ABSTRACT
This thesis examines how intimacy—both physical and emotional—in American football affects masculinity. This research is important because it questions the role of masculinity in a sport considered the most popular in terms of participation, attendance at games, and broadcast viewership (Miaschi, 2017). Hegemonic masculinity theory and inclusive masculinity theory are used to explain how masculinity is constructed through football. Using naturalistic observation, interviews with seven Michigan State University (MSU) football players, and an analysis of photographs, I found that football players achieve more intimate relationships with other players on their team when compared to relationships they have with other men outside their sport. A few surprises I found during interviews include injury during football is not treated as harshly as it once was, being emotional is an important part of being a man, and more. I visually present the intimate and masculine aspects of football I witnessed in photographs I created as an employee of Big Ten Network during MSU football games during the 2017 and 2018 seasons, and I offer my analysis of intimacy and masculinity in this sport, which includes and explains the meaning behind the power paradox.
According to Sabo & Runfola (1980), “masculinity is defined largely in terms of power,” in a capitalistic society (p. 80). In the media, women and femininity are constantly shown as inferior through mediated sports while men and masculinity are shown as superior (McKay, 2000).
For most of history, gender has been separated into a binary of male and female. Females are viewed as graceful, empathetic, compassionate, and nurturing while males are viewed as strong, courageous, aggressive, and protective. When Simone de Beauvoir (1989) claims, “one is not born, but rather, becomes a woman,” she is stating that one can “become” a gender through the repetition of gendered acts. Through this she points out that gender is not a stable identity, but rather a dynamic identity instituted through norms and accepted behaviors during a specific time (Butler, 1988).
An interesting consensus has emerged among those who have studied gender and friendship in the United States: Women have deep, intimate, meaningful, and lasting friendships, while men have a number of shallow, superficial, and unsatisfying “acquaintances.” Several commentators have concluded that men’s relationships are shallow because men have been taught to be highly homophobic, emotionally inexpressive, and competitive “success objects” (Messner, 1992, p. 91).
According to Sociologist Lillian Rubin (1990), men are more likely to distance themselves from other men in friendships by participating in activities that are “external” to themselves such as sports (p. 135). Because American men grow up in a culture where intimate relationships between men are not as accepted as intimate relationships between women, men are more likely to view intimate behaviors as homosexual, so men are more likely to “do something” like play video games with friends rather than sit around and discuss the personal aspects of their lives. Due to American cultural norms, men may feel like they cannot participate in the expression of “homosocial intimacy, sadness, or love of their friends” (Anderson, 2011, April, p. 569).
“…Being a man is being able to show your emotions, because I feel like a lot of times men are kind of assumed to not show a lot of emotion or affection or anything like that. But I think that if you’re really a man you wouldn’t care about that and you wouldn’t be scared to show your emotions, which I try to do a lot because that’s something I believe in.” - MSU linebacker Terry O’Connor
While growing up in this “feminized culture,” young boys begin to use words such as girl, p*nsy, woman, and f*g, as interchangeable insults that are used both on and off a sports field for men that exhibit “feminine behaviors” such as giving in to an injury, becoming tired, or becoming upset. Masculinity is constructed through these insults by degrading people who are feminine and/or homosexual by placing them in a non-male category (Messner, 1992). Using these words as insults degrades males who perform poorly on a sports field by placing them in the female or homosexual subordinate group.
The sports world is a “gendered institution” in that it is a social institution created by men for men as a response to their fear of women rising to power. This can be seen through the dominant structures and values within sports, such as power, masculinity, and dominance, which “reflect the fears and needs of a threatened masculinity” (Messner, 1992, p. 16). According to Theberge (1981), many feminist scholars report that the sports world is “a fundamentally sexist institution that is male dominated and masculine in orientation” (p. 342).
The ideological support for the privileged upper- and middle-class, white male stems from the social Darwinist belief that natural hierarchy is the result of competition. Due to this belief, sport’s structure, value, and ideology is “deeply gendered,” meaning boys are experiencing a “gendering process” when participating in sports. While dominating another team in a sports game, men are simultaneously learning how to dominate women in everyday life (Messner, 1992, p. 19).
Sports are based on the infatuation of masculinity and the male body and the degradation of females and femininity. The expected amount of violence and aggressiveness a male or female should exhibit is a primary barrier between the two genders. Boys are encouraged to roughhouse and fight, but only with other men. Girls are taught to be lady-like and reserved while boys learn about “manhood” through heroic violence in wars, gangs, video games, sports, and fraternity hazing. All of these manhood rituals prove that one must “be tough and ready to inflict pain in order to get ahead and become a man” (Sabo, 1980, p. 113).
From a young age, boys are not only learning how to be successful in throwing, catching, and hitting a ball, but they are also learning to rise to the top of the social hierarchy. The British created and constructed sports within their public schools in hopes of preparing boys to one day rule the Empire. Team sports are based on the dominance over others and respect and compliance with authority. Men also learn initiative, self-reliance, loyalty, and obedience while playing sports. As a result, the British were able to teach boys to reach a certain kind of manliness, whose primary goal was to dominate over nonwhite, colonized people. Those who hold power created sports in hopes of raising more powerful, white men. Men playing sports not only hope to gain the emotional friendships they have been craving, but they must also succeed and rise to power against the other team (Messner, 1992).
The sports world works as a part of the powerful society in American culture. “The institution of sports functions in part to preserve the unequal distribution of wealth, power, opportunity, and authority between men and women found in the major, social, political, and economic institutions of American society” (Sabo, 1980, p. 7). An example of this can be seen in the Super Bowl. Every year, millions of dollars are spent on a football game—not only on the performances and the players, but around $400 million are spent on the ads that are shown during the game (Calfas, 2019). The female cheerleaders on the sideline wear short skirts and cheer on the aggressive men that must fight for the ultimate power in the stadium. According to Sabo & Runfola (1980), “the Super Bowl’s first appeal to the viewers is patriotism and power” (p. 20). With money comes power, and both of these elements are important aspects of football and masculinity.
Masculinity and American nationalism are closely tied to football, which means football tends to normalize a version of masculinity that values playing through pain to display toughness (Sanderson, 2016). Sports that include a battle between individuals or a team allow men to engage in “ritualized and controlled physical violence in a socially acceptable way” (Besnier, 2018, p. 145). The football field itself allows for such violence to take place because it is the setting of a combat. The “young, muscle-bound, and willing to commit violence to himself and others” reputation of football players allows for this extreme type of masculinity to be placed at the top of the hierarchy of men in the United States (Anderson, 2012).
The normalizing of pain is very common within sports culture, and this can be seen with the establishment of the pain principle, “a patriarchal, cultural belief that contends pain is inevitable and that enduring pain, rather than giving in to it, is a vital step in one’s character development and worth” (Sanderson, 2016, p. 6). Men go the extra mile to be seen as anything less than this hegemonic ideal by doing things like playing through injuries or using phrases such as, “man up,” or “no pain, no gain” to fight through pain and be seen as masculine.
An example of normalizing pain comes from the case of Derek Sheely, a division III football player who was experiencing bleeding after going through full-contact practice drills during August 2011. Sheely told his coach about his headache, but the coach told him to “Stop your b*tching and moaning and quit acting like a p*ssy and get back out there” (Sanderson, 2016, p. 7). Moments after this, Sheely collapsed and ended up dying later that week from brain trauma.
Sports are a gateway for men to have intimate connections with each other. Men are allowed to enjoy being around other men—maybe even become close—without having to worry about damaging their “firm ego boundaries” and “their fragile masculine identities,” while playing sports (Messner, 1992, p. 91). In this context, men are not afraid to become intimate with each other because physical contact seems to “magically” lose all homosexual meaning when it happens within a sports game (Reiner, 2017, p. 9).
“Momentary touches, they say—whether an exuberant high five, a warm hand on the shoulder, or a creepy touch to the arm—can communicate an even wider range of emotion than gestures or expressions, and sometimes do so more quickly and accurately than words” (Carey, 2010, p. 2).
Because physical touch can reduce stress, a high five, a pat on the back, or a hug can release oxytocin, “a hormone that helps create a sensation of trust,” which will result in a better sports team (Carey, 2010, p. 12). And to succeed in team sports such as football, a team must be able to trust each other and cooperate.
“I wouldn’t say [football] is the classic definition of intimate, but I would say you are definitely around guys a lot, you shower in the same thirty [people] shower room, you’re with these guys…all the time, you see them all the time, you interact and hang out all the time.” - MSU quarterback Brian Lewerke
“…We are all fighting for the same goal. We’re all here for the same reasons. We want a national championship. We want a Big Ten championship. We want to succeed. But we want to succeed also off the field. So, we all have that common goal, and when you strive for a common goal, there’s always that sense of brotherhood that comes out, and so I believe that is what makes the sport intimate. [It] is because we are all so supportive, extremely supportive, of one another. So, we will refer to each other as brothers” - MSU punter Bryce Baringer
Homophobia can create a barrier to the male intimacy that can be achieved through sports. Athletes are constantly perceived as “cultural symbols of masculine heterosexual virility,” so homophobia then creates a “narrow cultural definition of masculinity,” which keeps men from having intimate relationships with each other (Messner, 1992, p. 24, 36).
“In 1994, I became America’s first (or at least the first publicly recognized) openly gay high school coach. Although I received tremendous support from the high school runners that I coached, I was maligned by the administration. Worse, my athletes were victimized by many members of the high school’s football team, assumed gay through a guilt-by-association process” (Anderson, 2011, April, p. 566).
In 1975, former professional running back David Kopay became one of the first professional athletes to come out as homosexual. Kopay relates his extra drive to perform well in football to black athletes who came from lower-class neighborhoods to perform well in professional sports. While the black athletes proved that they were not inferior because of their race, Kopay proved that he was not any less of a man because he was homosexual (Kopay, 1977). He was able to use his aggression on the football field “as an outlet for suppressed sexual drives” (Sabo, 1980, p. 43).
“The so-called three-point stance involves bending over in a distinct stooped position with one’s rear end exposed. It is an unusual position (in terms of normal life activities) and it does make one especially vulnerable to attack from behind, that is, vulnerable to a homosexual attack. In some ways, the posture might be likened to what is termed ‘presenting’ among nonhuman primates. Presenting refers to a subordinate animal’s turning its rump towards a higher ranking or dominant one. The center thus presents to the quarterback—just as linemen do to the backs in general. [Sports Journalist] George Plimpton has described how the quarterback’s ‘hand, the top of it, rests up against the center’s backside as he bends over the ball—medically, against the perineum the pelvic floor.’ We know that some dominant nonhuman primates will sometimes reach out to touch a presenting subordinate in similar fashion” (Dundes, 1978, p. 81).
“[The physical contact] is part of the game. That’s just something you kind of learn when you play football, you know. I’ll smack a guy on the butt, and it doesn’t mean anything weird. It’s just how the game works.” - MSU quarterback Brian Lewerke
Butler (1998) theorizes that gender is just an act within historical context and does not really mean anything to one’s own body. “In the theatre, one can say, ‘this is just an act,’ and de-realize the act, make acting into something quite distinct from what is real. Because of this distinction, one can maintain one’s sense of reality in the face of this temporary challenge to our existing ontological assumptions about gender arrangements; the various conventions which announce that ‘this is only a play’ allows strict lines to be drawn between the performance and life” (Butler, 1988, p. 527).
In this context, if the football field is set as a theatre that means the acts of intimacy may be a fake rehearsal or a show put on for an audience. “This is only a play,” or in sports context, “this is only a game,” allows the audience to draw that line between performance and real life. Does this mean that all the hugging, patting, and other touching is just fake intimacy rehearsed for the entertainment of the audience? I do not think so. All the intimacy football players are feeling and displaying on the field is very real, but the “this is only a play” theory allows for these football players to engage in this intimacy on a stage surrounded by an audience without being criticized about their masculinity. Once the football game ends, the players will most likely return to their everyday life where they can continue to be viewed as masculine individuals without having to worry about threatening that masculinity with the intimacy that is demonstrated on the sports field.
Because the male and female genders are constantly compared to one another, it is unfair to judge men’s relationships based on the intimacy that is found in women’s relationships. Since the industrial revolution, love and intimacy has become “feminized,” which can make it difficult for men to feel comfortable engaging in these social conceptions. According to Sociologist Scott Swain (1989), “negative views of ‘male bonding’ are distorted and unfair,” so in our culture sports must be used as a gateway for men to bond and create these connections with each other that are not given to them in everyday life (p. 71, 86).
The power paradox within American football allows for football players to engage in intimate behaviors without having to worry about damaging their masculinity. The emotional and physical intimate behaviors, which tend to be viewed as feminine qualities in everyday life, are used between football players so they can connect with each other in hopes to beat the opposing team thus rising to power.