The Hegemonic Masculinity in the Semiotic Landscape of Robinsons Mall Antipolo
By Persieus S. Balog
Introduction
One of the favorite past times of Filipinos is going to the mall because they could do many things (e.g., go shopping, have some coffee, watch movies, get a medical consultation, attend mass, work out, and do other leisure activities). Similarly, people go there not just because they want to spend their free time or celebrate occasions, but also to escape the scorching weather like what I usually did before especially in summer. Nowadays, malls also serve as vaccination areas for Covid-19. In this regard, we could say that shopping malls are, indeed, multipurpose (Mojarro, 2021). After attending some sessions and reading research articles in our class English 315 Social Semiotics, I have realized that shopping malls are not only for leisure, but it could also serve as a subject for a research project. Let me share with you what happened the last time I went shopping.
Last December 27, 2021, I decided to go to Robinsons Mall Antipolo to buy clothes as present and reward for myself. While walking, a huge picture of a male model wearing an undergarment caught my attention. There and then, I remembered Kerry’s (2016) article that talked about hegemonic masculinity and Milani’s (2014) study that highlighted how banal sexed signs sexualize the environment. Inspired by the two research papers, I decided to examine the hegemonic masculinity present in that shopping mall. So what I did was I went around the shopping mall and took some pictures of signage that I could use for my research. In short, my shopping spree became part of my data gathering procedure. My main objective in this research is to analyze the semiotic landscape of Robinsons Mall Antipolo and the power relations communicated within them. Drawing from hegemonic masculinity as a theoretical framework, I examined the gender ideologies exhibited in signs and images found at Robinsons Mall Antipolo. To help you understand the topic, my paper begins by defining the meaning of semiotic landscape followed by discussing the theoretical framework of my study which is hegemonic masculinity.
What is Semiotic Landscape?
According to Kerry (2016), Semiotic Landscape (SL) research is the study of “visual aspects, linguistic aspects and placement of signs, and how these contribute to power hierarchies in the environment they are found in (p. 210).” In short, SL is the study of any space that uses multimodal texts or materials used in meaning making (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010). Some examples are the signs found at train stations, shopping malls, bus terminals, schools, and other public spaces. Semiotic landscape is rooted from Linguistic Landscapes. As time progresses, scholars have advanced SL as a methodology (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010; Kerry, 2016). Hence, several studies analyzing different multimodal landscape were conducted. However, Milani (2014) pointed out that there is a research gap in the field of LL. Likewise, Milani (2014) contented that LL “research has largely ignored – erased even – the gendered and sexualized nature of public space (p. 202).” Therefore, he examined how banal sexed signs in the SL can sexualize the environment (Milani, 2014; Milani & Levon, 2016). Banal sexed signs are defined as “mundane semiotic aggregates, which, precisely because of their fleeting and unassuming character, can easily be ignored, but nonetheless ‘(in)form our understandings and experiences of [gender,] sexuality and subjectivity” (Sullivan, 2003; in Milani, 2014, p. 204). Based on the findings of Milani’s (2014) analysis, these banal sexed signs, which is often ignored and taken for granted, could actually sexualize the environment. The reason why I have decided to pursue this research topic is because of Milani’s (2014) contention regarding the research gap in LL studies and Kerry’s (2016) research findings on the construction of hegemonic masculinity in the SL of a CrossFit Cave. I believe that the images I collected, which are often ignored like the banal sexed signs, could contribute to the construction of hegemonic masculinity in the SL of Robinsons Mall Antipolo.
Theoretical Framework
What is hegemonic masculinity?
At this juncture, I will discuss the theoretical framework of my study. According to Cornell (1998), as cited in Kerry (2016), “hegemonic masculinity often relates to hierarchy and exclusion based on what is perceived to be the ideal male (p. 212).” In other words, hegemonic masculinity sets certain standards an ideal man should embody such as muscular physique, emotional and physical strength, societal achievements, dominance over women, and other characteristics that would make a man desirable (Trujillo, 1991; in Kerry, 2016). I think the best example that I could give to illustrate the concepts of hegemonic masculinity is Chris Evans (Captain America) and Chris Hemsworth (Thor). I have decided to give them as examples because I assume many of you have already watched Marvel movies. Hence, you are familiar with them and their characters in the movie. Indeed, these two actors are admired because of their physical attributes and successful career. Therefore, we could say that Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth truly embody physically and socially the standards set by hegemonic masculinity. Additionally, “hegemonic masculinity may take two forms: hegemony over women, and hegemony over other, subordinate masculinities (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; in Kerry, 2016, p. 213).” The former focuses on dominance over women, while the latter zeroes in on dominance over certain types of men that do not conform with the standards of the ideal man. In this study, I will analyze the two forms of hegemonic masculinity present in the Semiotic Landscape of Robinsons Mall Antipolo.
Methodology
In this study, I have collected ten images taken from different stores inside Robinsons Mall Antipolo. These pictures are purposively selected. I have only chosen those pictures that exhibit hegemonic masculinity as elucidated in the theoretical framework. The pictures are taken from Handyman Do It Best, Bench, National Bookstore, Department Store, and Olympic Outlet. Additionally, I have chosen Robinsons Mall Antipolo as the study locale of this research mainly because it is the nearest shopping mall in our house, and it is located near Antipolo Church. Therefore, its visitors are not just the locals, but also tourists coming from different places outside Antipolo City. Moreover, I used descriptive qualitative approach in analyzing the data. The corpus was coded and analyzed using the lenses of hegemonic masculinity. Also, I adopted deductive approach used by Kerry (2016) in her paper “whereby themes of hegemonic masculinity were specifically sought from the data (p. 214).”
Analysis
Let us proceed to the analysis of my corpus. The first analysis is from the image taken from Handyman Do It Best. This is the only picture of humans found inside the store. I found this picture in the doorknobs section. If you are going to simply look at it, you would just think that it is just a simple picture of a man in front of two women. That’s all. However, we have learned from the article of Iedema (2003) that language is no longer the source of communication. Even images could send deep meanings and messages. Hence, we have to look closely and pay attention to the visual elements of the signs or images (Van Leeuwen, 2004, in Kerry, 2016).
Figure 1
Figure 1 shows a man in front of two women. They are smiling and seem like having a good time carrying the ladder. If you notice in the picture, the man is in front and acting like a leader. His height, broad chest, strong arm, and hand holding the side of the ladder highlight his physical strength and virility. On the other hand, the two women at his back are smiling and staring at him while helping the man carry the ladder. Notice the position of the hands of the man and the two women and the position of the man in front. What did you observe? You could see here that the man effortlessly carries the ladder with one hand, while the two women carry it with two hands. Also, the way the man carries the ladder, projects his arm and chest, and positions himself in front highlight his physical power, thus making the two women look inferior to the man. Additionally, the man is taller than the two women; hence, the women are looking up to him. In this regard, the man appears to be the leader or superior in the picture. Therefore, I could say that this picture exhibits one of the two forms of hegemonic masculinity which is hegemony over women. This type of hegemony shows that women are dominated and inferior to men. This is problematic because it promotes gender stereotypical idea that women are weak and men are superior in society.
The next store I visited is the Olympic Outlet, a place where you could buy gym and fitness stuff and equipment. The very moment I entered the store I could already feel and see the hegemonic masculinity present in that semiotic landscape. I noticed that most of the gym and fitness stuffs are being modelled by men, thus giving me a feeling that I was inside a gym where Spartans train and prepare for war. See Figures 2, 3, and 4 below.
Figure 2
In Figure 2, you could see different compression arm sleeve, elbow support, tendon strap, ankle support and fitness glove. Interestingly, all these fitness stuffs are showcasing different body parts of a man. I tried to look for other fitness stuffs similar to Figure 2 with women in it; however, I did not see anything. Moreover, similar to Figure 2, Figures 3 and 4 showcase man’s muscular body. Figure 3 highlights the physical strength of a man lifting dumbbells. As you can see in the picture, the weight of the dumbbells which is 30 kilograms and the tag line “hard core” emphasize that these dumbbells are too heavy and require much force and power. Moreover, Figure 4 shows a man doing some workouts using doorway multifunction pull up bars. Look at the way how man’s physical strength and muscular physique are accentuated in this picture. Clearly, these figures exhibit hegemonic masculinity. They promote certain type of physique that an ideal man should have. Thus, those men that would like to look desirable and fit to the mold of an ideal man will be encouraged to buy the gym stuff.
Figure 3
Figure 4
While doing this analysis, I asked my female friend how she would feel when she enters such store. She told me that she would think that this store is only for men because most of the gym and fitness stuffs are being modelled by muscular guys. Also, she added that whenever she goes to fitness shops she always looks for stuffs modelled by women, so she could see how it would fit to her. Apparently, in this store, there are only two items with a woman in it (see Figures 5 and 6). At this point, I realize that the semiotic landscape of a particular place could, indeed, affect the experiences and moods of people. Additionally, because of the dominant image of muscular men in that store, I argue that hegemony over women is present in the SL of Olympic Outlet. To substantiate my argument, I have Figures 5 and 6 below.
Figure 5
First, let us focus on Figure 5. As you can see, there are four pictures on the cover of the suspension trainer box – two men and two women. Now, let’s analyze the pictures of two men. Noticeably, half of the box is dominated by the image of a handsome man working out using suspension trainer. Similarly, there is another image of a handsome man working out in the lower left corner of the box. The pictures of two good-looking men occupy 70% of the cover of the box. Likewise, based on the concept of hegemonic masculinity, both of them embody physically the qualities of an ideal man. On the other hand, the pictures of the two women occupy only 30% of the cover of the box. Additionally, you would notice that the quality of the images of two women is inferior compare with the two men. The faces of the women are barely visible, and they look struggling and haggard in the picture. On the flip side, the two men look effortless in their workout, and their handsome faces and well-built physique are highlighted. In this regard, I could say that this is an example of hegemony over women. Indeed, women are not given importance because of the visual elements seen in Figure 5.
Figure 6
Figure 6 is another example of hegemony over women. As you can see, there are boxes of fitness stuff featuring men and women. When I was in this store, I noticed that this corner has more boxes with an image of men. Indeed, there were only three boxes where you could find an image of a woman. In Figure 6, you would notice that there are two brawny men in the cover of the boxes – the one doing push-ups and the one pulling suspension trainer. By the same token, you could see that the two men especially the topless one are doing more intense work out than the woman with resistance band. The way the two guys flex their muscles while doing pushups and pulling the suspension trainer shows the intensity of the workout. In addition, gender stereotyping in the use of color pink is evident in the picture. As stated in the paper of Koller (2008), there is a strong link between pink and femininity which started in the 1950s. The use of pink resistance band in the picture shows that the brand promotes the gender stereotypical idea that the color pink is for women. Overall, based on the visual elements (e.g., - the actions of the models, the highlighted body parts, and use of color), I could say that hegemony over women and gender stereotyping are present in Figure 6.
Let’s go to Bench and Department Store. You could see in Figures 7, 8, and 9 how an ideal man’s physique is promoted and emphasized.
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Bench and Carter are known for clothes and undergarments. Hence, it is normal that they tap perfect-looking individuals to promote their products. Figures 7 and 9 showcase men in undergarments. Their chiseled chest and washboard abs are the main features. In Figure 8, you could see a male and a female model. The male model flexes his right arm, while the female model flaunts her slender body. Also, the height and the broad back of the model are noticeable in the picture, thus making him look bigger and towering over the female model. Indeed, it is clear that the featured models exhibit qualities of an ideal man because these brands would like to sell their clothes and undergarments. However, if you would critically analyze it, you would realize that these brands promote the idea that only the handsome men with well-built physique are desirable and marketable. This is problematic because it creates unrealistic and unfair standards for masculinity. We have to acknowledge that there are men who do not conform to these standards. Men that do not fit the mold may feel insecure and lose confidence, if these are the qualities of men being promoted in clothing brands. In this regard, we could say that hegemony over other, subordinate masculinities is manifested in these images.
Figure 10
For me, the last part of my analysis is the most interesting and surprising one because I was not expecting to find such material that I could use for my study. At that time, I decided to go to National Bookstore to buy some organizers. When I was walking around, I came across with this Fiction and Literature section (Figure 10). The cover of the novels caught my attention. There and then, I remembered the study of Millani (2014) when he discovered banal sexed-signs in the SL of a magazine store. Consequently, I took a picture of the Fiction and Literature stand and saved it to my data gathering folder.
As you can see in Figure 10, handsome and brawny men grace the cover of the novels similar with the previous analysis in this paper. Noticeably, in the books titled “Touch” and “Baby Sitting the Billionaire,” the two men in the cover are portrayed as businessmen. It underscores their capitalistic and societal dominance and status which are part of the concept of hegemonic masculinity. In addition, their chiseled chest, strong arms, washboard abs, and well-defined jawline are emphasized – i.e., the physique of ideal man. Likewise, the captions or taglines “territorial men,” “possessive,” and “dark boss” are indication of men’s dominance in relationships. It implies that the male characters in the novels are territorial, possessive, and bossy. So what I see in this analysis is the two forms of hegemonic masculinity – i.e., hegemony over women, and hegemony over other, subordinate masculinities (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; in Kerry, 2016, p. 213).
Let’s talks about hegemony over women. The captions or taglines “territorial men,” “possessive,” and “dark boss” indicate how men are in relationships. Furthermore, the book titled “Baby Sitting the Billionaire” with an image of a man highlighting his muscular physique clearly shows men’s hegemony and dominance in physical attributes, social status, and relationships. When I read the title of the book and saw the man in the cover, I imagined that the woman in the novel is submissive like a woman who docilely serves and does whatever her billionaire husband or boyfriend wants. Also, I am just wondering why they have to put such image of a man in the cover of the novels. Does it mean that women always want men with such social status and physical attributes? Or is it just for marketing purposes? These questions are going through my mind right now. Whatever possible answer to my questions would be says a lot about how we perceive men and women in society.
Now, let’s discuss the hegemony over other, subordinate masculinities manifested in the Fiction and Literature section of National Bookstore. Related to my discussion of male models in Bench and Carter, the covers of the novels promote an idea that only rich and good-looking men are desirable, thus leaving men that do not fit the mold undesirable and hopeless when it comes to relationships. This kind of ideology sets high and unrealistic standards for men that may cause insecurities and marginalization to those who do not check the boxes of an ideal guy. It is something that we must all think about and consider when we are trying to promote certain products or things.
Conclusion
In this paper, I analyze the hegemonic masculinity present in the Semiotic Landscape of Robinsons Mall Antipolo. Findings reveal that hegemonic masculinity does exist in the SL of that mall specifically hegemony over women and hegemony over other, subordinate masculinities. In my analysis, we have discovered that the signs or images in the SL of Robinsons Mall Antipolo may appear normal and meaningless to people. However, similar to the study of Milani (2014) and Kerry (2016), the images in the SL of Robinsons Mall Antipolo promote certain gender ideologies that may have implications to the mall-goers. Unfair and unrealistic standards of ideal men and subordinate position of women in society are covertly reflected and promoted in the SL. Thus, we have to be aware and critical with the gender narrative we find in our semiotic landscape. In addition, after doing this analysis, I realized that marketing and advertising companies should embrace diversity and should be more inclusive of their ad campaigns. I believe that men with different body types must also be given a chance to be featured in print ads. By doing so, we could promote body positivity and boost the confidence of men who do not fit the mold of an ideal man based on the theory of hegemonic masculinity.
Overall, this study only shows that shopping malls, which we usually visit during our free time, are not only a place for leisure activities, but they could also be a place where certain gender ideologies or narratives are promoted. Hence, we have to observe, analyze, and criticize what we see in our semiotic landscape.
References:
Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29-57. DOI:10.1177/147035720300200175
Image, Space. London: Continuum, 1-40.
Kerry, V. J. (2016). The construction of hegemonic masculinity in the semiotic landscape of a crossfit
‘cave’. Visual Communication, 16(2), 209-237. DOI10.1177/1470357216684081
Koller, V. (2008). Not just a coulour: pink as a gender and sexuality marker in visual communication.
Visual Communication, 7(40, 395-423.
Milani, T. M. (2014). Sexed signs – queering the scenery. International Journal of the Sociology of
Milani, T. M., & Levon, E. (2016). Sexing diversity: Linguistic landscapes of homonationalism. Language & Communication, 51, 69-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.07.002
Mojarro, J. (2021, December 7). Filipino mall culture. The Manila Times.
Comments
Post a Comment