Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
BRYCE TRAISTER
University of Western Ontario
American Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2 (June 2000) © 2000 American Studies Association
274
ACADEMIC VIAGRA 275
***
complex feelings about male rivalry for dominance” (5), and that “any
intensified ideology of manhood is a compensatory response to fears of
humiliation” (4). Thus in a book that models itself titularly (Manhood
and the American Renaissance) on F.O. Mathiessen’s classic
conceptualization of mid-nineteenth-century male-authored literature,
Leverenz brings the struggles of masculinity to the center of his reading
practices and argues that antebellum struggles of gender were central
features of the American literary renaissance. He then links those
ideological struggles of gender not only to the production of aesthetic
merit, but also to the appreciation of the American renaissance’s
aesthetic accomplishments. Over the course of Manhood and the
American Renaissance, we learn how its author’s “interpretive authority”
is challenged by his subject matter: “[i]nsofar as I want a feeling of mastery
and control over the reading experience,” the interpretive multiplicity
demanded by the Hawthornian text “unmans me” (229). Earlier
Leverenz posits a male community of readers (“any male reader can see all
of these feelings in himself” [29]), which is narrowed still further to a
heterosexual community of male readers, as “Whitman’s grandiose
promises and his implicit homoeroticism make . . . a heterosexual male,
recoil” (30). Making himself the comparative object of the simile,
Leverenz aligns his critical analyses of male-authored texts with his own
heteromasculinity, thereby reproducing, in effect, the isomorphic relation
between masculine culture and its historiography, a relation ostensibly
denied by critical heteromasculinity’s attempt to deconstruct the essen-
tialist transcendentalism of “ungendered” critical historiography. The
manhood of Leverenz’s nineteenth-century American renaissance, in
other words, looks a lot like his own confessed struggles with masculinity.
Rendering masculinity visible here takes the form of excavating an
aesthetic tied intrinsically to the definition of what it means to be a man in
the antebellum United States, and in the contemporary period as well.19
As a critical school fast approaching the status of discipline, critical
heteromasculinity studies has begun developing a framework language
that places its disciplinary desires in careful if perhaps insufficiently
anxious relation to feminism. When Michael Kimmel opens Manhood
in America with the following claim—”American men have no history”
(1)—he is being provocative, if not entirely accurate. The provocation
on which his introduction mediates is delivered in the statement’s
suggestion that we lack a history of male achievement, that we live in
an intellectual culture somehow devoid of the masculine perspective.
ACADEMIC VIAGRA 281
Of course we have that. And then some. What Kimmel wants to write
instead is a history that understands “American men . . . as men” (2), a
statement that, on the face of it, sounds a tautological cadence, one that
is repeated with remarkable and nearly ritualistic precision in the newer
scholarship of American masculinity. E. Anthony Rotundo opens his
1993 history American Manhood by revealing that he began the project
by wanting “to understand men as men” (ix). David Pugh’s 1983
cultural analysis, Sons of Liberty: The Masculine Mind in Nineteenth-
Century America, begins his introduction by observing that “[u]ntil
quite recently, WASP males dominated the political, social, and eco-
nomic affairs of this nation to such an extent that any effort to assess
them historically as men could be dismissed as a superfluous analy-
sis.”20 In part, the insistence of the simile speaks to masculine gender’s
resistance to analysis: that because masculinity has for so long stood as
the transcendental anchor and guarantor of cultural authority and
“truth,” demonstrating its materiality, its “constructedness,” requires an
especially energetic rhetorical and critical insistence. We are arguing
with the case, in other words, which explains why the category “men as
men” is not merely tautological. Kimmel refines his assertion still more
acutely, arguing that his task is to “make gender visible to men” (3)
whose presumed unawareness “of the centrality of gender in our [that
is, men’s] lives only helps to perpetuate gender inequality” (4). As
historiographical enterprise, Manhood in America aspires to political
education, as do nearly all of the studies this essay discusses. “I argue
that the quest for manhood,” writes Kimmel, “the effort to achieve, to
demonstrate, to prove our masculinity—has been one of the formative
and persistent experiences in men’s lives. That we remain unaware of
the centrality of gender in our lives only helps to perpetuate gender
inequality” (4). As with Leverenz’s implicit construction of a hetero-
sexual reader, Kimmel’s posited readership emerges from the book’s
pedagogical mission to educate men (and women) about the “central-
ity” and more specifically the “constructedness” of masculine gender
and male identity. The underlying position here is that masculine
gender’s presumed invisibility as epistemological foundation is to be
rendered visible as foundation, and a “constructed” one at that. The
constructedness of male gender—its status as gender—has quickly
become nothing short of a proscribed critical refrain.
Another idée fixe found in heteromasculinity studies is that of the
critical pioneer. Kimmel’s claim that American men “lack a history”
282 AMERICAN QUARTERLY
goes on to define the scope of his study, the exclusions implied in the
acknowledgements are made explicit as methodology:
Over the years I have learned that there is something terribly wrong in the
lives of most men. Whatever age, political persuasion, race, or creed, these
men share a common condition. They feel bewildered, out of control,
numbed, angered, and under attack. Numerous social forces, including the
increasingly difficult task of breadwinning and the financial and personal
devastation of divorce, have eroded their lives to the breaking point . . . They
are locked into rigid stereotypes and financial responsibilities but are also
being jolted by economic dislocations and rising demands for a change in
gender roles. As a result men have been left confused, without a coherent or
sustainable concept of their own masculinity.23
***
growing up in the 1950s. That the men formerly (and still) regarded as
paragons of normative masculinity stand revealed as anxious failures
by the crisis theory of heteromasculine historiography may provide
some comfort to the less successful, the less normative, the less erect—
that is, the less “masculine”—among us. In this sense, heteromasculinity
studies is not just historical corrective; it performs a therapeutic
function as well, and so we may wonder whose compensatory narrative
is being written here: the anxious failures desiring the consolations
afforded by their proximity to the “normal,” or the bullies in need of the
corrective offered up by the new narratives of American masculinity-
as-crisis.
Heteromasculinity studies also chart a universe surprisingly bereft of
actual, living embodiments of “normative masculinity,” even though
discourses and representations of normal manhood proliferate in
fiction, film, sports, and beer commercials. Can it all really be read as
camp, drag, or stylized parody? For while a history of “men as men”
demystifies the essentialization of masculinity as all things powerful,
stabile, and erect, it cannot change the fact that American enterprise
was driven by the very men whose masculinity now appears as
masquerade. If the history of the United States as imperialist, racist,
sexist, and homophobic revises older historical models of American
exceptionalism and possessive individualism, such interventions do
presuppose an American masculinity notable for its ability to consoli-
date power and manage its others. On the one hand, Americanists want
to claim a “masculine” historical achievement as patriarchal and
imperialist—the springboard for much recent energy in American
studies and the reigning totem we still purport to topple. Yet on the
other hand we now find that this masculinist identity was and is merely
a “construct,” a compensatory narrative for still deeper anxieties and
fears that the new heteromasculinity studies will render visible: that the
bullies, in short, are more interesting because misunderstood. With
some impatience, I would ask: Are there actually no “real men” out
there? What do we do say to the African American men still being
dragged around behind pick-up trucks driven by white men? To the gay
college student mercilessly beaten unconscious and left to freeze to
death over the course of a cold Wyoming prairie night? To the women
and children hiding in underfunded shelters? I just do not know
whether the vicious masculinity behind these crimes is enduring a
“crisis” in any way comparable to that of their victims, or if instead we
ACADEMIC VIAGRA 293
***
the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame
that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a
natural sort of being.” Butler’s “genealogy of gender” thus deconstructs
our received ontology of gender identity, and “expose[s] the contingent
acts that create the appearance of naturalistic necessity” (33). Although
it is a sustained treatment of psychoanalytic feminism, femininity, and
homosexual identity formation, Gender Trouble has been appropriated
by many practitioners of the new masculinity studies to discuss
masculine identity in straight, gay, or “ambivalent” modalities.41
A previously stable understanding of masculinity is not only chal-
lenged by Americanist historiography’s crisis theory of masculinity; it
is also rigorously and thoroughly deconstructed by the theoretical
critique of ontological gender identity. Masculinity emerges as a mask,
as a performance, a masquerade, in which the ideologies of gender
provide a structure in which the self takes up a gendered subject
position whose enunciation within the symbolic order proceeds insepa-
rably from the subject’s (mis)recognition of himself as legitimately
and/or normatively male. In her study of contemporary male dramatists
and plays, Staging Masculinity, Carla McDonough theorizes that “[d]ue
to the ‘rules that limit and maintain ‘normative’ gender, the male’s
empowerment is actually extremely precarious within his own life.” Far
from making available a position of stability and autonomy, ideologies
of normative masculinity ultimately depend on the femininity ostensi-
bly repudiated by masculinist discourse, thereby revealing, as with
Hemingway’s unwittingly yet somehow inevitably queer texts, how the
male inhabitation of masculinity is “fractured and precarious.” Less
abstractly, we might say that if one lesson of history is that of anxious,
agonistic men trying desperately to embody the masculine, then the
next lesson is that they—all men everywhere, from Andrew Jackson to
Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan—failed in the attempt. Lee Clark
Mitchell writes in Westerns: Making the Man in Fiction and Film: “The
frequency with which the body is celebrated, then physically punished,
only to convalesce, suggests something of the paradox involved in
making true men out of biological men, taking their male bodies and
distorting them beyond any apparent power of self-control, so that in
the course of recuperating, an achieved masculinity that is at once
physical and based on performance can be revealed” (155). Similarly,
according to Timothy Beneke, “boys never quite pull it off; they are
never quite sure they are men and tend to feel only as masculine as their
ACADEMIC VIAGRA 295
NOTES
1. Elaine Showalter, “Toward a Feminist Poetics,” The New Feminist Criticism: Essays
on Women, Literature, and Theory, ed. Elaine Showalter (New York: Pantheon, 1985), 128.
2. Elaine Showalter, “Introduction: the Rise of Gender,” in Elaine Showalter, ed.,
Speaking of Gender (New York: Routledge, 1989), 2.
3. Gail Bederman, Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and
Race in the United States, 1880–1917 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1995), 7.
4. Although not the most reliable method for supporting this point, calling attention
to the sheer number of conference panels—not to mention titles—at recent Modern
Language Association and American Studies Association meetings containing some
variant of “masculinity” in their titles would be at least salient. At the 1998 ASA
convention in Seattle, for example, five panels explicitly addressed “masculinity,” and
numerous papers on other panels at least titularly pointed towards a consideration of
masculinity. These figures do not include the many topics and presentations concerned
with gay male identity and representation.
5. Sedgwick develops this thesis in Between Men: English Literature and Male
Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1985), and elaborates it further
in Epistemology of the Closet (Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press, 1990).
6. Peter Schwenger, “The Masculine Mode,” in Elaine Showalter, ed., Speaking of
Gender, 102.
7. Timothy Benecke, Proving Manhood: Reflections on Men and Sexism (Berkeley,
Calif.: Univ. of California Press, 1997), xiv.
8. Michael Kimmel, Manhood in America: A Cultural History (New York: Free
Press, 1996), 6.
9. Many readers will recall the “Men In Feminism” debate carried out in various
academic and popular precincts during the 1980s and captured in the anthology Men in
Feminism, ed. Alice Jardine and Paul Smith (New York: Methuen, 1987). Although
difficult to identify the precise relationship between the recent swerve to masculinity
and the issues raised in that volume, we might provisionally observe the obvious: that
where academic feminism (at least as generally practiced in the 1980s) focused and
continues to focus on women, heteromasculinity focuses on men. This is to acknowl-
edge, as do most heteromasculine critics, that feminism has made masculinity studies
possible, even as masculinity studies effectively elides the gynocritical emphasis on
écriture feminine and female representative practices. Further, where many woman
feminists have argued that women were the best “equipped” to practice feminist
reading and writing practices, many male heteromasculinists assume, as we shall see,
that men are best suited for the job of exploring masculinity, although Dana Nelson’s
powerful book, National Manhood: Capitalist Citizenship and the Imagined Fraternity
of White Men (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1998), to mention one study among
many, contests that assumption. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the current institutional
power arrangements of the academy and society at large, where a major concern for the
ACADEMIC VIAGRA 301
“men in feminism” debate was the politics informing the male practice of feminism,
there is less concern about “women in heteromasculinity.”
10. British studies is not far behind, particularly in Victorian studies. See, for
example, Herbert Sussman, Victorian Masculinities: Manhood and Masculine Poetics
in Early Victorian Literature and Art (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995);
Richard Dellamora, Masculine Desire: the Sexual Politics of Victorian Aestheticism
(Chapel Hill, N.C.: North Carolina Univ. Press, 1990); and James Eli Adams, Dandies
and Desert Saints: Styles of Victorian Masculinity (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press,
1995).
11. Certainly not when a mainstream, best-selling and feminist journalist like Susan
Faludi weighs in with Stiffed: the Betrayal of the American Man (New York: William
Morrow, 1999), a book whose treatment of the dispossessed corporate man of late
twentieth-century U.S. culture locates the crisis of masculinity at the center of popular
feminist thought. While the book does not in any simple way legitimate this new
victimhood of the privileged, it does dwell on the believed powerlessness of the post-
war American man. See particularly her discussion of male actors in mainstream
pornography, aptly (for this essay) titled “Waiting for Wood,” 530–76.
12. My own research in a local outlet of Chapters (Canada’s equivalent to the Barnes and
Noble/Starbuck’s Coffee alignment) revealed no fewer than eighteen magazines with
subtitles like “a magazine for men,” “for men’s men,” and the like. The titles and cover-
copy, not to mention the photographic layouts ranging from women to men to cars to
guns, targeted specific audiences from different demographic groupings, although the
common ground shared was a loudly heterosexual interest in women as sexual objects.
13. See T. Walter Herbert, Dearest Beloved: the Hawthornes and the Making of the
Middle-Class Family (Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press, 1993), 18–20.
14. See, for example, Robert Corber’s Homosexuality in Cold War America:
Resistance and the Crisis of Masculinity (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1997).
15. Kenneth MacKinnon, Uneasy Pleasures: the Male as Erotic Object (London:
Cygnus Arts, 1997), 88.
16. David Leverenz, Manhood and the American Renaissance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Univ. Press, 1989), 6. Further references to this text will be made parenthetically.
17. Calvin Thomas, Male Matters: Masculinity, Anxiety, and the Male Body on the
Line (Chicago: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1996), 7.
18. E. Anthony Rotundo, American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from
the Revolution to the Modern Era (New York: Basic Books, 1993), ix. Although a
cheap way to make a point, I would note that each author mentioned here profusely
acknowledges his female partner/spouse/significant other for their help in producing
his text. Thus, in perhaps unavoidable frisson, the publicly “anxious” critic exists
coterminously in these texts with the publicly secure heterosexual man.
19. Manhood in the American Renaissance is not the only text to recast personal
experience as literary history. According to David Bergman, “American Renaissance is
Matthiessen’s ultimate expression of his love for [Russell] Cheney and a covert
celebration of the homosexual artist.” See David Bergman, “F.O. Matthiessen: the
Critic as Homosexual,” Raritan 9 (spring 1990): 72.
20. David G. Pugh, Sons of Liberty: the Masculine Mind in Nineteenth-Century
America (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1983), xv, emphasis original.
21. David Pugh, Sons of Liberty, xvi.
22. It is worth noting as well that the “pre-masculinity” phase of American feminist
historiography and criticism—for example, Anne Douglas’s Feminization of American
Culture—was always concerned with the problems of masculinity, although perhaps
not with the critical sympathy to be found in the new heteromasculinity studies.
302 AMERICAN QUARTERLY
23. See Andrew Kimbrell, The Masculine Mystique: the Politics of Masculinity
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1995), xii–xiii. Kimbrell’s book, part cultural critique
and part pop-psychology manifesto, resists any easy political categorization as it
embraces a holistic language of masculine renewal and change that might appeal to
reactionary and liberal masculine politics alike.
24. For those readers unfamiliar with this advertisement (which ran on NBC during
the 1999 French Open and Wimbledon tennis telecasts), it features Mr. Dole discussing
his fears of impotence following prostate cancer surgery. Although he never actually
admits to having suffered “erectile dysfunction” (instead he only worries about it), his
wife, Elizabeth Dole, former Secretary of Transportation under the Bush administra-
tion, once told reporters how delighted she and her husband have been with the anti-
impotence medication, Viagra, whose manufacturer, Pfizer Inc., lost little time in
hiring Dole to be their new national pitchman.
25. See Nancy R. Comley and Robert Scholes, Hemingway’s Genders: Rereading
the Hemingway Text (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1994), 107, ix. Comley
and Scholes conclude their study on a triumphalist note: “We would be the first to
admit that there is more to be done with all these matters, but we hope that our
contribution to the topic will at least make it difficult to think of Hemingway as a writer
with too much machismo for his own good—someone, as he put it himself, who had
eaten too many criadillas. The Hemingway you were taught about in high school is
dead. Viva el nuevo Hemingway” (146).
26. Ira Elliott, “Performance Art: Jake Barnes and ‘Masculine’ Signification in The
Sun Also Rises,” American Literature 67 (Mar. 1995): 78.
27. Stephen Clifford, Beyond the Heroic “I”: Reading Lawrence, Hemingway, and
“Masculinity” (Lewisburg, Penn.: Bucknell Univ. Press, 1998), 21.
28. Ibid., 107. It is worth noting that Clifford’s study of Lawrence and Hemingway
theorizes its exclusive attention to canonical male writers on the grounds that “it is not
only the canon which is in need of revision, but also the ways we read even those
figures who have inhabited a canonical center” (21).
29. Dennis Bingham, Acting Male: Masculinities in the Films of James Stewart, Jack
Nicholson, and Clint Eastwood (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1994), 9
30. David Leverenz, Manhood and the American Renaissance, 172. Michael Davitt
Bell developed a theory of authorial deviance in The Development of American
Romance: The Sacrifice of Relation (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980).
31. Julia Stern, The Plight of Feeling: Sympathy and Dissent in the Early American
Novel (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1997), 168. I should note here that Stern’s
book in no way self-identifies as a contribution to heteromasculinity studies. Rather, it
partakes of the critical language of masculinity studies.
32. Scott J. Derrick, Monumental Anxieties: Homoerotic Desire and Feminine
Influence in 19th-Century U.S. Literature (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press,
1997), 8. David Pugh, Sons of Liberty, 6.
33. Kim Townsend, Manhood at Harvard: William James and Others (New York:
Norton, 1996), 17; Gail Bederman, Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of
Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,
1995), 11.
34. Gaylyn Studlar, This Mad Masquerade: Stardom and Masculinity in the Jazz Age
(New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1996), 12–13; Joe L. Dubbert, A Man’s Place:
Masculinity in Transition (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979), 192; Steven
Cohan, Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties (Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana Univ. Press, 1997); Robert J.Corber Homosexuality in Cold War America:
Resistance and the Crisis of Masculinity (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1997).
ACADEMIC VIAGRA 303
35. Dana D. Nelson, National Manhood: Capitalist Citizenship and the Imagined
Fraternity of White Men (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1998), 16, 27. I am
thinking particularly of Nelson’s discussion of “American presidentialism” in the
book’s “Afterword.”
36. Maggie Montesinos Sale, The Slumbering Volcano: American Slave Ship Revolts
and the Production of Rebellious Masculinity (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1997),
57; Philip Brian Harper, Are We Not Men? Masculine Anxiety and the Problem of
African American Identity (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996), 69. Discussion of
African American masculinity proliferates in all disciplines of American studies and
literature, and, indeed, has for some time now. In Antebellum Black Activists: Race,
Gender, and the Self (New York: Garland Publishing, 1996), R.J. Young discusses the
meaning of manhood in relation to antebellum black activism; see particularly 55–124.
In literary studies, Frederick Douglass’s autobiographical writings have also received a
good deal of attention, including for example essays by Jenny Franchot, “The
Punishment of Esther: Frederick Douglass and the Construction of the Feminine,” and
Richard Yarborough, “Race, Violence, and Manhood in Douglass’s Narrative,” both in
Frederick Douglass: New Literary and Historical Essays (New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1991), to cite only a few examples. It is worth mentioning in this context
the vital and at times vitriolic debates within African American studies between black
feminist men and women over the gendered dimension of race, much of which has
explicitly focused on the practices and representations of black men. See for example
bell hooks, Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations (New York: Routledge, 1995),
in which she engages critically with the masculinist dimensions of popular images of
black violence, gangsta rap, and Malcolm X. For other recent essays on the circulation
of black masculinity in American culture, see the essays on the O.J. Simpson trial in
Toni Morrison, Birth of a Nation’hood: Gaze, Script, and Spectacle in the O.J.
Simpson Case, ed. Toni Morrison and Claudia Tate (New York: Pantheon Books,
1997). Don Belton, editor of Speak My Name: Black Men on Masculinity and the
American Dream (New York: Beacon Press, 1995), an anthology of fiction, memoir,
interview and critique intended for a mainstream audience, writes that “[a]t this critical
hour, no one seems to know who black men are beyond a narrow mainstream
representation in which it seems they can only be superathletes, superentertainers, or
supercriminals” (4).
37. Calvin Thomas, Male Matters, 7.
38. I am here deliberately invoking Nina Baym’s now classic article “Melodramas of
Beset Manhood.”
39. Kaja Silverman, Masculine Subjectivity at the Margins (New York: Routledge, 1992).
40. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New
York: Routledge, 1990), 25. Further references will be made parenthetically.
41. And not without some anxiety from Butler herself, as evidenced in the preface
and introduction to Bodies That Matter: on the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York:
Routledge, 1993), where she takes issue with being called by her first name—“a certain
partronizing quality” (ix)—and with the misapplication of her theories of gender
performativity—“[m]atters have been made even worse. . . . ” (x).
42. Carla J. McDonough, Staging Masculinity: Male Identity in Contemporary
American Drama (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1997), 6, 7. Lee Clark Mitchell,
Westerns: Making the Man in Fiction and Film (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,
1996), 155. Beneke, Men on Sexism, 5.
43. Steven Cohan, Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties
(Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1997), 23, 24. Further references will be cited
parenthetically.
304 AMERICAN QUARTERLY
44. Robert K. Martin, “Very Queer Indeed,” American Quarterly 47 (spring 1995): 155.
45. Scott Derrick, Monumental Anxieties: Homoerotic Desire and Feminine Influ-
ence in 19th-Century U.S. Literature (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press,
1997), 33.
46. Jane Gallop, Around 1981: Academic Feminist Literary Theory (New York:
Routledge, 1992).
47. Tania Modleski, Feminism without Women: Culture and Criticism in a
‘Postfeminist’ Age (New York: Routledge, 1991), 7.