Middlers will be defined as complicit with hegemonic masculinity if their conception of masculinity includes the societally sanctioned ideal, an active ranking of self and others relative to that ideal (hierarching), support for the active subordination of women, and a refusal to include womanlike characteristics in their male identity.
I assess the validity of hegemonic complicity in terms of an ideal type, the intersubjective process of hierarching, and support for the subordination of women and womanlike traits among middlers.
In order to approach the four primary research questions--are friendship and comradeship different forms of freely chosen interaction, do middlers vary both among and within themselves in their interactive approaches, can hegemonic complicity be shown to include the dimensions of ideal type, hierarching, and subordination of women and womanlike traits, and finally do middlers vary in their choice of friendship and comradeship as determined by their degree of hegemonic complicity--I employed exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as well as OLS regression and structural equation modeling.
Having interpreted the concept of "hegemonic masculinity" as a process of gender relations that will change in substance by context and history, I have theorized the underlying structure of being complicit with that process as (1) internalizing an ideal-type conception of masculinity that will vary not only by context and history but also more specifically by class, race, and age; (2) actively comparing both oneself and others to that ideal-type conception in a comparative ranking; (3) support for the subordination of women by men; and (4) support for the subordination of womanlike traits among men.
Third, the potential causal determinant of hegemonic complicity within this sample has been shown to be indicated by an ideal-type masculinity, a propensity to engage in hierarchical rating of self and other relative to that ideal type, and support for the subordination of women and womanlike among men.
Hegemonic complicity, as I have argued and found support for, is an identity, an internal conscious and unconscious structure that includes an ideal type of masculinity, a ranking of self and others relative to that ideal, and the active subordination of women and womanlike traits.
Although the four dimensions of hegemonic complicity, ideal type, hierarching, subordination of women, and subordination of womanlike traits, all hang together as aspects of the same underlying construct, it is possible that a man, middlers, or some other group may change along one dimension more than another.