Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This thesis explores how Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket challenges hegemonic masculinities and their role in creating hierarchies of power through film analysis and masculinities studies. how the film critiques the implementation of hegemonic masculinities, their impact on individuals and groups, and the dangers they pose. It also discusses the portrayal of the female sniper and her rejection of hegemonic masculinities.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 84
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
A Senior Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in American Studies By George Bayard Bergmann Washington, D.C. April 25, 2018
ii
George Bayard Bergmann Thesis Adviser: Seth Perlow, Ph.D. ABSTRACT It is often easy to view human interaction as a product of societal structure rather than the other way around. Social dynamics, systems of governance, and structures of power are not manifestations of civilization but rather its core components. The ways in which these concepts are addressed in popular culture provide important platforms for discussion and criticism of the nature of social organization. In particular, the medium of film has shown time and time again to be fertile ground for illuminating various aspects of societal structure that might otherwise go unnoticed. This thesis takes the example of gender as it relates to constructions of power through an examination of its portrayal in director Stanley Kubrick’s film Full Metal Jacket (1987). In turn, this thesis aims to analyze Kubrick’s portrayal of the role of masculinity in constructing and maintaining hierarchies of power in a wartime setting in order to uncover its criticisms of masculine power dynamics in greater American society. This thesis intends to fill a gap between masculinities studies and film studies to demonstrate the important function of film as a means for contributing to a greater discussion of how Americans use gender to exert power and influence over
“Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are defenders of my country. We are the saviors of my life. So be it … until there is no enemy but peace. Amen.”^1 The above is an excerpt from the United States Marine Corps’ The Rifleman’s Creed , a brief and powerful piece of rhetoric that each Marine must memorize and recite during their time in boot camp.^2 Author and former Marine Marion Sturkey writes that The Rifleman’s Creed remains one of the most basic foundations upon which the Marine mentality is built.^3 This is because the rifleman himself serves as the most essential and capable arm of Marine Corps power, with all resources serving to support and maintain his (or her) functionality. “Marine Aviation, Marine Armor, Marine Artillery, and all supporting arms and war fighting assets exist to support the rifleman.”^4 The creed serves to remind the Marine that he or she is the arm through which the United States Armed Forces wield their mighty power and exercise their will. Indeed being a rifleman is a base level requirement for Marines – every enlisted member from cafeteria staff to high-level logistics (^1) Marion F. Sturkey, "Rifleman's Creed," Heritage Press International. Accessed February 1,
promoted and promulgated by the state.^6 He argues further that the gender order is such that the male is at the top of the hierarchy, and politics in government and subsequently politics in war serve to maintain this gender order that places men at the helm of power.^7 These politics are intended to reinforce masculine societal norms through rewarding the male who engages in typical masculine behaviors. Tosh provides examples of policy that include the mandatory military conscription for males as well as tax incentives for those who marry, which was, until recently, an exclusively heterosexual institution enforced by law.^8 Founder and editor of the academic journal Men and Masculinities Michael Kimmel argues that these policies find their roots in the early American masculine desire to distance oneself from what was seen as the stifling position of women in the Victorian Era.^9 To be a man was to be the opposite of a woman, and the position of women during the Victorian Era was one of constraint and limited power.^10 Thus to be a man was to be self-made, successful, educated, hard working, and above all competitive.^11 This, along with the popularity of slavery and the exclusion of black males from American society began to create the image of the ideal masculine American male, which sociologist Erving Goffman described as “a young, married, (^6) Stefan Dudnik, Karen Hagemann, and John Tosh, Masculinities in politics and war: gendering modern history , (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008), 41. (^7) Stefan Dunik, Karen Hagemann, and John Tosh, Masculinities in politics and war, 42. (^8) Stefan Dunik, Karen Hagemann, and John Tosh, Masculinities in politics and war, 43. (^9) Michael S. Kimmel, Manhood in America: a cultural history. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 39. (^10) Michael S. Kimmel, Manhood in America, 40. (^11) Michael S. Kimmel, Manhood in America, 38.
white, urban, northern, heterosexual, Protestant, father, of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports,” claiming “Any male who fails to qualify in any one of these ways is likely to view himself – during moments at least – as unworthy, incomplete, and inferior.”^12 The astute reader will recognize that such a definition of masculinity and its maintenance relies heavily on the ability of those in such a position to attain said status to exclude others from doing the same. That is to say, such a definition implicitly states that those who do not possess such characteristics are unable to be a man or at the very least are a lesser man than those who do posses such characteristics. This notion of exclusion lies at the center of nearly all subsequent predominant forms of American masculinity: either you can be part of the group that defines itself as masculine or you cannot. Furthermore, within the masculine group there exist and an additional hierarchy that determines exactly how masculine one can be. Those who fulfill some but not at all of the masculine requirements may gain access to some forms of masculinity but not others, with certain masculine traits being viewed as more important than others.^13 This phenomenon is known among masculinities studies scholars as hegemonic masculinities. Sociologist and Professor Jeff Hearn outlines another key aspect of hegemonic masculinities: “Hegemony involves both the consent of some men, and, in a very different way, the consent of some women to maintain patriarchal (^12) Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, (Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963), 128. (^13) Stefan Dudnik, Karen Hagemann, and John Tosh, Masculinities in politics and war, 42.
than those who cannot.^18 The status of men who are considered less-masculine than others is often one that affords them fewer opportunities and makes their lives significantly more difficult. This is because men who are able to preform hegemonic masculinities better than others will find it easier to attain power in the societies that operate under these structures. In turn, powerful men continue to reinforce these hegemonic masculine norms in order to maintain and even strengthen their hold on power over others. If this system were to fall apart, major power structures that govern the workings of society such as government, business, and war would face tremendous changes in their structure, something that is viewed as a threat by the men who maintain control over these power structures.^19 In Full Metal Jacket , Kubrick is not as concerned with the advent of American masculinities as he is with how they manifest in American life. In particular, Kubrick uses Full Metal Jacket to explore how hegemonic masculinity functions as a system for maintaining hierarchy and order within the armed forces, and its ability to coerce soldiers into acting oftentimes against their best interests. To do so, Kubrick portrays hegemonic masculinities in a dramatic and often unflattering manner that demonstrates how one’s ability to excel militarily is often equally dependent on his ability to preform and adhere to hegemonic masculinities as it is on his basic ability to preform the functions of a solider. It is through these depictions that viewer sees the primary hegemonic masculinities emerge: the ability of a given individual’s ability to express violent tendencies, the ability of to express homophobic and (^18) Jeff Hearn, "From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men," 56. (^19) Jeff Hearn, "From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men," 59.
misogynistic viewpoints, and the ability to demonstrate self-sufficiency, meaning the ability to define oneself as a grown man rather than as a boy. These hegemonic masculinities function through two primary means: the ability of men to contribute to rhetoric that promotes these norms, and their ability to fulfill the physical requirements that fulfill these norms. The aim of this thesis is to demonstrate that, through his portrayal of hegemonic norms in Full Metal Jacket , Director Stanley Kubrick demonstrates that these norms are arbitrary, constructed, and serve simply to maintain a hierarchy of power through which soldiers can be coerced into acting in ways that are oftentimes against their best interests. In turn, Kubrick demonstrates via four primary character arcs the detrimental, counterproductive, and artificial nature of this system of hegemonic masculine norms, offering one character as a possible alternative to how men can successfully subvert some of these norms without facing significant backlash. This thesis argues that, in portraying a system of societal order as relying on arbitrary and constructed hegemonic masculinities, Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket simultaneously critiques hegemonic masculine norms while demonstrating to viewers possible methods for their successful subversion through maintenance of personal identity. While there are countless works that deal with the portrayal of masculinities in film, it seems there is a gap in literature regarding film that functions as a criticism of masculinity itself. In particular, there seems to be very little literature that specifically analyzes Kubrick’s approach to portraying and critiquing structures of masculinity. Gerri Reaves from Film Quarterly, with his article entitled From
groups.^21 While they all explore gender relations and particularly the role of masculinity in these relations, they fail to provide a complete exploration of their implications. Author Loren Baritz’s Backfire: A History of How American Culture Led Us into Vietnam and Made Us Fight the Way We Did, examines the role of moral superiority in masculinity as it relates to the war in Vietnam: ““In countless ways Americans know in their gut – the only place myths can live – that we have been Chosen [sic] to lead the world in public morality and to instruct it in political virtue.”^22 While it addresses the important notion of masculinity as a form of superiority, it does not explore its manifestations in popular media such as Full Metal Jacket. Manhood in the Age of Aquarius by Tim Hodgdon provides an excellent study of the antiwar movement through the lens of hegemonic masculinity, though not as it relates to film.^23 While Manhood in America and Men’s Lives by Michael Kimmel serves as a thorough and necessary study of general American masculinities against which one can compare those seen in FMJ, there was little literature the attempts to do so. Though articles such as Maricondi’s “Full Metal Jacketing, or Masculinity in the Making” and Susan White’s “Male Bonding, Hollywood Orientalism” focused on dynamics of masculinities in the film, neither provided analysis of the entire film (^21) Susan White, “Male Bonding, Hollywood Orientalism, and the Repression of the Feminine in Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket," In Inventing Vietnam: The War in Film and Television , edited by Anderegg Michael, 222, Temple University Press, 1991, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14btcb5.15. (^22) Loren Baritz, Backfire: a history of how American culture led us into Vietnam and made us fight the way we did , (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 24. (^23) Tim Hogdon, Manhood in the Age of Aquarius: masculinity in two countercultural communities, 1965- 83 , (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009).
and instead spoke to specific scenes with analysis very limited in scope. Additionally, none spoke to the aspect of hegemonic masculinities in the film, and instead discussed masculinities in the broader context of social dynamics. While these articles occasionally cited well-known masculinities studies academics such as Kimmel, none attempted to ground their work in masculinities studies theories and instead only mentioned them as necessary to explain a broader point. The glaring examples of the harmful nature of masculinity in Full Metal Jacket seem too important to ignore. While authors such as Zivah Perel with his article “Joker’s Dual Narratives: Individuality and Group Identity in Stanley Kubrick’s Marine Corps” attempt to tackle the criticism of Marine Corps culture in Full Metal Jacket, it seems the role of masculinity is often passed over. Thus, this thesis attempts to fill an important gap in academia by merging the disciplines of masculinities studies and film studies to reveal a deeper understanding of the ways in which Full Metal Jacket calls into question the structure of hegemonic masculinities and their role in creating hierarchies of power. In turn, its goal is to demonstrate the important role film plays in illuminating important aspects of American culture. To do so, the thesis is broken into four chapters as well as a conclusion section. The first chapter is titled “‘Gruntspeak’ and the Rhetoric of Masculinity.” The aim of this chapter is to outline the how hegemonic masculinities are constructed in Full Metal Jacket using the rhetorical devices spoken by Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. To do so, the chapter will first demonstrate the importance of rhetoric in establishing hegemonic masculinities, namely the rejection of the feminine, the denunciation of homosexuality, and repeated threats of violence. Through
Hartman and later commit suicide. Through discussion of the role of the system of hegemonic masculinities in the death of Private Pyle and the murder of Hartman, this chapter will demonstrate how a system of hegemonic masculinities as means for maintaining order and hierarchy is an inherent flawed system that poses considerable dangers to the group as a whole. The fourth and final chapter is titled “Successful Subversion and Fear of the Female” and aims to demonstrate how the character arcs of Joker and the female sniper serve to challenge conceptions of hegemonic masculinity. To do so, the chapter will highlight and discuss the ways in which Joker successfully subverts hegemonic masculinities without facing typical backlash from the group of which he is a part. In analyzing Joker’s actions through techniques of film analysis and masculinities studies analysis, this chapter will demonstrate how his character serves as a possible alternative course of action for those who live in a society governed by hegemonic masculinities. In analyzing the character of the female sniper through film analysis and masculinities studies analysis, this chapter will demonstrate the illogical nature of hegemonic masculinities and their rejection the female in an effort to show how Kubrick critiques these systems in broader society. The intention of these four chapters in total is to provide the reader with an understanding of how hegemonic masculinities are created and function, how and why they fail, and how they may be approached differently in the aims of explaining director Stanley Kubrick’s critiques of hegemonic masculinities in broader American society.
There are two primary methods Kubrick employs to establish the hegemonic masculinities that determine the hierarchy of male dominance within the groups of men seen onscreen: masculine rhetoric and masculine action. In turn, these methods determine the state of control for a given character in relation to the hierarchy of masculine power. Those at the top of the pecking order experience the most control in their day-to-day lives. They are able to influence the actions of other men, command respect from both subordinates and superiors, and achieve relative success in their endeavors in a military context. Those at the bottom of the pecking order generally face severe consequences. They have trouble influencing or commanding respect from others, face profound obstacles in achieving military success, and are forced to change their ways or risk eventual death, bodily harm, or complete exclusion from the hierarchy of power. This chapter will highlight the important role verbal rhetoric plays in establishing benchmarks for success as well as the ways in which performance of this rhetoric allows for those in positions of subordinated masculinity to gain a better foothold in the masculine hierarchy. The opening scene of Full Metal Jacket begins with close-up and steady shots of the faces of the new recruits as they have their heads quickly and aggressively shaved. By showing each recruit in sequence as they have the same act performed on them, the viewer of the film is left with the impression that these men are being stripped of their identities. They are no longer individuals but rather pieces of a collective whole. The effect this has on the masculine hierarchy of each soldier is to place them all in a position of equality at the bottom rung. Among masculinities
the phony-tough and the crazy-brave.” Immediately Joker establishes the two qualities expected of the Marine recruits: toughness, whether it is genuine or faked, and a level of bravery that exceeds that of the normal person. These are qualities to be demonstrated and proven, thus it should follow that the group will create a system in which those who possess those qualities will excel. This phenomenon is further explained and simplified by anthropologist Lionel Tiger: “All individuals have some talent for the solution of problems and the accomplishment of tasks. Each community will have a set of appropriate tests and standards in terms of which individual ability can be applied.”^26 Thus enters the dominant figure who is in charge of creating such standards: Sergeant Hartman. Hartman can be thought of as the propagator of the hegemonic masculinities that Kubrick wishes to highlight in Full Metal Jacket. While he has not necessarily determined these norms himself, he is in charge of instituting them and ensuring his recruits adhere to the hegemony. Though Kubrick uses Hartman’s onscreen action to demonstrate his role in propagating hegemonic masculinities, his primary role in constructing the hegemony is through his verbal rhetoric. Make no mistake; the dialogue onscreen is not simply intended to immerse the viewer in the life of a Marine grunt. It is a figural device used to demonstrate the way in which masculine rhetoric is used as a means for controlling the thoughts of subordinates and maintaining an established social hierarchy within the group of recruits. Such rhetoric is referred to generally as “gruntspeak,” and scholars contend such rhetoric deals principally with themes of misogyny, violence, and (^26) Lionel Tiger, Men in groups , (New York: Random House, 1970), 58.
homophobia.^27 The first example of gruntspeak as a means for social control that this thesis will address is its explicit and complete denunciation of all things feminine in order to create a more cohesive group. By expunging the feminine, Hartman attempts to ensure that his recruits will view all things female as an external threat against which they must protect themselves by proving their ability to preform masculine norms. It does not take long before Hartman expresses the importance of being a male and the negative associations with feminine qualities. Indeed in his second line of dialogue he commands his recruits to “sound off like you got a pair,” and moments later addresses them as women. “If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training … you will be a weapon, you will be a minister of death, praying for war.” In his addressing the recruits as women during their first interaction, Hartman immediately associates a position of subordinated masculinity with displaying feminine characteristics. Asking recruits to address him like they “got a pair” indicates that a weak or insufficient response is akin to lacking a defining phallic component of masculinity. More than that, it presupposes that the men are not only lacking testicles and in turn their ability to procreate, but that by through their rhetoric and response to Hartman they can prove that this is incorrect. The effect of these short lines of dialogue is twofold: it simultaneously excludes women from the process of completing training and becoming a Marine, while also outlining the manner in which recruits can prove their avoidance of (^27) Ray Bourgeois Zimmerman, "Gruntspeak: Masculinity, Monstrosity and Discourse in Hasford's The Short-Timers", American Studies 40, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 67, Accessed 2018, https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/2690/2649&a=bi&pagenumber=1& w=100.
