David has been held up as an ideal(ized) man, one against whom other men are to be defined: a hegemonic male. His hegemonic masculinity is clearly visible in 2 Samuel 10–12, which takes place during the Ammonite wars. But hegemony is a social construct, and it gets expressed in social relationships. David’s relationships with three other characters in this pericope – Joab, Bathsheba and Uriah – illustrate how a hegemonic man maintains his hegemony through the trifecta of violence, sex, and race. Ultimately, David’s actions in 2 Samuel 10–12 vis-à-vis these three show the limitations and perils of hegemonic masculinity. Rather than glorifying hegemonic masculinity, this text ends up undermining it, exposing cracks in this image of masculinity.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Tim Carrigan, R.W. Connell, and John Lee, “Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity,” Theory and Society 14 (1985), pp. 551–604.
Peter D. Thomas, The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism (Leiden: Brill, 2009), p. 167.
Timothy Mitchell, “Everyday Metaphors of Power,” Theory and Society 19 (1990), pp. 545–577 (553).
Carrigan, Connell, and Lee, “Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity,” p. 592; emphasis original. In Connell’s later work, he writes, “Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (Masculinities, p. 77).
Douglas Schrock and Michael Schwalbe, “Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts,” Annual Review of Sociology 35 (2009), pp. 277–295 (280).
Schrock and Schwalbe, “Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts,” p. 281.
Demetrakis Z. Demetriou, “Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique,” Theory and Society 30 (2001), pp. 337–361 [341].
Demetriou, “Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique,” p. 345. He goes on to say, “whereas for Connell the existence of non-white or non-heterosexual elements in hegemonic masculinity is a sign of contradiction and weakness, for me it is precisely its internally diversified and hybrid nature that makes the hegemonic bloc dynamic and flexible. It is its constant hybridization, its constant appropriation of diverse elements from various masculinities that makes the hegemonic bloc capable of reconfiguring itself and adapting to the specificities of new historical conjunctures” (“Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique,” p. 348). To Connell’s credit, he responds to Demetriou’s critique by affirming that the concept of hegemonic masculinity needed to be reformulated (R.W. Connell and J.W. Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept,” Gender and Society 19 [2005], pp. 829–859).
Chapman, The Gendered Language of Warfare, p. 26. As Carol Newsom argues in reference to Qumran, texts symbolically create and maintain identities in a society, and the literature of a society is a place where ideals are socially constructed and upheld (Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran [Leiden: Brill, 2004]).
Haddox, “Favored Sons,” p. 4. Chapman refers to “the ancient Near Eastern phallic association of weaponry,” noting how at times, the images of the battering ram suggest penetration, such as in a siege relief of Tiglath-Pileser III where the battering ram is pointed up, just touching the walls of the city, while in the background of the battering ram the body of an enemy soldier has been bisected by the ram. A siege relief of Aššur-naṣirpal II depicts the battering ram as ramming a hole in one of the towers of the besieged city. See Chapman, The Gendered Language of Warfare, p. 161.
Clines, “David the Man,” p. 225, and “Dancing and Shining at Sinai: Playing the Man in Exodus 32–34,” in Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond, p. 54–59.
Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach,” CBQ 55 (1993), pp. 244–262 (249).
Haddox, “Favored Sons,” p. 4; Clines, “Dancing and Shining at Sinai,” p. 54.
Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), p. 191.
Moore, “Final Reflections,” p. 247. He draws on Mark George’s work with Deuteronomy, where George writes, “An Israelite man eats with self-control both in terms of putting limits on what types of food he eats and drinks, as well as how much as he consumes” (George, “Masculinity and its Regimentation in Deuteronomy,” in Creangă (ed.), Men and Masculinities in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond, p. 58), and of “the self-control Israelite men are to show in Battle … Deuteronomy presents a code of conduct for Israelite men in Battle, one in which self-control on the part of the army is required” (ibid., p. 60). Haddox argues regarding Jacob that his control of himself and his family is impeded by his attachment to Rachel (“Favored Sons,” p. 13).
Dean Ludwig and Clinton Longenecker, “The Bathsheba Syndrome: The Ethical Failure of Successful Leaders,” The Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1993), pp. 265–273.
Thom Shanker, “Concern Grows over Top Military Officer’s Ethics,” The New York Times, November 12, 2012; accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/petraeuss-resignation-highlights-concern-over-military-officers-ethics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Mackubin Thomas Owens, “Petraeus’s Bathsheba Syndrome,” National Review Online, November 13, 2012; accessible at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/333325/petraeuss-bathsheba-syndrome-mackubin-thomas-owens.
See also Creangă, “Variations on the Theme of Masculinity,” p. 92. Uriah’s name is theophoric, and he refuses to break laws about comportment during battle (Deut. 23:9–14).
Again, see Chapman, The Gendered Language of Warfare, pp. 48–49; Clines, “David the Man,” p. 225; and Haddox, “Favored Sons,” p. 4.
Uriah Kim, “Uriah the Hittite: A (Con)Text of Struggle for Identity,” Semeia 90/91 (2002), pp. 69–85.
Robert Staples, Black Masculinity: The Black Male’s Role in American Society (San Francisco: Black Scholar, 1982).
Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism (Boston: Beacon, 1994), pp. 59–135.
Paul Coughlin, No More Christian Nice Guy Study Guide (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2005), p. 199; Don Charles, Men in the Bible: Examples to Live By (Tulsa: Hensley Publishing, 1999); John Eldredge, Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2nd edn, 2010), pp. 172, 251. There are also movements to understand Jesus as a fighter; see, for instance, the website Jesus Didn’t Tap (accessible at http://www.jesusdidnttap.com); and Matt Morin, “Confessions of a Cage Fighter: Mas·culinity, Misogyny, and the Fear of Losing Control,” The Other Journal, June 28, 2011 (accessible at http://theotherjournal.com/2011/06/28/the-confessions-of-a-cage-fighter-masculinity-misogyny-and-the-fear-of-losing-control/).
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 464 | 116 | 14 |
Full Text Views | 261 | 16 | 5 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 191 | 38 | 8 |
David has been held up as an ideal(ized) man, one against whom other men are to be defined: a hegemonic male. His hegemonic masculinity is clearly visible in 2 Samuel 10–12, which takes place during the Ammonite wars. But hegemony is a social construct, and it gets expressed in social relationships. David’s relationships with three other characters in this pericope – Joab, Bathsheba and Uriah – illustrate how a hegemonic man maintains his hegemony through the trifecta of violence, sex, and race. Ultimately, David’s actions in 2 Samuel 10–12 vis-à-vis these three show the limitations and perils of hegemonic masculinity. Rather than glorifying hegemonic masculinity, this text ends up undermining it, exposing cracks in this image of masculinity.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 464 | 116 | 14 |
Full Text Views | 261 | 16 | 5 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 191 | 38 | 8 |