One of my former students, knowing that I’m once again teaching my “Men, Masculinity, and the American Tradition” course this semester, asked me if I had any thoughts on Barack Obama as masculine archetype/role model. I replied that I’d have a lot more to say in a couple of years, but would offer at least some preliminary thoughts now. After all, the president has been in the public spotlight for several years, and for the past eighteen months or so, has been perhaps the most visible man in America — and indeed the world. I followed his campaign, read his wonderful first book (but not the follow-up), so I ought to be able to write something. Indeed, the very nature of his extraordinary celebrity has made me reluctant to do so until now, perhaps fearing that I’d be treading on too popular a path.
Michael Kimmel, our pre-eminent historian of American masculinity, points out that “manhood” has been a defining issue for presidents since at least 1828, when the hyper-macho war hero Andrew Jackson posited himself as the “one who could fight” against the effete incumbent, John Quincy Adams, the “one who could write.” That dynamic would show up again and again in American history, even as recently as 2004 with the Bush and Kerry campaigns. It’s worth pointing out again that from the beginning, these campaigns have always been about perception: the real war heroes tend to lose to those candidates who had less military service, perhaps because those who didn’t actually fight tend to over-compensate with bellicosity. (Think of McGovern, a war hero, being beaten by Nixon, who was anything but; or Kerry and Bush).
Andrew Jackson scornfully called John Quincy Adams a “professor”, and called himself a “plowman.” Invoking the so-called heroic artisan ideal, Jackson introduced into the American discourse a contempt for intellectual sophistication that has survived, lamentably, for nearly two centuries. Think of the anti-intellectual derision directed at Adlai Stevenson, a so-called “egghead”, or at the cerebral Michael Dukakis, who refused to abandon his thoughtfulness when asked how he would respond to the murder of his wife. Think even of this most recent campaign, when in the minds of some of her strongest defenders, Sarah Palin’s lack of intellectual sophistication was seen as an asset rather than a defect. “It took her six years to get through the University of Idaho? Well, that shows she was well-rounded rather than just a grade-grubbing grind.” (A conservative friend of mine actually said that. My jaw hit my breastbone.)
Often, men who have run for high office have gone to great lengths to appear more as “one who can fight”, hoping to be seen as a Jackson rather than a Quincy Adams. Think of Michael Dukakis’ unfortunate decision to be seen driving a tank. Or, more sinisterly, think of Bill Clinton making a special trip home to Arkansas during the 1992 campaign in order to sign the death warrant for a mentally disabled man; the draft-dodger needed to bump up his “tough guy” credentials, and signing an execution order was the next best thing to pulling a trigger. Of course, one might think of George W. Bush mysteriously reinventing himself with a West Texas accent, deliberately losing the clipped cadences of his privileged heritage. Rather than deny that he had been a mediocre student, Bush celebrated it as evidence that he was a “regular guy”, rough-and-tumble and full of hearty masculine fun rather than a thoughtful, reflective, intellectually curious person.
And into this rather depressing American legacy comes one Barack Hussein Obama, he of the unusual name, the unusual heritage, and the absolute absence of fear of being labelled the smartest guy in the room. I am thrilled that America has a black president, of course. But I am even more thrilled that we have a man who not only has extraordinary intellectual gifts, but who is utterly unafraid to display them. Barack Obama was not only a community organizer, he was the chief of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago. While Democratic candidates before him would have felt compelled to downplay their erudition, Obama bravely and rightly used his considerable academic credentials as part of his resume for the presidency. Though he didn’t say “Elect me because I’m better educated than my opponent”, he never betrayed even the slightest hint of embarrassment about his intellectual background.
Much has been made of Obama’s gift for oratory and his command of the English language. Other presidents have been well-spoken. What I appreciate, both as an academic and, particularly, as a student of masculinity, is Obama’s willingness to not only give speeches but to give them in the form of lectures. Some of his detractors charge him with bringing a professorial persona to debates and press conferences — as if making it clear that he knows considerably more about most things than those in his audience is something to be avoided. Barack Obama, to his everlasting credit, doesn’t claim he’s just an “ordinary guy”; for years, he’s suspected he is the smartest guy in most rooms he enters. And he’s gambled — brilliantly — that at least in this most recent election season, Americans were willing to break with a long and depressing tradition of anti-intellectualism and elect someone other than the fellow who seems “most like them.”
It’s possible, I suppose, that Obama’s blackness plays as a counter against his intellectual credentials. Our cultural stereotypes of black men as entertainers, athletes, and criminals, as depressing and unfair as they are, are tied to an even uglier set of assumptions about black men and the life of the mind. Put more simply, most white folks in America don’t yet expect most black men to be very smart. They do, however, assume a kind of hyper-masculinity about black men; for whites, as has been pointed out by everyone in the field of African-American studies, this rises to the level of a nearly hysterical fascination with black male sexual and athletic prowess. Barack Obama plays basketball, of course. But he never played at a high level; compared to Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush (both superb, All-American athletes at football and baseball respectively), Obama is not particularly gifted as a sportsman. But his slender black frame allows a white audience to presume an ability that may in fact not exist. No matter — the presumption of its existence thus mitigates Obama’s potential handicap, that of being a first-rate intellectual, a professor rather than a plowman, a community organizer rather than a fighter pilot.
Obama is, as many have pointed out, our first president in memory to grow up without having to answer any questions about what he did or didn’t do in a war. He was fourteen when Saigon fell, and nearly 30 when Desert Storm began. For his generation, there were no wars to fight (Grenada doesn’t count), and there are no famous war heroes born in the early 1960s to whom he might be compared. Presidential candidates from Andrew Jackson to John McCain have either waved their real or faux “bloody shirts”. Barack Obama wasn’t interested in playing that game; his manhood and his credibility is thankfully unconnected to his experience in real combat. For him, as for a whole generation of American men under fifty and over thirty, there was no draft to be dodged, nor any war to be fought. Barack Obama is the embodiment of a peace dividend: a man whose manhood is assured without ever having worn a uniform.
I was impressed with Barack Obama from the beginning, even though he was my fourth choice for the Democratic nomination. (I gave to both John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich at the start of the campaign season, and switched to Hillary Clinton before finally leaping on to the Obama wagon around June of last year.) He has impressed me more since becoming president; the priorities of his budget have left me almost giddy with surprise and happiness. No centrist Clinton or Carter here; Obama is, for the most part, a genuine progressive and an authentic liberal who wants to move the national conversation to the left.
This is good political news, but it’s also good news for those of us who study gender. For decades, the right has successfully connected liberal politics with effeminacy; they have scared Democrats from Dukakis to Clinton to Gore to Kerry into proffering embarrassing, often pathetic displays of rugged virility in order to counter the perception of softness and weakness. Barack Obama went up against a war hero with an extraordinary narrative of bravery and suffering; he went up against a hockey mom who gleefully celebrated both her lack of intellectual chops and her penchant for shooting things. Without once posing with a gun, or boasting of his time in the service, without once pretending he liked killing living creatures for sport, Barack Obama chose to beat McCain and Palin (each a classic all-American masculine and feminine archetype) with his oratory, with his intellectual gifts, and with what Sean Penn rightly called his “elegance.”
An elegant egghead is our president, and he is popular and admired. For those of us who are students of the often depressing history of American masculinity, this is wondrously good news.
I love this post. Very well thought out and indeed heartening.
BTW, did you know that Adlai Stevenson was McLean Stevenson’s cousin?
(You have your ares of exprestise. I have mine)
Oooh, I like this.
If you’re an intellectual man, you’re not a “real” man. If you’re an intellectual woman, you’re not a “real” woman. Maybe it’s some weird Cartesian thing, presuming that if you’re living the life of the mind, you’re abandoning your body, genitals and all. I dunno.
I think America’s changing population demographics will change this popular discourse, big time. Most immigrant families I know really value education, and don’t even remotely carry around these prejudices about eggheads being unmanly.
I really disagree with Bobby Jindal on a lot of things, and I think his delivery of prepared statements (like his response to the state of the union) will have to improve. But, I respect him more than I’ve respected a Republican in a long time, because he’s a smart policy geek and he fights for govt accountability. And he got elected in Louisiana of all places. If he runs against Obama in 2012 I’ll have mixed feelings — I’d be a bit afraid of him winning, but so so happy to see such a sudden improvement in our political discourse. I’ll watch every single debate. He blows Palin out of the water.
Metamanda,
I also disagree with Bobby Jindal on most issues, bitterly so. But at the same time, I can’t help feeling a sneaking admiration. Mostly because he’s Indian, like me. As much as I abhor his politics, I like seeing an Indian person in such a high office in this country, and as a potential presidential candidate. I know this is a bad reason to like someone, but it’s hard to avoid. I wouldn’t vote for him, but I’d rather see him in the presidency than most other Republicans.
Honestly, I think Palin was basically the poor man’s Bobby Jindal. McCain picked her because he couldn’t get Jindal. (Nothing against Palin- she wasn’t presidential material but she was a fine governor, as far as I know.) Jindal didn’t want to jump on board a sinking ship in 2008, but perhaps he will run the next time around.
Hector, I don’t think it’s a bad reason to like someone, though it’s probably a bad reason to *vote* for him. :)
I don’t hope for him to become president, but I do hope for him to have a positive effect on how we conduct politics. He cares about policy, and I think that’s a good thing even while disagreeing with him on what the policies should do. I’m hoping that as more people like him (and Obama) succeed in both parties, politicians will be judged more on whether and how they do their jobs, and less on wardrobes, swiftboats, and how macho they are.
Plus, it’s nice seeing the immigrants’ kids represented.
Hugo, I really don’t know. I have a completely different perception. Was Jean-Luc Picard less masculine than James T. Kirk because he cited Shakespeare and didn’t usually fight Klingons with his fists? What about Jed Bartlett’s second campaign?
There seems to be a profound anti-intellectualism in the US, but, to me, that’s not so much gender-perception based, but rather a consequence of a deep-rooted collective fear that intellectualism may dissolve “the American dream” and the consequent desire to preserve a certain - chosen - naiveté as social modus operandi. This is, in my opinion, at the same time, both deeply conservative (certainly economically) and meta-enlightened - as acceptance that complete deconstruction will actually leave nothing to experience and hold on to. As with stockmarkets, “overshooting” in the form of the current Conservative mainstream is a problem. And I think the role of Protestant religious fundamentalism in all this is equally problematic. But, apparently, some conservatives are starting to talk about this, in semi-privacy at least.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/11/17/opinion/1194833215542/bloggingheads-beyond-joe-six-pack.html
Many of us have long wished, Sam, that reality was more like Star Trek or the West Wing. But until now, those were fantasies of progressive Hollywood — but they’ve come true it seems with Barack.
We’ve had Barack like figures in films and TV, sure — but not in real life.
This is really a (welcome, IMO) return to an older paradigm of masculinity: the gentleman. That paradigm used to be rooted in classism, of course, and I’m hoping we do better this time around.
I might have admired Bobby Jindal as an Indian who had achieved a prestigious political office if I could have convinced myself that his conversion to Christianity, particularly fundamentalist Catholicism, wasn’t a cynical attempt to mitigate his heritage in the minds of his narrow minded, bigoted voting bloc.
But yes, Hugo, well said. Obama’s intellectual prowess is bound to have a trickle-down effect in terms of making intellectual prowess sexy again, even among the stupid and fatuous.
Michael Rowe,
I have no reason to doubt that Bobby Jindal’s conversion was anything less than sincere, and I admire that he’s so sincere about his faith, and isn’t like those people who are born into a faith and take it for granted. I’m also an Indian who converted to Christianity, at the cost of severely strained relations with much of my family. In my case, Anglo-Catholicism with a fair amount of social traditionalism- and I certainly didn’t convert to ‘fit in’ or something like that, I converted because I became convinced that Christianity was the truth. So I identify with his conversion at least as much, or rather more, than I do with his race.
Well, he converted when he was 17 or so and (apparently) hadn’t yet decided to go into politics at that point. I don’t generally agree with the policy implications of being a fundamentalist Catholic lawmaker, but I’m inclined to think the conversion was sincere.
>Was Jean-Luc Picard less masculine than James T. Kirk because he cited Shakespeare and didn’t usually fight Klingons with his fists?
Many would argue yes. I’ve always preferred Picard. It is, partly, a generational thing.
Just to clarify, I don’t believe there is any such things as a ‘fundamentalist Catholic’. The word ‘fundamentalist’ was coined with respect to evangelical Protestants, and it connotes ’sola scriptura’. You could possibly extend it to other religions that are sola scriptura, but Catholicism is assuredly not one of them.
The issues I have with Bobby Jindal aren’t related to his religion or his social views- indeed, if he was more of a consistent Catholic on issues of economics, foreign policy and the environment I’d be thrilled to vote for him.
Hector, you’re entitled to believe what you wish about the term “fundamentalist Catholic,” but I would say that individuals who perform so-called “exorcisms” without the sanction of the Catholic church (which has detailed requirements for those who perform that rite–none of which Bobby Jindal has) is can be considered a “fundamentalist Catholic.” His Catholicism is the Catholicism of uneducated peasants, with demons peeking out around every corner, spitting on Bibles and using “swear words.”
I also have no doubt that even at 17, he realized that there was no way he would ever be elected as a non-Christian Indian, so I have no trouble believing that his conversion was opportunistic and politically motivated.
Michael Rowe,
Yes, Jindal was wrong to perform an exorcism without the sanction of the church. (If it was even an actual exorcism at all). I don’t see how that makes him a ‘fundamentalist Catholic’ in any sense of the world. If that phrase is to have any meaning it would mean an ultramontanist, one who hews unquestionably to every line of the Vatican, and never dissents. Jindal’s exorcism was in defiance of the Vatican guidelines, and therefore that would tend to make him, if anything, a heterodox Catholic, quite the opposite of the Vatican.
And really, I think the bigger problem today isn’t the few like Jindal who perform unwarranted exorcisms, it’s the increasing number of Christians who deny the existence of things like demons, Hell, and the devil entirely. That kind of “modernist” thinking is a greater danger to the Catholic and other apostolic churches than a handful of Jindals. I mean, I don’t think exorcisms happen very often these days, but they are certainly possible in theory- Jesus performed them, after all. As for the conversion, I think it’s more likely that Jindal came to realize that Christianity was true, as I did.
I am curious as to why my posting was apparently deemed unfit for publication. I pointed out that Obama’s pick of Chas Freeman as head of the NIC–a man who thought that the brutal suppression of Tianenman Square was not brutal enough–should put a damper on our giddy delight. How is this “wondrously good news”?
I think you underplay the interestingness of McCain’s form of masculinity by setting him up as the traditional cowboy type to serve as a foil for what you want to say about Obama (which I mostly agree with, though I think his widely perceived sexiness is also an important factor in what type of masculine image he was able to construct). Sure, McCain was a war hero — but he was an old man, whose service left him deeply scarred, rather than a strutting virile conqueror in the sense that Andrew Jackson or W tried to project themselves as.
Hugo, Metamanda,
re Hollywood phantasies and Jean-Luc Picard
<blo”Many would argue yes. I’ve always preferred Picard. It is, partly, a generational thing.”
My impression has always been that the essence of masculinity hasn’t really changed between Kirk, Picard, and Obama - a willingness to assume responsibilities, being a protector of loved ones, an inexplicable confidence and unwillingness to be bound by the rules others have made that leads to female attraction. There is a difference between assertiveness - positive aggression, as in confidence - and negative aggression, as in, eg, physical violence that is not necessary for a greater good (as in protector of loved ones). Negative aggression has, in my opinion, never been part of any masculine ideal as it is *always* actually a sign of weakness. Think Jungle Book - is Shirkan a masculine ideal because he is strong and threatens violence? Is the Lion King’s brother a masculine ideal?
The fact - and I think you are right about this - that until Obama American leaders weren’t more able to live up to the ideal (Clinton may have, had he been living in France ;)) doesn’t make the ideal less real, at least in my impression.
Yaacov, Hugo has a wonky spam filter - I have had posts caught up as well. I doubt you were deemed ‘unfit for publication’.
Yaacov, I never saw your earlier comment. But I almost didn’t let this one through — this is not an open Obama thread, but a “Obama as new masculine archetype” thread. Comments on other aspects of his presidency may be deleted.
Stentor, good point — I’ve said before that at times McCain ran less as an American archetype than as a Roman one. Cato the Elder.
Hi Hugo,
I understand your point–but I think that mine is relevant–to wit, what is more important, the style of a man and his cultural resonance with who we are, or his ethics and character? I’m not much of a historian, but I know that plenty of monarchs were gifted writers and musicians–but don’t we decry their cruelty? Do we feel a soft spot for Mao because he wrote poetry?
So my point is that in my opinion focusing on Obama’s “elegance,” his “intellectualism,” is distracting ourselves from the issue of whom we see as a true leader. I think that Obama’s style and intelligence must be seen as being nested within the broader and more important issues of his policies.
What is masculinity? Is it elegance or the courage to look evil in the eye and say, “Not on my watch”? On the basis of your postings, Hugo, I feel confident about guessing that the standards you demand of yourself include accountability, honesty and moral courage. Why be “giddy with delight” about a man whose actions, in my mind, show his standards to be so much lower?
Yaacov,
I agree with most of Obama’s policies, not all. Can you name one world leader whose every decision you regard as the right one, throughout his or her career? It’s a given that every single president will fall short of the hopes of those who elected him; I’ve already been angered by the new administration’s refusal to protect wolves in the west, for example. You think this Freeman character is evidence of a serious lapse in judgment or a dangerous ideological stance on the part of our lad Barack. But I really am writing a post here about tone and style — because masculinity, as popularly understood, is about tone and style.
This is a thread about the outer way in which our presidents present their manhood and their intellect - it is not about their policies, which for better or for worse are easily divorced from the way in which they perform their masculinity.
Hector, thanks for proving my point about Bobby Jindal’s fundamentalist Catholicism so admirably. The fact that he would perform a so-called “exorcism” without the permission of the church doesn’t make him a “heterodox Catholic, quite the opposite of the Vatican,” it makes him a superstitious window-licker, and puts him squarely in the historical camp of gibbering, groveling peasants who see demons around every corner, as I’ve already said.
The fact that you think “the bigger problem today isn’t the few like Jindal who perform unwarranted exorcisms, it’s the increasing number of Christians who deny the existence of things like demons, Hell, and the devil entirely” distresses me almost as much as the homophobia you’ve shown in other posts, and points out, yet again, the danger of allowing the pro-theocracy, anti-science freaks of American society to ever gain the sort of prominence that they had under the Bush regime, a regime that both the fraud Bobby Jindal and Mrs. Palin would have happily carried on.
I couldn’t be more delighted today that the president is going to announce that his administration is going to be “guided by science,” so the Bobby Jindals and their lunatic followers can chase ghosts and demons on weekends, and let the mental adults in America get on with the business of cleaning up the mess that leaked out of the diapers of America’s lunatic fringe over the last eight years. If intellectual power is the new masculinity, then it’s time for Bobby and Co. to head over to the far end of the playground and keep out of the way.