Meaning of Macho: A Theoretical Approach

                                  

   Meaning of Macho illustrates how cultural changes have altered the perceptionof masculinity within Mexican society. First,  if  one considers this study as a  reflection based on the political economy theory, one will be able to analyze the  following events  as  causes of  greater cultural changes. For example, 1982 economic crisis   had forced women to find out a paid occupation outside the boundaries of Col. Santo Domingo in order to supply a second income or replacer those money entries lost by the massive cut offs. Since  their husband were dissmised from their jobs, women had become in the only providers and consequently, they had achieved independency and respectability. From this perspective, Capitalism  is the main reason of the  cultural evolution of  the notion og  being a “ woman” within  the Col. Santo Domingo,  it has changed from “ la mujer sumisa” to a woman who  is able to earn a living and  fulfill the economic needs of her family. Therefore, men are not essential elements inside the family economy anymore.Infact, a large amount of  women are head of families  in Col. Santo Domingo.

            Added to that, another interesting perspective which can be extrapolated  is new paradigm of being “macho”. The dichotomy macho/ mandilon is considered an old fashion cultural pattern, since young generations  share household chore and parental tasks. Men think of themselves as helpers of their wives rather than lord and masters of their homes and families. However, the  ancient pattern of “ macho” plays a key role in certain  parts of Mexican  society such as the “narco cultura” and   its assimilation of the “narco” as the “ macho”.

            At the same time, the massive introduction of new cultural items, imported from the United States and Europe, such as  birth control, television and  foreing cultural patterns, has supported the ideological scafollding of this change. Nowadays men and women are exposed to  disparate ways of gender stereotypes which defy the old ones and in order to assimilate themselves to these changes, they have adopted as part of their lives. By example, the author points out the case of an 80 years old man who has been recently learnt how to change nappies because he attended a course given by his church. This man explained  his new attitude in order to be prepared when his grandchildren will arrive since he was not able to change his children’s nappies in the past.

            Finally, perception of masculinity has certainly changed within Col. Santo Domingo, however, there are still certain topics considered as   women`s topics such as birth control and cooking ( men are not allowed to get into the kitchen and only women  must worry about taking contraconception pills  to control the  number of children ).In short,  an external event – the 1982 economic crisis – was the starting point of a cultural change whose consequences  have dramatically modify a complete culture. Furthemore, the futuro of the concept “ macho” is still unknown and nobody can predict how further generations will define “macho” and masculinity .

Do electronic sheep dream about thick descriptions?

                A “thick description” is an anthropological interpretation of a gesture within a certain cultural framework (parodies and pastiches are also included here) . However, do those gestures symbolize a hidden code within a specific context? When someone poses at the moment of taking him or her picture, are  those funny, ridiculous, and serious or whatever faces a cultural behavior? Can we consider those fixed expressions social facts? In fact,   body language may change according to the culture of the individual, by example, a gesture has an amusing meaning for a group of people but it  could be very offensive to another. Furthermore, signs and gestures can be interpreted using several  theoretical  analysis, as soon as  we remember what  old good  Saussure taught us  about the double nature of the sign: signifier and signified.

Well, here the billion question comes: how can we include the previous brainstorm into our original subject? If we consider that the signifier is every physical and actual realization of a gesture and the signified is strictly linked with the mental, social and cultural load linked with that, we can include the notions of social facts and thick description within it.

To exemplify   it, we must pay attention to the guys portrayed in the pictures which illustrate this post. They have made some funny faces in front of the camera. Someone may say that these faces are just that, funny.  But, why do these gestures make us think of that? What is the “funny” side of those faces? The signifiers are clear: every individual pulls faces choreographically; mimicking feminine gestures in the first picture and certain facial expressions identified as characteristic features of mental disability.  Since these two guys seem to be average heterosexual and posses a regular intelligence, the only reason to pull those faces is to perform a parody. Or in other words, mimicking women and mentally challenges individuals is funny because it is considered ridiculous. That is the social fact behind that: what we consider funny is the dissociation between the traditional environment of these signifieds (women used as seduction devices and mentally challenged individuals employed as objects of sympathy) and their current signifiers (those two guys). The fact that the two leading characters of these portrayal are young, men, mentally "normal" and straight (as far as I know) exemplifies  that our culture imposes us certain stereotypes as subjects of laughter and mockery.  At the same time, there is a double connotation when a man mimics womanly gestures: he mocks women or he mocks homosexuals (who are traditional portrayed as wannabe women). Additionally, when certain gestures- associated to mental disabilities features- are displayed outside their regular signifiers, a bizarre feeling emerges, i.e. Chilean society excludes mental disables, hence these individuals have an utilitarian function: they are wildcards . We make fun of them because they does not fit within the boundaries of our “normality”, as consequence, what is not “normal” is ridiculous and to be ridiculous means is  funny…for us.

                Finally, there  are  final questions  which surge from this little reflection: are we aware of the stereotypes present in every gesture we make?  Are we  active subjects who question cultural loads imposes to us or are we   replicants  who  just repeat the “software” that society run on us without  doubting, questioning or including new perspectives? Do we have the ability to fight against that?

p.d: It is possible to think that the title doesn’t have any relation to the content of this post, Maybe that is true. However,  I like the  movie and the novel who inspire it  and  I’m having a fever of 38 ºC  while I am writing this post. So I am actually looking how  electric sheep are  grazing around me… 

The ideal of Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin has become the most remarkable ideologist of early American thinking, since he was able to foresee that the importance of religion in early American thinking does not rely in the interference of any clerical entity within America society’s public affairs. On the contrary, this young society framed its deep structure by means of an utilitarian understanding of  religious phenomenon ,i.e.:  principles and values from Christianity are used  to set  the basis of good citizenship.  However, this fact develops its own and peculiar characteristics which are portrayed by Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography.

First, there is a clear evolution of this trend from the theocentric perspective inherited from early protestant thinking which claimed that earthly life is only   a path towards the hereafter.  An example of that is traceable in the following   extract from a Nathan Hale’s Letter, written in 1825: “The evil is that they do not suitably realize the good of spiritual things, and the importance of being interested in the divine” (p.1). However, when Benjamin Franklin argues that “…their aim [of ministers and clergymen] seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good citizens” (p.63) he highlights that all religious institutions   should not   spend its efforts on proselytism. Instead of that, these organizations must encourage their members to reach moral principles in order to become substratum of model citizenship.  In fact, according to Franklin, all beliefs share some common principles, as consequence, none creed is superior to another.   Religious tolerance will facilitate common understanding and by means of applying certain principles shared by all protestant denominations, an individual can practice his faith without succumbing to fanaticism. These principles were listed by Benjamin Franklin as it follows: “I. Keeping holy the Sabbath day. 2. Being diligent in reading the Holy Scriptures. 3. Attending duly the publick worship. 4- Partaking of the Sacrament. 5. Paying a due respect to God's Minister “(p.61)

                As a result, individuals must commit themselves to reach moral perfection, by means of modifying those habits which contradict the values of the protestant ethic of work (frugality, hardworking, among others).  Therefore, the   private practice of these ethical parameters will lead individual to perfection and society to progress. Finally, Benjamin Franklin does not propose an unrealistic mystic manual , on the contrary,  he understands that  the  early American project should found its success on practical parameters as the ideological  background which will reinforces the identity of a   country  which is starting to develop the traces of its future strength and power.

Sources:

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20203/20203.txt

Hale Family Letters