Masculinity as a Social and Symbolic Construction in the United States, India,         Korea, and Germany:Issues When Crea...
Preview1. Review of the Research Project:  – A. Definition of Masculinity  – B. Masculinity as an issue  – C. Survey of Li...
A. Definition of Masculinity
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged with Seven LanguageDictionary (Volume II) ...
B. Masculinity as an Issue
S. L. A. Marshall, Men Against Fire: The Problem ofBattle Command (Norman, OK: University of OklahomaPress, 2000). The ori...
Michael Ferguson, Idol Worship: AShameless Celebration of Bale Beauty inthe Movies (Sarasota, FL: ST RbooksPress, 2003; se...
C. The Current Status of the Study of      Masculinity Internationally
John E. Williams and Deborah L. Best, AMultination Study Measuring Sex Stereotypes: AMultination Study (rev. ed.) (Thousan...
John E. Williams and Deborah L. Best, Measuring SexStereotypes: A Thirty-Nation Study (Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublication,...
Janet T. Spence and Robert L. Helmreish, Masculinity& Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions,Correlates, and Anteceden...
Geert Hofstede and Associates,Masculinity and Feminity: The TabooDimension of National Cultures (ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Pu...
Fred E. Jandt, An Introduction to Intercultural Communication:Identities in a Global Community, 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA...
Geert Hofstede, Cultures andOrganizations: Software of the Mind (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1997).
Fred E. Jandt, An Introduction toIntercultural Communication:Identities in a Global Community, 4thed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: ...
Stella Ting-Toomey, CommunicatingAcross Cultures (New York: The GuilfordPress, 1999).
Stella Ting-Toomey and Leeva C. Chung,Understanding Intercultural Communication (LogAngeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Compan...
D. The PMQ 47 and Its Significance
http://jwchesebro.iweb.bsu.edu
Male                                                U.S  U.S        Physiologic Physical Gender-       Idealized Sexual Su...
Male  U.S  India          Physiologic Physical Gender-       Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender-                 Lust     ...
Male  U.S  India  Korea          Physiologic Physical Gender-       Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender-                 Lu...
Male U.S India Korea German          Physiologic Physical Gender-       Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender-               ...
Female                                                  U.S   U.S         Physiologic Physical Gender-       Idealized Sex...
Female  U.S  India          Physiologic Physical Gender-       Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender-                 Lust   ...
Female  U.S  India  Korea          Physiologic Physical Gender-       Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender-                 ...
Female  U.S  India  Korea  German           Physiologic Physical Gender-       Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender-        ...
2. India
3. Korea
Country-comparison of sexual preferences, gender non-specific –(won diagram)
Country-comparison of sexual role self-perception, gender non-specific –(won diagram)
Country-comparison of relevance of romance, gender non-specific –(won diagram)
Country-comparison of intensity of foreplay, gender non-specific –(won diagram)
4. Germany
Country-comparison of bodily closeness, gender non-specific –(own diagram)
Country-comparison of bounding to gender for emotional psychological satisfaction during sex, gender non-specific–(own dia...
80%70%60%50%                                                                                                  U.S.40%     ...
Masculinity as a Social and Symbolic Construction in the United States,                     India, Korea, and Germany:   I...
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final

790 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Masculinity as a social and symbolic construction in cinncinati final

  1. 1. Masculinity as a Social and Symbolic Construction in the United States, India, Korea, and Germany:Issues When Creating Cross-Cultural Communication Research James W. Chesebro Thursday, October 18, 2007 Rudolph F. Verderber Distinguished Lecture at The University of Cincinnati
  2. 2. Preview1. Review of the Research Project: – A. Definition of Masculinity – B. Masculinity as an issue – C. Survey of Literature– The Current Status of the Study of Masculinity Internationally – D. The PMQ 47 and Its Significance2. India3. Korea4. Germany5. Conclusions about the Process of Creating Cross- Cultural Communication Research
  3. 3. A. Definition of Masculinity
  4. 4. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged with Seven LanguageDictionary (Volume II) (Chincago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1986), P. 1387
  5. 5. B. Masculinity as an Issue
  6. 6. S. L. A. Marshall, Men Against Fire: The Problem ofBattle Command (Norman, OK: University of OklahomaPress, 2000). The original book was published in 1947.
  7. 7. Michael Ferguson, Idol Worship: AShameless Celebration of Bale Beauty inthe Movies (Sarasota, FL: ST RbooksPress, 2003; second edition published inMay 2004), p.218.
  8. 8. C. The Current Status of the Study of Masculinity Internationally
  9. 9. John E. Williams and Deborah L. Best, AMultination Study Measuring Sex Stereotypes: AMultination Study (rev. ed.) (Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, Inc., April 1, 1990).
  10. 10. John E. Williams and Deborah L. Best, Measuring SexStereotypes: A Thirty-Nation Study (Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublication, 1982). “Adjective Check List” “data weregathered” using the “second edition of the Sex StereotypeMeasure” during two different years. “Our first study” wasconducted in 1975, and our second study was conducted in1977 (pp. 22 and 23).
  11. 11. Janet T. Spence and Robert L. Helmreish, Masculinity& Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions,Correlates, and Antecedents (Austin, TX: TheUniversity of Texas Press, 1978).
  12. 12. Geert Hofstede and Associates,Masculinity and Feminity: The TabooDimension of National Cultures (ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1998).
  13. 13. Fred E. Jandt, An Introduction to Intercultural Communication:Identities in a Global Community, 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, 2004), p. 196.
  14. 14. Geert Hofstede, Cultures andOrganizations: Software of the Mind (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1997).
  15. 15. Fred E. Jandt, An Introduction toIntercultural Communication:Identities in a Global Community, 4thed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, 2004)
  16. 16. Stella Ting-Toomey, CommunicatingAcross Cultures (New York: The GuilfordPress, 1999).
  17. 17. Stella Ting-Toomey and Leeva C. Chung,Understanding Intercultural Communication (LogAngeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2005).
  18. 18. D. The PMQ 47 and Its Significance
  19. 19. http://jwchesebro.iweb.bsu.edu
  20. 20. Male U.S U.S Physiologic Physical Gender- Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender- Lust Male Gender- Eroticism al Energy Characte- Related Gender Preference Gender- Related Related ristics Sociocultur Identity Age Racial al Roles Identity and National Identities
  21. 21. Male U.S India Physiologic Physical Gender- Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender- Lust Male Gender- Eroticism al Energy Characte- Related Gender Preference Gender- Related Related ristics Sociocultur Identity Age Racial al Roles Identity and National Identities
  22. 22. Male U.S India Korea Physiologic Physical Gender- Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender- Lust Male Gender- Eroticism al Energy Characte- Related Gender Preference Gender- Related Related ristics Sociocultur Identity Age Racial al Roles Identity and National Identities
  23. 23. Male U.S India Korea German Physiologic Physical Gender- Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender- Lust Male Gender- Eroticism al Energy Characte- Related Gender Preference Gender- Related Related ristics Sociocultur Identity Age Racial al Roles Identity and National Identities
  24. 24. Female U.S U.S Physiologic Physical Gender- Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender- Lust Male Gender- Eroticism al Energy Characte- Related Gender Preference Gender- Related Related ristics Sociocultur Identity Age Racial al Roles Identity and National Identities
  25. 25. Female U.S India Physiologic Physical Gender- Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender- Lust Male Gender- Eroticism al Energy Characte- Related Gender Preference Gender- Related Related ristics Sociocultur Identity Age Racial al Roles Identity and National Identities
  26. 26. Female U.S India Korea Physiologic Physical Gender- Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender- Lust Male Gender- Eroticism al Energy Characte- Related Gender Preference Gender- Related Related ristics Sociocultur Identity Age Racial al Roles Identity and National Identities
  27. 27. Female U.S India Korea German Physiologic Physical Gender- Idealized Sexual Subjective Gender- Lust Male Gender- Eroticism al Energy Characte- Related Gender Preference Gender- Related Related ristics Sociocultur Identity Age Racial al Roles Identity and National Identities
  28. 28. 2. India
  29. 29. 3. Korea
  30. 30. Country-comparison of sexual preferences, gender non-specific –(won diagram)
  31. 31. Country-comparison of sexual role self-perception, gender non-specific –(won diagram)
  32. 32. Country-comparison of relevance of romance, gender non-specific –(won diagram)
  33. 33. Country-comparison of intensity of foreplay, gender non-specific –(won diagram)
  34. 34. 4. Germany
  35. 35. Country-comparison of bodily closeness, gender non-specific –(own diagram)
  36. 36. Country-comparison of bounding to gender for emotional psychological satisfaction during sex, gender non-specific–(own diagram)
  37. 37. 80%70%60%50% U.S.40% India Korea30% Germany20%10%0% Never 2 3 4 5 6 AlwaysCountry-comparison of sexual restrictions because of ethnical origin, gender non-specific –(own diagram)
  38. 38. Masculinity as a Social and Symbolic Construction in the United States, India, Korea, and Germany: Issues When Creating Cross-Cultural Communication Research Thursday, October 18, 2007 Rudolph F. Verderber Distinguished Lecture at The University of Cincinnati James W. Chesebro Distinguished Professor of Telecommunications and Director of the Department of Telecommunications Master of Arts (Digital Storytelling) Program, Ball State University, Indiana jchesebro@ma.rr.com http://jwchesebro.iweb.bsu.edu

×