Representations of hegemonic masculinities in Medieval Leonese-Castilian and Almohad chronicles
This article compares two twelfth-century Iberian dynastic chronicles to show the ways in which Muslim and Christian hegemonic masculinities were textually constructed as relational to high-status males of the same and rival religious faiths. I explore the roles religion plays in shaping the concept...
| Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Status: | Published version |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repository: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:10230/72278 |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10230/72278 https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/720162 http://hdl.handle.net/10230/72278 |
| Access Level: | Embargoed access |
| Summary: | This article compares two twelfth-century Iberian dynastic chronicles to show the ways in which Muslim and Christian hegemonic masculinities were textually constructed as relational to high-status males of the same and rival religious faiths. I explore the roles religion plays in shaping the concept of hegemonic masculinity, in constituting the royal protagonist¿s elevated political and masculine status, and in positioning allies and foes in relation to the sovereign as well as within the spectrum of masculinities. Drawing on John Tosh's notion of a 'reciprocal relationship' between the political and the masculine virtues, and on Stephen Boyd's thesis of a 'convenient symbiosis' between divine omnipotence and masculine dominance, I argue that religiosity functions as a key virtue that constitutes normative or ideal royal hegemonic masculinity in both chronicles. Yet, when positioning other high-status men in relation to the royal hero, religious identity appears to be less decisive than other gendered qualities and practices, since neither chronicler automatically equates religious alterity with deviant masculinity. The comparison focuses on three themes: royal hegemonic masculinity, religious identity and masculinity, and the geography of warrior hegemonic masculinity. |
|---|