• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA JOE C. JACKSON COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES Edmond, Oklahoma Victims of Patriarchy: Failed Masculinity in Nineteenth-Century American Literature A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH By Jennifer Pruitt Edmond, Oklahoma 2012 Abstract of Thesis University of Central Oklahoma Edmond, Oklahoma NAME: Jennifer Pruitt TITLE OF THESIS: Victims of Patriarchy: Failed Masculinity in Nineteenth-Century American Literature DIRECTOR OF THESIS: Dr. G.S. Lewis PAGES: 103 The United States was built upon foundations of patriarchy which called for men to demonstrate their masculinity publicly. In the nineteenth-century, as middle- and upper- class Americans began to populate cities, there were less physical and public outlets to prove masculinity, festering insecurity and an increased drive to exhibit masculinity at home, in the marketplace, and with physical prowess. Many men lived in fear of being perceived as feminine, or exhibiting what was thought to be feminine qualities, such as emotion. This anxiety was pervasive in the culture and is demonstrated in literature of the time. A study of works by male writers in the nineteenth-century shows that the male characters attempted to manifest their masculinity in three defined demands: occupation, control over women and men, and physical strength. They accomplish this through diverting, denying, and disguising emotion. Men were often victims of patriarchal expectations, whether they were victims of their own drive to prove themselves, or fell victim to other men’s need to demonstrate their masculinity. The societal solution for escaping patriarchal demands is flight to the frontier, both literally, which resulted in the settling of the West, and figuratively, with men living out their fantasies in dime novel Westerns or dreaming of finding an identity on the frontier. This thesis traces evidence for this claim by a study of the male characters in selected works by Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, James Fenimore Cooper, Mark Twain, Theodore Dreiser, Stephen Crane, and Washington Irving. iii Acknowledgements My mother is fond of telling us that “can’t never did anything,” which is a prompter for us to believe in ourselves. This has been a struggle for me at times, but it was especially important to remember as I explored my own frontier—writing my thesis. To my family, who has always and will always be a constant in my life. To my friends, who were patient, gave advice, and were there for me even in my neuroses and bouts of hiding from all human contact while I drafted my thesis. And lastly, but most importantly, thank you to Dr. Gladys Lewis, whose American Literature survey class was the reason I chose my major. Five years ago, when I crawled into her office thinking I was in over my head in an upper level course, Dr. Lewis told me I could do it. Her belief that I could make it that semester drove me to accomplish more than I ever thought I could, and for that I am so grateful. iv Table of Contents Introduction . 1 Emotion Denied . 21 Emotion Diverted . 44 Emotion Disguised . 64 Conclusion . 84 Appendix A . 94 Works Cited . 95 Works Consulted . 103 v Pruitt 1 Victims of Patriarchy: Failed Masculinity in Nineteenth-Century American Literature Introduction Though set in approximately 1757, the third year of the French and Indian War, James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans sets the stage for patriarchal values in nineteenth century America. The first chapter focuses on the decisions of Colonel Webb of the British army, commander of Fort Edward, to send a young officer from Fort Edward to Fort William Henry with the daughters of Colonel Munro, the fort’s commander. The British army is a rigid patriarchal system which, in The Last of the Mohicans, represents a microcosm of the system of nineteenth-century patriarchy itself. In The Creation of Patriarchy, Gerda Lerner defines patriarchy as the “manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance” (Lerner 239), and does not focus on individual men who are products of and pressured to be part of this male-centric system. This brand of patriarchy is seen in the manner in which Duncan Heyward, the young officer, is introduced; he is a nameless “young man,” (Cooper Last of the Mohicans 10), a part of the system rather than an individual. Like Heyward’s treatment within the system of the British army, patriarchy is about the “performance of social roles, not . the expression of self” (Rotundo American Manhood 13). The army demonstrates the rigidity of a patriarchal system when General Webb, the leader, dispatches the officer, Heyward, to deliver the daughters of Colonel Munro; the “young man, in the dress of an officer” (Cooper Last of the Mohicans 10) is assigned this task because of his station within the army. He is particularly eager to complete the task in order to be favored by General Webb and Colonel Munro (8-10) and therefore be perceived as capable and masculine because of the completion of his duty. Heyward is Pruitt 2 tasked to live up to what is expected of him, and is left to his own devices to guide Munro’s daughters safely to Fort William Henry. He must prove his able masculinity by taking care of the women. Heyward’s duty, and the eighteenth-century system under which he lives in The Last of the Mohicans, is mirrored in men within the patriarchal system of the nineteenth century. Men of the nineteenth century, like Heyward as he was left on his own to keep Munro’s daughters safe, were pressured to fulfill societal expectations about masculinity without the help of others. Before the nineteenth century, a man was “expected to answer to his community” (Rotundo American Manhood 12) if he did not fulfill his patriarchal role. By default, this meant that men had to prove themselves on a public stage and were to be judged by how well they fulfilled their duties and conformed to the societal standard. In the nineteenth century, communities in America were less tightly-knit, and the culture was more consumption based, and focused on demonstrating status by obtaining material goods. For the middle and upper classes, identity was “based . upon how one appeared and lived” (Kimmel Manhood 81). The public face of patriarchy was still firmly in place but it was less about duty to family and community, and more about keeping up the appearance of status in order to maintain power. To be approved in a patriarchal society, a man had to appear to have authority, both at work and at home. His success at being an authority figure measured his masculinity. In the nineteenth century, patriarchy manifested itself on a public stage and was enacted in men’s occupations, in their control over women and other men to maintain order, and in physical strength that enabled them to establish leadership. In order to prove themselves in these three areas, men had to Pruitt 3 demonstrate “masculinity,” which is the male cultural expression of identity within a patriarchal system. Feminist Judith Butler breaks down gender identity in Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. She points out that the “acts and gestures, articulated and enacted desires create the illusion of an interior and organizing gender core, an illusion discursively maintained for the purposes of the regulation of sexuality within the obligatory frame of reproductive sexuality” (173). Butler’s observation about gender suggests that there is a difference between biological maleness, or “manhood,” and masculinity, which is the performance or demonstration of being a man. Scholarship on men and masculinity often conflates the concepts of manhood and masculinity. In Manhood in America: A Cultural History, Michael Kimmel says that “manhood is . not the manifestation of an inner essence; it’s socially constructed” (3); though Kimmel has a valid point about societal constructions of male behavior, he is actually speaking about masculinity as a demonstration of being a man. For the purposes of this discussion, manhood is the “state or condition of being a man” (Oxford), meaning a matter of physiology, whereas masculinity is the “assemblage of qualities regarded as characteristic of men” (Oxford). Manhood is the societal perception of being a man as opposed to being a woman; masculinity is the demonstration of qualities and actions that are associated with men. The social construction of masculinity is the vehicle through which patriarchy is enforced. Masculinity has to be expressed where patriarchy manifests itself; for the nineteenth century, masculinity was exhibited through men’s professions, in their supremacy over women and domination over other men, and in the demonstration of Pruitt 4 physical strength. Masculinity was often expressed and defined in opposition to femininity; this was seen in the nineteenth century in men’s inherent fear and avoidance of what was thought to be a feminine quality: emotion. Beginning in boyhood, men in America were pressured to master “pain, fear, and the need for emotional comfort,” and they were “encouraged to suppress other expressions of vulnerability, such as grief and tender affection” (Rotundo American Manhood 44), which started a lifetime habit of denial and avoidance of emotion. The boyhood conditioning of emotional suppression became a coping mechanism as men attempted to meet societal standards. Denial, avoidance, and the redirection of emotion were exhibited in men’s attempts to be masculine in their careers, which reassured men about the “freedom and power” (Rotundo 177) gained through work; in their exercise of “manliness through dominance” (176) over women and other men; and through displays of physical strength, because “proving who was fittest in a struggle [required] a kind of combative, athletic prowess” (Pugh 116).

Load more

  108

Copy Link