Celebrating 30 years of masculinities scholarship in the South African Journal of Psychology

Abstract

The study of masculinities, and its intersection with psychology, has been a significant area of inquiry in South Africa. This article examines the development of masculinities scholarship in South Africa by analysing articles published in the South African Journal of Psychology between 1994 and 2024. Of the 165 gender-related articles published in the South African Journal of Psychology during this time, 66 specifically focused on men and masculinities. Utilizing Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, these articles were examined to identify three prominent discourses: (1) gender, sexuality, and violence; (2) health and wellness; and (3) fatherhood. The findings of the analysis reveal a discernible shift in the discourses surrounding masculinities over the last three decades. Specifically, there is a movement away from essentialist constructions of masculinity, towards more positive and egalitarian perspectives of masculinities that are non-hegemonic, non-violent, and non-risktaking. The study’s findings have significant implications for future research on masculinities in South Africa, particularly in the areas of decolonial African-centred masculinities studies.

Introduction: contextual background of masculinities studies in South Africa

In line with the aims of the special issue, this article reflects on trends and major discourses in masculinities studies published in the South African Journal of Psychology (SAJP) over the past 30 years since 1994. This reflection is crucial for evaluating the impact of masculinities studies on South African scholarship and society.

Since 1994, the issue of psychology’s relevance in South Africa has been repeatedly questioned, with scholars emphasizing the need for research to address the country’s unique social, cultural, and historical contexts (de la Rey & Ipser, 2004; Macleod, 2004; Seedat, 1998). This call for relevance extends to masculinities studies, as they have been impacted by the legacy of colonization and apartheid (Ratele, 2017).

Seedat (1998) cautioned against post-apartheid psychological studies perpetuating colonial and Western ethno-scientific enterprises. Similarly, Macleod (2004) acknowledged the persistence of colonial and apartheid discourses in South African psychology research.

Concerns have been raised about masculinities studies in South Africa as well, emphasizing the need for a shift towards more contextually grounded and inclusive approaches (Ratele, 2017). This involves accounting for various factors influencing masculine experiences in South Africa, such as the intersection between race, class, and gender.

During apartheid, psychological research in South Africa primarily focused on White men as ‘neutral’ participants, with findings generalized to other groups despite potential inapplicability (Morrell, 1998). This approach neglected the experiences and perspectives of other racial groups, failing to account for the diverse social and cultural contexts in South Africa. Psychological studies on these ‘other’ groups were often disregarded and considered irrelevant unless they served to justify state policies promoting racial difference and hierarchy (Seedat & MacKenzie, 2008)

The field of masculinities studies in South Africa has evolved significantly over the years, with contributions from various disciplines such as history, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Initial research was conducted by historian and anthropological scholars like Morrell (1997,1998, 2005, 2006), Glaser (1998), Hunter (2005, 2006), Niehaus (2005), and Reid and Walker (2005), while the involvement of South African psychologists in masculinities research grew with the work of Eagle (1998), Langa and Eagle (2008), Davies and Eagle (2010, 2013), Lindegger and Maxwell (2007), Ratele (2002, 2006, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2018), and Shefer et al. (2010, 2015). The topic of masculinities also featured as an area of interest in a variety of journals since 1994 such as Agenda and Psychology in Society (Kiguwa & Langa, 2011).

Examining how academic discourses of masculinities reflect or neglect changes in the broader understanding of South African masculinities is crucial, particularly given the connection between gender, power, and issues such as violence, criminality, and gender-based violence (GBV; Connell, 1987; Hattery & Smith, 2019). While hegemonic and toxic masculinities often dominate academic discussions, it is essential to recognize efforts within and beyond academia that explore non-toxic, modern, and nuanced expressions of masculinities available to South Africans. This includes acknowledging work promoting alternative masculinities in relation to sexuality, gender expression, and social roles.

It is, therefore, valuable to consider the journey of masculinities within the SAJP, given the journal’s role as a prominent publisher of academic research and discourse within the field of South African psychology. This reflective article analyses three primary themes in masculinities studies published in the SAJP from 1994 to 2024, a period marked by South Africa’s transition from apartheid to a post-liberation era, to gain valuable insights into the changing societal perceptions and discussions around masculinities.

Foucauldian Discourse Analysis as a theoretical framework

To analyse the psychological construction of masculinities in post-apartheid South Africa, this article relies on Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) as a theoretical framework to examine discourses on masculinities articles published in the SAJP from 1994 to 2024. Foucauldian discourse, as outlined by Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2017), encompasses both the social structures and practices that govern knowledge production, as well as the specific actions, texts, and speech that generate knowledge.

FDA differs from traditional linguistic analysis by shifting its focus from language structure to the social, cultural, and political context in which language is used (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2017). It recognizes that written texts can significantly impact how masculinities are understood and conceptualized within professional and theoretical circles (Wetherell & Edley, 2014). By applying FDA to SAJP publications, the authors aim to highlight differing perspectives and conceptualizations of masculinities in South Africa over the past 30 years and the discourses that have shaped and influenced which aspects of masculinities are marginalized or legitimized, shedding light on the power dynamics at play.

Research process

The SAJP is a prominent journal for South African Psychology, publishing articles on empirical research, theory, review, and methodological developments. To select articles for this study, keywords such as masculinity/masculinities, gender, men, and manhood were used to search for relevant publications within the journal. To reflect the shift in the sociopolitical climate following the end of apartheid, articles published between 1994 and 2024, inclusive, were selected for the analysis. This period provides valuable insight into how masculinities have been understood and conceptualized in the specific context of post-apartheid South Africa.

A total of 165 articles focused on gender as a concept which relates to men, women, and children, with 66 articles specifically focusing on the topic of masculinities (even if they did not characterize themselves as being masculinities studies). These articles either expanded on the concept of masculinities or employed masculinities as a framework for their research. To ensure a focus on masculinities specifically, rather than gender more generally, only articles that directly addressed masculinities were included in the analysis. The contents of these articles were then carefully reviewed to identify discourses that warranted further analysis using FDA.

Data analysis

In line with FDA, discourses that emerged from articles were reviewed and analysed. Following the steps suggested by Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2017), this research identified its question as ‘what is the pattern or trend of discourses surrounding masculinities published in the SAJP within the last 30 years?’ Drawing from the discourse approach by Wetherell and Edley (2014), this article examines the different ways in which masculinities are performed or constructed in the selected research articles, rather than viewing them as fixed, essential characteristics of what it means to be a male person.

By analysing the various performances of masculinities presented in the research, the article aims to illuminate how these different constructions shape our understanding of masculinities in the South African context, highlighting the social and cultural factors that influence their development and expression. Given that this article is a review of previously published material, ethical concerns were minimal.

Nevertheless, the authors had to be cognizant of their own biases and subjectivities that might influence their analysis and interpretation of the identified discourses in the selected articles. To address this potential concern, reflexivity and self-awareness were critical in ensuring a balanced and objective analysis of the material.

Key findings and discussion

After careful analysis, three dominant discourses related to masculinity/masculinities were identified in the SAJP articles, namely: sexuality, gender, and violence; health and wellness; and fatherhood. It is crucial to note that these discourses overlapped with each other across different articles and were not exclusive to specific studies. This highlights the intersectionality of issues related to masculinities with wider issues of gender and its associated norms and expectations. Thus, while our analysis focused on masculinities specifically, it is important to consider how these topics relate to broader understandings of gender and its impact on South African society.

Gender, sexuality, and violence

The discourses of gender, sexuality, and violence were extensively explored in the analysed articles, focusing on the interplay between masculinities, gender roles, sexuality, and men’s societal positions relative to women. Drawing from the principles of FDA, gender should not be viewed as an intrinsic, essential characteristic of individuals but rather as a complex, socially constructed discourse (Edley & Wetherell, 2008).

Gender and sexuality, while often related, are distinct concepts. While we discuss them separately here, it is crucial to recognize that these constructs frequently intersect, along with race, to shape individuals’ experiences and identities (Pillay, 2023). For example, Pillay (2023) defined an intersection as ‘the ways that race, gender, disability, sexuality, class, age, and other social categories are mutually shaped and interrelated’ (p. 78) noting how these categories do not exist in isolation but are constantly shaped and reshaped by the historical, cultural, and institutional contexts in which they are embedded. Intersectionality thus encourages us to consider the complex and overlapping identities that individuals hold, and how these identities may affect their experiences (Victor et al., 2014).

Several studies examined various aspects of sexuality, such as experiences of same-sex gendered families, group therapy experiences for gay men, and lived experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual South Africans of Indian descent (Lubbe, 2007; Nel et al., 2007; Pillay, 2023). Nel et al. (2007) emphasized the exclusionary nature of masculinities in relation to gay men, noting that patriarchy, which rests on idealized concepts of masculinities, ‘is also particularly vicious towards gay males who pose a strong subversive threat to the patriarchal ideals of aggression and dominance’ (p. 288). Similarly, Lubbe (2007) discussed how same-sex families are often positioned as oppositional or incompatible with traditional family models, noting that ‘in Western countries, people fight what they regard as a threat to the alleged sanctity of nuclear family by opposing the legalisation of gay marriages’ (p. 273). Lubbe (2007) details how even in South Africa ‘the same-gendered couple family challenges the normative conceptions of the traditional model of the two parent (hetero-gender) family’ (p. 274) where there is a mother and father as well as their children. The same-gendered homes are an example of the changing face of families that are non-normative in nature.

The exploratory work done by these authors (Lubbe, 2007; Nel et al., 2007; Pillay, 2023) suggests that the discourses around masculinities in South Africa are still largely traditional and discriminatory towards LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning (or queer), intersex, asexual, and more) individuals. This perpetuation of heteronormative and patriarchal discourses effectively maintains the oppressive power dynamics that discriminate against and marginalize those who do not conform to traditional gender roles and sexual identities. Thus, the maintenance of patriarchal systems through homophobic and discriminatory discourses serves to uphold the social and political dominance of heterosexual men at the expense of other gender identities and sexual orientations.

Collectively, the sexuality studies in the SAJP primarily concentrated on the challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals, which is important in highlighting these issues. It is important to acknowledge positive experiences associated with LGBTQIA+ identities, as a focus on problems and challenges may overshadow positive experiences associated with these sexual identities, such as care, love, and the defiance of stereotypes related to same-sex relations (Gevisser & Cameron, 1995). However, it remains crucial to address negative experiences and their impacts on LGBTQIA+ individuals. For example, the work by Henderson and Shefer (2008) serves as a crucial step towards recognizing the often-neglected issue of abuse within same-sex relationships that ‘the documentation or even acknowledgement of abuse of gay men [was] a relatively new development’ (Henderson & Shefer, 2008, p. 3). In writing this article, Henderson and Shefer (2008) highlighted that ‘internalised homophobia and uncritical assumption of gender binarisms may facilitate and in some cases exaggerate practices of dominance-submission, abuse, and violence in gay relationships’ (p. 17). By bringing attention to the issue of abuse within same-sex relationships, Henderson and Shefer (2008) challenged the common misconception that violence in relationships was solely a heterosexual problem.

Several articles in the SAJP also explored the discourses that associate masculinity with violence, specifically in the context of physical assault by male strangers (Njuho & Davids, 2012), women’s experiences with interventions from violent men (de la Harpe & Boonzaier, 2011), and non-offending caregivers’ experiences following child sexual abuse disclosure (Bux et al., 2016). Across these articles, the authors noted that discourses of hegemonic, toxic, and traditional masculinities were routinely employed to explain violent behaviours exhibited by men. Njuho and Davids (2012) noted that ‘the gender-based violence commonly reported in any society is related to power inequalities based on gender roles, which are marked by the domination of men and the subordination of women’ (p. 271). This highlights a common social discourse that men generally control and subjugate women. de la Harpe and Boonzaier (2011) highlighted that women whose male partners were receiving an intervention to reduce violent behaviours feared that their partners might ‘go back to normal’ (p. 151) once the intervention was finished, suggesting that violence was associated with ‘normal’ maleness. Bux et al. (2016) took this view further when examining cases of men who had sexually abused children, noting that some non-offending parents would ‘appear to display hatred and mistrust towards all male figures’ (p. 92) thereby linking all men with perpetration of violence. This view contributes to the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes about men as violent.

However, these articles did not offer sufficient attention to the contextual factors that may be contributing to these men behaving violently. In other words, violence was seen as an inherent aspect of maleness, rather than considering the ways in which social, cultural, and economic factors shape men’s violent actions. As a result, these studies may have missed opportunities to highlight the ways in which historical oppression and marginalization continue to shape particular discourses of masculinities.

Health and wellness

SAJP articles addressing health and wellness topics related to men covered various discourses, including suicide and health, alcohol, therapy, life satisfaction and well-being, attachment, grief and loss, physical sickness, coping, and psychopathology.

Discussions on suicide revolved around its prevalence among youth, with some studies suggesting that girls cope better with suicide-related issues compared to boys (Meehan et al., 2007). Meissner et al. (2016) highlighted the role of traditional gender norms in shaping how young men discuss suicide and seek help, noting that pressure to perform stoicism often makes it difficult for them to admit mental health struggles and seek support. This reveals the influence of problematic masculinities notions on young boys’ ability to disclose their struggles and access help. In a similar way, Bantjes et al. (2017) critically examined the role of masculinities in shaping young men’s attitudes and behaviours around suicide and help-seeking. The common theme out of these articles is the way idealized constructions of masculinities can limit or impede health-seeking behaviours in men, underscoring the importance of alternative conceptions of masculinities and health (Bantjes et al., 2017; Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Jansen, 2020).

Other articles on health and wellness focused on the prevalence of conditions such as eating disorders among men and depression among gay men and lesbian women (Freeman & Szabo, 2005; Polders et al., 2008), reflecting efforts to raise awareness of psychological issues among diverse genders in South Africa (Victor et al., 2014). A significant observation is that women in South Africa and globally are diagnosed with psychological disorders at higher rates than men. However, male-dominated discourses and norms discourage men from seeking mental health support, as doing so would be ‘admitting a loss of control and inability to solve problems on their own’ that threatened their status as ‘real’ men (Bantjes et al., 2017, p. 238). This dynamic perpetuates harmful attitudes towards men’s mental health, creating a culture that stigmatizes vulnerability and emotionality in men.

However, other articles in the SAJP negated this view of men not seeking mental health help. For example, Freeman and Szabo (2005) focused on men diagnosed with eating disorders, while Nel et al. (2007) offered insights into the experiences of gay men in group therapy. These articles, along with Jansen’s (2020) research, which argues that ‘adult males can be as vulnerable as any human beings’ (p. 155), challenge the dominant discourse by illuminating the vulnerability and emotional expressiveness of men in safe and supportive settings. Through these articles, we observed a departure from the prevailing notion of men as stoic, emotionally detached beings which suggest that seeking help, far from being a sign of weakness, can be a protective factor in men’s mental health, potentially mitigating the negative effects of toxic, hegemonic, or traditional masculinities.

The evolving narrative around men’s emotional expressiveness is further supported by the research of Corbet-Owen (2003) and Blackbeard and Aldous (2023), as published in the SAJP. Their studies examined men’s roles in supporting their partners during stillbirths and navigating physical disability, respectively, revealing men’s capacity for emotional depth and vulnerability. Corbet-Owen (2003) argued that men’s grieving processes may be influenced by societal expectations of masculine behaviour, leading to a possible misinterpretation of their attempts to support their partners. By highlighting men’s emotional depth and vulnerability, this SAJP scholarship aligns with Critical Masculinities Studies (CSM), which posits that men are capable of rejecting rigid, dominant conceptions of masculinity and developing more nuanced and emotionally expressive identities.

Other SAJP articles on health focused on the construction of masculinities and HIV/AIDS (Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Macheke & Campbell, 1998). Gibbs and Jobson (2011) noted that with regard to HIV/AIDS ‘there remained a dominant focus on men as actors on HIV, and women at risk of infection’ (p. 182) arguing that this obscured the realities of men living with HIV/AIDS, and did not take into sufficient account institutional factors affecting men’s health behaviours. This echoes the earlier work by Macheke and Campbell (1998) arguing that ‘a range of normative and social parameters’ (p. 4) influence men’s decision-making. Fundamentally, these studies promoted more ‘progressive’ discourses that considered the role of context in shaping men’s behaviour, questioned problematic media narratives about men and HIV/AIDS, and challenged the assumption that HIV/AIDS knowledge guarantees behavioural change (Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Macheke & Campbell, 1998).

Specifically, Macheke and Campbell (1998) had this to say about the spread of HIV among mineworkers; ‘factual knowledge [about HIV/AIDS] was embedded within a range of potentially contradictory beliefs, which are weighed up against the incoming health educational information within a range of normative and social constraints’ (p. 151), which include the phenomenon of single-sex hostels, an acceptance of high levels of disease and the use of alcohol as the normal way of life. Both Macheke and Campbell (1998) argued that mineworkers’ knowledge and attitudes towards HIV, as well as their behaviours that increase the risk of infection, should not be evaluated in isolation from the broader context of the mining industry in South Africa. This industry has a history of oppressing Black men, which has had a significant impact on the social, economic, and health outcomes for this group of men.

These articles (Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Macheke & Campbell, 1998) highlighted social discourses, which construct masculinities and their impact on health-related behaviours. Gibbs and Jobson (2011) noted that ‘while such narratives do not over-determine men’s health behaviours [. . .] they provide symbolic tools or frameworks circulating within the public sphere from which men begin to construct individual narratives of masculinity and identity, in turn impacting their health behaviours’ (p. 182). By linking discourses of masculinity and observable behaviour outcomes, the research emphasizes the importance of engaging men in conversations about health, positioning them as part of the solution to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Fatherhood

Constructions of masculinities at times overlapped with constructions of fatherhood. While the theme of fatherhood was not initially addressed in many early studies published in the SAJP, this shifted over time, aligning with the increasing attention given to this topic by other researchers in South Africa (Okeke, 2018; Ramatsetse & Ross, 2023; Richter & Morrell, 2006). Other masculinities studies often adopted a limited view of father presence or absence, where presence meant being physically present and absence meant being physically absent (Okeke, 2018; Ramatsetse & Ross, 2023). However, Okeke (2018) highlighted structural issues and relationship dynamics that hinder fathers’ involvement in their children’s early development, noting that in many cases even when fathers desire involvement in their children’s lives, they were often ‘caught in severe crises which crippled any resolve in them to meaningfully support their children’ (p. 485). Okeke (2018) argued that the absence of fathers must be understood within the context of ‘the crises that hindered men from actively participating in the early social development of their children’ (p. 478). While it is evident that some fathers are committed to being present in their children’s lives, there are systemic barriers that prevent them from doing so.

Ratele et al. (2012) presented a critical examination of discourses surrounding fatherhood and fatherlessness, interviewing men about their experiences of being parented or growing up without biological fathers. This study challenged previous narrow, biological definitions of fatherhood by exploring the varied roles played by other male figures in the South African context, such as uncles, grandfathers, and brothers, in providing support and care to children. Building upon this notion of ‘social’ fathers, the researchers cautioned against the view that biological fathers need to be physically present in their children’s lives to prevent childhood behavioural problems, as this view ‘demonize(s) non-nuclear, female-headed households’ (Ratele et al., 2012, p. 553) as a source of childhood pathology. Historically, psychology has been prone to blaming women and female-headed households for childhood issues (Ntoimo & Odimegwu, 2014), and studies of fatherhood may risk reproducing this harmful discourse.

The study by Ratele et al. (2012) broadened the understanding of a ‘good father’, defining it as ‘being always there, which relates to a quality of time and relationship between child and father rather than physical time together’ (p. 553). This expanded definition emphasizes the emotional and psychological bonds between a father (biological or social) and child, highlighting the importance of supportive, responsive father–child relationships in promoting healthy development and well-being.

Other articles focused on non-normative father experiences. For example, Lubbe (2007) discussed the experiences of same-sex gendered families in South Africa, arguing that ‘Eurocentric and patriarchal definitions of the family are being replaced by more inclusive definitions’ (p. 266) and suggesting that the meaning of family in contemporary South Africa has evolved. Furthermore, Lubbe (2007) argued that ‘[g]ender and parenting should be regarded as fluid variables that shift and change to suit different contexts at different times’ (p. 274). This supports an understanding of father roles as capable of being performed differently from historical or traditional performances. It also challenges traditional heteronormative versions of family structures as argued earlier. Despite offering this perspective of nuanced family structures and father roles, Lubbe (2007) acknowledges that ‘South African society still exhibits signs of a culture of discrimination and judgement’ (p. 265) against same-sex parents. The shifts in certain discourses that emerged in published work of the SAJP were significant, yet it is important to consider these shifts in the broader context of traditional notions of fatherhood and masculinities, which still pervade societal narratives and attitudes. Some articles clearly marked a transition from traditional, narrow conceptions of fatherhood that placed primary emphasis on providing financial support and physical presence to a more progressive understanding of fatherhood that encompasses non-biological father figures and emphasizes emotional care and nurturing. Accordingly, ‘there is a need for more historically and contextually informed studies on the meaning of fatherhood and fatherlessness to better understand the impact of colonial and apartheid history and its legacy on family life in contemporary society’ (Ratele et al., 2012, p. 553) in shaping future views of fatherhood in South Africa.

Reflective observations in reviewing these publications

During the early years of South Africa’s transition to democracy, the SAJP rarely mentioned masculinities as a construct. The few articles that focused primarily on purported connections between masculinities, risk-taking and violence, examined contexts such as drinking culture (Kaminer & Dixon, 1995), male–female relationships (Strebel et al.,1999), and gang culture (Luyt & Foster, 2001). These contexts were narrowly defined, often centred on young men, and emphasized negative aspects of masculinities as allegedly contributing to violence (Luyt & Foster, 2001).

From the mid-2000s onwards, there was a significant increase in SAJP articles discussing masculinities, developing a more nuanced understanding of the term. This coincided with a broader focus on gender overall. While some articles continued to associate masculinities with negative behaviours such as risk-taking or violence (Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Henderson & Shefer, 2008), others called for a more progressive understanding of masculinities, reflecting the influence of feminist scholarship (Blackbeard & Lindegger, 2007; Boonzaier & de la Rey, 2004).

From 2014 onwards, SAJP articles increasingly focused explicitly on masculinities, with a shift towards discussing ‘masculinities’ as a plurality of identities rather than a singular identity. This reflected a grounding in Critical Masculinities Studies, which engages with feminist theory to critique and explore the social construction and maintenance of masculinities and acknowledgement of differences among boys and men (Berggren, 2014). Notably, articles in the SAJP heavily relied on global North scholars, particularly Raewyn Connell’s (1995) work, while overlooking Global South perspectives. This reliance on Western frameworks, while not unusual for scholarly work, has raised concerns among South African scholars (Mfecane, 2018; Ratele, 2017).

We have observed that a few articles (Keizan & Duncan, 2010; Martin, 2020; Milner et al., 2007; Nel et al., 2007; Patel et al., 2009; Shefer, 2010) in the SAJP specifically examined experiences of White males, while most of the articles focused on Black males. Mfecane (2018, 2020) made the same observation that South African studies on masculinities predominantly focused on the experiences of Black men, with limited research on the experiences of White men. This may be in keeping with the racial demographics of South Africa. However, the imbalance in research may unintentionally perpetuate colonial racial discourses and essentialist notions about Black boys and men who are often criminalized and pathologized as a source of all social ills including violent crime, GBV and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (Mfecane, 2018, 2020; Ratele, 2002). In particular, problematizing the behaviours of one racial group in South Africa without ensuring that equivalent groups are examined and problematized may in some sense reflect or reproduce apartheid and imperial-era discourses that diminished Black masculinities. However, if such studies focus on positive experiences, they may assist in debunking stereotypes associated with Black masculinities.

Conclusion: limitations and what the future holds

While this article provided meaningful insights into the state of masculinities in the SAJP over the past 30 years, certain limitations related to data collection and analysis warrant attention. First, it is important to acknowledge the positionality of the authors. The first author is extensively involved in masculinities research in South Africa, while the two co-authors focus on research related to fatherhood. This experience was valuable in evaluating the selected articles, yet we were mindful of our own biases, particularly our emotional investment in alternative masculinities, which are generally viewed positively and as non-risk-taking.

Another limitation pertains to the challenge of differentiating between studies on masculinities and those on gender. While some studies clearly focused on masculinities, others discussed the topic within the broader context of gender studies. This overlap has implications for how masculinities are understood as a distinct, yet related, field of research within gender studies. In addition, while efforts were made to analyse key themes in studies on masculinities in the SAJP, it was not practically feasible to examine all articles with equal depth over the entire 30-year period.

Despite these limitations, this article has summarized research on masculinities published in the SAJP since 1994, reflecting on the development of psychological discourses on masculinities in South Africa. Articles examined showcased a variety of viewpoints and methodologies, with some promoting progressive, contextually embedded discourses, and others reproducing colonial and traditional notions of manhood. The ongoing influence of apartheid, colonization, and obstacles to decolonized, progressive scholarship on masculinities in South Africa may have contributed to this challenge.

While the scholarship on masculinities has shifted in South Africa over the past 30 years, some articles still reflected earlier essentialist assumptions and attitudes about masculinities. There is an increasing emphasis on positive aspects of masculinities. However, key discourses in some of the articles analysed highlighted characterizations of men as violent, aggressive, and domineering. Nevertheless, there is a shift towards discourses that emphasize nuanced understandings of men and masculinities, promoting positive discourses of masculinities in the SAJP.

As the SAJP celebrates its 30th anniversary, it is crucial to shift towards publishing African-centred studies on masculinities that embrace critical feminist and decolonial approaches, an aspect that is greatly missed in many of the articles reviewed and analysed. Kopano Ratele, as one of the leading South African psychologists on this topic, has asserted that:

A decolonial attitude requires reflecting on how coloniality shapes how men, in particular men who were once regarded as not quite human, continue to experience dehumanization or infrahumanization. The fact is that the dehumanized pasts of some men and the enduring associations of that history in the present congeals our understanding of them. (Ratele, 2021, p. 775)

Afrocentric and decolonial approaches to masculinities offer a significant opportunity to restore humanity and dignity to boys and men who have endured dehumanizing experiences, with the expectation that the South African psychology profession will play a leading role in disseminating these ideas through publications in the SAJP in the next century.