Abstract
Sumerau in her book Violent Manhood explores the social construction of American masculinity that us tied to violence and threat. In men’s performances of gender, displays of violence are integral to their identities in the U.S. context. Through interviews with 50 men (who self-identify as cis-gender, white, straight, and middle- or upper-class), Sumerau explores how these men negotiate violence in their own conceptualization of masculinity and how they identify other men’s masculinity in relation to violence. Men in Sumerau’s interviews define their masculinity mainly through violence as a way to maintain their own socially constructed definitions of manhood. Sumerau argues that if violence is defined by men as inherent to displays and definitions of masculinity, then manhood itself is the root of violence in American society (93).
Negotiations of manhood allow interviewees to excuse and justify men’s violence. For example, men in Sumerau’s interviews described instances of rape and sexual assault as misunderstandings where men’s violence was unintended and “just part of being a man” (38). By dismissing accounts of rape and sexual assault, interviewees minimize the role of violence in perpetrating dominance attitudes. Both violence and control become essential to displays of masculinity, often acting as methods of compensation in the face of threats (i.e., others believing you are not a man or not “man enough”). Most importantly, interviewees distinguish between their own violence and violence of other men by justifying the legitimacy of men’s use of violence as only “bad men” use real or problematic violence. This narrative allows interviewees to differentiate themselves from “bad men” (who they often defined as poor or working-class men and men of color) and establish their own white masculinity as “good” or superior.
To distinguish between acceptable or innate violence and problematic violence, Sumerau’s interviewees draw on two main approaches central to masculinity: biological essentialism and divine intervention. By arguing that men are inherently more aggressive and violent than women, interviewees attribute these differences to either biological differences (i.e., DNA, genetics, physical stature, etc.) or God’s creation (i.e., man and women were created differently by a higher being). In either case, men’s violence is naturalized, which limits men’s responsibility for their inaction as a result of said violence. While interviewees point out that men’s violence is a “real problem” in America, they are able to position themselves as “good men” but also distance themselves from the structural problem of violence in manhood.
Sumerau particularly focuses on perceptions of “good” men in interviewee’s discussion of guns and threat. In their justifications of gun violence, respondents reflect perceptions of masculinity threat where they report feeling a sense of loss or a lack of control. Guns and violence offer men a means to regain that control through “compensatory manhood acts.” By emphasizing or exaggerating aspects of American masculinity that are currently valued, men can prove to others that they are “ideal” men. Compensatory manhood acts allow men to regain the sense of control that they otherwise feel they have lost. Sumerau begins to frame this in the Trump-era, as his 2016 (and even 2020) presidential platforms were built on misogyny, racism, and exaggerations of control and toughness. In the #MeToo era, men feel their actions are being highly regulated, thereby robbing them of control. Men in Sumerau’s interviews do not even engage in discussions on #MeToo as they fear they will say the wrong thing. This silence acts as a form of self-protection in what they perceive as an increasingly racialized and gendered world.
Sumerau’s book would be ideal for an undergraduate course on gender and criminology as it provides readers with a thorough overview of the literature on masculinity and connects it to their own empirical findings. Sumerau concludes that there is an inherent inequality within American masculinity: men are expected to walk a narrow tightrope in their own displays of masculinity. In meeting demands for violence, men must also distance themselves from responsibility by blaming other men for widespread violence. Sumerau emphasizes that for significant change, we need to disassociate violence from masculinity and challenge men’s use of violence against themselves and others. A redefinition of masculinity requires understanding how different identities like race, class, sexuality, ability, etc. relate to violence.