Men's Socialization and the History of Man's Life: The Reproduction of Male Culture in the Individual Narrative

Nadezhda Radina


The research in question is based on the gender schema theory by Sandra Bem. The purpose of the research is to study male narrative features in the context of the norms of male socialization. The aim of the research under consideration is a comparative analysis of male and female autobiographies features, which are not confined to male and female speech characteristics and reflect revision of gender socialization norms by the subject. With the help of biographical interview method autobiographies of women aged 31 to 72 (N= 34) and men aged from 23 to 69 (N= 36) living in provincial Russian towns were transcribed and contrasted. The autobiographies underwent categorial analysis procedure conducted by experts; the obtained categorial matrices were processed with the use of mathematical methods of statistics. Considerable attention was given to men’s life stories during the process of analysis. Quantitative data analysis allowed to reconstruct the structure of men’s and women’s autobiographies, which reflected gender socialization norms. The obtained algorithm, being geared towards the search for gender markers in the autobiographies, identified gender-specific markers in men’s texts whereas the female ones were retrieved owing to non-specific categories. This allowed to conclude that the modern Russian male socialization practices are more traditional. According to the results of the research, the categorial structure of autobiographical texts in men and in women is similar in key events and specific to each gender group at the same time. As far as gender normativity is concerned, male stories are more frequent to contain the gender norms abidance markers. Female stories are more individualized and fall into different scenarios (gender-standardized and non-standard).


male socialization, lenses of gender, male narrative.

Full Text:



Ackerman J.M., Griskevicius V., Li N.P. (2011). Let’s Get Serious: Communicating Commitment in Romantic Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1079–1094.

Bem S. (2004). Linzy gendera: Transformatsiya vzglyadov na problemu neravenstva polov [The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality], M.: ROSSPEN.

Bem S. L. (1983) Gender Schema Theory and Its Implications for Child Development: Raising Gender-Aschematic Children in a Gender-Schematic Society. Signs, 8(4), 598-616.

Bourdieu P. (2001) Masculine Domination. Richard (trans.). Cambridge, Polity Press.

Chung R. (2009). The gender schema: how contrasts and multiple characteristics affect metaphorical gender in adults. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 2, 51-61.

Connell R. (2001). Maskulinnosti i globalizatsiya [Masculinity and globalization]. In S. V. Zherebkin (Eds.). Vvedeniye v gendernye issledovaniya [Introduction to Gender Studies]. Kharkov: KhCGR, 851-873.

Connell R. W., Messerschmidt J. W. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society, 6 (19), 829-859.

Edwards K. E., Jones S. R. (2009). “Putting My Man Face On”: A Grounded Theory of College Men’s Gender Identity Development. Journal of College Student Development, 2 (50), 210-228.

Eichler M. (2012). Militarizing Men: Gender, Conscription, and War in Post-Soviet Russia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gibbs A., Sikweyiya Y., Jewkes R. (2014). ‘Men value their dignity’: securing respect and identity construction in urban informal settlements in South Africa. Glob Health Action, 7, 23676. Retrieved from

Gilmore D.D. (1990) Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Goroshko Ye.I. (2003). Yazykovoye soznaniye: gendernaya paradigma. [Language Consciousness: Gender Paradigm]. Kharkov: INZhEK.

Kon I.S. (2001). Maskulinnost kak istoriya [Masculinity as history]. In. Gendernye problemy v obshchestvennykh naukakh [Gender issues in the social sciences]. M.: Izdatelstvo IEA RAN, 9 – 37.

Kon I.S. (2002). Istoriya i teoriya muzhskikh issledovany [History and Theory of male studies]. In M.M. Malysheva (Eds.) Genderny kaleydoskop [Gender Kaleidoscope]. M. Academia,188 – 242.

Levant R., Richmond K. (2007). A review of research on masculinity ideologies using the Male Role Norms Inventory. Journal of Men's Studies, 2 (15), 130–146.

Petersson B. (2017) Putin and the Russian Mythscape: Dilemmas of Charismatic Legitimacy. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 3/25: 235-254.

Pleck J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pushkareva N.L. (2003). “Strannye muzhchiny” v russkoy natsionalnoy traditsii [“Strange man” in the Russian national tradition]. Retrieved from

Radina N.K. (2012) Gendernaya metodologiya v sotsialnoy psikhologii [Gender Methodology in Social Psychology]. Sotsialnaya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 3, 36–47.

Radina N.K., Nikitina A.A. (2011). Sotsialnaya psikhologiya muzhestvennosti. Sotsialno-konstruktivistsky podkhod [Social psychology of masculinity. The socio-constructivist approach]. M.: Borges.

Rich M.D., Utley E.A., Janke K., Moldoveanu M. (2010). “I’d Rather Be Doing Something Else:”Male Resistance to Rape Prevention Programs. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 3 (18), 268-288.

Schmitt D. P., Realo A., Voracek M., Allik J. (2008). Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 168–182.

Schrock D., Schwalb M. Men, Masculinity and Manhood Acts. (2009). The Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277–295.

Sperling V. (2015). Sex, Politics and Putin: Political Legitimacy in Russia. New York: Oxford University Press.

Starr Ch., Zurbriggen E. L.(2016, March) Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory After 34 Years: A Review of its Reach and Impact. Sex Roles, 1-13. Retrieved from

Strauss A., & Corbin J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Tannen D. (1990). You just don’t understand. Women and men in conversation. N.Y.: William Morrow and Company Inc.

Thompson E.H., Pleck J.H., Ferrera D.L. (1993). Menandmasculinities: Scalesformasculinity ideology and masculinity-related constructs. Sex Roles, 27 (11/12), 573-607.

Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Bennett, K. M. (2015, February). Measurement of Masculinity Ideologies: A (Critical) Review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Advance online publication. Retrieved from

Verdins K. (2015) Queer Male (Post)Soviet Narratives in Interviews by Rita Rudusa and Fiktion by Klavs Smilgzieds. INTERLITT ERA RIA, 20/1: 228–237.

White M.D., Marsh E.E. (2006). Content Analysis: a Flexible Methodology. Library trends, 1 (55), 35-36.

Zorgdrager H. (2013). Homosexuality and hypermasculinity in the public discourse of the Russian Orthodox Church: an affect theoretical approach. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 74:3, 214-239.


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

MSC - Masculinities and social change | ISSN: 2014-3605

Legal Deposit: B.34287-2012 | |