Theorizing Masculinities Edited by Harry Brod Michael Kaufman Published in cooperation with tha Man's Studios Association, A Task Group af the National Organization for Man Against Sexism ® SAGE Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher Thousand Oaks London New Delhi 14947 Masculinity as Homophobia Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity MICHAEL S. KIMMEL Funny thing.” [Cerley's one. | yet along Figg with hath, But just Jet two of the guys get together ‘you won't talk, Jus’ nothin” but mad,” She cupped her fingers am put her hands on her hips. "You're all scared of each ether, that's whit [ever‘one of you's scured the 1631 is goin’ to yet something a0 you. Jahn Steinbeck. Of Mice and Aten (1937) fo} said. “Hi Leatch any one man. ard he’s We think of manhood as eternal. a timeless essence thal resides deep in the heart of every man. We think of manhood asa thing, a yualty that one either has or doeso't have, We think of manhood as innate, residing in the particular biological composition of the human male, the resutl of andro- ons or the possession of a penis. We think of manhood as 3 transcendent lungible property Gat each man snus! manifest in the world, the reward Presented with great veremony to a young novice by his elders tor having suveesstully completed an arduous initiation ritual, In the words of poer AUTHOR'S NOTE: This chapter sepreseats 4 peclimunaey working out of a theoretical “uapter a mi fortacorning bon, Mltont: he Americus Quest Un pressh 1am grateful lo Tim Beneke, Harry Bre, Michael Kaulaian, lona Mar-Drita, and Lillian Rubin far ‘umnants ap eurier sersians of the claves, ne120, THEORIZING MascULINITIES Robert Bly (1990), “the structure al the bottom of the male psyehe is stil ais firm as it was twenty thousand yeas ago” (p. 230). In this chapter, I view masculinity 4s « constantly changing collection of meanings that we construct through our relationships with ourselves, with each otter. and with our world. Manhood is neither static nor timeless; itis histerical, Manhood is not the manifestation of an nner essence: it iS socially constructed. Manhood does not bubble up to con- sciousness trom our biological makcup: itis created in culture, Manhood means different things at different times to different people. We come to know what it means to be a mata our culture by setting our definitions in opposition to a set of “others"—racial minoritics, sexual minorities, and, above all, women. ‘Our definitions of manhood are constantly changing, being played out ‘on the political and social terrain on witch the relationships between women and men are played out, In fact, the search for a transcendent, timeless definition of manhood is itself a sociological pheaornenon— we tend to search for the tineless.and eternal during moments of erisis, those points of transition when old definitions no longer work and new delinitions are yet to be firmly established. “This idea thal manhood is socially constructed and historically shifting should not be understood as a loss, that something is being taken away Srom men, In fact, it gives us something extraordinarily valuable—ageney, the capacity ta act, It gives Us a sense of historical possibilities to replace the despondent resignation that invartubly attends timeless, ahistorical essentialisms. Our behavivrs ate not simply “just human nature.” because boys will be boys.” From the materials we find around us in our culture other people, ideas. objects —we actively create our worlds, our identities, Men, doth individually and collectively. can change. Un this chapter, Lexplore this sucial und historical construction of both hegemonic masculinity and alternate mescubinities, with sa eye towatd offering a new theoretical mogel of American inanhood.| To avconiplish this T first uncover some of the hidden gender meanings in classical statements of social and political philosophy, so that L van anchor the emergence of contemporary manhood in specific historical and social contexts. L then. spell our the ways in which this version of masculinity ‘emerged in the United States, by tracing bol psychounalytic developmen tal sequences and ahistorical trajectory in the development of marketplace relationships. Masculinity ns Homophebia 121 Classical Sucial Theory asa Hidden Meditation of Manhood Begin this inquiry by looking ual four passages {ron that set oF teats commonly called classical soeial and political theory. You will, no doubt recognize them, but [ invite you to recall the way they were discussed in your undergraduate or graduate courses in theory: he bourgeoisie cannot exist withoot constantly cevohutionizing the instr iments of production. and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations oF society. Conservation of the eld modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contcary, the First condition of existence for al eurier industria! classes, Constant revelutionizing of production, uninter cupted disturbance ofall sockl conditions. everlasting uncertainty und ayitaion Listinguish the bourgevis epoch Irom all earlier ones. AIL feed, fast-frazen relations. with their train of ancient and venerable prejustices aad opations: are swept away, all new-tormed ones hecome antiquated hefore they eam fossity. All that is soli melts into aie, all that is holy is profane. snd man is ar last compelled to face with soner senses. his teal conditions of life. and his relation with his kind, (Marx & Enueels, 14/1964) [An American will Build « house in which to puss his old age and sell it before the roof is ea, he will plant a garden and rent it just as the irees sre coming: ino hearing; he will clears fick and leave others to reap the harvest; he will Lake up a profession and leave i, settle in one place and soon go off elsewhere ‘woth his changing desires... At first sight there is something astonishing i this spectacle of so many Lucky men restless in the midst of abundance. Buc its a spectacle as old as the warkt; all that is new 3s t0 sve a whale people performing in it (Tocqueville. 1935/1967), Where the fulfillment of the calling cannot directly be related 10 the highest spicitua) and euttura) values, or when, an the other hand, 1 need not be fle simply as ecoramig compulsion, the Individual generally abandons the at- Lempt eo jostify it at all, Inthe ficld of its highest development, in the United Stews, the pursuit of weal, sepped ofits religious and ethics! ceaning, Lends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often fetoally give it the character of sport, (Weber. 1905/1966) We ure warned by a proverb ayainst servings twa masters at the sare time ‘The poor egn has things even worse, it serves three severe masters and does ‘hse it can to Dring theit claims and demands into harwany with one another. These clsisns ure ulways divergent and elien scem incompatible. No wonder Chat the ego so often Tails 4m its task Its Three ¢yranoical masters are the