.

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ and effeminate inaction,” while Michael Rogin suggests that the Jacksonian Era’s male mystique was part of men’s struggle “to rescue sons from maternal power.” Joe Dubbert characterizes the nineteenth century as an era when male “domination, supremacy, and control” in public life stood in opposition to women’s moralism in private life. Finally, Kimmel and Peter Filene ascribe a late-nineteenth-century “crisis of masculinity” to male fears that women were making boys effeminate.³⁵

      Remarkably, the academic accord that Americans defined manhood against womanhood is supported by a wealth of cultural evidence but a dearth of direct political evidence. One can review thousands of pages of foundingera political documents that dwell on virtually every aspect of men’s relations without encountering more than a rare reference to women’s existence. Political discourse was male-centered, as if men were doing what came naturally when they presumed to monopolize power and ignore women’s potential or presence as public persons. Christine Stansell points out that female figures were omnipresent in literature but “almost invisible” in politics. The Federalist Papers was typical. It spoke volumes about male power and politics but provided only two tertiary comments about women. When writers and speakers actually injected women into political discourse, they usually did so to make a point about men. For example, John Adams discussed women’s exclusion from suffrage to show that unpropertied men also should be excluded. Anna Jónasdóttir’s insight into Hobbes and Locke also applies to Adams and his contemporaries: “Women are used as a device of argument only to be deftly shuffled out of sight once they have served their purpose.”³⁶

      Still, gender opposition did have a substantial indirect influence on political discourse. To begin, it shaped the philosophical foundations of American political thought. Genevieve Lloyd observes that “the maleness of reason” was deeply embedded in Western political thought. Conceptions of manhood and reason “have been formed within structures of dominance” that declared “the Man of Reason” superior to women. Carole Pateman analyzes early modern political theory to expose male thinkers’ belief that only “men possess the capacities required for citizenship, in particular, they are able to use their reason to sublimate their passions” and “internalize the universal rules of socio-political order.” Male theorists believed that women, in contrast, were driven by passions that clouded their reason, subverted their commitment to universal justice, and legitimized their exclusion from politics.³⁷

      We can read the indirect influence of gender opposition between the lines of writings that populated the state of nature with rational men who voluntarily chose to enter civil society and establish a government of law. American authors usually assumed that women’s inability to harness reason and discipline passion precluded them from participation in political life. Women were nowhere to be found in most states of nature. Theophilus Parsons was unusual because he was explicit about why political manhood required female exclusion. Parsons emphasized the importance of wisdom, learning, and discretion in politics, and favored a presumption that all males over twenty-one years had ample intelligence to participate. Simultaneously, he favored the rule that all women be viewed “as not having sufficient discretion,” and he disqualified them from politics. True, he argued, women had “no deficiency in their mental powers.” However, it was dangerous for them to develop reason and practice politics lest “promiscuous intercourse with the world” ruin “the natural tenderness and delicacy of their minds, their retired mode of life, and various domestic duties.”³⁸ Political manhood meant ruling women for their own good.

      Gender opposition was also embedded in the psychodynamics of early American political thought. Christine Di Stefano argues that modern political theorists constructed “configurations of masculinity” as misogynist attempts to achieve “clean and ultimate release from the (m)other.” Male thinkers desired women but feared dependence on them. They projected their “irresolute masculinity” into political theories that thickened the connection between political manhood and female subordination. Similarly, Kenneth Lockridge argues that eighteenth-century American males constructed images of manhood based on contempt for women. Men desired women for sexual pleasure and reproduction but feared their engulfing sexuality and malignant power. Reacting as if “patriarchy is in imminent danger of becoming matriarchy,” they expressed insecurity and rage by forging a misogynistic public identity based on intimidation and control of women.³⁹ American men had powerful unconscious passions and gendered assumptions that infused patriarchal meaning into public phrases such as “All men are created equal.”

      We can glimpse male misogyny in the common usage of the term effeminacy. Linda Kerber suggests that Americans equated “effeminacy” to “timidity, dependence, and foppishness.” For example, Samuel Adams opposed “effeminate” refinements that seduced men into the self-indulgence and corruption associated with disorderly women. Samuel Williams criticized profligate men for creating “an emaciated feeble race, degraded by effeminacy and weakness,” that was “unmanly” and “incapable of manly exertions.” Only men who mastered female vices could ward off tyranny and establish a republic. However, not all uses of effeminacy conveyed gender opposition or misogyny. John Adams hinted at gender similarity when criticizing both “my own sex” and “American ladies” for “luxury, dissipations, and effeminacy.” And Mercy Otis Warren was not expressing misogyny toward women when criticizing General William Howe for enjoying “effeminate and reprehensible pleasures ... in the arms of a handsome adulteress” rather than doing his civic duty.⁴⁰

      We can also detect gender opposition in founding-era metaphors. Speakers and writers often defined political manhood as a matter of controlling symbolic female figures who were typically blamed for public disorder. The figures included “Fortune” (a coy woman who needed to be tamed), “Fancy” (an enchantress), “Trade” (a lady who needed to be courted), and “Popularity” (an adulteress). Some oppositional metaphors conveyed a mixed message. Thomas Paine portrayed the Revolution as the struggle of a maturing American male against a grasping British mother, and as a conflict pitting patriots defending manly freedom against corrupt governors hoping to seduce them back into female dependence. Paine also portrayed the Revolution in terms of all-male rivalry. He considered it a filial revolt against a despotic royal father, as well as the case of a wealthy ward fighting off a covetous guardian. Political manhood opposed womanhood, but it also opposed male tyranny and avarice, and an assortment of male failings.⁴¹

      Quite often, Americans defined political manhood in opposition to African slavery. Judith Shklar suggests that a white male’s sense of personal dignity, social worth, and citizenship was largely a function of distinguishing himself “from slaves and occasionally from women.” She emphasizes that citizenship was mostly conceived as a denial of slavery. White males measured their public worth by their distance from slave status. The main marker of that distance was the right to vote, which functioned as “a certificate of full membership in society” that had a “capacity to confer a minimum of social dignity.” Men without the ballot saw themselves and were seen by other men as second-class citizens approaching “the dreaded condition of the slave.”⁴²

      Northern writers regularly suggested that political manhood required opposition to slavery. James Dana argued that “our liberty as men, citizens, and Christians” demanded that “we set ourselves to banish all slavish principles” and “unite to abolish slavery.” Southern writers often suggested that white political manhood was strengthened by its juxtaposition to slavery. David Ramsay wrote that white men’s “spirit of liberty” was nurtured by daily reminders of the degradation of slavery; Timothy Ford believed that white men felt stimulated to defend liberty “to avoid being confounded with the blacks”; John Taylor added that white men’s affection for liberty was heightened by “the sight of slavery.” If white manhood contrasted with slavery, what was the gender identity of male slaves? Enslaved black males had no clear gender identity. They were mostly seen as outsiders lacking the manly reason to discipline their passions and the manly freedom to provision and protect their families. J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur’s “American Farmer” was typical: he abhorred slavery but could not imagine СКАЧАТЬ