Footnote to LF Part 1:
As I consider my comments about masculinity, I have to mention a few things:
1. 1) While I suggest that the pressure to conform to either a hyper-masculine or feminized-masculine identity is an existing and (perhaps) powerful force, I neglect to mention the implications of the gender-neutral masculine. If I propose that the vampire “look” is a current trend (and not just a Halloween costume), then I need to investigate the consequences of this appearance, this feminized “performance” where men wear make-up to seem fashionable. I think that my intention to mention both the “hipster look” with the tighter jeans and highly-stylized ensembles is for us to recognize that popular fashion is also inverting traditional conceptions of gender. If “the military look” is popular for women—now currently featuring fatigue greens (but with frills), lace up boots (but with high heels), straight-cut jackets (which highlight square, prominent shoulders)—to be feminine means to also be masculine. The same is true for men. What the hipster or vampire look articulates is that a man can be masculine even when he adopts the traits of the feminine in his outward appearance. In fact, he is also fashionable and, therefore, desirable. His look is intentional, thought out, and thus, we come back to our original notion that identity is synonymous with intent: we are what we do, and our intent is to perform gender identity. Despite what we want to believe, in a philosophical way, we really are what we want others to think we are. That being said, the hipster look adopts select traits that are typically reserved for the feminine: tighter fitting clothing (sexually suggestive), an interest in indie art or literature (the arts which are not necessarily associated with logic), longer hair (maidenhood), and a penchant for behaving socially reserved or mysterious (reminiscent of the hyper-feminine courtier).
2. 2) What does one do by doing gender? We demonstrate a cultural representation of gender. We either create stereotype or perpetuate it. We are express a (culturally-influenced) individual interpretation of gender as we adopt specific modes of behavior so that we may produce an identity. We negotiate the boundaries that have been established by, in this case, historical fashion themes and create new meaning by inverting gender-specific fashion trends.
3. 3) Finally, the gender-neutral masculine cannot be regarded as more or less of a “man.” If anything, he allows for Butler’s argument to subsist—that we are not either feminine or masculine. We can be both.
"In fact, he is also fashionable and, therefore, desirable."
ReplyDelete-- I wonder if this argument would hold true in "the heartland"... In other words, are we doing a disservice by ignoring social, cultural, and economic factors?
cheers,
Jonathan
More clearly, what I mean to say is that your argument assumes a culture where dressing fashionably is (or can be) a virtue. I would argue that given a different social/cultural/economic landscape, this assumption might not hold true.
ReplyDeletecheers (again),
Jonathan
You're absolutely right (I should start writing down outlines because I forget to mention certain points when I write...) because there is most definitely an aspect of elitism (or proletarianism) that is implied by one's dress. Not only do we bind ourselves to specific groups that we choose to represent through the guises of our outward appearance, we are also separating ourselves from certain populations of individuals. Yep yep yep.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we think about it, the point I'm trying to make (or will eventually make?) is that there are facets of identification that imply "association" or "separation." I think that the good thing about choosing one's dress (or style) is that we demonstrate choice and versatility. If we're speaking in terms of gender identification, I want to point out that being masculine or feminine is not a stagnant concept. And as you point out, it is really composed of a complex matrices where socioeconomic factors intersect with one's ability to perform. Therefore, motivation is mitigated by one's ability to exercise means of intent. I also see that the issue of "desirability" is tricky. And that's another thing to tackle: who determines what, exactly, IS desirable?
ReplyDelete