- Email: [email protected]
Rural masculinity in transition: Gender images in tractor advertisements
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 123-133. 1995 Copyright ~) 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0743-0167/95 $9.50 + 0.00
Pergamon
0743-0167(95)00007-0
Rural Masculinity in Transition Gender Images in Tractor Advertisements Berit Brandth* Centre for Rural Research, University of Trondheim, 7055 Dragvoll, Norway
Abstract - - The article investigates stability and change in images of masculinity in
a technologically well-developed agriculture. By analysing tractor advertisements, it is shown how agricultural machinery is a male arena, and how tractors represent many qualities important to rural men and their masculine identity. The article also shows how technology and masculinity are mutually and simultaneously constructed. The users, the men farmers, give the tractor gender, and the tractor makes the farmers into real men. As the tractor is becoming computerized and more comfortable, new images of masculinity are in the process of evolving. The ideal of the farmer as a strong, dirty, manual mechanic is giving way to a more business-like masculinity. A question is whether the traditional, hegemonic type is being replaced, reconstructed or whether the two types will coexist peacefully, as variation in the meaning of gender is a general feature of late-modern culture.
studies on rural women have shown the masculine gendering of farming (Almaas, 1983; Almaas and Haugen, 1991; Haugen, 1990). Nine out of ten farmers having the main or sole responsibility for production on Norwegian farms, are men (Haugen, 1990). The occupational title "farmer" usually implies a man as most women in farming consider themselves as farmers' wives or housewives (Haugen, 1990). Mens' activities are considered to be the norm in today's industrialized agriculture (Haugen and Brandth, 1994), and work characterized by heavy machinery is associated with a traditional masculine ideology (Lie, 1991).
Introduction
Men and masculinity is a new and expanding field of study within which men's lives and experiences are being examined as gendered (Brod, 1987; Hearn and Morgan, 1990; Kimmel, 1987; Morgan, 1992). The impact of feminist scholarship on this field has been invaluable as it is feminism which has placed gender in the centre of discourse, and thus supplied the frame of reference and many of the assumptions upon which the new men's studies are being conducted (Morgan, 1992). Lately, under the influence of post-structuralist thinking, feminist sociology - and men's studies - - have shown a greater concern with representation and symbolism at the expense of more traditional sociological approaches (Barret, 1992). This article is a small attempt to bring men's studies and an interest in media representations into rural sociology.
When the tractor was introduced to agriculture, in Norway primarily in the 1950s and 1960s, it substituted for the horse and became "man's machine". Today, the tractor functions much as a boundary between men's and women's work on the farm (Brandth, 1994), and it is an important gender symbol because it is connected to the sexual division of labour in farming. Thus, technology and masculinity have become strongly linked. As the tractor represents many qualities connected with men and masculinity, it is an important sign of male farm identity.
In rural research gender issues have been on the agenda during the past decade. Studies have primarily documented the extent of women's work and their position on patriarchally organized family farms. Also the complexity and diversity of women's activities on farms have been made visible (Gasson, 1980; H a n e y and Knowles, 1988; Haugen, 1990; Sachs, 1983; Whatmore, 1991). In Norway, several
In spite of all indications of farming being a masculine occupation, the masculinity of farming has not been explored much, nor have farmers been
*Tel. + 47 73 591729; Fax + 47 73 591275. 123
124
Berit Brandth
studied as men. By taking as its focus of interest the social shaping of masculinity in farming, this article attempts to do just that. Looking at tractor advertisements, I am interested in seeing what media representations tell us about the definition of masculinity in farming. How are farmers presented as men, and how do tractors, the main technology of their work, influence the shaping processes of rural masculinity in a modernized, technologically developed agricultural context? The social construction of masculinity
Variation and change Gender is one of the primary dimensions in the organization of social life both at the structural level and at the micro-level of individual identity formation. In this article the concept "gender" (masculinity and femininity) refers to the cultural meanings attached to biological differences between the sexes (men and women). One problem with studies of men and women concerns the rather common perception of gender as fixed and universal categories - - that gender is something that people are. However, the meaning of gender varies enormously - - not just from one culture to another, but also within any culture over time and between subcultural groups. It also varies through an individual's life-course. Thus we speak of gender as being a socially produced distinction between the masculine and the feminine (Acker, 1992). In studies of gender, masculinity and femininity are often presented as social constructions within a gender system. The gender system is seen to rest on two pillars. One of them is "difference" or "segregation". The male is distinguished from the female, and masculinity is determined by qualities that are not feminine and vice versa. The second pillar of the gender system is "hierarchy" or male dominance. Not only is masculinity defined in opposition to femininity, but difference is ordered in a way which ranks the masculine over the feminine (Acker, 1990; Connell, 1987; Haavind, 1992; Hirdman, 1988). Although gender is constantly being reorganized, male domination is maintained (Acker, 1992). The relational and contextual character of gender construction has been strongly emphasized (HareMustin and Marecek, 1990; Kimmel, 1987; West and Zimmerman, 1991). Gender differences and similarities are constructed by men and women according to how they understand and represent themselves in relation to others. Understandably, the most investigated relations have been the ones between men and women.
In addition, masculinities are constructed in interactions among men. Gender relations among men involve struggles to define "hegemonic" masculinity. This means that masculinities are also ordered hierarchically, hegemonic masculinity being the form that is socially dominant at a given time and place (Connell, 1987). Hegemonic masculinity is not identical with the characteristics of powerful men, but are images of what they represent. Also hegemonic masculinity has multiple and ambiguous meanings which change according to context and over time - - a fact which makes it more correct to refer to "masculinities" rather than "masculinity" (Morgan, 1992). In studying masculinities, it is important to bear in mind that the many different images and behaviours contained in the notion of masculinity are not always coherent, but might be contradictory and even competing. Hegemonic masculinity is thus not defined on the basis of its stable content. The stable element is the position of ascendancy (Connell, 1987). The ascendancy of hegemonic masculinity might be achieved through coercive force but also through a cultural process in which the dominant ideology of masculinity is challenged. The study of how hegemonic masculinity changes, is a question of how oppositional gender ideologies become absorbed, contained and reshaped (Hanke, 1992). According to Connell, in a society of mass communication, one of the best ways to study hegemonic masculinity, is through media representations in advertisements, films and videos (1987: 185). This is so because on a social level, the organization of gender must be more simplified and stylized than in face to face interactions. A hegemonic position implies a large amount of consent and collaboration in sustaining images.
Work and technology as signs of masculinity The work women and men do, has always been important for our conception of masculinity and femininity. Thus, income generating work has been regarded as a major source of status and identity for men, while housework and child care have been seen as a central life interest for women and important for their identities as women. In his book "Discovering Men" Morgan (1992) focuses on the importance of occupational work in the shaping of men and masculinities. Through the character of the work they do, and the way they do it, men express their masculinity. Work is important both to distinguish between masculinity and femininity, and also to distinguish between different masculinities. One type of masculinity is for instance connected to manual work, another to intellectual work. Accord-
Gender Images in Tractor Adverts ing to Morgan, occupations characterized by heavy, dirty and dangerous work, are connected to hegemonic masculinity in parts of society. The farming occupation is an example of a traditional, hegemonic masculinity because physical strength and manual work have been important characteristics of farming. The height of masculinity can be reached when men have to overcome nature in order to make a living (Strate, 1992). Closely tied to the work men and women do, are the tools and the machinery they use to perform their work. Such tools become symbols, and can be studied as gendered objects. They are coded as either masculine or feminine and they help mark individuals as gendered subjects. Studies of gender and technology have pointed to the way gender is constructed through technology as sign systems. But, not only does technology contribute to the social construction of gender; gender contributes to the process of giving social meaning to technology (Berg, 1990; Brandth and Bolsoe, 1994; Cockburn, 1993; Wajcman, 1991). Gender and technology are simultaneously and mutually constructed. Research on material possessions and consumption has also shown that people's relationship to their artefacts involves a lot more than functional usage and commercial value (Dittmar, 1992; McCracken, 1990). They influence the ways in which we think about ourselves and about others. Possessions/ material objects are means of acquiring identity, and people express who they are through their material possessions. An important aspect of seeing the meaning of gender as socially constructed, is the strong element of self-construction involved. Social identities are not shaped by some external forces, nor solely by the people and institutions individuals relate to. According to Giddens, the self is reflexively made in this late modern age. "We are, not what we are, but what we make of ourselves" (Giddens, 1991:75). In constructing ourselves, we address the question of what we want to be in everyday decisions about what to eat, wear, buy, and what to do. Although choices are not entirely open, the choices we make in these matters, are interpreted as signs of who we are and what we want to become. Late modern age supplies people with many opportunities and a greater freedom of choice than before, but as a result of this, also greater difficulties in their pursuit of identity. The many possibilities pose greater demands on peoples' awareness of what they want to be. This is picked up by mass media and advertising which have become important in processes of identity formation (Wernic, 1991; Craig, 1992). The way technology and material possessions are
125
used in the construction of individual identities is essential in this analysis of tractors and masculinity. Assuming that the tractor is an important sign of rural masculine identity in a modernized agriculture, tractor ads, as representations of reality, may tell us something about what types of masculinities are being constructed.
Method: Social analysis of visual representations Sociologists have almost exclusively depended on language and written text to generate and communicate knowledge. The use of visual data is, however, expected to increase in social analysis because society has become far more visual as a result of recent technological developments in film, video, television and still pictures (Chaplin, 1994). In addition, visual representations are claimed to contribute to social analysis in ways that words alone cannot. In terms of their communicative potential, images play a much more positive part than is often assumed. According to Chaplin (1994) they contribute to the argument in their own right, and are not merely illustrations of the reality described in the written text. One well-known sociologist to use images as data, was Erving Goffman. In a collection of three essays published in "Gender Advertisements" (1979), he claimed that photographs can direct our attention to data which text cannot, and thus lead to a social scientific understanding that would not otherwise have been possible. He argues that there are strong similarities between displays of gender in advertisements and the performance of gender in actual social situations. In addition, he was well aware of both the multi-vocal and optional character of non-verbal presentations of the self. Goffman's analysis of gender displays has been criticized for having limited analytical utility (Saco, 1992). The metaphor of "the prestructured play" makes his analysis too similar to role theory, because the positions actors take up in given situations are determined by them previous to the display, and help shape that display. An alternative metaphor is that of an "unfolding narrative". Here the actors do not take up predetermined roles, but have multiple subject positions. Meaning is produced interactively in the very act of conversing (Saco, 1992). As media representation is the issue in this article, the term of "representation" needs to be accounted for. The term is complex, and its meaning varies according to the theoretical context in which it is used. One important aspect of the term, as I use it, is the awareness that it is not reality which is the object of study, but representations of reality (images and
126
Berit Brandth
texts). A second point is that representations are not merely reflections of their sources, but contribute to the shaping of them. The shaping process is mutual: "social processes determine the representation but are also consequently influenced and altered by it" (Chaplin, 1994: 1). A last point is therefore that the distinction between representation and reality is difficult to maintain. Representations blur the boundaries.
which serve user purposes. In presenting the products they want to sell, the advertisers connect the tractor to images of masculinity both in text and pictures. What they anticipate will help sell the tractor is seen from the abundant use of words like horsepower, supreme enginepower, hydraulic power and pullpower, great capacity, position control, reactions control, driving control. Keywords are power, precision, control.
Data used in this article are advertisement clippings. The investigation of tractor ads was originally conducted as part of a study of women farmers and their relationship to agricultural machinery. Partly in response to the women's movement, conventions for presenting gender in the mass media have come under increased scrutiny. My interest was to see how women and tractors were presented in advertisements. However, I could not find one single woman pictured in the tractor ads. As only a small minority of women in agriculture have daily responsibility for the operation of machinery, this tells us that the advertising business also regards women as irrelevant as buyers and users of tractors. Agricultural technology seems to be a completely male arena. This made me very curious about what gender ideologies advertisements are communicating in presenting agricultural technology to a male audience.
The tractor is pictured as large and strong. Big, heavy, greasy, dirty and noisy machines are symbols of a type of masculinity which often is communicated through the male body, its muscles and strength, and what is "big, hard and powerful" (Lie, 1992). The analogy to male potency is quite clear, and visualized by the phallus, the exhaust pipe standing up in front. In an illustration from one of the ads, the machine is not pictured out in the field, as we first perceive it to be. The tractor is placed upon a landscape consisting of hills, valleys, forests and mountains (see Fig. 1). It is placed on top of nature, "virgin land", and photographed from below - - an angle which makes anything else, including the potential buyer, seem/feel small in comparison unless, of course, the buyer fancies himself as being on top of the machine (and that is probably the intention). In farming the control of the machine is with the operator, this being different from the situation in the factory.
In order to investigate this further, advertisements in several volumes (1984 to 1994) of an agricultural magazine, Norsk Landbruk, were examined. This is a magazine in which producers of agricultural machinery advertise. The magazine is published 22 times a year with a circulation of 18,500, mostly based on individual subscriptions. The magazine is addressed to farmers and is quite widely distributed among farmers in Norway. Each issue has on average about 2-3 tractor ads, a few examples of which are printed here. Advertisements for other types of agricultural machinery are not included in this analysis.
The size of the tractor and its technical abilities are presented as attractions in themselves. Pictures often show in detail how different parts of the motor are connected and supposed to function. To emphasize the technical attractions in ads is considered to be a masculine presentation, because it is men who are fascinated by technology and expose themselves through it (Hubak, 1993).
By analysing pictures and text in tractor ads, we notice how media manifest and communicate the myths and ideologies of masculinity to inform male farmers of what "positive" characteristics they should strive for. As representations, advertisements are not merely a vehicle of meaning, but active in the construction of meaning. Media thus participate in the social shaping of masculinity by reinforcing and reshaping it.
The tractor is motorpower, and the equipment which is attached to it is working equipment. The ads for both the tractor and the attached machinery tell us that men work hard. Their work represents challenges which might be turned into risks and dangers. Both nature and economy are risks, but physical danger seems to be downplayed at the expense of economic risks. Risks are taken care of by more advanced equipment: differential power brakes, four wheel drive, crawling gear, etc. Some of the technical equipment is designed to manage both types of risks. The message seems to be that even if you work fast and efficiently, it is still safe, and the output is just as great, if not greater. Emphasis on danger magnifies the significance of success (Strate, 1992).
A technical product has physical characteristics
Two central images of masculinity in our culture are
The tractor makes men into "real men"
Gender Images in Tractor Adverts
Figure 1
127
128
Befit Brandth
"one of the lads" and "the lonely rider" ("the striver") (Morgan, 1992). Judging from the ads, farmers are represented by the second image as contemporary farming has become a lonely occupation. There are, as mentioned, no women in the ads, nor do we see men working together with, or relating to other people. Families working together, as was common in the heyday of the family farm, are not pictured as a part of today's industrialized farming in which the tractor and attached machinery are dominant parts. It is only man and his machine against nature! In addition to the physical characteristics of the product, the ads present us with interpretations of the product. The product has to be given symbolic traits with which potential buyers can identify. Without a "soul" the product is not quite finished when it is launched on the market. It has not been given an identity. The users, the men farmers, give the tractor gender, and the tractor makes the farmers into real men. A strong machine matches a strong man. In this way it is a mutual process of construction which often makes it hard to differentiate between the qualities of the technology and those of the user (Lie, 1992), Barthel (1992) referring back to Simmel, puts it like this: "We use our possessions as extensions of ourselves. They extend our power. They communicate our sense of ourselves to others. And, they give that sense back to us again. Sometimes, however, instead of extending our power, they become the locus of power" (Barthel: 138). Symbols used in the tractor ads, are often analogies to nature. The tractors are identified with nature through animals. The tractor is, for instance, pictured as a horse and the farmer as a cowboy (see Fig. 2). The tractor is untamed and wild, like nature itself. In this image male virility and competitiveness are perceived as attributes of strength. In another ad, the lion is used as a symbol. In Norwegian the lion is "king of animals", and the Norwegian expression "king of forests", which is also used in one of the texts (Fig. 1), is a moose. Both the lion and the moose are wise, strong and powerful animals which in the world of fairy tales rule other animals. A message communicated is that this tractor can match nature's toughest elements as it is a strong element itself. In drawing upon the competitive element, the machine is presented as "No. 1". It will become a "world champion" and overpower other tractors and other men. It "advances where others are stuck". It is constructed to master "the rough climate, the difficult terrain and the cold winter". Like the Vikings it is adapted to this tough country, and like
the Viking ship it can be used for conquests. It is a machine which likes great challenges; which "endures everything under any conditions". Contemporary, industrialized farming practices are heavily dependent on technologies like the tractor and other machinery. The control of the farmer and his machine over nature, as we have seen symbolized in the advertisements, is very much in line with notions of masculinity expressed in the scientific tradition that sees progress as a matter of domination and control over nature (illustrated by Fig. 3). In the founding texts of western science, nature is seen as something to be controlled and conquered (Plumwood, 1994). The relationship between man and technology, connected to control and mastery, are central sources of power. That the relations between men and their technologies are based on the domination of nature, is part of the feminist critique of science and technology (Keller, 1985; Merchant, 1980).
Changing technology, changing masculinity A new development in agricultural machinery is the advent of computer technology. One of the producers, for instance, advertises a new electronic instrument panel and digital indicators. It gives all information needed in order to "use/exploit the machine to the utmost". Among new, additional pieces of equipment, an information computer is available for possible buyers. It tells how large an area is being cultivated, and radar informs the driver of the exact speed of operation. The electronic equipment is presented as something "for you who thinks new and modern". It helps the farmer to work faster and more efficiently. Addressing "the modern men", those who make "choices for the future", these ads are filled with information about the latest technical developments. Generally speaking, computer technology breaks with the image of the heavy, dirty and noisy machines, and with the type of masculinity which is integrated with manual work (Lie, 1991). When tractor technology was introduced to farming, many farmers developed into clever mechanics (Pongratz, 1990), and technical skills and knowledge became an important part of masculinity in farming. With electronics this traditional image of masculinity is challenged. To fix advanced mechanics and electronics is almost impossible without special training. For men used to mechanical machinery with apparent masculine attributes, the computer does not function as a source of identity (Lie, 1991). Interestingly, advertisements are careful at this point in order not to disrupt the connection between mascu-
Gender Images in Tractor Adverts
129
Vi sierat JohnDeere1950har 62 Hk. Ty,.,ketestersiernoeannetl Q
Tror du motoreffekt ved maks. turtall forteller alt omen traktor? I s~ fall tar du feil. Modeme motorkonstruksjon gjor det nfi mulig fi lage motorer med sv~ert stor seigdragingsevne. Dette forer til at traktoren er sterkest ved turtall litt lavere enn det maksimale.
kraft" motorer. Nye tyske OECD-tester riser at John Deere 1950 ikke bare hat konstant effekt i det ovre turffdlsomrfidet. Den blir faktisk enda sterkere. Oker belastningen, synker turtallet, og en vanlig motor f~r lyst til fi gi seg. John Deere-motoren derimot henter fram ekstra krefter fra "kjelleren". Ved standard kraftuttakshastighet (2075 omdr./min) er motoren fortsatt pfi sitt sterkeste. I den tyske testen ble effekten mfilt til hole 68,8 I-IK!
IqWVDBIPADnTEGLrrJOIWL
E[$11~la~'11R lIARDUIIWIGa DEI/~'t Vi har lenge snakket om vfire "konstant-
JOHN DEERE
1950
flAR
Vi tror ikke ord og bilder alone klarer fi overbevise dog om de suverene motoregenskapene til John Deere 1950. Derfor vil vi gjerne at du prover den hjemme pfi ditt eget jorde. Va~r bare forberedt pfi at traktoren vinner seg ved n~ermere
EKSTRA
KREFTER Figure 2
NAR
bekjentskap. Ta kontakt med dirt n~ermeste Felleskjop og avtal tid for hjemlfin av en demonstrasjonstraktor. ~ l l m 11J F0RTO11[1YSl~lml Hvis du tar dog tid til fi provekjore John Deere 1950 og i tillegg fyller ut et enkelt sporreskjema, er du reed i trekningen av to Tysklandsturer for to personer. Vinneme ffir se John Deere fabrikkene i Mannheim saint oppleve tyske slott og vingods i Rhindalen. Alle som provekjorer f~r en hyggelig overraskelse i tillegg. Ikke dfirlig bare for fi prove en traktorI Ta turen innom dirt Felleskjop snarest! ( OECD - Organisagcm~ /or ~o~,~isk og ~
utdldi~o)
DU TRENGER DET MEST.
130
Berit Brandth
Figure 3 linity and the machine. Instead, they emphasize novelty and the importance of being modern and a step ahead of others in the competition among men. When new technology is introduced in this way, the ads attempt to find new symbols to express masculinity. Often this is apparent as contradictory images, or as attempts to consider both the old and new, for instance through such expressions as the "light heavy-weight champion" and "strong and economical". In addition to physical strength and endurance, more emphasis is being put on competitive business drive. In addition to computerization, the tractor is changing in another aspect. In the ads this is apparent through the emphasis put on information about comfort for the driver inside the cabin. The driver's seat is becoming more comfortable and can be regulated much like an office chair. The instruments are all within close reach and easy to operate. The cabin is isolated against cold, noise and dust, and heat and ventilation systems are better. The farmers no longer have to dress for outdoor work when driving the tractor. It is also quiet inside. Hearing protection is no longer necessary and it is possible to listen to the radio. The machine is not presented
only as a roaring lion, but also as a warm and comfortable, indoor working place which protects you against nature (see Fig. 4). It is both "strong and comfortable". The combination of computerization and comfort results in descriptions of the cabin as the new "Tech Center". These changes may also mirror a changing masculinity in farming - - towards a less manual, more white-collar image - - a masculine type which seems to borrow some of its characteristics from business and engineering work. The restructuring of agriculture has led to a decline of "heavy" work relevant to such masculine tiotions as strength and hard physical labour. There is no longer a need to reclaim new land. Cost reduction rather than increased production has become important today. Over production and new economic demands have led to a closing down of many of the small and mountainous farms where manual work was more common. With the new biotechnology farming is even in the process of disconnecting from nature. Thus, media representations of masculinities may be viewed against the background of structural changes. The new, masculine images of farming are constructed to match a more scientific form of agriculture.
Gender Images in Tractor Adverts
131
"OvorbolEIondolvonlesdel /or#ell
boldwetoO#idolsbo #p snmonOdot" :r ingen meterosore skremmer re av John ~ere traktorer. SG2-hytta er en opplevelse: KI~
valTfle -
apparat og resirkulering av varmlu fta gir en meget effekfiv varmeog defrostervirkning. Det heh spesielle konseptet reed avrundet fronmJte gir lavt stoyniv,~ og uhindret panoramautsyn. Det hydraulisk avdempede setet med korso, ggstoue bar 7 innstillingsmuligheter, og tilpasses din hoyde, vekt og rekkevidde. Dessuten er SG2-hytta en as de best sto',isolerte p,~ hlarkedet, og er m-~lestokken for traktorhyuer. Ah for 5 til{redsstille dagens hoye kra, til koml'ort og arbeidseffektivitet.
O
Til t o p p s i toff arbeidsmiljotest10 traktorer, alle under 65 hk., hat deltatt i en beinhard miljotest. John Deere f~kk 9 av IO stjerner, og det var s~erlig lavt lydniv~, og forersetets kvalitet som brakte John Deere til topps. For tredje ~r p-~ rad! Arbeidsmiljo er viktig i landbruket. Den testen viser at IO% av alle ulykker irm~effer ved traktorkjom~g. 50 % av alle gardbrukere har horselsskader, og halvparten av alle som hat plager ellers, har vondt i hofter, rygg eller ben. John Deere hat tatt utfordringen. Det forteller testen! J o h n Deere og Fellesk.j.o.pet e n usl,~elig k o m b i n a s o ~ John Deere er verdens storste produsent av landbruksmaskiner. Gjennom Felleskjopet. bondenes egen
Vi GIR DEG MARKEDETS BESTE SERVICEPAKKE MED P,/LKJOPET! Figure 4
butikk, holdes kontakten reed norske bonder. Noe som gjor at John Deere st,~ dig utvikler nye produkter tilpasset v,~re hjemlige forhold. Fellesk]opet bar, gjennom sin land~ dekning, en serviceorganisaslon sore markedet ikke har maken tie O m den generelle situasjonen i tldri s~ usikker du kan ikke Lktor p,~ tryggere m,~te enr skjopet.
JA TAKK!
Z Jog onskcr teslrcsuh~tel til,cl~dl ]eg unskcr br~j~remateriell Ik,~ !ohn Dccrclrakl,,rer E3Jeg~n~ker deT~clIl,ir,l,ltln av John Dee,c ~avrl: \dresse: Posmr/sled
B Felleskjopet
132 Discussion
Berit Brandth and conclusions
The purpose of this article has been to look into images of masculinity in farming. There are of course many aspects of rural masculinty; my main focus of interest, however, has been the linkage between masculinity and machinery as it appears in advertising. The analysis has shown how tractor ads use visual and verbal symbols to construct and convey images of rural masculinity in a technologically well-developed agriculture. Male farmers are expected to be technically knowledgeable, and to have "identical" qualities with the machine. By means of his tractor, the farmer communicates to the surroundings that he has qualities that "real men" are expected to have: strength, persistence, technical abilities and power. Ideologically, men are constructed as controllers of nature. One central interest in this article has been the dynamic character of masculinity. According to the theory of masculinity, variation and change processes need to be grasped in order to understand the character of hegemonic masculinity. In presenting the changing technologies, and connecting them to masculinity, the tractor ads are actively involved in the construction of new masculinities as cultural categories in modern farming. New images of masculinity are obviously in the process of evolving, but these images seem to be presented in a way which ensures that the identification between man and machine is not broken. We find both stability and change. The m a n - m a c h i n e identification is one element of stability; control and mastery of nature another. Yet, there are strong indications of a new, more successfully achieving business-like masculinity. Does this mean that hegemonic masculinity is being replaced, or that hegemonic masculinity is reasserting itself in a different form? First of all, it might mean that the old hegemonic type is being replaced by a new one - - that the ideal of the strong, dirty, manual mechanic is giving way to a more business-like masculinity. Both imply technological competence and mastery of nature for their success, but in different ways. The technological developments and the structural changes in western agriculture make a strong case for such changes in gender models. However, we must be careful not to take as historical change what might be synchronistic variation. In our culture a variety of contradictions in the meaning of gender exist, most of which can be seen as consequences of the general process of modernization. Variation in the ways rural men construct their identities as men must thus be considered as a general feature of late modernity. A
second interpretation, therefore, is that the two types of images exist alongside each other, and will continue to do so for some time. Unfortunately, the tractor ads studied cover too short a time span to be able to confirm which interpretation is correct. We see both types of images inb ads from all the years. The tractor driver as a strong and powerful controller of nature is still to be seen even in recent 1994 issues, but images connected with computerization and comfort seem to be more frequent. If there is a replacement, the new model seems to have become slow in replacing the older one. This makes us question the relationship between the two types of masculinities. Do they perhaps co-exist comfortably, the one being subordinate to the other? Or is there a dynamic tension between them - - a tension which we might interpret as a competition for hegemony? Judging from the ads, the tension is there. A third possible interpretation of the change process, is that hegemonic masculinity is in the process of reconstruction, that it is being redefined to remain hegemonic. In this process, one of its strategies is to admit to cultural borrowing: masculinities imported from elsewhere might mix with or be absorbed by local ideas to produce a new version more adaptable to contemporary social condition. According to Hanke (1992) this might make hegemonic masculinity better able to accommodate counter-hegemonic forces such as feminism. Another central interest in this paper has been the mutual character of the shaping processes of technology and gender. Both are changing, but they are still closely connected to each other. Even though the tractor is becoming more comfortable and easier to operate, making differences between women and men in muscular strength less relevant to occupational success, the absence of women and feminine imagery/metaphors is conspicuous. Despite the fact that the observed changes in masculinity are in the direction of a more feminized model, the images tell us that farm machinery is still an important masculine area. Machine work separates men from women and connects them to other men. The tractor is an object which defines a male territory. Perhaps men need to demarcate a few areas as male territory in order to carve out a masculine identity for themselves? Advertisers are well aware of this: tractors are operated by men, and men alone decide what new machines to invest in. My initial concern when starting this study, was with women and technology. The relations between women and technology are complex and cannot be rightfully discussed here. However, the strong, although dynamic, masculine gendering of agricul-
G e n d e r Images in Tractor Adverts tural machinery, as seen in this analysis, might m a k e it a hostile territory for women, and m a y b e to a certain degree, incompatible with femininity (Brandth, 1994). For those interested in understanding w o m e n ' s reluctance to enter technology, the findings in this article suggest that certain technologies are designed by and for men, presented with a masculine language and symbolism, to m a r k a male space, and to mediate a materialized power relation to both nature and women. Acknowledgements - - The writing of this article has been much aided by a grant from the Norwegian Research Council, Programme for Women's Studies in the Social Sciences. The author would like to thank Lawrence Bush and anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft. References Acker, J. (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society 4(2), 139158. Acker, J. (1992) Gendering organizational theory. In Gendering Organizational Analysis, Mills, A.J. and Tancred, P. (eds), Sage, London. Almaas, R. (1983) Maskulint og feminint pfi landsbygda i dag. Paper 3/83. Centre for Rural Research, Trondheim. Almaas, R. and Haugen, M.S. (1991) Norwegian gender roles in transition: The masculinization hypothesis in the past and in the future. Journal of Rural Studies 7(1/2), 79-83. Barrett, M. (1992) Words and things: Materialism and method in contemporary feminist analysis. In Destabilizing Theory, Contemporary Feminist Debates, Barrett, M. and Phillips, A. (eds), Polity Press, London. Barthel, D. (1992) When men put on appearances: Advertising and the social construction of masculinity. In Men, Masculinity, and the Media, Craig, S. (ed.), Sage, London. Berg, A.J. (1990) He, she and I.T.: designing the home for the future. In Technology and Everyday Life: Trajectories and Transformations, Report No 5, Norwegian Research Council, Oslo. Brandth, B. (1994) Changing feminity: The social construction of women farmers in Norway. Sociologia Ruralis 34(2/3), 127-149. Brandth, B. and Bolsoe, B. (1994) Men, women and biotechnology: A feminist care ethic in agricultural science? In Gender and Rurality, Whatmore, S., Lowe, P. and Marsden, T. (eds), David Fulton Publishers, London. Brod, H. (1987) The Making of Masculinities. The New Men's Studies. Allen & Unwin, London. Chaplin, E. (1994) Sociology and Visual Representation. Routledge, London. Connell, R.W. (1987) Gender and Power. Polity Press, Cambridge. Cockburn, C. and Ormrod, S. (1993) Gender and Technology in the Making. Sage Publications, London. Craig, S. (ed.) (1992) Men, Masculinity, and the Media. Sage, London. Dittmar, H. (1992) The Social Psychology of Material Possessions. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hempstead.
133
Gasson, R. (1980) Roles of farm women in England. Sociologia Ruralis 20(3), 165-179. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-htentity. Polity Press, Cambridge. Goffman, E. (1979) Gender Advertisements. Macmillan, London. Haavind, H. (1992) Vi mhste s6ka efter k6nets f6r~indrade betydelse. Kvinnovetenskapeligtidsskrift 3, 16-31. Haney, W.G. and Knowles, J.B. (eds) (1988) Women and Farming. Changing Roles, Changing Structures. Westview, Boulder, Colorado. Hanke, R. (1992) Redesigning men: Hegemonic masculinity in transition. In Men, Masculinity and the Media, Craig, S. (ed.), Sage, London. Hare-Mustin, R.T. and Marecek, J. (eds) (1990) Making a Difference. Psychology and the Construction of Gender. Yale University Press, New Haven. Haugen, M.S. (1990) Kvinnebonden. Report No. 7/9(I, Centre for Rural Research, Trondheim. Haugen, M.S. and Brandth, B. (1994) Gender differences in modern agriculture. The case of female farmers in Norway. Gender & Society 8(2), 206-229. Hearn, J. and Morgan, D. (eds) (1990) Men, Masculinities and Social Theory. Unwin Hyman, London. Hirdman, Y. (1988) Genussystemet - - reflexioner kring kvinnors sociala underordning. Kvinnovetenskapelig tidsskrift 3, 49-63. Hubak, M. (1993) Bilreklame og kj0nn. Sociologi i dag 2/ 3, 75-102. Keller, E.F. (1985) Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale University Press, New Haven. Kimmel, M. (ed.) (1987) Changing Men. New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. Sage, London. Lie, M. (1991) Technology as masculinity. Paper No. 6/91. SINTEF-IFIM, Trondheim. Lie, M. (1992) Teknologi og kj~nnsidentitet: Har datamaskinen kj~nn? In Epler fra v~r egen hage, Andenaes, A. et al. (eds), Centre for Women's Studies, Trondheim. McCracken, G. (1990) Culture and Consumption. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis. Merchant, C. (1980) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. Wildwood House, London. Morgan, D.H.J. (1992) Discovering Men. Routledge, London. Plumwood, V. (1994) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge, London. Pongratz, H. (1990) Cultural tradition and social change in agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 30, 5-17. Saco, D. (1992) Masculinity as signs. In Men, Masculinity, and the Media, Craig, S. (ed.), Sage, London. Sachs, C.E. (1983) The Invisible Farmers. Women in Agricultural Production. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ. Strate, L. (1992) Beer commercials: A manual on masculinity. In Men, Masculinity, and the Media, Craig, S. (ed.), Sage, London. Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology. Polity Press, Cambridge. Wernic, A. (1991) Promotional Culture. Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Expression. Sage, London. West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1991) Doing gender. In The Social Construction of Gender, Lorber, J. and Farrell, S.A. (eds), Sage, New York. Whatmore, S. (1991) Farming Women. Gender, Work and Family Enterprise. Macmillan, London.
Pergamon
0743-0167(95)00007-0
Rural Masculinity in Transition Gender Images in Tractor Advertisements Berit Brandth* Centre for Rural Research, University of Trondheim, 7055 Dragvoll, Norway
Abstract - - The article investigates stability and change in images of masculinity in
a technologically well-developed agriculture. By analysing tractor advertisements, it is shown how agricultural machinery is a male arena, and how tractors represent many qualities important to rural men and their masculine identity. The article also shows how technology and masculinity are mutually and simultaneously constructed. The users, the men farmers, give the tractor gender, and the tractor makes the farmers into real men. As the tractor is becoming computerized and more comfortable, new images of masculinity are in the process of evolving. The ideal of the farmer as a strong, dirty, manual mechanic is giving way to a more business-like masculinity. A question is whether the traditional, hegemonic type is being replaced, reconstructed or whether the two types will coexist peacefully, as variation in the meaning of gender is a general feature of late-modern culture.
studies on rural women have shown the masculine gendering of farming (Almaas, 1983; Almaas and Haugen, 1991; Haugen, 1990). Nine out of ten farmers having the main or sole responsibility for production on Norwegian farms, are men (Haugen, 1990). The occupational title "farmer" usually implies a man as most women in farming consider themselves as farmers' wives or housewives (Haugen, 1990). Mens' activities are considered to be the norm in today's industrialized agriculture (Haugen and Brandth, 1994), and work characterized by heavy machinery is associated with a traditional masculine ideology (Lie, 1991).
Introduction
Men and masculinity is a new and expanding field of study within which men's lives and experiences are being examined as gendered (Brod, 1987; Hearn and Morgan, 1990; Kimmel, 1987; Morgan, 1992). The impact of feminist scholarship on this field has been invaluable as it is feminism which has placed gender in the centre of discourse, and thus supplied the frame of reference and many of the assumptions upon which the new men's studies are being conducted (Morgan, 1992). Lately, under the influence of post-structuralist thinking, feminist sociology - and men's studies - - have shown a greater concern with representation and symbolism at the expense of more traditional sociological approaches (Barret, 1992). This article is a small attempt to bring men's studies and an interest in media representations into rural sociology.
When the tractor was introduced to agriculture, in Norway primarily in the 1950s and 1960s, it substituted for the horse and became "man's machine". Today, the tractor functions much as a boundary between men's and women's work on the farm (Brandth, 1994), and it is an important gender symbol because it is connected to the sexual division of labour in farming. Thus, technology and masculinity have become strongly linked. As the tractor represents many qualities connected with men and masculinity, it is an important sign of male farm identity.
In rural research gender issues have been on the agenda during the past decade. Studies have primarily documented the extent of women's work and their position on patriarchally organized family farms. Also the complexity and diversity of women's activities on farms have been made visible (Gasson, 1980; H a n e y and Knowles, 1988; Haugen, 1990; Sachs, 1983; Whatmore, 1991). In Norway, several
In spite of all indications of farming being a masculine occupation, the masculinity of farming has not been explored much, nor have farmers been
*Tel. + 47 73 591729; Fax + 47 73 591275. 123
124
Berit Brandth
studied as men. By taking as its focus of interest the social shaping of masculinity in farming, this article attempts to do just that. Looking at tractor advertisements, I am interested in seeing what media representations tell us about the definition of masculinity in farming. How are farmers presented as men, and how do tractors, the main technology of their work, influence the shaping processes of rural masculinity in a modernized, technologically developed agricultural context? The social construction of masculinity
Variation and change Gender is one of the primary dimensions in the organization of social life both at the structural level and at the micro-level of individual identity formation. In this article the concept "gender" (masculinity and femininity) refers to the cultural meanings attached to biological differences between the sexes (men and women). One problem with studies of men and women concerns the rather common perception of gender as fixed and universal categories - - that gender is something that people are. However, the meaning of gender varies enormously - - not just from one culture to another, but also within any culture over time and between subcultural groups. It also varies through an individual's life-course. Thus we speak of gender as being a socially produced distinction between the masculine and the feminine (Acker, 1992). In studies of gender, masculinity and femininity are often presented as social constructions within a gender system. The gender system is seen to rest on two pillars. One of them is "difference" or "segregation". The male is distinguished from the female, and masculinity is determined by qualities that are not feminine and vice versa. The second pillar of the gender system is "hierarchy" or male dominance. Not only is masculinity defined in opposition to femininity, but difference is ordered in a way which ranks the masculine over the feminine (Acker, 1990; Connell, 1987; Haavind, 1992; Hirdman, 1988). Although gender is constantly being reorganized, male domination is maintained (Acker, 1992). The relational and contextual character of gender construction has been strongly emphasized (HareMustin and Marecek, 1990; Kimmel, 1987; West and Zimmerman, 1991). Gender differences and similarities are constructed by men and women according to how they understand and represent themselves in relation to others. Understandably, the most investigated relations have been the ones between men and women.
In addition, masculinities are constructed in interactions among men. Gender relations among men involve struggles to define "hegemonic" masculinity. This means that masculinities are also ordered hierarchically, hegemonic masculinity being the form that is socially dominant at a given time and place (Connell, 1987). Hegemonic masculinity is not identical with the characteristics of powerful men, but are images of what they represent. Also hegemonic masculinity has multiple and ambiguous meanings which change according to context and over time - - a fact which makes it more correct to refer to "masculinities" rather than "masculinity" (Morgan, 1992). In studying masculinities, it is important to bear in mind that the many different images and behaviours contained in the notion of masculinity are not always coherent, but might be contradictory and even competing. Hegemonic masculinity is thus not defined on the basis of its stable content. The stable element is the position of ascendancy (Connell, 1987). The ascendancy of hegemonic masculinity might be achieved through coercive force but also through a cultural process in which the dominant ideology of masculinity is challenged. The study of how hegemonic masculinity changes, is a question of how oppositional gender ideologies become absorbed, contained and reshaped (Hanke, 1992). According to Connell, in a society of mass communication, one of the best ways to study hegemonic masculinity, is through media representations in advertisements, films and videos (1987: 185). This is so because on a social level, the organization of gender must be more simplified and stylized than in face to face interactions. A hegemonic position implies a large amount of consent and collaboration in sustaining images.
Work and technology as signs of masculinity The work women and men do, has always been important for our conception of masculinity and femininity. Thus, income generating work has been regarded as a major source of status and identity for men, while housework and child care have been seen as a central life interest for women and important for their identities as women. In his book "Discovering Men" Morgan (1992) focuses on the importance of occupational work in the shaping of men and masculinities. Through the character of the work they do, and the way they do it, men express their masculinity. Work is important both to distinguish between masculinity and femininity, and also to distinguish between different masculinities. One type of masculinity is for instance connected to manual work, another to intellectual work. Accord-
Gender Images in Tractor Adverts ing to Morgan, occupations characterized by heavy, dirty and dangerous work, are connected to hegemonic masculinity in parts of society. The farming occupation is an example of a traditional, hegemonic masculinity because physical strength and manual work have been important characteristics of farming. The height of masculinity can be reached when men have to overcome nature in order to make a living (Strate, 1992). Closely tied to the work men and women do, are the tools and the machinery they use to perform their work. Such tools become symbols, and can be studied as gendered objects. They are coded as either masculine or feminine and they help mark individuals as gendered subjects. Studies of gender and technology have pointed to the way gender is constructed through technology as sign systems. But, not only does technology contribute to the social construction of gender; gender contributes to the process of giving social meaning to technology (Berg, 1990; Brandth and Bolsoe, 1994; Cockburn, 1993; Wajcman, 1991). Gender and technology are simultaneously and mutually constructed. Research on material possessions and consumption has also shown that people's relationship to their artefacts involves a lot more than functional usage and commercial value (Dittmar, 1992; McCracken, 1990). They influence the ways in which we think about ourselves and about others. Possessions/ material objects are means of acquiring identity, and people express who they are through their material possessions. An important aspect of seeing the meaning of gender as socially constructed, is the strong element of self-construction involved. Social identities are not shaped by some external forces, nor solely by the people and institutions individuals relate to. According to Giddens, the self is reflexively made in this late modern age. "We are, not what we are, but what we make of ourselves" (Giddens, 1991:75). In constructing ourselves, we address the question of what we want to be in everyday decisions about what to eat, wear, buy, and what to do. Although choices are not entirely open, the choices we make in these matters, are interpreted as signs of who we are and what we want to become. Late modern age supplies people with many opportunities and a greater freedom of choice than before, but as a result of this, also greater difficulties in their pursuit of identity. The many possibilities pose greater demands on peoples' awareness of what they want to be. This is picked up by mass media and advertising which have become important in processes of identity formation (Wernic, 1991; Craig, 1992). The way technology and material possessions are
125
used in the construction of individual identities is essential in this analysis of tractors and masculinity. Assuming that the tractor is an important sign of rural masculine identity in a modernized agriculture, tractor ads, as representations of reality, may tell us something about what types of masculinities are being constructed.
Method: Social analysis of visual representations Sociologists have almost exclusively depended on language and written text to generate and communicate knowledge. The use of visual data is, however, expected to increase in social analysis because society has become far more visual as a result of recent technological developments in film, video, television and still pictures (Chaplin, 1994). In addition, visual representations are claimed to contribute to social analysis in ways that words alone cannot. In terms of their communicative potential, images play a much more positive part than is often assumed. According to Chaplin (1994) they contribute to the argument in their own right, and are not merely illustrations of the reality described in the written text. One well-known sociologist to use images as data, was Erving Goffman. In a collection of three essays published in "Gender Advertisements" (1979), he claimed that photographs can direct our attention to data which text cannot, and thus lead to a social scientific understanding that would not otherwise have been possible. He argues that there are strong similarities between displays of gender in advertisements and the performance of gender in actual social situations. In addition, he was well aware of both the multi-vocal and optional character of non-verbal presentations of the self. Goffman's analysis of gender displays has been criticized for having limited analytical utility (Saco, 1992). The metaphor of "the prestructured play" makes his analysis too similar to role theory, because the positions actors take up in given situations are determined by them previous to the display, and help shape that display. An alternative metaphor is that of an "unfolding narrative". Here the actors do not take up predetermined roles, but have multiple subject positions. Meaning is produced interactively in the very act of conversing (Saco, 1992). As media representation is the issue in this article, the term of "representation" needs to be accounted for. The term is complex, and its meaning varies according to the theoretical context in which it is used. One important aspect of the term, as I use it, is the awareness that it is not reality which is the object of study, but representations of reality (images and
126
Berit Brandth
texts). A second point is that representations are not merely reflections of their sources, but contribute to the shaping of them. The shaping process is mutual: "social processes determine the representation but are also consequently influenced and altered by it" (Chaplin, 1994: 1). A last point is therefore that the distinction between representation and reality is difficult to maintain. Representations blur the boundaries.
which serve user purposes. In presenting the products they want to sell, the advertisers connect the tractor to images of masculinity both in text and pictures. What they anticipate will help sell the tractor is seen from the abundant use of words like horsepower, supreme enginepower, hydraulic power and pullpower, great capacity, position control, reactions control, driving control. Keywords are power, precision, control.
Data used in this article are advertisement clippings. The investigation of tractor ads was originally conducted as part of a study of women farmers and their relationship to agricultural machinery. Partly in response to the women's movement, conventions for presenting gender in the mass media have come under increased scrutiny. My interest was to see how women and tractors were presented in advertisements. However, I could not find one single woman pictured in the tractor ads. As only a small minority of women in agriculture have daily responsibility for the operation of machinery, this tells us that the advertising business also regards women as irrelevant as buyers and users of tractors. Agricultural technology seems to be a completely male arena. This made me very curious about what gender ideologies advertisements are communicating in presenting agricultural technology to a male audience.
The tractor is pictured as large and strong. Big, heavy, greasy, dirty and noisy machines are symbols of a type of masculinity which often is communicated through the male body, its muscles and strength, and what is "big, hard and powerful" (Lie, 1992). The analogy to male potency is quite clear, and visualized by the phallus, the exhaust pipe standing up in front. In an illustration from one of the ads, the machine is not pictured out in the field, as we first perceive it to be. The tractor is placed upon a landscape consisting of hills, valleys, forests and mountains (see Fig. 1). It is placed on top of nature, "virgin land", and photographed from below - - an angle which makes anything else, including the potential buyer, seem/feel small in comparison unless, of course, the buyer fancies himself as being on top of the machine (and that is probably the intention). In farming the control of the machine is with the operator, this being different from the situation in the factory.
In order to investigate this further, advertisements in several volumes (1984 to 1994) of an agricultural magazine, Norsk Landbruk, were examined. This is a magazine in which producers of agricultural machinery advertise. The magazine is published 22 times a year with a circulation of 18,500, mostly based on individual subscriptions. The magazine is addressed to farmers and is quite widely distributed among farmers in Norway. Each issue has on average about 2-3 tractor ads, a few examples of which are printed here. Advertisements for other types of agricultural machinery are not included in this analysis.
The size of the tractor and its technical abilities are presented as attractions in themselves. Pictures often show in detail how different parts of the motor are connected and supposed to function. To emphasize the technical attractions in ads is considered to be a masculine presentation, because it is men who are fascinated by technology and expose themselves through it (Hubak, 1993).
By analysing pictures and text in tractor ads, we notice how media manifest and communicate the myths and ideologies of masculinity to inform male farmers of what "positive" characteristics they should strive for. As representations, advertisements are not merely a vehicle of meaning, but active in the construction of meaning. Media thus participate in the social shaping of masculinity by reinforcing and reshaping it.
The tractor is motorpower, and the equipment which is attached to it is working equipment. The ads for both the tractor and the attached machinery tell us that men work hard. Their work represents challenges which might be turned into risks and dangers. Both nature and economy are risks, but physical danger seems to be downplayed at the expense of economic risks. Risks are taken care of by more advanced equipment: differential power brakes, four wheel drive, crawling gear, etc. Some of the technical equipment is designed to manage both types of risks. The message seems to be that even if you work fast and efficiently, it is still safe, and the output is just as great, if not greater. Emphasis on danger magnifies the significance of success (Strate, 1992).
A technical product has physical characteristics
Two central images of masculinity in our culture are
The tractor makes men into "real men"
Gender Images in Tractor Adverts
Figure 1
127
128
Befit Brandth
"one of the lads" and "the lonely rider" ("the striver") (Morgan, 1992). Judging from the ads, farmers are represented by the second image as contemporary farming has become a lonely occupation. There are, as mentioned, no women in the ads, nor do we see men working together with, or relating to other people. Families working together, as was common in the heyday of the family farm, are not pictured as a part of today's industrialized farming in which the tractor and attached machinery are dominant parts. It is only man and his machine against nature! In addition to the physical characteristics of the product, the ads present us with interpretations of the product. The product has to be given symbolic traits with which potential buyers can identify. Without a "soul" the product is not quite finished when it is launched on the market. It has not been given an identity. The users, the men farmers, give the tractor gender, and the tractor makes the farmers into real men. A strong machine matches a strong man. In this way it is a mutual process of construction which often makes it hard to differentiate between the qualities of the technology and those of the user (Lie, 1992), Barthel (1992) referring back to Simmel, puts it like this: "We use our possessions as extensions of ourselves. They extend our power. They communicate our sense of ourselves to others. And, they give that sense back to us again. Sometimes, however, instead of extending our power, they become the locus of power" (Barthel: 138). Symbols used in the tractor ads, are often analogies to nature. The tractors are identified with nature through animals. The tractor is, for instance, pictured as a horse and the farmer as a cowboy (see Fig. 2). The tractor is untamed and wild, like nature itself. In this image male virility and competitiveness are perceived as attributes of strength. In another ad, the lion is used as a symbol. In Norwegian the lion is "king of animals", and the Norwegian expression "king of forests", which is also used in one of the texts (Fig. 1), is a moose. Both the lion and the moose are wise, strong and powerful animals which in the world of fairy tales rule other animals. A message communicated is that this tractor can match nature's toughest elements as it is a strong element itself. In drawing upon the competitive element, the machine is presented as "No. 1". It will become a "world champion" and overpower other tractors and other men. It "advances where others are stuck". It is constructed to master "the rough climate, the difficult terrain and the cold winter". Like the Vikings it is adapted to this tough country, and like
the Viking ship it can be used for conquests. It is a machine which likes great challenges; which "endures everything under any conditions". Contemporary, industrialized farming practices are heavily dependent on technologies like the tractor and other machinery. The control of the farmer and his machine over nature, as we have seen symbolized in the advertisements, is very much in line with notions of masculinity expressed in the scientific tradition that sees progress as a matter of domination and control over nature (illustrated by Fig. 3). In the founding texts of western science, nature is seen as something to be controlled and conquered (Plumwood, 1994). The relationship between man and technology, connected to control and mastery, are central sources of power. That the relations between men and their technologies are based on the domination of nature, is part of the feminist critique of science and technology (Keller, 1985; Merchant, 1980).
Changing technology, changing masculinity A new development in agricultural machinery is the advent of computer technology. One of the producers, for instance, advertises a new electronic instrument panel and digital indicators. It gives all information needed in order to "use/exploit the machine to the utmost". Among new, additional pieces of equipment, an information computer is available for possible buyers. It tells how large an area is being cultivated, and radar informs the driver of the exact speed of operation. The electronic equipment is presented as something "for you who thinks new and modern". It helps the farmer to work faster and more efficiently. Addressing "the modern men", those who make "choices for the future", these ads are filled with information about the latest technical developments. Generally speaking, computer technology breaks with the image of the heavy, dirty and noisy machines, and with the type of masculinity which is integrated with manual work (Lie, 1991). When tractor technology was introduced to farming, many farmers developed into clever mechanics (Pongratz, 1990), and technical skills and knowledge became an important part of masculinity in farming. With electronics this traditional image of masculinity is challenged. To fix advanced mechanics and electronics is almost impossible without special training. For men used to mechanical machinery with apparent masculine attributes, the computer does not function as a source of identity (Lie, 1991). Interestingly, advertisements are careful at this point in order not to disrupt the connection between mascu-
Gender Images in Tractor Adverts
129
Vi sierat JohnDeere1950har 62 Hk. Ty,.,ketestersiernoeannetl Q
Tror du motoreffekt ved maks. turtall forteller alt omen traktor? I s~ fall tar du feil. Modeme motorkonstruksjon gjor det nfi mulig fi lage motorer med sv~ert stor seigdragingsevne. Dette forer til at traktoren er sterkest ved turtall litt lavere enn det maksimale.
kraft" motorer. Nye tyske OECD-tester riser at John Deere 1950 ikke bare hat konstant effekt i det ovre turffdlsomrfidet. Den blir faktisk enda sterkere. Oker belastningen, synker turtallet, og en vanlig motor f~r lyst til fi gi seg. John Deere-motoren derimot henter fram ekstra krefter fra "kjelleren". Ved standard kraftuttakshastighet (2075 omdr./min) er motoren fortsatt pfi sitt sterkeste. I den tyske testen ble effekten mfilt til hole 68,8 I-IK!
IqWVDBIPADnTEGLrrJOIWL
E[$11~la~'11R lIARDUIIWIGa DEI/~'t Vi har lenge snakket om vfire "konstant-
JOHN DEERE
1950
flAR
Vi tror ikke ord og bilder alone klarer fi overbevise dog om de suverene motoregenskapene til John Deere 1950. Derfor vil vi gjerne at du prover den hjemme pfi ditt eget jorde. Va~r bare forberedt pfi at traktoren vinner seg ved n~ermere
EKSTRA
KREFTER Figure 2
NAR
bekjentskap. Ta kontakt med dirt n~ermeste Felleskjop og avtal tid for hjemlfin av en demonstrasjonstraktor. ~ l l m 11J F0RTO11[1YSl~lml Hvis du tar dog tid til fi provekjore John Deere 1950 og i tillegg fyller ut et enkelt sporreskjema, er du reed i trekningen av to Tysklandsturer for to personer. Vinneme ffir se John Deere fabrikkene i Mannheim saint oppleve tyske slott og vingods i Rhindalen. Alle som provekjorer f~r en hyggelig overraskelse i tillegg. Ikke dfirlig bare for fi prove en traktorI Ta turen innom dirt Felleskjop snarest! ( OECD - Organisagcm~ /or ~o~,~isk og ~
utdldi~o)
DU TRENGER DET MEST.
130
Berit Brandth
Figure 3 linity and the machine. Instead, they emphasize novelty and the importance of being modern and a step ahead of others in the competition among men. When new technology is introduced in this way, the ads attempt to find new symbols to express masculinity. Often this is apparent as contradictory images, or as attempts to consider both the old and new, for instance through such expressions as the "light heavy-weight champion" and "strong and economical". In addition to physical strength and endurance, more emphasis is being put on competitive business drive. In addition to computerization, the tractor is changing in another aspect. In the ads this is apparent through the emphasis put on information about comfort for the driver inside the cabin. The driver's seat is becoming more comfortable and can be regulated much like an office chair. The instruments are all within close reach and easy to operate. The cabin is isolated against cold, noise and dust, and heat and ventilation systems are better. The farmers no longer have to dress for outdoor work when driving the tractor. It is also quiet inside. Hearing protection is no longer necessary and it is possible to listen to the radio. The machine is not presented
only as a roaring lion, but also as a warm and comfortable, indoor working place which protects you against nature (see Fig. 4). It is both "strong and comfortable". The combination of computerization and comfort results in descriptions of the cabin as the new "Tech Center". These changes may also mirror a changing masculinity in farming - - towards a less manual, more white-collar image - - a masculine type which seems to borrow some of its characteristics from business and engineering work. The restructuring of agriculture has led to a decline of "heavy" work relevant to such masculine tiotions as strength and hard physical labour. There is no longer a need to reclaim new land. Cost reduction rather than increased production has become important today. Over production and new economic demands have led to a closing down of many of the small and mountainous farms where manual work was more common. With the new biotechnology farming is even in the process of disconnecting from nature. Thus, media representations of masculinities may be viewed against the background of structural changes. The new, masculine images of farming are constructed to match a more scientific form of agriculture.
Gender Images in Tractor Adverts
131
"OvorbolEIondolvonlesdel /or#ell
boldwetoO#idolsbo #p snmonOdot" :r ingen meterosore skremmer re av John ~ere traktorer. SG2-hytta er en opplevelse: KI~
valTfle -
apparat og resirkulering av varmlu fta gir en meget effekfiv varmeog defrostervirkning. Det heh spesielle konseptet reed avrundet fronmJte gir lavt stoyniv,~ og uhindret panoramautsyn. Det hydraulisk avdempede setet med korso, ggstoue bar 7 innstillingsmuligheter, og tilpasses din hoyde, vekt og rekkevidde. Dessuten er SG2-hytta en as de best sto',isolerte p,~ hlarkedet, og er m-~lestokken for traktorhyuer. Ah for 5 til{redsstille dagens hoye kra, til koml'ort og arbeidseffektivitet.
O
Til t o p p s i toff arbeidsmiljotest10 traktorer, alle under 65 hk., hat deltatt i en beinhard miljotest. John Deere f~kk 9 av IO stjerner, og det var s~erlig lavt lydniv~, og forersetets kvalitet som brakte John Deere til topps. For tredje ~r p-~ rad! Arbeidsmiljo er viktig i landbruket. Den testen viser at IO% av alle ulykker irm~effer ved traktorkjom~g. 50 % av alle gardbrukere har horselsskader, og halvparten av alle som hat plager ellers, har vondt i hofter, rygg eller ben. John Deere hat tatt utfordringen. Det forteller testen! J o h n Deere og Fellesk.j.o.pet e n usl,~elig k o m b i n a s o ~ John Deere er verdens storste produsent av landbruksmaskiner. Gjennom Felleskjopet. bondenes egen
Vi GIR DEG MARKEDETS BESTE SERVICEPAKKE MED P,/LKJOPET! Figure 4
butikk, holdes kontakten reed norske bonder. Noe som gjor at John Deere st,~ dig utvikler nye produkter tilpasset v,~re hjemlige forhold. Fellesk]opet bar, gjennom sin land~ dekning, en serviceorganisaslon sore markedet ikke har maken tie O m den generelle situasjonen i tldri s~ usikker du kan ikke Lktor p,~ tryggere m,~te enr skjopet.
JA TAKK!
Z Jog onskcr teslrcsuh~tel til,cl~dl ]eg unskcr br~j~remateriell Ik,~ !ohn Dccrclrakl,,rer E3Jeg~n~ker deT~clIl,ir,l,ltln av John Dee,c ~avrl: \dresse: Posmr/sled
B Felleskjopet
132 Discussion
Berit Brandth and conclusions
The purpose of this article has been to look into images of masculinity in farming. There are of course many aspects of rural masculinty; my main focus of interest, however, has been the linkage between masculinity and machinery as it appears in advertising. The analysis has shown how tractor ads use visual and verbal symbols to construct and convey images of rural masculinity in a technologically well-developed agriculture. Male farmers are expected to be technically knowledgeable, and to have "identical" qualities with the machine. By means of his tractor, the farmer communicates to the surroundings that he has qualities that "real men" are expected to have: strength, persistence, technical abilities and power. Ideologically, men are constructed as controllers of nature. One central interest in this article has been the dynamic character of masculinity. According to the theory of masculinity, variation and change processes need to be grasped in order to understand the character of hegemonic masculinity. In presenting the changing technologies, and connecting them to masculinity, the tractor ads are actively involved in the construction of new masculinities as cultural categories in modern farming. New images of masculinity are obviously in the process of evolving, but these images seem to be presented in a way which ensures that the identification between man and machine is not broken. We find both stability and change. The m a n - m a c h i n e identification is one element of stability; control and mastery of nature another. Yet, there are strong indications of a new, more successfully achieving business-like masculinity. Does this mean that hegemonic masculinity is being replaced, or that hegemonic masculinity is reasserting itself in a different form? First of all, it might mean that the old hegemonic type is being replaced by a new one - - that the ideal of the strong, dirty, manual mechanic is giving way to a more business-like masculinity. Both imply technological competence and mastery of nature for their success, but in different ways. The technological developments and the structural changes in western agriculture make a strong case for such changes in gender models. However, we must be careful not to take as historical change what might be synchronistic variation. In our culture a variety of contradictions in the meaning of gender exist, most of which can be seen as consequences of the general process of modernization. Variation in the ways rural men construct their identities as men must thus be considered as a general feature of late modernity. A
second interpretation, therefore, is that the two types of images exist alongside each other, and will continue to do so for some time. Unfortunately, the tractor ads studied cover too short a time span to be able to confirm which interpretation is correct. We see both types of images inb ads from all the years. The tractor driver as a strong and powerful controller of nature is still to be seen even in recent 1994 issues, but images connected with computerization and comfort seem to be more frequent. If there is a replacement, the new model seems to have become slow in replacing the older one. This makes us question the relationship between the two types of masculinities. Do they perhaps co-exist comfortably, the one being subordinate to the other? Or is there a dynamic tension between them - - a tension which we might interpret as a competition for hegemony? Judging from the ads, the tension is there. A third possible interpretation of the change process, is that hegemonic masculinity is in the process of reconstruction, that it is being redefined to remain hegemonic. In this process, one of its strategies is to admit to cultural borrowing: masculinities imported from elsewhere might mix with or be absorbed by local ideas to produce a new version more adaptable to contemporary social condition. According to Hanke (1992) this might make hegemonic masculinity better able to accommodate counter-hegemonic forces such as feminism. Another central interest in this paper has been the mutual character of the shaping processes of technology and gender. Both are changing, but they are still closely connected to each other. Even though the tractor is becoming more comfortable and easier to operate, making differences between women and men in muscular strength less relevant to occupational success, the absence of women and feminine imagery/metaphors is conspicuous. Despite the fact that the observed changes in masculinity are in the direction of a more feminized model, the images tell us that farm machinery is still an important masculine area. Machine work separates men from women and connects them to other men. The tractor is an object which defines a male territory. Perhaps men need to demarcate a few areas as male territory in order to carve out a masculine identity for themselves? Advertisers are well aware of this: tractors are operated by men, and men alone decide what new machines to invest in. My initial concern when starting this study, was with women and technology. The relations between women and technology are complex and cannot be rightfully discussed here. However, the strong, although dynamic, masculine gendering of agricul-
G e n d e r Images in Tractor Adverts tural machinery, as seen in this analysis, might m a k e it a hostile territory for women, and m a y b e to a certain degree, incompatible with femininity (Brandth, 1994). For those interested in understanding w o m e n ' s reluctance to enter technology, the findings in this article suggest that certain technologies are designed by and for men, presented with a masculine language and symbolism, to m a r k a male space, and to mediate a materialized power relation to both nature and women. Acknowledgements - - The writing of this article has been much aided by a grant from the Norwegian Research Council, Programme for Women's Studies in the Social Sciences. The author would like to thank Lawrence Bush and anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft. References Acker, J. (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society 4(2), 139158. Acker, J. (1992) Gendering organizational theory. In Gendering Organizational Analysis, Mills, A.J. and Tancred, P. (eds), Sage, London. Almaas, R. (1983) Maskulint og feminint pfi landsbygda i dag. Paper 3/83. Centre for Rural Research, Trondheim. Almaas, R. and Haugen, M.S. (1991) Norwegian gender roles in transition: The masculinization hypothesis in the past and in the future. Journal of Rural Studies 7(1/2), 79-83. Barrett, M. (1992) Words and things: Materialism and method in contemporary feminist analysis. In Destabilizing Theory, Contemporary Feminist Debates, Barrett, M. and Phillips, A. (eds), Polity Press, London. Barthel, D. (1992) When men put on appearances: Advertising and the social construction of masculinity. In Men, Masculinity, and the Media, Craig, S. (ed.), Sage, London. Berg, A.J. (1990) He, she and I.T.: designing the home for the future. In Technology and Everyday Life: Trajectories and Transformations, Report No 5, Norwegian Research Council, Oslo. Brandth, B. (1994) Changing feminity: The social construction of women farmers in Norway. Sociologia Ruralis 34(2/3), 127-149. Brandth, B. and Bolsoe, B. (1994) Men, women and biotechnology: A feminist care ethic in agricultural science? In Gender and Rurality, Whatmore, S., Lowe, P. and Marsden, T. (eds), David Fulton Publishers, London. Brod, H. (1987) The Making of Masculinities. The New Men's Studies. Allen & Unwin, London. Chaplin, E. (1994) Sociology and Visual Representation. Routledge, London. Connell, R.W. (1987) Gender and Power. Polity Press, Cambridge. Cockburn, C. and Ormrod, S. (1993) Gender and Technology in the Making. Sage Publications, London. Craig, S. (ed.) (1992) Men, Masculinity, and the Media. Sage, London. Dittmar, H. (1992) The Social Psychology of Material Possessions. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hempstead.
133
Gasson, R. (1980) Roles of farm women in England. Sociologia Ruralis 20(3), 165-179. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-htentity. Polity Press, Cambridge. Goffman, E. (1979) Gender Advertisements. Macmillan, London. Haavind, H. (1992) Vi mhste s6ka efter k6nets f6r~indrade betydelse. Kvinnovetenskapeligtidsskrift 3, 16-31. Haney, W.G. and Knowles, J.B. (eds) (1988) Women and Farming. Changing Roles, Changing Structures. Westview, Boulder, Colorado. Hanke, R. (1992) Redesigning men: Hegemonic masculinity in transition. In Men, Masculinity and the Media, Craig, S. (ed.), Sage, London. Hare-Mustin, R.T. and Marecek, J. (eds) (1990) Making a Difference. Psychology and the Construction of Gender. Yale University Press, New Haven. Haugen, M.S. (1990) Kvinnebonden. Report No. 7/9(I, Centre for Rural Research, Trondheim. Haugen, M.S. and Brandth, B. (1994) Gender differences in modern agriculture. The case of female farmers in Norway. Gender & Society 8(2), 206-229. Hearn, J. and Morgan, D. (eds) (1990) Men, Masculinities and Social Theory. Unwin Hyman, London. Hirdman, Y. (1988) Genussystemet - - reflexioner kring kvinnors sociala underordning. Kvinnovetenskapelig tidsskrift 3, 49-63. Hubak, M. (1993) Bilreklame og kj0nn. Sociologi i dag 2/ 3, 75-102. Keller, E.F. (1985) Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale University Press, New Haven. Kimmel, M. (ed.) (1987) Changing Men. New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. Sage, London. Lie, M. (1991) Technology as masculinity. Paper No. 6/91. SINTEF-IFIM, Trondheim. Lie, M. (1992) Teknologi og kj~nnsidentitet: Har datamaskinen kj~nn? In Epler fra v~r egen hage, Andenaes, A. et al. (eds), Centre for Women's Studies, Trondheim. McCracken, G. (1990) Culture and Consumption. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis. Merchant, C. (1980) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. Wildwood House, London. Morgan, D.H.J. (1992) Discovering Men. Routledge, London. Plumwood, V. (1994) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge, London. Pongratz, H. (1990) Cultural tradition and social change in agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 30, 5-17. Saco, D. (1992) Masculinity as signs. In Men, Masculinity, and the Media, Craig, S. (ed.), Sage, London. Sachs, C.E. (1983) The Invisible Farmers. Women in Agricultural Production. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ. Strate, L. (1992) Beer commercials: A manual on masculinity. In Men, Masculinity, and the Media, Craig, S. (ed.), Sage, London. Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology. Polity Press, Cambridge. Wernic, A. (1991) Promotional Culture. Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Expression. Sage, London. West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1991) Doing gender. In The Social Construction of Gender, Lorber, J. and Farrell, S.A. (eds), Sage, New York. Whatmore, S. (1991) Farming Women. Gender, Work and Family Enterprise. Macmillan, London.