Você está na página 1de 11

it is represented a nd defined in

various med ia. genres. texts. or


ico ns a nd th e rela tionship be-
tween th ese sites a nd ge nde r,
th e ge nde r orde r, o ther cultura l
di fferences. identity a nd identi -
fication. the subject, experi-
ence, and reality in late ca pita l-
ism. As ha s often been o b-
served. th e rheorctico-polincal
clusters of feminist a nd gay
a nd lesbian stu dies have given
particu la r impetus to th e ex-
ploration of masculinity as a
dominant c ultura l identity and
invisible norm. At the sa me
time. particula r pr o jects co n-
tin ue to be in dialogue with
On Masculmity other theo retica l work that ha s
Theorizing Masculinity o pened up medi at ed ma sculini -
With/In the Media ties to new q ues tio ns.
In media st udies o f the la st
decade, we ha ve co me to un -
derstand ma sculinity as " bot h
by Robert Ha nke a prod uct a nd process o f repre-
sentation" (de Lau rens, 1987.
The relationship between ma s- p- 5 ). \X'ithin a constructionis t
culinity and the med ia, \vhich ap proach to representation a nd
first ca me int o focu s in th e meaning, so me scholars hav e
1970s and gai ned increa sed adopted a femi nist postsrruc-
scholarly artemicn in the la te ru ralist o rientation to " mascu-
1980s, ha s co ntinued [0 gener- linity as signs." where ma scu -
a te work that theori zes. inte r- linity is rega rde d as one of the
pret s, an d eva luates ma sculin - subiecriviries (or subject- pos i-
ity with/i n th e med ia. In th e :) nons ] thai make up o ur soc ia l
years since Fejes ( 1992) com- identities (Saco. 1992 ). Within
pleted his review of empi rica l the grow ing body o f wo rk o n
mass co m munica tion research gen der representat ion a nd dis-
o n masculi nity, there has bee n co urse in the media. particul ar
a growing stream of boo ks and at tention has been pa id to the
articles w ithin media studies representation of the ma le
that has shifted critical atten- body. givi ng rise to deba tes
tio n from w ha t Fejes e l lis over its cultural significa nce,
"masculinity as fact" to the po litica l vale nces, a nd its mare-
fact icity of ma sculinity. This rialitv. Todav, as H a ll ( 1996)
n 'nrk Focuses on rnasculin irv as ()b'il·~\"Cs. the "body serves to
fun ct ion as thl' signifier of the co ncepts (H ea rn, 1996, ties, studies of ma sculi nities in [Ore from class essen tialist and
co ndensa tion of subjec rivit ies Haw keswo rth, 1997; telev ision, medi ated sports, ad - red ucrio nisr accounts of ideol -
in the individual" {p. 11). Ehren reich, 199 5 ). f inall y, vert ising. and publicity. a s well ogy and cultu re a nd o pe ned up
In this conmhu rion, I wa nt wh at is to be done if the re is as po pul ar mu sic. a re a lso po pular c ultu ral an a lysis to
to briefly discuss some of the no definition of masc ulinity de monstrating the relevan ce of struggles a round gen der a nd
deto urs through theory, major tha t is no t al ready hege mo nic theoretical work tha t ha s race (Ben nett. 1996 ). M ore-
co ncepts. strategies of med ia (Rogoff & Van Leer. 19931. no pus hed, as Carole Spitzack ha s over, as G rossberg (1997)
a nalysis. and issues that define gen der trouble (wh ether as put n, our "existing visions notes, a "hegemonic project .. .
the space within which media spectacle, masquerade, o r and arriculanons" o f mascu - does not dema nd the produc-
studies d efines the problem of parody ) that "wou ld p u... h the linity. tion of consensus . . . nor a
mascul inity with a view to the rna ...culmc ste reotype beyond process of inco rporation . It
possibi lities that han: been Its th reshold of recuperation" ? .\ 1)' H egem o n ic Afilsculi"ity does operate through the pro -
opened up as well as some of [M assumi, 1992, p. 89 /. The concept of "hegemonic duction of a certain co nve r-
the limitations or pr oblems I first discuss some strategies masculinity, ~ int roduced by gence of interests through
tha t rema in. Within the limited of media analysis tha t haw Connell ( 1987. 1990) has been which subord ination a nd resis-
space of this forum. I Jill able been influenced by Gramsci . utilized in my own previous tance arc contained" [p. 226 ).
only to offer a preliminary. no Foucault, and Butler. I then work as well as studies of me- Within civil society. the na -
doubt overly simplifying and consider Berger. \'('allis, and diated sports (Trujillo, 1991; tional popular cu ltu re is where
polemically unifying, mapping \'('a[Sun's Const ructing Af.lsCII- Davis, 1997). In other writings various agents of hegemony
of the interdisciplinary border linitv ( 1995) and Smith's 80)'s: where the term appears, it ex - (the New Right, cultu ra l pro-
zone of "theorizing masculin - AIJs'culmittes HI Contemporary pres ...es the gene ral idea of as - ducers such as journalists, pol i-
ity. ~ Although it is not a corn- Culture ( t 9961. two recent co l- sumptio ns and beliefs about ticians. televisio n producers,
prehensive survev.' it should I
ho pe. be useful in taking our
. lecnons that lay the basis for masculinity that have become
common sense, that may be
and filmmakers ) give sh ape to
the common sense of (he
current debates even as they do
bea rings. Differenr projects, of not exhaust all (he possibi lities unc ritically absorbed or spon - people, incl uding (heir taken-
co urse, may be loca ted in d if- for research and analy...is. Work taneously consen ted to. but for -gra nted noti ons o f ma scu -
ferent resea rch trad itio ns. he by Bordo 119941. Bre d ( 1995), that a rc pres umed to have a n linity and femininity.
info rm ed h)' mo re than one Byers ( 1995, 1996). Coates imperative cha rac te r in sha ping Th us, it see med to me (ha t a
theo retical position. and seek 11998), Coha n & Ha rk ( 1993), consciousness, norm" of co n- neo-Gra msc ian perspectiv e
to set differem pr io rit ies. Dot)' (1993 ), Dyso n ( 1993 ), duct. a ffect. or desire. In ligh t co uld be brought into a pro -
An inrradlsciplina ry diu- Fa rr cd ( 1996) , J efford s ( 1994) . of so me of th e debate ove r the d uctive dia logue with feminist
loguc concerning th is to pic is Me rce r (1994). Nixo n (1996 ), rheo rv of hegem on y (Co ndit• media st udies in o rder to th eo-
timely a nd important for sev- PieiI I19961, Savrun 11996), 1994 ; Cloud , 1996 ; Cloud, rize a nd critique ma sculinity in
eral reasons. For starters, as Shaviro ( 1993), Tash'r ( 1993 ). 1997; Co nd it, 1997), it is fictiona l U.S. telev ision series
Sedgwick ( I ~95 ) has observed , a nd Walse r (1993) attests to wo rth recalling th at a nco - a nd genres of the 19 805. By
"So me times mascu linity ha s the ra nge of pro ject s a nd d iver- Cramscian- feminist pe rspecti ve th en. feminist med ia st ud ies
got nothing to do with it. sity of th eoret ical rou tes, M y ser ved to guide inquiry o u t of a had moved toward an Althus-
No thing to do with me n" (p. sim ple argume nt is th at, funct ionalist, sex- ro le fram e- sarian sense o f rep resen tatio n
12 ). In other wo rds , Vie should wh erea s film studi es con tinues \vork toward s dia lect ical soci- and ideology, wh ich defined
no lon ger presume a relati o n- to ma in tai n a promine nt place o logy, cultu ra l studies, femini st "fem ininity" as "'3 set of highly
ship between masculinitv a nd in the study o f popu la r rep ro- medi a stu dies, and historical orchesrrutcd repr esenta tional
me n even if it is diffic ult' not scntations of ma sculinity, he- conrextualization . Th e tu rn to practices w hic h to gether pro·
to. Secon d. recent wr iting on cause of its own rich trdditio n Grarnsc i was a significa nt d uced this coherence o f femal e
ma scul init y, gende r, a nd pa tri- of film theory an d criticism move in M a rxist st rategies o f ge nder as easy a nd natural -
a rchy has begu n to q uestion a nd a fasc ination with spec- med ia and c ult ural a nalysis be- ized " (,\ 1cRo bbie. 1997, p.
their very ut ility as explana tory tacul ar Holl ywoo d masc ulini- cause it represemed a dcpa r- 172 ). A neo-Gramscia n-femi-
nist perspective was also a way masculine subjectivity-the be- The limitation of th is strategy psychological str uctures alone
of carrying out crit ical and em- comi ng conservative of White , is that an y discussion of a (M idd leton, t 992 ) is adequate
pirical work o n masculinity in middle-c lass, hetero sexual, single exa lted male hero is unless the meanings and valu es
the U.S. co nte xt as a respon se professional-managerial men likely to tend towa rd a norma - of the " masc uline" that these
to Chapma n an d Ruth erford's (Hanke, 1992 ). Taken together, tive definition of manh ood. fantasy figure ensembles pro -
(1988) collectio n, wh ich began this work suggested that hege- Yet, such work reveals how duce and put into circulat ion
the debate o ver the representa- monic ma sculinit y is not o nly spo rts writing, television , and arc relarionall y defined, articu-
tion s of th e idealized " New secured through the rea ssertio n advert ising work in co ncor- hued to ot her differences, and
Man and Retributive Man " in of dominance-based masculini- dan ce to co nstruct hegemonic located within a parti cular his-
the U.K. T hese " po la rized fig- ties, but also through a "new masculinity and naturalize so- to rical con junct ure.
ures," as Tasker (1993) has view of manhood " defin ed in cial and historical relation s of Qual itati ve, (conjtexrual
since pointed o ut, tended to relation to wom en's liberati o n powe r and privilege. analysis informed by post-
map a stab le gende r bina ry and its image of the " new Th e d ifficulty has been ho w structu ralism enabled me to
OntO different male types. woman," an d in relation to to ta lk about hegemon ic mas- read a television series like
M y definitio n o f hegemoni c repr esenrarion s of gay men culinity as a " historically mo- thirtysomething as a "text ar-
masculin ity referred to the "so- that maintain a herercmascu- bile relation " (1995, p. 77 ) and ticulares a specific signifier as
cial ascenda ncy o f a particular line point of view. to maint ain a focus on both its part o f common sense and the
version or mod el of masculin- Trujillo (199 1) has ex- co ntin uities and discon - production o f experience"
ity that , operati ng o n the ter- panded the definition o f hege- tinuities. In ana lyzing specific (Grossberg, 1997, p 22 5). as
rain of 'common sense' and monic mascu linity by identify- masculinities, Connell (1995) well as the ot her side of
conventi onal morality, defines ing five major features that de- suggests the need to co nside r "double art iculation" - how
'what it mean s to be a man'" fine when masculinity is hege- two types of relation ship: " he- " meanings a re artic ulated to
(Han ke, t 990 ). Thi s implies mo nic in U.S. media culture: gemony, domin ation/su bordi - rea l socia l practices, relat ions,
that one version may occu py a (l ) "when power is defined in nation, and complicity on the and con d itions" (Grossberg,
leadi ng position in the media terms of ph ysical force and one hand, marginalizat io n/au - t 997, p. 225 ). However, as
mainstream (fo r instan ce, the control" (pa rticula rly in the tho rizatio n on the other" tp. critics have been qu id: to point
much discussed hard -bod ied, repr esentation o f the body ), S1), A critical method con sis- out , men arc missing as televi-
action heroe s of the 1980s). (2) "when it is defined through tent with a neo-Grumscian sion viewers. Apar t from the
Because Gmmscian co mmon occupationa l achievement in feminist perspective must be tradition of film study that has
sense is fragmentary, incoh er- an industrial, ca pitalist ic soci- careful to avoid redescribing theorized the male gaze and
ent, ambiguous, contradictory, ety," (3) whe n it is represented hegemo nic masculinit y as an the male spectator, mascu linity
and multi form, however, ot her in term s o f fami lial patriarch y, ideal cha racter type, role iden - as a dimension o f social audi -
versions (e.g., the "soft" o r (4) when it is "sy mbolized by tity, or meta physica l substance ences' reception practices re-
New Ma n, gay men, and so the daring, roma ntic front iers- (Butler, 1990 ), For example, ma ins invisible except in a few
on) are among the representa- man of yesteryea r and of the the decline in pop ularity of Su- studies [Mo rley, 1986;
tions th at were also co nst ruct- present-day ourdoorsman," perma n and the rise in po pu- Steinman, 1992; Fiske &
ing masculinities. In follow-up and (5 ) "w hen hetero sexua lly larity of Batman is part of the Dawson , 1996 ). Donaldson
work, I adopted Co nnell's defined " and centered on the ebb and flow of specifia ble (1993) has also critiqued the
(1987) categories of hege- representat ion o f the pha llus. meanings of masculinity, gen- exp lanatory uti lity of Co nnell's
monic, co nservative, and sub- Th rough an ana lysis of spo rts der, an d sexuality encoded by co ncept, suggesting that the
o rdinate masculiniti es, arguing hero No lan Ryan , Trujillo ana- these hyperm asculine heroes, gap betw een the "c ulturally
that 1980s fictiona l television lyzes how th is figure exhibits the ir pa rtne rs, and the villains idealized form o f masculine
articulated the relat ion amo ng these features to var )'ing de- they encounter, Neither a role- character" and what real men
dominant, conse rva tive, and grees and thu s how hegemo nic model , socia lization theory ap- are means that it is unable to
subordinated masculinity, so as masculinity repr odu ces itself in proach to such figures (Pecora, acco unt for changes in the gen-
to produce a reforma tio n of the context of mediated Spo rts. 1992) nor an anal ysis o f the ir der system. He- proposes in-
stea d th at w e limit th e concept view of ce nt ra l co ncepts, of discursive no rms; a per for- w here consu m ption a nd mass
to "rea lly real " men. the ex- claim s, and issues releva nt to mance in which the formal po - cu lture is no longer figu red as
alred ruling-class her oes o f study ing medi ated masculi ni- sitions of subjectivity a re in- "fem inine" as it was within
capita list entreprene urs hip (Bill ties. Nixon 's (1997) examina- habited through spec ific prac- modernity, In th e U.S, context.
Gates, Sa m Walton , Ted tion of " ex hibiting ma scu lin- tices o r rcchniq ucs" (p. 323), this wa s also evide nt in
Turner, a nd the like). Although ity" d raws upon Foucaulrian In th is formu latio n, " ne w advert!..ing's ima ge of t he new
th e a rticu latio n of ma sculini rv co ncepts of discourse, th e place man ,. imager y i... "opera tion - man (Bart hel. 1988 ) a nd al so
and class is important. this . of the subject, subjccnvizarion, alized or performed as a his- more recently in the "gayifi-
move ret urn s us to a M a rxist an d technologies of the self. In torical idcnnrv" fp. 323 1. cation" of advertising (Cla rke.
pcrspecnve o n socia l class rela - Fo ucault 's archaeological writ- Codes of looking, among other 1995 ), In their ...rudy of the
tio ns a nd reintroduces the verv ings. th e su bjec t was produced techniques in the c ue of the gayificarion of action hero
problems that th e turn to . in discourse and sub iectiv- self, are loca ted across va rious Claude Van Dammc as fa n o b-
Gra msci so ug ht to resolve, The iza tion was ;1 ma ter ia l ra the r reprcscnrurional sites, a nd ject a nd pu blicity subject in
rela tionshi p between hege- tha n ideol ogical process these codes, in rum. arc here ronormat ivc publ ications,
monic mascu linity and social whereby power rela tions in- co nrexruali zed a... part of the Cla rke and H enso n ( 1996) ar-
change can he addressed onlv vested and materialized sub. historical construction of new guc that "gay identity fo rma-
historically. as Conne ll (199 .S ) jeers. Nixon tra nslates th e...e modes of "spectarorial con- tion and va lorizat ion have be-
ha s a rtempred to do, although co nce pts into a srrarcgy for sume r subjectivi ty" (first ~1Il;1­ co me d irectl y complicir in ca pi-
he neg lects the med ia , He sums a nal yzing g ro u ps of statements lyzcd hy \X/alter Ben jamin ), [ ;11 formation a nd va loriza -
up the state of rheo nzing hcge- (rexrs, sires I. thei r " regula rity Contrary to Neale ( 1 9 9,~) , who tion " (p, 144 ). Gay -oriented
mon ic masculmirv a.. follows: or underlying unity. ~ and the argued that film W;IS a technol- puhlicirv or a dvertising compli-
On the one hand: "hegemony place of the subje-ct a" it is pro- o/-.:y for representing the male cates the very lo gic of visibility
is likelv to he established on(\' duced in media discou rse body in a way that circumvents and affirmation that has been
if ther~ is so me co rres po nde nce through spec ific co des and croricizanon, Nixon co ncl udes cent ra l to gay an d lesbia n poli-
between a cultura l ide a l and co nve nti o ns of rep resenting the th at a dve rtisi ng a nd fash io n tics of represen ta tion. The i ll-
institutiona l powert' (p. 77); o n ma le body. Ba sed o n a rea d ing photogra phy are a tech nique creased visibility of "gay ness"
the other hand. even thou g h of three versions o f the "new for "sanctioning the d isp lay of in these media produces the m
few men rnav embodv cu ltur- nun" (a rt icula ted with genera- masculine sensuality and, from as new economic su bjects
ally exalted form" o(masclilin - tion, ethn icuy, and race ), he ar- this, opening up the possibility whose gayness is inc reasi ngly
iry, large num bers of men ben- gucs tha t visua l codes o f fash - of a n ambivalen t mascul ine def ined in rela tion to ma rke t-
ef it fro m cuhu ra l definitio ns ion photog raph y nor on ly sex ua l identi ty" (p. 328). ing an d co ns umi ng practi ces
that legitima te cla ims to lead er- work to produce a "specta to r- In a l-oucaultia n fra mewo rk a nd th e ge ne rat ion of corpo -
ship. H o wn er. in add it ion to iallook," bur marks the fo rm a- of discourse and power/knowl- ra te pro fits rather tha n th e ex -
institutional life and "techno- rion of new subject-position for edge. specifiable "masculini- tens ion of ci vil rig hts.
cratic " variants of hegemonic men in relation to practices of tics" art' understood as the: ef- In sum, bo th neo-Gramscian
masculinity, media st udies a lso fashion , style. and consumptio n. fect of ..pecific regimes of vis- theory of hegemony an d
needs to co nsider how hege- Ni xo n rejects Fou ca ult's no- ibihty, and such rcprc...cnta - Foucaulnan theory of dis-
mo nic ma sculin ity a rticu lates tion o f "s u biccti viza tion' in fa- nons ar c overdetermined by co urse. in d ia log ue w ith fem i-
to str uc tures an d Jived fo rms of vo r o f Fou cault's later not io n disc ursive fo rm a tio ns an d the nist me d ia studies or theory,
parriarchv wi thin cvcrvdavIifc of "technologies (or practices) interpla y o f signifying prac- are tool kits for understand ing
as recent 'work in cult~ral'criti: of the self" (a s read through tices. social processes, hisron- power as a determinant of
cism and cu ltural studies has Butler) to conccpt u•r hze "the cal forces, and the bu sinesv of masculinities . M ediated mascu-
beg un to do, articu lation o f concrete mdi- late capital ism, The "new liniries construct figures to
vid ua ls to parti cu lar represen - man ,. is a reartic ularion of th e ident ify wit h a nd places to oc-
Deviations {rom Fou cault tations as a performa nce ba sed relatio ns hi p among masc ulin - cupy wit hin th e gen de r o rde r.
Besides offering a u...cful over- upon the citing an d reiteration ity, gender. and economics. Fo r the forme r. the em phasis is
on popula r rep resenta tions identity becomes impo ssihle to tics of t ruth and falsity th at per formati ve masquerade" (p .
(figures) producing and circu - defi ne apart from its rela tion- mak es for an essentia l, polar- 46 ). He also suggests tha t be-
la ting co mmo n-se nse notion s, ship to feminin ity an d its ar - ized fema le or male identity. ca use of Holl ywood's institu -
so tha t hegemonic ma sculinity ticulation to sexua lities [Dory, Follow ing Butler (1990) , 1 ha ve tionalization of sta rdom. th e
is won nor o nly thro ug h coe r- 1993; Fejes & Petri ch. 1995). a ttem pted to argue that a nalysis o f ma sculine masquer-
cion bur through co nsent, even class (Aro nowitz, 1992; " moc k-mac ho" sitcoms invite ade " brings to th e foreground
though there is never a com- Burnha m, 1996 ). and race pa rod ic lau ght er by parodying of popular representati on the
plete consensus. For the lat ter; (Dyson. t 993; Mercer, 1994; the mechani sms of th e co n- epistemo log ical problems " (p .
the emphasis is on masculine hooks, t 995; Wallace. 1995 ; str uct ion of so me "original" 58 ) that Butler descri bes even
subject-posi tions (places ) as a n Farced , 1996). Th e c ha llenge domestic patriar ch or macho th ou gh Ca ry Gr ant's perfor-
effect of di scursive formations no w is to co ncep t ua lize a nd stereotype (H anke. fo rt hco m- mance does not subve rt gender
and how these positions are descri be mor e than one differ- ing). These performan ces tem - or troubl e hete rosexuality.
taken up o r inhabited (prac- ence at a ti me, th eir intersec- pora rily deprive th e hegemonic In Bodies That Matter
tices o f everyday life). tion , and th eir int erlocking ef- no rm of " its claim to a natu- (1993 l, Butler has revised her
Amo ng the man y implica- fcctivity, at th e level of psych ic ralizcd or es...entialized gende r views o f gende r parody an d
tion s o f this work, th er e ar e processes, the self, and soc ial ident ity" (But ler. 1990, p. gone on (0 a rgu e that de natu-
tw o tha t I would like to men- relations of p rivilege an d 138 ). H owever, the light ral ization is not necessarily
t ion here. First, on ce mnsculiu- power. parody of mock-ma cho subversive; she now cla ims
ity is und erstood as a histo ri- sitco ms is less likely than men- drag is " hyperbolic co nfo r-
ca lly specific cultural co nstruc- Reciting Judith Butler in-drag sitcoms to co nstitu te mity" to gend er nor ms, "ta ken
tion witho ut fixed meanings or Since the publ ication of the kind of gende r perfor- not as comma nd s to be
at tri bu tes, it is o pe ned up to a Butle r's Gender Trouble: f emi- mance " that will compel a rc- obeyed, but as impera tives to
mod ern ist temporalizing logic nism and the Subversion of consideration of th e place a nd be 'cited: twi sted , queered,
th at ena bles us to describe th e identity (1990), her th eo riza- sta bility of th e rna...culine a nd brought into relief as hetero-
cha ngi ng cod ings of th e mascu - tio n of gender as a "corporeal the feminine" (Butle r, 1990, p. sex ual imper ativ es. a re not, for
line, how the meani ngs of sty le, a n 'act : as it were, which 139 ). No netheless. Coha n th at reason. necessarily sub-
White mascu lin ity have shifted, is bo th inte ntiona l a nd ( 1995 ) has brou ght feminist verred in th e process" (p. 237).
.1I1d how they have prod uced perfo rmarivc, wh ere 'perform- film stu d ies o f femini nity as a In light o f th is. my presump-
our experience. In terms of ative" suggests a d ramatic and masq uera de into dialogu e with tion that men -in -dr ag sitcoms
feminist analysis a nd cri tique co ntingent co nstruction of the th eat rical rather than wou ld be more su bversive than
of pa tria rchy. it also mean s meaning" (p . 139 ) has been in- phal locenrric Implicat ions of mock-macho sitcoms needs to
tha t th e universal equa tion be- fluent ial in rethinking gender But ler's wo rk to read Ca ry be reconsidered . However,
tween men a nd patria rchy is a nd sex ual ity in anriessentialist Gra nt's masculine masquerade Coates (1998), drawing on de
put into q uest ion, fo r not all term s. H er the sis. based on in Nor th by Nor thwes t ( 1959). Laurens's noti on o f gender
men ha ve the sa me rela tionship rcrcadings of femini st a nd psy- In his hisroricizing readi ng of techno logies and Butler 's
to d iscourses and institutions choa na lyt ic th eo ry and a n th is performance et hic, Coha n (1993) not ion o f femini nit y as
of power. Second, on ce ma scu- ana lysis of the c ultural prac- revea ls how ideo logically con - the abject of ma scul inity, has
liniti es ar c opened up to rices of drag, cross-dre ssing, fli cted th e film is, and th at its descri bed how a self-conscious
posrstruc ru rulisr th eo ries of and the st ylizatio n of hutch or po rtray a l of a ma scu line idcn - performance of the feminine
langu age, th eo ries of sexua l femm e identit ies, is th at gender tiry crisis is not only symptom- with in Rocklist, a male-domi-
dif ference, and deconst ru ction , is a performa nce that main - a tic of new class a nxie ties . hut lu ted academic discussion list
th e pol ysem y a nd multiaccen- ta ins the retroact ive illusion of th at it destabi lizes the relat ion - on the Intern et, gave gender
tualir y of signs o f ma sculinity a core feminin e, or ma sculine, ship berv..-een gende r a nd repre- tro uble to th e cohe rence o f
become open to ana lysis a nd self. Gender impersonati on, sentation, so that masculinity masc uline as it is nor mally reit -
the very facticir y o f mascul inity she argues, disa rticul a res gen- (like femi nini ty ) is " an ongoing e rat ed within the rock forma-
is put int o quest ion. Masculine der signification from th e po li- an d po tentially d iscontinuous n on.
Scattered Hegemonic O ther contributo rs explore tagonis r d ispla y a n inability to Wh erea s none of th ese con-
Masculinities " the wa ys rep resent a tions of act as th e "so lut ion to narra- tributors sha re a conceptua l
T he co mbined influence of men a nd ma leness in the media tive a nd social cont ra dictio ns" vocabulary, one them e th at
Butler and Fo ucault is eviden t a nd in the a rts a rc negotiated (p. 79), bu t Eastwood's emerges is tha t neither ma scu -
in th e introduction to Berger, a nd circu lated, a nd how such cha ngea ble, excessive, defec tive line representa tion no r subjec-
Walli s, an d Wat son 's co llec- images ca n prod uce a nd uhi - body figures ma le subjecti vity rivit y is monolith ic. At th e
tion, Ccnstrncting Mascuiinitv ma tely res ha pe notions o f the as " hys teri ca l, ~ th at is, o utsi de sa me time , the re is a clear com-
(1995) . Their "concep tual - mascu line" (Berger, \Va llis, & of ph all ic o rga nization. The mon ality running through t heir
bias" is towa rd Buller's rhcori- Watson, 1995, p. 6-7 ). T hese " hysterica l moment, " fo r conclusio ns: " Feminized ,"
za tio n of ge nder as "alwa vs a con rribunons offer d ifferent Smith, " marks th e ret urn of "eroticized, " or "a nd rog y-
doing" an d Fou ca ult 's theo r i- srrnregics for read ing mod ern - th e male body out fro m under nous" re presenta tions ma y af-
zarion of power (;IS po we r! izing hegemon ic masculinit ies. th e narrat ive process.. ." (p. firm patriarch al privileges
knowledge a pplied ro the regu - Solomon-C odcau ( 1995), for 92) , so as to express wh at is (Solomo n-C odea ul ; " hyste ri-
lat ion of conduct }, T he editors exa mple, p ut s the contempo- un sa ya blc in male -embod ied ca l" repr esenta tion is " de-
have or gani zed contributions ra ry range of mediat ed mascu- ex perience. hook s (1995) e x- signed to lead the ma le sub ject
according to Fou cault 's no tion linities into a histo rical per- a mines rep resenta tions of th rough a proving gro und to-
of "discipl inary systems ~ _ spcc n ..'c by a rg uing th at th e Black men in th e contex t of ward ;111 empowe red positio n"
" processes a nd ins titutions " feminized" masculinirv is no t ..\'('h ite-suprem acist ca pitalis t (Smit h); " black masculinity
th ro ug h wh ich po wer is repli - merely the prod uct o f a' co n- pat ria rchy. ~ In her rea d ing of co nt inues to be represent ed as
ca ted and enforced." such as tempo ra ry "c risis. ~ o r post- films fea tu ring Denzel ''('ash - unrequ ited longing fo r wh ite
ph ilosophy. c ulture. science, Second World \'('ar "histor ica l ington a nd ""esley Snipes , she male low" (hoo ks); a nd Sega l's
la w, and po litical pra ct ice. trauma , ~ as Silverman ( 1992) argues that within ""h itl' cul- Wh ite ma le rage a nd " kick-ass
Within this fra mework , ge nder has a rgued, bur vcrv muc h in rura l pro ductions, images o f co nsc ience" may be just " a n-
dualisms or binar y opposites e vidence in late I Xril- and ea rly Blackness a re overdetermined other ruse o f pa tr ia rch y"
are pur int o ques tion bv a n em- I vth-ccntury French an. If he- by a str uct ure o f "c ompetition, (Ros s). T hus a major issue is
ph asis on gender d i sco~tin ­ roi c ma sculini ty is a lwa ys in en vy, a nd bla ck ma le desire for ho w hegemon ic masculin ities
uiries, a nd ena ct ment, as fluid cr isis, the issu e becomes ho w white a pproval" (I' . 99). Black are refurbished , reem powcred,
an d tempo ra l. Although some heroic ma sc ulin it ies " ma nage masculinity is rcenvisio ncd, but renegot iated, a nd reenvisioncd .
co ntributor, wrest It' with th e to restructu re, refurbish, and only to pr od uce a new ste reo - Ta ken toge ther, this work sug-
question, " \'(' ha t is masculin- n-.. urrecr themselves for rbe type. om' th a t is co ntinuous gests tha t patria rchy reforms
ity?, ~ it is clear that this does nex t historica l turn" [p. 70). with, and reproduces . the nar- rna sc ulinitv to meet th e next
no t ent ail any stra ightforwa rd For Smith (19951, even Clint ra rive of colonialism. Finall y, his to rica l tu rn , to rega in the
descri pt ion o f wha t ma leness Eastwood , one o f the most Ross ( 1995) foreground s how pleas ure o f reinforci ng th e
is. It is no lo nger a q uestion of po pul ar contempora ry rcprc- hegemonic Wh ite masculinities norm, to fit th e social climate,
being, but ra th er o f ge nde r scn ta rio ns of ma scu linity, signi- seeking to ma intain the ir pro - or to a rt iculate th e new racism .
"t hres holds" a nd a " d vna mic fies " tro ubled pre sent a tio ns or file o f domi na nce arc upd a ted . Boys: Masculinities in Con-
self-recognition" (Sedgwick, inves tiga tio ns o f till' kind o f Alon gside o ther refo rmed vio- temporary Culture (1996), ed -
1995 ), "acco mplishme nt s," (o r, of the image of ) masc ulin - kilt , hard -body, he-men, ited by Pau l Smith, ta kes up
a nd (disla vowa ls (Butler, If )' tha t they popularly sta nd Steve n Sega l has mo rphed into the to pic o f masc ulinit ies
1995 ), and a " prefixing of the for " (p . 7S). Smit h's thesis is "Eco-M a n. " a hero ic figure within a c ultura l stud ies rubric.
r ules o f gen der a nd sexualuv. that the "narra tive disposition Ross read s as mod er nizing th e In thi s collection . the quest ion ,
an append ix o r ad dition, rha r of pa rt icu lar tr opes of rnascu - imagery of th e frontiersman " What is masculinity," which,
willy-nilly, supplcrncn rs an d liuir y doe.. nor ultima tely co n- and ourdoorsman by art icula t- at some level, presu mes th e
suspends a 'lac k -in -bei ng'~ trol or delim it th em " Ip. 80l. ing White ma le rage to the givcncss of mascu linity as a
(Bha bba. 1995) . Nor only does the male pro- ecology movement . cultu ral ca tegory, is aban doned
in favor of wha t Smith ca lls of idea lized ma sculinities Fergu s as an emotiona lly re- his bod y is revea led in full
" indefinite ma sculin ity" and 'o t her: " that is in sha rp co n- sponsive , nonphallic hero with- frontal nudity. " Keitel's body,"
th e "specificities a nd dispersals trast to Hollywood's reh earsal out "masquerade "-a Burnham continues, " is neither
of masculinity an d ma leness" of hegemon ic masc ulinities. revisioning th a t is a n indict- classicall y muscular nor lith e.
(p. 2). This work proceeds Cro nenberg's films delibera tely menr of modern masculine but his gestures reveal a certain
fro m the point of view of hege- blur and cross the very bound . subjectivi ty-Will is a rgues th at Real . , ... (p. 121). He thus
monic masculinity's others- a ries that define the masculine spectacle o f heterosexua l dif- concludes th at Keitel's work
" minorities of masculiniryr-c- subject (m ind an d body, male ference d isplaces q uestions of "prese nts th e possibilities o f a
an d a tte mpts to ma inta in a o r fem ale, ra tion a l o r irrano- rac ial identity, sexua lity. a nd white, work ing-class ethnic
du a l foc us on the "construe - nal , conscious o r unconscious) politics so th at th e "e mbod ied su bject ivity tha t adm its the
rion and th e hete rogeneity of until they co llapse and dis- mat eriality of black homo- Other-women, qu eers. people
subjects pr esum ed to be mal e" so lve, and his mal e heroes are sex ua l ma scul inity gets reduced of co lor" as a " no nhege monic
(p.2). " passive a nd lacking," "der- to a picture" (p. 109). For subject ivity " (p. 124),
Ramsa y, Willis, and elicrs, outsid ers, ex iles, and los- Willi s, within the co nte xt of By foregrounding minorities
Burnha m a rt' all engaged in ers" who ca rry th e b u rde n of th e globa l culture of ca pital ism of masculinity, th ese essa ys beg
film st udy, hut this does not the "a bjccr" truth o f mascul in- a nd its marketi ng of " d iffer- the qu est ion of th eir cultural
ex ha ust the ana lysis of popular ity. For Ram sa y. the cultu ra l ence," The Crying Game's significa nce a nd polit ical va-
repr esentat ion, as work bv significa nce o f the- vio lence of spectacle of d ifference is a re- lence. raising th e issue o f
Cla rke a nd Henson, Farr~d, the-se characters signifies th e cuperation of " a bsolute o ther- whether "becoming
Fuchs, a nd Michael demon - a mb ivalence o f men wh o are ness into a domesti ca ted diver- minorita ria n" [Massumi,
stra tes. One of the ma jo r issues sim ultaneously a tt racted to, sity' (p. 109). 1992) is a n o ption for all sub-
that e merges in th e film st ud ies a nd repelled by. others. Thus, Burnham 's ( 1996) essay jeers of late ca pita lism. incl ud-
is whether particul ar bodies of she a rgues, th e cri sis o f Whi te, takes th e recovery of minorities ing the traditiona l White. male
work or even pa rticula r films heterosexua l, midd le-class o f mas culin ity righ t into the subject. Willis seems cert a in
a rc subvers ive of co nvent iona l masculini ty is pla yed out co re of hegemonic ma scul inity that The Crying Gam e de mon-
o r idea lized no tion s of ma scu- with in and ac ross the splirtings rep resent ed by U.S. ma le ac - str ates that "there ca n no tell-
linity or femin inity. Ramsa y o f th e ma sculine subject. tion-adventure or law-and-or- ing the sto ry of ma sculinity
a nd Burnh a m sugges t that Willis ( 1996) examines the der films. For Burnham. th at is neit her heterosexual or
so me filmic represent ati ons of role of " fetishism" in The Cry. H arvey Keitel 's o n- a nd of f- whi te, " thus positing that a
maleness can be no n- or ing Game. a film th at repre- screen rep resent ati ons ca ll into definite White. heterosexual
co um er hegemonic. an d Willis sents multiple differences in a question hegemonic American su bject persi sts through its
advances the domest ication of na rrative structured a rou nd the masculinity, figu red as "white. spectacular indefinite appear-
di fference a rgument, secret of heterosexua l differ. worki ng-class, (perha ps) ethnic ances in contemporary film.
Foll owing Co han and cnce. Her basic argu ment is [Ita lia n}, a nd hete ro se xua l- (p. Thus. Willis 's thesis is in ten-
Hark's (1993) antho logy, that the spec tacle of Dil's body 113). For Burnham, Keitel's sion with the thesis of dissolv-
whi ch focu ses o n the " dis tur- a nd the visibilit y o f her penis is cha racte r's " lack" is not a sig- ing or a m biva lent mascul ine
ba nces" and "slippages" in cor rela ted wit h a "s tr uctur a l nifier of femininit y. but o f a subjects at the core of Ramsay's
idea lized Holl ywood mascu- displa cement " of j od y's Black- breakdown of the ma scu line and Burnha m's essays.
lin ities th at ar c not eas ilv ef- ness a nd his homosexual ity. order and th e ma scu line
faced. Ramsa y (1996) ex plo res For Willis, this logic o f exces- sub ject's dissolution from male Newly Hegemonic
Ca nad ia n horro r a nd fanta sv sive visibility a nd disp lacem ent mythology ro oted in imp eri a l AfasClllinities
filmmaker Da vid Cronenberg's works to "secure bo th Fergu s's experie nce o r fantasies. O ver Ne ithe r Constructing Mascu-
films as a "minorirv discourse" hetero sexu ality and the film's the co urse of Keitel's career. his linities nor 80)'s: Masculinities
(p. 8 1), For Ra msay, own a ddress to a heterosexua l performances are postmodcr- in Contemporary Culture.
Cronenberg's male heroes are view er " (p. 104), Contrarv to nizcd, so that in The Piano, his which lav the basis for curre nt
" ma nifestations of th e forces Bordo (1994), who reads ' face imita tes the subaltern and debate. e'xha usts a ll th e pes-
siblc stra tegies of medi a annly- posrmodern on e, In contrast to (so n ), " these differences arc priario ns of) femininity and
sis. In d osing. 1 wa n t [0 return the do mestica ted T- l 0 1. th e not o nly easi ly rec upera ted by, Blackness, ha s uni ted with the
to Hall's o bservation a bout the liquid metal T- 1000 "em bodies but a rc rec uperative of, the ide nt it ies of th ose w ho se o ther-
hody a s a signifier o f subjectiv- the schizophrenic flow s tha t fa the r's dominio n " (p. 26 ), ness threaten s the w hite ma le"
ity, in o rder to single ou r wo rk Deleu ze an d Guar ta ri identi fy If o ne response to the hi s- tp. 437 ). In th e pr oc ess o f for-
that attempts to pu t th e em- wi th ca pita l a s a force a nd to rica l tr auma of post moder- gett ing o f th e o the r's cultura l
bodied st ruggles o f hegem on ic ca pita lism as a socia l forma - nirv is fo r hegemonic Am erican history an d socia l st ruggles.
ma scu lini ties and its vari ous tio n " (p. 10 ). As ;1 noma dic m;~ulinitv to imagine its own " the pa tria rch is a ll that is re-
o the rs int o th e co ntex t of the ra the r tha n mona dic su bject. patriarchal future as "the only me mbered" (p. 439).
pos trnodem co nd ition. Byers the T- IOOO represent s th e sa ne choice." Byers ( 1996) \,\'ithin globa l po stm odem
(1995. 19961. Savran ( 1996 ) forces tha t threaten to d issolve demonstrates ho w f o rr est cultur a l pro duction s, hege-
and Pfeil (1996 ) all « ad II nllv- the self, w hich . in turn . acti- Gump. through a double pro- mo nic masc ulin ities a re "co n-
wood ma sculinities as a cul- vate defensive psychic pro- cess of fo rgett ing and " re- struc ted through . no t outsid e,
tu ra l response ro the his torica l cesses suc h a s para no ia a nd mem bcring," writes the pa..t in difference" for without th e
tr a um a a nd ide nti ty crises na rcissis tic regressio n. Th us. in o rder to co ntrol th e popula r O the r. there would be no Same
w rou ght by the transition to Byers's nco -Fre udian readi ng, mc mo rv o f this historica l (Ha ll. 1996, p. 4 ), Hegem onic
late cap italism or pos t- the T- l000 is a pa radigm o f tr a uma'. Byers's strateg y is to identities need the o the r as a
ford ism . pa ra no ia a nd homop ho bia. sho w ho w thi s film's tr ea tme nt " co nstit utive outside" to con-
f o r Byers ( 1995), feminism wh ile the T- IOI is "a ligned o f history as pastich e du mps stitute itself in the first pla ce
a nd homosexu al ity becom e with "h yp erm a sculiniry, parr i- cou nre rc ultura I (rc jCt 1I1 - and its unity (iu tc m ul ho moge-
"t ro pes" of a ra nge o f eco- a rchy, a nd th e recupcr nrio n vrr uc rions o f th e gende r a nd neit y) is constan tly destab i-
nomic, soc ia l. a nd cultura l a nd preser va tio n o f the familv, race 1.10\\'11 the memory hole lized. Ha ll's theo rizati on o f
shifts a nd d cvcl oprnen rs since ove r a nd aga inst a ll t hre a ts . '. an d figures th e " do min a nt su b- id cn titv accounts fo r th e fac t
th e 1970s. Th e po srmod cm ." (p. 17), T his rec upe ra tio n is jccr" not o nly in ter ms of gen- that so me work posits a n in-
co nd it ion. in t urn . ha.. precip i- accomplished th ro ugh th e do- de r. sex uali ty. race. class. a nd defin ite. dispe rsed , no npha llic,
tat ed a profo und. unprec- mestic subplot in w hich Sara h ge nera tio n. hut also as a sub- no nhegcmonic ma scu linities
ed ented identity crisis, pa rticu - Co nnor rep resents a "museu- ject of co ntempora ry. con-crva - (fo regro unding the impossibi l-
larly fo r mascul ine ident ity. In liniz ution " of the fema le bodv tin' historical consciousness. it v of identity), a nd o the r wo rk
his nco -M a rxi a n. nco-Fr eu dia n tha t is deleginma rcd, whereas For Bvers. Fo rr est " represents can a rgue th at dominant fic-
a na lysis o f Tenninatc r 2: the T-I 00 is posit io ned as the a lihe~al myth (in Barthes's tio ns preser ve. co nsolida te. rec -
judgement Day, Bye rs's srrat- legitim ate "Uberdad" of the sense ... 1of the boomer ~1S the reate. a nd retell this imagina ry
eg >' is to rea d th e Termina tor Connor familv, Conrra rv to ' new man : egalitaria n. sympa - identity (foregro undi ng the ne-
model T-101 (Arn old Jeffo rd s ( 1994 J. wh o sugges ts thcric to th e ma rginal ized . a nd ccs..it·...of identities) .
Schwa rzc negge r} a nd th e that t he film's endi ng signals a in to uc h with his ' femi nine If the Ne w M an ha s fun c-
new er T- l 000 a s em bodying tr a nsition fro m an "outwa rd". side" {p. 43 1). At the same tio ned as a sympto ma tic figu re
the o ppositio ns betw een "clus- d irect ed to "inwa rd't -di rcctcd rime. howeve r, he lives lip to and sign o f th e times. he is not
sical a nd la te ca pita lism, he- ma scu linity. Bye rs a rg ues in- " fan ta sies o f rraditional mas- the o nly con tende r for a lead -
tween a prod uctio n-ba sed in- stead th a t th e futur e " Ne w culinit y," thus com bining a ll rug position within the soc ial
du st rial an d a consu mption- Ma n ... must be IUlt/) mort.' "a ppa rent accommod at ion of imagi nary. In Snvran's ( 1996)
based info rma tion al econ o my, sens it ive and more succcss fullv femini sm with a deep -sea ted a na lysis. for exam ple, th e
between modern a nd violent th a n ever" (p. 25). AI-' misog yny" (p. 432 ). Unlike th e " w hite ma le back lash" tha t
post modem cult ure, between thou g h this an a lysis is phrased a lien T· I 00 0. whi ch mu st be surfaced in the media in the
para noi a an d schizo phrenia" as " bo th/a nd." Byers's eva lua- des troved for futu re New .\ Ian mid - 1990 s. signifies th e " ne w.
{p. XJ, T hese terminators a rc tio n is tha t, in spite of di scern - John Connor to live (a nd. lead ). w hite masculine fant a smatic
sigr uficrs o f tr aditio na l mascu- ible diffe rences Oelween th e T. Fo rr est is the new man w ho. that coalesced in the m id-
line subjectivity an d a 10 1 (father) and th e New M an "i n his relations to la nd appro- 1970.. in order to faci lita te an
adj ustment to changed mate- gro und ing the fanta sies a nd de- waged" (p. xi i). In his "cl ose a nd women . Yet, for j cffo rds,
rial circumsta nces by enco ur- sires th at th is figur e embodies readi ng" o f male ra mpage th ere is an underlying sym me-
aging the white male sub ject's in the Oe dipal complex, films of the late 1980s an d tr y betw een hard bodies that
simulta neous embrace and dis- Savra n locates it in what he ea rly 1990s, and t he 199 1 define stre ngth either exrer-
avowal of the role of victi m" ca lls "The Right Stuff" com- cycle of sensit ive-guy films, nallyor intern ally an d presi-
(p. 128 ). For Savran, th e pro- plex. Thi rd, he a nalyzes the Pfeil (1996) gives greater atten- denti al rheto ric, which she
totypes for a new type of ma le rhetoric of Ro bert Hly, whose tion to thei r pos tmodern for- lakes as evide nce of the co nti-
protagon ist were Chuck Yeager Iron John th eor ized the "deep mal clem ent s ra ther than for - nuity of th e Reagan revolution
in Th e Right Stuff, Ram bo masculine " a nd hailed readers mu laic ones, as well as the into th e po st-Cold War era.
{Sylveste r Stallone) in Rambo, into a men 's movement based co mp lex pleasur es and satisfac- Pfeil also sees gender as a
and D-Fens (Mic hael Dou glas) on " im perialistic fanta sies" tions the se films offer as sub- coded projection that is also
in Falling Down ( 1993) . R e ~ and th e " rac ializa rion of th e ject s living through the shift fundam en tally present in the
cent films such as Face/Off, Air ' Wild Man. '" Finall y, he sug- from Pordisrn to pos t-Ford ism. most pop ular H ollywood
Force On e. Conspiracy Theory, gest s the most emblematic vic- H is Gramsci an -fcminisr textu al films, but he a rgues that good-
Th e Game, and Th e Edge ha ve tim -as-hero is M ichael Dou - a nalysis de monst rate s the value bad guy dua lities are ofte n dis-
expanded th e arra y of its pre- glas. So, in The Gam e, for ex- o f clos e readi ng and is an im- ru rbcd, the O ther "is not only
ferr ed icons, beca use th ese ample, Nichol as Van Orton plicit critique of mor e "hori- resiste d bu t pa rtially, cove rt ly
films feature male protagon ists (M ichael Do uglas ) is a wea lthy zontal" types of cultural inter- tak en in" (p. 10) a nd, at level
who perform th eir own contra - cor por ate potentate who expe- pretation, which gloss over the of rhyt hm a nd m ise-en-scene,
dictions, struggle with th em - riences rejectio n, povverlcss- co mplex ities of texts and the suc h films express a "thematics
selves as mu ch as with evil or ness, invasion o f pri vacy, and specificities o f cult ural a nd po - of pos t-patriarc hal male 'wild-
nature, or undergo ordeal s th at temporary poverty. Savran litical conj unctures. In contrast ness' -a brea kdo wn a nd
prove th ey can ra ke pai n a nd concludes tha t this .. neevly he- to Je ffor ds's (1994) narrative rcjigging of th e oedipal par -
puni sh menr like a man. gemon ic ma sculinit y" has a nal ysis, where stra ight, White terns of classical emplo tmenr"
Savran's majo r cont ributio n, given impetus to the " patr iot masculine ha rd bo dies and (p . 27), that is insepara ble, in
however, is to offer a c ritiq ue movement" a nd that T imo thy their ma keo vers ar e read as the first insta nce, from pos t-
of nco-Fr eudian film theory M e Veigh is an "ente rprisi ng, historical signs of the Reaga n For disr mo des of prod uction.
and its demat erializin g and ma lignant-and since Ok la- revo lut ion, Pfeil reads Holl y- In pa rticular, Pfeil cla ims th e
un iversaliz ing tendencies..! hom a City, suddenl y demon- wood "vvhire guy s" as a net - combi na tion of male bod ies
First, he rereads on e of th e ized- va ria tio n " o f th e White work of contrasts, codes and and buildings "litera lly in-cor-
mos t pha llic representa tives of ma lt.' as victim a nd victimizer. correspondences in order to porate Ford ist old a nd post-
national-polit ical phallic ma s- Pfeil's \Vhite Gu ys: Studies emphasize the "irresolutions, Ford ist new" (p. 29 ). So,
culinity of th e 1980s (Ram bo) In Postm cdern Domination a nxieties, and contra diction s wher eas Jeffor ds ar gues th at
as a spectacle embo dyi ng "o p- and Di((crcttce goes fur ther saw ing away at one a not her the ending of films like Termi-
po sed pos itionalities"-h yper- tha n any oth er text I kn ow o f within th e constructs an d dis- nator 2 offer on ly the ap pear-
ma scu linit y a nd femini nirv, In in a na lyzing stra ight , Wh ite co urses of strai ght white mas- ance of masculinity's own ne-
his rereading, eve n Ra mb~ fai ls masculinity in relation to bo th culiniry" (p. 2 ). Jefford s ( 1994) ga tion \....hile th e narrative sup -
to represent " pure pha llic ma s- femininit y a nd liberal femi - a rgues that there ha s been a plies a "t new' direction for
culinity." Second, he nism, in a wa v tha t underlines shift from the 1980s hard body ma sculin ity" that works (0 re-
historicizes th e paradigm of the politica ll{mitation s of anv to th e lat e-1980s " fa thering" so lve a n xieties about the end
" reflex ive sadomasochism" by (essentia list) left-femin ist posi - films (where "fathering" is th e of masc ul init y, Pfeil co nclude s
specifying th e social a nd eco - tion th at po sits White, stra ight vehicle for transcendin g rac ial that th e "wi ld, violent , morti-
nomic cha nges of the last 30 ma scul init y as "a single, mono- an d class difference), and to fied white male bo dy" at the
yea rs that ga ve rise (0 the cul- lithic, ab solute evil again st films that position th eir Wh ite center of ma le rampage films-
rura l figure of the "White ma le whi ch an intermina ble str uggle male heroes as agent s of just ice whose fa nt asies of cla ss- and
as victim." Rather tha n for tur f and power mu st be o n behal f of African Amer icans gender-based resistance to the
pos t-Fordisr, po srfcminisr non of med iated masculinities. 3(6). Ann Arbor: University o f I\1i" hi- Coates, N. (199 8). Ca.n', we ju..t talk
worl d a re typica lly turned int o gdn Press. aboul th.. mu sk ?: Rock and ~nder on
a n argum ent th at is to he co n- Ikr~C'r, !lot., Wa llis. B., &.: War"..n, S. (Eds .l. th.. interntt. In T. Swi,~ J. Sloo p. & A.
accommodation s_may " none- tin ued. is likely to he ad - (199j). eo....tnu:tmg musc ,.I,mry. l" C'w Her ma n (Eds.I . .\ tJ.p pin K th e beat:
thel ess suggest ancvv' and ver- vanced. however. onlv when York: RoutledgC'. Popu !.Jr music ol..d co,,'.. mpur~ry
tiginous psycho-social mohilirv we begin to tak e seri~uslv the Btu toha. II . (19 95 1. ,J" re )'Ou a m..n o r a theory lpp. 77-99). .\lalden• .\1.,, :
a moment ~f flux " [ p , 31). Fo~' relevance of rhecrv for m'edia mou~? In !lot. !\ergN', B. Walli", &.: S.
Wa.hon IE.h.). w.... lrucrmJ: " Msculm -
Blackwell.
c...han, v., sc Hark. I. R. (EJ s.). 11993l.
pfeil. in the final anal ysis. no studies work . read across disci- It)! lpp. 57~51. ;"';e" Yn rk: RoullcJ"... .\,-ru""'g ,he m.l{e: Exp{o,mg m.lSCU·
" psycho- socia l bod y is ever fi- plinary bo rders. and make. as Brod , II . (1'195 1. !l.1a".,; u lmity a' masquer- 1",'tIN In Ih e lI olf)·W<JO<1 (I"emol. l" e....
ade. In A. Perch uk anJ 1I. P....nc r Ynrk: Routledge.
nail)' closed. no imaginary ever Ca role Spirzack has proposed. Cohan, S. ( 199 5 ). The 'py m rh.. !tray fla n-
[Edv.l, TJ", "'J.uulm<, ....l!-'1u,·.,Jdt':
com plete or fully resolved:' (p. a "commitment to the destabi- MJ.uu lim ly J.n d r<'I' .t'untJ.t i".. (pp . nel ,uit: Oe nder pc rforman~e and the
.U ). includ ing the straight. lizat ion of singu larity in pe r- 1.3-19). Ca mbridg e, !l.IA: ~ I1T Prn,. represenrauon o f m.l..:ul inity in X ",th
White mall' ima gina ry, Pfeil's Bllrnll.lrn, Co II 'J'!6 1. Scanc rcd , pn u la- l>y .\'",IIIlI},·sl. In A. !'e"huk and H.
spcc rive." lio n, on the ..-alul' or I I.u ..- e}' Keitcl. In P",n..r (Eds. ), The "'<l s",I", e masq ner-
work th us urges us to he ;IW3rl' 1', Smn h (FJ .), Bovs: M.lswl,."II(·s rtf ,1,1,,: M.lsmfllllly ,,,,d TI',"<'SoltJ.li""
when \X/hitt'. work ing men's n m f,'mpOr.lI')' ,ult".,. (p p, 11,1-1 29 ). IPP, 4 3-6 2 ). Cam bndg.., .\1'\: .\11'1'
(sc reen] bod ies ar t' mu tating. ,\uthnr lI.oulJer, CO: \\".., r,i..w. Pres, .
R"t-err Hanke IS on rbe ra,'u)n -oj the Uni- Butler. J. (1990 1. GenJu trm,Me: h'mi- <:' ", d 'l , ( :. (1'J94). Hegemonv in ma , s·m e-
for th is means that rhev are ,·..rslly of Lo uiw ill... - msm J.nJ tilt' 5ltb,'e rs,on of Idrnllt)'. d lareJ ><.>c ie,)': Concordan.... a.bout re -
open to redefin ition an-d :-.<..... York: Ro utledge . productive tcxhnologles. C.,t,,~1 Stud·
rea~ti culation . Pfeil's stra tegy IS Butler; J. (1993 ). RaJlt's t/,,ll "'J. lfer: On le$ i.. MJ.ss CO... m....",Jt,. .... I J(.I I.
;"';'>T... the JISfu.si,·e limItS o f "Se.r.." Sl'" 105-BO.
to focus on popular films ' ..h CO!l<'ll ( 1 9 9 ~1 nnlcs. fUlKtlonaJ"t Yor k: Routledgr. Condit, C. (199 71. Clocdmg the i....un:
svm pro ma nc irresolution. in ~, om pl ..memar)·- st"'·rol.. , heo ry was ir- Bctle r, J. 11995 1. \ld a n.; h "I ~' ~C'nJcrlr ..- The ideal and the ma.teridl in human
whi ch case even some male ~Ir a term of norm.. lilln~ gender politic\. fused iJ ..nnfcanon. In ~I . Berger. B. communication. C.,tit',J1 S,udiN In
' . for turther di-.:us,ion of lh~ PC'S' - W,lIh" &: S. K at>un (FJ s.!, C"nst",cr- .\ IJ.s$ C,onm,u ..ic,lIIOIl, l41l l. 197- l 00.
rampa~t' or sensitive-guy films
linn, In the conrexe o lldn-,,;on studies. mK mJ.s",lmlt)' jpp. ll-161. ;";e " Cunnell, R. U'. (191171. Gen./,·r .lnd p.. ~'fi':
may offer no t onlv evidence of ' .... Ha nke 11997). York: Rout ledge. S""ny. the pe rs"" J.lld st'x II.l1 po/illt's.
ideologica l recu per ation , but , f o r a powe rful ,1I\d i.l....-in,uing cnnque Bj'er' . T. (1'1'151. TCTOlIna linlt rhe Pal.. Altn. CA: Sranford Uni\ eTsity
;11«0 of " those 'mo rbid symp- o f. .md a ltn na!ln" ro, film theory's " <'(10 ' pn ' tmo dc rn : \Ia<,uli n lf)' .\IIJ Pr" , .
lln "e d m.unr en,ltln · of ill ' .III-encompa« _ I'"mul'huhia. Mod...." halOn Studies, ( :"1I1Iell. K.W. ( 1990 ). An iron man : The
to ms' that occur when. as mg, hegcmonlc par;,digm for lhl' nitic..1 4 / ( 1), 5- 3.1. hoJ~' and so me comradicnons of hege-
Cramsci said. 't he old is dying .1Ild lhenlctKa l dis.:u" io n of film," 't"e 1\\'er"I. (1'1'16). His ror v Re-mem bered: moni, ma sculinirv. In !Iol. ,\ Ie" ner &
a nd (he new ca nnot be bo rn " \ha,'iro (1 99.3 ), who", work d ra ws from , rum'si Gump. J'O"ti~mrn"t mascuhn- D. SAh.. (EJs.) , SPort , me.. , .J"d tht'
Deleuze and G u.u lJ ri\ p<'Stf>s)-,'hoanah-ti, it)'..md rhe hurial oi th .. , .. untercul - g.·ndrr o rde r: Cnncal fernm ist pers p..c-
Ip.5 51. rh('(lr!' of lh<:, sub;':"'t In order 10 hre-..k - lure. .\ lo..Jcrn Frctlun\luJ,t'S, -1 212\. twt'S (pp. 83·95j. Champai!tn, IL: Hu·
Taken togeth er. these studies trom Frr ud and l.l,an. 419....4044. ma n Kmtt k.---s Boo ks.
Connell. R.U·. (19951. M.ls,ulm lllu .lkr·
in postmodcrnizing hegemonic CIoIrl<, D. 11995 1.Commoduy lesb i..msrn.
kelev: University o f Ca.hfomia. Pres s,
In ( ;. Dmcs <lnJ J. H um er t F-d,.I. Gen-
masculiniti es o ffer varying der, rJ.a J.nd cuss In medl.J (pp. 142- Dav... L (19Q7j. Th C' swim ..uit is~uC' and
models for analysis and critical Rrterro<('S l .l l l. Thousand (hb. CA: Sage. ~pc,n: Hegem o nic ma...:uhn it)· III Sports
..\ rnn......rtz, S. ( I 992 l. \l:"rklOg-dass <cul- //IustrJ.ud. Albany: Sta te Uni~e.-siry 01'
practice that close the gap be- ture in the electromc age. In S.
Clarke, E.. &:. Hens on, \ t. ( 1'196). Hot
Da mme t Reflectionc on /:aj' rubh,n ~. ~e .... Yo rk Pr(";~.
tw een the discursive and t he A.ron"wi rL. The pohlr,s of Idnltlty:
In P. \mirh (EJ.I, BO)·$: \IJ.s. «li,.iti"s m De L lur..ri" T. {1987). Th e rl"(hnolos y 01
ma ter ial and ta kl' an:oum of CI,Jss, 'UII"'I', so.' 1011 ",,,,'(m(nts (pp.
",mumporJ.I')' , ult",,, (pp. 1\ 1-1 49) . l:..nJer. In T. de- L...oretis, Tech..olo~i"s
19 3-2.0 9 ). New York: Knur ledgr.
p sy~hic proce ssl'S, the self. an d B.lfl he l, D. ( 198 8) . r U lli'll{ "', J.1,pear.
Bu ulJ n. CO: \l·r ,r ..-,,·w. "1.1t" "d",: EsSolYS 0" II' eo ry, fil... , J...d
Ch" I'"l.ln . R.• ,tnd Rurh crfurJ. j. IFd s.). fl,t,,'" (pp. 1-301. Blo" minlo\ton: Ind l'
s OC I;] 1 rela tions in the present ,mus: Gn"/a ,m d ,ldl",.lising. PhiLI.-
(I ':I ~ ll ) . .\1<11" ".der: [r",, 'r,I/'("" R m,l,- .,";1 University Pre' s.
c~ni u n~ t ure . Th e foregoi ng dd phia; 'I(;,mple Un;\'l'!, iry Pres- .
m /mit},. 1."nJ"n: I ." w n·n~ c &:. \\'i , h"rt . l) o na IJ " Ill, 1\1. (19 ':1 3). Wh ;lI is hegemoni"
Iknnell. T. 119 H61. h ltrod un io n: Popular lll,I,," lil1 ity? l h(ury .llId S""ely, ll l5 l,
diSCUSS ion has not produced a "u ltu re a nd the 't um , ,, C,ramsc i: In T.
C1uud. D . 119'16). 1kl:..nwn~ or nllKOr -
..lance? T he ,h,'lOri,' oj t .. keni,rn in liH-t.'i7.
ddinitive map of the zone of Iknnl"!t, C. .\ ltt<:cr.. &: j . \'('oo llacOIt (lo ", . A. ( I'193). MJ.k in~ th mgs perfectly
- Oprah- U·in fr..~\ r"l-"·l'>-rtchn hiog-
theorizing masculinin: with/in , FJ s.). PO/Ju!.Jr ,'u[lur e .J..d soct.J/.eu-
raphl. C.,t",l1 Slud,es m MJ.ss C"",- qu.·rr: / rtlcrp,.."n~ mJ.u , ,,Itu .e. ~ lin'
the med ia, but it doe~ indi cate 1I".. s l pp. XI-xixl. l'h ilaJd p hia: O Pf'n
Um'·...-slq· P~s. mU""J.t,o... H (ll, II ~-I.17. n,-",polis: l·lli..... .-sit~· or .\ hnn.....>{..
how the agenda for media ClouJ. D. (1997J. Con~tlrJdO<", ,omplex- I'ren .
Bordo. S. (1 99-'1. Rn d inlt the ma lC' body. Dl'.,m. \1 . {19 '13 1. Ik like \ tlkc?: \ h~hae1
In' ,lIlJ cOll;,en'atlsm: Re]o mder 10
slud ies work on the topic has In L Go( dYC'1O (Lt.). Th.. ...~[.. body: lorda.n oInJ the p<'ddgo~~ of .loire.
ConJit. e mu'oJ/ Slud.es ,., ,\ IJ.ss C.om-
F..~tur..s. destm ws, Uposuru Ipp.16j_
been ('vo h·ing. The theoriza- ... u ..",Jtio.., H \2 ),1 9 3-1 9 7. Cullu.J.15u,J,es. 7( I I. 64--72 .
Ehr~n r~ i..: h . B. ( 19<,15). Th~ .J~din~ uf I'~ln:' cr iriq ue of the co"""r' 01 ma~ulincJ R.. msay, C. (1996). :\hlr ho rr or: On w.. 1li• • ~ S. W..rsan ( F..J~. ). C..ons ll ud·
a rchy. In ~t . 1kTg~r. B. ~·~I lis • .so: S, ma...-ul,nltles. ln M ..\I ...: ..n Gh ..lll David Ct<m m hc rg. l n P. Smilh If J.I. ' TIK ", .ucu/,.. ,ty (pp. 10 9-J 06). Sew
1J;·.. rson If.•I\.). C..onstrwa "'K ""'K .. I",. Bay': ,\ l.uc.. /""t...s ... con,......po ' o1.., York , RoutlcJ~e.
(Ed.'. U"JrrstJ,.J,TlK ..usa-I",." ..s: So-
,,, (pp. 284-901. S"," Yo rk : ci.lJ,..l.JtWllS o1nd c" /''' ' 011.J' ..nJS (pp. e.. lt",.. (pp. 8 1-95 1. Bouldet, CO: ~1.. lser, R. 1199 J ), forging m~\CulimlY:
RoudNgr. 202-2 17/. Pbiudclph,a : 0rm Univer· Wnn-">CW. Hca v,' meul M>UnJs and im.;agn of gc-n -
Farred, G. 119%). Tht prttT~1 R. '«'..Iscr. R..n,..lTlr .... th th ..
P't",r(m orll.. l: .\ l uha mm ...J Akin P.
51'" PITU..
hooks. b. (1995 1. DoIOll, Ll for d.l.d.Jy.ln
ROt;ot1.l.. &- V.. n l«f. D. il 99J). After·
lhoughu ... A .Jo.... er on m'UC\lhni-
dee, In
d..ur: I'au ..... r ....J.... reberl.on .. "J rocJr
Smith ( ed.) . 8 0)'s: .\ I.J5, ,,I,,,, t,... ,,, CO ". M . Berger; B. W..lli•• & S. \1:''' ' <;00 nes. n, .." ry o1nJ .'io" ,..ty. 2l(~ ) . 739- ' n' ro l/l pr. 108- I J 6 ). II dnover. S I I:
t..... po ro1ry c.. It" r.. (p p. 151 -1 70 ). Boul- IF.d•.). Q,nslnu ,,,,g "'.l~ ..I"" f)· (r r . 761. \\'....Ie'·..n Prn , " I Sew EnRbnJ .
der, CO: " 'Ol v,~w. 9ll-11 4 ). N..w York : ROOlledJ:". R.".o. A. ( I <,1 <,15 •. The g. ....r " 'h'l e dude . In WillI' . 'io. I I <,1';16 ). Tcl bng J,ffn-m,-...: R.I,-e•
f~l o. r.. 119 <,1 2 ). :\1~ \.Cu linllY .,.. b..:r: A r~­ ktl< lrJ o. S. (19 941. H J.J b"Ji..s: H" lIy. ~ l . Berge r, B. " -;I lh, . ~ S. \\ -.11" 1\1 ~(n.Je', a nd ",,_u .llil)- in Th.. Crymll
virw " I ell1l'''i..·.l1 ma w communication ",,,,>tJ mo1Sr"/llimty ", 11,.. Rro1l/.", era. (F.J,. ). C" "s tm a ",}: ""ls,."li",')' (p l" G,,,,,,·.ln P. Smilh (Ed.). B"ys: Mo1U'"
research on mol 'i<:ulini ry. In S, C ra i.: :"rw f'oruo>wick .:"J: Ru tgers l! ni\"er- \/i 7- 17 5 1. ;";rw Yurk : R"utl..JJ:e . lim',..s III elll,r"''' f>urolry , ,,II" re (pl'.
(f..l.••.\ 1..". nlo1JC"I"'lt)', o1"Jth.. ..,..Jlo1 "I" Prew , "'J';U. D. ( 1<,1 ';1 21. \I J 'o:ullmf} a' "gn>: <,1 7-112 ). Bu u lJ cr. CO: \I:·eou-iew.
(1'1'. 9_ 22 ). ~e"' l>ul") Pa rk . C ,\.: Sa.:e. .\IJ» um l. K. ( 199 2). A .. U"s 8 ud .. 10 cap r- P,...I,UU(fU U !L" f(m llll'I a rprn.I': o~ I n
I'eie~. E. &: I'em ..: h. K. (I':N JI. lnv"iol lil)'. l.l!ts,., o1nJ sch/Zoph.,..l.J: D "I 'Iol" m fS the ' IUJ)' u f gend ..r, In .... Cra 'l>: ([ d .l. o 1':I'JII ImcrnallUnJI C">mmun"..I100 A"n.
h"mul'n...I>, .. .m.J her er...... xrsm: 1.001- e..
fr''''' Dd .... ;:r .l..J o1tUtr. um- .\ 1..." .....s•.-,.I",,1¥, 01"J ,h.. ",..J'o1 lpP·
..n'. pn .. nJ rM mnj,.. , C .,t.c.l15t.. J . hnd~. ,\ 1.\ : .\IIT Pro.•. H-J91. ;";e", bul") Pa rk, CA: ..... ge .
I ..S", .\lo1SS ( A',., ,.,.... U'.lr"'... 1014). :'0.1, RobbLe•.\ . I I ';1';17 1. Th....s .."d th......t•. "'JVC.in. D. , 1<,1 <,1 6 1. The ... .l"m;l"",hL..r m
l'1 ,~ -I22 . the ..:k~ : \l:biu m..",ul,mt)" .. nd rhe
..s: ,"'.... , 'l ""J lions {o' {..",mu", .J .. J
h , lo: r . J. ' D......",. R . I I ~ l. AuJ,eo<:mg .... It,,,011 st .. J' ..s. ln .\ 1. Ferg uso n ~ P. cultu re 0 1 \·,,"t,m ,ullon. J'/f"'''''u s: :\
violence: \\ ·..r,·h1l1J: homr~, men G"I.JlOg (I':'k l. Cult.....1St" J,,,S ,.. 1',,,,,,..1uf {.....,rIIst , ,,It'' ' JI st" J,..s,
watc h D,,' II.,.J, In 1- H.u '. L '1""5/"''' [r p . 170- 1116 ). Lon.Jon : !l;lg". b'(2l. 127 - 1 Q.
(; rm,l-r rg , &: L \\ ·d nd la ·~ F.J •. l. 'l he .\ l rr,,·r r. K . ( 1994 •. W'..Im m.. 10 Ih.. ,.."gl..: " ;Jg..i,k. I' . ( 1'J';I,S). <';",h . f\.o. ,)" (;...,"I:r •
.l" J,t'OIU .lIlJ ,ts 100"dsc.Jp.. (1'1'. 2<,17- N"'I' p" sltllms m Hlo1(Jr cull"ro1l sl...I,..s. "o u mu sr he dw/u ll~ ....c ure Ln )'our
J 16). B" uIJ,·r. CO: \'('e 'I\"cw l're ~s. N~w York : Rn ur[e.JI(( . ~d,.;ulitlll)'! In .\1. Brrg(r. B. W.llh,. &
I'uch_. C. I I ':1 <,16 ). MRrJ r me Ulilla II1C M: At. .\ l ick .lr! . J. ( I ':I~6 ) . I'ro' l hcri.: gend er ;In.J S. \'('ar " lI1 l l'.d~. I . <:"..), ,, ,,'1"'11 ", ..s(,,·
ternanve ma scu hnmes. ln 1'. "'ml1h um' Cl\dII Olrllr.: I' ~lq.h m l1.lwking·s 1",lIy I pp . 11- 20 ). ;";e..- Y"rl :
,[ ..I.). lkrys, \ I.uc"I"" tl"s '" com ..",po- 1.1"' . In P. Sm"h ([ .J.I. Buys: .\ I.u<..I"" . Routledge.
''''Y c"lt..... (1'1'. 1 ~1 -1<,I~ I. BouIJer. t,.., ,,, cO" "''''PO' o1l\-,-.. It" ... (pp. 19<;1_ vhaviro. .... 11'1':131. n, .." .........nc boJy.
CO: \1; N n e w. 2 I lIl. S"llldrr. co: \\'on-ie"'·. .\hnor .. "" l,,: Um.er" r,· I\t ~"nnesolJ
c,r<"'-hc~. L 11'1<,1 71. B' /..gm.c It 01 11 b.JcA: \ l,d.Jln " n . P. 11<;1"'2 I. n, .."'u'o1,d ~ ..~ ..: Pro.•.
bo", e, f.ssJ)J '" u n c.. It'''o1l st"J.... . .\ I.IK" I,,1l1y .."J ,.. I,trall"" '" ,." Jd...", "ihcrm~n • .,;. ~ 1'1':12 1..\t.. l.. s" h/t'< tll"ty o1t
Uurlu m. ;";C : Duke Cn " er,," Pre». ,-ultu,... ~(w Yo rio: : Roul [rog ... rh.. """ Jl''' ~ ' :" e..- Yo r k: Rnur ledli:( .
fl JII.S. ( 19 '1{». Inlr\>J LKriun : \\ 'ho ne~do 1>.1, ,rlrl·. n. I I '1R{> I. f'o1,."lv tl'lel"s",,, : Cul- ..ol um"n ,C.. ..J~J u . A. (1':1 95 1. ~I Jl("
Ldr nlil )" ? In .... I!.IlI & P. J u C,"l·l h h . l. ''''011 po",... ....d J,,"'~,'ie I..,~ " .... I.on - l rout-Ir . In ~l . fk~cr. B. \'('0111.... &: ~ .
Q"":lt"",s ,,( ,J....ttn" Il r. 1-17 ). lb" u - .J" n : Cnm ,·J ,a. \\'",,~on (E.J, .l. C.."' JItII<"/I>'jl mJUUIIll -
,.m.1n .ll-. C,\: ~,l gl" ~~ .llt . S. ( I'N I). .\1.1"': llllllllY a~ 'I"'..·t;ld e: ,Iy IPI'. {>'1 _7/i ). ~ cw Yur k : Ruull..dgc.
I IJnk r • R. 1\ <,I1I1l 1. I l q~em"l1I': nM"u llllily Rdl r.:unn , " n m~ n ,IIlJ mJin ,U eam ' lrinman. C. ( 1 ~<,l2 1. (;oIle "Ul "t l'.. und~ :
In rh LN l >Vmer hmJ:. Crm ..011.\ r" J I"s ,,, ,·Ulem.l. In W. Coh;ln &: I- R. If ../ k .\ kn ....u .:h mg men on le le\l"''''. In ....
.\ I.lsS C""''''''nI, 0111<."', 70 I. 2J 1-14 11. ( f .Jo.). ,~,,,,,,,,,,"g tlo.. ,.,..1..: f.xpl."",~ C r.li~ C" .J.) • .\1...,. "' Js<'" I" m y. o1nJ ,h..
H Jnke. R. ( 1992). R rJr~i gn mg men : I k ge . "'o1s.-"lm ,tl"s 101 H"i1~, .....Jti cm""'J Ir p. ", ..J'J crr. 19'1- 214 1. ~~..- hu r)' p.irk .
m"m" mJ,.;ullOl u - Ln tr.1n"lIoo . In .... <;1 - 201. london: Ro urlr.J!,:e . (O rlf/: Iru.1 C A: ~KC.
Cr"'J: (FJ.I•. \1..... "'.IK..IIPl,fl;, .l.. J th.. .. ,,,k puhl lw.J lSI I"'~j ) ~Ilo. P. 11 9<,1 ~ ) . u st\O.',,,,J bounJ. ln .\1,
,.,..dt.l lrr.11I ~ - 19I1 l. ;";ew h~n P;ltl . ;";" '..n. \ . ( I <,I~6 1. I 'o1.J 1,,, ,Jrs: -'fo1sc,./"" . Rr.~..r. S. \1; '..11L,. .... \1;';11" '" (r.Js.).
CA : SdJo:~ . . I,..s. ~pr" '.Jtursh,p, o1"J conU,,,p0101ry C..otIJrtll, t",g ",o1scul,,,,t')· Ipr o77_971.
I bn kr. R. (Iorl!k-u m mg). Th e -1J1< ... k .m..- " "'su,.,p, ,,.... ;";e... York : SI. .\hnlO ·s. S e.. Y" rk : Ro udrd l(( .
M
,;ho OLIU.ll10n u,m<'<f)": II C'J:,r mun " ;";,," n. S. 0 '1<,1::," ). Exh,hn lllg m;l><;u hn lry. "'mllh, P. (I:.t.l. (19 '11> 1. R" ys:\IJs,-.. I", m..s
mJ "ulmlly JnJ Lh tr ill:fd llo n. " ·n t..,n In ~, H a ll (F..J.l. Rep., sr"t.ltll"' : Cul- '" c"",'·...''''rd•.,. n ,lrur... f\.o. 'uldl·r. Co:
Jm' m 011 of C,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-.lIlw,. I> l ( I ). lur,11 " 'p"'U'I/<JI,u" ,/lid s,gm fymg \\'..,lvlew.
I lank". R, I I <,I1I1I 1. [Mlrrr n,;r .mJ iJem il\' 1" ..<'/,<'<'s (pp. 291~.1 16 1 . Thnu ~J n.J b ~kn. Y. ( I <,I'H )..~p,·d.J"'/o1r I",J,ts: em-
III S ..,th ..,n I-_Yf>us,,'''' In L \'J nde . OJ k... CA: SaJo\e. Je'. g,,'''e o1 ..J 01(/1U" (' .......01 . :" cw
Flrrlt- l.. \\ 'r n n ,· B. c, ru n l>,; " k ([ .J,.I. I'( , o ra. :" . II '1'12). Sllp"'rm.lnl.lIpcrh.. ~'" York : Rou d e.Jge.
C71',,·,jI ..pp d ...s t<ll..r.., ·,~" ... (r r. 'lI pcr men: 'Ih e cOIm.: hook hero d\ 'iO- lru l1llo. N. 119<;1 11. HC'J:,( m' lI1 i, m;l...:ulin-
1"1_r' .~ 1. 8< " " ",_ .\l\: ll" ud llOll ,,;l I,ting ..gml. In S. Cu'g 1EJ.). ,\I...,. 'IV on the mound: ~ Iroi;l rrprncnu ·
.\11111111. ..... J("JI!t"l ty. o1 ..J t#or ",..J l.J Ipp. 6 1- 77,. II~ of ;";wn Ry.. n ..nJ Amcn.::.. n
11.1'"k...."'orl h•.\1 . ( I <,1 <,1 7 1. Conloun..linJ: S","bu ry Puk. CA: ~RC . . porn culrure. Om(.,l15,uJ,.., ,.. .\ lo1:1S
grnJcr. .Slgns: JU" Hul ,,( U'" ,.,.... ....J Pi..il. F. (1996 1. ""·h"...I"Y" St.. d,..s ,.. Com ,.,,,n" .Jtlon. NtJ ). 290-3011.
0 .1'..... ,.. Soc...ty. .!l(J I. 6-49-4.IH . pos',.,od...... dOttl'TW/IOft 01,.J J4{......,u. W..lIKe• .\1. 0 W S)• .\t......'"LIILn")" 10 Bu ck
Hu m . J. 1199 61. I ~ rn.J"Cu],ml) Jca.J? A london: Veno. popul... culture. In .\1. 8ctJtcr, B.

Você também pode gostar