Masculinity And Civilization Gail Bederman Summary

History 110 Term Paper
Chengcong Wu Student Sequence # 146
10/25/2017
A Culture History of Gender and Race in the United States
Introduction
In her book, Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917, Gail Bederman argues about how masculinity intertwined with race and gender in the Progressive Era by using civilization narratives. She expressly states her thesis as, “This book will investigate this turn-of- the-century connection between manhood and race. It will argue that, between 1890 and 1917, as white middle- class men actively worked to reinforce male power, their race became a factor which was crucial to their gender.” Her book makes a concerted effort to reveal various cultural, political, biological and anthropological concepts that played a part in the discourse of civilization. This paper will review and analyze the Bederman’s book to explore the explanations given and the methods employed to construct the explanations.
The explanations that Bederman (1995) used to illustrate that the modern masculinity ideals arose in the late 19th century together with racialization movements are of interest. While acknowledging that flaws exist in her book, the clarity of her arguments and the engaging nature of the primary sources utilized enhances the content of the book in portraying the circumstances of the late-19th and early 20th century America and the prevailing sense of gender.
Secondary Source Criticism and Analysis
Bederman (1995) astutely utilizes various examples which facilitate a clear sense of the Progressive Era. Her particular focus on G. Stanley Hall, Theodore Roosevelt, Ida B. Wells and Charlotte Perkins Gilman persuasively shows that they influenced the America’s perspective of what is manly entailed and how the perspective characterizes the culture of the era. Various primary sources, photos, newspapers, pamphlets and monograms are used to support her thesis. Her reference to the primary sources on African American world heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson, and chapters on Roosevelt and Wells strengthen her argument. As Parker (2008) noted, the late 1890s were a defining period for white masculinity as push for women’s suffrage and acknowledgement of black men’s ability to exercise their political rights emerged (57). At times, however, it is challenging to grasp the content because of the jargon that Bederman (1995) employ with lengthy tangential references to different scholars such as Michael Foucault. Various scholars are from different fields, and most are primarily unknown beyond their academic areas. Furthermore, most of the cases used in the book are undocumented, and some of them are assumptions aims at picturing how things operated during the period. As a result, it becomes difficult to believe the ideas she puts across in the book despite the attention given to details.
Her choice of examples and individuals significantly influences the general direction and outcome of the book. However, some of her analyses appear repetitive. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt is not a surprising choice considering the general thesis of the book. However, the majority of the parts include fascinating stories. She describes the interactions between the civilization discourse and the gender discourse as well as race and the evolution of the interactions over time (Bederman 1995). The author’s argument would have been more compelling if more insightful readings by intellectuals had been included instead of details about Roosevelt.
It is evident in reading the book that the author sought to position the study of gender in the middle of the power relations noted in the Progressive Era. Viewing masculinity as a continual, dynamic process, the author describes the replacement of the concept of “manliness” with that of “masculinity.” A moral dimension is evident in the former as it implied “self-restraint, iron will and a strong character” while masculinity associated with the period after 1890 is mainly about “aggressiveness, physical force and male sexuality” (Bederman 1995, 95). The latter celebrates the primitive natural man. Unfortunately, the discourse of civilization subsumes the shifting ideals regarding the construction of maleness. In trying to connect womanhood with the highest exemplar of civilization, this undercuts her failure in recognizing the implications of those that contributed in shoring up racist power. In doing so, she suggests that feminism shares links with white supremacy. At the same time, she argues that male dominance shares strong links with this phenomenon too. The author’s usage of anti-lynching activism that Ida B. Wells promoted exemplifies the fundamental nature of the concept of civilization and its inherent centrality of white supremacy in the manly views that white men held about themselves.
The prominence of the idea in the American psyche made it possible for Wells to influence the conversation on lynching and African Americans by labeling the whites as uncivilized for their passive and active support for the lynching of blacks. In response to the oppression and lynching, activism enabled the society to start finding African Americans as civilized, but significant hurdles remained. Similarly, the coverage on Charlotte Perkins Gilman exhibits the challenges that women were also facing as they sought recognition. White feminists argued that white women should be part of civilization (Bederman, 1995). However, a concern that arises in her coverage of the racially-based feminism is that the content is ineffective in advancing her argument on how manliness, race and civilization are related. The coverage only offers unrelated
information.
Bederman (1995) provides numerous fascinating plots and stories that offer insights into the gradual rise of the discourse of civilization. She makes a persuasive call in describing the parallel existing between “race suicide” and neurasthenia, dangers facing the upper and middle-class Americans. For her, the “highly evolved” were the only susceptible because of their high level of civilization, which placed demands on them (Bederman 1995, 85). However, confusion arises as she argues that evolution glorified strength rather than debility. Despite the chronological arrangement of her work, the questionable analytic arrangement renders the work contradictory. Such difficulty is expected as Watts (2010) noted that every person is gendered and situated historically in some way, which makes it difficult to compose a genuinely objective commentary (201). She fails to cover the cultural wars present at the time. Linking white supremacy, evolutionary advancement and male dominance to powerful figures alone fails to include the primary concerns of those responsible for initiating them.
The author acknowledges the possibility that humans change their ways and outlooks, but the process of change is not straightforward. The advancement of civilization is a central aspect of the book. The advancement translates to changes in how humans live. However, due to the “many potential ambiguities and contradictions exist within any discourse”, she notes that “many possibilities for dissent and resistance always remain” (Bederman 1995, 24). The struggles involved are evident from the first debate from the beginning of the book as the whites reacted violently to the Jackson Johnson’s win over Jim Jeffries in the heavyweight boxing match. As evident in Ida B. Wells’ resistance to lynching, cultural currents were mostly present in efforts to remake the existing ideologies of manhood (Bederman 1995). Mainly, her interest was to show how middle-class men actively sought to reinforce their male dominance and the race was a factor that became central to their gender. Gender becomes a historically ideological process in which individuals “position themselves as men or as women” (Bederman 1995, 7). Evidently, the evolving nature of human nature becomes evident from the challenges that the cultural ideals of manhood face because of shifts in values.
Conclusion
Evidently, the book provides an interesting perspective on the manly and masculine elements and the changes experienced in the Progressive Era. The analysis of different cases is not only thought-provoking but is also strikingly original. Her work is vivid and gives rich details in its discussion of the prominent individuals of the Progressive Era, even though some flaws and inconsistencies are notable in the book. Unfortunately, questions are bound to arise because of the author’s reliance on a narrow evidentiary base and the uncertainty over the reliability of some claims made. Nevertheless, the book offers an enlightening perspective on how eminent figures of the Progressive Era used masculinity and civilization in furthering their ends.
Citations
Bederman, Gail. Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Parker, Maegan. “Desiring Citizenship: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Wells/Willard Controversy.” Women's Studies in Communication 31, no. 1 (2010): 56-78.
Watts, Roderick J. “Advancing a Community Psychology of Men.” American Journal of Community Psychology 45, no. 1-2 (2010): 201–211.