Music and Difference

By

– April 18, 2008

“I think it ought to have struck some manly man a while ago, perhaps while watching Braveheart, that for a man to really, really thoroughly enjoy Braveheart might be a little queer.”

“I think it ought to have struck some manly man a while ago, perhaps while watching Braveheart, that for a man to really, really thoroughly enjoy Braveheart might be a little queer.”

• Share

About the Author

3 Comments

1. The Dane

   Posted April 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM

   Wow, this whole time, I’ve always considered Metallica to be the feminization of heavy metal. (Not that that’s a bad thing.) Metallica, unless they’ve changed in the fifteen years since I last listened to them, have always been neat, precise, orderly with their music—almost prissily concerned with the presentation of their songs. They are, I think, musical dandies. Fops.

   This is why, at least in the late ’80s and early ’90s, Metallica was the culmination of nerd-rock. Just as the stereotypical nerd was fastidious and effeminate, so was Metallica. Of course, it was a disguise as well. At a passing listen, Metallica seems loud, violent, and I suppose pretty manly. They wear the mask of brute masculinity. And therefore, were the perfect guise for the nerd who was tired of being picked on for his effeminacy, but still wanted to maintain his prim sensibilities.

   To the inattentive, the kid listening to Master of Puppets might seem some kind of rough, some kind of manly, just for the sake of the heavy guitars and drums and the images of soldiers’ helmets and automatic rifles on his shirts. And since most bullies really don’t take the time to think about these things, such kids would get a pass so long as they projected such an image. But inside, they were reveling in the joy of being able to listen openly to such sweetly composed melodies.
   ________________________

   But at the end of the day, I’m not sure what masculinity or femininity (or our preferences toward either of those artificially pronounced descriptions) has at all to do with our sexuality. The author suggests that reveling in masculinity is, well, pretty gay. I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that. I don’t even think that men who revel in femininity having any necessary connection to homosexuality either. The whole presentation just seems fabricated to me.

   I mean devotion wholly to either masculinity or femininity may be lame, sure—but a devotion that finds kinship with homosexuality? Nah.

   The author describes homosexuality to be, on some level, the inability to appreciate the Other. This too strikes as inaccurate (especially with the rise of bisexuality). Rather, anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate that many homosexuals (men at least, since that’s from where my anecdotals largely come) have plenty of appreciation for the opposite sex. It’s just that, despite their great appreciation for the Other, they like to have sex with their own kind.

2. Scott Schultz

   Posted April 18, 2008 at 7:38 PM

   Ya. I’m with you on the whole Metallica is “weak” metal thing. I thought, judging from the other artists that guy listed, that in context they’re still a good example of hard, violent music.

   And I think all your observations about the “metal kid” are appropriate.

   Frankly, though, I’m still a bit baffled by your distinction between sex and gender. While I appreciate your criticisms of the purveyors of speculative categories, I’m not convinced that a clean break between biology and anthropology can be so easily made. Which is what I perceive you doing. This is especially problematic for me because, just as much as I think the sacramental aspects of the Church are ontologically informative to ecclesiology, so do I think that biological traits inform qualities of personhood.

   There’s obviously tons more to say, here, but I’d just like to invoke my own anectdotal evidence. Homosexual males that I know would hardly reduce their sexuality to the parties with whom they intend to fornicate. For them, to be “gay” is to take on an entire set of mores and mannerisms.

   All this aside, though, I should point out that I wouldn’t say I endorse this author’s thesis as much as I think it’s intriguing and worth reflection.

   I should also add that I listen to music that is far, far more violent than Metallica, but I am (as it turns out) not gay.

   Scott Schultz’s last blog post..Connecting the Dots

3. The Dane

   Posted April 22, 2008 at 5:58 PM

   @Scott – Mostly what I’m questioning is the connection between sex and behaviour. We, as a society, have tied this ill-defined thing called masculinity (an identification of behavioural traits) with maleness. And femininity with femaleness.

   There are three important questions here that I do not think have been adequately answered and I think they are questions that demand answers before we go off making connections between sex and behaviour and tying that into some sort of biblical naturalism.

   1) Of what do these behavioural traits (i.e., masculinity and femininity) consist? When we describe something as masculine, what are we saying about such a thing? When we pin the identifier of feminine to something, of what particular traits does that identifier consist?

   2) Are these two behavioural traits generally applicable to their perceived sexual representatives—i.e., are males generally masculine and females generally feminine?

   3) If there is coordination between behavioural trait and sex (e.g., masculinity to maleness), then from what kind of origin does this coordination hail? Physical? Societal? Spiritual?

   None of these questions have been answered to any degree to which I believe it responsible for us to make assumptions about masculinity and femininity being other than social constructions created to describe a purely corporeal and societal reality. And more, I think the large burden or proof here rests on those who would claim that connection.

   It’s fine for you to say that biological traits inform personhood, but without being given a reason for that suspicion (though I’m sure you do have a reason), we’re left with not a lot of stuff we can talk about with any certainty or value. And of course, there are questions about the personhood of those divorced from the corporeal (e.g., the dead and the pre-incarnate Christ). Further, knowing nothing reliable about the particulars of our eternal state, we can’t even suggest with any certainty that the sexes will even survive into the coming age.
   __________________________________

   At the end of the day, my observation is that most people are a curious blend of those traits loosely divided between masculinity and femininity. Males are rarely all masculine and females are rarely all feminine. Whatever we deem those categories to contain.

   I think we do ourselves and our Christian society a disservice by not considering more attentively the possible mythologization of gender.
   ___________________________________

   @Rich – Are the Gravatars new or have I just been oblivious forever and a daze.