
scholars (including George Chauncey E.Anthony Rotundo, Michael S. Kimmel)
recognize a persistent historical anxiety that drives the vigorous activity of the masculine
enterprise. As these scholars see it, the anxietyproducing agent that enables the historical
concepts of masculinity is the perceived threat of cultural
effeminization
(see
homophobia
). The rise of the new woman at the turn of the nineteenth century and her
entry into the industrial-age workforce triggered a considerable cause for worry. The
rapid development of industrial capitalism spawned paradoxical response since, on the
one hand, the industrial age promised a virile and efficient world. On the other hand, the
very same notions of progress ushered in quite a few unmanly and thereby undesirable
social elements. One might suggest that the hyper-virile antics of American men at this
time (weightlifting, sport) served as an activity to contain cultural excess, i.e. the
feminine. Thus, the discourse of cultural conditions was often framed along gender lines:
“effeminacy” was the sweeping generalization assigned to the cause of any ill-effect
attending modern society. Sloth, “neurasthenia,” homosexuality and other purported
weaknesses observed in/ on the male body were paradigmatic dysfunctions directly
related to the “effeminizing” of American culture.
American artists, statesmen and religious individuals took to the cause of mastering the
cultural parameters of masculinity that were apparently put at risk by cultural
an
corporeal effeminization. Ironically, the rigor with which men engaged the physical and
emotional reconfiguration of manhood was often demonstrated with comical if not
cartoon-like effect. “Sandow the Strongman” in Edison’s film shorts (
c.
1896) or the
steel-like men that dominated the 1930s paintings of Thomas Hart Benton highlight the
hyperbolic work involved with the presentation of virile American manhood.
Arguably, movies have been most instrumental in the shaping of an American
consciousness of a masculine ideal during the twentieth century. Hollywood masculinity,
however, is as varied as the cultural conditions that manufacture masculine identity
Shifting between the likes of Sandow and Clark Gable, Errol Flynn and Fred
Astaire,
Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis and Leonardo DiCaprio,
Hollywood’s
representation of masculinity allows multiple, conflictive readings.
One thing remains certain: if the terms of masculinity are varied and are established
relative to the contemporary (and mobile) discourse of “femininity” the
bête noir
o
culture is an uncontained effeminacy of masculinity that announces itself as homosexual.
It is no surprise, then, that some American men have practically made a career out o
defending their perceived
un
masculine dispositions as differential masculinity Politician
Theodore Roosevelt’s aristocratic upbringing ushered in charges of
dilletanti
politics by
not a few New York State assemblymen in 1882, who calculatingly called him an “Oscar
Wilde”; dancer/choreographer Gene
Kelly
produced a
television
program in 1958
entitled
Dancing, A Man’s Game
to prove that ballet and
baseball
were really carved out
of the same manly tradition; actor Kevin Spacey told the world that he intends to have
children in hopes of refuting
Esquire Magazine’s
claims that he is gay
The inability to define a true American masculinity cuts across issues of
race
as well
(although the terms that define American manhood usually find themselves organized
Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture 704