search the archive
search the archive
Since Kimmel -CfP - January 1, 2015
full name / name of organization:
Jonathan A. Allan and Frank G. Karioris
This collection of essays seeks to imagine critical studies of men and masculinities since Kimmel. What does it mean to study men and masculinities after Kimmel? Since, of course, is a complex word that speaks as much to moving beyond Kimmel, as it does to speaking in the shadow of Kimmel. How do we imagine men’s studies and its future after Kimmel?
This project invites papers that work to theorize and think carefully about masculinity studies and men’s studies, especially in light of Kimmel’s work – in its entirety or simply parts of it. The goal is to imagine new directions in the study of masculinity, and also, to critique and engage with Kimmel’s work. Has Kimmel’s work, for instance, aged well? Do we still contend see “masculinity as homophobia” (1994), and if not how have things changed? We can think here of the work of Anderson’s “inclusive masculinities” (2009) as a critique of Kimmel’s thesis.
What, we might ask, are the implications of Manhood in America for the study of “manhood” in regional areas of America, say, the Midwest or the plains. Additionally, how do we think about the elision of “United States of,” wherein “America” comes to signify a particular nationality, rather than continental, or even hemispheric, areas?
How have we thought about the complexities of race, sexuality, gender, ability, class, and religion, in light of Kimmel’s work? Kimmel’s most recent works have largely focussed on “angry white men,” but what about the other factions of “guyland”, and how can we add further complexity to the notion of ‘white’ that Kimmel uses?
We therefore welcome papers that imagine responses to the idea of After Kimmel. This project does not, however, aim to be merely corrective or critical of Kimmel, but instead admits we owe a certain debt to Kimmel, as well as many of the early voices in Men’s Studies. For instance, we can imagine papers that explore the ways that “hegemonic masculinity” and “masculinity as homophobia” have become thesis statements for the field and, as a consequence, have become, themselves, hegemonic. What then do we make of the ways in which “hegemonic masculinity” is deployed without question, without reference to Connell or Gramsci?
What lessons can we – must we – learn from queer theory, critical race theory, intersectional feminist theory, disability studies and crip theory, transgender studies, etc.? In this way the collection is meant to bring into conversation various disciplines, methods, and knowledge bases, as well as to propel thinking around men and masculinities forward.
Possible topics of interest:
We are looking to publish this as a book with a major publisher in North America or the UK. Once we have the accepted abstracts and papers assembled we will begin the process of submitting to publishers.
Please send abstracts of proposed papers to email@example.com Abstracts should be about 500 words in length and include a proposed bibliography. Abstracts are due by January 1st, 2015.
The editors will contact accepted proposals by the end of January. Full papers (5.000-7.000 words) will be due: July 15th, 2015.
For any questions, please contact the editors at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Jonathan A. Allan
Frank G. Karioris