Stegall
Elliott Stegall
LIT 4304.02 Studies in Popular Culture
Dr. Leigh Edwards
December 14, 2009
From Bond to the Bromance: the Binary Man and the New Homosociality
From decades of women’s studies has come further scholarship on race, class, gender, and
sexuality, which are now recognized as operating simultaneously in every social situation. According to
Lynn Weber, in her essay A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality,
at the societal level, these systems of social hierarchies are connected to each other and are embedded
in all social institutions (Weber, 9). Phrases such as “social hierarchies” are code for hegemony, and the
clear insinuation at the heart of such studies is that the white, heterosexual male is the norm, and not
necessarily in a good way. Weber broadens this particular constructed definition of social hierarchies by
allowing that “almost all of us occupy both dominant and subordinate positions and experience both
advantage and disadvantage in these hierarchies” and “that there are no pure oppressors or oppressed
in our society” (Weber, 10). In other words, it’s complicated. Perhaps it was inevitable that after
decades of demonization, men would respond, ala Kermit the frog, that it’s not easy being male when
others are green with envy.
Written by Harvard professor Dan Kindlon and child psychologist Michael Thompson in 1999,
Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys was developed into a PBS documentary in 2005 with
a subtle change in title: Raising Cain: Exploring the Inner Lives of America’s Boys. Both book and
documentary present America as a nation of boys who are hurting—sad, afraid, angry, and silent—and
contain statistics that document a high percentage of boys at high risk for suicide, alcohol and drug
Stegall
abuse, violence, and loneliness. Both titles refer, of course, to the biblical Cain whose loving gift was
infamously rebuked by God, the ultimate father figure, wherein Cain reacted badly, to say the least, by
murdering his brother, Abel. Multiple lessons can be derived from the tale, among them the
observation that young men can be murderous when humiliated and shunned. In the pericope, Cain, in
some translations, means “of the evil one,” suggesting that he is from the serpent; his name is more
likely a derivative of his occupation, farmer. Nevertheless, as Cain was the firstborn of Adam (meaning
man) and Eve (meaning life), his violent nature is forever associated with masculinity’s first egregious
characteristic (aside from Adam’s presumed failure to control his wife, a sin associated with
uxoriousness, which means to be excessively fond of or submissive to one’s wife). While the regnant
interpretation of Cain’s behavior is attributable to his jealousy and sibling rivalry, other interpretations
suggest an argument existed between the brothers over who was to receive the more beautiful wife. In
both cases, masculinity is reduced to either brutality or sexism, not a good start for male
representations.
Beneath the surface of such moralistic judgments, however, is the clear indication that boys and
young men need love and acceptance. Interestingly, Abel, whose gift is preferred by God, is seen as a
gentler version of masculinity; Cain is the ur-violent male, given to acts of brutality when disappointed. I
say interestingly, because in virtually all other texts from antiquity to the modern era concerning
masculinity, the version more aggressive, more given to acts of violence has been the privileged
iteration of masculinity: Achilles, despite his childish pride, is remembered as the great warrior hero, not
so much Hector, who gives his life to protect his family, and certainly not Paris, who is best remembered
as a pretty-boy, beloved by girls, and given to bouts of cowardice. One is hard pressed to discover
example of males in history whose fame is associated with non-violence. So rare are the names that
they stand out as exemplary figures: the Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi. Each is known for behaviors precisely
contrary to normative masculinity: gentleness, compassion, humility, sacrifice. Such is the power of the
Stegall
masculine norm that it is best recognized by the absence of its best-known characteristics: aggression,
competitiveness, physical strength, sexual prowess.
These are the hallmarks of what is known as homosociality, a concept used to refer to nonsexual
interpersonal attractions among men. While the term was in minor use as early as the 19th century, it
has most recently been adopted in feminist and gender studies to refer to heterosexual male
interactions detrimental to women. There is some fluidity to the term, in some usages suggesting an
association to homosexual interactions, as in for example, the 1985 book Between Men: English
Literature and Male Homosocial Desire, by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, an American professor of gender
studies and queer theory. Following Foucault, Sedgwick argues that homosocial and homosexual
relations are socially constructed and relatively fluid historically. (Allow me a minor aside by positing
the following: invariably, any constructionist theory bumps into biological determinism; either theory
runs the risk of devolving into a chicken and egg syndrome and seems limited by eliding the other. How
is it possible to argue that men maintain hegemony by constructing specific social behaviors without
those behaviors having already been present prior to the formation of the group? Perhaps natural
selection?). Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a professor of business at Harvard Business School, for example,
uses the term "homosexual/homosocial reproduction” as early as 1977 to describe the tendencies of
corporate executives to socialize with and promote other men, resulting in a glass ceiling for women in
the same environment:
*in+… homosexual/homosocial reproduction—managers and others in power
overwhelmingly hire and promote those who are like themselves because in conditions
of uncertainty. . . people fall back on social bases for [determining whom to] trust.
Difference of any kind—gender, race, education, social class of family of origin—is seen
as unpredictable. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the pressures for those who
Stegall
have to trust each other to form a homogeneous group. Social conformity is a
prerequisite for promotions, and although salary increases reward productivity,
promotions reward sameness which ultimately closes the door to women, minorities,
and other socially unorthodox, idiosyncratic, or unconventional employees.
(RuthDunn.org on Kanter’s Men and Women of the Corporation, 49)
Most definitions, however, maintain a clear distinction, perhaps to avoid a critique of homosexuality
while maintaining a critique of homosociality in heterosexual men. In may be noted that men who do
not meet the homosocial standards of the hegemonic group tend not to be promoted either. Social
conformity within hegemonic groups as a means to success may have more to do with like-minded
people responding selfishly to their own kind than to gender norms, though this is a difficult
presumption to demonstrate. In other words, homosociality may not be clearly essentialist. For
example, it may be presumed that the NAACP is not likely to elect a white man as its next leader, but
this is not the case. W. E. B. Dubois served as Director of Publicity and Research in 1911 at the
organization’s founding, but he was the organization’s only African-American in an executive position.
Since then, the organization’s makeup is more racially reflective of its mission:
To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the
citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for
them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the
courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete
equality before law.
It may come as a surprise to discover that the NAACP did not elect a black president until 1975, although
executive directors had been African American. The father of Benjamin Todd Jealous who is the most
recent president and CEO is white. Then again, all leaders have been male. Perhaps a more telling
Stegall
example would be the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). We may safely assume
that it is unlikely GLAAD will elect a heterosexual as its CEO, though once again, this organization’s
presidents have all been male. In her work in 1977, Kanter included homosexual men in her discussion
of homosociality, suggesting that one’s sex may have more to do with homosociality than gender.
Kanter also suggests that “leaders in a variety of situations are likely to show preference for socially
similar subordinates and help them get ahead” (Kanter, 48). Perhaps only The National Organization for
Women (NOW), it can be presumed, would be unlikely to elect a man as its leader. In fact, none have
been. Are these examples of logical demography or of racism and sexism? It should go without saying
that organizations such as these that owe their existence to the struggle against heterosexual masculine
hegemony have no ethical compunction to include in their leadership those who are already privileged
in society and who are, in fact, viewed as the problem, if not the outright enemy. Studies based on
exclusive social bonding in non-male homogenous groups with full agency would need to be conducted
to add legitimacy to my supposition that ideological likenesses may have more to do with the restricted
theory of homosociality than does gender. In other words, it may be true that birds of a feather flock
together, but there are always exceptions.
Sharon Bird’s essay Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of
Hegemonic Masculinity from the early 1990s argues that “through male homosocial heterosexual
interactions, hegemonic masculinity is maintained as the norm to which men are held accountable
despite individual conceptualizations of masculinity that depart from that norm” (153). In other words,
men train other men to remain in charge of society, particularly as it pertains to subordinating women
and de-emphasizing non-hegemonic masculinities. Bird identifies three characteristics of hegemonic
masculinity: emotional detachment, competitiveness, and the sexual objectification of women. From
early childhood, boys are taught not to cry when emotionally stressed, to win at all costs, and to think of
girls as trophies to be won who must be kept at emotional bay. Bird concludes that these behaviors
Stegall
continue today, despite individual efforts to violate these norms. Later in this essay, I will demonstrate
exceptions to this mentality in popular culture, specifically a few Hollywood movies, as a means of
suggesting a growing awareness of homosocial behavior among men and its potential for homosexual
intimations.
Kindlon and Thompson confirm in their research that boys are indeed taught to refrain from
emotionality, demonstrate their toughness in sports, and regard girls as lesser beings, and that these
socializing pressures have mighty and frequently disastrous results. But their research is far more indepth than most and recognizes that the totality of childrearing for boys includes the norms of fair play
and gentleness to girls. In defense of the charge that males are taught to be emotionally detached, it
should be noted that the ability to refrain from unwarranted or excessive emotionalism is generally
considered a sign of maturity, not repression, and, furthermore, is not specific to the socialization of
males. Social setting, in fact, may have much more to do with homosociality and the resistance to or
acceptance of an emotional demonstration than one’s gender or rearing. No grown woman, for
example, in a professional environment, would be excused by her peers, male or female, were she to
burst into tears during a particularly intense situation in the workplace, though, admittedly, the social
condemnation towards a man, were he to cry publically from emotional frustration might be more
damning. Other descriptors of homosociality are evidently acceptable in specific social settings but not
in others. In football, for example, it is common to see men slap each other on the buttocks, and the
presumption is that there is no homosexuality associated with the gesture, though outside observers
often marvel at this curiosity. But were a man to slap another man’s buttocks in, say, the office, this
would be considered contrary and detrimental to the homosocial rules of that environment. In fact, this
example has been demonstrated, for comedic effect, in an American sitcom of a few years ago (Friends
“The One with the Ultimate Fighting Champion” (1997)). Finally, as a last example that environment is a
determiner of homosocial behavior, men who bully their way through their careers and care only for
Stegall
enriching themselves at the expense of all others, are not, in fact, respected by others and will,
eventually, fall from their perceived grace. Bernie Madoff is the most recent infamous example.
Unfortunately for others, severe damage may have already been done, as the recent economic ruination
of the American economy would seem to demonstrate.
Despite the dire economic circumstances of the 21st century, there are cultural indications of a
growing resistance to anti-social behaviors in men (which include white-collar crime) as well as a
reception to what Kindlon and Thompson refer to as “emotional literacy” in boys, and by extension,
men, that permits a fuller and healthier vocabulary of emotions as a means to overcome the damaged
male psyches-in-training that has led to the appalling rise in boys’ suicide rates, alcohol and drug use,
depression, academic underachievement, and car crashes. Some of these emotions are referred to in
Cooper Thompson’s essay A New Vision of Masculinity which encourages a devaluation of competitive
sports in favor of communal activities that lead to mutually beneficial outcomes, a desocialization of
homophobia and misogyny, and positive reinforcement towards accepting vulnerability, gentleness,
nurturance, and non-violent modes of communication (167), in other words, the adoption of cultural
norms generally associated with femininity.
Kindlon and Thompson do not agree that it is necessary to emasculate boys in order to
engender the growth of kinder, gentler, healthier boys to men. By delineating gentleness, consideration,
and passivity as gendered female rather than as civil traits for humanity to regard as generally good, the
possibility of increasing humiliation in boys may rise, as in the movement in Sweden in 2000 to remove
urinals from boys’ bathrooms at an elementary school. According to Jasper Gerard’s report in the
English magazine The Spectator, certain feminists argued that ''a man standing up to urinate is deemed
to be triumphing in his masculinity, and by extension, degrading women” and that it is ''a nasty macho
gesture suggestive of male violence.” Such inflammatory anecdotes from the gender wars do little to
Stegall
assuage the reality of the situation: boys and men can and should, in fact, be discouraged from their
more bestial tendencies, and encouraged toward civility, but without suggesting a gentrification of
gender attributes or androgyny or an absolutist disregard for anatomical and biological differences. For
the record, I am not fond at all of urinal troughs provided men in stadiums. There is clearly something
vulgar in requiring men to urinate side-by-side without even the minor benefit of partitions. Common
sense should prevail in recognizing that the very act of men’s urinating while standing is an insufficient
determinant of male aggression or misogyny.
For some, the critique of masculinity of the past few decades, primarily in academic circles, has
resulted in a defensive stance and a renewed attention and devotion to America’s boys, the rearing of
boys, and a reconsideration of what it means to be a boy. Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D., a mother of
two boys and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., entitled her
book published in 2000: The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Boys,
and is largely a researched counter to the work of Professor Carol Gilligan, formerly of Harvard, which in
the 1990s was concentrated on concern for the well-being of girls. Sommers finds that the critiques of
boys, men, and masculinity in general is evidence of misandry, and that to “educate boys more like
girls—in Gloria Steinem’s phrase—is … unacceptably meddlesome, even subtly abusive” (134).
Sommer’s research illustrates that boys are in far graver danger of failing in life than are girls, who’ve
received tremendous esteem-building boosts in the past two decades. Perhaps we can agree that it is
unfortunate that the battle of the sexes has gone on long enough now to include our children. It is most
clear, however, that heterosexual masculinity is considered the hegemonic norm, and this remains the
source of the controversy.
All of which has served as preface to the various representations of masculinity in cinema of
recent years and the premise of this paper, which is that while traditional representations of hyper-
Stegall
masculinity remain the hallmark of action-adventure films, as in the most recent iteration of the James
Bond character, a new representation of masculinity has arisen in the comedy genre, namely, the
Bromance, and this latter representation is indicative of decades of pressure on men to engage their
emotional depths, reduce their violence selves, and admit their deep reliance on and devotion to
women. I will concentrate primarily on an analysis of I Love You, Man (Hamburg, 2009) as an example of
an expanded self-consciousness of homosociality and its relationship and aversion to homosexual
connotations, with anecdotal references to Superbad (Mottola, 2007).
The modern comedic male and the modern action male in cinema are interpretable by their
overt and covert characteristics associated with masculinity. The modern male action character, for
example, continues to be portrayed as fantastically violent, rambunctious, and virile, while the comedic
male is typically violence-averse, passive, and virtually neutered; and while both maintain traditional
and stereotypical attributes of masculinity as represented in the movies, both also show indications of
having incorporated the feminist critiques of the past few decades. The most recent iteration of James
Bond, for example, as portrayed by Daniel Craig, in Casino Royale (2006) is far more rugged than his
predecessors, even brutal. So hyper-masculine is this character that he manages to laugh while his
testicles are literally beaten with a knotted rope, itself an absurd phallic symbol. Bond survives the
conspicuous assault to his masculinity, which, perhaps not incidentally, comes not from a woman but
from another man. At its psycho-sexual core, we might recognize the battle of this scene as one man
beating another man’s penis with his own penis. Masculinity could not seemingly be further
exaggerated or degraded. The postmodern Bond, however, still must contend with having a woman
now as his boss. For decades, “M” was played by men, as the character written in the book series by Ian
Fleming was male; in 1995, the producers of the film series rebooted the Bond brand, and among the
changes was the replacement of a male “M” by a female, played by Dame Judy Dench, perhaps
reflecting the actual M15 agency which was led by a woman from 1992 to 1996. The script wastes little
Stegall
time in presenting her character as equal to the task, compelling her to proclaim James Bond as a
"sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War." This is likely meant to assuage the feminist
critique of James Bond, but may be an exaggeration in some part of it. The ongoing specter of war is
mankind’s greatest failing, to be sure, but to associate those who fought bravely against an allencompassing totalitarian regime as was the Soviet Union, whose Marxist ideals did little to produce a
kinder, gentler male or, by extension, remove stultifying restrictions on women’s ideals and yearnings,
as prehistoric beasts is to fail to recognize the trauma that is the male conundrum: a bad man must be
repressed or defeated by a good man, who, if he hopes to succeed, is compelled to employ the very
behaviors of brutality associated with masculinity.
Earlier variations of the Bond male were sexist, indeed, a commentary on the swinging 60s, free
love, and the liberating effects of the birth control pill. But he was also suave and debonair—vulgar acts
of violence and the ostentatious display of muscles were beneath his class, his upper social status. The
classic British male succeeds effortlessly. The 60s through 80s Bond conquered his nemeses with bonmots; the postmodern Bond, reveling in the knowledge of his power, uses a bludgeon. Conversely, the
earlier Bond used women for his pleasure and had no pretentions of fealty to them; as I see him now,
the postmodern Bond is himself the object of sexual pleasure and usury at the hands of women, and he
experiences considerable feelings of intimacy and thus considerable pain when betrayed. The ability to
experience the pain of lost love is the most evident development in the postmodern Bond toward
legitimate masculine traits, that is, a man conscious and accepting of a full array of emotions. Men, if
fact, love deeply, and suffer deeply from love lost, though the movies rarely engage with this storyline.
The postmodern Bond, as troubled and bestial and virtually Americanized as Rambo, yet still
uniformed in the requisite costume of the refined male, the tuxedo, is, without irony, fully conscious of
the gap, the knowledge that Bond’s mission is to actually kill other human beings; somehow, an
Stegall
attractive, intelligent, and genteel assassin is not presented as a contradiction of terms but rather a
complex amalgam of respected masculine traits, a fairly difficult example of cognitive dissonance to
explain. There is, to the clear-minded, nothing suave, debonair, or genteel about killing people. It is,
and has always been, the basest element of the male character, though still to this day, often in the
movies, heroized. Despite these complexities, numerous critics found this new Bond to be little more
than a brute. Not incidentally, Bond is not portrayed as an example of homosocial training; he is a
wraith, operating alone, virtually cut off from society, a continuation of the representation of the lone
male incapable of appropriate social behavior whose presence is occasionally needed to clean up
society’s failures: invariably other rogue men.
In popular culture, the term Bromance is applied to any relationship between straight males
that borders on the intimacy typically associated with romantic relationships between those of opposite
sexes. It may also refer to any non-sexual, intense relationship between men. For example, the term
was applied in an underground skateboarding magazine in the 90s known for its crudity. The publisher
of the pornographic magazine Hustler, Larry Flynt, temporarily owned the magazine, which is apparently
credited with introducing to the world the foolish stunt performers Johnny Knoxville, of Jackass fame,
and his side-kick, Steve-O. Numerous other recent examples exist, but many misconstrue the buddy
film, or films of men who happen to be friends, with the Bromance. I believe there is a distinction to be
made between the two which is to be found in the level of emotionality of the relationship, not mere
closeness. Virtually any film with two relatively equal protagonists who engage in actions of mutual
benefit, i.e., the accomplishment of a singular goal—rob a bank, get the bad guy, win the game—can be
deemed a buddy film, and may also include movies about women buddies; the Bromance, as its name
implies, is strictly between two men and suggests a relationship that comes closer to the heart of the
matter of companionship, which is love. Hence, the portmanteau of brother and romance. We might in
further deconstructing the term recognize a hint of incestuous longing in the term as well. But this
Stegall
would likely compel us to renege on the simple association of the word “brother” among men as an
inclusive term of familiality. Additionally, the Bromance does not concern itself with such serious
matters as life and death, as in the deeply committed relationships developed by men in war and
combat films. The Bromance works best as comedy where the unconscious can run freely. Finally, and
invariably, the specter of homosexuality hovers over the entire text to engender the obvious question:
why would ostensibly heterosexual men prefer the company of other men to the virtual exclusion of a
female companion? (POSSIBLE ANSWERS: male to male companionship is associated with the presexual stage of life, where boys could have fun without the complications of adult relationships,
especially regarding the opposite sex. In other words, a Bromance is associated with the Peter Pan
syndrome, a refusal to grow up, or a desire to return to childhood, which is presented nostalgically. In
I Love You Man, Peter Claven, via his surrogate Peter Pan, Sydney Fife, is able to rediscover the joys of
playing guitar, riding a scooter, and hanging out in a fort. In the case of Superbad, the teenage boys are
shown as hesitant to enter manhood, and thus attempt to hold on to those days when boys could sleep
on the floor next to each other in sleeping bags free of sexual connotation and complication. In
Superbad, the young boys on the verge of manhood express their love of one another, perhaps in the
last opportunity their lives will permit, a clear and successful violation of the norms of homosociality as
they are fully conscious of the breech.)
Regarding homosociality as detrimental to women, platonic friendships with women in cinema
are considered dangerously feminizing, and this fear is the dominant ideology of I Love You Man.
Several character and situational elements are put in place to represent the protagonist’s growth from
his insufficiently developed masculine self by overcoming his ostensible feminine characteristics. For
example, his very name, Peter Claven (Paul Rudd), is quickly deconstructed to reveal suspect
masculinity. “Peter” is American slang for penis, and “Claven” sounds like craven, which means coward.
Thus, our protagonist is afraid to be a full male. We might also, just for fun, find similarity in the name
Stegall
“Claven” to the word cloven, which suggests a split, that Peter’s masculinity is bifurcated between male
and female. Likewise, mention in the film is made of the name Sydney, Peter’s Bromance partner,
(Jason Segel), as being unrecognizable as male or female. Sydney’s last name is Fife, which is a long,
slender instrument known for its exceedingly high pitch (in the film Sydney feels compelled to compare
the size of his fruit to Peter’s, an especially telling moment regarding men’s concern with measuring up
and one that could only be broached comedically). Both men’s names, then, are either feminizing or
subtly diminishing to the character’s genitals as a means of positioning them outside the norm and in
need of further masculinizing. Wordplay among men that challenges one another’s manhood is
standard fair in the stereotypical norms of homosociality, suggesting that confirmation of masculinity is
an ongoing desire. In I Love You, Man, masculinity itself is hailed, “Hey, you there! Are you a man?” an
uncomfortable interpellation that every man who has ever brought a room full of women root beer
floats with Pepperidge Farms pirouettes recognizes in his own personal Lacanian mirror, meaning, of
course, no man on earth who has ever lived.
Such are the benefits of comedy: to exaggerate the failures of socialization, in this case, Peter’s
failure to be properly socialized into the real world of men and Sydney’s exaggeration of the same.
Peter admits that he has been raised by women, though his father is standard fare grease monkey who,
though he has failed in his duty to raise Peter as a masculine son, is adamant that he himself does
indeed have a lifelong male friend, Hank Marducas, and the spectator is made to wonder why Peter’s
gay brother is coded as more manly than he. Clearly, the suggestion is that Peter is so lacking in male
characteristics that even a gay man is perceived as more manly, a reversal of stereotypical
representations which functions effectively as humor because the norm is all too well accepted. All this
humiliation, because Peter is actually very kind to women and quite popular with all the women in his
office, seems to negate the antiquated construct of chivalry, at least as it has evolved in the postfeminist world. Women may be annoyed by a man who opens a door for them, but they are apparently
Stegall
open to the idea that some men exist to serve women. Peter’s fiancé, who exists herself as little more
than an adoring wife-to-be, has no complaints. She is perfectly aware of Peter’s proclivities and pleased
enough with him to accept his proposal of marriage, which he, by the way, does, suggesting that the
social code is not completely deracinated but only in need of a minor repair. Peter is not, in fact, fey.
He is considerate and likes to make the women in his life happy with gestures of joy and sweetness. The
film is virtually counter culture in making him the hero and suggesting that this is a modern man of
value: he is a model of the capitalistic system in its best light, working as a high-end real estate agent,
and is frequently shown actually working at his desk (unlike his counterpoint, Sydney, who deigns to
teach Peter the finer art of being a man, which is to say, an unevolved man). He is strong enough to
fend off the advances of an egocentric fellow agent who is determined to split his lucrative potential
commission, and who believes that his image on urinal cakes improves his face recognition and thus his
sales. This character, one of several foils to Peter, serves to demonstrate that a new, kinder, gentler,
friendlier version of a man is actually admirable. Elsewhere, Peter’s inability to hold his liquor results in
a grotesque assault on an Uberman jerk of a character via projectile vomiting into the man’s face,
effectively diminishing the value of this man’s overt masculinity. To their credit, the writers and
producers of I Love You, Man do not succumb to a scene where an insipid display of machismo is
dramatized to demonstrate Peter’s growth, as in having his character battle physically the obnoxious
office competitor. Quite the contrary, despite Peter’s inevitable run-in with a man who is actually gay,
and who kisses him deeply, Peter’s response is not homophobic, but mere displeasure, and perhaps
more not because the misguided mandate is gay but that he is a smoker. Tobacco, not homosexuality,
is the new sign of the pariah in Hollywood. Throughout his ordeal to locate a man-friend, Peter remains
non-violent and capable of conflict resolution without aggression.
After a series of predictably embarrassing “man dates,” Peter’s effort to discover a “best man”
(a term fraught with implications) for his wedding, Sydney Fife is presented and situated as Peter’s
Stegall
entrée into the world of mannish behavior. Sydney is all things Peter is not: unattached to the norms of
society in terms of appropriate dress codes, personal hygiene, manners, and conspicuous work ethic
(though, inexplicably, Sydney lives in the tony BoHo neighborhood of Venice Beach, California,
suggestive of his casual attitude toward wealth, despite his apparent wealth). Sydney’s home, a rustic
beach house, is never actually shown; only shown is his “man-cave,” an embarrassing garage of
adolescent fantasy, rife with musical instruments, multiple televisions, shaggy furniture, and, most
disturbing, an actual “masturbation station.” Peter, as would any gentleman, is appalled, though he is
eventually seduced by Sydney’s bohemian lifestyle, which is little more than arrested development, as
any astute observer quickly ascertains. Before long, Peter is rediscovering his youthful passion for music
and all things silly, precisely those things adults are compelled to eschew in favor of more responsible
activities, and there is a pleasurable wish-fulfillment to these scenes. Hollywood is awash in stories of
rediscovered youth, as if youthful behavior in and of itself is synonymous with innocence, purity, and
honesty, and there is a profound desire to believe this fallacy. The more juvenile we behave, the further
we are from our mortality. But any self-respecting, properly socialized man knows that no woman
wants a man-child as a mate; she wants a grownup (this is the premise of Judd Apatow’s Knocked Up,
2007).
Sydney, for example, is a faux, modern-day Paul Goodman, espousing post-modern Gestalt
theory, believing that uncovering repressed primordial urges makes us human in nature, that it is
healthy to revert to our inner beast when angry instead of stoically stowing it away in order to be
gentlemanly in society. Sydney believes himself to be free from the constraints of society and the social
order (Roszak, 193). He refuses to submit to cleaning up after his dog, until a much larger, stronger
man confronts him, at which point Sydney runs screaming for his life. His tolerance for violence is
superficial at best, as his confrontation with Lou Ferrigno, the ultimate construction of masculinity,
proves. Not incidentally, Peter’s livelihood and marriage plans are contingent upon successfully
Stegall
negotiating the masculine site for profit that Ferrigno represents. He must get some piece of the
massive, former bodybuilder.
Like Goodman, Sydney believes that a fist fight is natural violence, while war is unnatural
violence because it doesn’t liberate natural associations and release social inventiveness, but reinforces
the authoritarian establishment. Then again, Goodman believed in the Greco-Roman construct of
homosexuality as a healthy paradigm, something I Love You, Man can only employ as comic relief,
should the notion of male love actually devolve to the sexual. Sydney, in fact, is the conduit by which
the separation of heterosexuality and homosexuality is maintained in homosocial instruction. In one
example of the clear delineation that must be made, Sydney instructs Peter on the necessity of releasing
his inner, savage male self by encouraging Peter to let loose a mighty, barbaric yawp:
Sydney Fife:
Society tells us we're civilized, but the truth is we are animals.
Sometimes we just have to let it out. Try it.
Peter is only able to muster a pathetic sound, something like Blaaah! Sydney’s retort, perhaps the most
crucial of the film, is to tell Peter, “Good. Now gently remove your tampon and try again.” As Sharon
Bird suggests, the removal of anything ostensibly feminine in the male is the hallmark of homosociality,
but Peter’s eventual transformation does not result in a continuance of hegemonic masculinity over
women, a reductive explanation of how men interact and need to feel. Peter, the new representation of
the modern, homosocialized male, will not be cruel, will not exercise domination over women, but be
merely less repressed and more engaged in his own pleasure. Via Sydney’s vulgar association, Peter is
relieved of his alienated self, his modern fear of losing fair maiden by being too masculine.
Culture, with a capital C, in this usage meant to be the existence of certain mores within a given
environment, is the knowledge that Sydney’s behavior is inappropriate for a grown man and that Peter’s
lack of male friends is unusual; popular culture, with a lower case c is the ability to find situations
Stegall
derived from these recognized anomalies comedic and instructive. The premise could go the other way
as well; both characters could be developed as miserable descendants of those developed by Kafka,
Camus, or Dostoevsky, men wholly at odds with being men. Hollywood would do well to develop the
failures of homosociality as well as the mere foibles. Benedict Anderson’s famous essay regarding
nations and peoples and races as “imagined communities” can be extrapolated thus: men are an
imagined community, equally disparate and worthy of broader representation. Man, just as is woman,
is infinitely more complex and extraordinary than suggest simple binaries that limit entire personalities
to either brute or weakling, vulgar or effete, straight or gay.
Stegall
Works Cited
Bird, Sharon. Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic
Masculinity. Multicultural Film: An Anthology. Fall, 2009. Selected by Kathryn Karrh Cashin and
Valerie Baumeister. Florida State University. Pearson Custom Publishing.
Gerard, Jasper. Absolutely Potty. T he Spectator. April 22, 2000
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200004/ai_n8889753/?tag=content;col1
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Men and Women of the Corporation: New Edition, 1993
http://www.ruthdunn.org/Kanter%20Handout-Spring%202005.pdf
Kindlon, Dan and Michael Thompson, Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Lives of Boys. Ballantine
Books, New York. 1999.
Roszak, Theodore. The Making of a Counterculture: Reflection on the Technocratic Society and its
Youthful Opposition. University of California Press, 1968.
Thompson, Cooper. A New Vision of Masculinity. Multicultural Film An Anthology. Fall, 2009. Selected
by Kathryn Karrh Cashin and Valerie Baumeister. Florida State University. Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Weber, Lynn. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality.
Multicultural Film: An Anthology. Fall, 2009. Selected by Kathryn Karrh Cashin and Valerie
Baumeister. Florida State University. Pearson Custom Publishing.