Masculinity

Ruhr UniversitÐ"¤t Bochum

English Department

American Studies

Iris-Aya Laemmerhirt

Submitted by: Thomas HÐ"јsken

2) How are race and masculinity connected? Are there differences between Asian American, African Americans and Caucasians in movies?

Historically, masculinity in the United States has been constructed as being White Protestant Anglo-Saxon, furthermore heterosexual and in charge of all matters, and this definition sets standards against which other men are measured an evaluated. Michael Kimmel provides a good definition:

[…], Young, married, white, urban heterosexual, Protestant father of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight and height and a recent record in sports(271).

This definition refers to a so-called „hegemonic masculinity“ because it describes a man of power, in power and with power(272).

Racially and ethnically other men have always been equated with characteristics that symbolically effeminate and disempower them. Those other men are African Americans and Asian Americans as well as Latinos and Native Americans, which are not my concern in this essay. I want to argue that race and masculinity cannot be regarded as distinct matters but are closely linked and intertwined with each other because the hegemonic masculinity by definition is only valid for Caucasians and also constructed by them. Ethnically and racially other men can never fully become masculine by that definition, they have to content themselves with the role of a marginal other. To emphasize the importance and historical significance I like to quote Dollimore:

„No consideration of cultural and/or racial difference should ever neglect the sheer negativity, evil and inferiority with which „the other“ of such differences has been associated throughout history“ (Dollimore 18) .

These Others have the opportunity approach masculinity, in terms of the definition provided by Kimmel, when they assimilate to white hegemonic structures, mannerisms and habits, but they have to depend on those same hegemonic structures to grant them this reward, for the dubious price of neglecting their own heritage and culture, at least that is what I think.

Others can always help the Caucasian hero to reach his goal and safe „the world“ because they might possess a specific and peculiar skill that helps to achieve the aspired goal and this capability furthermore marks their otherness. But they can never possess the whole package like the white hero does.

Historically, African Americans have been made hypermasculine as well as they have been emasculated. They were portrayed as either the overwhelmingly strong, sexual aggressive invader or the harmless boy not to be feared.

Asian American have been depicted as malicious, sneaky and evil minded others that always threaten to rape innocent white maidens. They are thought of as not being able to speak proper English and in the American cinema there are three formulaic traditions regarding the way Asians are depicted in movies, according to Jun Xing: the yellow peril, the Madame Butterfly and the Charlie Chan stories (Jun, Xing. Asian America Through the Lens. Alta Misa Press. 1998. p.55).

Asian Americans in movies made by Americans show us the „yellow peril“ as a constant fear of rape, the rape of not only white women but also white society itself, because on the larger scale the White woman represented the Christian white society and had to be protected of the demonic oriental (Jun, Xing, p.56).

The American Hero in the course of a film overcame various breathtaking obstacles and traps and at the end defeated the meager Asian villain. All those stereotypical images have more or less ceased to exist so blatantly in contemporary movies, but they resound in the depiction of those groups, nonetheless.

Today the Asian realm is not demonized anymore but still referred to as the other, because they have different cultural features that are alienating to our perception, but they have become an enemy to be feared not so much for his cunning but for his martial arts. This new masculinity was first and foremost introduced by Bruce Lee, who shot a handful movies that have influenced literally every production from either Asia or America since then. His masculinity did not depend on fancy equipment like James BondÐ'Ò's or heavy artillery like those of Cowboys and Rambo, he depended solely on his physique, his extraordinarily trained and hard body. And hisÐ'Ò' did not look as impressive as „Rambo“, „Rocky“ or the „Terminator“ did, but he nonetheless defeated every opponent with his powerful martial arts and he did not rely on weapons, even though he might have used several traditional weapons of the martial arts world.

True, authentic masculinity can never be achieved by a ethnically other man and if they possess these characteristics, they float above all conventions that are existing in real life and those characters become sort of supernatural, not to be encountered in real life. These narratives are completely detached from all context and tell a story of idealized proportions to convey an image that presents the US society as a system where truly all men (and women) are created equal and solve their issues and other problems confronting the security of the state amicable.

Motion pictures starring African Americans of the fifties and sixties provide an example of this, since Sidney Poitier has been portraying integrative characters that earned him several Academy Awards, but all these narratives present him as an accepted and integrated figure in the white hegemonic world. His character is completely detached from all the issues the Black Community has been confronted with in the time when Poitier shot his movies, which was at the height of racial tensions and riots all over the countryÐ'Ò's major cities.

A good example is „Guess WhoÐ'Ò's Coming To Dinner“ from 1967. The