Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Manhood in America


            With the whirlwind of cross-cultural analyses in the previous blog, it’s time to solely address the process of manhood in America.  Unlike tribal societies, there is no specific protocol or procedure for becoming an American man—and all American boys need not complete an arduous physical task before gaining status.  However, the essence of American manhood has been well defined by anthropologists, beginning in the early 19th century.
            In his work, “Manhood in America: A Cultural History,” Michael Kimmel (2006) outlines social manhood perceptions starting in the 1800s.  Historically, from then to 20th and 21st centuries, Kimmel argues that American manhood is a constant struggle to prove oneself to women, but moreso to other men (Kimmel 2006).  The early 19th century brought three common ideals of American manhood: the Self-Made Man, the Genteel Patriarch, and the Heroic Artisan (Kimmel 2006).  By Kimmel’s argument, it is the Self-Made Man who is most respected by others in American society—a man who serves as a family breadwinner and dominant social force.  As Thomas Joyce further notes, this man satisfies his wife, engages in politics, and acts as and independent and motivated person (2011:25).  With the coming of the 1950s and big business, many men engaged in white-collar lifestyles (Joyce 2011).  However, these lifestyles were criticized, and did not embody the true manhood ideal—as wealthy men of this class were considered more submissive and weak (Joyce 2011).
            Kimmel, in “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity,” further defines American manhood in the context of ‘sissiness’ (1994).  As American manhood is a constant struggle to continually prove oneself, the ultimate humiliation involves ties to feminine nature.  This idea is also argued in our textbook, with C.J. Pascoe’s ethnography, Dude, You’re a Fag.  In his work, Pascoe finds that ‘fag’ often isn’t used as an outright homosexual slur.  Instead, the word is freely tossed around American school systems to denote a blow to one’s masculinity.  Specifically, Pascoe notes how ‘fag’ is often used to describe a boy who is full of emotion, dresses in more feminine ways, and is overall not masculine enough.  Thus, American manhood historically shies away from the display of any ‘female’ emotions or activities.
            Furthermore, it is worth noting American manhood’s specific connections to one’s physical nature.  Kimmel (2006) describes the increasing national popularity of sports in the 20th century, which to this day, grosses billions of dollars in revenue each year.  With increasing television and technology access, the role model for the average American boy was often the strongest, fastest, and most victorious athlete at the time.  Moreover, the textbook highlights a particular example of young boys and Tee-Ball.  From a young age, parents often enroll their children in sports.  In the case of Tee-Ball, a case study revealed that boy participants received more coaching than female participants.  Specifically, those boy Tee-ball players who displayed the most skill received greater encouragement and attention.  Thus, from an early age, there is an immediate American emphasis on manhood and physical strength or prowess.  Coupled with sports, and other national developments including Playboy, Kimmel (2006) notes the development of this physical emphasis.
            Overall, there are certainly characteristics of the American ‘man’ that we value and expect.  However, the specific American “rite of passage” for coming of age is much less loosely defined.  Steven Foster (1987) says Americans possess few meaningful rituals for marking manhood—and while driver’s licenses, continued education, voting, drinking, marriage, and employment mark transitions, there is a lack of passage coherency.  This is likely the result of the American culture—which is really a ‘melting pot’ of many different cultures.  With isolated tribes, a passage rite may have a very particular procedure, and has been maintained for years within that society.  But with the constant blending of cultures and ideas in America, the ‘manhood’ passage experience differs on a familial basis.  And while Kimmel (2006) outlines many well-respected and desired qualities of the American man, he is careful to note that these qualities are ‘static.’  As American culture continues to change and becomes increasingly more diverse, different norms may foster the support of different ‘manly’ characteristics.  Surely, this process has already begun—with increasing national support to homosexual peoples.  Hate crimes versus gay peoples have been heavily denounced by society, and most states are moving toward the legalization of gay marriage.  Athletes who mutter gay slurs are fined despite their great physical strength and manhood (even Kobe Bryant, the epitome of an NBA star, couldn’t get away with his anti-gay comments).  This will undoubtedly complicate the perception of the American man in the future—perhaps a US ‘man’ is still a breadwinner and individually motivated for their family, but the context of their family or spouse will be less relevant. 
           

Bibliography

Foster, Steven.  1987.  “Passage into Manhood: A modern ritual for young men.”  Gender 16 (Spring).  50.  http://www.context.org/iclib/ic16/foster/

Kimmel, Michael S.  2006.  “Manhood in America: A Cultural History.”  Oxford University Press.  173-191.  http://www.homeworkmarket.com/sites/default/files/q2/03/04/kimmel__the_masculine_mystique.pdf

                                                                                                                            


No comments:

Post a Comment