Kang, 2009 discusses how masculine identity has shaped politics, and in turn been shaped by politics, in American self-government. Kang contrasts philophers Thomas Hobbes' and Robert Filmer's views of manliness, and shows how neither of these competing views of manliness made responsible self-government seem realistic in 17th-century England.
I've been meaning to discuss Kang's article for a while. The author did email me directly to point it out, but I think it's especially relevant because it tackles a question that is key to the questions raised in this blog. It's all too easy for me to see "femininity" as a constructed thing, but Kang points out the ways that our legal history, at least in the U.S., has constructed masculinity as well. Examples include codes of "gentleman's codes" and sports fandoms. The code of law seems bent towards preventing men from acting as men are presumed to be, with little consideration of women as relevant at all.
I saw an ad for a beer today which read "Be the person your grandparents think you are" -- encouraging potential drinkers to be worthy of heartfelt admiration. It brought home to me how much all identities, not just trans-identities, are constructed and maintained by daily action.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment