Masculinity
Masculinity
This entry contains the following:
I. OVERVIEW
Lance Norman
II. ATTRIBUTES AND FUNCTIONS
Lance Norman
III. CONTEMPORARY THEORIES
Lance Norman
IV. IN MEDIA AND CULTURE
Lance Norman
I. OVERVIEW
Many contemporary researchers of masculinity have suggested that a unitary conception of masculinity provides an illusionary heterogeneous perception of the masculine gender. In the place of a single masculinity, a plethora of masculinities emerge. Understanding that the idea of masculinity always contains various masculinities allows for fluid definitions of masculinity based on the culture and the historical period in which a man lives. In each culture there may be multiple conceptions of masculinity, which depend on the position the man fills within the culture. To some extent the difference between a unitary masculinity and a variety of masculinities can be understood as the distinction between sex and gender. A single masculinity suggests a vision of masculinity based on a biologically determined sexual binary, whereas masculinities also involve an understanding of gender as culturally, socially, and historically derived.
BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED MASCULINITY
The debate surrounding attempts to define masculinity has never completely left behind the effort to conceptualize masculinity as a product of biology. From Lionel Tiger's hypothesis in Men in Groups (1969), that aggressive masculine behavioral traits are a biological evolutionary inheritance deriving from the emergence of hunting societies, to more scientifically based arguments founded on levels of testosterone and DNA structures, biological definitions of masculinity have always played an important role in understanding the masculine.
Yet it has been argued that a biologically based definition of masculinity does not add to an understanding of gender. Instead, definitions relying on biology serve an essentializing function. Biological definitions use further understanding of the body to differentiate the masculine and the feminine from each other and thereby reinforce a two-gender dichotomy that was presumed from the beginning. In this way a biological definition of masculinity can become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in which bodily difference is used to transform a known difference into an all-important difference. Through such a definition biology is used to confirm what is already known, and the fluid factors that are part of the formation of the masculine, such as culture and history, are minimized if not completely ignored.
Once the impact of history and culture are taken into account, it becomes apparent that the biological determinist view of a unitary conception of masculinity is out of the question, replaced by a plurality of masculinities, each culturally specific, demonstrating not only masculinity in a given society at a certain historical time, but a man who occupies a certain hierarchical position in a given society at a certain historical time. The progression of European and North American masculinity demonstrates the increasing importance individualism plays in masculinity until the very individualism that is so fundamental to masculinity becomes a threat to the masculine ideal.
EARLY MODERN MASCULINITY
Despite the plurality of masculinities, the dominance and influence of North American and European masculinity cannot be overstated. Through the hegemony of its representation within the world's economic, cultural, and media institutions, such masculinity is perched atop the hierarchy of masculinities. In Masculinities, R. W. Connell notes that "[m]asculinity is not just an idea in the head, or a personal identity. It is also extended in the world, merged in organized social relations" (1995, p. 29).
Connell suggests that the emergence of the modern conception of dominant European and North American masculinity emerged along with the political, social, religious, and economic transformations of the Early Modern period (1501–1800). Protestantism was destabilizing the dominance of Catholicism, and with this destabilization a new masculine ideal was emerging. Part of this ideal was the privileging of heterosexual marriage, as a masculine sexual ideal emerged that rivaled the purity of denial of sexual desire.
Even more significantly the Protestant religious model offered an individualized vision of masculinity as a substitute for a unitary conception of masculinity more comprehensively integrated with the community. While Catholicism offered religion as a community activity in that religion was based upon interaction with a priest and a congregation, Protestantism placed religion in the hands of the individual, as each individual is in control of their own interaction with God. This created an idea of masculinity that set the stage for Enlightenment (1650–1790) thinking wherein masculinity becomes connected with individual subjectivity. The masculine becomes idealized as an individual in complete control of their destiny.
ENLIGHTENMENT MASCULINITY
During the Enlightenment the masculine would remain firmly connected with the idea of individual subjectivity, but the intellect would replace religion as the model demonstrating this masculine independence. More than the representative example that illuminates subjectivity as an integral component of masculinity, the intellect itself becomes part of the essence of masculinity. In part, to be masculine is to exhibit reason.
Set up in opposition to this masculine ideal of reason is the natural. In Unreasonable Men, Victor J. Seidler suggests that "[t]here was a crucial sense in which masculinity occupied a central space within modernity and in which reason and progress were to be tied with the control and domination of nature" (1994, p. viii). The dialectic between masculine reason and a feminine natural was troubling in part because the natural does not have an oppositional status to reason. In order to make the opposition work, the cultural in general and the cities in particular become conceptualized as the sites where masculine reason is enacted. In this way the city and culture in general become bastions of the reasonable masculine opposing the madness of the natural.
Within this conception it is clear how European and North American empire building becomes a project founded on a vision of reason-based masculinity. From the British project of colonizing India to American Vice-President Teddy Roosevelt's justification of the United States's early twentieth-century involvement in the Philippines as an effort to bring light to the world's dark places, colonization can be seen as the Enlightenment program of bringing masculinity and (by implication) reason and civilization where it apparently does not exist. Colonization is an effort to make the world more masculine.
As the flip side of colonization, slavery offers a vision of multiple masculinities. Slaves can be objectified because they are more natural and less associated with reason. In essence slaves are conceptualized as less masculine. Yet in the process of bringing a reasoning vision of masculinity to the world, those individuals doing the colonizing seem to exhibit a vision of masculinity quite distant from reasoning masculinity. In their extreme and violent acts the colonizers demonstrate a masculine type based on physicality over reason.
NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICAN MASCULINITY
America was able to offer a microcosmic ideal of imperialist masculinity in that the country itself provided a space for the individual man to exert physical masculinity and demonstrate virility through colonizing the natural. In The History of Men (2005), Michael S. Kimmel describes two types of masculinity apparent in nineteenth-century America: the Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic Artisan. The Genteel Patriarch version of masculinity derived the ideal of masculinity through the ownership of property. He was "refined, elegant, and given to casual sensuousness, he was a devoted father who spent his time on his estate and his family" (p. 38). In contrast, the Heroic Artisan developed his ideal vision of masculinity upon his own body and ability to control his surroundings. This idea of masculinity was focused on bodily strength and workplace independence.
Due to the industrial boom in the middle of the nineteenth century, a crisis developed in American masculinity and a third idea of masculinity developed in America. Kimmel characterizes this new vision of masculinity as Marketplace Manhood. Marketplace Manhood embraces a conception of masculinity entirely dependent on economic success, and in contradistinction to both the Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic Artisan, Marketplace Manhood develops its masculine ideal as separate from the home and the family. Marketplace Manhood quickly moved from being an idea of masculinity to becoming the dominant conception of masculinity. Whereas this form of masculinity became dominant as a cultural ideal, it was relatively unstable on the individual level. As masculinity is founded on something as unstable as a fluid economic market, masculinity becomes something that constantly needs to be proved and is seemingly in constant danger of being lost. This idea develops in close chronological proximity to the closing of the American frontier. Fantasies of the frontier become important to understanding the nineteenth-century masculine ideal. Wilderness novels became very popular and depicted the American wilderness as a masculine realm where men can go and rediscover an untroubling idea of the masculine without the corrupting influence of the city and the feminine. Over the course of a century the city had been transformed from a bastion of masculine reason into an indicator of masculinity in crisis.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Danahay, Martin A. 2005. Gender at Work in Victorian Culture: Literature, Art and Masculinity. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kimmel, Michael S. 2005. The History of Men: Essays on the History of American and British Masculinities. New York: State University of New York Press.
Tiger, Lionel. 1969. Men in Groups. New York, Random House.
Seidler, Victor J. 1994. Unreasonable Men: Masculinity and Social Theory. London: Routledge.
Lance Norman
II. ATTRIBUTES AND FUNCTIONS
Many critics attempt to explain the various functions of masculinity through a vision of gender that can only be defined in opposition. In this view masculinity may transform its meaning across cultures and across history but is always understood in relation to femininity. In Masculinities (1995), sociologist Robert Connell suggests that "[m]asculinity as an object of knowledge is always masculinity-in-relation" (p. 44). Men's studies theorists believe these differences are an inherent part of the study of gender. In The History of Men (2005) sociologist Michael S. Kimmel argues that white heterosexual men as the superordinate masculine category in Europe and North America suffer from an invisibility that is the inverse of that encountered by minorities and women. Women and minorities tend to experience visibility as members of a group but invisibility as individuals, whereas dominant men experience hypervisibility as individuals but invisibility as a part of a group. Thus defining masculinity, which exists in a shifting context, requires understanding a dominant group whose position as a group is consistently overshadowed by the visibility of its individual members.
Even attempts to make the dominant masculine visible without conceptualizing the opposite must to some extent deal with masculinity as masculinity-in-relation. An example is analyzed in Castration scholar and author Gary Taylor (2000). Taylor's project of examining the historical significance of the eunuch over the course of European history examines the fluid concept of masculinity by placing critical focus on what masculinity is not. According to Taylor, "[b]y helping us identify what a man is not, the eunuch clarifies what a man is" (p. 13). Masculinity cannot be defined in itself. It must be defined in relation to its antithesis. Significantly Taylor shares with Connell and Kimmel a desire to understand what the masculine is. Yet this proves a difficult project when its antithesis cannot be agreed upon.
THE EUROPEAN MODEL
Despite the conflict surrounding just what the other of masculinity is, masculinity is typically equated with dominance. Indeed anthropologists often argue about whether, due to the prevalence of patriarchy, it is possible to conceptualize masculinity without a vision of the uneven power dynamic between men and women and a consideration of masculine privilege. Some theories suggest that the way the dominant masculine controls the culture of European and North American society is the result of a confluence among the emergence of capitalism, the European idea of masculinity, and modernity. In this analysis capitalism and masculinity both offer a new understanding of the power relations that arose amid a newly developing social order in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The respective hierarchies of masculinity and capitalism may be different facets of the same system of domination. Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss analyzed the manner in which the masculine/capitalist system came to be equated with cultural dominance. Although he described marriage in neutral terms in The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1969), Lévi-Strauss demonstrates that marriage is a clear manifestation of the masculine/capitalist system because it is a key institution for the perpetuation of community. Marriage allows one group of men to forge a bond with another group of men by using women as an object of exchange.
The masculine/capitalist system seeks to impose a normative European model of masculinity on other cultures. Widespread acceptance of the European model has resulted in the elimination of variations of the masculine developed in non-European societies, and indeed these other models are often considered to be nonnormative and inappropriate. As Connell notes, "[F]or the first time in history, there is a prospect of all indigenous gender regimes foundering under this institutional and cultural pressure. Some gender configurations have already gone. One example is the Confucian tradition of male homosexuality in China" (1995, p. 199).
EVOLVING CONCEPTS OF THE DOMINANT MASCULINE
The intimate connection of masculinity with power and control both within a culture and among cultures helps demonstrate a contradictory element of masculinity. Even though much of European and North American culture is based on the dominating institutions and systems of masculinity, many individual men must confront feelings of powerlessness. To a certain degree this can be explained because some men experience subordinate versions of masculinity due to race and sexuality. In Recreating Men (2000), social sciences lecturer and author Bob Pease describes this as "a recognition that their social or institutionalized power may not always correlate with their experience as individual men" (p. 9). Men can experience powerlessness on an individual level juxtaposed to the dominant hierarchical vision of masculinity. Some theorists suggest that individual powerlessness is an offshoot of European and North American industrialization. Industrialization emerges as a cultural factor that destabilizes individual masculinity.
Because masculinity must be proved and reproved at the individual level, aggression among men is a fundamental component of masculinity. Aggression provides another means, in addition to race and sexuality, to demonstrate hierarchy. It takes different forms in different masculine subcultures but at root always functions as a means of establishing dominance. In a working-class subculture, actual violence and physical strength are often used to establish roles in the hierarchy, whereas in an office environment the hierarchy might be established in economic terms. Paradoxically while masculinity based on strength is far from the norm in early-twenty-first-century European and North American cultures, it is still the dominant ideal. Media depictions of masculinity often glorify physical strength and the classical masculine physique.
In an effort to demonstrate biological roots for masculinity, some researchers have attempted to find analogous tendencies toward violence in male primates. This research has proven fruitful, particularly in the study of chimpanzees. Male chimpanzees engage in behavior that approximates that exhibited by humans in forming war parties. Males leave the group with the express purpose of attacking and killing members of a different group.
While such research has been championed as the biological link between masculinity and aggression, it is important to note that other anthropological studies suggest that aggression is cultural and not biological. Although some researchers have expressed skepticism as to the rigor of her research methodology, in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1963) anthropologist Margaret Mead posited aggression as a cultural rather than masculine trait. Mead examined three cultures in New Guinea. In the Arapesh, she found a lack of aggression in both women and men; in the Mundugamor, men and women were both aggressive; and in the Tchambuli, the gender norm was reversed because women possessed the social power in the culture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Connell, Robert W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Kimmel, Michael S. 2005. The History of Men: Essays on the History of American and British Masculinities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press.
Mead, Margaret. 1935. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. New York: William Morrow.
Pease, Bob. 2000. Recreating Men: Postmodern Masculinity Politics. London: Sage Publications.
Taylor, Gary. 2000. Castration: An Abbreviated History of Western Manhood. New York: Routledge.
Wrangham, Richard W., and Dale Peterson. 1997. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. London, Bloomsbury.
Lance Norman
III. CONTEMPORARY THEORIES
One of the most significant twentieth-century insights on the subject of masculinity was the differentiation between the masculine as a gender category and maleness as a biological category. In defining masculinity as the fluid and complex interactions of the cultural, psychological, and social and maleness, alternatively, as the biological, researchers demonstrated that masculinity has variations and a hierarchy instead of being merely a simple and unrealistic unitary category.
PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF IDENTITY FORMATION
Sigmund Freud separated masculinity from biology with his psychological model of identity formation. Freud suggested that gender formation was not fixed. Instead numerous psychological conflicts that, at times, can contradict each other contribute to the concept of masculinity. Fundamental to the development of masculinity is the Oedipal complex. In the Oedipal complex biologically male children are attracted to the mother. This attraction is seen as a threat to the position of the father. In comparing the mother to the father a male child recognizes the mother as a castrated form of the father. Unconsciously fearing his own castration the boy shifts allegiance from the mother and tries to identify with the father and become like him. Freud's Oedipal and castration theories provide a normative, though individual, model for identity formation. Male children evolve through the individual and unconscious Oedipal and castration complexes, thereby forging a normative masculinity. Instead of a unified concept of the masculine, Freud offers the possibility for nearly endless variations that can develop as a result of each individual attempt to reach a normative ideal.
Heavily influenced by the work of French psychiatrist Jacques Lacan, some post-World War II theories argue the fear of castration by the father as a component of masculine identity formation in more overtly symbolic and communal terms. Castration is the act that inaugurates the individual into culture. In this view masculinity becomes synonymous with society, and castration becomes the act of entry into patriarchy. Some theorists have criticized these symbolic characterizations of castration as regards African-American masculinity. Recognizing the reality of lynching and castration in the African-American experience, Marlon B. Ross compares symbolic castration to actual castration. Ross says that "From the viewpoint of race theory and African American history, this [comparison] reduces castration to an illusory anxiety afflicting transcendent male subjectivity by obscuring the historical fact of castration as a systematic instrument of torture and discipline practiced by white men against African Americans from the time of enslavement through the era of Jim Crow" (2002, p. 312).
GENDER AND BIOLOGY: EVOLVING FREUD'S THEORIES
Freud concluded that each individual was psychologically bisexual: Masculine and feminine traits existed in everyone. In addition to resisting a unitary construction of masculinity, Freud's position on bisexuality firmly divides biology from gender. The feminine man and the masculine woman become combinations of biology and gender that are not only possible but are likely.
The idea that gender and biology are separate was adopted and politicized by self-proclaimed radical feminists such as John Stoltenberg. Stoltenberg disavows "the identity structure that is manhood, or male sexual identity as I call it here: the official man stuff; the belief that between oneself and female humans there is a definitional divide, a moral and morphological discontinuity, a separation in the species" (2000, p. xxv). Although Stolten-berg uses the term manhood and not masculinity, his conception of manhood is analogous to that of masculinity discussed previously in this entry. Manhood is a social construction that must be renounced to alleviate the oppression of women. All men who silently accept masculine privilege by conforming to the system help to maintain the inferior position of women in society. Consistent with attempts to abolish racial disparities, Stolten-berg argues that institutionalized oppression in matters of sex and gender can be overcome by rejecting the ideal of masculinity. Significantly Stoltenberg's utopian view proffers the possibility that masculinity is a choice. As a socially determined category it can be accepted or rejected as an individual sees fit.
Although he does not address Stoltenberg directly, sociologist Robert Connell in Masculinities (1995) argues against such a strict social construction of masculinity. Connell says that a definition of masculinity based on the social replicates some of the same deficiencies as a model based entirely on biology. Similar to the way biological models reduce gender to a binary, models of masculinity based entirely on the social fail to take proper account of the physical body. In essence the body is transformed into a blank slate for the social to code its vision of masculinity, uninfluenced by physical characteristics. Connell suggests that "it is not enough to assert the significance of bodily difference, important as this has been in recent feminist theory. We need to assert the activity, literally the agency, of bodies in social processes" (p. 60). Connell's theory of masculinity suggests that the body is neither a physical indicator of masculinity nor irrelevant to the production of masculinity. The activities the body engages in, the practice and limitations of the body, become fundamental to the social construction of masculinity.
Sociologist Joseph Pleck's critique of sex role theory helped add fluidity to the conception of masculinity. Pleck is skeptical about the relationship between normative socially constructed sex roles and psychic health. Freud emphasized the separation of masculinity from biology and the theory of multiple variations on masculinity, whereas many of his successors focus on the idea of a socially constructed masculinity that individuals should model. Pleck's critique of sex role theory helped add more fluidity to the conception of masculinity. Pleck is skeptical about the relationship between normative socially constructed sex roles and psychic health. Socially constructed sex roles can be oppressive and create anxiety and societal pressure on those individuals who do not or cannot live up to the constructed norm. A socially normative sex role may not be necessary, or even desirable, for the individual who is being influenced to conform.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Connell, Robert W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Freud, Sigmund. 1953. The Interpretation of Dreams. Complete Psychological Works. Standard edition, vols. 4-5. London: Hogarth.
Pleck, Joseph H. 1981. The Myth of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.
Ross, Marlon B. 2002. "Race, Rape, Castration: Feminist Theories of Sexual Violence and Masculine Strategies of Black Protest." In Masculine Studies and Feminist Theory, ed. Judith Kegan Gardiner. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stoltenberg, John. 2000. Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Sex and Gender. London: UCL Press.
Lance Norman
IV. IN MEDIA AND CULTURE
Critics who examine media representations and cultural ideals of masculinity often focus on a normative model. In looking at celebrations and critiques in a particular society, one is able to determine what an individual culture values as masculine. The media provides ideal images of appropriate masculinity that men everywhere are expected to emulate. By adopting the idealized model of masculinity, a man can demonstrate both to himself and to those he interacts with that he has learned the gendered stratification of society. In addition, media depictions of masculinity show where individual men have fallen short in their efforts. Through establishing and maintaining a masculine norm, the media implicitly imposes a value judgment. The nonnormative is categorized as a failure of masculinity.
Depictions of masculinity through media and culture are often interdependent. Cultural norms define how the media represents masculinity, yet the media can reinforce ideals, or destabilize them and point the way toward a newer and more appropriate standard.
AMERICAN TRADITIONS AND MASCULINITY
Legendary star of movie westerns John Wayne is a good example of the well-established media representation of American masculinity. In In a Man's World (1985), Perry Garfinkel lists some of the aspects of masculinity Wayne evokes. According to Garfinkel, this archetype demonstrates an essential connection between masculinity and success. A real man always achieves his goals. Aggressive or outright violent action is frequently necessary in order to succeed and is a clear indicator of masculinity and manliness. Aggression is merely a tool that the masculine hero uses to achieve his goal. The John Wayne model of masculinity also suggests that a man is always in control of his emotions. Whereas feelings such as revenge may serve as part of a man's moral compass, such emotions should never be displayed. Finally this is a solitary model, each man standing alone. The ideal man needs help from no one. He is capable of achieving his goals by himself, with nothing to guide him but his inner determination and morality.
Whereas the overt manifestation of the John Wayne archetype appears in the mid-twentieth century, the model first appeared in early-twentieth-century novels by writers such as Zane Gray and the wilderness novels of the nineteenth century. In The History of Men (2005), Michael S. Kimmel offers the emergence of the American wilderness novel as a reaction against industrialization. According to Kimmel works such as The Last of the Mohicans (1826) by James Fennimore Cooper and Moby Dick (1851) by Herman Melville were attempts to work out a crisis of masculinity.
Industrialization presents a vision of a feminized society. In an effort to become masculine again, men must escape the female-dominated cities and rediscover the primitive essence of manliness. In the wilderness men do not have to deal with women or with their own heterosexuality in any substantive sense. Male bonding replaces heterosexuality; the white man escapes from the city and meets a nonwhite man who knows the way of the wilderness. The homoerotic nature of such male bonding is usually explicit, and the bond is characterized as "a love between males, more enduring and purer than any heterosexual passion" (Fiedler 1960, p. 212). The John Wayne archetype owes an explicit debt to the wilderness novel. Both ideas evoke a nobler vision of masculinity in which the rigid laws of the city are replaced by the primitive but fair laws of men.
The major difference between the John Wayne archetype and the wilderness novel archetype is that the former has tried, unsuccessfully, to exorcise the male bonding component that is so fundamental to the wilderness narrative. As the white hero who prefers the wilderness to the city and who is capable of executing his aggressive creed of success by himself, John Wayne offers a much more restrictive vision of normative masculine modeling. Whereas the wilderness narrative may have empowered the white over the nonwhite, in the John Wayne archetype, the nonwhite tends to be banned from the heroic frame of reference. In so doing the homoerotic element is diminished. The question then is whether the John Wayne archetype frees the masculine image from other racialized visions of masculinity and homoerotic desire or whether it subsumes various models under the exterior of a homogenous, white, heterosexual ideal. Though the John Wayne white heterosexual loner archetype is replicated within the spaghetti westerns of Italian film director Sergio Leone, such films as a genre by no means exclude male bonding: The Magnificent Seven (1960), The Wild Bunch (1969), and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) bring male bonding back to the forefront. However with some notable exceptions, such as Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven (1992), male bonding in westerns is among white men. Men of other races are excluded from the dynamic. So although there are mixed signals regarding the homoerotic component of normative masculine modeling in westerns, the genre provides a clearer image regarding race: The idealized masculine type is always white.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE MASCULINE MODEL IN AN URBAN SOCIETY
When the ideals of the western are transposed to industrial settings, the traditional wilderness narrative of a white man bonding with a nonwhite man reappears, as in the Mel Gibson-Danny Glover Lethal Weapon films (1987–1998) and the Bill Cosby-Robert Culp television series I Spy (1965–1968). The John Wayne archetype reasserts itself in Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry movies and the revenge scenarios of some 1980s action films such as those popularized by Arnold Schwarzenegger (e.g., The Terminator [1984]). These examples show how difficult it is to develop a unified model of masculinity in an urban environment. Multiple models of masculinity are most apparent in these settings; relational boundaries among men and among men of different races are blurry. In this context some critics have focused on the version of masculinity presented in the Chris Tucker-Jackie Chan's Rush Hour films. These films present an opportunity to explore the way the media portrays male bonding and masculinity involving two men who are not white.
No single masculine norm is available either from the media or through other cultural manifestations. Whereas the John Wayne archetype provides the ideal of a unified model, the archetype does not exist in a vacuum. Film portrayals of men of different races, disparate economic status, and diverse sexual preferences indicate a crisis in society's ability to define masculinity. People no longer have one widely accepted normative role to embrace and emulate, causing a reevaluation of the validity of prior unitary models.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clover, Carol J. 1992. Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fiedler, Leslie A. 1960. Love and Death in the American Novel. New York: Criterion Books.
Garfinkel, Perry. 1985. In a Man's World: Father, Son, Brother, Friend, and Other Roles Men Play. New York: New American Library.
Greiner, Donald J. 1991. Women Enter the Wilderness: Male Bonding and the American Novel of the 1980s. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Kimmel, Michael S. 2005. The History of Men: Essays in the History of American and British Masculinities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Krutnik, Frank. 1991. In A Lonely Street: Film Noir, Genre, Masculinity. London, New York: Routledge.
Wiegman, Robyn. 1995. American Anatomies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Lance Norman