{"id":3276,"date":"2017-07-17T14:07:06","date_gmt":"2017-07-17T18:07:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/?p=3276"},"modified":"2017-07-17T14:07:06","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T18:07:06","slug":"trump-and-the-politics-of-fluid-masculinities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/2017\/07\/17\/trump-and-the-politics-of-fluid-masculinities\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump and the Politics of Fluid Masculinities"},"content":{"rendered":"

Originally posted at Democratic Socialists of America<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

In the 1950s, a collection of sociologists and psychologists (which included, among others, Theodor Adorno) wrote The Authoritarian Personality<\/em><\/a>. They were attempting to theorize the type of personality \u2014 a particular psychology \u2014 that gave rise to fascism in the 1930s. Among other things, they suggested that the \u201cauthoritarian personality\u201d was characterized by a normative belief in absolute obedience to their <\/em>authority in addition to the practical enactment of that belief through direct and indirect marginalization and suppression of \u201csubordinates.\u201d While Adorno and his colleagues did not consider the gender of this personality, today gender scholars recognize authoritarianism as a particular form of masculinity, and current U.S. president Donald Trump might appear to be a prime illustration of a rigid and inflexible \u201cauthoritarian personality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet Trump\u2019s masculinity avoids a direct comparison to this label precisely because of the fluidity he projects. Indeed, the \u201cauthoritarian personality\u201d is overly fixed, immutable, and one dimensional as a psychoanalytical personality type<\/em>. Sociologists understand identities as more flexible than this. Certain practices of Trump exemplify the fluctuations of masculinity that illustrate this distinction, and the transformations in his masculinity are highly contingent upon context. While this is a common political strategy, Trump\u2019s shifts are important as they enable him to construct a \u201cdominating masculinity\u201d that perpetuates diverse forms of social inequality. Dominating masculinities<\/em> are those that involve commanding and controlling interactions to exercise power and control over people and events. \u00a0These masculinities are most problematic when they also are hegemonic<\/em> and work to legitimize unequal relations between women and men. Here are a few examples:<\/p>\n

First, in his speeches and public statements prior to being elected, Trump bullied and subordinated \u201cother\u201d men by referring to them as \u201cweak,\u201d \u201clow energy,\u201d or as \u201closers,\u201d or implying they are \u201cinept\u201d or a \u201cwimp.\u201d (\u201cOthering\u201d is a social process whereby certain people are viewed and\/or treated as somehow fundamentally different and unequal.) For example, during several Republican presidential debates, Trump consistently labeled Marco Rubio as \u201clittle Marco,\u201d described Jeb Bush as \u201clow energy Jeb,\u201d implied that John McCain was a \u201cwimp\u201d because he was captured and tortured during the Vietnam War, and suggested that contemporary military veterans battling PTSD are \u201cinept\u201d because they \u201ccan\u2019t handle\u201d the \u201chorror\u201d they observed in combat. In contrast, Trump consistently referred to himself as, for example, strong, a fighter, and as the embodiment of success. In each case, Trump ascribes culturally-defined \u201cinferior\u201d subordinate gender qualities to his opponents while imbuing himself with culturally defined \u201csuperior\u201d masculine qualities. This pairing signifies an unequal relationship between masculinities\u2014one both dominating and <\/em>hegemonic (Trump) and one subordinate (the \u201cother\u201d men).<\/p>\n

A second example of Trump\u2019s fluid masculinity applies to the way he has depicted himself as the<\/em> heroic masculine protector<\/em> of all Americans. This compassion may appear, at first blush, at odds with the hegemonic masculinity just discussed. For example, in his Republican Convention speech Trump argued that he alone can lead the country back to safety by protecting the American people through the deportation of \u201cdangerous\u201d and \u201cillegal\u201d Mexican and Muslim immigrants and by \u201csealing the border.\u201d In so doing, Trump implied that Americans are unable<\/em> to defend themselves \u2014 a fact he used to justify his need to \u201cjoin the political arena.\u201d Trump stated: \u201cI will liberate our citizens from crime and terrorism and lawlessness\u201d by \u201crestoring law and order\u201d throughout the country \u2014 \u201cI will fight for you, I will win for you.\u201d Here Trump adopts a position as white masculine protector<\/em> of Americans against men of color, instructing all US citizens to entrust their lives to him; in return, he offers safety. Trump depicts himself as aggressive, invulnerable, and able to protect while all remaining US citizens are depicted as dependent and uniquely vulnerable. Trump situates himself as analogous to the patriarchal masculine protector toward his wife and other members of the patriarchal household. But simultaneously, Trump presents himself as a compassionate, caring, and kind-hearted benevolent protector, and thereby constructs a hybrid hegemonic masculinity<\/a> consisting of both masculine and feminine qualities.<\/p>\n

Third, in the 2005 interaction between Trump and Billy Bush on the now infamous Access Hollywood tour bus<\/a>, Trump presumes he is entitled to the bodies of women and (not surprisingly) admits committing sexual assault against women because, according to him, he has the right. He depicts women as collections of body parts and disregards their desires, needs, expressed preferences, and their consent. After the video was aired more women have come forward and accused Trump of sexual harassment and assault. Missed in discussions of this interaction is how that dialogue actually contradicts, and thus reveals, the myth of Trump\u2019s protector<\/em> hegemonic masculinity. The interaction on the bus demonstrates that Trump is not a \u201cprotector\u201d at all; he is a \u201cpredator.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s many masculinities represent a collection of contradictions. Trump\u2019s heroic protector hegemonic masculinity should have been effectively unmasked, revealing a toxic predatory<\/em> heteromasculinity. Discussions of this controversy, however, failed to articulate any sign of injury to his campaign because Trump was able to connect with a dominant discourse of masculinity often relied upon to explain all manner of men\u2019s (mis)behavior \u2014 it was \u201clocker room talk<\/a>,\u201d we were told. And the sad fact is, the news cycle moved on.<\/p>\n

We argue that Trump has managed such contradictions by mobilizing, in certain contexts, what has elsewhere (and above) been identified as a \u201cdominating masculinity<\/em>\u201d (<\/strong>see here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>) <\/strong>\u2014 involving commanding and controlling specific interactions and exercising power and control over people and events. This dominating masculinity<\/em> has thus far centered on six critical features:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Trump operates in ways that cultivate domination over others he works with, in particular rewarding people based on their loyalty to him.<\/li>\n
  2. Trump\u2019s dominating masculinity serves the interests of corporations by cutting regulations, lowering corporate taxes, increasing military spending, and engaging in other neoliberal practices, such as attempting to strip away healthcare from 24 million people, defunding public schools, and making massive cuts to social programs that serve poor and working-class people, people of color, and the elderly.<\/li>\n
  3. Trump has relied on his dominating masculinity to serve his particular needs as president, such as refusing to release his tax returns and ruling through a functioning kleptocracy (using the office to serve his family\u2019s economic interests).<\/li>\n
  4. This masculinity is exemplified through the formulation of a dominating militaristic foreign policy (for example, U.S. airstrikes of civilians in Yemen, Iraq and Syria have increased dramatically under Trump; the MOAB bombing of Afghanistan; threats to North Korea) rather than engaging in serious forms of diplomacy. Trump has formed a global ultraconservative \u201caxis of evil\u201d\u2014 whose defining characteristics are kleptocracy and dominating masculinity \u2014 with the likes of Putin (Russia), el-Sisi (Egypt), Erdogan (Turkey), Salman (Saudi Arabia), Duterte (Philippines) among others.<\/li>\n
  5. So too has this dominating masculinity had additional effects \u201cat home\u201d as Trump prioritizes domestically the repressive arm of the state through white supremacist policies such as rounding-up and deporting immigrants and refugees as well as his anti-Muslim rhetoric and attempted Muslim ban.<\/li>\n
  6. Trump\u2019s dominating masculinity attempts to control public discourse through his constant tweets that are aimed at discrediting and subordinating those who disagree with his policies.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Trump\u2019s masculinity is fluid, contradictory, situational, and it demonstrates the diverse and crisscrossing pillars of support that uphold inequalities worldwide. From different types of hegemonic masculinities, to a toxic predatory heteromasculinity, to his dominating masculinity, Trump\u2019s chameleonic display is part of the contemporary landscape of gender, class, race, age and sexuality relations and inequalities. Trump does not construct a consistent form of masculinity. Rather, he oscillates \u2014 at least from the evidence we have available to us. And in each case, his oscillations attempt to overcome the specter of femininity \u2014 the fear of being the unmasculine man \u2014 through the construction of particularized masculinities.<\/p>\n

    It is through these varying practices that Trump\u2019s masculinity is effective in bolstering specific forms and systems of inequality that have been targeted and publicly challenged in recent history. Durable forms of social inequality achieve resilience by becoming flexible. By virtue of their fluidity of expression and structure, they work to establish new pillars of ideological support, upholding social inequalities as \u201cothers\u201d are challenged. As C. J. Pascoe has argued<\/a>, a dominating masculinity is not unique to Trump or only his supporters; Trump\u2019s opponents rely on it as well (see also sociologist Kristen Barber\u2019s analysis<\/a> of anti-Trump masculinity tactics). \u00a0<\/strong>And it is for these reasons that recognizing Trump\u2019s fluidity of masculinity is more than mere academic observation; it is among the chief mechanisms through which contemporary forms of inequality \u2014 from the local to the global \u2014 are justified and persist today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Originally posted at Democratic Socialists of America In the 1950s, a collection of sociologists and psychologists (which included, among others, Theodor Adorno) wrote The Authoritarian Personality. They were attempting to theorize the type of personality \u2014 a particular psychology \u2014 that gave rise to fascism in the 1930s. Among other things, they suggested that the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1958,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[245,30335,55,35058,26,175],"tags":[38016,36391,27670,27668,25189,3497,36392],"class_list":["post-3276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-feminism","category-feminist-sociology","category-gender","category-in-the-news","category-public-sociology","category-sociology","tag-dominating-masculinity","tag-donald-trump","tag-hegemonic-masculinity","tag-hybrid-masculinity","tag-masculinities","tag-social-justice","tag-trump"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1958"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3276"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3276\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3278,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3276\/revisions\/3278"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/feminist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}