Bear Bodies Bear Masculinity

Bear Bodies, Bear Masculinity: Recuperation, Resistance, or Retreat?
Author(s): Peter Hennen

Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 2005), pp. 25-43
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30044567 .
Accessed: 02/04/2013 16:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and
Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.251.112.209 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:44:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BEAR BODIES, BEAR MASCULINITY

Recuperation, Resistance, or Retreat?
PETERHENNEN
The Ohio State University at Newark
Bears comprisea subcultureof gay menwho valorizethe larger,hirsutebody.Thisresearchinterrogates

Bear culture as a gendered strategyfor repudiatingeffeminacythat simultaneouslychallenges and
reproducesnormsof hegemonicmasculinity.In this research,the authorsituates his ethnographicstudy
of a majormetropolitanBear communityin its social and historical contextto illuminatethisparadox,
with special emphasis on the embodimentof Bear masculinityand its effect on sexual practice. The
authorconcludes that througha process of embodiedagency,Bear cultureyields a numberof sexually
innovativepractices thatdispersepleasure across the bodyand disruptgenitallycentered,phallus-andreceptacle interpretationsof sex. However,the subversivepotential of these practices is significantly
underminedby an attendantset of practices that reflectheteronormativeand hegemonicallymasculine
interpretationsof sex.
Keywords:
masculinity; homosexuality; gay; embodiment; social change
One of the most intriguingfeaturesto appearon the queerculturallandscapein the

past 20 years is the Bear subculture.During that time many gay men seeking to
resist the stereotypicalassociationof homosexualitywith effeminacy have found
the hirsute,masculine image of the Bear enormouslyattractive.For a significant
cohort of men who came out in the late 70s and spent their youth reveling in the
freewheeling post-Stonewall sexual culture, the Bear movement's emphasis on the
appealof the huskymanprovidesan enticingantidoteto the heartbreakof a slowing

metabolism.Consequently,Bearculturehas flourishedin this countryandexpanded
internationally.A resourceWebsite for Bears(http://www.resourcesforbears.com/
CLUBS/US.html)lists 60 active clubs in cities across the United States, 6 in Canada, 14 in Europe,5 in CentralAmerica,and6 in New Zealand/Australia.Bearculture has spawned a number of popular books (The Bear Book, The Bear Book II,
AUTHOR'S NOTE: I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to the members of the Bear community whose
words and vision inform this study. I would also like to sincerely thank Jennifer Pierce, Ron Aminzade,
Douglas Hartmann, Lisa Disch, Gary Thomas, the intrepid women of the Piercing Insights, Christine
Williams, and three anonymous Gender & Society reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.
REPRINTREQUESTS:Peter Hennen, The Ohio State Universityat Newark,Newark,OH 43055.

GENDER& SOCIETY,Vol. 19 No. 1, February2005 25-43
DOI: 10.1177/0891243204269408
2005 Sociologists for Womenin Society
25

26
GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2005
Talesfrom the Bear Cult,Bearotica, TheBear Handbook)and magazines(BEAR

Magazine, American Bear, American Grizzly) and dozens of Bear-relatedWeb
sites. Several dozen Bear organizationssponsor social events, runs, or camping
weekendseveryyear,with the most popularattractingas manyas 800 visitorsfrom
aroundthe world. Interestingly,althoughpeople active in a varietyof queercommunitiesare likely to know somethingaboutBears or Bear culture,the phenomenon is not widely recognizedoutside of these communities.
Just what is a Bear?Responses to this questionreveal a varietyof answersbut
almost all referencethe Bearbody in an attempteitherto describewhatthe typical
Bear looks like or to refutethe idea thatBears can be defined exclusively by their
bodies. As Travis,one of my interviewparticipants,put it, "Youknow, physical
attributessuch as stockiness,height, weight, how much facial fur you have, things
along those lines. But otherpeople see it as being 90 percentattitude,10 percent
looks."WhatconstitutesBearattitude?ResponsesI encounteredrangedfrom"natural,down-to-earth,easy going, likes to havefun"(Larry),"closerto the heterosexual community in their tastes" (Brian), "a sense of independence"(Burt), and
finally "aneasiness with the body"and "themasculinitything"(Grant)."Themasculinitything"withinBearcultureis complex andinextricablytied to the workings
of hegemonicmasculinityoutsideof it. "Ithinksome of whatis really appealingto
me aboutthe Beargroupis thatif you saw these guys on the street,theycouldjust as
easily be rednecksas gay guys,"says Franklin.This suggests thatthe Bear image
not only is conventionallygenderedbutincludesa specificallyclassed presentation
of self.
Bear culturewas bornof resistance.Accordingto historianandfoundingfigure
Les Wright,in the early 1980s men frequentingleatherbars in San Franciscoand
othercities beganplacing a small teddybearin theirshirtor hip pocket as a way of
"refutingthe clone colored-hankycode,"whereby gay leathermenplace different
coloredhankiesin theirbackpocketsto signal theirinterestin a varietyof sex practices. Not willing to be objectifiedandreducedto an interestin one specific sexual
activity,these men sportedteddy bears to emphasize their interestin "cuddling"
(1997b, 21). Accordingto Wright,this was a way of saying, "I'm a humanbeing. I
give and receive affection"(1990, 54).
Bears rejectthe self-conscious, exaggeratedmasculinityof the gay leatherman
in favorof a more"authentic"masculinity.This look includes(butis not limitedto)
jeans, baseball caps, T-shirts,flannel shirts,and beards.To the uninitiated,Bears
seem above all to be strivingfor "regular-guy"status."TheBearlook is all-natural,
rural,even woodsy,"noted SilversteinandPicano;"fullbeardsarecommon, as are
bushy moustaches.. . . They'rejust regularguys-only they're gay" (1992, 12830). But are Bears "justregularguys"?Feminist scholarsKelly and Kane (2001,
342) saw subversivepotentialin this community:"Isthereperhapssomethingradically subversiveof orthodoxmasculinityat work here, despite all the butch trappings? Might not bearsrepresentthe sort of 'marginalizedmen' that Susan Bordo
describes as 'bearersof the shadow of the phallus, who have been the alchemical

Hennen / BEAR BODIES, BEAR MASCULINITY
27
agents disturbingthe (deceptively) stable elements' of orthodoxmasculinityin a

newly percolatingsocial psyche?"
Withthe Bears' emphasison camaraderieinsteadof competition,the rejection
of "bodyfascism"(as evidencedby the acceptanceof heavierand older men), and
by popularizingcuddlingand "theBear hug,"one finds ampleevidence thatthis is
not the type of masculinity that predominatesin other gay cultures. As Wright
remarked,"Competitionwith othergay men for sex partnersandthe depersonalizing effects of a steady stream of sexually consumed bodies is balanced by the
humanizingeffort to ... establishcontact with the person inside of each of those
bodies"(1997c, 10). But at the same time, one finds signs of a recuperativecurrent,
a rejection of the insights of feminism, even outrighthostility. As Lucie-Smith
noted, "Thereis a challenge to aggressivefeminism, which not only seeks female
equality, but often tries to subject men to the tastes and standardsimposed by
women. To be a 'Bear' is to assert a homosexual masculinismwhich rejectsthis"
(1991, 8).
Thus, in staking their claim to gay masculinity,Bears challenge hegemonic
assumptionsaboutmale sexualityby introducingwhatfeministshave identifiedas
an "ethic of care" (Gilligan 1982) into an objectified sexual cultureperceived as
alienating. On the other hand, insofar as their rejection of effeminacy signals a
broaderdevaluationof the feminine,Bearmasculinityrecuperatesgenderedhierarchies centralto the logic of hegemonic masculinity.Furthermore,the pastoralfantasy encodedin Bear semioticscan be linkedwith earliermovementsaimedat revitalizing an "essential"masculinity under assault from the feminizing effects of
civilizationby retreatingto the wilderness,if only symbolically.How then, from a
feminist perspective,is one to adjudicatethese simultaneouslyresistantand recuperativefeaturesof Bear culture?In this research,I drawon ethnographicandhistoricalevidence as I attemptto makesense of these conflictingcurrents,with a special emphasison the way thatBear masculinityis embodiedand the effect this has
on Bear sexual culture.
METHOD
Using a case study approach,I have designed this researchin response to Stein
and Plummer's(1994, 184) call for "anew paradigmfor conceptualizing'identity
in culture,'" and "developingan understandingof how sexuality,along with gender, race, ethnicity,class, and generation,is articulatedand experiencedwithin a
terrainof social practices."
My case study communityis a Bear club in a majorAmericancity, hereinafter
referredto as the FriendlyBears.' As Bearorganizationsgo, the FriendlyBearsare
somewhatatypicalin thatthey do not hold regularmeetings, do not chargemembershipfees, and operatewith a relativelyinformaladministrativestructure.Like
otherBearclubs, the FriendlyBearshavea boardof directorsanda slateof officers,
but their work is very low profile. The vitality of the club is maintainedthrough

28
monthly social events, all organizedon a pay-as-you-go basis by volunteersand

variousfund-raisingevents for local charities.Most otherclubs have regularmeetings and membershipdues, and the executive officers of those clubs tend to be
much more visible. Thereis, however,a greatdeal of communicationand interaction between Bear clubs. Some of this happensover the Internet,between individual membersof differentclubs via Bear chat rooms and message boards,but also
througha series of regularlyscheduledweekend events sponsoredby clubs across
the United States. These events, billed primarilyas social opportunities,are often
closely affiliatedwith local charitiesandtypicallydrawmen froma wide geographical area.In additionto the half dozen such events thatmay attractas many as 800
participantsfrom all over the world,therearenumerousevents sponsoredby clubs
in midsizedcities. These drawanywherefrom 100 to 200 out-of-townguests. Thus,
despite the peculiaritiesof my particularcase studycommunity,the extraordinary
level of interactionbetweengroupssuggestsa certaindegreeof nationalhomogeneity across clubs in the United States.
My ethnographicdata are drawnfrom approximately300 cumulativehours of
participantobservationat variousFriendlyBear sites during2001 and 2002. As a
graduatestudentand gay man in my early 40s, I had lived in "Friendlytown"for
morethan 10 yearsbeforebeginningthis research.Thus,I had alreadydevelopeda
numberof informalrelationshipswith Friendly Bears, greatly facilitatedby my
own expandingmiddle-agedframe and naturalhirsuteness.My response to these
interactionswas overwhelmingly positive, following along two distinct dimensions. In the beginning,the hedonicappealof havingmy aging body recastin a significantlysexier social frame,throughthe approvingglances of the FriendlyBears,
providedthe overwhelmingappeal.But as time went on, I found myself engaging
intellectually.Whatdoes the rapidgrowthof Bear culturemean, and how is it that
these men manageto collectively reinterpretand eroticizethe very physical attributes stigmatizedby the largergay community(extraweight, body hair)?
As a result of my situation,I found thatgaining access to appropriateresearch
sites was relativelyeasy. In additionto attendinga numberof semiprivatefunctions,
I attendedtwo Bear summercampingtrips (each with more than 100 men attending), a smaller camping trip in the fall of 2001 (approximately30 attendees),
numerous"BearBar Nights" (typically hosting more than 150 men), and many
casual face-to-face encounters. Observation sites also included "play parties"
wheresex happened,butthis was neverthe sole purposeof the gathering.2The men
I studiedwere overwhelminglywhite (approximately96 percent),and while there
were a rangeof social classes represented,the majorityof the men I observedwould
be most accuratelyclassified as middle class (see below).
I conductedin-depthinterviewswith a totalof seven men for this research,with
interviewsrangingin lengthfromtwo to fourhours.All interviewparticipantswere
white and self-identified as middle class. Interview participantselection was
guided by a theoreticalsampling logic. I made an effort to recruitmen who presenteda moreor less typicalBearimage in termsof body size andappearance,butI
also sought out participantswho decidedly did not fit this profile (i.e., smooth-

29
skinned, thinner men who nevertheless considered themselves members of the

Bear community).I also attemptedto samplea rangeof sexual attitudesand styles
amongmy interviewparticipants.At one end of this spectrum,my youngestparticipant spoke proudlyof his sexual conservatismand devotionto monogamy.At the
otherend was a man of substantialexperiencewho genially spoke of his desire to
"havesex with as manymen as possible."Finally,I triedto take accountof participants'activityprofilewithinthe group.While I interviewedseveralFriendlyBears
who had served as officers of the club, I also includedmen who were less active.
I also accessedhistoricalmaterialspertainingto Bearculture,as well as contemporary commentaryfrom various writers across the United States. These data
include publishedaccountsof Bear history,previouslypublishedinterviewsfrom
key figures in the nationalBear culture (particularlymen who played formative
roles in the late 1980s, as Bear culturewas being forged in California'sBay Area),
narrativeschroniclingthe establishmentof Bear clubs and organizationsin other
partsof the country,photographs,magazinestargetedto Bears, and other related
documents.
BEARS IN SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

In additionto its appealas a hedge againsteffeminacyandits eroticizationof the
heavierbody,thereareat least two factorscontributingto the emergenceof the Bear
phenomenonduringthe 1980s. One was, unquestionably,the AIDS pandemicand
the effect of AIDS-relatedwastingsyndromeon the eroticimaginationof gay men.
In an era when thinness could be linked with disease and death,the fleshier body
was reinterpretedas an indicatorof health,vigor, strength,andvirility.The second
contributingfactorwas the Bear movement'sability to co-opt an existing subculture that had been operatingon an informalbasis for decades priorto the Bears'
arrivalon the scene. In 1976, a nationalnetworkof "chubbies"(big men) and"chasers"(men who were sexually attractedto them) emergedas a new nationalorganizationcalled GirthandMirth.A dozen yearslater,as the Bearsbecame a recognizable subculture within the gay community, an uneasy relationship developed
between the two groups. Interestingly,in many cities, Girth and Mirth chapters
went into declinejust as Bearorganizationswere croppingup (Suresha2002). One
reason for the out-migrationfrom Girth and Mirth may be the more appealing
imageryemployedby the Bears.The iconic figureof the bearwas enormouslysuccessful in linking the bigger body with nature, the wilderness, and more conventionalnotions of masculinity.
Indeed, to fully appreciatethe Bear phenomenon,one must acknowledge its
place in the broaderspectrumof back-to-naturemasculinity movements dating
back at least two centuries.Americanhistory reveals richly sedimentedassociations between the wilderness and escape from the perceivedfeminizing forces of
civilization.In the early decades of the nineteenthcentury,popularbiographiesof
pioneersandbackwoodsmenofferedaccessible literaryescapes. By the 1840s and

30
1850s, KitCarson,Daniel Boone, andDavy Crockett"allbecamemythicheroes...

when theirbiographieswererewrittenas primitivistnarrativesof innate,instinctual
manhood"(Kimmel 1996, 63). Of course, for those men not satisfied with mere
fantasies of escape, there was the vast American frontier.Immediatelyafter the
closing of the frontierin the latterhalf of the nineteenthcentury,an enthusiastic
nostalgia developed that seemed to serve the same purpose. Rodeos, Wild West
shows, cowboy lore, and wilderness adventurenovels were all extremelypopular
duringthis time. Like the image of the bear,"Acowboy on a broncosymbolizes the
rugged individualityof the Westernman and beast... a truetaste of the wild and
woolly" (Bond 1909, cited in Kimmel 1996, 176). Morerecently,the mythopoetic
men's movementhas stressedthe importanceof rediscoveringvariousmasculine
archetypes,a process that is apparentlygreatly facilitatedby drummingritualsin
remote forested areas.
But the Bear phenomenonis remarkablein thatdespite its reprisalof the timehonoredmasculinecall of the wild andits lush backwoodsimagery,it has been nurturedand sustainedalmost exclusively in urbansettings. For example, several of
the sourcesI consultedmentionedthe 1950s gladiatormovies of actorSteveReeves
as a formativeculturalinfluenceon Bearculture(Suresha2002, 81; Wright1997b,
24). One source even specified that it was the films in which Reeves appeared
beardedthatreallyprovidedthe impetusfor the eroticizationof the hairymalebody
(Lucie-Smith1991, 6). Anotherexample is the oft-notedpredilectionof Bears for
computertechnologyandInternetcommunication.Bronski(citedin Suresha2002,
40, 41) linked this to the inauthenticityof the "natural"thatinformsBear imaginings: "Bearcultureis paradoxical.Anyone reallybroughtup in the wild knows that
it is not half as romanticas Bear images try to make it. It is an urbanfantasyabout
whata worldin the wild would look like... the artificialityof the so-called natural.
I thinkthatis why so many Bears are in love with cyberspace.The Bear idyll has
always taken place in a cyberspace,which is nostalgia for something that never
was."Withrespectto social class, Wrightobservedthat"Bears''naturalness'registers in the key of 'blue collar' " (1997c, 11). Bears presentan image of workingclass masculinity,yet many,if not most, are middle class, as Brianobservesin this
anecdote:
I will neverforgetgoingto a-in factI wasajudgeat-InternationalBearRendezvousin SanFranciscoin-when wasthat?-'97. Anduhm,you'dseetheseguys,and
theywerealldressedlike,youknow,in theBeardrag,bubbadrag,youknowthe,uh,
flannelshirtandtherippedjeans,rippedflannelshirts,workingboots,andallthissort
of stuff,and they were all like-systems analystsat Sun Microsystems[laughs
loudly]!I mean,theywerealllikethese,theywerealllikecomputer
geeks.Notoneof
themwas-you know,like I was saying-a bricklayer,a plumber,a fireman,a
policeman.
Because of their purportedimpatiencewith abstractionsand their daily trials
with the harshrealitiesof materiallife, working-classmen have often been understood as more authenticallymasculine than their middle-class counterparts.As

31
Connellobserved,"Hardlaborin factoriesandmines literallyuses up the workers'

bodies; and thatdestruction,a proof of the toughness of the work and the worker,
can be a methodof demonstratingmasculinity"(1995, 36). Furthermore,workingclass bodies have long held an eroticfascinationfor the middle class, as Wraysuggested:"Anycursoryreadingof popularrepresentationsof lower-classwhites suggests that the middle classes seem obsessed with what lower-class whites do or
threatento do with theirsexualbodies"(1994, 1). Forall these reasons,it is perhaps
not surprisingthatmiddle-classBears, in theirrevision of gay masculinity,would
find working-classimages appealing.Whatis surprisingis the silence surrounding
acceptanceof the equathese issues, not only the unexamined,underproblematized
tion of masculinitywith working-classmenbutalso the lack of reflectionas to what
it means when middle-class men do working-classdrag. In this context, Brian's
commentaryis the exception thatproves the rule.
Bear cultureadvertisesitself as raciallyinclusive but remainsoverwhelmingly
white. For example, my field notes indicate that on a typical Friendly Bear bar
night, with more than 100 men attending,I saw 2 African Americanand 2 Asian
Americanmen. Similarly,at Bear Camp2001, with an enrollmentof nearly 120, 1
African Americanman and 1 Latino man attended.Fall Bear Camp attracted54
white Bearsand 1 AfricanAmericanBear.My sense is thatthis is not simply a local
problem.Accordingto most of the printeddiscourse,the Bearbody has nothingto
do with white skin. To theircredit,most Bear organizationsactively seek to diversify their ranks,and racially inclusive language can be found on many Bear Web
sites. Yet severalwritersmentionthe conspicuousabsenceof Bearsof color in their
communities. In two separatecontent analyses of Bear erotic magazines, both
Locke (1997) andMcCann(2001) commentedon the predominanceof white bodies. Kelly andKane (2001, 344) askedwhy Bears "feel the need to adopta rhetoric
of racialinclusivitywhentheiconographyof thetextsbeforeus is so overwhelmingly
white."
The whitenessof Bearcultureis probablydue at least in partto the foundational
image of the community(the bear itself) and how this image is perceived across
racial lines. For most white men who join the Bear community,the appeal of the
bear image is based on its association with masculinityand strengthwhile at the
same time signaling a capacity for tendernessand conviviality.But when, in the
of theBearmovementsoughtto humanizetheimpersonality
early80s, theforerunners
of the leathercommunityby wearingteddybearsin theirpockets,they were unwittingly drawing on a raced cultural history of white American masculinity. As
Bederman(1995, 44) demonstrated,the inspirationfor the teddybear,TeddyRoosevelt, possessed a "talentfor embodying two contradictorymodels of manhood
simultaneously-civilized manlinessandprimitivemasculinity."Civilized "manliness,"she explained,was a charactermodel that"comprisedall the worthy,moral
attributeswhich the Victorianmiddle class admiredin a man" (p. 18). As such,
manliness was intimatelylinked with whiteness. By contrast,"masculinity"was
understoodin essentialistterms,referringto "anycharacteristics,good or bad, that
all men had"(p. 18). But here again, this primalmasculinitywas understoodto be

32
GENDER & SOCIETY /February 2005
threatenedby the feminizing effects of civilization. On Rotundo's (1993, 228)

reading,white masculinistanxietieswere furtherfueled by fears of dominationby
the more "authentic"masculinityof the tribesmenof "DarkestAfrica,"the "savage"Indian.Such descriptionsof the recuperativeback-to-naturenarrativesof the
periodreveal theirracializedcharacter.
Consequently,as the heirs of a racedculturaldynamicthatequatesthe returnto
naturewith whiteness, Bearsmay be unintentionallyreproducingthe racedappeal
of the bearimage. Exacerbatingthese effects is the racializedhistoryof identification with animals.While manygay white men revel in theiridentificationwith the
bear(this extendsto purchasingBearT-shirts,caps, vanitylicense plates,andother
items of "Bearphernalia"),
men of color may be muchless eagerto do so, in light of
historicallyracistcomparisonsbetweenanimalsandpeople of color (Becker 1973;
Plous and Williams 1995). But the unintendedracializedeffects of Bear iconography arecomplicatedby the deliberateappealto men of color in this primarilywhite
community'srhetoric.Here it seems thatBears are at least tryingto challenge the
hierarchicalranking of raced masculinities that is a prominentfeature of hegemonic masculinity(Connnell1995, 80), butthey do so fromwithina symboliccosmology heavily structuredby race.In the final analysis,this remainsa heartfeltand
conciliatorygestureextendedto men of color to participatein what is still fundamentally a white fantasy. Can efforts to diversify the Bear community succeed
under these conditions? Perhaps, but this will entail further consideration of
Almaguer'sobservationthatmen of color "do not negotiatethe acceptanceof gay
identityin exactly the same way white Americanmen do" (1991, 86). Such a success will also markan interestingculturalreversal,insofaras men of color will be
adoptingthe symbolof the bearandascribingto it a new set of resistantandracially
inclusive meanings.
Finally, in additionto class, race, and the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity
workingfrom outsideof gay cultures,Bearcultureis shapedby competingmasculinities within gay cultures.The regular-guymasculinityof the typical Bear is a
response to the hypermasculineclone phenomenonof the 1970s. The clone look
emphasizeda muscled,tonedbody anda presentationof self thatwas heavily influenced by certainiconic figuresof masculinity(The Village People, a popularband
duringthis time, delighted gay audiencesby taking this impulse to the extreme).
The Bear look was a reactionnot againstthe clone's masculinityper se but rather
against his hypermasculinityand the particularway that the clone displayed the
body to signal thatmasculinity-hard, lean, muscled,toned, and smooth.If this is
true,it seems to indicatethatBears are interestednot so much in revising conventional masculinity but in resignifying it. Wright conceded as much when he
acknowledgedthat"Bearsarefully engaged with hegemonicmasculinity,seeking
an alternativeanswer,both acceptingsome of the trappingswhile rejectingothers"
(1997c, 6).
Giventhe contextestablishedin this section,whatpossibilitiesdoes Bearculture
open up and close off in terms of gender resistance? How are the particular

33
inflections of Bear masculinitymanifestin the community'ssexual culture?I turn

now to an explorationof these questions.
EMBODIED BEAR MASCULINITY

Bourdieu(1977, 45) proposedhabitus,the deeply interiorizedandembodiedset
of mental and physical dispositions that guide social action, as relativelydurable
but not imperviousto change. He allowed thatindividualexperience,or on a societal level, "timesof crisis, in which the routineadjustmentof subjectiveand objective structuresis brutallydisrupted,"may indeed affect the habitus in profound
ways. I wantto arguethatmen who come to understandthemselvesas Bearsexperience just such a time of crisis. However, I first want to examine several of
Bourdieu'smore specific conceptsas theyrelateto the embodimentof Bearmasculinity. In Masculine Domination (2001), he used his Kabyle fieldworkto abstract
the processes governingthe embodimentof genderand specifically the way these
processes come to be understood as natural,thereby obscuring their arbitrary
natureand the genderpolitics they reflect.
Bourdieucalled the firstprinciplethatserves to naturalizeembodiedmasculinity "necessitationthroughsystematicity"(1997, 194). Here he acknowledgesthe
influence of structuralismon his work and the primacy of gender as a "master
binary":"Thelimitpar excellence,thatbetweenthe sexes, will not brooktransgression" (Bourdieu 1990, 211); "[the] binary opposition between male and female
appearsfoundedin the natureof things because it is echoed virtuallyeverywhere"
(Bourdieu1997, 194). Thus, the arbitrary"nature"of genderis obscuredby virtue
of its richly homologous relationship with other already gendered binaries:
Hot (masculine)/cold (feminine), hard (masculine)/soft (feminine), outside
(masculine)/inside(feminine) (Bourdieu2001, 13-18). By this method,the "arbitraryof the social nomos" is transmutedinto "a necessity of nature"(Bourdieu
2001, 13). The criticalpoint here is thatmasculinityis definedrelationally,against
the feminine. In Bear culture,this patternis reproducedwhen Bears define their
masculinity not only against the feminine but more specifically against the
feminized, hairless, and gym-toned body of the dominantideal of gay masculinity-"the twink,"as he is dismissively known in Bear culture.Wright suggested,
"When a Bear makes such a counter-statement,that he is not a 'woman,' not a
'twink,'not a 'heterosexual,'he is using his body to participatein changing social
practice and challenging hegemonic power" (1997c, 9). I would argue that with
respectto embodiedmasculinity,this statementobscuresthe fact thatBear masculinity simultaneouslychallenges and reproduceshegemonic masculinity.
Bourdieu'sconcept of "hexis"is instructivehere. Closely relatedto habitus,but
more specifically focused on deportment(i.e., ways of presentingand moving the
body in social situations) as the physical instantiationof objective political and
social relationships,hexis representsan embodied "politicalmythology" (1977,
93). Thus, the embodied hexis of Kabyle women includes a somewhat stooped

34
posture,with the gaze directeddownward.A Kabyleman,on the otherhand,gazes

directlyat others,andhis dominanceis "assertedin movementsupwards,outwards,
towardothermen"(p. 94). Likewise, when Bearsrefuseto "do submission"or "do
effeminacy"with their bodies, they in fact exercise a kind of embodied agency,
insofaras the Bear body is perceivedby heterosexualmen as both "notheterosexual" and "not effeminate."Moreover,this is an agentic deploymentof the Bear
body that may act to radicallydestabilizethe reified hegemonic narrativelinking
femininity with male homosexuality. However, this possibility is significantly
complicatedby the way thatBearmasculinityoperateswithingay cultureandhow
this is deployed againstotherhomosexualmen. I stronglysuspectthatof the three
defining functions of the masculinizedBear body (not woman, not heterosexual,
not twink), it is the twinkthatprovidesthe realoppositionalanchorfor most Bears.
In theirvirulentrejectionof the effeminatestereotypeand female drag,Bears certainly wish to convey that they are "not women,"but in practice, this is accomplished indirectly,through an attack on the feminized, narcissistic body of the
twink. Furthermore,while Bears may proudlyacknowledgethatthey are "notheterosexual,"this should not be read as a rejectionof heterosexualmasculinity.On
the contrary,it seems thatthe vast preponderanceof Bear discourseseeks to minimize the differencebetween Bear and heterosexualmasculinity.On this reading,
the Bears' challenge to hegemonic power is negligible, and the power relations
reflected in the embodied hexis of Bear masculinity reproducethe hierarchical
assumptionsof hegemonic masculinity.Both assign lower status to bodies perceived as feminized.
Furthermore,despite theiruse of the twink as oppositionalanchor,the "natural
confirmation" (Bourdieu 1997, 194) that is the desired consequence of this
"systematicity"remainsproblematicwithin Bear culture.This is because, in contrastwith heterosexualmasculinities,thereexists no "richhomology"of binariesto
obscurethe arbitraryfeaturesof gay masculinities.Thus,Bearmasculinitymustbe
developedand sustainedintersubjectively,withinthe communityitself, an interactive processthatis greatlyfacilitatedby the symbolof the bear.The bearoperatesto
link this new form of gay masculinityto the natural;it providesan opportunityfor
rich elaboration(throughthe designationof varioustypes of Bear men as sexually
submissive "cubs," sexually dominant "grizzlies,"gray or white-haired "polar
bears,"etc.); and most important,through the nostalgic wilderness imagery it
evokes, it links Bear masculinitywith heteronormativemasculinity.
But this constructionremainsunstable,its arbitrarynatureeasily revealed,as in
this scathingassessmentby Harris:
Its hirsuteideal of ruggedmasculinityis ultimatelyas contrivedas the aesthetic
lookof urbangaymen,
designerqueen.WhileBearspretendtoopposethe'unnatural'
nothingcould be moreunnatural,urban,andmiddleclass thanthe pastoralfantasyof
the smelly mountaineerin long johns, a costume dramathat many homosexualsare
now acting out as self-consciously as MarieAntoinetteandher entouragedressedup
as shepherdsand shepherdesses.(1997, 106)

35
My time in the field leads me to speculate that this fragility probably works to
increase (ratherthanundermine)group solidarityamong Bears.
Bourdieuidentifiesthe othercriticalprocess thatnaturalizesembodied masculinity as "genderedsocializationandthe somatizationof domination"(1997, 195).
This describesthe variouspracticesthatinculcatea genderedhabitusduringchildhood, and Bourdieufurtherdivides the process into four subcomponents.3Here I
wantto applythese processesto the revisionof a genderedhabitusin adultgay men
and apply his ideas to the reconstructionof masculinityin Bear culture.The first
practiceis identifiedas "ritesof institutions."These rites, such as ritualcircumcision in manycultures,serveto underscorethe differencebetweenthose who participate-men-and those who do not-women (p. 195). Participation,of course,
keys directlyoff of the body. Local Bear organizationssuch as the FriendlyBears
servethe same institutionalpurpose,andthe Bearbody becomes the point of reference for those who participatein Bear clubs, organizationalplanning,and activities. It is worthnoting here thatmembershipin these clubs is not strictlylimitedto
men who self-identifyas Bears.Most clubs welcome "Bearsandtheiradmirers,"a
phrase familiar to anyone active in this community. The inclusive description
serves at least two purposes. First of all, it expands the possible membership
beyondthose who exhibitthe typicalBearphysicaltraits.But even as it does this, it
underscoresthe centralityof the Bearbody and its existence as an object of desire.
Slim men, hairless men, younger men-all are welcome providedthey identifyas
Bear admirers.I observedone such admirerat numerousFriendlyBear events. He
was a relativelyyoung, tautly muscled, smooth-skinnedex-gymnast.While he fit
the physicaldescriptionof a twink,his enthusiasticsexualinterestin older "Daddy
Bear" types meant that he greatly reinforced, rather than undermined, the
intersubjectivelysustainederotic of Bear sexual culture.As such, he was warmly
welcomed in the club, andhis interestin largermen was enlisted as supportingevidence of the "natural"appealof Bears.Thus,the inclusivemembershippolicy contributessignificantly to a key agentic function of the Bear clubs-the embodied
reassignmentof the fleshier, hairierframefrom stigmatizedto desiredobject.
The next importantprocess is the "symbolic remaking of anatomicaldifferences."Here Bourdieu(1997, 195) explainedthat "the socially constructedbody
serves as an ideological foundationfor the arbitraryopposition throughwhich it
was itself constructed."Bourdieuused the exampleof the interpretationof "swelling" and all its variousanalogies as based on a takenfor grantedassociationwith
the male erectionandphallic swelling (2001, 13). In the case of the Bears,the associationcan (again)not be takenfor granted;it mustbe activelyconstructedin communityand appliedto the swelling of the Bear's phallic body. On this reading,the
Bear's generous frame, contrastedwith the more compact frame of the twink,
becomes a kind of homage to phallic power and masculinity.
Bourdieuidentifies the thirdand final process I want to apply as "differential
usages of the body and rites effecting the virilizationof boys and the feminization
of girls"(1997, 198). Herehe cites numerouspracticesamongthe Kabyleto virilize
boys, among them the cutting of the boy's hair and the father's assistance in

36
dressinghim for his firsttripto the exclusively masculineworld of the public market. Analogouspracticesfor Bearsareinstructednotby a single patriarchbutby the
normativestructureof the entire group. The self-conscious attemptto dress and
groomoneself like a "real"manapproachesbutneverquiteregistersconsciously as
drag in the typical Bear consciousness. Nevertheless, this is an ongoing project
amongBears,one requiringactiveconstructionandconstantvigilance. This is perhaps best indicatedby those attemptsthatareperceivedas falling shortof the prescribedmark.Fritscher(2002) complained,"There'snothing worse than seeing a
big brutedoing all this standingand posing at a Bear conventionor in a Bear bar,
only to then watch him pirouette out the door." Two of my Friendly Bear
participantsmade similarobservations:
[Gilis a] veryhandsomemanwitha verynicebeard.... Youwalkupto Gilandyou
think,"Boy,thisis a guywhojustfitstheimage,"andthenhe'll openuphis mouth,
andflowerscomeout![That]kindof subtracts
somewhere
along
a littleBearishness
theline.(Burt)
howyoutalkhasto fit
I thinkhonestlythatyouneedto,youknow,yourmannerisms,
howyoulook.Andthat'skindof a problemsometimes.Youknow,I knowguyswho
canbe,wholookextremelybutch,youknow,lumberjack
typeswhoopentheirmouth
andthechiffonflies out [laughs]!(Travis)
Returningto the concept of hexis, it would seem thatthese discordantdisplays of
improperlymasculinized"corporealdispositions"areupsettingprecisely because
they revealthe constructednatureof whatBourdieureferredto as "thedoxic experience of masculine domination as inscribed in the nature of things, invisible,
unquestioned"(1997, 195).
Don's case is particularlyinterestingwith respect to the social constructionof
the Bear body. Don grew up on a farm and attendedhigh school in a small town,
which I quickly surmisedwas a painfulexperiencefor him. He told me, "Icame out
to myself back when I was 9, 10-I knew I liked whatI liked."In high school, Don
weighed more than 350 pounds and was ridiculed for being heavy. During his
senioryear,things got uglier when he was outedby his classmatesin a particularly
publicway. "Theywere chasingme downthe hall with a video camerabecausethey
were puttingtogether,like, this news footage and . . . they just outed me, and the
next thing you know, I was the gay guy in school."
After graduation,Don wasted little time, waitingonly threeweeks before moving to the nearest big city. He also managed to drop a considerable amount of
weight, andwhile he was still big, for the firsttime in his life, he beganto feel good
abouthis body: "I had a 45-year-oldwoman stop me on [Metro]Mall when I was
about20, and [she] said thatif she were 20 years youngershe'd make me her husband. I was just having my lunch-a chicken salad sandwich-and she came up
storming,and, and she wasn't nuts. I mean she was a business-professional-type
woman,andit was like shejust saidthatI was an attractiveyoung man.And I went,
'Well thankyou,' andthen it dawnedon me that-well fine-I mustbe attractive."

37
But even as this encounterbolsteredDon's self-confidence,it also highlightedhis

same-sex interests.As revealing as this encounterwas for Don, it was not something he could pursue.His sexual self-confidence did not really blossom until he
found the FriendlyBears,at which time he felt like he had "foundfamily.""Imean,
I'm big and hairy,it's obvious. .... I found my niche, where I was welcome to be
who I was and don't have to hide anything."
But Don makesit clearthatfindingthe FriendlyBearswas notjust aboutfinding
interestedsex partners."I never really had a hardtime finding sex," he tells me.
"WhenI foundthe Bears,I founda lot moreof whatI likedin a man,withinthatculture.I sort of like knockedout the nellyisms.... I knockedout the, you know, the
flaming dragqueens."On discoveringthe club, Don was able to quickly parlayhis
good looks, stocky build, and tall statureinto Bear social capital. He is currently
very active in the group,both socially and sexually,and often makes a gregarious
show of his affection for the community.At the campfire,accordingto my Bear
Campfield notes, "[Don] seems to be runningthe show, makingvariousbadjokes
and, interestingly,using a varietyof voices thatincorporategrowls and gruntsinto
his speech. He is, I realize,talkinglike a bear.(10/12/01)"4His associationwith the
FriendlyBears has allowed him to come to terms with his traumatichigh school
experiences,albeitin a way thatis obviously informedby hegemonic masculinity:
"I still, I see five or six classmatesthatI went to high school with down at the bar
now. So it's sortof like... I was sortalike, 'Uh, whatwas this-I'm the gay one and
you're not? On your knees!' [laughter]."
Don's complex and contradictoryjourneyis perhapsbest summarizedby again
returningto Bourdieu's(1977) concept of hexis. Don's acceptancewithinthe Bear
communityis reflected in a new understandingof his body and the way it can be
deployedin social andsexual situations.Priorto findinghis way into the Bearcommunity,he wrestledwith feelings of shameandinadequacy.Fromthe Bears,he has
learnedto adjusthis gait,posture,andgaze in a way thatnow signals strength,dominance, and virility.These traitsare in turnreadby othermembersof the community as evidence not only of a positive attitudetowardhis newly discoveredBear
self but of an unselfconscious,naturaldisposition.Perhapsthis is why, despite the
obvious prominenceof a specific body type among Bears, many members (e.g.,
Larry,quotedearlier)continueto insist thatwhatdistinguishesa Bearis "90percent
attitude."This emphasis on attitudemay serve to underscorethe importanceof
some of the explicit applicationsI have madein this section, as well as the utilityof
Bourdieu'swork.As Bourdieu(2001) himself remindedus, it is the presentationof
the genderedself as "natural"thatobscuresits constructednaturein the firstplace.
SEXUAL CULTURE
Given its paradoxicalrelationshipto hegemonic masculinity,how distinctiveis
Bear sexual culture?Whatdistinguishesthe erotic imaginationof Bears from that
of other gay men? Kelly and Kane looked at Bear erotic fiction and noted the

38
refreshing emphasis on support, nurturance,and playfulness included in the

descriptionsof sex thatthey analyzed, albeit with some caution:"I'm wondering
whetherthis discourseof nurturancehas to be presentedthrougha discourseof sex
in orderto makeit OK for men to participate?Oris it a way of reclaimingthe whole
body for eroticism and thereby dephallicizing the cock? And besides the
nurturance,whataboutthe playfulness?I thinkthatreallymitigatesmy discomfort
with the wild manmyth's seeming to reproduceold time sexism"(2001, 341). The
concept of "dephallicizingthe cock" is not a new one and speaks to the process
Bourdieu referred to as the "symbolic coding of the sexual act" (1997, 197).
Among gay intellectuals, perhapsthe best known proponentof a symbolic "recoding"of sex between men is Hocquenghem([1972] 1996), who called gay men
to a "revolutionof desire." Drawing on his critiques of Freud, Deleuze, and
Guattari, Hocquenghem advocated moving beyond what one commentator
paradigm(Moon [1972] 1996, 20). In
referredto as the "phallus-and-receptacle"
his preface to Hocquenghem's Homosexual Desire ([1972] 1996), Weeks
explained, "Practicinghomosexuals are those who have failed their sublimation,
who thereforecan andmustconceive theirrelationshipsin differentways. So when
homosexuals as a group publicly reject their labels, they are in fact rejecting
Oedipus,rejectingthe artificialentrapmentof desire,rejectingsexualityfocused on
the Phallus" ([1972] 1996, 39). Thus, Hocquenghem held that "homosexuality
expresses an aspect of desire which is fundamentallypolymorphousand undefined" ([1972] 1996, 35) and that gay men should reject the Oedipal entrapment
and its privilegingof the phallus,with its attendantemphasison penetrativeintercourse. He called on gay men to collectively transformthemselves into "desiring
machines"and disperse sexual pleasuresacross the body.
To what extent does Bear masculinityenable this recodingof the sexual act? In
the previoussection, I introducedthe idea thatBears exhibit agency insofaras the
embodimentof Bear masculinitysimultaneouslyresists and complies with hegemonic masculinity.In this section, I discuss the implicationsof this paradoxfor
Bearsexualculture,as I presentevidencethatBearmasculinitybothchallengesand
reproducesan emphasison genital sexuality.
"SexualityamongBearsis sensualityfirst,"Burttells me. I have seen enough in
the field to appreciatewhathe is talkingabout.Thereis a greatdeal of emphasison
physicaltouch,both affectionateand sexual,betweenBears.On this reading,institutionalizedpracticessuch as the Bearhug providestrongevidence of sexual innovation among Bears. My field notes from Bear Campinclude an especially vivid
exampleof this. I observeda spontaneousgroupBearhug in the middleof the mess
hall, whereinsix men alternatelyengagedin kissing, fondling, andmassagingeach
other.After severalminutes, anothermanjoined the group:
I amsurprised
to hearhimintroducing
himselfto oneof theothermenkissinghim,
hisbeard.I can'thelpbutnoticehow"bearlike"the
rubbinghisbodyand"nuzzling"
of theface.Thisgoeson
men'smovements
are,especiallytherubbingand"nuzzling"
forsometime.Throughout
the"hugging"
peoplecomein andoutof themesshalland

39
interrupted
takeverylittlenoticeof theactivity.The"hug"groupis momentarily
as
newarrivalscomein wondering
if theycanstillget somesupper.Theguyin orange
doesn'tmissa beat,he takesthembackintothekitchen,theyoungerguy whohad
standsbackfromthegrouplookingabitbereft,butthenhe
beengivinghimabackrub
startsworkingon anotherguy andis drawnintoa "grouphug"withtheremaining
four. (7/5/01)
Whatimpressedme herewas the absenceof anysharpdivisionbetweenthe sexual/

sensual activity and the practicalactivityin this scene. This strikesme as a way of
claimingspace,of sexualizingandsensualizingthe everyday-an almostterritorial
ritualthatseems to say, "Thisis Bearspace now."This kind of sexualizingof space,
for a varietyof reasons,is not possible for these men in the outsideworld.I am also
struckby the fact thatotherthan a brief episode of genital fondling thatI saw initially, this activity did not seem to be very genitally centered.All membersof the
groupseemedto know the Bearhug "script,"as evidencedby the easy accommodation of the newcomer and the casual introductionsduringthe hug. There is also
quite clearly something going on here beyond instrumentalsexual "scoring."
Franklintold me that this kind of contact has a very special meaning for him:
"Therewas one bar night where about eight guys were all just kind of glumped
together... like a litterof puppies-some feeling each otherup, some hugging,just
feeling good to be alive that way."
Burtobservesthatthe emphasison sensualityhelps to foster a moreresponsible
attitudetowardsafer sex practices.As a long-time memberof the community,he
has observedthis among HIV-positiveBears. "I mean, thinkof all the varietiesof
sexualpracticesthatwe haveto drawon. And we can enterin the 'not so safe' with a
few men, but we don't have to. I mean, we can still pleasuretotal strangersif we
wantto withoutevergettinginto the unsafecategoryor even close to it."This is significantbecause it demonstratesthatat least for some Bears, fosteringa sexualculturethat decenterspenetrativeintercourseis a conscious and deliberatechoice.
Burtclearly articulatesthis in his critiqueof what he calls "dick-oriented"sex.
"Youwill find thatthe languageamongsta lot of straightmen thatindicatessubservience surroundsa quick sexual encounter.To fuck you is really meantto say, 'I'm
gonna get my rocks off you and leave,' or 'She's a whore.'" When I ask Burt
whetherBears would be more or less likely than other gay men to emphasize the
importanceof fuckingin theirsex lives, his initialresponseis equivocal.Eventually
he settlesthe matterby telling me, "Onlyin the Beargroupwill you get the, the idea
thatthereareotherpartsof the body thatreallybringthe intensepleasure.And you
can do it in manydifferentways."He smiles warmlyandconcludes, "Ithinkwe're
damngood at sex, to be perfectly honest."5
Beyond this, however,my time in the field yielded little thatdistinguishedBear
sexual culture from others' in terms of specific sex practices. When I ask Larry
aboutthis, he relatesthe question directlyto the Bear body. "I'd say there's some
thingsI only do with a guy who's hairy... like nuzzlingchest hair-I can do thatfor
a long time-I love it." Given the obvious emphasis on sensuality and increased

40
attentionto touch among Bears, I was surprisedwhen several of my participants

explicitly rejectedthe idea of distinctivesexual practices:
Sex is sex-one form,shape,oranother.(Don)
I thinkin somerespects,whenit comesdownto it, thesex is sex. ... Whenit comes
downto thebasicsexualpractices,it's all thesame.(Travis)
Menaremen.(Grant)
Clearly,not all Bears understandtheir sexual activityin Burt'smore expansive
terms.At a Bearplay party,I witnessed a scene suggestingthatsome Bearsunderstandsex in fairlynarrowterms,centeredon penetrativeintercourse.My field notes
describe"abriefbutenthusiasticfuck session"involvinga Bearvisitingfromout of
state.Afterward,the visitorproudlyproclaimsto the small groupof men watching
the scene, "That'sthe way we do it in Texas!"After a brief pause, I hear another
onlooker wryly reply, "That'sthe way we do it in [this state] too."
When I ask Brianhow he regardsintercourse,he smiles and admits, "I mean,
honestly... everythingelse is an appetizer[laughs],you know?"On the otherhand,
Larryseems to concur with Burt, while once again directly referencingthe Bear
body. "Ijust base it on morethe enthusiasm,the enjoymentof the touching,the feeling, the nippleplay,the kissing."Don tells me thatintercourseitself is not important
to him, but because of his largeframeand aggressivepersonality,andbecause it is
importantfor other men, he finds that he is often asked to play the top (insertive
partner). He responds to these requests with a curious mixture of care and
machismo: "If they want it, they'll get it. They'll get it good." Finally, Travis
respondsto my questionaboutthe importanceof intercoursein a way thatequatesit
with "real"sex, a definitionsharedby all "real"men. "Youknow, guys are guys.
They're gonna have sex, you know, whetheryou're, whetheryou're in the Bear
communityor if you're in the gay communityin general."Thus,it seems thatwhile
Bear culture does yield a numberof sexually innovativepractices that disperse
pleasure across the body and disruptgenitally centered, phallus-and-receptacle
interpretationsof sex, these innovationscoexist with (ratherthandisplace)an attendant set of practicesthat sustainthe phallic emphasison insertiveintercourse.
It seems clear that Bear sexual culture has been heavily influenced by hegeButthereis also ample
monic masculinityand,to a lesser extent,heteronormativity.
and
this
evidence of resistance
subculture.Institutionalsexual innovationwithin
ized practicessuch as the Bearhug, the nuzzlingof "fur,"andthe easygoing sensuality of these men do indeed signal a partialreclamationof the body for eros, along
with a correspondingand equally partialdecenteringof phallic sex. But it is not
quite as Hocquenghem([1972] 1996) would have it; thereis no out-and-outrejection of the phallus, nor has this communityentirely transcendedthe phallus-andreceptacleview of sex. Moreover,these men surely do not understandthemselves
as the undisciplined"desiringmachines"of Hocquenghem'simagining. On the
otherhand,they haveclearlycome to understandtheirsexualrelationshipsin novel

41
and evolving ways. Perhapsthe most accurateway to conclude my observations

with respectto Bear sexual culturewould be to say thatthe practicesthatdisperse
pleasureacrossthe body coexist with, ratherthandisplace,the phallicemphasison
insertiveintercourse.
CONCLUSION
Do Bears make gender trouble (Butler 1990)? What does it mean when
Silversteinand Picano observe of Bears, "They'rejust regularguys-only they're
gay" (1992, 128)? Clearly,thereis a move towardnormalizationhere, as well as an
identificationwith heterosexualmen, a move thatmay ironicallyturnout to be profoundly disruptiveof hegemonic masculinity.When Franklinremarks,"Some of
whatis really appealingto me aboutthe Beargroupis thatif you saw these guys on
the street,they could just as easily be rednecksas gay guys,"he speaks for many
men who identify as Bears. Hereinlies the possibility of subversion,as Bearshave
been largely successful in divorcingeffeminacyfrom same-sex desireandcreating
a culturethat looks like a bunch of "regularguys." The subversiveimplications,
however, have everythingto do with reorganizingsexuality and very little to do
with challenging gendered assumptions.Most of these men would like nothing
more than to have their masculinity accepted as normative, something that is
largely accomplishedwithin the groupbut remainsproblematicoutside of it.
How is it thatBears come to understandtheirparticularbrandof masculinityas
natural?It seems clear that this is accomplished quite deliberately,throughthe
appropriationof back-to-naturemasculinitynarrativesthatare sustainedintersubjectively, as group members reinforce these meanings and associations through
theirday-to-dayinteractions.Thus, Bear cultureseems currentlydisposed toward
renaturalizingratherthandenaturalizinggenderrelations.It seems far more likely,
then,thatincreasingacceptanceof Bearmasculinitywill encouragegreaterinvestmentin a heteronormativesexualculture,less experimentationwith new pleasures,
less dispersalof pleasureacrossthe body, and a renewedappreciationfor insertive
intercourseas "doingwhatcomes naturally."In this case, the perceivednaturalness
of the Bear body may be extendedto naturalizedunderstandingsof sex practices
that are increasinglycompliantwith normsof hegemonic masculinity.
As Connell remindedus, "Thechoice of a man as a sexual object is notjust the
choice of a-body-with-a-penis,it is the choice of embodied-masculinity.The culturalmeaningsof masculinityare, generally,partof the package.Most gays are in
this sense 'very straight'" (1995, 156). I can certainly see this logic operating
among Bears. Unlike many of theirqueercousins who identify as sex radicalsand
activists, few Bears assume an aggressive political profile. While queer activists
make a claim to radicaldifference and demandbroaderpublic acceptance,Bears
make a claim to radicalsimilarity;a similarityto both heterosexualmen and conventionalmasculinity.For Bears to pursuethis claim politically entails undermining its "natural,"self-evident character.Thus, Bears seem trapped in political

42
acquiescence and vulnerableto the recuperativecurrentsdiscussed above. Still,

thereis some degree of agency exercisedby Bears. Perhapswhat we are seeing is
only a temporaryretreatfromthe politicalarena-a periodof politicalhibernation,
if you will. Everyoneknows thatin the wild, bearsemergefromhibernationwith a
ferocious hunger.Perhapsone day, the Bears featuredhere will demonstratethe
same ferocious hunger for change in the gender politics governing resistant
masculinities.
NOTES
1. The name I have given my case study communityis a pseudonym,as are the names of all of the
individualmembersof the FriendlyBearsmentionedin this article.Sourcesor commentarynot specifically attributedto a memberof the FriendlyBears shouldbe understoodas applyingto or coming from
the broadernationalcommunityof Bears or writerscommentingon the same.
2. Again, my priorassociationwith the FriendlyBears madethe observationof sexual activityrelatively unproblematic.I was an occasionalparticipantin these partiesbeforeI beganmy research,so formal observationentailedsimply introducinga higherdegreeof methodologicalrigorto a familiaractivity. As was the case at other(nonsexual)observationsites, I recordedextensivefield notes as soon after
leaving the site as possible. The sexual natureof observationsmadeconfidentialityan especially importantissue, butI saw little reasonfor additionalconcern.As a sex-positivecommunity,"playparties"like
the ones observedin this studyhavebeen a centralcomponentof Bearculturesince its inception(Wright
1997a),andmanyBearsarequitefrankaboutparticipatingin them.However,I founda rangeof attitudes
about this type of activity among the FriendlyBears. Two of my interviewparticipantscharacterized
themselves as "vanilla"(conservative)in their sexual tastes. In addition,in his study of Bear erotica,
McCann(2001) characterizedBear cultureas sexually conservative.The conservativecharacterization
did not go unchallenged,however.One of my participants(Travis)describedBearcultureas "almostno
holds barred." Another (Franklin) confessed his bewilderment at the popularity of open
(nonmonogamous)relationshipsamong Bears.
3. I deal with only threeof these in this section: "Ritesof institutions,"the "symbolicremakingof
anatomicaldifferences,"and "therites affectingthe masculinizationof boys andfeminizationof girls."
The significanceof a fourthsubprocess,the "symboliccoding of the sexual act"is elaboratedin the next
section on Bear sexual culture.
4. Duringmy time in the field, I also observedmorethanone manwho quiteliterallygrowledduring
sexual activity,somethingI have not observedoutside of the Bear community.
5. Burt'sstatusamongthe FriendlyBearsis significanthere,given his resistantsexualphilosophy.In
additionto being a long-timemember,Burtservedfor severalyears as an officer of the club. The overwhelmingimpressionI receivedfrommy time in the field is thathe is an admired,highly respected,and
beloved memberof this community.
REFERENCES
Almaguer,T. 1991. Chicanomen:A cartographyof homosexualidentityandbehavior.Differences3 (2):
75-100.
Becker, J. 1973. Racism in children'sand young people's literaturein the Westernworld. Journal of
Peace Research 10 (3): 295-303.
Bederman,G. 1995. Manliness and civilization.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
Bond, E. M. 1909. The cowman'scarnival.Sunset (August).

43
Bourdieu,P. 1977. Outlineof a theoryof practice. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.

. 1990. The logic of practice. Cambridge,UK: Polity.
-. 1997. The GoffmanPrizelecture:Masculinedominationrevisited.BerkeleyJournalofSociology 41:189-203.
-. 2001. Masculine domination.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress.
Butler,J. 1990. Gendertrouble.London:Routledge.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Fritscher,J. 2002. Bearness'sbeautifulbig blank:Tracingthe genome of ursomasculinity.In Bears on
Bears, edited by R. Suresha.Los Angeles: Alyson Books.
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a differentvoice. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Harris,D. 1997. The rise andfall of gay culture.New York:Hyperion.
Hocquenghem,G. [1972] 1996. Homosexualdesire. Durham,NC: Duke UniversityPress.
Kelly,E. A., andK. Kane.2001. In Goldilocks'sfootsteps:Exploringthe discursiveconstructionof gay
masculinityin Bear magazines.In TheBear bookII, editedby L. K. Wright.New York:Harrington
ParkPress.
Kimmel, M. 1996. Manhoodin America.New York:Free Press.
Locke, Philip. 1997. Male images in the gay mass media and Bear-orientedmagazines. In The Bear
book, edited by L. K. Wright.New York:HarringtonParkPress.
Lucie-Smith,E. 1991. The cult of the Bear.In TheBear cult. Swaffam,UK: GMP.
McCann,T. 2001. Laid Bear: Masculinitywith all the trappings.In The Bear book II, edited by L. K.
Wright.New York:HarringtonParkPress.
Moon, M. [1972] 1996. New introduction.In Homosexualdesire, by G. Hocquenghem.Durham,NC:
Duke UniversityPress.
Plous, S., and T. Williams. 1995. Racial stereotypesfrom the days of Americanslavery:A continuing
legacy. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology25:795-817.
Rotundo,E. A. 1993. Americanmanhood.New York:Basic Books.
Silverstein,C., and E Picano. 1992. The newjoy of gay sex. New York:HarperPerennial.
Stein, A., and K. Plummer.1994. "I can't even think straight":"Queer"theoryand the missing sexual
revolutionin sociology. Sociological Theory12 (2): 178-86.
Suresha,R. J. 2002. Bears on Bears. Los Angeles: Alyson Books.
Weeks, J. [1972] 1996. Prefaceto the 1978 edition. In Homosexualdesire, by G. Hocquenghem.Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.
Wray,M. 1994. Unsettlingsexualitiesandwhite trashbodies. Associationpaperpresentedat the American Studies WorkingGroup,Universityof California,Berkeley, 10 October.
Wright,L. K. 1990. The sociology of the urbanBear.Drummer140:53-55.
1997a.The Bearhug group:An interviewwith Sam Ganczaruk.In TheBear book,editedby L.
----.
K. Wright.New York:HarringtonParkPress.
. 1997b.A concise historyof self-identifyingBears. In TheBear book, edited by L. K. Wright.
New York:HarringtonParkPress.
---.
1997c. Introduction:TheoreticalBears. In TheBear book, edited by L. K. Wright.New York:
HarringtonParkPress.
Peter Hennen received his M.A. and Ph.D. from the Universityof Minnesotain sociology. His
interestsinclude gender sexuality,classical and contemporarytheory,social inequalities,and
qualitativemethods.


Bear Bodies Bear Masculinity

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bear Bodies Bear Masculinity

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bear Bodies, Bear Masculinity: Recuperation, Resistance, or Retreat?

Author(s): Peter Hennen

This content downloaded from 147.251.112.209 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:44:17 PM