Violence, Authoritarianism, and Masculinity: Manliness and Civilization by Gail Bederman

This week we read Gail Bederman’s book Manliness and Civilization. I wanted to read this book for a somewhat selfish reason – I am currently writing a dissertation chapter about sports in the early twentieth century and knew it would be relevant to my work. While relevant to my particular historical project, it also provides us with valuable insights into contemporary American culture.

At forty-five pages, the book’s introduction may seem intimidating, but it laid out almost all of its key ideas (for a copy of my notes, see here).  It’s possible to see this introductory chapter as two mini-chapters surrounding a classic introduction – we learned about Jack Johnson, then received the thesis/histoirogrpahy/key theme information, then briefly read about the Chicago Columbian Exhibition – and perhaps it would be helpful to think of this chapter in these terms.

On pages five through thirty Bederman lays out these big ideas and the “discourse” surrounding them. By discourse she means the public debate and discussion of an idea.  What do we gain by studying this discourse?  She suggests that we are able to see how a diverse public can hold many related yet different ideas at the same time.  We learn that these big ideas include “manhood” and “gender,” ideas that are not absolute concepts at all, but are constructed by society – because these concepts are not as permanent as many assume, it makes it possible for people with disparate political opinions to use concepts like manliness for their own political ends because they are big enough to mean something to everyone in society, yet vague enough that the various meanings each individual person might have can be blurred over. Bederman demonstrates that during the era her book focuses on – the turn of the twentieth century – middle-class white men were particularly interested in manliness as it allowed them to retain political power in the face of challenges from immigrants, African Americans, and women who vied with them for political control.  To maintain this control, middle-class white men defined manhood in terms of their civilized nature – they were entitled to political power because were allegedly more evolved than supposedly primitive peoples like immigrants and African Americans, yet still retained the savage brutality required to lead that women could never have. While this is a fiction, that fiction was a powerful tool white men could use against their critics.

Bederman’s approach focuses on personal papers and published writings to demonstrate how specific individuals thought, and makes it clear she is not interested in examining whether these ideas were widely accepted.  Is that a good historical practice? Certainly these figures “matter” because they were to some degree prominent and influential. Should we be worried about how “ordinary” people thought about these issues? Bederman uses examples from newspaper accounts to demonstrate how some of these ideas impacted society more broadly, noting that the riots that broke out after Johnson’s victory demonstrate how society was influenced by their work in some way. Her thesis is broad enough to suggest that even if individuals thought differently about manliness and civilization what matters is not specifically what they thought (she notes this would vary for each person), but that they were all fixated on the ideas of manliness and civilization.

The rest of the book is arranged thematically, and each of the chapters focus on one historical figure and how they thought about the relationship between manliness and civilization during that era.  In her chapter on Theodore Roosevelt, Bederman explains that he grappled with civilization extensively and that it formed a core part of his political views. She demonstrates that Roosevelt believed in nationalism and imperialism, meaning he felt Americans had a mission to take the North American continent from native peoples who were not using the resources to their full potential, and that racial groups were in ongoing competition with one another. Roosevelt worried about the potential for “race suicide” and this in turn led to the importance of strict gender roles, but also slightly differed from the past because it allowed typically uptight middle-class men to celebrate their sexuality in the service of preserving future generations.  Roosevelt’s approach allowed him to link male, militaristic ideals that became the basis for political power in the early twentieth century.

Bederman’s conclusion begins to expand the timeline forward into the twentieth century. This begs the reader to ask the question: Do ideas of “manliness” and “civilization” continue to shape our society today? Bederman suggests that even if the discourse around these ideas may have changed over time, these ideas still impact our society and explain ongoing problems of racism and sexism.

The conclusion also offers critiques of social scientists that claim social problems and public policies are a reason for inequality, racism, and sexism in society; instead, she proposes that culture lies at the root of these problems.  This culture is ultimately what lies at the heart of what is called “systemic” racism or sexism.  She also notes that racism and sexism cannot be addressed independently of one another since the same cultural biases and prejudices that cause one cause the other.

Unfortunately, rather than addressing these problems, Donald Trump’s administration appears to reinforce them.  Post-election surveys reinforced the idea that men in particular were drawn to Trump’s candidacy.  Welterweight champion Floyd Mayweather celebrated the fact that Trump spoke like “real men,” (another broad concept that has no real meaning and is vague enough for everyone to believe they know what it means) for his overtly sexist remarks, which are a cornerstone of Trump’s identity, and result in policy proposals that actively subvert efforts to encourage equality both in the workplace and public health.  Bederman’s work allows us to understand these policies as part of a larger cultural problem that results from the celebration of masculinity, and suggests that we must continue working to develop a culture less reliant on problematic notions of manliness and civilization to truly address the problems of poverty, inequality, racism and sexism in our country.