Kerry, Edwards, male touching

Conservative bloggers have developed a remarkable fascination with the level of affection displayed by John Kerry and John Edwards towards one another. The Drudge Report even has a nice montage of photographs on the subject.

My dear fellow Golden Bear Annika wrote:

Now i'm not offended by two men being physically affectionate with each other (not even two political candidates who until two days ago were rumored to have disliked each other intensely). It's just that this Democratic touchy-feely shit is such an obvious attempt to pander to us female voters. Yah, i'm sure the polls and focus groups say we're supposed to respond more favorably to men who hug each other. Maybe we do in a general sense, i don't know. But i do know that in the midst of a war, in which our enemy has made no secret that they want us all dead, and that they are not interested in negotiating on that point, and that they'll stop at nothing to kill us all, and as violently as possible . . . well let's just say i'd rather have a couple of men who shake hands leading our side in that situation.

In the comments below her post, I quipped:

You're just baiting me into another soaring paean to male affection on my blog, aren't you, Annie?

And today Candace triple-dog dares me to post on the subject. I haven't been triple-dog dared since I shoplifted some Bazooka chewing gum from Woolworths in 4th grade (I got caught, thank you). Still, a dare is a dare, so here goes (and it ain't short):

Male-male affection has an interesting history in America. In the 19th century, it was not uncommon for men to share a bed with one another (Abraham Lincoln's behavior in that regard has led to countless tiresome discussions about his sexuality, most of which completely miss the point.) Men in the 19th century from all backgrounds and social classes were regularly photographed in postures of great physical affection. (See this fine collection, which despite its title, is not composed of only gay men.) And almost everyone who has traveled in Mediterranean or Middle Eastern countries has noted that many other societies permit men far greater degrees of affection and physical intimacy than we do.

Annika's comment that in times of crisis, she'd rather be led by "a couple of men who shake hands" is telling. The notion that affection equals weakness and reserve equals strength is a 20th century equation. Michael Kimmel, in his magisterial history of masculinity Manhood in America links the connection between physical affection, homosexuality, and weakness to the first third of the 20th century -- and no earlier. (The reasons for this are too many to cite here, but range from industrialization and the emergence of "office work" to the rise of the suffrage movement.)

In any event, what strikes me about my conservative friends in the blogosphere is that none of them seem to think that Kerry and Edwards really are lovers in the sexual sense. Their affection, in the eyes of critics, is less indicative of homosexuality than it is of unmanliness -- and that is an important distinction. After all, no one on the right ever accused Bill Clinton of homosexuality (the evidence to the contrary was a bit too obvious for everyone), but they regularly accused him of being "soft" -- both physically and politically. Clinton's penchant for hugging everyone in sight (a practice that is extremely common in the African-American churches in which he was raised) troubled many social conservatives whose ideas of manhood are rooted in early 20th century ideals of Anglo-Saxon masculine reticence.

The belief seems to be that a man who demonstrates physical reserve in his interactions with other men is a man who is disciplined. In hyper-masculine America, physical intimacy that isn't sexual is supposed to be a feminine province. Girls can hug and caress each other; men can only hug and caress women. On a deep level, far too many Americans still associate the feminine with the impulsive, the emotional, the irrational, and the vulnerable. Thus a man who is physically reserved will be seen as more thoughtful, more self-contained, more rational, and more reliable in a crisis than a man who hugs and pats and embraces his male friends.

It would indeed be absurd if a man who faced live fire in Vietnam (even Kerry's critics agreed he did do so on numerous occasions) would be seen as somehow less masculine than a man who bravely defended the republic of Texas in the Air National Guard. But historians know that almost all American elections boil down to struggles over differing visions of masculinity. (Kimmel traces this back to the presidency of Andrew Jackson, who was the first to make the effeminacy of his opponents an issue.) In general, social conservatives tend to be more anxious to preserve traditional sex roles. As a result, one key element of Republican strategy this election season must be to portray their Democratic opponents as inherently less masculine than the president and Mr. Cheney. For the second time in a row, Mr. Bush must run against a Democrat who went to Vietnam; he is thus robbed of the chance to make national service an issue. (Social conservatives LOVE that one, though it doesn't always work, as Bush Sr. and Bob Dole discovered against Mr. Clinton). Without the war card to play, and given how deep the cultural beliefs of white Americans are about male affection, weakness, and effeminacy, we can expect those who support the president to ridicule Kerry and Edwards for their open -- and to my mind refreshing -- physical contact.

I hope that all of the hugs and pats between Kerry and Edwards are genuine, and not merely a ploy to please certain constituencies. That would be disappointing. But I'm a man who hugs my male friends whenever I see them. I have two male friends whom I can think of to whom I am not related and whom I regularly kiss (on the cheek). As I've written before, I hug the boys in my youth group (I hug the girls too, of course). For the record, I'm blissfully heterosexual, and I adore being a man. I'm even kinda stereoptypical: I play sports, love watching sports, listen to redneck music (Bocephus, anyone?), I have a hairy chest, and to my gal's continued frustration, I leave my dirty clothes on the floor. Not sure what that proves, but there it is. In any event, when I see a man display genuine affection for another man, I gain greater respect for him because I know just how cruel folks of both genders can be to those whose behavior deviates from our narrow American paradigm.

There's so much more to say about this. For example, I could note that Democrats are often seen as less masculine because Democrats tend to emphasize the importance of communal responsibility over individual initiative. Both secular and religious lefties think government has a vital role to play in making the world a more just, tolerant, and equitable society. In our culture, we see that kind of mutualism and interdependence as essentially feminine, while we see Republican ideals like self-reliance as more masculine. But that's another post.

I've got some Mennonites coming over tonight. We're gonna eat our usual eclectic repast, we're going to talk about the Lord, and we're going to take Matilde out of her cage and play. But first, we're all going to hug. A lot.

Comments

[Jonathan Dresner]

Are you familiar with the songs of Fred Small? His "I Want a Hug" (inspired by a hospital policy against therapist-client contact) was my awakening to the issues you address here.

[John]

That's interesting-You are probably right. In our Pentecostal Youth Group, where hugging is common (Maori and PI youth see to that), they hug each other and us-For instance, I hug my best friend, who is Samoan, and my other mate who is Maori, and they hug each other, and maybe touch foreheads (hongi) But displays of affection between Europeans are less common. I tend to be content with a hand-clasp, even with most of my lads, and to see Europeans hugging each other is uncommon, except if there is an exceptionally close relationship between them. It took me almost two years to move from a hand-shake to a hug with my immediate Youth leader, and even then it is in situations of emotional stress and the like.

[John]

I meant to add that when the All Blacks started hugging each other after scoring tries, there was great outrage. It was taken as yet another sign that the current crop are not as tough as their fathers. It was equated with toughness-"The 1908 team didn't need all that touchy-feely malarkey...they played on with a broken arm and three concussions, and went off at the end in a stretcher after three tries and a conversion" It is the same here with politics, pasticularly in the Tory party, and in the Army. Two people could be ready to die for the other, and the relationship never gets beyond a hand-shake and a "Good on you, mate". That's a virtue, here. Quite right, too. I see no justification for making an exhibition of one's affectionate emotions. Does it make them any more genuine?
One of the charges levelled against Americans here is that they are overly emotional and sentimental-By implication, decadent and vulgar. I don't think that's true (or at least, not always) but many do. We are very insecure as a nation-we are small-but we have a reputation for being tough and manly, and glory in it. That's why the All Blacks matter so.

[Stentor]

I see no justification for making an exhibition of one's affectionate emotions. Does it make them any more genuine?

Does it make them any more genuine to deliberately hide them?

I'm rather cynical about what the Kerry-Edwards touching means (particularly on Kerry's part). New England is the epicenter of social reserve. I'd be very surprised if this isn't basically, as Annika said, a calculated attempt to appeal to certain demographics.

[DJW]

Great Post. To my mind, this is a key insight:
In any event, when I see a man display genuine affection for another man, I gain greater respect for him because I know just how cruel folks of both genders can be to those whose behavior deviates from our narrow American paradigm.

What we have here is (yet another) contradiction within codes of masculinity. The prohibition against physical affection is one part of the code, but going against the grain and stoically ignoring the baiting criticism could fit within the a part of the individualistic, independent parts of the codes of masculinity.

I'd also like to thank you for pointing me toward Kimmel's book. I've just started it, and I'm already engrossed. Not exactly good for my education in the narrow sense (ie, dissertation completion) but quite valuable for my education in the broad sense.

[Trey]

<>

Er, nice post.

[Trey]

I screwed that last note up, not knowing that if I put things between the little bracket thingies, html makes them disappear. What I had said, which disappeared, was "Offers firm handshake." It was barely amusing the first time, and now I'm having to try again because of some weird little html demon.

Sigh.

[Michelle]

No kidding about things being different in other parts of the world. When I lived in Mexico, I observed mucho machismo, as well as guys hugging on each other. They didn't seem to have any problem being macho and touching. Women also touched more. It was a friendlier place, overall, than anywhere else I've ever been.