Yesterday, I read a really excellent article: Comic Book Masculinity and the New Black Superhero by Jeffrey A. Brown. The article originally appeared in The African-American Review in Spring of 1999.
The article began by analyzing the influence that feminist scholarship has had on scholarship/research related to other gender issues, focusing on the idea that what we know as “gender” is often constructed by our society. In this case, the construct Brown focused on was the pervasiveness of and dependence on a “mask” or “performance” of hypermasculinity by young African American men.
So what’s hypermasculinity? Hypermasculinity, as this article defined it, is basically the intense performance or over-exaggeration of everything that is considered masculine. And what do I exactly mean by ‘masculine’? Well, masculinity is an interesting concept because it is mostly defined by what it is not. For example, the masculine is defined as everything that is not feminine. Masculinity is hard, not soft; aggressive, not passive; physical, not cerebral.
Brown argues that, because so much of this construct of masculinity is focused on the male body as a living symbol of masculinity (and proof that one is not the dreaded and isolated feminine “Other”), young men begin to focus on building their bodies to impart this message of aggression, hardness, and physical strength.
Though the concept of hypermasculinity spans all races, I have found through my research that it is amazingly damaging when used in tandem with racist ideology. How does this happen? Well, Brown gives the examples of how dominant cultures often assert their privilege and dominance by assuming the "masculine" role and casting their “inferiors”—or races they seek to oppress— in the emasculated, less-privileged, "feminine" role. Brown specifically cites media stereotypes relating to Jewish and Asian men— with Jewish men portrayed as nebbishy mama’s boys, and Asians portrayed as delicate, feminine, and hopelessly nerdy--that attempt to assert this control.
[Sidebar: for a great example of how the stereotypes of Asian masculinity are acknowledged and deconstructed, I’d recommend a viewing of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. Not great cinema by any means, and not something I’d recommend to students—the film is a raunchy stoner comedy—but worthwhile as an example of a film that clearly recognizes the litany of stereotypes directed at Asian men and constructs creative responses and reversals to these near-archetypes. Lead actor Kal Penn now works for the Obama Administration.]
However, unlike Jewish and Asian men, who are emasculated by the media, black men are often portrayed as TOO masculine: all body, no brains—a stereotype that grew out of slavery, when African-Americans literally were just considered bodies.
Brown argues that the media only legitimizes and values black men based on their ability to commoditize their bodies in such arenas as sports and music. For these men, their body--their masculinity-- becomes their identity and a source of protection from bullying. Brown believes that this focus on the corporeal is a hard stereotype to shrug for many black teens: on one hand, they are devalued and disempowered by these projections of a racist society that doesn’t recognize their intelligence; on the other, the qualities endorsed by a focus on the corporeal, namely physical strength, facility at sports, sexual prowess, are all qualities that teen boys might seek to have as part of their developing identity and are all qualities in which white culture stereotypically believes that blacks have attained dominance. On one hand, these boys want respect; on the other, they want to show themselves as superior to those who might discriminate against them: if they cannot be respected, at least they can be feared.
Brown makes some suggestions for teachers, parents, and advocates for young African-American men: don’t deny that these racist or hypermasculine constructs exist, and don’t try to eradicate them by counseling teens to be subservient, physically inactive, or passive. Instead, provide these teens with a model of alternative masculinity that focuses on the power of the corporeal coupled with the heart and the intellect.
Brown goes on to describe, in the final parts of his article, a series of comic books featuring African-American superheroes produced by the Milestone Comics that attempt to provide such an alternative. He describes the characters as highly intelligent men and women who consistently use their wit and intelligence to solve problems and take on foes rather than on using violence and brute force. Brown also notes that the characters, unlike many in mainstream comic books, are drawn in a more realistic scale that is more akin to a well-muscled human being than a disproportionately gigantic hulk.
Finally, Brown mentions that many comics, like those by Neil Gaiman, also provide alternative views of masculinity that focus on brains, not brawn, but that these books are often not given to teenagers or left out of school libraries because they are marketed as “graphic novels” and aimed at adults.
The article began by analyzing the influence that feminist scholarship has had on scholarship/research related to other gender issues, focusing on the idea that what we know as “gender” is often constructed by our society. In this case, the construct Brown focused on was the pervasiveness of and dependence on a “mask” or “performance” of hypermasculinity by young African American men.
So what’s hypermasculinity? Hypermasculinity, as this article defined it, is basically the intense performance or over-exaggeration of everything that is considered masculine. And what do I exactly mean by ‘masculine’? Well, masculinity is an interesting concept because it is mostly defined by what it is not. For example, the masculine is defined as everything that is not feminine. Masculinity is hard, not soft; aggressive, not passive; physical, not cerebral.
Brown argues that, because so much of this construct of masculinity is focused on the male body as a living symbol of masculinity (and proof that one is not the dreaded and isolated feminine “Other”), young men begin to focus on building their bodies to impart this message of aggression, hardness, and physical strength.
Though the concept of hypermasculinity spans all races, I have found through my research that it is amazingly damaging when used in tandem with racist ideology. How does this happen? Well, Brown gives the examples of how dominant cultures often assert their privilege and dominance by assuming the "masculine" role and casting their “inferiors”—or races they seek to oppress— in the emasculated, less-privileged, "feminine" role. Brown specifically cites media stereotypes relating to Jewish and Asian men— with Jewish men portrayed as nebbishy mama’s boys, and Asians portrayed as delicate, feminine, and hopelessly nerdy--that attempt to assert this control.
[Sidebar: for a great example of how the stereotypes of Asian masculinity are acknowledged and deconstructed, I’d recommend a viewing of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. Not great cinema by any means, and not something I’d recommend to students—the film is a raunchy stoner comedy—but worthwhile as an example of a film that clearly recognizes the litany of stereotypes directed at Asian men and constructs creative responses and reversals to these near-archetypes. Lead actor Kal Penn now works for the Obama Administration.]
However, unlike Jewish and Asian men, who are emasculated by the media, black men are often portrayed as TOO masculine: all body, no brains—a stereotype that grew out of slavery, when African-Americans literally were just considered bodies.
Brown argues that the media only legitimizes and values black men based on their ability to commoditize their bodies in such arenas as sports and music. For these men, their body--their masculinity-- becomes their identity and a source of protection from bullying. Brown believes that this focus on the corporeal is a hard stereotype to shrug for many black teens: on one hand, they are devalued and disempowered by these projections of a racist society that doesn’t recognize their intelligence; on the other, the qualities endorsed by a focus on the corporeal, namely physical strength, facility at sports, sexual prowess, are all qualities that teen boys might seek to have as part of their developing identity and are all qualities in which white culture stereotypically believes that blacks have attained dominance. On one hand, these boys want respect; on the other, they want to show themselves as superior to those who might discriminate against them: if they cannot be respected, at least they can be feared.
Brown makes some suggestions for teachers, parents, and advocates for young African-American men: don’t deny that these racist or hypermasculine constructs exist, and don’t try to eradicate them by counseling teens to be subservient, physically inactive, or passive. Instead, provide these teens with a model of alternative masculinity that focuses on the power of the corporeal coupled with the heart and the intellect.
Brown goes on to describe, in the final parts of his article, a series of comic books featuring African-American superheroes produced by the Milestone Comics that attempt to provide such an alternative. He describes the characters as highly intelligent men and women who consistently use their wit and intelligence to solve problems and take on foes rather than on using violence and brute force. Brown also notes that the characters, unlike many in mainstream comic books, are drawn in a more realistic scale that is more akin to a well-muscled human being than a disproportionately gigantic hulk.
Finally, Brown mentions that many comics, like those by Neil Gaiman, also provide alternative views of masculinity that focus on brains, not brawn, but that these books are often not given to teenagers or left out of school libraries because they are marketed as “graphic novels” and aimed at adults.
Fascinating stuff.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen/read "M. Butterfly", and/or "Hoop Dreams"? I thought of both of those while reading your entry.
In "Slavery and American Literature" this semester, we talked about ways in which even young, strong, apparently "masculine" slaves are still emasculated -- slave men were called "boys" until they reached a certain age (well into manhood), and "uncle" after that, the closest thing they'd ever get to a mark of "respect." They were never, ever, ever called men. Consider a character like Uncle Tom, who is portrayed by Stowe as much younger than we tend to think, and very hale and strong. (Not that he is not still feminized -- Stowe actually does something *reeeaaallly* interesting by emasculating Tom in a weirdly potentially empowering way -- he's Christ, no question about it, Christ as a feminized black slave -- Stowe's pretty radical.) The plays that popularized Uncle Tom, the "Tom Shows," were what turned him into the elderly, doddering, white-people-loving sycophant (otherwise known as the Uncle Remus figure). Stowe was trying to glorify Tom without making him frightening to white people; Stowe, to put things simply, would have done ANYTHING, said ANYTHING, if she thought it would help bring slavery to an end. But in later books, she rethought the Tom figure, and in "Dred: A Tale of the Dismal Swamp," she creates an intelligent but also very masculine, rebel slave in the Toussaint L'Ouverture model in Dred, one who is genuinely capable of violence and much scarier to readers. (Since UTC didn't end slavery, Stowe gave it another go. Every argument against slavery you could ever think of is in those books, even if they contradict each other. In case you can't tell, I think Stowe is incredible and radical, despite her "romantic racialism" and use of racist stereotypes in her writing.)
I actually haven't seen "Hoop Dreams," though I have heard it is excellent. I should definitely add that to the Netflix queue.
ReplyDeleteI really loved M. Butterfly and the way it played with gender and sexuality as masks and sonstructs. I think it's also important to the discussion of hypermasculinity, masculine/feminine performance and racism because of the fixation on Orientalism throughout the play.
Thanks for sharing all this great information on Harriet Beecher Stowe with me; you've definitely inspired me to read up on her some more. It sounds like you really enjoyed that class!