Forgive the long radio silence. I was taking a class on Text Analysis (nerd heaven for this anthropologist). Using new software (MAXQDA), I was able to re-examine some of my data. I thought I'd share the results here. Please note this analysis is *only* on how masculine-identified individuals discuss dominance. I'm happy to hear feedback, especially from the kinky community. It's kind of heavy on the methodology section. For those of you whose goat this does not float, feel free to skip that section.
Learned Doms and Natural Leaders: Models of Dominance as
Articulated by Masculine-Identified Members of a BDSM Community
Introduction
In mainstream American culture,
“hegemonic masculinity can be described as a pattern of activities that enable
men to establish and maintain dominance over
women within social institutions” (Steinfeldt, et al
2009:261; emphasis added). The nature of hegemony is to offer culturally
plausible goals that maintain or enhance the status of those in power, in this
case, men. The linkage between masculinity and dominance over women is a common
one. Shifting gender roles, increases in the leisure class, changing sexual
mores, and hot Texan nights conspired to create a natural laboratory of sorts
for the exploration of gender. I worked in a BDSM (bondage-discipline, dominance-submission,
sado-masochism) community for twenty months, from 2009-2011. Due to length, I
have chosen dominance as the thematic focus of this paper, leaving aside the
question of dominance over whom for now. I argue that the association of
dominance with masculinity is not as unquestioned as it once was, at least
among middle-class, predominantly white, Southerners. The dominant-submissive
axis is one of several identity spectrums in the BDSM community, but perhaps
the most salient (barring gender) in the heterosexual portion of the community.
By studying the ways that masculine identified individuals discuss the topic, a
model of dominance can be induced that in some ways reinforces hegemonic
masculinity and in others contests it.
Methods
The data for this analysis was drawn
from a collection of interviews conducted in Texas with BDSM community members
about their experiences with sexuality and within the BDSM community. I have included all the masculine-identified
people I initially interviews (n=7), as it is theoretically interesting to see
how dominance is discussed by those who purportedly aspire to it under popular
American ideology. For reasons too difficult to explain succinctly, I did not
interview any masculine-identified people who only identified as submissives,
but in this sample I have a range of respondents on the dominance-submissive
axis (see Table 1 below). According to Morse (1994), a sample of as few as six
may be sufficient to explore the essence of an experience using grounded theory
analysis. Although I have six cis-gendered men in my corpus, I have chosen to
include Jo, an individual who identifies as transmasculine (not as male, not as
a man), because they
offer a foil to some of the cis-gendered men’s explanations of dominance. In
other ways, Jo’s responses illustrate the expansion of masculine dominance.
|
Pseudonym
|
Gender
|
|
Age
|
|
Xavier
|
Male
|
Dominant
|
34
|
|
Gregory
|
Male
|
Switch, submissive leaning
|
47
|
|
Terrence
|
Male
|
Dominant
|
31
|
|
Mike
|
Male
|
Dominant
|
50
|
|
Paul
|
Male
|
Dominant
|
47
|
|
Jason
|
Male
|
Non-D/s
|
31
|
|
Jo
|
Transmasculine
|
Switch
|
46
|
Table 1 - Interviewees
In popular speech in the BDSM
community, the dominant-submissive spectrum is dichotomous; one is either
dominant or submissive. Recognizing that this is not always the case, there is
a special class of individuals called “switches,” who act as dominant or
submissive, either between or within relationships. In practice, dominance (and
its counterpart, submissiveness) varies in amount and quality, not hewing to
the binary model suggested by categorization. Switches offer a counterpoint to
“purely” dominants individuals in the sample.
One final note about the sample, you
may notice that Jason identifies as “non-D/s.” Among the community members, it
was rare to find someone who did not identify on the dominant-submissive
spectrum. Jason identifies as a switch, but only on the “top-bottom” spectrum,
which is roughly “person acting-person being acted upon.” It refers to a
person’s preference for activity, not as an aspect of identity. In many ways,
the two axes are conflated and tops are assumed to be dominants (and bottoms
submissives) unless it is actively asserted otherwise. Despite opting out of
the D/s identity, Jason is still able to discuss dominance in a way that sheds
light on the phenomenon as an active member in the community.
As alluded to earlier, I have used
many techniques pulled from Grounded Theory, albeit with a more structure
approach than that originally advocated by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Bradley et al, promote
a “qualitative data analysis design that applies the principles of inductive
reasoning while also employing predetermined code types to guide data analysis
and interpretation” (2007:1758). Additionally, Weston
et al “used a priori theory to frame our questions, drive our interview
protocol, and structure the initial levels of the coding scheme. We moved into
a more grounded approach as we discovered codes working through the
transcripts” (2001:382). Taking a page from
their playbooks, I approached my coding with a priori themes about dominant
identity, behaviors, characteristics, and value judgments. After a first pass using those codes, a set of
themes emerged from the data.
Using line-by-line coding and the
constant comparison method (see Markovic 2006 and
Bernard and Ryan 2010 for comparison), I was
able to discern tension between the idea of as dominance as something innate
and the belief that dominance can be learned. Codes further coalesced as I used
the pile sort method to determine core and periphery quotations. Using MAXQDA,
I was able to generate a proximity matrix of salient codes, which pointed to
the strong relationship between “learned dom” and “characteristics of good dom”.
Lacking the ability to visualize my
data or to use statistical analysis for methods like word frequency, I rely
instead on that old anthropological workhorse– thick description (Geertz 1973). Thick description is
appropriate for the inductive nature of this research, where the aim is to
explore emic categories and create a model that accounts for the apparent
tension between the “natural” and the “learned” types of dominance.
Results
Even limiting myself to masculine-identified
individuals discussing dominance, several interesting patterns emerged. The one
I found most intriguing was this idea that dominance is a fixed characteristic,
innate, mysterious, and natural, which stood in contrast to the valuation
people placed on learning how to be a better dominant as a positive
characteristic for dominants.
All of the individuals expressed
what qualities a “good dom”
should have. These qualities are split between how doms behave in the community
and how doms behave toward their subs. In order to be respected in the
community, a dom must be knowledgeable about techniques and willing to learn
from other dominants. Credentials are held in high regard, especially those
granted by established BDSM training programs and mentorship. Part of being
knowledgeable means being in control and not doing unintentional harm.
A
dom must be responsible for the results of their actions. This is the
intersection between the community-facing aspects of being a dom and the
relationship-facing aspects. A good dom will learn their sub’s cues (being able
to read body language, gauge pain processing, know what triggers exist), help
the sub achieve their goals (either set collaboratively or set by the dom),
express clear expectations, and offer appropriate aftercare. Although beyond
the scope of this text analysis, from participant observation I know that subs
compare notes often and a dom who really violates these rules will quickly gain
a reputation.
Xavier,
a thirty-four year old male dominant, explained, “to me, the dom is the one
that is in control, and to be in control you need to know what’s going on. You
need the knowledge and if you don’t have the knowledge, how can you have
control? So, knowing what the person
[sub] likes, wants, desires, whatever and being able to just do that is part of
what makes a dom to me, being able to just take them and go.” The themes of
control, knowledge, and responsiveness to the partner are highlighted. It is
central to his construction of being dominant.
Conversely,
respondents were much less verbose about what makes a bad dom, with a
preponderance of replies coming from the switches. It is reasonable to posit
that this stems from the fact that they have literally been on the opposite
side of the equation. “Pure” doms seldom compete directly with one another,
instead relying on proxy estimations, like the number of play partners or
reputation in the community. Switches, on the other hand, have direct
experience with dominants and are able to articulate it in ways that do not
occur to pure doms. Bad doms are predatory, selfish, arrogant, not
knowledgeable, and presumptive of others’ statuses.
Top
space, an altered state achieved by dominants during a scene, is seen as the
purest expression of dominance. It stands in contrast to all the
characteristics needed to be seen as a good dom. It is described as intense,
powerful, primal, animalistic, and deep. There is tension between “dominant” as
a role in the community and “dominance” as experienced in an altered state. For
Jo, the mark of a bad dom is the objectification of the sub. They say, “It’s
not like I say you’re an object, you’re a thing, I’m done, I have nothing to do
with you. If somebody’s gonna cry I’m
gonna hold them.” This directly contradicts Terrence’s experience of top space,
when he states, “I found myself flogging to the beat of the music and I was
aware that she was there, that she was a person, that she was human, but I
sorta just didn’t care. The world
collapsed down into the five feet in front of me – me, my arm, my flogger, and
her ass.” Despite a language built around the construct that dominants are
active and submissives are passive, Terrence is the only person who evinces nonchalance
with this type of objectification. If this paper was longer, this would be the
time to return to the gendered aspects of dominance.
Top
space is the one of the few acceptable venues for the expression of dominance
in terms of hegemonic masculinity – a primal Joh of energy stemming from having
power over another individual. By severely restricting the time and place of
such shows of dominance, the BDSM community has created a space for a different
type of masculine dominance, which is responsive to the needs of others, relies
on the opinions of the group, and values learning (and by proxy, humility). These
characteristics are derived from the narratives of masculine-identified people
themselves. These are the traits they seem themselves expressing or want to
strive toward.
Discussion
Text analysis is a powerful tool to
explore new theoretical avenues, especially in a setting that already has so
many judgments placed on it, from within and without. Typical gender analysis
might overlook the distinction between dominance as a role in community,
dominance as a role within a relationship, and dominance as an experience (top
space). My next steps for this research include expanding the analysis to
account for what feminine-identified individuals say about dominance and how
that compares to the masculine-identified individuals. Within the scope of this
project, all the respondents identified as primarily masculine or feminine,
whether that be cis or trans*, but further work in this area should seek out
gender fluid individuals. Concurrently, I will be performing the same analysis
on what people say about submissiveness and switching. I have high hopes for
further line by line coding and the possibilities for MDS.
Works
Cited
