F masculinities and to document how masculinities can change over time, allowing new kinds of practice to emerge as hegemonic (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Morrell, Jewkes, and Lindegger 2012). There is now a substantiveCulture, Health SexualitySbody of literature on how masculinities change in relation to exogenous processes of social, economic and political change. Hunter’s (2010) work in South Africa clearly traces how economic processes associated with apartheid and then globalisation, alongside the political regimes of colonialism, apartheid and democracy, intersect to construct and shape the potential for specific forms of masculinity to emerge at particular moments. Work in other parts of the world has also traced the impact of wider Necrosulfonamide supplier social change on masculinities (Segal 2007; Seidler 2005). While the impact of social and structural forces on how masculinities evolve over time has been relatively well documented, less is known about whether and how programmes may be able to change or reformulate masculinities. Researchers have attributed change in men’s attitudes, and sometimes behaviours, to particular actions and interventions (Jewkes, Flood, and Lang 2015), but, as highlighted by Dworkin et al. (this issue), it is less clear whether such interventions can contribute to sustained change in hegemonic or subordinated masculinities over time. There have been few efforts to articulate a theory of change by which an intervention translates to a change in masculinities, and limited description of the practical steps involved in such an undertaking. Indeed, as Jewkes et al. (this issue) suggest, the concept of hegemonic masculinities is not itself a theory of change, although it can be, and has been, incorporated into theories of change. This lack of an explicit theory of change within interventions working with men and boys means it is sometimes unclear as to what change is sought, whether is it a change in health-related behaviours (for instance a reduction in perpetration of violence) or a wider change in the dominant form of masculinity in the group being addressed. Theorisation of how the desired change can be supported to occur is also infrequent. Encouragingly, the papers comprising this special issue present a number of ideas that can inform future efforts when working with men and boys. A number of the papers here make reference to Paulo Freire’s (1973) conceptualisation of conscientiza o, or critical consciousness raising (e.g. Jewkes et al. this issue; Stern et al. this issue). Freire theorised social change as being underpinned by the relationship between conscientiza o and collective action, and his theory of social change has informed discussions of changing masculinities in other work (Campbell 2003; Gibbs, Jewkes, et al. 2014). More widely, social psychologists have sought to operationalise Freire’s theory of social change through the development of safe social spaces from which collective action can emerge (Campbell and purchase DM-3189 Cornish 2010; Gibbs, Campbell et al. 2015; Vaughan 2011). This body of work has articulated a number of components central to how safe social spaces can enable change. These components include building participants’ confidence and skills in self-reflection and communication; facilitating the dialogue necessary for the development of new critical social understandings; and expanding the social networks and `social capital’ of participants (Campbell 2003; Vaughan 2014). Throughout the special issue,.F masculinities and to document how masculinities can change over time, allowing new kinds of practice to emerge as hegemonic (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Morrell, Jewkes, and Lindegger 2012). There is now a substantiveCulture, Health SexualitySbody of literature on how masculinities change in relation to exogenous processes of social, economic and political change. Hunter’s (2010) work in South Africa clearly traces how economic processes associated with apartheid and then globalisation, alongside the political regimes of colonialism, apartheid and democracy, intersect to construct and shape the potential for specific forms of masculinity to emerge at particular moments. Work in other parts of the world has also traced the impact of wider social change on masculinities (Segal 2007; Seidler 2005). While the impact of social and structural forces on how masculinities evolve over time has been relatively well documented, less is known about whether and how programmes may be able to change or reformulate masculinities. Researchers have attributed change in men’s attitudes, and sometimes behaviours, to particular actions and interventions (Jewkes, Flood, and Lang 2015), but, as highlighted by Dworkin et al. (this issue), it is less clear whether such interventions can contribute to sustained change in hegemonic or subordinated masculinities over time. There have been few efforts to articulate a theory of change by which an intervention translates to a change in masculinities, and limited description of the practical steps involved in such an undertaking. Indeed, as Jewkes et al. (this issue) suggest, the concept of hegemonic masculinities is not itself a theory of change, although it can be, and has been, incorporated into theories of change. This lack of an explicit theory of change within interventions working with men and boys means it is sometimes unclear as to what change is sought, whether is it a change in health-related behaviours (for instance a reduction in perpetration of violence) or a wider change in the dominant form of masculinity in the group being addressed. Theorisation of how the desired change can be supported to occur is also infrequent. Encouragingly, the papers comprising this special issue present a number of ideas that can inform future efforts when working with men and boys. A number of the papers here make reference to Paulo Freire’s (1973) conceptualisation of conscientiza o, or critical consciousness raising (e.g. Jewkes et al. this issue; Stern et al. this issue). Freire theorised social change as being underpinned by the relationship between conscientiza o and collective action, and his theory of social change has informed discussions of changing masculinities in other work (Campbell 2003; Gibbs, Jewkes, et al. 2014). More widely, social psychologists have sought to operationalise Freire’s theory of social change through the development of safe social spaces from which collective action can emerge (Campbell and Cornish 2010; Gibbs, Campbell et al. 2015; Vaughan 2011). This body of work has articulated a number of components central to how safe social spaces can enable change. These components include building participants’ confidence and skills in self-reflection and communication; facilitating the dialogue necessary for the development of new critical social understandings; and expanding the social networks and `social capital’ of participants (Campbell 2003; Vaughan 2014). Throughout the special issue,.