Unfortunately, I didn't use or refer to Butler. But I am now interested. Was she a feminist theorist? Because if she was, I probably would have inadvertently steered clear of her. My PIP never went in that direction, and looking her up would have doubled my work load, and really overwhelmed me.
I went down the sociological/biological road, as I decided that early on and stuck with it. I refered specifically to David Crawford's sociological work and the work of John Beynon, who examined the commercialisation/commodification of masculinities in the media, sport etc. Did you study his stuff? It would have been perfect for your PIP by the sounds of it. His whole book was based on the changing representations of men in the media over time...it was a real good read too!!! It wasn't too preachy or convoluted (like Butler or Connell's stuff)...Unlike many other theorists, Beynon does not attempt to speak ABOVE his reader, and thus his writing just comes off as more honest. He is no. 1 for quotes too.
I hate it when theorists use all these big words and page-long sentences...to me, it is no more convincing than simple, yet substantiated theory...it just seems like they are milking it too much!!!! Why say 100 words when you can do it in 10?? (I learnt *that* from ancient history)...
In my PIP, when examining masculinity, I basically placed the theories of essentialism and socialconstructionism in contrast with one another and eventually made socialconstructionism seem superior. The fundamental idea behind my PIP was that "men are not born, they are made". This just all flowed with socialisation and other concepts.
I also used Buchbinder, Ian Burgess, Connell, Hanke, Lynne Segal, and some other theorists. Any of them ring a bell for you?
However, even after saying all this crap, my PIP was still 80% based on primary research findings.
Did you enjoy doing your PIP?
