Yuan Changying Prize Winning Essay – ‘My (Stereo) Type on Paper: The Representation of Masculinity in Love Island’

This blog series showcases the student winners of the Yuan Changying Prize, sponsored by GENDER.ED and SPS’s Gender Politics Research Group. The prize recognises outstanding ‘gender observations’ written by students (and nominated by tutors) in the pre-Honours course Understanding Gender in the Contemporary World, convened by Prof. Meryl Kenny and Dr. Hemangini Gupta. Gender observations require students to link material from the course to their own day-to-day experiences and observations of ‘doing gender’. The prize is named after Yuan Changying in consultation with students, in recognition of the first female Chinese graduate in the University of Edinburgh’s history. 

By Faye Batley

Love Island (LI) is a UK dating show, wherein a group of young, attractive singletons (termed “Islanders”) head to a Majorcan Villa in hope of “coupling up” with a perfect partner. In doing so, they are embroiled in a highly public performance of gender. This essay will consider masculinity as created and “done” (West & Zimmerman, 1987) through both the format of the show and the behaviour exhibited by the contestants. Using Season 8 (2022) as a case study, I explore how masculinity involves an Islander’s place in gender relations, the practices by which they engage with this place, and the impact of gendered practices upon their bodies, personalities, and wider culture (Connell, 2005: 72). I suggest that Love Island’s “doing” of masculinity often demonstrates elements of “hegemonic masculinity”: the ideologies and practices which contribute to the legitimisation of patriarchal dominance (Connell, 2005: 77).

The organisation and production of LI develop masculinity as a “place in gender relations” by rigidly opposing it to femininity. Masculinity and femininity are “inherently relational” concepts (Connell, 2005: 43), which means that their meaning is derived from opposition to and interaction with the other. This opposition also assumes sexual attraction. LI operates within what Butler would refer to as the “heterosexual matrix” (Butler, 1990), meaning the intelligibility of the gendered body relies upon a naturalisation of masculine/feminine opposition and sexual attraction. LI’s premise is that an equal number of men and women will “couple up” with any one Islander of the opposite sex, and co-exist within a simulation of a heterosexual relationship for 8 weeks, complete with dating, sex, and child-rearing. Heterosexuality is not only naturalised, but obligatory: men must “couple up” with women. The relation between masculinity and femininity is policed by the home audience who vote for the couple they feel are best suited to each other. LI naturalises gendered bodily differences through “assortative mating” (West & Zimmerman, 1987), for there is a tendency toward choosing larger male contestants to couple up with smaller women. Thus, a distinctive “masculine” and “feminine” contestant are created by the show and its audience, based on the body types that the producers choose to appear, and the audience choose to keep.

I now consider the practices by which masculinised individuals “engage in their place in gender relations” (Connell, 2005) by examining the “challenge” segment of the programme. The challenges contribute to the ideological opposition of men and women, but also offer an opportunity for the Islanders to engage in gender performance. Butler suggests that masculinity and femininity are performed through the repeated and stylised movements, gestures, and enactments of the body (Butler, 1988:519). The challenges provide a useful stage for such masculine-coded stylised acts. During the challenges, the Islanders are divided into male and female teams and each take turns enacting a sexually charged performance within a theme, often rife with gender stereotypes. For example: “Men-Chanic” (S8 E9), in which the men attempt to win the title of the “sexiest mechanic” by working through mechanical themed obstacle course. The mechanical milieu is traditionally codified as masculine and symbolises the “doing” of masculinity (Holth & Mellström, 2011). The men initially wear boilersuits, but strip off to reveal their muscular physiques, before carrying their partner into a car and kissing her. They flex their muscles and stand with their chest puffed out and legs spread wide. This open body language is commonly associated with masculinity (Vrugt and Luyerink, 2000), and thus their bodies serve as a prop for their masculine performance.

LI glorifies a highly specific male body type, perpetuating an idealistic notion of masculinity that is closely tied to the body (Nichols, 2019). This body type is tall, broad, and excessively muscular, symbolic of such commonly masculine traits as strength, power, confidence, dominance, and aggressiveness (Wienke, 1998). Though not necessarily used for violence, the appearance of strength serves as a reminder of the body’s capacity to exert physical force (Wienke, 1998). These features link to the hegemonic notion of masculinity because they offer the embodied and symbolic means to dominate power over women and other masculinities (Connell, 2005). Each male Islander emblemized this to some degree; they are all tall, muscular, and conventionally attractive. It is important to note here that hegemonic masculinity cannot be distilled to a particular bodily type or individual; no single islander embodies “hegemonic masculinity” by virtue of their physique. However, bodies allow the Islanders to “position themselves through discursive practices” (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005), offering them a physical reference point by which to “do” masculinity. For example, Islander Davide’s masculine self-identity is based upon his identification with the hegemonically masculine body. He refers to himself as both a “Greek God” and the “Italian Stallion”, and claims to have a “perfect body” (S8 E1). The hegemonic masculine body is dominant over other masculine bodies. Luca expresses discomfort with “performing” after Davide in the “Men-Chanic” challenge due to the muscular differences in their body types. This follows research suggesting that one’s masculinity can be threatened by comparison to a culturally idealised masculine physique (Wienke, 1998), and reinforces the hierarchical idea that hegemonic masculinity dominates all others.

A significant element of masculinity revolves around how the masculinised body is positioned in relation to “bodily experiences, personality and culture” (Connell, 2005). A successful “doing” of masculinity within a localised male culture can be a tool for the accumulation of power. Bolton et al (2021) coin the phrase “heteromasculine homosociality” to describe how heterosexual masculine identity can depend on approval from other men, particularly in relation to expressing sexual power over women. LI depicts a particular kind of heteromasculine homosociality which falls into the category of “laddishness”. The “lad” evokes the notion of young men who value “having a laugh”, excessive alcohol consumption and frequent sexual exploits as key constituents of their masculine identities (Francis, 1999). This is demonstrated in LI, where the men discuss sex in a secret code (such innuendous signifiers as football and science are invoked to represent sexual acts) to consolidate their group bond. Many “laddish” behaviours align with those symbolised by notions of hegemonic masculinity; strength, dominance, aggression, and heterosexuality are all glorified and emulated by the lad (Nichols, 2018). Luca’s “laddish” behaviour (S8, E42) provides an example of how “lad culture” can represent hegemonic notions of masculinity. Despite the male Islander’s pre-existing romantic connections, Luca encourages his fellow lads to seduce the newly introduced female islanders. Such language as “go on lad” and “that’s my boy” express both encouragement toward sexualisation and the ideological connection of this behaviour to masculine identity.

The concept of Hegemonic masculinity is useful as offering a “normative” account for the idealised role expectations of masculinity, but it is not “normal” (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Despite displaying some of its traits, most Islanders do not live up to the hegemonic standards of masculinity. This is not the purpose of the concept- rather, it illustrates how an ideological vision of masculinity regulates and dominates over other forms of gender identity. Arguably, though the Islanders do not embody hegemonic masculinity, they are complicit in its perpetuation and benefit from its continued existence (Connell, 2005). For example, Luca does not embody all bodily or characteristic traits of the “hegemonic masculine” man, and never personally exerts physical force or sexual dominance over the women in the villa. However, by “egging on” the lads, he encourages several of the men to sexually pursue new female islanders, which they then boast about to the rest of the group. By initiating these events, Luca is participating in “collective rituals of confidence building” (Grazian, 2007:229 in Bolton et al, 2021) in which the masculine group identity is solidified through the objectification of women. These complicit actions work in support of the hegemonic ideal of male superiority and dominance, particularly regarding sex.

Though there is substantive evidence that several Islanders perform traits which perpetuate hegemonic masculine ideals, I recognise the flaws with any assumption of universality. It is not necessarily true that all Islanders benefit from the continued existence of hegemonic masculinity, because the hegemonic masculine ideal is racialised as white (Curry, 2018). If masculinity is performed in pursuit of a hegemonic masculine ideal, then Black Islanders do not reap its rewards. There has been no black male winner in the LI’s history, and in every coupling ceremony a black contestant is chosen last (Shadijanova, 2021). Curry (2018) argues that Black men cannot possibly perform in pursuit of hegemonic masculinity because they were never socialised to see themselves within it. Therefore, I posit that whilst not all islanders individually benefit from the rewards of hegemonic masculinity, the show is designed within a hegemonic framework. Opposing all men to all women implies a fundamental difference between masculine and feminine identities, which lends itself to hierarchy. The programme’s glorification of a particular male body, often white, perpetuates an idealistic standard of masculinity which deems all others inferior. These features build the hierarchical stage upon which the Islanders perform masculinity- performances which potentially reinforce the rigidity of hegemonic ideals and the subordination of other identities.

Reality Television is a “funhouse mirror” (Lindemann, 2022) of our society. Though the hegemonic masculinity represented on Love Island is not original to the programme, it reflects pre-existing notions of dominance which have the potential to be harmful. From the heteronormative organisation of the programme to the displays of complicit masculinity in the Islander’s behaviour, a representation of oppressive masculine authority is naturalised. Thus, a perpetuation of hegemonic masculinity serves to oppress and marginalise the islanders and audience who are hierarchically subordinate to the hegemonic ideal.

Reference list

Bolton, R., Edwards, C., Leane, M., Ó Súilleabháin, F. and Fennell, C. (2021). ‘They’re you know, their audience’: How women are (ab)used to cement the heterosexual bonds between men. Irish Journal of Sociology, 30(1), pp.3–24. doi:10.1177/07916035211034355.

Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), pp.519–531.

Butler, J.P. (1990). Gender trouble : feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge, p.192.

Connell, R. (2005). Masculinities. Berkeley, Calif.: University Of California Press.

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

Curry, T.J. (2018). Killing Boogeymen: Phallicism and the Misandric Mischaracterizations of Black Males in Theory. Res Philosophica, 95(2), pp.235–272. doi:10.11612/resphil.1612.

Francis, B. (1999). Lads, Lasses and (New) Labour: 14-16-year-old students’ responses to the ‘laddish behaviour and boys’ underachievement’ debate. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(3), pp.355–371. doi:10.1080/01425699995317.

Holth, L. and Mellström, U. (2011). Revisiting Engineering, Masculinity and Technology Studies: Old Structures with New Openings. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 3(2), pp.313–329.

Lindemann, D.J. (2022). True story : what reality TV says about us. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Love Island (2022), ITV; Series 8, Episodes 1, 9 and 42

Nichols, K. (2018). Moving beyond ideas of laddism: conceptualising ‘mischievous masculinities’ as a new way of understanding everyday sexism and gender relations. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(1), pp.73–85. doi:10.1080/09589236.2016.1202815.

Nichols, K. (2019). Learning from Love Island? Diversification of the Hegemonic Man. Frontiers in Sociology, 4. doi:10.3389/fsoc.2019.00072.

Shadijanova, D. (2020). How Love Island highlights racism in dating. [online] Cosmopolitan. Available at: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a30564608/racism-love-island/.

Vrugt, A. and Luyerink, M. (2000). The contribution of bodily posture to gender stereotypical impressions. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 28(1), pp.91–103. doi:10.2224/sbp.2000.28.1.91.

West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), pp.125–151. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002.

Wienke, C. (1998). Negotiating the Male Body: Men, Masculinity, and Cultural Ideals. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 6(3), pp.255–282. doi:10.1177/106082659800600301.

Author Bio

When this piece was written, Faye Batley was a second year Sociology student at the University of Edinburgh. Inspired by queer and feminist studies, she is focused on the sociology of performativity in everyday life.