Search

Peer support workers are now working with patients in a variety of settings, coming into close contact and even work alongside health professionals. Despite the potentially influential position peer support workers hold in relation to those engaged in support activities, their role, duties and their relationship to peers and health professionals lack clarity and is often defined by other actors. This study explores how peer support workers interpret and define the activities, responsibilities and knowledge associated with their work. Using methods of membership categorisation analysis, we analysed interview materials generated by conducting individual semi-structured interviews during the autumn of 2016 with prostate cancer peer support workers ( n = 11) who currently volunteer as support workers in Finland. Although the peer support workers acknowledged the psychosocial aspects of the work, we argue that their interpretations extend far beyond this and encompass expertise, advocacy and activism as central features of their work. These can be used to strengthen their position as credible commentators and educators on issues relating to cancer and men’s health; raise awareness and represent the ‘patient’s voice’ and attempt to influence both policy and clinical practice. These findings suggest that by categorising their work activities in different ways, voluntary sector actors such as peer support workers can attempt to portray themselves as legitimate authorities on a range of issues and influence decision-making ranging from individual level treatment decisions all the way to health policy.

Because paid work is taken to be central to manhood, scholarly and popular discourse have characterized retirement as presenting a “crisis of masculinity.” However, such a crisis is not borne out by research, perhaps because scholars have not considered how class might shape masculinities and thus expectations and experiences of retirement. Using data obtained from interviews with Finnish metal workers and engineers who are either approaching retirement or recently retired, we ask whether (1) this crisis discourse is reflected in their retirement expectations, (2) it matches their actual experiences of retirement, and (3) retirement disrupts the masculinities of some class groups more than others. We find evidence of this retirement crisis discourse in our respondents’ views of retirement, but not in their actual experiences, belying the homogeneity of masculinity implied by it. Class shapes both the perceived content of crises and the actual retirement experiences.

Most citations to “hegemonic masculinity” focus on gender ideals and men’s attempts to justify domination. Few scholars have tested the theory that masculinity can be hegemonic in effect by gaining the overt consent of others to their domination. We specify this largely untested theory and use data from a pilot study of middle-age men for our demonstration of how to operationalize and recognize hegemony. We argue that scholars will find that effect at intersections of gender and other inequalities such as age. We show that, in their discussion of linked ideals of gender and age, three respondents mention domination of older men by younger men, and then both consent to that domination and accept personal responsibility for forestalling it through regimens of fitness, productivity, and health. We call for further research on the hegemony of masculinity via study of intersections of gender with such understudied inequities as age.