Theorizing Masculinity With/In the Media

On Masculmity
Theorizing Masculinity
With/In the Media
by Robert Ha nke
The relationship between ma sculinity and the med ia, \vhich
first ca me int o focu s in th e
1970s and gai ned increa sed
scholarly artemicn in the la te
1980s, ha s co ntinued [0 genera te work that theori zes. inte rpret s, an d eva luates ma sculin ity with/i n th e med ia. In th e :)
years since Fejes ( 1992) completed his review of empi rica l
mass co m munica tion research
o n masculi nity, there has bee n
a growing stream of boo ks and
articles w ithin media studies
that has shifted critical attentio n from w ha t Fejes e l lis
"masculinity as fact" to the
fact icity of ma sculinity. This
n 'nrk Focuses on rnasculin irv as
it is represented a nd defined in
various med ia. genres. texts. or
ico ns a nd th e rela tionship between th ese sites a nd ge nde r,
th e ge nde r orde r, o ther cultura l
di fferences. identity a nd identi fication. the subject, experience, and reality in late ca pita lism. As ha s often been o bserved. th e rheorctico-polincal
clusters of feminist a nd gay
a nd lesbian stu dies have given
particu la r impetus to th e exploration of masculinity as a
dominant c ultura l identity and
invisible norm. At the sa me
time. particula r pr o jects co ntin ue to be in dialogue with
other theo retica l work that ha s
o pened up medi at ed ma sculini ties to new q ues tio ns.
In media st udies o f the la st
decade, we ha ve co me to un derstand ma sculinity as " bot h
a prod uct a nd process o f representation" (de Lau rens, 1987.
p- 5 ). \X'ithin a constructionis t
ap proach to representation a nd
meaning, so me scholars hav e
adopted a femi nist postsrrucru ralist o rientation to " masculinity as signs." where ma scu linity is rega rde d as one of the
subiecriviries (or subject- pos inons ] thai make up o ur soc ia l
identities (Saco. 1992 ). Within
the grow ing body o f wo rk o n
gen der representat ion a nd disco urse in the media. particul ar
at tention has been pa id to the
representation of the ma le
body. givi ng rise to deba tes
over its cultural significa nce,
po litica l vale nces, a nd its marerialitv. Todav, as H a ll ( 1996)
()b'il·~\"Cs. the "body serves to
fun ct ion as thl' signifier of the
co ndensa tion of subjec rivit ies
in the individual" {p. 11).
In this conmhu rion, I wa nt
to briefly discuss some of the
deto urs through theory, major
co ncepts. strategies of med ia
a nalysis. and issues that define
the space within which media
studies d efines the problem of
mascul inity with a view to the
possibi lities that han: been
opened up as well as some of
the limitations or pr oblems
tha t rema in. Within the limited
space of this forum. I Jill able
only to offer a preliminary. no
doubt overly simplifying and
polemically unifying, mapping
of the interdisciplinary border
zone of "theorizing masculin ity. ~ Although it is not a cornprehensive survev.' it should I
ho pe. be useful in taking our
bea rings. Differenr projects, of
co urse, may be loca ted in d ifferent resea rch trad itio ns. he
info rm ed h)' mo re than one
theo retical position. and seek
to set differem pr io rit ies.
An inrradlsciplina ry diuloguc concerning th is to pic is
timely a nd important for several reasons. For starters, as
Sedgwick ( I ~95 ) has observed ,
"So me times mascu linity ha s
got nothing to do with it.
No thing to do with me n" (p.
12 ). In other wo rds , Vie should
no lon ger presume a relati o nship between masculinitv a nd
me n even if it is diffic ult' not
to. Secon d. recent wr iting on
ma scul init y, gende r, a nd pa tria rchy has begu n to q uestion
their very ut ility as explana tory
.
co ncepts (H ea rn, 1996,
Haw keswo rth, 1997;
Ehren reich, 199 5 ). f inall y,
wh at is to be done if the re is
no definition of masc ulinity
tha t is no t al ready hege mo nic
(Rogoff & Van Leer. 19931. no
gen der trouble (wh ether as
spectacle, masquerade, o r
parody ) that "wou ld p u... h the
rna ...culmc ste reotype beyond
Its th reshold of recuperation" ?
[M assumi, 1992, p. 89 /.
I first discuss some strategies
of media analysis tha t haw
been influenced by Gramsci .
Foucault, and Butler. I then
consider Berger. \'('allis, and
\'('a[Sun's Const ructing Af.lsCIIlinitv ( 1995) and Smith's 80)'s:
HI Contemporary
Culture ( t 9961. two recent co l-
AIJs'culmittes
lecnons that lay the basis for
current debates even as they do
not exhaust all (he possibi lities
for research and analy...is. Work
by Bordo 119941. Bre d ( 1995),
Byers ( 1995, 1996). Coates
11998), Coha n & Ha rk ( 1993),
Dot)' (1993 ), Dyso n ( 1993 ),
Fa rr cd ( 1996) , J efford s ( 1994) .
Me rce r (1994). Nixo n (1996 ),
PieiI I19961, Savrun 11996),
Shaviro ( 1993), Tash'r ( 1993 ).
a nd Walse r (1993) attests to
the ra nge of pro ject s a nd d iversity of th eoret ical rou tes, M y
sim ple argume nt is th at,
wh erea s film studi es con tinues
to ma in tai n a promine nt place
in the study o f popu la r rep roscntations of ma sculinity, hecause of its own rich trdditio n
of film theory an d criticism
a nd a fasc ination with spectacul ar Holl ywoo d masc ulini-
[Ore from class essen tialist and
red ucrio nisr accounts of ideol ogy and cultu re a nd o pe ned up
po pular c ultu ral an a lysis to
struggles a round gen der a nd
race (Ben nett. 1996 ). M oreover, as G rossberg (1997)
notes, a "hegemonic project .. .
does not dema nd the production of consensus . . . nor a
process of inco rporation . It
does operate through the pro .\ 1)' H egem o n ic Afilsculi"ity
duction of a certain co nve rThe concept of "hegemonic
gence of interests through
masculinity, ~ int roduced by
which subord ination a nd resisConnell ( 1987. 1990) has been
tance arc contained" [p. 226 ).
utilized in my own previous
Within civil society. the na work as well as studies of metional popular cu ltu re is where
diated sports (Trujillo, 1991;
various agents of hegemony
Davis, 1997). In other writings
(the New Right, cultu ra l prowhere the term appears, it ex ducers such as journalists, pol ipres ...es the gene ral idea of as ticians. televisio n producers,
sumptio ns and beliefs about
and filmmakers ) give sh ape to
masculinity that have become
the common sense of (he
common sense, that may be
people, incl uding (heir takenunc ritically absorbed or spon for -gra nted noti ons o f ma scu taneously consen ted to. but
linity and femininity.
that a rc pres umed to have a n
Th us, it see med to me (ha t a
imperative cha rac te r in sha ping
neo-Gra
msc ian perspectiv e
consciousness, norm" of co nco
uld
be
brought into a pro duct. a ffect. or desire. In ligh t
d
uctive
dia
logue with feminist
of so me of th e debate ove r the
media
st
udies
in o rder to th eorheo rv of hegem on y (Co ndit•
rize a nd critique ma sculinity in
1994 ; Cloud , 1996 ; Cloud,
fictiona l U.S. telev ision series
1997; Co nd it, 1997), it is
a nd genres of the 19 805. By
wo rth recalling th at a nco Cramscian- feminist pe rspecti ve th en. feminist med ia st ud ies
ser ved to guide inquiry o u t of a had moved toward an Althussarian sense o f rep resen tatio n
funct ionalist, sex- ro le fram eand ideology, wh ich defined
\vork toward s dia lect ical socio logy, cultu ra l studies, femini st "fem ininity" as "'3 set of highly
orchesrrutcd repr esenta tional
medi a stu dies, and historical
practices w hic h to gether pro·
conrextualization . Th e tu rn to
d
uced this coherence o f femal e
Grarnsc i was a significa nt
ge
nder as easy a nd natural move in M a rxist st rategies o f
med ia and c ult ural a nalysis be- ized " (,\ 1cRo bbie. 1997, p.
172 ). A neo-Gramscia n-femicause it represemed a dcpa r-
ties, studies of ma sculi nities in
telev ision, medi ated sports, ad vert ising. and publicity. a s well
as po pul ar mu sic. a re a lso
de monstrating the relevan ce of
theoretical work tha t ha s
pus hed, as Carole Spitzack ha s
put n, our "existing visions
and arriculanons" o f mascu linity.
nist perspective was also a way
of carrying out crit ical and empirical work o n masculinity in
the U.S. co nte xt as a respon se
to Chapma n an d Ruth erford's
(1988) collectio n, wh ich began
the debate o ver the representation s of th e idealized " New
Man and Retributive Man " in
the U.K. T hese " po la rized figures," as Tasker (1993) has
since pointed o ut, tended to
map a stab le gende r bina ry
OntO different male types.
M y definitio n o f hegemoni c
masculin ity referred to the "social ascenda ncy o f a particular
version or mod el of masculinity that , operati ng o n the terrain of 'common sense' and
conventi onal morality, defines
'what it mean s to be a man'"
(Han ke, t 990 ). Thi s implies
that one version may occu py a
leadi ng position in the media
mainstream (fo r instan ce, the
much discussed hard -bod ied,
action heroe s of the 1980s).
Because Gmmscian co mmon
sense is fragmentary, incoh erent, ambiguous, contradictory,
and multi form, however, ot her
versions (e.g., the "soft" o r
New Ma n, gay men, and so
on) are among the representations th at were also co nst ructing masculinities. In follow-up
work, I adopted Co nnell's
(1987) categories of hegemonic, co nservative, and subo rdinate masculiniti es, arguing
that 1980s fictiona l television
articulated the relat ion amo ng
dominant, conse rva tive, and
subordinated masculinity, so as
to produce a reforma tio n of
masculine subjectivity-the becomi ng conservative of White ,
middle-c lass, hetero sexual,
professional-managerial men
(Hanke, 1992 ). Taken together,
this work suggested that hegemonic ma sculinit y is not o nly
secured through the rea ssertio n
of dominance-based masculinities, but also through a "new
view of manhood " defin ed in
relation to wom en's liberati o n
and its image of the " new
woman," an d in relation to
repr esenrarion s of gay men
that maintain a herercmasculine point of view.
Trujillo (199 1) has expanded the definition o f hegemonic mascu linity by identifying five major features that define when masculinity is hegemo nic in U.S. media culture:
(l ) "when power is defined in
terms of ph ysical force and
control" (pa rticula rly in the
repr esentation o f the body ),
(2) "when it is defined through
occupationa l achievement in
an industrial, ca pitalist ic society," (3) whe n it is represented
in term s o f fami lial patriarch y,
(4) when it is "sy mbolized by
the daring, roma ntic front iersman of yesteryea r and of the
present-day ourdoorsman,"
and (5 ) "w hen hetero sexua lly
defined " and centered on the
representat ion o f the pha llus.
Th rough an ana lysis of spo rts
hero No lan Ryan , Trujillo analyzes how th is figure exhibits
these features to var )'ing degrees and thu s how hegemo nic
masculinity repr odu ces itself in
the context of mediated Spo rts.
The limitation of th is strategy
is that an y discussion of a
single exa lted male hero is
likely to tend towa rd a norma tive definition of manh ood.
Yet, such work reveals how
spo rts writing, television , and
advert ising work in co ncordan ce to co nstruct hegemonic
masculinity and naturalize social and historical relation s of
powe r and privilege.
Th e d ifficulty has been ho w
to ta lk about hegemon ic masculinity as a " historically mobile relation " (1995, p. 77 ) and
to maint ain a focus on both its
co ntin uities and discon tinuities. In ana lyzing specific
masculinities, Connell (1995)
suggests the need to co nside r
two types of relation ship: " hegemony, domin ation/su bordi nation, and complicity on the
one hand, marginalizat io n/au tho rizatio n on the other" tp.
S1), A critical method con sistent with a neo-Grumscian
feminist perspective must be
careful to avoid redescribing
hegemo nic masculinit y as an
ideal cha racter type, role iden tity, or meta physica l substance
(Butler, 1990 ), For example,
the decline in pop ularity of Superma n and the rise in po pularity of Batman is part of the
ebb and flow of specifia ble
meanings of masculinity, gender, an d sexuality encoded by
these hyperm asculine heroes,
the ir pa rtne rs, and the villains
they encounter, Neither a rolemodel , socia lization theory approach to such figures (Pecora,
1992) nor an anal ysis o f the ir
psychological str uctures alone
(M idd leton, t 992 ) is adequate
unless the meanings and valu es
of the " masc uline" that these
fantasy figure ensembles pro duce and put into circulat ion
arc relarionall y defined, articuhued to ot her differences, and
located within a parti cular histo rical con junct ure.
Qual itati ve, (conjtexrual
analysis informed by poststructu ralism enabled me to
read a television series like
thirtysomething as a "text articulares a specific signifier as
part o f common sense and the
production o f experience"
(Grossberg, 1997, p 22 5). as
well as the ot her side of
"double art iculation" - how
" meanings a re artic ulated to
rea l socia l practices, relat ions,
and con d itions" (Grossberg,
t 997, p. 225 ). However, as
critics have been qu id: to point
out , men arc missing as television viewers. Apar t from the
tradition of film study that has
theorized the male gaze and
the male spectator, mascu linity
as a dimension o f social audi ences' reception practices rema ins invisible except in a few
studies [Mo rley, 1986;
Steinman, 1992; Fiske &
Dawson , 1996 ). Donaldson
(1993) has also critiqued the
exp lanatory uti lity of Co nnell's
co ncept, suggesting that the
gap betw een the "c ulturally
idealized form o f masculine
character" and what real men
are means that it is unable to
acco unt for changes in the gender system. He- proposes in-
stea d th at w e limit th e concept
view of ce nt ra l co ncepts,
claim s, and issues releva nt to
alred ruling-class her oes o f
study ing medi ated masculi nicapita list entreprene urs hip (Bill ties. Nixon 's (1997) examinaGates, Sa m Walton , Ted
tion of " ex hibiting ma scu linTurner, a nd the like). Although
ity" d raws upon Foucaulrian
th e a rticu latio n of ma sculini rv
co ncepts of discourse, th e place
and class is important. this .
of the subject, subjccnvizarion,
move ret urn s us to a M a rxist
an d technologies of the self. In
pcrspecnve o n socia l class rela - Fo ucault 's archaeological writtio ns a nd reintroduces the verv
ings. th e su bjec t was produced
problems that th e turn to
.
in discourse and sub iectivGra msci so ug ht to resolve, The iza tion was ;1 ma ter ia l ra the r
rela tionshi p between hegetha n ideol ogical process
monic mascu linity and social
whereby power rela tions inchange can he addressed onlv
vested and materialized sub.
historically. as Conne ll (199 .S )
jeers. Nixon tra nslates th e...e
ha s a rtempred to do, although
co nce pts into a srrarcgy for
he neg lects the med ia , He sums a nal yzing g ro u ps of statements
up the state of rheo nzing hcge(rexrs, sires I. thei r " regula rity
mon ic masculmirv a.. follows:
or underlying unity. ~ and the
On the one hand: "hegemony
place of the subje-ct a" it is prois likelv to he established on(\'
duced in media discou rse
if ther~ is so me co rres po nde nce through spec ific co des and
between a cultura l ide a l and
co nve nti o ns of rep resenting the
institutiona l powert' (p. 77); o n ma le body. Ba sed o n a rea d ing
the other hand. even thou g h
of three versions o f the "new
few men rnav embodv cu lturnun" (a rt icula ted with generaally exalted form" o(masclilin - tion, ethn icuy, and race ), he ariry, large num bers of men bengucs tha t visua l codes o f fash ef it fro m cuhu ra l definitio ns
ion photog raph y nor on ly
that legitima te cla ims to lead er- work to produce a "specta to rship. H o wn er. in add it ion to
iallook," bur marks the fo rm ainstitutional life and "technorion of new subject-position for
cratic " variants of hegemonic
men in relation to practices of
masculinity, media st udies a lso
fashion , style. and consumptio n.
needs to co nsider how hegeNi xo n rejects Fou ca ult's nomo nic ma sculin ity a rticu lates
tion o f "s u biccti viza tion' in fato str uc tures an d Jived fo rms of vo r o f Fou cault's later not io n
parriarchv wi thin cvcrvdavIifc
of "technologies (or practices)
as recent 'work in cult~ral'criti: of the self" (a s read through
cism and cu ltural studies has
Butler) to conccpt u•r hze "the
beg un to do,
articu lation o f concrete mdivid ua ls to parti cu lar represen Deviations {rom Fou cault
tations as a performa nce ba sed
Besides offering a u...cful overupon the citing an d reiteration
to "rea lly real " men. the ex-
of discursive no rms; a per formance in which the formal po sitions of subjectivity a re inhabited through spec ific practices o r rcchniq ucs" (p. 323),
In th is formu latio n, " ne w
man ,. imager y i... "opera tion alized or performed as a historical idcnnrv" fp. 323 1.
Codes of looking, among other
techniques in the c ue of the
self, are loca ted across va rious
reprcscnrurional sites, a nd
these codes, in rum. arc
co nrexruali zed a... part of the
historical construction of new
modes of "spectarorial consume r subjectivi ty" (first ~1Il;1­
lyzcd hy \X/alter Ben jamin ),
Contrary to Neale ( 1 9 9,~) , who
argued that film W;IS a technolo/-.:y for representing the male
body in a way that circumvents
croricizanon, Nixon co ncl udes
th at a dve rtisi ng a nd fash io n
photogra phy are a tech nique
for "sanctioning the d isp lay of
masculine sensuality and, from
this, opening up the possibility
of a n ambivalen t mascul ine
sex ua l identi ty" (p. 328).
In a l-oucaultia n fra mewo rk
of discourse and power/knowledge. specifiable "masculinitics" art' understood as the: effect of ..pecific regimes of visibihty, and such rcprc...cnta nons ar c overdetermined by
disc ursive fo rm a tio ns an d the
interpla y o f signifying practices. social processes, hisroncal forces, and the bu sinesv of
late capital ism, The "new
man ,. is a reartic ularion of th e
relatio ns hi p among masc ulin ity, gender. and economics.
w here consu m ption a nd mass
cu lture is no longer figu red as
"fem inine" as it was within
modernity, In th e U.S, context.
this wa s also evide nt in
advert!..ing's ima ge of t he new
man (Bart hel. 1988 ) a nd al so
more recently in the "gayification" of advertising (Cla rke.
1995 ), In their ...rudy of the
gayificarion of action hero
Claude Van Dammc as fa n o bject a nd pu blicity subject in
here ronormat ivc publ ications,
Cla rke and H enso n ( 1996) arguc that "gay identity fo rmation and va lorizat ion have beco me d irectl y complicir in ca pi[ ;11 formation a nd va loriza tion " (p, 144 ). Gay -oriented
puhlicirv or a dvertising complicates the very lo gic of visibility
and affirmation that has been
cent ra l to gay an d lesbia n politics of represen ta tion. The i llcreased visibility of "gay ness"
in these media produces the m
as new economic su bjects
whose gayness is inc reasi ngly
def ined in rela tion to ma rke ting an d co ns umi ng practi ces
a nd th e ge ne rat ion of corpo ra te pro fits rather tha n th e ex tens ion of ci vil rig hts.
In sum, bo th neo-Gramscian
theory of hegemony an d
Foucaulnan theory of disco urse. in d ia log ue w ith fem inist me d ia studies or theory,
are tool kits for understand ing
power as a determinant of
masculinities . M ediated masculiniries construct figures to
ident ify wit h a nd places to occupy wit hin th e gen de r o rde r.
Fo r the forme r. the em phasis is
on popula r rep resenta tions
(figures) producing and circu la ting co mmo n-se nse notion s,
so tha t hegemonic ma sculinity
is won nor o nly thro ug h coe rcion bur through co nsent, even
though there is never a complete consensus. For the lat ter;
the emphasis is on masculine
subject-posi tions (places ) as a n
effect of di scursive formations
and how these positions are
taken up o r inhabited (practices o f everyday life).
Amo ng the man y implication s o f this work, th er e ar e
tw o tha t I would like to ment ion here. First, on ce mnsculiuity is und erstood as a histo rica lly specific cultural co nstruction witho ut fixed meanings or
at tri bu tes, it is o pe ned up to a
mod ern ist temporalizing logic
th at ena bles us to describe th e
cha ngi ng cod ings of th e mascu line, how the meani ngs of
White mascu lin ity have shifted,
.1I1d how they have prod uced
our experience. In terms of
feminist analysis a nd cri tique
of pa tria rchy. it also mean s
tha t th e universal equa tion between men a nd patria rchy is
put into q uest ion, fo r not all
men ha ve the sa me rela tionship
to d iscourses and institutions
of power. Second, on ce ma sculiniti es ar c opened up to
posrstruc ru rulisr th eo ries of
langu age, th eo ries of sexua l
dif ference, and deconst ru ction ,
th e pol ysem y a nd multiaccentualir y of signs o f ma sculinity
become open to ana lysis a nd
the very facticir y o f mascul inity
is put int o quest ion. Masculine
identity becomes impo ssihle to
defi ne apart from its rela tionship to feminin ity an d its ar ticulation to sexua lities [Dory,
1993; Fejes & Petri ch. 1995).
class (Aro nowitz, 1992;
Burnha m, 1996 ). and race
(Dyson. t 993; Mercer, 1994;
hooks, t 995; Wallace. 1995 ;
Farced , 1996). Th e c ha llenge
no w is to co ncep t ua lize a nd
descri be mor e than one difference at a ti me, th eir intersection , and th eir int erlocking effcctivity, at th e level of psych ic
processes, the self, and soc ial
relations of p rivilege an d
power.
Reciting Judith Butler
Since the publ ication of
Butle r's Gender Trouble: f emi-
nism and the Subversion of
identity (1990), her th eo rizatio n of gender as a "corporeal
sty le, a n 'act : as it were, which
is bo th inte ntiona l a nd
perfo rmarivc, wh ere 'performative" suggests a d ramatic and
co ntingent co nstruction of
meaning" (p . 139 ) has been influent ial in rethinking gender
a nd sex ual ity in anriessentialist
term s. H er the sis. based on
rcrcadings of femini st a nd psychoa na lyt ic th eo ry and a n
ana lysis of the c ultural pracrices of drag, cross-dre ssing,
and the st ylizatio n of hutch or
femm e identit ies, is th at gender
is a performa nce that main ta ins the retroact ive illusion of
a core feminin e, or ma sculine,
self. Gender impersonati on,
she argues, disa rticul a res gender signification from th e po li-
tics of t ruth and falsity th at
mak es for an essentia l, polarized fema le or male identity.
Follow ing Butler (1990) , 1 ha ve
a ttem pted to argue that
" moc k-mac ho" sitcoms invite
pa rod ic lau ght er by parodying
the mechani sms of th e co nstr uct ion of so me "original"
domestic patriar ch or macho
stereotype (H anke. fo rt hco ming). These performan ces tem pora rily deprive th e hegemonic
no rm of " its claim to a naturalizcd or es...entialized gende r
ident ity" (But ler. 1990, p.
138 ). H owever, the light
parody of mock-ma cho
sitco ms is less likely than menin-drag sitcoms to co nstitu te
the kind of gende r performance " that will compel a rcconsideration of th e place a nd
sta bility of th e rna...culine a nd
the feminine" (Butle r, 1990, p.
139 ). No netheless. Coha n
( 1995 ) has brou ght feminist
film stu d ies o f femini nity as a
masq uera de into dialogu e with
the th eat rical rather than
phal locenrric Implicat ions of
But ler's wo rk to read Ca ry
Gra nt's masculine masquerade
in Nor th by Nor thwes t ( 1959).
In his hisroricizing readi ng of
th is performance et hic, Coha n
revea ls how ideo logically con fli cted th e film is, and th at its
po rtray a l of a ma scu line idcn tiry crisis is not only symptoma tic of new class a nxie ties . hut
th at it destabi lizes the relat ion ship berv..-een gende r a nd representation, so that masculinity
(like femi nini ty ) is " an ongoing
an d po tentially d iscontinuous
per formati ve masquerade" (p .
46 ). He also suggests tha t beca use of Holl ywood's institu tionalization of sta rdom. th e
a nalysis o f ma sculine masquerade " brings to th e foreground
of popular representati on the
epistemo log ical problems " (p .
58 ) that Butler descri bes even
th ou gh Ca ry Gr ant's performance does not subve rt gender
or troubl e hete rosexuality.
In Bodies That Matter
(1993 l, Butler has revised her
views o f gende r parody an d
gone on (0 a rgu e that de natural ization is not necessarily
subversive; she now cla ims
drag is " hyperbolic co nfo rmity" to gend er nor ms, "ta ken
not as comma nd s to be
obeyed, but as impera tives to
be 'cited: twi sted , queered,
brought into relief as heterosex ual imper ativ es. a re not, for
th at reason. necessarily subverred in th e process" (p. 237).
In light o f th is. my presumption that men -in -dr ag sitcoms
wou ld be more su bversive than
mock-macho sitcoms needs to
be reconsidered . However,
Coates (1998), drawing on de
Laurens's noti on o f gender
techno logies and Butler 's
(1993) not ion o f femini nit y as
the abject of ma scul inity, has
descri bed how a self-conscious
performance of the feminine
with in Rocklist, a male-domilu ted academic discussion list
on the Intern et, gave gender
tro uble to th e cohe rence o f
masc uline as it is nor mally reit e rat ed within the rock forman on.
Scattered Hegemonic
Masculinities
T he co mbined influence of
Butler and Fo ucault is eviden t
in th e introduction to Berger,
Walli s, an d Wat son 's co llection, Ccnstrncting Mascuiinitv
(1995) . Their "concep tual
bias" is towa rd Buller's rhcoriza tio n of ge nder as "alwa vs a
doing" an d Fou ca ult 's theo r izarion of power (;IS po we r!
knowledge a pplied ro the regu lat ion of conduct }, T he editors
have or gani zed contributions
according to Fou cault 's no tion
of "discipl inary systems ~ _
" processes a nd ins titutions
th ro ug h wh ich po wer is repli ca ted and enforced." such as
ph ilosophy. c ulture. science,
la w, and po litical pra ct ice.
Within this fra mework , ge nder
dualisms or binar y opposites
are pur int o ques tion bv a n emph asis on gender d i sco~tin ­
uiries, a nd ena ct ment, as fluid
an d tempo ra l. Although some
co ntributor, wrest It' with th e
question, " \'(' ha t is masculinity?, ~ it is clear that this does
no t ent ail any stra ightforwa rd
descri pt ion o f wha t ma leness
is. It is no lo nger a q uestion of
being, but ra th er o f ge nde r
"t hres holds" a nd a " d vna mic
self-recognition" (Sedgwick,
1995 ), "acco mplishme nt s,"
a nd (disla vowa ls (Butler,
1995 ), and a " prefixing of the
r ules o f gen der a nd sexualuv.
an append ix o r ad dition, rha r
willy-nilly, supplcrncn rs an d
suspends a 'lac k -in -bei ng'~
(Bha bba. 1995) .
O ther contributo rs explore
" the wa ys rep resent a tions of
men a nd ma leness in the media
a nd in the a rts a rc negotiated
a nd circu lated, a nd how such
images ca n prod uce a nd uhi ma tely res ha pe notions o f the
mascu line" (Berger, \Va llis, &
Watson, 1995, p. 6-7 ). T hese
con rribunons offer d ifferent
srrnregics for read ing mod ern izing hegemon ic masculinit ies.
Solomon-C odcau ( 1995), for
exa mple, p ut s the contempora ry range of mediat ed masculinities into a histo rical perspcc n ..'c by a rg uing th at th e
" feminized" masculinirv is no t
merely the prod uct o f a' co ntempo ra ry "c risis. ~ o r postSecond World \'('ar "histor ica l
trauma , ~ as Silverman ( 1992)
has a rgued, bur vcrv muc h in
e vidence in late I Xril- and ea rly
I vth-ccntury French an. If heroi c ma sculini ty is a lwa ys in
cr isis, the issu e becomes ho w
heroic ma sc ulin it ies " ma nage
to restructu re, refurbish, and
n-.. urrecr themselves for rbe
nex t historica l turn" [p. 70).
For Smith (19951, even Clint
Eastwood , one o f the most
po pul ar contempora ry rcprcscn ta rio ns of ma scu linity, signifies " tro ubled pre sent a tio ns or
inves tiga tio ns o f till' kind o f
(o r, of the image of ) masc ulin If )' tha t they popularly sta nd
for " (p . 7S). Smit h's thesis is
that the "narra tive disposition
of pa rt icu lar tr opes of rnascu liuir y doe.. nor ultima tely co ntrol or delim it th em " Ip. 80l.
Nor only does the male pro-
tagonis r d ispla y a n inability to
Wh erea s none of th ese conact as th e "so lut ion to narratributors sha re a conceptua l
tive a nd social cont ra dictio ns"
vocabulary, one them e th at
(p. 79), bu t Eastwood's
emerges is tha t neither ma scu cha ngea ble, excessive, defec tive line representa tion no r subjecbody figures ma le subjecti vity
rivit y is monolith ic. At th e
as " hys teri ca l, ~ th at is, o utsi de
sa me time , the re is a clear comof ph all ic o rga nization. The
mon ality running through t heir
conclusio ns: " Feminized ,"
" hysterica l moment, " fo r
"eroticized, " or "a nd rog ySmith, " marks th e ret urn of
th e male body out fro m under
nous" re presenta tions ma y affirm patriarch al privileges
th e narrat ive process.. ." (p.
92) , so as to express wh at is
(Solomo n-C odea ul ; " hyste riun sa ya blc in male -embod ied
ca l" repr esenta tion is " deex perience. hook s (1995) e xsigned to lead the ma le sub ject
a mines rep resenta tions of
th rough a proving gro und toward ;111 empowe red positio n"
contex
t
of
Black men in th e
(Smit h); " black masculinity
..\'('h ite-suprem acist ca pitalis t
pat ria rchy. ~ In her rea d ing of
co nt inues to be represent ed as
films fea tu ring Denzel ''('ash unrequ ited longing fo r wh ite
ington a nd ""esley Snipes , she
male low" (hoo ks); a nd Sega l's
Wh ite ma le rage a nd " kick-ass
argues that within ""h itl' culrura l pro ductions, images o f
co nsc ience" may be just " a nBlackness a re overdetermined
other ruse o f pa tr ia rch y"
by a str uct ure o f "c ompetition, (Ros s). T hus a major issue is
en vy, a nd bla ck ma le desire for
ho w hegemon ic masculin ities
white a pproval" (I' . 99). Black
are refurbished , reem powcred,
masculinity is rcenvisio ncd, but renegot iated, a nd reenvisioncd .
only to pr od uce a new ste reo Ta ken toge ther, this work suggests tha t patria rchy reforms
type. om' th a t is co ntinuous
with, and reproduces . the narrna sc ulinitv to meet th e next
ra rive of colonialism. Finall y,
his to rica l tu rn , to rega in the
Ross ( 1995) foreground s how
pleas ure o f reinforci ng th e
hegemonic Wh ite masculinities norm, to fit th e social climate,
or to a rt iculate th e new racism .
seeking to ma intain the ir pro Boys: Masculinities in Confile o f domi na nce arc upd a ted .
temporary Culture (1996), ed Alon gside o ther refo rmed viokilt , hard -body, he-men,
ited by Pau l Smith, ta kes up
Steve n Sega l has mo rphed into
the to pic o f masc ulinit ies
within a c ultura l stud ies rubric.
"Eco-M a n. " a hero ic figure
Ross read s as mod er nizing th e
In thi s collection . the quest ion ,
" What is masculinity," which,
imagery of th e frontiersman
and ourdoorsman by art icula t- at some level, presu mes th e
ing White ma le rage to the
givcncss of mascu linity as a
ecology movement .
cultu ral ca tegory, is aban doned
in favor of wha t Smith ca lls
" indefinite ma sculin ity" and
th e "specificities a nd dispersals
of masculinity an d ma leness"
(p. 2). This work proceeds
fro m the point of view of hegemonic masculinity's others" minorities of masculiniryr-can d a tte mpts to ma inta in a
du a l foc us on the "construe rion and th e hete rogeneity of
subjects pr esum ed to be mal e"
of idea lized ma sculinities
'o t her: " that is in sha rp co n-
trast to Hollywood's reh earsal
of hegemon ic masc ulinities.
Cro nenberg's films delibera tely
blur and cross the very bound .
a ries that define the masculine
subject (m ind an d body, male
o r fem ale, ra tion a l o r irranonal , conscious o r unconscious)
until they co llapse and disso lve, and his mal e heroes are
(p.2).
" passive a nd lacking," "derRamsa y, Willis, and
elicrs, outsid ers, ex iles, and losBurnha m a rt' all engaged in
ers" who ca rry th e b u rde n of
film st udy, hut this does not
the "a bjccr" truth o f mascul inex ha ust the ana lysis of popular ity. For Ram sa y. the cultu ra l
repr esentat ion, as work bv
significa nce o f the- vio lence of
Cla rke a nd Henson, Farr~d,
the-se characters signifies th e
Fuchs, a nd Michael demon a mb ivalence o f men wh o are
stra tes. One of the ma jo r issues sim ultaneously a tt racted to,
that e merges in th e film st ud ies a nd repelled by. others. Thus,
is whether particul ar bodies of
she a rgues, th e cri sis o f Whi te,
work or even pa rticula r films
heterosexua l, midd le-class
a rc subvers ive of co nvent iona l
masculini ty is pla yed out
o r idea lized no tion s of ma scuwith in and ac ross the splirtings
linity or femin inity. Ramsa y
o f th e ma sculine subject.
a nd Burnh a m sugges t that
Willis ( 1996) examines the
so me filmic represent ati ons of
role of " fetishism" in The Cry.
maleness can be no n- or
ing Game. a film th at repreco um er hegemonic. an d Willis
sents multiple differences in a
advances the domest ication of
na rrative structured a rou nd the
di fference a rgument,
secret of heterosexua l differ.
Foll owing Co han and
cnce. Her basic argu ment is
Hark's (1993) antho logy,
that the spec tacle of Dil's body
whi ch focu ses o n the " dis tura nd the visibilit y o f her penis is
ba nces" and "slippages" in
cor rela ted wit h a "s tr uctur a l
idea lized Holl ywood mascudispla cement " of j od y's Blacklin ities th at ar c not eas ilv efness a nd his homosexual ity.
faced. Ramsa y (1996) ex plo res
For Willis, this logic o f excesCa nad ia n horro r a nd fanta sv
sive visibility a nd disp lacem ent
filmmaker Da vid Cronenberg's works to "secure bo th Fergu s's
films as a "minorirv discourse" hetero sexu ality and the film's
(p. 8 1), For Ra msay,
own a ddress to a heterosexua l
Cronenberg's male heroes are
view er " (p. 104), Contrarv to
" ma nifestations of th e forces
Bordo (1994), who reads '
Fergu s as an emotiona lly responsive , nonphallic hero without "masquerade "-a
revisioning th a t is a n indictmenr of modern masculine
subjectivi ty-Will is a rgues th at
spectacle o f heterosexua l difference d isplaces q uestions of
rac ial identity, sexua lity. a nd
politics so th at th e "e mbod ied
mat eriality of black homosex ua l ma scul inity gets reduced
to a picture" (p. 109). For
Willi s, within the co nte xt of
th e globa l culture of ca pital ism
a nd its marketi ng of " d ifference," The Crying Game's
spectacle of d ifference is a recuperation of " a bsolute o therness into a domesti ca ted diversity' (p. 109).
Burnham 's ( 1996) essay
takes th e recovery of minorities
o f mas culin ity righ t into the
co re of hegemonic ma scul inity
rep resent ed by U.S. ma le ac tion-adventure or law-and-order films. For Burnham.
H arvey Keitel 's o n- a nd of fscreen rep resent ati ons ca ll into
question hegemonic American
masculinity, figu red as "white.
worki ng-class, (perha ps) ethnic
[Ita lia n}, a nd hete ro se xua l- (p.
113). For Burnham, Keitel's
cha racte r's " lack" is not a signifier of femininit y. but o f a
breakdown of the ma scu line
order and th e ma scu line
sub ject's dissolution from male
mythology ro oted in imp eri a l
experie nce o r fantasies. O ver
the co urse of Keitel's career. his
performances are postmodcrnizcd, so that in The Piano, his
face imita tes the subaltern and
his bod y is revea led in full
frontal nudity. " Keitel's body,"
Burnham continues, " is neither
classicall y muscular nor lith e.
but his gestures reveal a certain
Real . , ... (p. 121). He thus
concludes th at Keitel's work
"prese nts th e possibilities o f a
white, work ing-class ethnic
su bject ivity tha t adm its the
Other-women, qu eers. people
of co lor" as a " no nhege monic
subject ivity " (p. 124),
By foregrounding minorities
of masculinity, th ese essa ys beg
the qu est ion of th eir cultural
significa nce a nd polit ical valence. raising th e issue o f
whether "becoming
minorita ria n" [Massumi,
1992) is a n o ption for all subjeers of late ca pita lism. incl uding the traditiona l White. male
subject. Willis seems cert a in
that The Crying Gam e de monstr ates that "there ca n no telling the sto ry of ma sculinity
th at is neit her heterosexual or
whi te, " thus positing that a
definite White. heterosexual
su bject persi sts through its
spectacular indefinite appearances in contemporary film.
Thus. Willis 's thesis is in tension with the thesis of dissolving or a m biva lent mascul ine
subjects at the core of Ramsay's
and Burnha m's essays.
Newly Hegemonic
AfasClllinities
Ne ithe r Constructing Masculinities nor 80)'s: Masculinities
in Contemporary Culture.
which lav the basis for curre nt
debate. e'xha usts a ll th e pes-
siblc stra tegies of medi a annlysis. In d osing. 1 wa n t [0 return
to Hall's o bservation a bout the
hody a s a signifier o f subjectivity, in o rder to single ou r wo rk
that attempts to pu t th e embodied st ruggles o f hegem on ic
ma scu lini ties and its vari ous
o the rs int o th e co ntex t of the
pos trnodem co nd ition. Byers
posrmodern on e, In contrast to
the do mestica ted T- l 0 1. th e
liquid metal T- 1000 "em bodies
the schizophrenic flow s tha t
Deleu ze an d Guar ta ri identi fy
wi th ca pita l a s a force a nd
ca pita lism as a socia l forma tio n " (p. 10 ). As ;1 noma dic
ra the r tha n mona dic su bject.
the T- IOOO represent s th e
(1995. 19961. Savran ( 1996 )
forces tha t threaten to d issolve
and Pfeil (1996 ) all « ad II nllv- the self, w hich . in turn . actiwood ma sculinities as a culvate defensive psychic protu ra l response ro the his torica l
cesses suc h a s para no ia a nd
tr a um a a nd ide nti ty crises
na rcissis tic regressio n. Th us. in
w rou ght by the transition to
Byers's nco -Fre udian readi ng,
late cap italism or pos tthe T- l000 is a pa radigm o f
ford ism .
pa ra no ia a nd homop ho bia.
f o r Byers ( 1995), feminism
wh ile the T- IOI is "a ligned
a nd homosexu al ity becom e
with "h yp erm a sculiniry, parr i"t ro pes" of a ra nge o f ecoa rchy, a nd th e recupcr nrio n
nomic, soc ia l. a nd cultura l
a nd preser va tio n o f the familv,
shifts a nd d cvcl oprnen rs since
ove r a nd aga inst a ll t hre a ts . '.
th e 1970s. Th e po srmod cm
." (p. 17), T his rec upe ra tio n is
co nd it ion. in t urn . ha.. precip iaccomplished th ro ugh th e dotat ed a profo und. unprecmestic subplot in w hich Sara h
ed ented identity crisis, pa rticu - Co nnor rep resents a "museularly fo r mascul ine ident ity. In
liniz ution " of the fema le bodv
his nco -M a rxi a n. nco-Fr eu dia n tha t is deleginma rcd, whereas
a na lysis o f Tenninatc r 2:
the T-I 00 is posit io ned as the
judgement Day, Bye rs's srratlegitim ate "Uberdad" of the
eg >' is to rea d th e Termina tor
Connor familv, Conrra rv to
model T-101 (Arn old
Jeffo rd s ( 1994 J. wh o sugges ts
Schwa rzc negge r} a nd th e
that t he film's endi ng signals a
new er T- l 000 a s em bodying
tr a nsition fro m an "outwa rd".
the o ppositio ns betw een "clus- d irect ed to "inwa rd't -di rcctcd
sical a nd la te ca pita lism, hema scu linity. Bye rs a rg ues intween a prod uctio n-ba sed instead th a t th e futur e " Ne w
du st rial an d a consu mptionMa n ... must be IUlt/) mort.'
based info rma tion al econ o my,
sens it ive and more succcss fullv
between modern a nd
violent th a n ever" (p. 25). AI-'
post modem cult ure, between
thou g h this an a lysis is phrased
para noi a an d schizo phrenia"
as " bo th/a nd." Byers's eva lua{p. XJ, T hese terminators a rc
tio n is tha t, in spite of di scern sigr uficrs o f tr aditio na l mascuible diffe rences Oelween th e T.
line subjectivity an d a
10 1 (father) and th e New M an
(so n ), " these differences arc
not o nly easi ly rec upera ted by,
but a rc rec uperative of, the
fa the r's dominio n " (p. 26 ),
If o ne response to the hi sto rica l tr auma of post modernirv is fo r hegemonic Am erican
m;~ulinitv to imagine its own
patriarchal future as "the only
sa ne choice." Byers ( 1996)
demonstrates ho w f o rr est
Gump. through a double process of fo rgett ing and " remem bcring," writes the pa..t in
o rder to co ntrol th e popula r
mc mo rv o f this historica l
tr a uma'. Byers's strateg y is to
sho w ho w thi s film's tr ea tme nt
o f history as pastich e du mps
cou nre rc ultura I (rc jCt 1I1 vrr uc rions o f th e gende r a nd
race 1.10\\'11 the memory hole
an d figures th e " do min a nt su bjccr" not o nly in ter ms of gende r. sex uali ty. race. class. a nd
ge nera tio n. hut also as a subject of co ntempora ry. con-crva tin' historical consciousness.
For Bvers. Fo rr est " represents
a lihe~al myth (in Barthes's
sense ... 1of the boomer ~1S the
' new man : egalitaria n. sympa thcric to th e ma rginal ized . a nd
in to uc h with his ' femi nine
side" {p. 43 1). At the same
rime. howeve r, he lives lip to
" fan ta sies o f rraditional masculinit y," thus com bining a ll
"a ppa rent accommod at ion of
femini sm with a deep -sea ted
misog yny" (p. 432 ). Unlike th e
a lien T· I 00 0. whi ch mu st be
des troved for futu re New .\ Ian
John Connor to live (a nd. lead ).
Fo rr est is the new man w ho.
"i n his relations to la nd appro-
priario ns of) femininity and
Blackness, ha s uni ted with the
ide nt it ies of th ose w ho se o therness threaten s the w hite ma le"
tp. 437 ). In th e pr oc ess o f forgett ing o f th e o the r's cultura l
history an d socia l st ruggles.
" the pa tria rch is a ll that is reme mbered" (p. 439).
\,\'ithin globa l po stm odem
cultur a l pro duction s, hegemo nic masc ulin ities a re "co nstruc ted through . no t outsid e,
difference" for without th e
O the r. there would be no Same
(Ha ll. 1996, p. 4 ), Hegem onic
identities need the o the r as a
" co nstit utive outside" to constitute itself in the first pla ce
and its unity (iu tc m ul ho mogeneit y) is constan tly destab ilized. Ha ll's theo rizati on o f
id cn titv accounts fo r th e fac t
that so me work posits a n indefin ite. dispe rsed , no npha llic,
no nhegcmonic ma scu linities
(fo regro unding the impossibi lit v of identity), a nd o the r wo rk
can a rgue th at dominant fictio ns preser ve. co nsolida te. rec reate. a nd retell this imagina ry
identity (foregro undi ng the neccs..it·...of identities) .
If the Ne w M an ha s fun ctio ned as a sympto ma tic figu re
and sign o f th e times. he is not
the o nly con tende r for a lead rug position within the soc ial
imagi nary. In Snvran's ( 1996)
a na lysis. for exam ple, th e
" w hite ma le back lash" tha t
surfaced in the media in the
mid - 1990 s. signifies th e " ne w.
w hite masculine fant a smatic
that coalesced in the m id1970.. in order to faci lita te an
adj ustment to changed material circumsta nces by enco uraging the white male sub ject's
simulta neous embrace and disavowal of the role of victi m"
(p. 128 ). For Savran, th e prototypes for a new type of ma le
protagon ist were Chuck Yeager
in Th e Right Stuff, Ram bo
{Sylveste r Stallone) in Rambo,
and D-Fens (Mic hael Dou glas)
in Falling Down ( 1993) . R e ~
cent films such as Face/Off, Air
Force On e. Conspiracy Theory,
Th e Game, and Th e Edge ha ve
expanded th e arra y of its preferr ed icons, beca use th ese
films feature male protagon ists
who perform th eir own contra dictions, struggle with th em selves as mu ch as with evil or
nature, or undergo ordeal s th at
prove th ey can ra ke pai n a nd
puni sh menr like a man.
Savran's majo r cont ributio n,
however, is to offer a c ritiq ue
of nco-Fr eudian film theory
and its demat erializin g and
un iversaliz ing tendencies..!
First, he rereads on e of th e
mos t pha llic representa tives of
national-polit ical phallic ma sculinity of th e 1980s (Ram bo)
as a spectacle embo dyi ng "o ppo sed pos itionalities"-h yperma scu linit y a nd femini nirv, In
his rereading, eve n Ra mb~ fai ls
to represent " pure pha llic ma sculinity." Second, he
historicizes th e paradigm of
" reflex ive sadomasochism" by
specifying th e social a nd eco nomic cha nges of the last 30
yea rs that ga ve rise (0 the culrura l figure of the "White ma le
as victim." Rather tha n
gro und ing the fanta sies a nd desires th at th is figur e embodies
in the Oe dipal complex,
Savra n locates it in what he
ca lls "The Right Stuff" complex. Thi rd, he a nalyzes the
rhetoric of Ro bert Hly, whose
Iron John th eor ized the "deep
masculine " a nd hailed readers
into a men 's movement based
on " im perialistic fanta sies"
and th e " rac ializa rion of th e
' Wild Man. '" Finall y, he suggest s the most emblematic victim -as-hero is M ichael Dou glas. So, in The Gam e, for example, Nichol as Van Orton
(M ichael Do uglas ) is a wea lthy
cor por ate potentate who experiences rejectio n, povverlcssness, invasion o f pri vacy, and
temporary poverty. Savran
concludes tha t this .. neevly hegemon ic ma sculinit y" has
given impetus to the " patr iot
movement" a nd that T imo thy
M e Veigh is an "ente rprisi ng,
ma lignant-and since Ok lahom a City, suddenl y demonized- va ria tio n " o f th e White
ma lt.' as victim a nd victimizer.
Pfeil's \Vhite Gu ys: Studies
In Postm cdern Domination
and Di((crcttce goes fur ther
tha n any oth er text I kn ow o f
in a na lyzing stra ight , Wh ite
masculinity in relation to bo th
femininit y a nd liberal femi nism, in a wa v tha t underlines
the politica ll{mitation s of anv
(essentia list) left-femin ist posi tion th at po sits White, stra ight
ma scul init y as "a single, monolithic, ab solute evil again st
whi ch an intermina ble str uggle
for tur f and power mu st be
waged" (p. xi i). In his "cl ose
readi ng" o f male ra mpage
films of the late 1980s an d
ea rly 1990s, and t he 199 1
cycle of sensit ive-guy films,
Pfeil (1996) gives greater attention to thei r pos tmodern formal clem ent s ra ther than for mu laic ones, as well as the
co mp lex pleasur es and satisfactions the se films offer as subject s living through the shift
from Pordisrn to pos t-Ford ism.
H is Gramsci an -fcminisr textu al
a nalysis de monst rate s the value
o f clos e readi ng and is an implicit critique of mor e "horizontal" types of cultural interpretation, which gloss over the
co mplex ities of texts and the
specificities o f cult ural a nd po litical conj unctures. In contrast
to Je ffor ds's (1994) narrative
a nal ysis, where stra ight, White
masculine ha rd bo dies and
their ma keo vers ar e read as
historical signs of the Reaga n
revo lut ion, Pfeil reads Holl ywood "vvhire guy s" as a net work of contrasts, codes and
correspondences in order to
emphasize the "irresolutions,
a nxieties, and contra diction s
saw ing away at one a not her
within th e constructs an d disco urses of strai ght white masculiniry" (p. 2 ). Jefford s ( 1994)
a rgues that there ha s been a
shift from the 1980s hard body
to th e lat e-1980s " fa thering"
films (where "fathering" is th e
vehicle for transcendin g rac ial
an d class difference), and to
films that position th eir Wh ite
male heroes as agent s of just ice
o n behal f of African Amer icans
a nd women . Yet, for j cffo rds,
th ere is an underlying sym metr y betw een hard bodies that
define stre ngth either exrernallyor intern ally an d presidenti al rheto ric, which she
lakes as evide nce of the co ntinuity of th e Reagan revolution
into th e po st-Cold War era.
Pfeil also sees gender as a
coded projection that is also
fundam en tally present in the
most pop ular H ollywood
films, but he a rgues that goodbad guy dua lities are ofte n disru rbcd, the O ther "is not only
resiste d bu t pa rtially, cove rt ly
tak en in" (p. 10) a nd, at level
of rhyt hm a nd m ise-en-scene,
suc h films express a "thematics
of pos t-patriarc hal male 'wildness' -a brea kdo wn a nd
rcjigging of th e oedipal par terns of classical emplo tmenr"
(p . 27), that is insepara ble, in
the first insta nce, from pos tFor disr mo des of prod uction.
In pa rticular, Pfeil cla ims th e
combi na tion of male bod ies
and buildings "litera lly in-corporate Ford ist old a nd postFord ist new" (p. 29 ). So,
wher eas Jeffor ds ar gues th at
the ending of films like Terminator 2 offer on ly the ap pearance of masculinity's own nega tion \....hile th e narrative sup plies a "t new' direction for
ma sculin ity" that works (0 reso lve a n xieties about the end
of masc ul init y, Pfeil co nclude s
that th e "wi ld, violent , mortified white male bo dy" at the
center of ma le rampage filmswhose fa nt asies of cla ss- and
gender-based resistance to the
pos t-Fordisr, po srfcminisr
non of med iated masculinities.
worl d a re typica lly turned int o
a n argum ent th at is to he co naccommodation s_may " none- tin ued. is likely to he ad thel ess suggest ancvv' and vervanced. however. onlv when
tiginous psycho-social mohilirv we begin to tak e seri~uslv the
a moment ~f flux " [ p , 31). Fo~' relevance of rhecrv for m'edia
pfeil. in the final anal ysis. no
studies work . read across disci" psycho- socia l bod y is ever fiplinary bo rders. and make. as
nail)' closed. no imaginary ever Ca role Spirzack has proposed.
com plete or fully resolved:' (p. a "commitment to the destabi.U ). includ ing the straight.
lizat ion of singu larity in pe rWhite mall' ima gina ry, Pfeil's
spcc rive."
work th us urges us to he ;IW3rl'
when \X/hitt'. work ing men's
,\uthnr
(sc reen] bod ies ar t' mu tating.
R"t-err Hanke IS on rbe ra,'u)n -oj the Unifor th is means that rhev are
,·..rslly of Lo uiw ill...
open to redefin ition an-d
rea~ti culation . Pfeil's stra tegy IS
;"';'>T...
to focus on popular films '
..h CO!l<'ll ( 1 9 9 ~1 nnlcs. fUlKtlonaJ"t
svm pro ma nc irresolution. in
~, om pl ..memar)·- st"'·rol.. , heo ry was ir~Ir a term of norm.. lilln~ gender politic\.
whi ch case even some male
' . for turther di-.:us,ion of lh~ PC'S' rampa~t' or sensitive-guy films
linn, In the conrexe o lldn-,,;on studies.
may offer no t onlv evidence of
' .... Ha nke 11997).
, f o r a powe rful ,1I\d i.l....-in,uing cnnque
ideologica l recu per ation , but
o f. .md a ltn na!ln" ro, film theory's " <'(10 '
;11«0 of " those 'mo rbid symplln "e d m.unr en,ltln · of ill ' .III-encompa« _
to ms' that occur when. as
mg, hegcmonlc par;,digm for lhl' nitic..1
.1Ild lhenlctKa l dis.:u" io n of film," 't"e
Cramsci said. 't he old is dying
\ha,'iro (1 99.3 ), who", work d ra ws from
a nd (he new ca nnot be bo rn "
Deleuze and G u.u lJ ri\ p<'Stf>s)-,'hoanah-ti,
Ip.5 51.
rh('(lr!' of lh<:, sub;':"'t In order 10 hre-..k Taken togeth er. these studies trom Frr ud and l.l,an.
in postmodcrnizing hegemonic
masculiniti es o ffer varying
models for analysis and critical Rrterro<('S
..\ rnn......rtz, S. ( I 992 l. \l:"rklOg-dass <culpractice that close the gap beture in the electromc age. In S.
tw een the discursive and t he
A.ron"wi rL. The pohlr,s of Idnltlty:
CI,Jss, 'UII"'I', so.' 1011 ",,,,'(m(nts (pp.
ma ter ial and ta kl' an:oum of
19 3-2.0 9 ). New York: Knur ledgr.
p sy~hic proce ssl'S, the self. an d
B.lfl he l, D. ( 198 8) . r U lli'll{ "', J.1,pear.
s OC I;] 1 rela tions in the present
,mus: Gn"/a ,m d ,ldl",.lising. PhiLI.dd phia; 'I(;,mple Un;\'l'!, iry Pres- .
c~ni u n~ t ure . Th e foregoi ng
Iknnell. T. 119 H61. h ltrod un io n: Popular
diSCUSS ion has not produced a
"u ltu re a nd the 't um , ,, C,ramsc i: In T.
ddinitive map of the zone of
Iknnl"!t, C. .\ ltt<:cr.. &: j . \'('oo llacOIt
, FJ s.). PO/Ju!.Jr ,'u[lur e .J..d soct.J/.eutheorizing masculinin: with/in
1I".. s l pp. XI-xixl. l'h ilaJd p hia: O Pf'n
the med ia, but it doe~ indi cate
Um'·...-slq· P~s.
how the agenda for media
Bordo. S. (1 99-'1. Rn d inlt the ma lC' body.
In L Go( dYC'1O (Lt.). Th.. ...~[.. body:
slud ies work on the topic has
F..~tur..s. destm ws, Uposuru Ipp.16j_
been ('vo h·ing. The theoriza-
3(6). Ann Arbor: University o f I\1i" higdn Press.
Ikr~C'r, !lot., Wa llis. B., &.: War"..n, S. (Eds .l.
(199j). eo....tnu:tmg musc ,.I,mry. l" C'w
York: RoutledgC'.
Btu toha. II . (19 95 1. ,J" re )'Ou a m..n o r a
mou~? In !lot. !\ergN', B. Walli", &.: S.
Wa.hon IE.h.). w.... lrucrmJ: " Msculm It)! lpp. 57~51. ;"';e" Yn rk: RoullcJ"...
Brod , II . (1'195 1. !l.1a".,; u lmity a' masquerade. In A. Perch uk anJ 1I. P....nc r
[Edv.l, TJ", "'J.uulm<, ....l!-'1u,·.,Jdt':
MJ.uu lim ly J.n d r<'I' .t'untJ.t i".. (pp .
1.3-19). Ca mbridg e, !l.IA: ~ I1T Prn,.
Bllrnll.lrn, Co II 'J'!6 1. Scanc rcd , pn u lalio n, on the ..-alul' or I I.u ..- e}' Keitcl. In
1', Smn h (FJ .), Bovs: M.lswl,."II(·s rtf
n m f,'mpOr.lI')' ,ult".,. (p p, 11,1-1 29 ).
lI.oulJer, CO: \\".., r,i..w.
Butler. J. (1990 1. GenJu trm,Me: h'mimsm J.nJ tilt' 5ltb,'e rs,on of Idrnllt)'.
:-.<..... York: Ro utledge .
Butler; J. (1993 ). RaJlt's t/,,ll "'J. lfer: On
the JISfu.si,·e limItS o f "Se.r.." Sl'"
Yor k: Routledgr.
Bctle r, J. 11995 1. \ld a n.; h "I ~' ~C'nJcrlr ..fused iJ ..nnfcanon. In ~I . Berger. B.
W,lIh" &: S. K at>un (FJ s.!, C"nst",crmK mJ.s",lmlt)' jpp. ll-161. ;";e "
York: Rout ledge.
Bj'er' . T. (1'1'151. TCTOlIna linlt rhe
pn ' tmo dc rn : \Ia<,uli n lf)' .\IIJ
I'"mul'huhia. Mod...." halOn Studies,
4 / ( 1), 5- 3.1.
1\\'er"I. (1'1'16). His ror v Re-mem bered:
, rum'si Gump. J'O"ti~mrn"t mascuhnit)'..md rhe hurial oi th .. , .. untercul lure. .\ lo..Jcrn Frctlun\luJ,t'S, -1 212\.
419....4044.
CIoIrl<, D. 11995 1.Commoduy lesb i..msrn.
In ( ;. Dmcs <lnJ J. H um er t F-d,.I. Gender, rJ.a J.nd cuss In medl.J (pp. 142l .l l l. Thousand (hb. CA: Sage.
Clarke, E.. &:. Hens on, \ t. ( 1'196). Hot
Da mme t Reflectionc on /:aj' rubh,n ~.
In P. \mirh (EJ.I, BO)·$: \IJ.s. «li,.iti"s m
",mumporJ.I')' , ult",,, (pp. 1\ 1-1 49) .
Bu ulJ n. CO: \l·r ,r ..-,,·w.
Ch" I'"l.ln . R.• ,tnd Rurh crfurJ. j. IFd s.).
(I ':I ~ ll ) . .\1<11" ".der: [r",, 'r,I/'("" R m,l,m /mit},. 1."nJ"n: I ." w n·n~ c &:. \\'i , h"rt .
C1uud. D . 119'16). 1kl:..nwn~ or nllKOr ..lance? T he ,h,'lOri,' oj t .. keni,rn in
- Oprah- U·in fr..~\ r"l-"·l'>-rtchn hiographl. C.,t",l1 Slud,es m MJ.ss C"",mU""J.t,o... H (ll, II ~-I.17.
ClouJ. D. (1997J. Con~tlrJdO<", ,omplexIn' ,lIlJ cOll;,en'atlsm: Re]o mder 10
ConJit. e mu'oJ/ Slud.es ,., ,\ IJ.ss C.om... u ..",Jtio.., H \2 ),1 9 3-1 9 7.
Coates, N. (199 8). Ca.n', we ju..t talk
aboul th.. mu sk ?: Rock and ~nder on
th.. interntt. In T. Swi,~ J. Sloo p. & A.
Her ma n (Eds.I . .\ tJ.p pin K th e beat:
Popu !.Jr music ol..d
mpur~ry
theory lpp. 77-99). .\lalden• .\1.,, :
Blackwell.
c...han, v., sc Hark. I. R. (EJ s.). 11993l.
.\,-ru""'g ,he m.l{e: Exp{o,mg m.lSCU·
1",'tIN In Ih e lI olf)·W<JO<1 (I"emol. l" e....
Ynrk: Routledge.
Cohan, S. ( 199 5 ). The 'py m rh.. !tray fla nnel ,uit: Oe nder pc rforman~e and the
represenrauon o f m.l..:ul inity in X ",th
l>y .\'",IIIlI},·sl. In A. !'e"huk and H.
P",n..r (Eds. ), The "'<l s",I", e masq ner,1,1,,: M.lsmfllllly ,,,,d TI',"<'SoltJ.li""
IPP, 4 3-6 2 ). Cam bndg.., .\1'\: .\11'1'
Pres, .
<:' ", d 'l , ( :. (1'J94). Hegemonv in ma , s·m ed lareJ ><.>c ie,)': Concordan.... a.bout re productive tcxhnologles. C.,t,,~1 Stud·
le$ i.. MJ.ss CO... m....",Jt,. .... I J(.I I.
105-BO.
Condit, C. (199 71. Clocdmg the i....un:
The ideal and the ma.teridl in human
communication. C.,tit',J1 S,udiN In
.\ IJ.s$ C,onm,u ..ic,lIIOIl, l41l l. 197- l 00.
Cunnell, R. U'. (191171. Gen./,·r .lnd p.. ~'fi':
S""ny. the pe rs"" J.lld st'x II.l1 po/illt's.
Pal.. Altn. CA: Sranford Uni\ eTsity
Pr" , .
( :"1I1Iell. K.W. ( 1990 ). An iron man : The
hoJ~' and so me comradicnons of hegemoni, ma sculinirv. In !Iol. ,\ Ie" ner &
D. SAh.. (EJs.) , SPort , me.. , .J"d tht'
g.·ndrr o rde r: Cnncal fernm ist pers p..ctwt'S (pp. 83·95j. Champai!tn, IL: Hu·
ma n Kmtt k.---s Boo ks.
Connell. R.U·. (19951. M.ls,ulm lllu .lkr·
kelev: University o f Ca.hfomia. Pres s,
Dav... L (19Q7j. Th C' swim ..uit is~uC' and
~pc,n: Hegem o nic ma...:uhn it)· III Sports
//IustrJ.ud. Albany: Sta te Uni~e.-siry 01'
~e .... Yo rk Pr(";~.
De L lur..ri" T. {1987). Th e rl"(hnolos y 01
l:..nJer. In T. de- L...oretis, Tech..olo~i"s
"1.1t" "d",: EsSolYS 0" II' eo ry, fil... , J...d
fl,t,,'" (pp. 1-301. Blo" minlo\ton: Ind l'
University Pre' s.
l) o na IJ " Ill, 1\1. (19 ':1 3). Wh ;lI is hegemoni"
lll,I,," lil1 ity? l h(ury .llId S""ely, ll l5 l,
liH-t.'i7.
(lo ", . A. ( I'193). MJ.k in~ th mgs perfectly
qu.·rr: / rtlcrp,.."n~ mJ.u , ,,Itu .e. ~ lin'
n,-",polis: l·lli..... .-sit~· or .\ hnn.....>{..
I'ren .
Dl'.,m. \1 . {19 '13 1. Ik like \ tlkc?: \ h~hae1
lorda.n oInJ the p<'ddgo~~ of .loire.
Cullu.J.15u,J,es. 7( I I. 64--72 .
co,,'..
.,";1
Ehr~n r~ i..: h . B. ( 19<,15). Th~ .J~din~
uf I'~ln:'
a rchy. In ~t . 1kTg~r. B. ~·~I lis • .so: S,
1J;·.. rson If.•I\.). C..onstrwa "'K ""'K .. I",.
,,, (pp. 284-901. S"," Yo rk :
RoudNgr.
Farred, G. 119%). Tht prttT~1
P't",r(m orll.. l: .\ l uha mm ...J Akin P.
Smith ( ed.) . 8 0)'s: .\ I.J5, ,,I,,,, t,... ,,, CO ".
t..... po ro1ry c.. It" r.. (p p. 151 -1 70 ). Boulder, CO: " 'Ol v,~w.
f~l o. r.. 119 <,1 2 ). :\1~ \.Cu linllY .,.. b..:r: A r~­
virw " I ell1l'''i..·.l1 ma w communication
research on mol 'i<:ulini ry. In S, C ra i.:
(f..l.••.\ 1..". nlo1JC"I"'lt)', o1"Jth.. ..,..Jlo1
(1'1'. 9_ 22 ). ~e"' l>ul") Pa rk . C ,\.: Sa.:e.
I'eie~. E. &: I'em ..: h. K. (I':N JI. lnv"iol lil)'.
h"mul'n...I>, .. .m.J her er...... xrsm: 1.001..n'. pn .. nJ rM mnj,.. , C .,t.c.l15t.. J .
I ..S", .\lo1SS ( A',., ,.,.... U'.lr"'... 1014).
l'1 ,~ -I22 .
h , lo: r . J. ' D......",. R . I I ~ l. AuJ,eo<:mg
violence: \\ ·..r,·h1l1J: homr~, men
watc h D,,' II.,.J, In 1- H.u '. L
(; rm,l-r rg , &: L \\ ·d nd la ·~ F.J •. l. 'l he
.l" J,t'OIU .lIlJ ,ts 100"dsc.Jp.. (1'1'. 2<,17J 16). B" uIJ,·r. CO: \'('e 'I\"cw l're ~s.
I'uch_. C. I I ':1 <,16 ). MRrJ r me Ulilla II1C M: At.
ternanve ma scu hnmes. ln 1'. "'ml1h
,[ ..I.). lkrys, \ I.uc"I"" tl"s '" com ..",po''''Y c"lt..... (1'1'. 1 ~1 -1<,I~ I. BouIJer.
CO: \1; N n e w.
c,r<"'-hc~. L 11'1<,1 71. B' /..gm.c It 01 11 b.JcA:
bo", e, f.ssJ)J '" u n c.. It'''o1l st"J.... .
Uurlu m. ;";C : Duke Cn " er,," Pre».
fl JII.S. ( 19 '1{». Inlr\>J LKriun : \\ 'ho ne~do
Ldr nlil )" ? In .... I!.IlI & P. J u C,"l·l h h . l.
Q"":lt"",s ,,( ,J....ttn" Il r. 1-17 ). lb" u ,.m.1n .ll-. C,\: ~,l gl"
I IJnk r • R. 1\ <,I1I1l 1. I l q~em"l1I': nM"u llllily
In rh LN l >Vmer hmJ:. Crm ..011.\ r" J I"s ,,,
.\ I.lsS C""''''''nI, 0111<."', 70 I. 2J 1-14 11.
H Jnke. R. ( 1992). R rJr~i gn mg men : I k ge .
m"m" mJ,.;ullOl u - Ln tr.1n"lIoo . In ....
Cr"'J: (FJ.I•. \1..... "'.IK..IIPl,fl;, .l.. J th..
,.,..dt.l lrr.11I ~ - 19I1 l. ;";ew h~n P;ltl .
CA : SdJo:~ .
.
I bn kr. R. (Iorl!k-u m mg). Th e -1J1< ... k .m..M
,;ho OLIU.ll10n u,m<'<f)": II C'J:,r mun "
mJ "ulmlly JnJ Lh tr ill:fd llo n. " ·n t..,n
Jm' m 011 of C,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-.lIlw,. I> l ( I ).
I lank". R, I I <,I1I1I 1. [Mlrrr n,;r .mJ iJem il\'
III S ..,th ..,n I-_Yf>us,,'''' In L \'J nde
.
Flrrlt- l.. \\ 'r n n ,· B. c, ru n l>,; " k ([ .J,.I.
d ...s t<ll..r.., ·,~" ... (r r.
1"1_r' .~ 1. 8< " " ",_ .\l\: ll" ud llOll
C71',,·,jI ..pp
.\11111111.
11.1'"k...."'orl h•.\1 . ( I <,1 <,1 7 1. Conloun..linJ:
grnJcr. .Slgns: JU" Hul ,,( U'" ,.,.... ....J
0 .1'..... ,.. Soc...ty. .!l(J I. 6-49-4.IH .
Hu m . J. 1199 61. I ~ rn.J"Cu],ml) Jca.J? A
cr iriq ue of the co"""r' 01 ma~ulincJ
ma...-ul,nltles. ln M ..\I ...: ..n Gh ..lll
(Ed.'. U"JrrstJ,.J,TlK ..usa-I",." ..s: Soci.lJ,..l.JtWllS o1nd c" /''' ' 011.J' ..nJS (pp.
202-2 17/. Pbiudclph,a : 0rm Univer·
51'" PITU..
hooks. b. (1995 1. DoIOll, Ll for d.l.d.Jy.ln
M . Berger; B. W..lli•• & S. \1:''' ' <;00
IF.d•.). Q,nslnu ,,,,g "'.l~ ..I"" f)· (r r .
9ll-11 4 ). N..w York : ROOlledJ:".
ktl< lrJ o. S. (19 941. H J.J b"Ji..s: H" lIy.
mo1Sr"/llimty ", 11,.. Rro1l/.", era.
:"rw f'oruo>wick .:"J: Ru tgers l! ni\"erPrew ,
.\IJ» um l. K. ( 199 2). A .. U"s 8 ud .. 10 cap rl.l!ts,., o1nJ sch/Zoph.,..l.J: D "I 'Iol" m fS
fr''''' Dd .... ;:r .l..J o1tUtr.
hnd~. ,\ 1.\ : .\IIT Pro.•.
:'0.1, RobbLe•.\ . I I ';1';17 1. Th....s .."d th......t•.
..s: ,"'.... , 'l ""J lions {o' {..",mu", .J .. J
.... It,,,011 st .. J' ..s. ln .\ 1. Ferg uso n ~ P.
G"I.JlOg (I':'k l. Cult.....1St" J,,,S ,..
'1""5/"''' [r p . 170- 1116 ). Lon.Jon : !l;lg".
.\ l rr,,·r r. K . ( 1994 •. W'..Im m.. 10 Ih.. ,.."gl..:
N"'I' p" sltllms m Hlo1(Jr cull"ro1l sl...I,..s.
N~w York : Rn ur[e.JI(( .
.\ l ick .lr! . J. ( I ':I~6 ) . I'ro' l hcri.: gend er ;In.J
um' Cl\dII Olrllr.: I' ~lq.h m l1.lwking·s
1.1"' . In P. Sm"h ([ .J.I. Buys: .\ I.u<..I"" .
t,.., ,,, cO" "''''PO' o1l\-,-.. It" ... (pp. 19<;1_
2 I lIl. S"llldrr. co: \\'on-ie"'·.
\ l,d.Jln " n . P. 11<;1"'2 I. n, .."'u'o1,d ~ ..~ ..:
",,,,>tJ
"I"
e..
um-
.\ I.IK" I,,1l1y .."J ,.. I,trall"" '" ,." Jd...",
~(w Yo rio: : Roul [rog ...
1>.1, ,rlrl·. n. I I '1R{> I. f'o1,."lv tl'lel"s",,, : Cul-
,-ultu,...
''''011 po",... ....d J,,"'~,'ie I..,~ " .... I.on .J" n : Cnm ,·J ,a.
~~ .llt . S. ( I'N I). .\1.1"': llllllllY a~ 'I"'..·t;ld e:
Rdl r.:unn , " n m~ n ,IIlJ mJin ,U eam
,·Ulem.l. In W. Coh;ln &: I- R. If ../ k
( f .Jo.). ,~,,,,,,,,,,"g tlo.. ,.,..1..: f.xpl."",~
"'o1s.-"lm ,tl"s 101 H"i1~, .....Jti cm""'J Ir p.
<;1 - 201. london: Ro urlr.J!,:e . (O rlf/: Iru.1
.. ,,,k puhl lw.J lSI I"'~j )
;";" '..n. \ . ( I <,I~6 1. I 'o1.J 1,,, ,Jrs: -'fo1sc,./"" .
I,..s. ~pr" '.Jtursh,p, o1"J conU,,,p0101ry
" "'su,.,p, ,,.... ;";e... York : SI. .\hnlO ·s.
;";,," n. S. 0 '1<,1::," ). Exh,hn lllg m;l><;u hn lry.
In ~, H a ll (F..J.l. Rep., sr"t.ltll"' : Cullur,11 " 'p"'U'I/<JI,u" ,/lid s,gm fymg
1" ..<'/,<'<'s (pp. 291~.1 16 1 . Thnu ~J n.J
OJ k... CA: SaJo\e.
I'( , o ra. :" . II '1'12). Sllp"'rm.lnl.lIpcrh.. ~'"
'lI pcr men: 'Ih e cOIm.: hook hero d\ 'iO,,;l I,ting ..gml. In S. Cu'g 1EJ.). ,\I...,.
..... J("JI!t"l ty. o1 ..J t#or ",..J l.J Ipp. 6 1- 77,.
S","bu ry Puk. CA: ~RC .
Pi..il. F. (1996 1. ""·h"...I"Y" St.. d,..s ,..
pos',.,od...... dOttl'TW/IOft 01,.J J4{......,u.
london: Veno.
R.. msay, C. (1996). :\hlr ho rr or: On
David Ct<m m hc rg. l n P. Smilh If J.I.
Bay': ,\ l.uc.. /""t...s ... con,......po ' o1..,
e.. lt",.. (pp. 8 1-95 1. Bouldet, CO:
Wnn-">CW.
ROt;ot1.l.. &- V.. n l«f. D. il 99J). After·
lhoughu ... A .Jo.... er on m'UC\lhnines. n, .." ry o1nJ .'io" ,..ty. 2l(~ ) . 739761.
R.".o. A. ( I <,1 <,15 •. The g. ....r " 'h'l e dude . In
~ l . Berge r, B. " -;I lh, . ~ S. \\ -.11" 1\1
(F.J,. ). C" "s tm a ",}: ""ls,."li",')' (p l"
\/i 7- 17 5 1. ;";rw Yurk : R"utl..JJ:e .
"'J';U. D. ( 1<,1 ';1 21. \I J 'o:ullmf} a' "gn>:
P,...I,UU(fU U !L" f(m llll'I a rprn.I': o~ I n
the ' IUJ)' u f gend ..r, In .... Cra 'l>: ([ d .l.
.\ 1..." .....s•.-,.I",,1¥, 01"J ,h.. ",..J'o1 lpP·
H-J91. ;";e", bul") Pa rk, CA: ..... ge .
"'JVC.in. D. , 1<,1 <,1 6 1. The ... .l"m;l"",hL..r m
the ..:k~ : \l:biu m..",ul,mt)" .. nd rhe
cultu re 0 1 \·,,"t,m ,ullon. J'/f"'''''u s: :\
1',,,,,,..1uf {.....,rIIst , ,,It'' ' JI st" J,..s,
b'(2l. 127 - 1 Q.
" ;Jg..i,k. I' . ( 1'J';I,S). <';",h . f\.o. ,)" (;...,"I:r •
"o u mu sr he dw/u ll~ ....c ure Ln )'our
~d,.;ulitlll)'! In .\1. Brrg(r. B. W.llh,. &
S. \'('ar " lI1 l l'.d~. I . <:"..), ,, ,,'1"'11 ", ..s(,,·
1",lIy I pp . 11- 20 ). ;";e..- Y"rl :
Routledge.
vhaviro. .... 11'1':131. n, .." .........nc boJy.
.\hnor .. "" l,,: Um.er" r,· I\t ~"nnesolJ
Pro.•.
"ihcrm~n • .,;. ~ 1'1':12 1..\t.. l.. s" h/t'< tll"ty o1t
rh.. """ Jl''' ~ ' :" e..- Yo r k: Rnur ledli:( .
..ol um"n ,C.. ..J~J u . A. (1':1 95 1. ~I Jl("
l rout-Ir . In ~l . fk~cr. B. \'('0111.... &: ~ .
\\'",,~on (E.J, .l. C.."' JItII<"/I>'jl mJUUIIll ,Iy IPI'. {>'1 _7/i ). ~ cw Yur k : Ruull..dgc.
' lrinman. C. ( 1 ~<,l2 1. (;oIle "Ul "t l'.. und~ :
.\ kn ....u .:h mg men on le le\l"''''. In ....
C r.li~ C" .J.) • .\1...,. "' Js<'" I" m y. o1nJ ,h..
", ..J'J crr. 19'1- 214 1. ~~..- hu r)' p.irk .
C A: ~KC.
~Ilo. P. 11 9<,1 ~ ) . u st\O.',,,,J bounJ. ln .\1,
Rr.~..r. S. \1; '..11L,. .... \1;';11" '" (r.Js.).
C..otIJrtll, t",g ",o1scul,,,,t')· Ipr o77_971.
S e.. Y" rk : Ro udrd l(( .
"'mllh, P. (I:.t.l. (19 '11> 1. R" ys:\IJs,-.. I", m..s
'" c"",'·...''''rd•.,. n ,lrur... f\.o. 'uldl·r. Co:
\\'..,lvlew.
b ~kn. Y. ( I <,I'H )..~p,·d.J"'/o1r I",J,ts:
Je'. g,,'''e o1 ..J 01(/1U" (' .......01 . :" cw
York : Rou d e.Jge.
lru l1llo. N. 119<;1 11. HC'J:,( m' lI1 i, m;l...:ulin'IV on the mound: ~ Iroi;l rrprncnu ·
II~ of ;";wn Ry.. n ..nJ Amcn.::.. n
. porn culrure. Om(.,l15,uJ,.., ,.. .\ lo1:1S
em-
Com ,.,,,n" .Jtlon. NtJ ). 290-3011.
W..lIKe• .\1. 0 W S)• .\t......'"LIILn")" 10 Bu ck
popul... culture. In .\1. 8ctJtcr, B.
w.. 1li• • ~ S. W..rsan ( F..J~. ). C..ons ll ud·
' TIK ", .ucu/,.. ,ty (pp. 10 9-J 06). Sew
York , RoutlcJ~e.
~1.. lser, R. 1199 J ), forging m~\CulimlY:
Hca v,' meul M>UnJs and im.;agn of gc-n R. '«'..Iscr. R..n,..lTlr .... th th ..
dee, In
d..ur: I'au ..... r ....J.... reberl.on .. "J rocJr
ro l/l pr. 108- I J 6 ). II dnover. S I I:
\\'....Ie'·..n Prn , " I Sew EnRbnJ .
WillI' . 'io. I I <,1';16 ). Tcl bng J,ffn-m,-...: R.I,-e•
~(n.Je', a nd ",,_u .llil)- in Th.. Crymll
G,,,,,,·.ln P. Smilh (Ed.). B"ys: Mo1U'"
lim',..s III elll,r"''' f>urolry , ,,II" re (pl'.
<,1 7-112 ). Bu u lJ cr. CO: \I:·eou-iew.
' n'
o 1':I'JII ImcrnallUnJI C">mmun"..I100 A"n.