|
||
|
Masculinity in the Language and Images of
War The Convention Center in Honolulu is located
near the USS Arizona Memorial, built to honor members of the military
who lost their lives in Pearl Harbor in 1941. This year, we will be
attending our annual convention and strolling on the beach while soldiers
from the United States are again at war, this time on the blistering
sands of the Middle East. Division 51 of the American Psychological Association was not organized for the purpose of examining war and peace issues. Those concerns are more directly addressed by Division 19 (military psychology) and Division 48 (peace psychology). Nevertheless, the work of Division 51 members who address psychology of masculinity issues seems quite relevant. Masculinity ideologies do interact with theories and practices of war. For millennia, one of the most powerful symbols of masculinity has been the soldier heading off to battle, fully equipped with the weapons he needs. The man who behaves well in this role—with patriotism, courage, and self-sacrifice—is regarded as truly masculine. A hero. A male adult that boys should emulate. This phenomenon is so common, so universal,
that some have wondered whether men must inevitably go to war. Historically,
mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters have remained at home, singing
lullabies to children while waiting for their warrior men to return.
Even though women increasingly join the military, it is still primarily
men who are making most of the decisions about war. One explanation is primarily biological, and asserts that male human nature is the most important explanatory factor. Engaging in conflict—whether for sport, vengeance, or protection—is an essentially male activity. These tendencies come with the genetic blueprint. The truly violent expressions in the human species, such as rape, revenge, and killing, are simply part of the male makeup from the beginning, and then become activated when conditions are favorable. The evolutionary explanation for this reality, it is argued, is both inevitable and positive: men fight other men to protect their loved ones from harm, to provide land for their own families, and to gain the natural resources necessary to support their communities. War is a naturalistic expression of the biological principle that only the strongest survive. A second approach is largely social, and argues that men strive to meet expectations that are constructed by their societies. Wars are important settings in which men can act in ways consistent with this socialization process. In effect, the military is a stage on which men can act like the men they have trained to become. One implication is that certain constructions of masculinity may actually cause war. Though biological factors are involved, it is principally socialized behavior that defines masculinity in a given culture. Depending on particular social or political realities, the explanations for war can go far beyond the immediate demands of evolutionary survival, and include such causes as punishing distant dictators, advancing religious interests, protecting victimized peoples, encouraging the development of certain political systems, or preventing ethnic cleansings. This constructionist view emphasizes the overlap between the “rules” of masculinity and the expectations of military life. Men are taught to be aggressive, dominant, and under emotional control. Joining the military is the quintessentially masculine step to take in this learning process. No other decision moves a young man from boyhood to manhood in quite the same way. Boys can discover how to prove themselves strong and capable in the military. In so doing, they honor those who sent them to battle. A further implication of the constructionist view involves peacemaking. While making war is highly consistent with many socialized masculine expectations, making peace is not. Typically, a lasting and effective peace is not about a winner claiming victory and forcing acquiescence on the loser; it is about all sides discovering their shared needs and trying to define and meet joint expectations. It emphasizes conflict resolution and the building of enduring relationships of trust and good will. Peace-making takes a communal approach, looking for the best that can be achieved for all parties. These themes are not as prominent in masculine socialization. In fact, much of the conflict resolution literature has been criticized as being too individualized, too autonomous; in effect, too masculinized (see Lederach, 1997). From this vantage point, traditional masculine ideology doubles its impact on history: war is made more likely, and peace is made less likely. Most members of our Division organize their
thinking and clinical work around a more constructivist approach to
these questions. For example, Ronald Levant (1996), a founder of our
Division and the next President of the American Psychological Association
has written, “…it is not the biological differences of sex
that make for masculinity and femininity. These notions are socially
constructed from bits and pieces of biological, psychological, and social
experience to serve particular purposes.” From this perspective, military activity can be examined in the context of a North American masculinity. This version of masculinity has been the topic of theory development and active investigation for nearly 30 years, from Deborah David and Robert Brannon (1976) to Michael Addis and Jim Mahalik (2003). Examined over the years have been such tendencies as aggression, self-sacrifice, physical domination, and emotional control. These themes have long been associated with soldiers in combat, long before Iraq and Afghanistan. Long before Pearl Harbor. Even before Troy. For a very long time, war has been waged by men who were trained to be powerful, forceful, self-controlled, and dominant. These expectations continue in our culture. Members of our Division have offered empirical evidence that traditional masculine socialization teaches North American boys to place a high priority on such attributes as aggression (showing your “killer instinct”), domination (avoiding the “wimp” label), and victory (staying away from “losers”). Boys learn important lessons about masculinity from the language and images of conflict and war. They learn early from comments made on the playground (“I bet Tyler can beat you up.”). They learn by watching a professional hockey player deliberately knock an opponent senseless by hitting him in the back of the head with his stick. They learn when they hear about a soccer Dad attacking a referee the next day in the referee’s office at the local junior high school. They learn when they see the adoration given to a man who exchanges an Arizona Cardinals uniform for an Army Rangers uniform, and then dies in the mountains of Afghanistan. Boys learn when they see the President of the United States challenge certain people in Iraq and Afghanistan by saying, “There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." (Loughlin, 2003). Boys listen when the President says he will “smoke ‘em out of their holes, “hunt ‘em down,” and that he wants them “dead or alive.” Vice President Chaney reinforces this perspective when he tells the Meet the Press host that the President is a “cowboy” who “cuts to the chase,” and that this approach is "exactly what the circumstances require." (Faludi, 2003). Using this sort of language, of course, is not new. When I was in college, President Johnson exhorted soldiers in Vietnam to “Nail the coonskin to the wall” (Polman, 2004). Using strongly aggressive language in connection with war is a trans-cultural tendency. In the conflict between Pakistan and India over Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistani President Musharraf noted, ‘Unlike women, we are not wearing bangles.” To which then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee replied: “…in Punjab, were bangles are popular, people also wear ‘kada’ (steel bangles) along with other bangles. When the level of speech stoops to bangles, it is not a sign of manliness.” And then to make sure the point was clear, he added that “nobody should be under any illusion” about the strength of India to respond to Pakistan (Pak, 2001; Proxy War, 2001). Whatever the metaphor used by national leaders—from coonskins to cowboys to steel bangles—boys learn in countless ways that military intimidation and domination demonstrate a strong masculine image that includes power, authority, and success. Boys cannot fail to notice the connection between masculinity and the language of war when they hear Kevin Garnett, voted the Most Valuable Player of the National Basketball Association this year, talk about his preparation for Game 7 of the playoff series between his Minnesota Timberwolves and the Sacramento Kings:
It should not be surprising, then, that it becomes difficult for some male soldiers to shed this version of masculinity when they return home. For many men, any conflict (not just war) becomes a contest that must be won in order to maintain self-esteem as a man. I have seen this played out in my work with families near the Army base where I live. Wives and children ask for help in dealing with the aggressive and violent behavior of their veteran husbands and fathers, who neither admit mistakes nor tolerate disagreement. One particular cost of war is often not discussed these days. I first noticed this pattern when working with college age young people whose fathers had fought in the Vietnam War. Some of those men had returned to their homes badly damaged by their experiences in the jungles of Southeast Asia. They were filled with rage and felt unable to address it in any constructive way. They avoided asking for help from those who could have made their lives easier. Many of these isolated men became fathers, and had little understanding of how their parenting could be affected by their experiences at war. Their rage was directed toward many targets, including their own children. Twenty years later, the college-aged children of these Vietnam veterans were struggling with the abuse they had received at the hands of their own war-damaged fathers. What has often been ignored is this: many of these college students have expressed deep fears about how their own parenting was going to be affected by the model of their aggressive fathers. Some decided not to have children at all. The effects of the Vietnam War did not end when the American helicopters left the rooftops of Saigon. During the last 30 years, the consequences of traditional masculinity have become the subject of increasing academic interest. Members of our division have shown many ways in which traditional masculine themes create distress for men. Jim O’Neil’s Gender Role Conflict Scale (see O’Neil, Good, & Holmes, 1995) has now been used in more than 130 studies. The consequences have been measured in many areas (see Published, 2004), such as marital distress, substance abuse problems, reluctance to seek help, emotional inexpressiveness, depression, anxiety, prejudicial attitudes, coercive sexual behavior, shame, and many more. Other masculinity measures have developed similar literatures. In the meantime, the connection between masculinity and war has not been broken. For many, joining the military is almost a rite of manhood. Boot camps are expected to turn boys into men. This very week, I listened to another father of a teenage boy in legal trouble say in my office, “My son needs to become a man; I think he needs to join the Marines and soon as he can.” Young men who have refused to join the military have been heavily criticized. I can remember the epithets thrown at anti-war protesters during the Vietnam era. Their presumed lack of masculinity was often part of the diatribe, with references to their hair length, their lack of courage, their “Make Love, Not War” signs, or their physical weakness. Calls for negotiation or pulling out of the war were seen as signs of cowardice. In The Remasculinization of America, Susan Jeffords (1989) argued that some reviews of the Vietnam War in the 1980s conveyed the message that the war was lost because long-haired protestors somehow influenced the military decision-makers to be less aggressive and less masculine than they needed to be. This view has been used to help explain the development of a “hypermasculinity” during the 1980’s. Action figures have certainly become more hypermasculine. When my sons were small in the 1970s, James Bond images were popular. A Sean Connery look-alike sported a small handgun. A few years later, a figure inspired by Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared, with guns larger than his arms. Last fall, President Bush borrowed a flight suit, landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to the Iraq War in front of a banner reading Mission Accomplished. Within days, boys were presented with a new action figure called Elite Force. It is 12 inches tall and still available; the Aviator comes with flight suit, helmet, oxygen mask, g-pants, parachute harness, and much more. The line between masculine war fantasy and political reality can become blurry. Sean Connery was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1999; Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California in 2003, and George Bush is running for re-election in 2004. What can our Division contribute to this phenomenon—to the very real interaction of masculinity with the language and images of war? Perhaps this. We can support those who are working in ways congruent with our Mission, as outlined in each issue of our Bulletin. That is, we can encourage the development of research projects and clinical services that:
Making progress along these lines requires a shared sense of commonality between ourselves and others. Good will. Trust. Humility. And empathy. Especially empathy. Interdependence in any setting—a romance, a family, a nation, a region—is based on an overriding awareness of what we have in common with others who share this planet with us. At times, the development of a widely acceptable reconstructed masculinity seems as illusive as the search for a friendly peace in the Middle East. But I am a psychologist in independent practice, and I am in the business of helping people develop a realistic sense of hope about their lives. I believe that a reconstructed masculinity can include such elements as wonder, mutuality, reconciliation, responsiveness, optimism, originality, kindness, forgiveness, and empathy. New generations of boys can be given new language, and new images. And so, my fellow members of Division 51, I wish you well as you teach, counsel, write, and research the various implications of these concerns. The stakes, these days, are high. References
Playing on the Field of Dreams Fred Rabinowitz, Ph.D.
Everyone who has read this column knows that I have a son whose childhood experiences I have used extensively to understand what it means to be a boy growing up in our culture. You know him as the sensitive now 10-year-old kid who plays basketball and who cried when his hamster died. Well, this past weekend his baseball team completed an undefeated season, something I had never experienced before. They won 16 regular season games and 4 playoff games and collected big trophies from the league commissioner. I am proud of the team and of him. I am proud of the team because it is rare to watch a diverse group of boys in terms of ethnicity, experience, and skill come together for a common goal. While there were squabbles and a lot of ten-year-old humor about gross stuff, there was also a natural flow to the way they played the game. The head coach, Craig, an ex-college pitcher, had the attitude that the boys needed to have fun while they played the game. In practice, he didn’t do repetitive drilling but rather made every aspect of the game be “game –like” as baseball was intended. His son was an awesome baseball player but he was treated as just one of the guys. Four of the kids had very little baseball experience coming into the season, including my son Jared. By the end all had established a place for themselves on the team. It was common to hear, “We need some runs from the bottom of the order. Let’s do it.” And they did it. The skilled players rooted for the beginners and the beginners for those with more experience. Everyone had a place on the team and a role to play. It was expected that the top of the line-up hit and field while the bottom was to get on base and make a play, even if it wasn’t perfect. After the games, the boys would mix and play and it didn’t matter who was the best at baseball. They were just kids playing. The assistant coaches consisted of two dads and a grandpa. We supported each of the kids in our own unique ways. The boys were exposed to four adult male role models. Craig and Troy were the tougher coaches who pushed the kids to do better. Their boys were the best two players on the team. Phil, the grandpa, and I were the empathic coaches who listened and supportively helped the kids who needed a gentler approach at times. All four of us got along, shared our ideas and didn’t seem to contradict each other despite our different styles. They were even willing to listen to me talk about “something going on under the surface” with some of our players. All of us had played organized baseball and respected each other’s strengths. On several occasions after games we sat together reviewing the contest at a local pizza place as the boys on the team enjoyed each other’s company. I gave my son Jared my old glove from when I last played baseball on a team 30 years ago. He and I threw the ball to each other during warm ups at practice. Sometimes I pitched against him in batting practice. We talked on the way home about rules, pitches, batting stances, funny situations, and I let him know I saw how he was improving in all aspects of the game. It was time we shared being boys together. More than once I thought with tears in my eyes about the scene in “Field of Dreams” where Ray, the Kevin Costner character, gets to finally have a catch with his dad. I could identify with Shoeless Joe Jackson of the White Sox when he asks Ray, “Is this heaven?” A dad lovingly interacting with his son through a 150 year old game sounds like heaven to me no matter how many games we won or lost. Elected SPSMM Division 51 Officers President-elect: Lawrence B. Beer, EdD (Presidential term begins 2006) Secretary: David Shepard, PhD (Term begins 2005) Member-at-Large: Gary R. Brooks, PhD, and Roberta L. Nutt, PhD (Terms begin 2005) Council Representative: Neil A. Massoth, PhD (Term begins 2005) Congratulations to all and a special thanks to all those who ran for office. Your involvement and vision helps direct our energies in SPSMM. DIVISION 51 PROGRAM FOR APA MEETING IN HAWAII
Symposium: Enhancing Our Vision
of Masculinity---Stories From Men of Color Symposium: Gender Role Conflict
Research---Four Empirical Studies and New Research Paradigm Symposium: Psychotherapy With Men---A
Video Demonstration and Discussion Business Meeting: [Business Meeting] GROUP DINNER TO FOLLOW SOCIAL HOUR Symposium: Highly Achieving Racial
and Ethnic Adolescent Boys---Theory, Research, and Practice Implications Shawn M. Burn, PhD, California Polytechnic
State University--San Luis Obispo Frederick W. Willoughby, PhD, Central
Texas VA Health Care System, Temple, ZZ William Ming Liu, PhD, University
of Iowa Tracy L. Tylka, PhD, Ohio State
University at Marion Ginger L. Welch, MS, Oklahoma State
University Gagan S. Khera, MA, George Washington
University Travis L. Osborne, MA, University
of Missouri--St. Louis Michael Waldo, PhD, New Mexico State
University Chapman P. Benjamin, MS, University
of North Texas Gordon E. Finley, PhD, Florida International
University David M. Lawson, PhD, Texax A&M
University Travis L. Osborne, MA, University
of Missouri--St. Louis Jennifer A. Lafferty, MA, Alliant
International University--San Diego Melani M. Russell, BS, Louisiana
Tech University Michael S. Boroughs, MA, University
of South Florida Jennifer M. Lane, MA, Clark University,
Worcester, MA Guy Cafri, BA, University of South
Florida, Tampa, FL Ronald F. Levant, EdD, Nova Southeastern
University Maryse Aupont, MS, Nova Southeastern
University Jimmy D. Hurley, MS, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University Sheree D. Conrad, PhD, University
of Massachusetts Boston Joo-Yeon Lee, PhD, University of
Wisconsin--Madison Whit H. Missildine, MA, Center for
HIV/AIDS Educational Studies and Training, New York, NY Rita A. Johnson, MS, COPE, Inc.,
Lebanon, MO Bruce A. Bidgood, PhD, University
of Windsor, NONE, ON, Canada Maryam Kia-Keating, MEd, Boston
University Garrett A. Gilchrist, MA, UNKNOWN,
Seattle, WA David H. Whitcomb, PhD, University
of North Dakota Julia M. Whealin, PhD, National
Center for PTSD, Honolulu, HI Christopher T. Kilmartin, PhD, Mary
Washington College Andrew Smiler, PhD, University of
Michigan Invited Address: [Levant] Conversation Hour: Female and Male
Therapists---Gender as a Psychotherapeutic Intervention With Male Clients Presidential Address: [Robertson] 8/01 Sun: 10:00 AM - 11:50 AM Teaching the Psychology of Men: APA CE Workshop Saturday, July 31, 2004 8am-12 Rationale for Teaching the Psychology of Men Psychology of Men and Masculinity Psychology of Men and Masculinity is among the world’s first scholarly publications devoted to the dissemination of research, theory, and clinical scholarship that advance the discipline of the psychology of men and masculinity. This discipline is defined broadly as the study of how men’s psychology is influenced and shaped by gender, and by the process of masculinization, in both its socially constructed and biological forms. We welcome scholarship that advances our understanding of men’s psychology, across the life span, across racial and ethnic groups, and across time. Examples of relevant topics include, but are not limited to, the processes and consequences of male gender socialization, including its impact on men’s health, behavior, interpersonal relationships, emotional development, violence, and psychological well-being; assessment and measurement of the masculine gender role; gender role strain, stress, and conflict; masculinity ideology; fathering; men’s utilization of psychological services; conceptualization and assessment of interventions addressing men’s understanding of masculinity; sexuality and sexual orientation; biological aspects of male development; and the victimization of male children and adults. Submitted manuscripts must be written in the style outlined in the 1994 Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (fourth edition). Psychology of Men and Masculinity will accept both regular length submissions (7,500 words) and brief reports (2,500 words). Submitted manuscripts must not have been previously published and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Four copies of the manuscript should be mailed to: Sam Cochran, PhD, 3223 Westlawn, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1100, Phone: (319) 335-7294, Fax: (319) 335-7298, Email: sam-cochran@uiowa.edu. Nominations for Fellow Status in divisions 51, APA are presently being accepted for 2005. If you are aware of a member who has been exemplary in the areas of Research or Service for the Psychology of Males and Masculinity (or if you yourself fit the mold), please forward names to our new Fellows Chair: Mark S. Kiselica, Ph.D., HSPP, NCC, LPC Professor and Chairperson, Department of Counselor Education, 332 Forcina Hall, The College of New Jersey, PO Box 7718, Ewing,NJ 08628-0718. Office phone: (609) 771-3462 email: kiselica@tcnj.edu Kaleidoscopic Images of Diversity among Men Special Focus Editor, Michael
Mobley, Ph.D. I am very excited to serve as Member-at-Large for Ethnic Minority Slate for The Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity (SPSMM). I extend my thanks and appreciation to members who supported my candidacy. I further welcome continued support and collaboration from members as I fulfill my commitment to the SPSMM. After consultation with John Robertson, Fred Rabinowitz, and Sam Cochran at 2003 APA convention in Toronto, I immediately began to contemplate my new role and responsibilities for this position with D51. During my tenure I will dedicate myself to achieve one primary goal: increase representation of diverse images of men within Society membership and programs. As a means to achieve this goal I am excited to share with you a new project, Men and Masculinities Cultural Diversity Forum (MMCDF), planned for 2005! This new project has been conceptualized and developed as a means to promote the D51 mission and to increase participation of culturally diverse men and women with the SPSMM. Purpose of MMCDF MMCDF Goal MMCDF Opportunity & Objective As co-sponsor of the Men and Masculinities
Cultural Diversity Forum, Division 51 will provide nominal funding support
to hosting academic training programs and/or counseling center agencies.
At this time we anticipate minimum $150 funding support depending on
the number of accepted MMCDF proposals. More specific details and funding
support will be forthcoming in Fall 2004. All of these contributions offer a diverse perspective of cultural dynamics and issues critical to enhancing our understanding of the multiple realities of masculinities as influenced by salient aspects of culture in men’s’ lives. I want to extend my appreciation and gratitude to these three men who responded to my call especially within a short 6-8 week window of opportunity. Thank you Will, David, and David. J I hope that as you read these contributions you are inspired to develop a Men and Masculinities Cultural Diversity Forum proposal to advance cultural perspectives related to “the critical study of how gender shapes and constricts men’s lives, and is committed to an enhancement of men’s capacity to experience their full human potential” as characterized within the SPSMM mission statement. Asian American Male Sexuality: Attempting to Reshape Masculinity through Pornography William Ming Liu, Ph.D. University of Iowa For Asian American men, constant reminders of their marginalized masculine status appear in the media. Take for instance an April 2004 Details magazine section that asked readers to ponder the question, “Gay or Asian?” and displayed a picture of an Asian American man in trendy clothes. The captions read, “One cruises for chicken; the other takes it General Tso-style. Whether you’re into shrimp balls or shaved balls, entering the dragon requires imperial tastes. So choke up on your chopsticks, and make sure your labels are showing. Study hard, Grasshopper: A sharp eye will always take home the plumpest eel.” Sartorially, the Asian American man was dressed in the same clothes prominently advertised throughout Details, but ironically, the writer of the piece suggested that “homosexuality” was associated with these clothes. That is, if you actually were to purchase the clothes advertised in its magazine, your masculinity would be in jeopardy. What Details failed to understand was that the association between Asian American men and “gayness” highlighted a long socio-cultural history of feminization and demasculinization forced on Asian American men. In many ways, the advertisement was akin to asking readers to consider, “African American man or rapist?” Details subsequently apologized and printed a retraction after facing protests outside its offices and a petition of over 26,000 signatures. However, the publication of such these images in the first place further reasserts the media role in perpetuating stereotypes and shaping Asian American men’s sexuality. Consequently, some Asian Americanists and Asian American scholars have attempted to take control and reinstate a legitimate form of Asian American masculine sexuality. Sexuality, the social construction of desire (both straight and gay) and attraction, is not the same as sex, which is purely the physical demonstration of one’s sexuality. Using this premise, for example, Darrel Hamamoto, a professor of Asian American Studies at the University of California at Davis produced a pornographic film called “Skin on Skin” that featured an Asian American man and a professional adult film actress as the primary actors. Skin on Skin is part of Dr. Hamamoto’s Yellow Porno Movement/Practice in which he casts Asian American men into central roles with Asian American women rather than the typical White male-Asian female dyad. Along with Skin on Skin, Dr. Hamamoto also produced a documentary, Masters of the Pillow, which follows the casting, producing, and filming of the film. The purpose was not only to transform the dominant image of Asian American men but also to "mainstream" Asian American men into leading roles. This article will critique the premise of this film to reshape Asian American masculinity and sexuality and the potential problems associated with this film as a counter-hegemonic project .As suggested, the need for countering dominant negative images of Asian American men is because Asian American men have historically been regarded as invisible beings in the United States due to exclusion laws, unfair taxation, citizenship restrictions, and incarceration. Asian American men were marginal figures to be killed, enslaved, and excluded since the focus was on Asian land, labor, and Asian American women. Asian American men, along with other men of color, and women in general were forced to obey strict anti-miscegenation laws, while the privilege of sexual freedom was reserved for only White men. As such, Asian American men were, and continue to be, associated with asexuality or sexual deviance. With this historical legacy, reshaping Asian American sexuality is an important anti-racist project. I watched Masters of the Pillow during an Asian American film festival in which I moderated a panel discussion among filmmakers and Asian American media organizations. The discussion focused on Asian American sexuality and masculinity, and how pornography is but one reconfiguration project among many. Other examples of recuperating Asian American sexuality featured Asian American men mimicking dominant masculine images such as “beefcake calendars.” All of these “performances” attempted to suggest that Asian American men are just like other men—with the same sexual prowess, desire, and masculinity—and well within the mainstream. Ironically, rather than provide Asian American men with authentic self-actualized sexuality, these projects only reinforced strict gender roles. By focusing specifically on the racist elements of dominant media images of Asian American men, and by attempting only to change the sexualized image of Asian American men to be similar to dominant men (i.e., White masculinity and sexuality), they perpetuated homophobia and sexism, and reinstated strict gender roles. What Dr. Hamamoto did not analyze or discuss was that pornography is a masculine practice that primarily benefits, economically and socially, only men. I am neither writing a treatise on pornography (Greek for “writing about prostitution”) nor advocating Victorian era norms and mores—several authors have explicated fully the personal, institutional, and social problems of repressed Victorian sexuality such as sexism, patriarchy, and homophobia. However, I am suggesting that heterosexual pornography, rather than being liberating, tends to reinforce traditional domestic relationships and roles between men and women. Because traditional gender roles are reinforced, and because traditional gender roles are usually premised on White masculinity, and because White masculinity is normalized through the marginalization of Men of Color, using Asian Americans as lead actors in pornography may not accomplish the goal of changing the perception of Asian American men’s sexuality. Dr. Hamamoto suggests that men and women who watch an Asian American man perform in this film, and others he hopes to produce, will start to change their perceptions of Asian American men. Yet he fails to recognize that heterosexual pornography, which focuses on a male-female dyad also elicits homophobia among its male viewers. That is, socializing men and boys into the consumption of pornography requires them to emotionally detach from the sexual exploitation of women while simultaneously disregarding the male actor in the scene. Men and boys must disregard the male actors in the scene for fear of being labeled, by self and others, as "gay" or "fag." Because Dr. Hamamoto does not recognize the operative assumptions of sexism and homophobia that are triggered in viewing pornography, it may be that the Asian American man, who is supposedly the focus of the film, remains just as invisible as before. Thus, Dr. Hamamoto's argument that the use of an Asian American man in pornography will rehabilitate the sexuality of Asian American men is faulty. It has always been my contention that Asian American sexuality and masculinity cannot be reshaped and changed through the mimicking of dominant masculine forms and styles. Because dominant masculinity and sexuality have historically been premised on the exclusion of Men of Color to make White masculinity normative, adopting the same form and style as White masculinity only highlights Men of Colors’ marginal position. Using pornography as a social and cultural project to change people’s perception of Asian American men’s sexuality is one of many practices that is problematic, not only for how people will perceive Asian American men but how Asian American men see themselves. The deleterious consequences of dominant masculinity are unchallenged through Dr. Hamamoto’s film. In fact, I would suggest that gender role conflict, emotional disconnection, and dominant male role norms are only reinforced. Although the focus was on deconstructing a racist image of Asian American men as non-sexual or asexual people, race is not the prominent script in heterosexual pornography, but rather it is sexism and homophobia. My fear is that some Asian American young men already find Dr. Hamamoto’s film liberating and agree that it helps show Asian American men are sexual beings. Yet, they fail to see that men in pornography are typically one-dimensional beings, with one function, and little dialogue. Culture and anti-racist discourse are no more communicated through Dr. Hamamoto’s film than an Asian food fair at your local university or community center. Rather than pornography, Asian American men need to be presented with mature mentoring relationships that help them to articulate and connect their racial and sexual selves; to understand how culture, history, and society work to shape and influence their desires and needs; and how they can form nurturing male and female relationships. An Emerging Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Masculinity David Whitchombl, Ph.D. University
of North Dakota Sexual orientation and gender identity are two human attributes that most of us perceive as being a core part of who we are. For many men, these aspects of identity are taken for granted, as the majority of men readily identify as heterosexual and masculine. For those of us who identify as gay or bisexual, however, coming to terms with sexual orientation and gender identity is often an arduous process, complicated by how we were socialized as boys to become traditionally masculine men (Barber & Mobley, 1999; Pollack, 1998). In this article, I will review some common pathways of sexual orientation and gender identity development for the minority of men who are not traditionally masculine and heterosexual. A review of these developmental trajectories may illuminate potential ways for The Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity (SPSMM) to create more meaningful bonds with a broader spectrum of men. As a disclaimer, I would like to point out that this brief review covers ground that will be very familiar to some readers, yet includes concepts that are still difficult, if not impossible, for many people in our society to understand and accept. The recommendations that follow, however, assume that the assertions within this review are valid. Therefore I will proceed, knowing that for a while I may bore some, while perhaps irking others. From an early age, some boys develop a sense that they are somehow different – different from other boys and perhaps different from other people in general. Often this feeling of being other than the norm comes into focus via gender nonconformity (Pollack, 2000; Savin-Williams, 1995; Troiden, 1989), that is, not readily engaging in behavior expected of boys, such as rough and tumble play, or not wanting to be, when we grew up, an astronaut, fireman, or some other heroic prototype idolized by other boys. For a small number of these boys, the sense of gender difference is so profound that there is a conviction that they were born into the wrong gender and that they are, in fact, girls. A transgender identity of this extent, namely transsexual, completely defies society’s expectations of children and, if openly expressed, is often horrifying to the boy’s parents, particularly the father. For boys whose gender identity is less distinct from the norm, however, it is easier for the boy, his family, his teachers, coaches, and friends to deny or simply not notice that there is something different about him. In such instances, gender identity development may proceed gradually and inconspicuously, at least until puberty. Adolescence and very early adulthood are common times for boys and young men to come out to themselves, and eventually to others, as gay or bisexual (Cass, 1996; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Fassinger & Miller, 1996). In general, the less traditionally masculine, (i.e., the more effeminate) the boy is, the less surprising the news to family and friends (Savin-Williams, 1996). The more traditionally masculine the young gay or bisexual man, the easier it is for him to maintain an outwardly heterosexual identity. As others (including his peers, family, and other people of all ages, across gender) recognize his masculinity and expect him to be heterosexual, this powerful influence may affect his sexual orientation identity to the point that he continues to do what others expect of him, such as dating young women and perhaps having sex with them or even marrying a woman, while paying little attention to same-sex attractions. At some point, however, a sense of not being true to oneself will emerge. Then the process of coming out to oneself as gay or bisexual will begin, which will likely, but not inevitably, be followed by coming out to others. Although empirical findings on this coming out process of traditionally masculine men are lacking, as there is evidence that both men and women associate femininity in men with homosexuality (Green, 1986; Kite & Whitley, 1998; Madon, 1997), we may speculate that family and friends may often be surprised, even shocked, to find that such a “man’s man” is actually gay or bisexual. As may be evident by now, I am asserting that gender identity has a fundamental influence on the coming out process for gay and bisexual men. Although the research is mostly anecdotal at this point, we are beginning to develop a clearer picture of masculinity as a powerful predictor of the timing and the related intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts associated with coming out to oneself and others (Connell, 1992; Green, 1986; Pollack, 1998). In a sexist and heterosexist society that privileges men and masculinity (while simultaneously burdening them with heroic expectations), there is a substantial price to pay for any boy or man who identifies to himself or others as gay, bisexual, or transgender (Dworkin & Yi, 2003; Herek, Cogan, & Gillis, 2002). This cost can be exacted early in life or later, but in any case, it is unavoidable. The greater the gender nonconformity, the earlier the self-identification and identification by others is likely to be. In instances when these identities emerge in boyhood through mid-adolescence, rejection and ridicule from peers and family is likely to be greater than when the identities form in adulthood. Bullying and economic oppression (e.g., parents’ disowning a child or cutting off financial support) tend to have a greater impact on minors than on adults, though the situation of a married man coming out to his wife and children is often accompanied by harsh rejection and economic hardship that demonstrate the limitations of this generalization. As we develop a greater understanding of masculinity or masculinities (as Robertson noted in his Presidential Message of the Winter 2004 newsletter, masculinities is a more useful term), it becomes evident that transgender issues go far beyond the situation of the transsexual, who feels a mismatch between sexual anatomy and gender identity. Lesser degrees of gender atypical behavior influence the expectations we have of the sexual orientation of others and may relate to the development of sexual orientation identity, whether or not any transgender self-identification is present. In other words, most gay and bisexual men, whether traditionally masculine or effeminate, do not identify as being transgender, yet their gender identity and others’ perception of this identity are powerfully intermingled; both identity perceptions influence the coming out process. As a society of men and women who are deeply concerned with the well-being of boys and men, Division 51 has demonstrated an appreciation for the caring and compassionate aspects of masculinity and has fostered publications that feature this understanding (e.g., Brooks & Good, 2001). Inclusion of sexual orientation diversity has become more pronounced as Division 51 has become more established. Still, as with other groups that study gender and sexual orientation issues, this organization’s understanding and appreciation of transgender issues, broadly defined, lags behind. Although most men are heterosexual and traditionally masculine, some heterosexual men are more androgynous or feminine in their expression of gender role. The gender identity of gay and bisexual men runs across the spectrum and there is little consensus to date about whether traditionally masculine gay men comprise the majority or minority of this population. Even the gender identity of transgender men is not uniform and, to add another layer of complexity to this matrix, the sexual orientation of transgender men is also diverse (Docter & Fleming, 2001). All of these identity phenomena are terribly difficult to comprehend in a society that likes to dichotomize the world into black and white, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual. Yet such is the world we live in. In a gendered society that has traditionally wanted its men to behave one way and its women to be the opposite, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people present as a threat to fundamental norms. A lesson we have learned from the multicultural movement is that our human experience becomes richer when we learn from other cultures, appreciate their values, and share our lives with their people. Similarly, with issues of sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity enriches our lives. The Society of Men and Masculinity is poised to take a more definitive role as a leader in recognizing and affirming such diversity. By acknowledging that the dominant culture’s limited view of masculinity has historically restricted its parameters to heterosexuality, thereby excluding gay and bisexual men, Division 51 has demonstrated a willingness to become more welcoming of gender identity and sexual orientation diversity. In my concluding paragraphs, I will suggest ways to build upon this diversity initiative. I believe that the work of Division 51 would benefit from a greater appreciation of the influence of gender identity on the development of sexual orientation identity. Research and public statements made by Division leaders should attend to this issue. Greater acceptance of a continuum of traditionally masculine to traditionally feminine gender roles in boys and men are very likely to make it easier for a young man to crystallize his sexual orientation identity, whatever it may be. Everyone would benefit from recognizing that some men may not have come out yet as gay whereas others, conforming to society’s expectation of dichotomous identities, may be using a gay or heterosexual label to mask a more nuanced bisexual identity. In our research, the psychological services we provide, and in our social activities, we would do well not to assume the sexual orientation of another person. We must also recognize that a label of self-identification is sometimes a convenient shorthand for a multifaceted identity that will only be revealed as trusting relationships evolve. A final recommendation for Division 51 is to recognize that most gay and bisexual men enjoy being men and being in the company of men, characteristics we have in common with most heterosexual men. Similarly, many gay and bisexual men dislike and even distrust many traditionally feminine qualities, while also being attracted to some feminine qualities – characteristics I have also noticed in many heterosexual men. Exploration of the similarities among men across sexual orientation, while recognizing important differences, will certainly deepen our understanding of men and masculinity. I have provided here only a sketch of ideas, which are still in formation. I recognize that some of my biases have emerged in this essay. For example, some with a strong social constructionist perspective will note that I tend not to view sexual orientation as something that typically changes throughout one’s life, though my opinions on this issue are more complex than can be explored in this brief piece. Also, cross-cultural issues have only been touched on. I write from the perspective of a White, middle-class man; the interplay of sexual orientation and gender identity is similarly complex, but in some ways quite different, among different peoples of color and across socioeconomic status (Caraballo-Dieguez & Dolezal, 1994; Mobley, 2000). I hope, nevertheless, that this essay promotes more discussion on these topics and I look forward to continuing this dialogue with you. References Shadow Masculinities: The Case of Italy David Tager, M.A. Doctoral Candidate, University of Missouri-Columbia We now speak of masculinities in the plural, and there has been a much needed surge in recent literature on the ethnic, racial and sexual diversity of masculinity in the United States. There have also been a few studies on masculinity in other countries. However, getting at the cross-cultural differences in the construction of masculinity is difficult since almost every masculinity instrument at our disposal has been developed by and predominantly normed on educated American white heterosexual males. The result, when we compare differences on those scales across populations, is shadow images of masculinity: Cultural diversity appears as vague figures posed in different stances. Missing are the details of ligament and expression, the context that gives meaning to the pose. There are hints, but questions of how precisely masculine socialization differs and the consequences of those differences in shaping identity remain sketchy. The shadow image in a different pose describes what I see as I near completion of a study on masculine gender role norms in Italian university students. For the purpose of the study, which was supervised and co-authored by Dr. Glenn Good, I chose to use the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik, et al., 2003) as an instrument because it contains a wide range of masculine norms (eleven) on which to base comparisons. The norms are Winning, Emotional Control, Risk-Taking, Violence, Power over Women, Dominance, Playboy, Self-Reliance, Primacy of Work, Disdain for Homosexuals and Pursuit of Status. The study had 152 male student participants. I bundled the instrument in a larger survey that I placed on the web and handed out in classrooms at La Sapienza University in Rome and the University of Palermo in Sicily. I received a very enthusiastic welcome from women professors who study gender and from the more than 250 female students who also took the survey. They seemed to be saying, “It’s about time we took a look at men.” In fact, the data would never have been collected without the enthusiasm of a few influential women scholars. In general, the male professors and students I encountered were less interested and frequently expressed a sentiment along the lines of, “Why bother with this?” Judging from my attempts to get participation from non-student males--in an orchestra, a hiking club, a gay activist organization, etc.,--and from male students I interacted with on campus, I would have gone home without data on men, if I hadn’t offered the survey in classrooms as an alternative to thirty more minutes of Machiavelli. This reluctance of men to look at masculinity fits with the general lack of work published on men as men in Italian Academia. It also brings to mind the warning I received from Dr. Giovanna Fiume, Director of the association of Italian Women Historians, about how traditional her Sicilian male students were. The data, however, presents a slightly contradictory picture. Compared with American male students, the Italian male students in this sample reported significantly less endorsement of nine of the eleven masculine gender role norms as well as less Total Conformity. (On six of the norms and on Total Conformity, statistical differences were significant at the p<.001 level.) That is, the Italian male students in this sample seemed to be saying that Winning, Emotional Control, Risk-Taking, Violence, Power over Women, Dominance, Self-Reliance, Primacy of Work and Disdain for Homosexuals were not as important elements of being a man as they were for American male students. The two populations endorsed Pursuit of Status more or less equally, though status is likely to be defined differently in each culture. Playboy, a key piece of the Latin-Lover stereotype, was the only norm that Italian males endorsed more highly than American males. On the other hand, other aspects of the Don Giovanni stereotype, such as Dominance, Risk-Taking and Power over Women were less highly endorsed. This pattern was apparent even among the more traditional southern Italian males. So, assuming the findings can be replicated in further studies, what does it tell us about the construction of Italian masculinity? Does it suggest that, contrary to popular and scholarly perceptions, Italian male students are less “traditional” and more egalitarian than American male students? Does the data call into question Dr. Fiume’s knowledge of her own students? I think it is more likely that while CMNI’s masculine norms overlap with Italian masculine norms, “traditional” Italian masculinity differs from the “traditional” masculinity described by CMNI. After all, CMNI’s norms were developed by Americans with Americans in mind. So the comparison leaves us with that shadow image, the differing pose of the figure without details. The question remains: What does Italian masculinity look like? I can only speculate, based on my experience living in Sicily and on a few glimmers in the data. Jim Mahalik, principal author of CMNI, mentioned to me that he saw American masculinity in terms of a cowboy ideal. For Italy, particularly among the educated, I would suggest a more aristocratic, princely ideal. It is important to point out the much greater weight of class, in the inter-generational sense of family history, in creating social status in Italy. If the United States is a country that believes in “self-made” men, Italy is a country that still admires pedigree and social connections. Violence, for example, is seen as a mark of commonness and lack of education. A man with power does not need to sully himself with fighting when he can control the fate of those around him. This type of man would never speak of dominating women because women are under his protection and present no threat. Openly gay men would also present no threat. In fact, the word domination may be too crass, too direct for how power is exercised. In Italy, power is distributed to a much greater extent through social networks. So rather than the cowboy, who shoots his will into being, or the determined individual who makes it in the world through sheer skill and effort, the Italian prince is made by the world he is born into and by his ability to manage that world to his advantage. The prince exercises power by intelligently distributing favors and negotiating alliances with influential others. What I am suggesting is an interactive and social masculine ideal. CMNI’s Winning, Self-Reliance, Risk-Taking, Dominance, Primacy of Work, and Emotional Control can be seen as norms that reflect the ideals of a more individualistic culture, one in which status and power are symbolically determined by the imposition of self, rather than by the management of social networks. The data provides a few glimmers of support for this idea of a diverse “traditional” Italian masculinity. As we would expect, the American study (Mahalik, et. al, 2003) shows no significant negative correlations between norms on CMNI. However, in the Italian sample, Primacy of Work was mildly and negatively correlated (p<.01, two-tailed) with Risk-Taking. In Italy, this seems to make sense. For the most part, jobs are still seen as something to be counted on once they are attained. And while risk-taking may promote individual achievement and sense of self, it can also negatively affect social networks, arguably the bedrock of Italian job security and self-esteem. Another instance involves the norm of Emotional Control. This norm did not significantly correlate or was negatively correlated with eight of CMNI’s eleven masculine gender role norms. This may suggest that for Italian males, emotional restriction is not an important normative aspect of masculine identity. In fact, if we think within a framework of social networks rather than in a framework of individual power, the opposite may be true: Emotional involvement might well be a tool for increasing connection and facilitating negotiation. Perhaps, then, Dr. Fiume and the data are both right. Perhaps Italian males are still quite traditional, but their tradition is different than our own. The shadow image, however, remains. The most we can really say is that
the study suggests there is a difference in the masculine pose of Italian
university students, that this population reports lower endorsement
of CMNI’s masculine gender role norms. My desire for detail forces
me to add speculative brushstrokes to the image. I hope someone will
take up the challenge and develop an inventory of Italian Masculine
Gender Role Norms. Ideally, we will begin trying to describe how masculinity
is constructed within different populations, so that we can compare,
not only the shadow image cast by one culture upon another, but the
details of the differing poses. I am convinced that this type of comparison
will yield more than a basis for understanding the diversity of masculinities.
It will help each of us to better understand himself. Reference Note. Data will be presented in a Division 51 student poster session at APA, July 2004. Meditations of a Man and Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings James Boobar, University of Redlands “I wish it need not have happened in my time,”
said Frodo. | ||
