放学我当家2全集,靶式流量计,长白山香烟价格表图
|
4.2 Factors affecting masculinity
Hibbins (2005:179), Sinn (1998:113), Batnitzky, A.and Dyer (2008:70), Gold (2001:78) pointed out that factors affecting masculinity can be divided into multiple levels, including gender, class, race, and so on, and they all participate in the construction of masculinity. Masculinity is influenced not only by gender, but also by various factors such as economics, culture and class, and personality. Gender is the most important factor affecting masculinity. It embodies some commonalities in all masculinities, such as being willing to take risks, being more willing to be in a strong position in their families and working, being active in sexual relations, liking to face the dilemma alone and being not willing to communicate too much, and so on. Most male migrants can exhibit these characteristics. However, other factors also have an important determinant effect on male migrants' masculinity.
First, in terms of individual needs, Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory divides needs into five categories: physiological needs, security needs, social needs, needs for respect, and self-fulfillment needs, it is from needs of the lower levels to the higher levels, when people's needs at a certain level are met with minimum satisfaction, they will pursue high-level needs, so that it will rise step by step and become the internal driving force for continued efforts (Maslow, 1954:25). The masculinity of migrants is matched to their needs to a certain extent. For example, after migration, male immigrants' economic income is greatly reduced, maintaining their living standards to meet physiological needs becomes a focus of their lives. Then their masculinity will be manifested as subordination, marginality and collusion, which is manifested in their willingness to engage in low-end work, sharing their housework with their wives, and reducing their power in the families (Hussein and Christensen, 2017:765). If the migrants’ lives are improved, social needs, needs for respect, and self-fulfillment become the focus of their lives, then their masculinity may be more dominant masculinity, just as the masculinity that the male migrants had interiorly, at home, their right to speak has been upgraded and they will actively pursue the success of business and the recognition by the society.
Then, considering from the cultural background, Hofstede (1980:87) thought that culture is a common psychological procedures of people in an environment, not an individual feature, but psychological procedures shared by many people with the same education and life experience. Different groups, regions or countries have different procedures. This cultural difference can be divided into four dimensions: individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980:56). Migrants of different cultural backgrounds display different masculinities under the same circumstances. This is closely related to their cultural backgrounds (Levitt, 1998:926). For example, Chinese migrants in the United States exhibit more subordination, marginality and collusion marginality, while European migrants in the United States are more showing dominant masculinity. The reason is that the cultural background of European migrants is similar to that of people in the United States, while Chinese culture and the American cultural background are quite different. Chinese migrants need to adapt more to the cultural differences between China and the United States (Sinn, 1998:112; Levitt, 1998:926).
In addition, social stratum is also a factor that affects masculinity of migrant men, because people in the same class often have similarities in personality, psychology, and life planning, just as what McDowell, Batnitzky and Dyer (2008:770) analyzed that Indian migrants working in the UK showed the characteristics of the Indian middle class. National factor is also an important factor affecting masculinity of men. For example, the acts of building home of the Polish workers mentioned in Datta’s (2008:527) study is an important manifestation of their masculinities differing from that of British men.
Finally, personality is also an influential factor that influences male migrants’ masculinity. For example, male migrants with radical personality will be more likely to display dominant masculinity. Even if they face difficulties in migration, they will take radical measures to pursue their career successes, such as self-employment. Conservative male migrants are more likely to be characterized by subordination, marginality and collusion masculinities. When faced with difficulties, they will adopt relatively conservative measures, such as first working in restaurants (Hibbins, 2005: 173; Sinn, 198:123).
5.0 Conclusion
Migration can be the making of a man. This view is correct, but the type of masculinity expressed is not only dominance masculinity. There is a variety of masculinity such as subordination, marginality and collusion masculinity: There are also many reasons for the changes in masculinity of male migrants, not only gender, but also economic factors, cultural background factors, personality factors, and so on.
References
Batnitzky, A.and Dyer, L. (2008) ‘A Middle-class Global Mobility? The Working Lives of Indian Men in a West London Hotel’, Global Networks, 8 (1): 51-70.
Carrigan, T, Connell, B. and Lee, J. (1985) ‘Toward a new sociology of masculinity’, Theory and Society, 14(5): 551-604.
Cheng, C. (Ed.) (1996a) Masculinities in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 23-58.Hibbins, R. (2005) ‘Migration and Gender Identity among Chinese Skilled Male Migrants to Australia’, Geoforum, 36:167–180.
Cohen, D. (2005) ‘Masculinity and Social Visibility: Migration, State Spectacle, and the Making of the Mexican Nation’, E.I.A.L., 16, 1-21.
Datta, A. (2008) ‘Building Differences: Material Geographies of Home(s) among Polish Builders in London’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(4): 518-531.
Gold, S. J. (2001) ‘Gender, Class, and Network: Social Structure and Migration Patterns among
Transnational Israelis’, Global Networks, 1, 57–78.
Connell, R. W. and Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005) ‘Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept’, Gender & Society, 19(6): 829-859.
Filippo, O. and Osella, C. 2000. ‘Migration, Money and Masculinity in Kerala’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 6:117-33.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 56-87.
Hussein, S., and K. Christensen. 2017. ‘Migration, Gender and Low-paid Work: on Migrant Men’sEntry Dynamics into the Feminised Social Care Work in the UK’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43 (5): 749–765.
Kirk, K., Bal, E. & Janssen, S. R. (2017) ‘Migrants in Liminal Time and Space: an Exploration of the Experiences of Highly Skilled Indian Bachelors in Amsterdam’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43:16.
Latif, E. (2015) ‘The Relationship between Immigration and Unemployment: Panel Data Evidence from Canada’, Economic Modelling, 50(11): 162-167.
Levitt, P. (1998) ‘Social Remittances: Migration Driven Local-level Forms of Cultural Diffusion’, International Migration Review, 32, 926–48.
Mahler, S. and Pessar, P. (2001) ‘Gendered Geographies of Power: Analysing Gender across Transnational Spaces’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 7, 441–59.
Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and Personality, NY: Harper, 25-43.
McDowell, L., Batnitzky, A. and Dyer, S. (2008) ‘Internationalization and the Spaces of Temporary Labour: The Global Assembly of a Local Workforce’’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(4):750-770.
Sinn, E. (Ed.) (1998) The Last Half Century of Chinese Overseas, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 108-120.
To, H., Grafton, R. Q. and Regan, S. (2017) ‘Immigration and labour market outcomes in Australia: Findings from HILDA 2001–2014’, Economic Analysis and Policy, 55(9): 1-13.
|
