The Concept of Machismo

The following discussion of the concept of "machismo" appeared on WMST-L in 
November/December 1994.  Of related interest may be the file entitled
Marianismo: Origin and Meaning.  For additional WMST-L files available on the 
Web, see the WMST-L File Collection.

 
I'm doing research on Latino families and have been struck by some
contradictions/paradoxes.
 
On the one haand, some reputable writers hve argued (but with little
empirical data to support their positions) that machismo is a stereotype.
On the other hand, Bettina Flores (in *Chiquita's Cocoon*, 1994) maintains
that machismo is still a crucial factor in most Latino families.
 
So...is machismo being de-emphasized by some scholars because of political
correctness? Is Flores' research flawed because it doesn't take social
class into account (e.g., machismo might be more common among working
classes where the wife is not employed outside the home?) Is machismo
alive and well across all socioeconomic classes?
 
I have, by the way, seen all the reserach, I think, that describes the
positive aspects of machismo such as including courage, honor, repect for
others as well as the notion of providing for one's family and maintaining
close ties with the extended family.
 
n. Benokraitis (eanbmano  @  ube.ub.umd.edu), University of Baltimore

 
Re: machismo and SES - the work of Baca Zinn sheds some light on this.  She
has an article "Chicano Men and Masculinity" that was orginally in "The
Journal of Ethnic Studies" 10:2, but was reprinted in _The Sociology of
Gender_ ed by L Kramer.  In this article, Baca Zinn dismisses cultural
explanations of machismo in favor of more structural explanations.  The
article also gives a good review of literature on machismo.
    - Cecilia        Julagay  @  ucrac1.ucr.edu

 
Some research has shown that machismo is regarded differently by native
Spanish speakers from the popular non-native speakers' idea of what it is.
You say in your post that you have seen all the research that describes
the positive aspects of machismo. I would ask the additional cultural question
--not if it is politically correct to ignore the negative aspects, but how
intrinsic it is to the culture.
 
The origins of machismo are found in the Spanish traditions of patriarchy,
that placed great importance on one's ties with nobility; if one had an
ancestor who had found in the Crusades, so much the better. Certain standards
of behavior were expected of an hidalgo--including swordsmanship, horsemanship,
chivalry & formal education. (James Lockhart, _Early Latin America_ , Cambridge
University Press, 1983)
 
For an interesting discussion and a valuable bibliography, see Alfredo Mirande
"Que gacho es ser macho: It's a Drag to be a Macho Man," in Aztlan: Journal of
Chicano Studies,(Vol. 17, Number 2. Fall 1986.)
 
You should also consider the tradition of Marianismo (the glorification of wo-
men with the Virgin Mary as the archetype.)
 
 
I am, incidentally, not defending machismo but saying only that it is
an intrinsic part of Latino culture, and it IS different from plain
old garden variety male chauvinism.
 
Rosa Maria Pegueros
 
.......................................................................
Rosa Maria Pegueros             e-mail: pegueros  @  uriacc.uri.edu
Department of History           telephone: (401) 792-4092
217C Washburn Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0817         "Women hold up half the sky."

 
>I am, incidentally, not defending machismo but saying only that it is
>an intrinsic part of Latino culture, and it IS different from plain
>old garden variety male chauvinism.
 
Isn't plain old garden variety male chauvanism an intrinsic part of
Anglo culture in the same way?
----------- Ruth Ginzberg (rginzberg  @  eagle.wesleyan.edu) ------------

 
Responding to Ruth Ginzberg's query, no, I don't think plain old
garden variety "machismo" is the same thing as Latino machismo.  In
Brazil too there is a tradition of what it means to be a man which is
different from the Anglo tradition.  If cultural relativism has taught
us anything (and this is by no means an exculpation), it is to at
least recognize, if not respect, the specifics of different cultural
formations.  I have heard Hispanic and Brazilian women say that the
"machismo" of North American men seems far worse to them than the
Latino counteparts which are less disguised, less full of hidden
resentment, and even a tad aware of their role-playing dimensions. (Of
course one can argue with such a perception. . . .)
 
--

Daphne.Patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

 
What Ginzberg actually suggests is that male chauvinism is an
integral part of Anglo culture "in the same way" as machismo in Latino
culture.  It's this simple equation that I would dispute. As Rosie
Pegueros pointed out, the Marianismo in Latino culture - the
exaltation of mothers - is an integral part of the configuration of
gender roles in Hispanic cultures (and some others, of course). It is
a real source of power of certain types for women, and it is unmatched
by anything in most Protestant cultures.  D.
--

Daphne.Patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

 
Nijole,
 
You might want to look at Tomas Almaguer's piece, "Chicano Men: A
Cartography of Homosexual Identity and Behavior" in _differences_ 3.2
(Summer 1991): 75-100.  It's also reprinted in _The Lesbian and Gay
Studies Reader_ edited by Henry Abelove et. al. (New York: Routledge,
1993).
 
He has a discussion of machismo as it constructs Chicano gendered
and sexual identities, and offers a feminist & gay-positive critique
of it while at the same time offering some critiques of anglo
understandings of Chicano masculinity.
 
I think it's an important contribution to the work on machismo as it
extends the analysis beyond gender to sexuality.  He's also sensitive to
the structural differences between Anglo and Chicano culture: a central
part of his argument is that the Anglo sexual/gender system for males is
different from that of the Chicano system.
 
Best to you!
Mark Kerr
Department of English
Women's Studies Program
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA  93106
kerr  @  humanitas.ucsb.edu

 
Clarification (I *knew* I shouldn't have posted a 1-liner):
 
I did *NOT* mean to suggest that Latino "machismo" and Anglo "male
chauvanism" are the same thing, or are no different from one another,
or that I don't believe in, or know about, or understand, cultural
diversity.
 
I *did* mean to suggest that each is *culturally embedded* in its
respective culture in similar, parallel ways.  I.e., I was hoping to
comment that I do not think that Latino "machismo" is culturally
embedded but that Anglo "male chauvanism" is not -- I believe they are
BOTH culturally embedded, in their respective (different) cultures, of
course.
----------- Ruth Ginzberg (rginzberg  @  eagle.wesleyan.edu) ------------

 
It is true that both Anglo and Spanish systems have certain patriarchal
aspects, and that they are intrinsic parts of each culture, but they are not
the  same, they have distinct histories and different developmental paths.
 
I don't have the space here to do a comprehension comparison of the two
histories, but I invite you to compare Spanish Jurisprudence with English Com-
mon law and you will see that there are huge differences in ownership of prop-
erty, modes of alienation, and rights. Under English Common Law, women were the
property of men. That is not true in Spanish law. Moreover, a Spanish settler
could come to the Americas only with the permission of his wife. If he
was here without it, we would be deported--it was the reality, not just the
law.
 
There is a tendency sometimes, when we are unacquainted with other cultures
to say, as my 83-year uncle says, "In my country, all the same only different."
Machismo, I will repeat, is not the same as male chauvinist which has deep
roots not only in custom and tradition but in Anglo law.
 
Rosa Maria Pegueros
 
.......................................................................
Rosa Maria Pegueros             e-mail: pegueros  @  uriacc.uri.edu
Department of History           telephone: (401) 792-4092
217C Washburn Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0817         "Women hold up half the sky."

 
I certainly agree with the notion of developing an awareness of cultural
relativity.  However, some cultural proactices cannot be respected.  For
example, a subsaharan African form of machismo dictates female circumcisonn
which is admittedly an extreme manifestation.  I'm wondering if any respect
is due to any social structure whether patriarchal or not that relies on
the subjugation of its membership.

 
"Patriarchy" is a term that is true in a particular place and time."Machismo"
is also a term that, while used as loosely as patriarchy is also location-
and time-specific.
 
I am certainly not defending any and all cultural practices just because
they are not U.S. practices, but I am saying that one may have a skewed under-
standing of a term because of one's own history and tradition. To compare
machismo with the traditions that encourage clitoridectomies may be appropriate
under certain circumstances, but not in the broad-brush way that your message
implies.
 
Rosa Maria Pegueros
 
.......................................................................
Rosa Maria Pegueros             e-mail: pegueros  @  uriacc.uri.edu
Department of History           telephone: (401) 792-4092
217C Washburn Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0817         "Women hold up half the sky."

 
> I certainly agree with the notion of developing an awareness of cultural
> relativity.  However, some cultural proactices cannot be respected.  For
> example, a subsaharan African form of machismo dictates female circumcisonn
> which is admittedly an extreme manifestation.  I'm wondering if any respect
> is due to any social structure whether patriarchal or not that relies on
> the subjugation of its membership.
>
I am not aware that "respect" in the sense meant by the above posting
was an element in any of the preceding postings.  My understanding is
that the discussion was (merely) about the tendency to see one form of
machismo as "just like" or as "similarly embedded" as another. I don't believe
that any feminist can be a genuine cultural relativist; that seems
like rather an oxymoron. But I do think it very important to avoid
reducing different (even though related) things all to the same thing.
Apart from everything else, such an intellectual move leads to gross
oversimplifications and a flattening out of complexity.
 
--

Daphne.Patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

 
Regarding Patricia Owen's comment on female
genital mutilation, the concept of cultural relativism,
popularized by anthropologists,  is widely confused
with ethical relativism, a position that came out of
philosophy.  The latter, as popularized by us
one-time hippie types, was a defense of our
rejection of mainstream U.S. morality that ran
something like:  "Since there are no universally
accepted standards of value, any value system is
as good as any other."  The anthropological
concept, on the other hand, is merely a
methodological tool:  "There are no universal
standards for evaluating the meaning of a custom.
If you want to understand its meaning or the role
that it plays, you should interpret or analyze it in the
context of the culture to which it belongs."  This
position rejects ethnocentric condemnation of
difference as "bad" only because ethnocentrism
interferes with valid interpretation of the meaning
of the custom in question or its functional role in the
society which practices it.  But this does not
require that one also adopt a position of moral
relativism and respect the custom.  Thus it is
possible to analyze relativistically, but still reject the
custom politically.  A feminist examination of the
function of genital mutilation would include
consideration of the role it plays in perpetuating
the subordination of women, an effect that we may
reject as incompatible with a recognition of
women's humanity and therefore entitlement tothe
human rights this custom violates
 
Richley Crapo
rcrapo  @  wpo.hass.usu.edu

 
Though I am terribly busy getting ready for my upcoming move to the US,
I just could not let the discussion on Machismo go by without adding my
two cents worth opinion.
 
Rosie rightly reminds us that in Spain, women were not legally seen as
the property of men. However, we cannot forget that the Iberian Peninsula
(spelling ?) was under Moorish domination for over a century, and that this
left deep marks on the way women were to be treated, and on the brand of
Machismo that ended up hitting the shores of Brazil, for instance.
 
During colonial times, Brazil was under the 'Ordenacoes
Filipinas' (King Phillipe's Ordinations), a legacy from Spain's
domination over Portugal. According to the 'Ordenacoes', the wife was not
exactly her husband's property, yet he had total control over her and her
life. In case of adultery on the wife's part, the husband/patriarch had
every right to kill her, in defense of the honor of the family. To this
day, a lot of men who kill their wives in Brazil, still get off being
condemned, claiming they did it in defense of honor - the macho's honor,
that is.
 
As a Brazilian, I must disagree with an earlier post (I can't remember
who did it) that stated that Brazilian women think that the 'veiled' male
chauvinism in the US is worse than the open, institutionalized  'machismo'
in Brazil. Sorry, friends, but I think that both, each on its own way,
stink ! They may be different in form and degree, that is, 'culturally
different', but they have in common the fact of  oppressing women.
 
Cecilia Sardenberg
NEIM/Universidade Federal da Bahia
Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
cecisard  @  ufba.br

 
Responding to Cecilia's comments: I did not speak for "Brazilian
women."  My earlier post merely reported that I have known Latin
American women in this country to express the view I reported. As far
as Brazil is concerned, what should be of interest to North American
feminists is that like many other Latin American countries, Brazilian
law is far more progressive on the subject of workers' rights and
women's rights (including, in effect, an "equal rights amendment "in the
1988 constitution) than the U.S.  This is not to say the law is not
contravened, ignored, distorted--or that the problems faced by women
are not severe. But the law IS there, more revisions of ordinary
legislation are underway, and what protections already exist have been very
effectively used by some feminist jurists.
--

Daphne.Patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

 
First, my apologies to Daphne for misrepresenting what she had said
earlier about Latin American women (I had accidentally deleted her original
message).
 
Second, I agree with her that Brazil, as other Latin American countries,
has a much more progressive legislation in certain aspects than the US.
It should be stressed, however, that the more 'progressive' steps in that
direction were only taken in the 1988 Federal Constitution, and only as a
result of the organized struggle of women in staging demonstrations,
writing up petitions, collecting signatures and lobbying intensively in
Congress, with the help of some of the few Congresswomen in office at the
time. By the way, one of them, Lidice da Matta, is now the mayor of
Salvador,(a city of 2.5 million people, capital of Bahia, where I live),
being elected into office with a political plataform that emphasized women's
rights.
 
As Daphne observed, the progressive legislation is often contravened.
Besides, the bulk of the ordinary legislation to implement the principles
included in the Federal COnstitution has yet to be formulated and, worse
still, we have just come out of a long fight led by RedeREVI, to prevent
major changes in the 1988 Const., which included over 300 ammendments
that, if passed, would take away the constitutional rights we had
just secured.
 
Which brings me to my third and last point: despite this more
'progressive' legislation, 'machismo' in Brazil remains institutionalized
and very much alive and kicking, or better said, and 'killing'. Witness
the ever rizing numbers of women beaten up, raped, mamed, murdered all over
the country. And here too, violent machismo does not discriminate in
terms of social class, age, and color... All women are 'fair game',
reazon why the fight against violence and thus machismo, runs accross all
the different segments of the women's movement here, being one of the few
issues that really brings them together.
 
As a concluding note, let me just say that 'backlash' is also growing
here. The MMM, that is, the 'Movimento Machista Mineiro' (Machista
Movement from the state of Minas Gerais), recently gained the headlines
in national news by electing Itamar Franco, Brazil's president, as the
'Machao (Big Macho) of the Year'...
 
Cecilia Sardenberg
NEIM/Universidade Federal da Bahia
Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
cecisard  @  ufba.br

 
Isn't patriarchy a useful concept precisely because it allows us to
understand forms of male dominance that are not direct in the way implied in
the recent posting about genital mutilation. My research is in a completely
different area but just because individual men do not consciously intend to
use a practice to dominate women or individual women experience a practice
as having positive aspects (or being generally positive) doesn't mean it
doesn't also contribute to women's subordination.
 
Jo VanEvery
Dept. of Sociology and social Anthropology
Keele University
UK
soa00  @  cc.keele.ac.uk