The very first thing I do when people start to talk about so called "hyper-masculinity" is to ask them to define "normal masculinity". This often cannot be done. Never the less, talk of "hyper-masculinity" continues as if it is something akin to "obscene pornography": You know it when you see it, but we all can't exactly agree on what it is. lets look at it from a medical perspective. there is a range of blood pressure that is considered "normal" which is 120/80. The 120 is the systolic pressure (in mm mercury) when the heart contracts and the 80 is the diastolic pressure when the heart is relaxed. If your numbers are above this "optimal" normal then you have high blood pressure, otherwise known as "hyper-tension" That is too much pressure in your system. If your numbers fall below the norm then you have low blood pressure, otherwise known as hypo-tension. So we see that both hyper and hypo-tension are relative conditions and therefore mean little without a "normal" position.
You would think that academic people would take this science into account when speaking of things such as "hyper-masculinity". You cannot have "hyper-masculinity" without first defining "normal masculinity". Good luck with that. The latest thing I read that got me to write this is here:
But last night he was coon-ish, perpetuating nearly every stereotypical rendering of black masculinity with the exception of his hair. THAT looked like a job by Da Brat's "So Funkdafied" stylist. All black everything - jeans, wrist and arm bands...skin. Topped off with a white spray painted "What's Up?" on his ass. Classy.
On the one hand, R-Truth signifies the violent hypermasculine black body that is both commodifed and perpetuated in American (pop) culture. What becomes complicated, however, is how his particular hyperviolent and hyperaware black male body exists and is contextualized within a voyeuristic space of a few things - (homo)socialism and eroticism, violence, and whiteness. It's a murky undertaking to attempt sort out the discourse needed to properly discuss the implication of body and identity politics and blackness in a very white pro wrestling arena (pun intended).
Mind you I do not follow WWE so I didn't see the episode discussed and therefore have to rely on the author for an accurate description of events. But What is "stereotypical" about wearing "all black everything"? How is that playing a stereotype? Did the author ask this fellow why he wore what he wore? Was he told to wear it for show? Did he object? Are we assuming that he didn't know better and the all mighty white man(tm) had put it in his head to wear "all black everything" in order to "coon"? We don't know. Lets not even get in to the fact that much of WWE is show and EVERYBODY is "cooning" for the audience.
How does R-Truth "signify the violent hypermasculine black body" in an arena where being violent is the qualification for entry? How is it "hyper-masculine" when whatever level of 'masculinity", still not defined, is "normal" for this event? It would be one thing if no violence was expected of any of the players in this event but to discuss "hyper-violence" in the absence of, say, a murder, is, in my opinion, out of line. Taking it back to the medical example. As a runner, when I'm training or racing, my blood pressure is what would be considered "high". But for the circumstances such an "elevated" pressure is normal. If anything, if my blood pressure was at "normal" I'd likely be unable to perform. So in the context of WWE (or MMA) what is "hyper-violent" or "hypermasculine"?
Clearly these men are brainwashed by Eurocentric concepts of violent manhood and are cooning for the crowd. Why else would they be wrestling?This is like a conversation I had where a fellow declared that violent sports such as Boxing, MMA and violent video games were European and of course "hyper-masculine". This statement pre-supposes a masculinity that does not involve physical combat. Of course the challenge to this is obvious in the form of Lacrosse. Lacrosse was created by Native Americans in some cases to toughen up young males for warriorhood and settle inter-tribal conflicts. That would be...warfare.
Let's not forget the warrior culture in Samoa that has given the NFL some of it's greatest players. Indeed so called "hypermasculinity" is not European (though I lay the creation of such a term at their feet, particularly the women). Nor is violence as sport limited to the imagination of the European (which I'm sure will dismay many an afri-centrist).
Certainly masculinity is in part socially determined in that it's signifiers change from culture to culture. A "masculine" male in Hindu India may wear what is considered in Western Europe to be a dress. Makeup may signify femininity in "western" cultures but in certain areas in Africa, it is the males who wear "make up". Let's underscore though the idea of "normal" masculinity by looking at the Meru of East Africa. I wrote a piece many years ago (before I started blogging) where I got my hands on a book entitled When We Began There Were Witchmen by Jeffery A Fadiman. He discussed a matter of Christian missionaries in a Meru village and the effects it had on gender relations:
Upon entering the stage of elder boyhood, however, it became increasingly difficult to be both Christian and Meru. As each boy moved through adolescence, warriorhood, courtship, and marriage, he found himself gradually engulfed by a rising tide of religious prohibitions, intended to isolate him not only from his "pagan" age-mates but also from the life of the entire tribe. Boys choosing to join either religious faith during elder boyhood, for example, faced two immediate decisions, intended to separate them instantly from members of their age sets. The first was to shave off their warrior braid, the mark of an emerging warrior....THe red ochre use to enhance the beauty of both women and warrior alike was scrubbed from hair and body. Beads, skins and every form of ornament were cast aside...
Faced with unrelenting mission opposition, males who reached the age of warriorhood often initially reacted by sneaking off to dance at night, expecting to return to their studies by dawn. It proved impossible. The converts' shaven hair, lack of weapons, and Western ways all worked to turn their age mates against them, sending them fleeing from a barrage of taunting songs in anger and humiliation. On occasion converts who attempted to rejoin their age-mates' courting rituals were met with curses and rocks, intended to remind them that "Meru women were reserved for Meru men".
So indeed we have an example of "normal" manhood constructed without input from Europeans that includes manner of dress, speaking and acting. Thus it is entirely possible and I would say desirable to construct a "normal masculinity" that does not take it's cue from europeans. So what if black men are aggressive. Who says that is bad? Who benefits from criminalizing and marginalizing aggressive manhood? I think when these questions are fully examined we'll probably find that the problem is not so much "hyper-masculinity" (whatever that is) but actually our own discomfort with masculinity in a society (US) that is increasingly less "masculine".
