“It’s in His Eyes”:

The Negotiation and Interpretation of Masculinity using the

Dolce et Gabbana’s 2005 Print Advertising Campaign

Submitted to the 4th Workshop on Interpretive Consumer Research

Marseilles 26th-27th April 2007

Jonathan Elms1, Lancaster University Management School, UK

Claire Dunphy, Lancaster University Management School, UK
Ronan de Kervenoael, Sabanci University, Faculty of Management, Turkey &
Aston Business School, UK
D. Selcen O. Aykac, Sabanci University, Faculty of Management, Turkey

Abstract:

The concept of ‘masculinity’ has over more years received increased attention within
consumer research discourse suggesting the potential of a ‘crisis of masculinity’, symptomatic
of a growing feminisation, or ‘queering’ of visual imagery and consumption (e.g. Patterson &
Elliott, 2002). Although this corpus of research has served to enrich the broader gender
identity debate, it is, arguably, still relatively underdeveloped and therefore warrants further
insight and elaboration. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to explore how masculinity is
represented and interpreted by men using the Dolce et Gabbana men’s 2005 print advertising
campaign. The rationale for using this particular campaign is that it is one of the most
homoerotic, provocative, and well publicised campaigns to cross over from the ‘gay’ media to
more mainstream UK men’s magazines.

Masculinity, and what it means to be ‘masculine’, manifests itself within particular ideological,
moral, cultural and hegemonic discourses. Masculinity is not a homogenous term which can
be simply reduced, and ascribed, to those born as ‘male’ rather than ‘female’. One may
exhibit different degrees of masculinity or femininity, depending on social-cultural situation
regardless of biological sex (Eagly 1987; Putreve, 2001). Fischer and Arnold (1994) suggest,
for example, that masculine and feminine identities are ‘orthogonal’ rather than ‘bi-polar’
concepts, entangled and enmeshed together in a dialectical relationship. Therefore, it is more
appropriate to consider multiple masculinities, which are plural, transient and ephemeral. As
Askegaard (1991) maintains socio-cultural identity concerns’ questions such as “who are we
and who are the others?” and “how are we related to each other?”. Advertising images, and
imagery, attempt to answer some of these questions, through the continual negotiation of both
individually and culturally accepted masculinities. Masculinity is not merely a ‘visual’ concept
but advertisers have begun to represent ‘visions of masculinity’ to entice male consumers
(e.g. Schroeder & Borgerson, 1998; Schroeder & Zwick, 2004).

The portrayal of masculinity through the representation of male body has emerged from that
of the muscle bound, rugged, ‘cowboy’, the stereotypical ‘heterosexual masculinity’ of the
1960s, to the ‘New Man’ of the 1980s: a more sensitive man who is in touch with his ‘feminine’
emotional side (Patterson & Elliott, 2002). The ‘New Man’ has been recently reinvented,
taking the form of the ‘metrosexual male’ – the ‘straight’ man who dresses ‘gay’ - which is
increasingly been used as a marketing ploy to target products, particularly clothes and
cosmetics, at younger men (Simpson, 2002). This, in turn, has led to increased men’s
participation in the wider cultural arenas of consumption as well as encouraging visual
consumption where ‘men gaze at men’ (e.g. Patterson & Elliott, 2002).

A convenience sample of sixteen in-depth interviews was conducted with self-identified

‘straight’ men, between the ages of 18 and 24. Within the interview context, each respondent
was asked to construct of collage of their masculine self ideals using images from men’s
magazines. Following the logic of ‘photo-elicitation’ and ‘auto-driving’ (Heisley & Levy, 1991),

1
*Contact Details: Jonathan Elms, Department of Marketing, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster.
LA1 4YX. UK. T: +44 (0) 1524 594033. F: +44 (0) 1524 593928. E: j.elms@lancaster.ac.uk.
respondents were then given a copy of the Dolce et Gabanna print ads, which they were
asked to describe in detail.

Our findings would suggest that, for these men the visual images contained within the ads
were largely rejected as representative of a singular, hegemonic, notion of ‘masculinity’. The
men voiced varying degree of distaste of the use and representation of the male models
displaying interest and intrigue in each other in various state of undress with little, or no,
reference to women within the ads. These models were not axiomatically considered as not
being ‘masculine’ but were defended as “definitely not being ‘gay’”. A further concurrent theme
was the continuous need for the men to demonstrate and reinforce their own masculinity by
discursively ‘proving’ themselves as heterosexual men. Our tentative conclusions argue that
masculinity manifests itself in not only what is included in the ads, and what is not, but also,
more importantly, in the intangible spirit or character of the visual imagery. This masculine
spirit is expressed visually via physical body image, but more insightful interpretation of
masculinity is embodied within body language and gaze, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Low Importance High Importance

Tangible Masculinity Intangible Masculinity

Body Image Spirit
Actions Personality
Pose Character
Attitude

High Importance in
Print Media
Figure 1. ‘The Masculine Identification Loop’

Bibliography:

Askegaard, S. (1991), “Toward a Semiotic Structure of Cultural Identity,” Marketing and

Semiotics: Selected papers from the Copenhagen symposium, ed. Hanne Hartvig Larsen,
David Glen Mick, and Christian Alstead. Copenhagen: Handelshojskolens Forlag.

Eagly, A, H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: A Social Role Interpretation, New
Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fisher, E and Arnold, S. (1994), “Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Role Attitudes and Consumer
Behavior,” Psychology and Marketing, 11(2), 163-82.

Heisley, D and Levy, S, J. (1991), “Autodriving: A Photoelicitation Technique”, Journal of

Consumer Research, 18 (Dec.), 257-72.

Patterson, M and Elliott, R. (2002), “Negotiating Masculinities: Advertising and the Inversion of
the Male Gaze,” Consumption, Markets and Culture, 5(3), 231-246.

Putrevu, S. (2001), “Exploring the Origins and Information Processing Differences between
Men and Women: Implications for Advertisers,” Academy of Marketing Science Review.
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/putrevu10-2001.pdf .

Schroeder, J. E and Borgerson, J. L. (1998), “Marketing Images of Gender: A Visual Analysis”,

Consumption, Markets and Culture, 2(2), 161-201.
Schroeder, J. E. and Zwick, D. (2004) “Mirrors of Masculinity: Representation and Identity in
Marketing Communication”, Consumption Markets & Culture, 7, 21-52.

Simpson, M. (2002), “Meet the Metrosexual,”

http://www.marksimpson.com/pages/journalism/metrosexual_beckham.html, accessed June
2006.