ListofAbbreviations
PRIMARYSOURCES
BandamannasagaBandamannasaga,inGuðniJónsson(ed.), GrettissagaÁsmundarsonar,Íslenzkfornrit, 7(Reykjavík,1936),291–363.
BárðarsagaBárðarsagaSnæfellsáss,inÞórhallur VilmundarsonandBjarniVilhjálmsson(eds), Harðarsaga,Íslenzkfornrit,13(Reykjavík, 1991),99–172.
BjarnarsagaBjarnarsagaHítdœlakappa,inSigurðurNordal andGuðniJónsson(eds), Borgfirðingaso ˛ gur, Íslenzkfornrit,3(Reykjavík,1938),109–211.
DroplaugarsonasagaDroplaugarsonasaga,inJónJóhannesson(ed.), Austfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit,11(Reykjavík, 1950),135–80.
Egilssaga SigurðurNordal(ed.), EgilssagaSkallaGrímssonar,Íslenzkfornrit,2(Reykjavík,1933).
EiríkssagaEiríkssagarauða,inEinarÓl.Sveinssonand MatthíasÞórðarson(eds), Eyrbyggjasaga,Íslenzk fornrit,4(Reykjavík,1935),193–237.
Eyrbyggjasaga EinarÓl.SveinssonandMatthíasÞórðarson (eds), Eyrbyggjasaga,Íslenzkfornrit,4 (Reykjavík,1935).
FinnbogasagaFinnbogasaga,inJóhannesHalldórsson(ed.), Kjalnesingasaga,Íslenzkfornrit,14(Reykjavík, 1959),251–340.
FljótsdælasagaFljótsdælasaga,inJónJóhannesson(ed.), Austfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit,11(Reykjavík, 1950),213–96.
FlóamannasagaFlóamannasaga,inÞórhallurVilmundarsonand BjarniVilhjálmsson(eds), Harðarsaga,Íslenzk fornrit,13(Reykjavík,1991),229–327.
FóstbrœðrasagaFóstbrœðrasaga,inBjörnK.Þórólfssonand GuðniJónsson(eds), Vestfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzk fornrit,6(Reykjavík,1943),119–276.
GíslasagaGíslasagaSúrssonar,inBjörnK.Þórólfssonand GuðniJónsson(eds), Vestfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzk fornrit,6(Reykjavík,1943),1–118.
Grettissaga GuðniJónsson(ed.), GrettissagaÁsmundarsonar, Íslenzkfornrit,7(Reykjavík,1936).
GrœnlendingasagaGrœnlendingasaga,inEinarÓl.Sveinssonand MatthíasÞórðarson(eds), Eyrbyggjasaga,Íslenzk fornrit,4(Reykjavík,1935),239–69.
GunnarssagaKeldugnúpsfíflsGunnarssagaKeldugnúpsfífls,inJóhannes Halldórsson(ed.), Kjalnesingasaga,Íslenzk fornrit,14(Reykjavík,1959),341–79.
GunnlaugssagaGunnlaugssagaormstungu,inSigurðurNordal andGuðniJónsson(eds), Borgfirðingaso ˛ gur, Íslenzkfornrit,3(Reykjavík,1938),49–107.
HallfreðarsagaHallfreðarsaga,inEinarÓl.Sveinsson(ed.), Vatnsdœlasaga,Íslenzkfornrit,8(Reykjavík, 1939),133–200.
Harðarsaga ÞórhallurVilmundarsonandBjarni Vilhjálmsson(eds), Harðarsaga,Íslenzkfornrit, 13(Reykjavík,1991).
HávarðarsagaHávarðarsagaÍsfirðings,inBjörnK.Þórólfsson andGuðniJónsson(eds), Vestfirðingaso ˛ gur, Íslenzkfornrit,6(Reykjavík,1943),289–358.
HeiðarvígasagaHeiðarvígasaga,inSigurðurNordalandGuðni Jónsson(eds), Borgfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit, 3(Reykjavík,1938),213–326.
Hœnsa-ÞórissagaHœnsa-Þórissaga,inSigurðurNordaland GuðniJónsson(eds), Borgfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzk fornrit,3(Reykjavík,1938),1–47.
HrafnkelssagaHrafnkelssagaFreysgoða,inJónJóhannesson (ed.), Austfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit, 11(Reykjavík,1950),95–133.
Kjalnesingasaga JóhannesHalldórsson(ed.), Kjalnesingasaga, Íslenzkfornrit,14(Reykjavík,1959).
KormákssagaKormákssaga,inEinarÓl.Sveinsson(ed.), Vatnsdœlasaga,Íslenzkfornrit,8(Reykjavík, 1939),201–302.
KristnisagaKristnisaga,inSigurgeirSteingrímsson,Ólafur Halldórsson,andPeterFoote(eds), Biskupa sögurI,Íslenzkfornrit,15.2(Reykjavík,2003), 1–48.
Króka-RefssagaKróka-Refssaga,inJóhannesHalldórsson(ed.), Kjalnesingasaga,Íslenzkfornrit,14(Reykjavík, 1959),117–60.
Laxdœlasaga EinarÓl.Sveinsson(ed.), Laxdœlasaga,Íslenzk fornrit,5(Reykjavík,1934).
Ljósvetningasaga BjörnSigfússon(ed.), Ljósvetningasaga,Íslenzk fornrit,10(Reykjavík,1940).
Njálssaga EinarÓl.Sveinsson(ed.), Brennu-Njálssaga, Íslenzkfornrit,12(Reykjavík,1954).
ReykdœlasagaReykdœlasagaokVíga-Skútu,inBjörnSigfússon (ed.), Ljósvetningasaga,Íslenzkfornrit, 10(Reykjavík,1940),149–243.
SvarfdælasagaSvarfdælasaga,inJónasKristjánsson(ed.), Eyfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit,9(Reykjavík, 1956),127–211.
Valla-LjótssagaValla-Ljótssaga,inJónasKristjánsson(ed.), Eyfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit,9(Reykjavík, 1956),231–60.
Vatnsdœlasaga EinarÓl.Sveinsson(ed.), Vatnsdœlasaga, Íslenzkfornrit,8(Reykjavík,1939).
VápnfirðingasagaVápnfirðingasaga,inJónJóhannesson(ed.), Austfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit,11(Reykjavík, 1950),21–65.
Víga-GlúmssagaVíga-Glúmssaga,inJónasKristjánsson(ed.), Eyfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit,9(Reykjavík, 1956),1–98.
VíglundarsagaVíglundarsaga,inJóhannesHalldórsson(ed.), Kjalnesingasaga,Íslenzkfornrit,14(Reykjavík, 1959),61–116.
ÞorskfirðingasagaÞorskfirðingasagaeðaGull-Þórissaga,in ÞórhallurVilmundarsonandBjarni Vilhjálmsson(eds), Harðarsaga,Íslenzkfornrit, 13(Reykjavík,1991),173–227.
ÞorsteinssagahvítaÞorsteinssagahvíta,inJónJóhannesson(ed.), Austfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit,11(Reykjavík, 1950),1–19.
ÞorsteinssagaSíðu-HallssonarÞorsteinssagaSíðu-Hallssonar,inJón Jóhannesson(ed.), Austfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzk fornrit,11(Reykjavík,1950),297–320.
ÞórðarsagahreðuÞórðarsagahreðu,inJóhannesHalldórsson (ed.), Kjalnesingasaga,Íslenzkfornrit,14 (Reykjavík,1959),161–226.
O ˛ lkofrasagaO ˛ lkofraþáttr,inJónJóhannesson(ed.), Austfirðingaso ˛ gur,Íslenzkfornrit,11(Reykjavík, 1950),81–94.
DICTIONARIES
Cleasby-VigfússonRichardCleasby,GuðbrandurVigfússon,and WilliamA.Craigie, AnIcelandic–English Dictionary (Oxford,1957).
FritznerJohanFritzner, OrdbogoverdeGamleNorske Sprog,2ndedn,3vols(Kristiania,1886–96).
OEDOnlineOEDOnline[www.oed.com]
ZoëgaGeirT.Zoëga, AConciseDictionaryof OldIcelandic (Toronto,ON,2004).
Alltranslationsgiveninthisbookaremyownunlessotherwiseindicated.
Introduction
ReadersoftheOldNorsesagascannothelpbutbestruckbythehighly genderedsocietyconstructedbythesetexts.Theypresentatextualworld inwhichmasculinestatusisall,inwhichthereisnoworseactthantocall another’smasculinityintoquestion,inwhichfeudsrageforgenerations overperceivedaffrontstomasculinity,andinwhichfemalecharactersurge theirmalekintoactinviolentrevengetopreservemasculinestatus.
Whereverwelookinthesagaswearepresentedwithimagesof problematicmasculinity.¹In Njálssaga amaniskilledinsidehishouse, alongwithhisentirefamily,astheculminationofafeudpredicatedonthe exchangeofgenderedinsults.Burning flamesengulfthehouseasrepaymentforthemisjudgedpeaceofferingofasilkencloak.In Grettissaga wearegiventhebiographyofamanwhoisoutlawed andultimately killed forhisextremeandoverbearingformofmasculinity.Andin Egilssaga wearewitnesstothehighlypersonallamentofamanbowed andbrokenbyoldage.Hemustmourntheuntimelydeathofhis sons,andalsothesocialsupportthatislostwiththem.Suchimagesof theoverwhelmingpressuresexertedbymasculinityarecommoninthe Íslendingasögur (sagasofIcelanders),andthisbookinterrogatesthe construction,operation,andproblematizationofsagamasculinities.
OVERVIEWANDMETHODOLOGY
Thismonographisthe firstbook-lengthinvestigationofmasculinitiesin the Íslendingasögur
Chapter1 ModellingSagaMasculinities givesabriefoverviewof secondaryworksrelevanttothestudyofmasculinitiesinthe Íslendingasögur, beforeevaluatingthestrengthsandlimitationsofonecurrent,and particularlypopular,modelusedtoconceptualizeOldNorsemasculinities.Itthenproposesamodifiedmodelmoresuitableforthestudyof
¹WhereIusetheterm ‘ saga ’ withoutqualificationinthisbookIrefertothe Íslendingasögur (sagasofIcelanders).
sagamasculinities,basedontheoriesofhegemonicandsubordinate masculinities.
Chapter2 HomosocialMasculinities usestheconceptofhomosocialitytodiscussattitudestowards,andrepresentationsof,relationships betweenmen.Examiningmasculinitiesandmasculinecharactersfrom acrosstheentire Íslendingasaga corpus,thischapterconstitutesthe first comprehensivestudyofmasculinitiesinthisgenre.Itprovidesafarreachinginvestigationintotheinterpersonaldynamicsofmasculinityin thesagas,therebydemonstratinghowmasculinityinflectshomosocial relationships(andthusvirtuallyallaspectsofsagatexts).Theconclusions drawnabouttheoperationofhomosocialityinsagasocietyareconcurrentlyusedtothinkthroughsomeoftheimplicationsthatOldNorse materialmightholdforEveKosofskySedgwick’smodelofhomosociality.
Chapter3 IntersectionalMasculinities extendsthebook’sreadings ofsagamasculinitiesbyexploringtheintersectionalnatureofcharacter formationtoproduceamultidimensionalviewoftheconstructionand operationofmasculinitiesinthesagas.Thischapterinvestigatesinteractionsbetweenmasculinityandarangeofotheridentitycategories throughwhichsocialpowerisfracturedandhierarchized.Byexamining theinterplaybetweennotionsofmasculinityandideasofyouth,oldage, race,impairment/disability,sexuality,religion,andsocio-economicstatus, itisdemonstratedthattheseotheridentitycategoriescanfunctionas stressorsthatproblematizeagivencharacter’sclaimtoamasculinestatus.
WhileChapters2and3produceacomprehensivestudyoftheconstructionandoperationofmasculinitiesfromacrossthe Íslendingasaga corpus,Chapter4 TheLimitsofSociallyAcceptableMasculinity comprisesadetailedreadingofonesaga.Whilemanycharactersdiscussed upuntilthispointinthebookfailtoliveuptothemasculineideal, Chapter4concludesthisstudybyexaminingtherepresentationofa characterthatembodiesanextremeformofmasculinity.Drawingon psychoanalytictheoryandtheconceptofhypermasculinitytoanalyse theprotagonistoftheoutlaw-saga GrettissagaÁsmundarsonar,this final chapterdemonstratestheextenttowhichmasculinitycanproblematizea character’srelationtoself,family,society,andeventheverynotionof masculinityitself.Hypermasculinity itwillbeshown canbejustas problematicasdeficientmasculinity.
Thedominantmethodologicalmodeemployedinthisbookisthatof closeliteraryanalysis,butmyanalysesalsodrawonarangeofothercritical approachesfromvariousdisciplinesincludinggenderandfeministstudies, queerstudies,sociology,andpsychoanalysis.
IntheremainderofthisIntroduction becauseitishopedthat thisbookwillappealtoarangeofaudiences,withvarieddisciplinary
backgrounds generalintroductionsareprovidedtoOldNorseliterature (particularlythe Íslendingasögur)andtothelinkedconceptsof ‘gender’ and ‘masculinity’ (bothofwhicharefundamentaltothisbook’sanalyses). ThisIntroductionconcludeswithaconsiderationoftheethicsand necessityofstudyingsagamasculinities.
OLDNORSE – ICELANDICLITERATURE
TheOldNorse–Icelandicliterarycorpusisrichandvaried,encompassingastaggeringlybroadrangeofpoetry,prose,andprosimetra.Old Norsepoetryisgenerally butnotunproblematically categorizedinto twomajorgroupings:eddicpoetryandskaldicpoetry.²Eddicpoetryis usuallymetricallysimple,anonymous,andtreatsmythologicaland legendarymaterial.Skaldicpoetry ontheotherhand isextremely complex,mostcommonlywrittenin dróttkvætt (courtmetre),andcomposedusingdemandingsyntacticalstructuresandfrequentkennings (poeticcircumlocutions);itis,forthemostpart,emphaticallynonanonymous.Bothtypesofpoetrycanbefound tovaryingdegrees withinmanysaganarratives.
Asisinvariablynotedinintroductionstosagaliterature,thenoun saga derivesfromtheOldNorseverb segja (totell,tosay),andisaterm usedtodescribelongprosenarratives.Sagasaresometimes,butbyno meansalways,prosimetrical;thepresence,type,andextentofverses incorporatedintoasaganarrativeishighlyvariableandtoadegree dependsuponthesubgenretowhichasagacanbesaidtobelong (althoughtherearenouniversallyapplicablerulesinthisregard). Sagashavebeensubdividedintoanumberoftypesincluding konungasögur (sagasofkings), fornaldarsögur (sagasofancienttimes), samtíðarsögur (contemporarysagas),translatedandindigenous riddarasögur (sagasof knights), heilagramannasögur (sagasofholypeople),and Íslendingasögur (sagasofIcelanders).Eachofthesegenericlabels withtheexceptionof ‘konungasögur’—isapost-medievalcoinage.³Butthesetermsareneverthelessuseful,andreflectthefactthatweareabletoclassifysagasintodifferent
²MargaretCluniesRoss, AHistoryofOldNorsePoetryandPoetics (Woodbridge,2011), 1–28.
³Foradiscussionofthedivisionofsagasinto(sub)genres,seeMargaretCluniesRoss, TheCambridgeIntroductiontoTheOldNorse-IcelandicSaga (Cambridge,2010),27–36.
Seealso:MassimilianoBampi, ‘Genre’,inÁrmannJakobssonandSverrirJakobsson (eds), TheRoutledgeResearchCompaniontoTheMedievalIcelandicSagas (Oxford,2017), 4–14.
groupingsbaseduponperceivedcommonalitiesinstyle,focus,and above all chronotope.⁴
Íslendingasögur
The Íslendingasögur (sagasofIcelanders) sometimesknowninEnglishas the ‘familysagas’—arethebestknownofallgenresoftheOldNorse–Icelandicsaga.Theyhavealsoreceivedthemostcriticalattention,and thisbooklikewisetakesthesetextsasitsprimaryobjectofstudy.The Íslendingasögur compriseagroupofaroundfortysagasthatdealwiththe multigenerationalfeuds,andtheinterpersonalandinterfamilyrelationshipsofthe firstgenerationsofIcelandersintheperiodknownasthe söguöld (saga-age),whichrunsfromthebeginningofthesettlement(c.870 AD), throughtheconversionofIcelandin999/1000 AD ,toafewdecades followingit(c.1030 AD).Someofthe Íslendingasögur aresetentirelyprior toconversion(e.g. Egilssaga),somestraddleit(e.g. Njálssaga),andsome aresetentirelypost-conversion(e.g. Fóstbrœðrasaga).Whileallofthe Íslendingasögur aresetwithintheperiod c.870–c.1030,sagasdidnotbegin tobewrittendownuntilthethirteenthcentury.Themajorityofthe Íslendingasögur werewrittendowninthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturies;asmallnumberareyoungerthanthis.⁵ Thevastmajorityofthese sagastakeplaceinIceland,andthisfactisoftenregardedasadefining featureofthegenre.Thereareexceptions,however:largepartsof Egils saga,forexample,takeplaceinmainlandScandinaviaandinBritain,while theVínlandsagas(Grœnlendingasaga and Eiríkssaga)areconcernedwith exploratoryjourneyswestwardtoGreenlandandNorthAmerica.What unitesallofthesesagas,however asthegenericlabel Íslendingasaga (saga ofIcelanders)wouldsuggest isthattheyareprimarilyaboutIcelanders: evenwheneventsdonottakeplaceinIceland,theycertainlyconcern Icelandicpeople.
⁴ ThetermisBakhtin’s,usefullyyokingtogethertheelementsoftimeandspace,with thechronotopeorspace-timeofatextortextsbeingcharacteristicofgenreandshaping genericexpectations.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeCarlPhelpstead, ‘Time’,inÁrmann JakobssonandSverrirJakobsson(eds), TheRoutledgeResearchCompaniontoTheMedieval IcelandicSagas (Oxford,2017),187–97(192–5).Seealso:Torfi H.Tulinius, ‘Framliðnir feður:UmforneskjuogfrásagnarlistíEyrbyggju,EgluogGrettlu’,inHaraldurBessason andBaldurHafstað(eds), Heiðinminni:Greinarumfornarbókmenntir (Reykjavík,1999), 283–316(284–8),andHeatherO’Donoghue, OldNorse-IcelandicLiterature:AShort Introduction (OxfordandMalden,MA,2004),46.
⁵ Foranoverviewofsagadatings,seeVésteinnÓlason ‘FamilySagas’,inRoryMcTurk (ed.), ACompaniontoOldNorse-IcelandicLiteratureandCulture (Oxford,2005),101–18 (114–15).
Thesagasarewellknownfortheireconomical,externallyfocalized prosestyle.Theyarelargelynaturalistic,withtheparanormal figuringless heavilythaninothergenresofsagaliterature.Many,butnotall,ofthese sagasincorporateskaldicverses,andtheseversescanbeusedbysaga authorstoproduceasenseofinterioritythatisgenerallyabsentinsaga prose.⁶ Althoughoftengivingtheappearanceofobjectivehistory tothe extentthatinthepastsomecriticsregardedthe Íslendingasögur ashistoricallyaccurateaccounts theyarenowrecognizedasbeingshaped bytheirauthorsintopiecesofliteraryart(withthesophisticationof suchliteraryshapingvarying asonewouldexpect fromsagatosaga). Despitedifferencesbetweenindividualsagas,theyneverthelessproduce intertextually aremarkablycoherentpictureofarealisticsocialworld.⁷ Thismakesthesesagasparticularlyamenabletosustainedreadingsof genderidentityandconstruction;thisistheprimaryreasontheyhave beenchosenasthebasisforthisstudy.
GENDERANDMASCULINITY
Thissectiondiscussestheterms ‘gender’ and ‘masculinity’ astheyareused inthisbook.Incontemporaryunderstanding, ‘gender’ isoftenseenasa socialconstructthatisseparatefromtheconceptof ‘ sex ’.Whilesexis in sometheoriesatleast viewedasa ‘fact’ ofbiology,genderistakentobe theculturalelaborationofthisapparentdifference,ofwhich ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ aretheresultantbinarycategories.AsR.W.Connell notes, ‘initsmostcommonusage[...]theterm “gender” meansthe culturaldifferenceofwomenfrommen,basedinthebiologicaldivision betweenmaleandfemale.Dichotomyanddifferencearethesubstanceof theidea’ . ⁸ Butsuchasimpleunderstandingobscuresthecomplexitiesof gender,includingitsgenesis.
Inpsychoanalyticaccounts,allsubjectsare,inearlychildhood,neither masculinenorfeminine.Masculinityarisesthroughtherepressionof femininitythatisdemandedbythesuccessfulnavigationoftheOedipal crisisbythemaleinfant.Itisthroughthisconflictthatthemasculineand thefemininecometobeseenasoppositional.⁹ However,becausethe
⁶ Foradetaileddiscussionoftheroleofskaldicverseinsaganarrative,see:Heather O’Donoghue, SkaldicVerseandthePoeticsofSagaNarrative (Oxford,2005).
⁷ VésteinnÓlason, ‘FamilySagas’,101.
⁸ R.W.Connell, Gender (Malden,MA,2002),8.
⁹ JoanW.Scott, ‘Gender:AUsefulCategoryofHistoricalAnalysis’ , TheAmerican HistoricalReview 91.5(1986),1053–75(1063);SigmundFreud, ‘TheEgoandtheId’ ,
Oedipaldramaistriangular,nascentsubjectsmust,instages,identifywith parents(or,inLacanianrereadings,structuralpositions)representingboth masculinityandfemininity.Asaresult,subjectsarealmostinvariablyan admixtureofmasculinityandfemininity.Eithergenderedpositionis rarelyfoundinpureisolationfromtheother.¹⁰
JudithButler,drawingonpsychoanalyticinsights,alsosuggeststhat genderedidentityisasocialconstruct.Forher,genderisperformative, meaningthatgenderedidentityarisesthroughtheiterationofactswhich haveagenderedsignificancethatisalready ‘sociallyestablished’ inthe contextinwhichtheyareperformed.¹¹Butthesesociallyestablishedacts arenottheexpressionofacoregenderidentity.Rather,whatappeartobe expressionsofcoreidentityareinfacttheactionsthatcreatetheappearanceofanoriginarycentre.¹²Inthisformulation,therearenorealortrue genderidentities,butrathergenderistobeseenas ‘akindofpersistent impersonationthatpassesasthereal’.¹³
InButler’saccount,masculinityandfemininityareconstructedas opposed,naturalizedcategoriesasaresultoftheprojectionofthe ‘cultural patternofheterosexualcouplesontothenaturalworld’.¹⁴ Butfemininity, inthepsychoanalytictraditionofwhichButlerisapart,lacksindependent definition.Unlikemasculinity,astructuralpositionwhichwecanregard ashavingqualifiableattributes,femininityisanemptycategory,beingthe structuraloppositeofmasculinity.AsButlernotes, ‘[t]hefeminineisnever amarkofthesubject;thefemininecouldnotbean “attribute” ofagender. Rather,thefeminineisthesignificationoflack,signifiedbytheSymbolic, asetofdifferentiatinglinguisticrulesthateffectivelycreatesexual difference’.¹⁵
AnotherimportantfacetofButler’sworkonthesocialconstruction ofgenderistheuncouplingofsexfromgender.Notonlyisgendertobe seenasasocialconstruct,butalsodimorphicsex.Theexistenceofbodies todaywhichdonot fitneatlyintotheostensiblynaturalcategoriesof ‘male’ and ‘female’ indicatesthatthebinaryconceptionofbiologicalsex isaninadequatedescriptorofbodilyreality.¹⁶ Theviolenceimposedon in TheStandardEditionoftheCompletePsychologicalWorksofSigmundFreud,VolumeXIX (1923–1925):TheEgoandtheIdandOtherWorks (London,2001),12–66(31–3).
¹⁰ RosMinsky, ‘PsychoanalysisandGender’,inRachelAlsop,AnnetteFitzsimons,and KathleenLennon, TheorizingGender (Oxford,2002),39–63(46).
¹¹JudithButler, GenderTrouble:FeminismandtheSubversionofIdentity (NewYorkand London,1990),140.
¹²Alsop,Fitzsimons,andLennon, TheorizingGender,99;Butler, GenderTrouble,25.
¹³Butler, GenderTrouble,x.¹⁴ Connell, Gender,33.
¹⁵ Butler, GenderTrouble,27.
¹⁶ AnneFausto-Sterling, ‘TheFiveSexes:WhyMaleandFemaleareNotEnough’ , TheSciences 33.2(1993),20–4.
intersexinfantsinordertomaketheirbodiesalignwithprevailingcultural modelsofdimorphicsexandgender,forexample,illustrates ‘thecultural needtoreinforceanddefendagenderedbinary’.¹⁷ Moreover,maleand femalethemselvesdonotfunctionconvincinglyaspolesonagender spectrum.Indeed,asConnellnotes, ‘theoverwhelmingconclusionfrom ahundredyearsof “sexdifference” researchisthatmenandwomenare notverydifferentatall,acrossawiderangeoftraitsexaminedinpsychologyandrelatedsocialsciences’.¹⁸ Thatthegenitalsareendowedwith genderedmeaningisaculturaleffectratherthananinevitableproductof biology.Suchmeaningcould,intheory,accruetoanyotherbodilytrait forexample,height inwhichthereisdifferenceandvariation.Ifthen, weviewdimorphicsexasaninadequatedescriptionofbiologicalreality, anditselfasocialconstruction,theideathatgenderisinsomewayaresult ofthesocialelaborationofthecategoriesmaleandfemaleistobeseenas problematic.Rather,inButler’swords, ‘genderitselfbecomesafreefloatingartifice,withtheconsequencethat man and masculine might justaseasilysignifyafemalebodyasamaleone,and woman and feminine amalebodyaseasilyasafemaleone’.¹⁹ Masculinitythen,whileusually associatedwithbodiesthatwewouldviewasmale,canbe andindeed, is alsoembodiedbysubjectswhosephysicalcharacteristicswouldcause themtobejudgedasfemale.²⁰ While aswillbeshowninChapter1 sagaliteratureseemstorecognizeadistinctionbetweensexandgender,it doesneverthelessgenerallyunderstandsexasafactofbiology.
Ultimately,inthisbook,genderistobeunderstoodasaperformative socialconstructionthatisseparatefrom althoughseeminglylinkedto anotionofbiologicalsex.Ihaveheresimplysketchedouttheoutlineofa notionofsociallyconstructedgender,influencedbyinsightsfrompsychoanalysis,butasthebookprogressesrelevanttheoriesofgenderand sexualitywillbeintroducedandelaborateduponasnecessary.
WHYSTUDYMASCULINITY?
AswillbediscussedinChapter1,thereareveryfewscholarlyworkson masculinityinOldNorseliterature.Anditmaybeclaimedthatthereason forthisissimplythatwedonotneed orwant suchstudies.Indeed,
¹⁷ Minsky, ‘PsychoanalysisandGender’,31.¹⁸ Connell, Gender,42.
¹⁹ Butler, GenderTrouble,6.
²⁰ JudithHalberstamelaboratesthisobservationin FemaleMasculinity (Durham,NC, andLondon,1998).
Afulldiscussionoffemalemasculinitiesinsagaliteratureisoutsidethescopeofthis book,butthetopicwillbetreatedinafuturepublication.
itcouldbesuggestedthatanimpulsetostudymenormasculinitiesisnot onlyneedless (arenotalmostallstudiesofsagaliterature,becauseofthe ‘overwhelminglymale-dominatedworldofthe Íslendingasögur’,insome waysstudiesofmen?) butalsosymptomaticofapetulantandreactionaryresponsetostudiesthatarebroadlyfeministintheirapproach.²¹
Butsuchanattitudereifieswomanasthesoleobjectoffeminist inquiry,consequentlynaturalizingthecategoriesofmenandmasculinity. AsJaneFlaxnotes:
Totheextentthatfeministdiscoursedefinesitsproblematicas ‘ woman, ’ it, too,ironicallyprivilegesthemanasunproblematicorexemptedfrom determinationbygenderrelations.Fromtheperspectiveofsocialrelations, menandwomenarebothprisonersofgender,althoughinhighlydifferentiatedbutinterrelatedways.Thatmenappeartobeand(inmanycases)are thewardens,oratleastthetrusteesinasocialwhole,shouldnotblindusto theextenttowhich,they,too,aregovernedbytherulesofgender.²²
Byseeingwomenandfemininitiesasinneedofcriticalstudy butnot menandmasculinities femininitiesareseenasconstructedandfalse, whilemenandmasculinitiesareprivilegedassomehowrealandauthentic. Masculinities,ofcourse,areasmuchaproductofsocialconstructionas femininities.
AsJohnToshnotesforthehistoricalrecordatlarge, ‘itisasthough masculinityiseverywherebutnowhere’.²³Thesameholdstrueforstudies ofsagaliterature.Wecanviewintroductoryhandbooks,companions, andencyclopediaeasanindexofthis.Forexample, ACompaniontoOld Norse-IcelandicLiteratureandCulture containsJudyQuinn’schapteron ‘WomeninOldNorsePoetryandSagas’,butthereisnocorresponding chapteron ‘Men’.Similarly, MedievalScandinavia:AnEncyclopedia containsanentrybyElseMundalon ‘WomeninSagas’,andbyHelen Damicoon ‘WomeninEddicPoetry’,buttherearenocorresponding entriesonmenormasculinities.²⁴ Masculinityiseverywherebecausemen
²¹AlisonFinlay, ‘BetrothalandWomen’sAutonomyin Laxdœlasaga andthePoets’ Sagas’ , Skáldskaparmál 4(1997),107–28(109).
²²JaneFlax, ‘PostmodernismandGenderRelationsinFeministTheory’ , Signs 12.4 (1987),621–43(629).Thispassageisalsocited inabbreviatedform inThelma Fenster, ‘Preface:WhyMen?’,inClareLees(ed.), MedievalMasculinities:RegardingMen intheMiddleAges (Minneapolis,MNandLondon,1994),ix–xiii(ix).
²³JohnTosh, ‘WhatShouldHistoriansDoWithMasculinity?Reflectionson Nineteenth-CenturyBritain’ , HistoryWorkshop 38(1994),179–202(180).
²⁴ JudyQuinn, ‘WomeninOldNorsePoetryandSagas’,inMcTurk(ed.), ACompaniontoOldNorse-IcelandicLiteratureandCulture,518–35;ElseMundal, ‘WomeninSagas’ , inPhilipPulsianoandKirstenWolf(eds), MedievalScandinavia:AnEncyclopedia (New YorkandLondon,1993),723–5;HelenDamico, ‘WomeninEddicPoetry’,inPulsiano andWolf(eds), MedievalScandinavia:AnEncyclopedia, 721–3.
areeverywhere;itisconcurrentlynowherebecausemenandmasculinities arenotrigorouslyinterrogatedascategories,butrathertakenasgivens. Thiscanbeunderstoodasafunctionofmasculinity’sstatusasthe ‘unmarkedcategory’,wheremalenessandmasculinitycanpassasuniversal humanconditions,whilefemalenessandfemininityareseenasconstructedandother.
Thisbooktakesthesamescrutinythatwomenandfemininitieshave receivedinscholarlyworkonOldNorseliteratureandappliesittomen andmasculinitiesinthe Íslendingasögur.Indoingso,itrevealsthatmen andmasculinitycannotlegitimatelybetreatedasunproblematic,ahistorical,ornaturalcategories,butrather likefemininity mustbeseenas constructed,artificial,andmobile.
Thestudyofmasculinities,then,comestobeseenasafeminist enterpriseinitsownright.AndatthispointIwouldliketodistance myselffrom infactcompletelyreject so-called ‘masculinist’ studies which,incompleteoppositiontothepresentbook, ‘drawonnaturalizing discoursesandstandinopposition,eitherimplicitlyorexplicitly,tobasic feministprinciples’.²⁵ Iwouldalsoliketoemphasizethatthisbookdoes notderivefromsomemisguidednotionthatmenhavebeentreated unfairlybynotbeingstudiedinthesamewayaswomen(thisistherather problematiclogicbehindmasculiniststudies).Rather,thisstudyexplicitly problematizesthecategoryofmasculinity.Bystudyingmasculinitiesin thesamewaywedofemininitiesweremoveanyclaimthatmasculinity mayseemtohavetoanaturalauthenticity,abstractedfromthecultural discourseorthematrixofgenderrelationswhichconstituteit.But moreover,viewingmasculinitiesthroughthesamecriticalopticsweuse tolookatfemininitiesallowsustoexaminethewaysinwhichsaga masculinitiesmaybesubvertedanddestabilizedbytheverytextswhich createthem.Asnotedin ‘GenderandMasculinity’,theprevioussectionof thischapter,masculinity inthepsychoanalyticaccountofthegenesisof genderedidentity arisesinrelationtothefeminine,butsubjectsare neverthelessunlikelytobewhollymasculineorfeminine.Instead,they usuallypossessacomplexofgenderedcomponents.Itisinthisfactthat theseedsofsubversionlie,andthisbooktendstothefruitsofits ‘full subversivepotential’.²⁶
²⁵ Alsop,Fitzsimons,andLennon, TheorizingGender,133.
²⁶ Tosh, ‘WhatShouldHistoriansDoWithMasculinity?’,179.
