study of hegemonic masculinity in the teaching of English
as a foreign language would not work well unless complemented with that
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 11(3) 17

about “emphasized femininity”. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) explain

this concept, parallel to hegemonic masculinity and equally analytic.
However, they chose to use the adjective “emphasized” instead of
“hegemonic” to make it clear the different position and hierarchy of men and
women in the patriarchal system: emphasized femininity will never equal
hegemonic masculinity; contrarily, it will serve it, aiding at its reinforcement,
construction and reconstruction. If the question about the forms of
masculinities that are conveyed and privileged in English language
classrooms is posed, it is also vital to ask how femininity is also produced and
reproduced in them.

Conclusions

This paper aimed to show the little importance given to masculinities when
researching the explicit and hidden cultural messages conveyed in foreign
language classrooms, more specifically, those of English. Through the
theoretical presentation of masculinities, hegemony, diversity and
interculturality, it has evidenced their analytical potential and, as a result,
called for including the category of hegemonic masculinity in gender critical
research into the teaching of English as a foreign language.
Heidegger (2000) used to say that “language is the house of Being” (p. 83),
expression that somehow helps us realise the importance of the analysis of the
messages and resources contextualised in such lessons, as they perform actual
embodiments of masculinities, cultures and genders, among others. This
research would help identify the aporia they very often transmit:
contradictions or paradoxes that can’t be solved; logical difficulties, usually
speculative, full of prejudices, caused by little acceptance of the culture of the
other person interacting with us (Soto, 2017).
However, having this as the single conclusion would be of no real use. To
enhance the applicability of this suggestion, some guidelines are posed, in
order to favour a future logical continuation of this research: empirical
analysis of English as a foreign language classrooms, to discover the
discourses and performances around masculinities that take place in them.
This kind of research should be carried out at all levels: local, regional and
18 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

global, as Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) suggest. What is more, the

global level becomes quite important when considering the international
nature of the TEFL publishing market, already discussed (Goldstein, 2015).
Concerning the topic, Connell (1993) signalled three main contexts in
which masculinities are performed: state, work and family. Therefore, it
seems fundamental to study the messages about these three environments, but
without disregarding other possible topics which represent social practices
that also contribute to shaping and reshaping masculinities like, for example,
sports. Still concerning topics, it could be asked whether the omission of
certain topics in formal education contexts —like, for example, sexuality—
can also aid to reinforce hegemonic masculinity. Finally, the way certain
themes are presented also deserves a good deal of analysis in the light of
hegemonic masculinity. Social struggles, like that of feminism, would be a
good instance of this.
In the context of attention to diversity and special educational needs, Roiha
and Polso (2021) describe their -Dimensional Model: a means to differentiate
teaching practices in Finland and adjust them to each learner’s needs. Despite
the different original application, the five dimensions they suggest can easily
be adopted as variables in educational studies —both general and in foreign
languages—, applying hegemonic masculinity as an analytical category. Here
can be found the five dimensions they propose, including some examples in
their original text with the addition of others, specific to English language
teaching:

- Teaching arrangements: groupings, joint teaching, language assistants,

support teachers…
- Learning environments: their physical and social characteristics…
- Teaching methods: projects, how to work the four language skills
(listening, speaking, reading and writing), intercultural competence…
- Support materials: use of ICT, songs, tales, textbooks…
- Assessment: initial, formative, summative, rubrics, checklists, exams,
presentations, tests, quizzes.

The use of hegemonic masculinity as an analytical category applied to

gender critical research into the teaching of English as a foreign language is
suggested in the hope to enhance its transformation into contexts that will
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 11(3) 19

favour equal relationships and the deconstruction of the “perverse logic” of

the hierarchical binary masculinity-femininity (Braidotti, 2017).
With this ideal in mind, it is worth trying this proposal of multi thematic
hermeneutics which, instead of ontologising languages, genders and identities
will analyse them as determined by historical processes of hegemony and
dominance (Soto, 2017).

Notes
1 Original text in Spanish: La perspectiva de género, con el artículo precursor de Gayle Rubin
en 1975 —que recoge los aportes de la sociología, la antropología y el psicoanálisis—, plantea
el conflicto, el carácter relacional de la masculinidad, la necesidad de estudiar las relaciones de
poder, de analizar el carácter histórico del género y el problema fundamental de la
subordinación de la mujer.
2 Original text in Spanish: Las masculinidades, no sólo no están determinadas biológica y/o

psíquicamente, sino que tienen que ser entendidas como prácticas y representaciones sociales
cuyo único punto en común es que tienden a justificar la dominación del hombre. De esta forma,
se puede definir la masculinidad como el conjunto de conductas, símbolos, ideas, valores y
normas de comportamiento generadas en torno a la diferencia sexual de los varones.
3 Original text in Spanish: El riesgo radica en que a mayor éxito, mayor es la exposición al

carácter reactivo delpatriarcado, que muestra su resistencia al cambio renovando

constantemente sus trampas, revitalizando su particular “sentido común” e instrumentalizando
y vaciando de contenido nuestras herramientas conceptuales en un afán de erosionar el filo
crítico de nuestras reflexiones.
4 Original text in Spanish: Ya no se lleva “el macho antiguo”, pero “el nuevo hombre” comparte

muchos de los atributos inherentes a la vieja constitución de la masculinidad. Han cambiado

las formas de comportamientos pero ¿es cierto que han cambiado tanto los elementos
esenciales? […] En un mundo en el que lo importante es el envoltorio, éste rearticula las formas
de constitución de las representaciones de la “hombría”. Es cierto que de estos modelos
iconográficos se esperan comportamientos y prácticas más suaves […] pero en nuestro mundo
posmoderno lo importante es la apariencia, no la esencia.
20 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

References

Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange Encounters. Embodied Others in Post-

Coloniality. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature. A Necessary Unity. E. P. Dutton.
Braidotti, R. (2017). Sexual difference theory. In A. Jaggar & I. Young
(eds.) A Companion to Feminist Philosophy (298-306). Blackwell.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
Routledge.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative
Competence. Multilingual Matters.
Connell, R. (1993). The Big Picture: Masculinities in Recent World History.
Theory and Society, 22(5), 597–623. http://www.jstor.org/stable/657986
Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
Connell, R. & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity.
Rethinking the Concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Council of Europe (2002). Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University
Press.
Council of Europe (2018). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key
Competences for Lifelong Learning. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)&rid=7
de Stéfano, M. (2015). ¿Morir de éxito? Cuatro apuntes sobre los desafíos de
los estudios sobre masculinidades ante el patriarcado contemporáneo.
Revista Andariegas, (3), 14–17.
https://issuu.com/comunicacion_social_ew/docs/andariegas3-1
de Stéfano, M. (2021). Masculinidades (im)posibles. Violencia y género,
entre el poder y la vulnerabilidad. Galerna.
Demetriou, D. (2001). Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A
Critique. Theory and Society, 30(3), 337–361.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017596718715
Díez, E. (2015). Códigos de masculinidad hegemónica en educación. Revista
Iberoamericana de Educación, (68), 79–98.
https://doi.org/10.35362/rie680201
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 11(3) 21

Giroux, H. (2020). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Prentice Hall.
Goldstein, B. (2015). LGBT Invisibility in Language Learning Materials.
Language Issues: The ESOL Journal, 26(2), 35–40.
Gray, J. (2013). LGBT Invisibility and Heteronormativity in ELT Materials.
In J. Gray (ed.) Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials
(40-63). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137384263_3
Hartsock, N. (2003). The Feminist Standpoint: Toward a Specifically
Feminist Historical Materialism. In C. McCann & S. Kim (eds.), Feminist
Local and Global Theory Perspectives Reader (292-307). Routledge.
Heidegger, M. (2000). Letter on Humanism. Global Religious Vision, 1(1),
83-109.
Hill Collins, P. (2015). Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemma. Annual
Review of Sociology, (41), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-
073014-112142
Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl030
Jociles, M. J. (2001). El estudio sobre las masculinidades. Panorámica
general. Gazeta de Antropología, (17), artículo 27.
http://hdl.handle.net/10481/7487
Kimmel, M. (1994). Masculinity as Homophobia. Fear, Shame and Silence
in the Construction of Gender Identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (eds.),
Theorizing Masculinities (58-70). SAGE Publications.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243627.n7
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford
University Press.
Lantolf, J. & Poehner, M. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical
Imperative in L2 Education. Vygotskian Praxis and the
Research/Practice Divide. Routledge.
Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 mayo, de Educación. BOE número 106, de 4 de
mayo de 2006, pp. 17158-17207.
Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley
Orgánica 2/2006, de Educación. BOE número 340, de 30 de diciembre de
2020, pp. 122868-122953.
22 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad

educativa. BOE número 295, de 10 de diciembre de 2013, pp. 97858-
97921.
Liu, D. & Nelson, R. (2017). Diversity in the Classroom. In J. Liontas (ed.),
The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (1-6). Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0224
López Medina, E. F. (2020). Cisheterosexismo o currículum oculto de
género en los libros de texto de inglés. En V. Sánchez, M. Bejarano
y S. Corral (eds.), Género e igualdad como señas de identidad
modernas (pp. 231-242). Tirant lo Blanch.
López Medina, E. F. (2021). Understanding Hidden Gender Curriculum in
EFL Textbooks as Cisheterosexism. In T. Sola, S. Alonso, M. Fernández
& J. C. de la Cruz (eds.), Estudios sobre innovación e investigación
educativa (629-641). Dykinson.
López Medina, E. F. (2022). Manifestación visual del cisheterosexismo en
Educación Secundaria: El caso de los libros de texto de inglés. Revista
Prisma Social, (37), 36–57. Retrieved from
https://revistaprismasocial.es/article/view/4601
Lorenzo, L. (2000). El uso del inglés como lengua franca. Philologica
canariensia: Revista de filología de la Universidad de Las Palmas de
Gran Canaria (6-7), 433–452. Retrived from
http://hdl.handle.net/10553/4049
Martínez Lirola, M. (2022). El análisis crítico del discurso y la pedagogía
crítica. Explorando sus relaciones y sus aplicaciones didácticas.
Comares.
Minello, N. (2002). Masculinidades: un concepto en construcción. Nueva
Antropología. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 18(61), 11–30.
https://revistas-colaboracion.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/nueva-
antropologia/article/view/15827/14148
Moore, A. (2020). Understanding heteronormativity in ELT textbooks: A
practical taxonomy. ELT Journal, 74(2), 116–125.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz058
Nardini, K. (2014). Volverse otro: el pensamiento encarnado y la “materia o
importancia transformadora” de la teorización del (nuevo) materialismo
feminista. Artnodes, (14), 18–25.
 MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 11(3) 23

Nelson, C. (1999). Sexual Identities in ESL: Queer Theory and Classroom

Inquiry. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 371–392.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587670
Nelson, C. (2009). Sexual identities in English language education:
Classroom conversations. Routledge.
Nemi, J. (2018). Queer pedagogy: Approaches to inclusive teaching. Policy
Features in Education, 16(5), 589–604.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317751273
Otegui, R. (1999). La construcción social de las masculinidades. Política y
Sociedad, (32), 151–160.
Paiz, J. (2019). Queering Practice: LGBTQ+ Diversity and Inclusion in
English Language Teaching. Journal of Language, Identity and
Education, 18(4), 266–275.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1629933
Pérez, M., Banegas, D. & Beacon, G. (2021). Introduction: Diversity in
ELT. In M. Pérez, D. Banegas & G. Beacon (eds.) International
Perspectives on Diversity in ELT (1-17). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74981-1_1
Roiha, A. & Polso, J. (2021). The 5-Dimensional Model: A Finnish
Approach to Differentiation. In M. Pérez, D. Banegas & G. Beacon (eds.)
International Perspectives on Diversity in ELT (211-227). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74981-1_12
Sanders, S. & López Medina, E. F. (2022). “Usualizar” la diversidad para
superar los silencios del currículum en torno al género y la sexualidad.
Revista del Laboratorio Iberoamericano para el Estudio Sociohistórico
de las Sexualidades, (7), 1-18. Retrieved from
https://www.upo.es/revistas/index.php/relies/article/view/6150
Soto, J. (2017). Desde una ontología del lenguaje hacia una ética
intercultural de la alteridad. Amauta, 15(30), 135-150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15648/am.30.2017.10
Soto, J. (2019). Las representaciones sociales, pensamiento sistémico y
enfoque intercultural de la enseñanza de las lenguas. Entretextos, 13(24–
25), 45–55.
http://revistas.uniguajira.edu.co/rev/index.php/entre/article/view/94
24 López Medina – Interculturality and Masculinities

Sunderland, J. (2015). Gender (representation) in foreign language

textbooks. Avoiding pitfalls and moving on. In S. Mills & A. Mustapha
(eds.), Gender Representation in Learning Materials (19-34). Routledge.
Sunderland, J. & McGlashan, M. (2015). Heteronormativity in EFL
textbooks and in two genres of children’s literature (Harry Potter and
same-sex parent family picturebooks). Language Issues: The ESOL
Journal, 26(2), 17–26.

Esteban Francisco López Medina is adjunct professor at the

Department of Didactics of Language, Arts and Physical Education,,
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain.

Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Esteban Francisco

López Medina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Department of Didactics of Language, Arts and Physical
Education, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Edificio La
Almudena; C/ Rector Royo Villanova, 1; 28040 Madrid, Spain.
email: estlop02@ucm.es