“The Culture of Cruelty”
I first found the article eye opening both to what some young boys and girls go through in the sweat of emotional development.
There are so many differences not only between men and women, but between free and non-free peoples. The giant leap into manhood, a leap filled with the potency of hope, shares the podium with a mound of other debilitating dilemmas that pay homage to a dangerous attraction - the mask of cruelty, which like cinema leaves its images trampled on the cutting board floor.
W.E.B. DuBois makes us aware of a “two-ness” when it comes to African Americans. A double social identity, one lodged in the dominant White culture, the other found in the Black culture. In one respect that “two-ness” is a conflicting identity that is familiar with what is necessary for survival in a dominant society of whites, but is also is trying to keep an African identity. Assimilation is necessary for survival in this country, so here is a young boy who must negotiate his way through the valley of “The Culture of Cruelty” which necessitates more than an acquaintance with the dominant male image and autonomy, he must also understand survival demands he learn to “drop his eyelids” when challenged by Whites and in spite of everything, find a place where he is considered a man and yet be called by his name.
It is stated in the article, “Among themselves boys engage in continuous psychological warfare… creating an environment that pits the strong against the weak, …the power brokers against the powerless, and the conformity-driven “boy pack” against the boy who fails in any way to conform with pack expectations.” My question lies in a murky area somewhere – if in fact the end result is institutionally to never be allowed acceptance even if the behavior a boy exhibits really does conform, the dangling carrot becomes the “boy pack” that he will never be accepted into. How then does that affect his position/status and where does that leave him within the culture structure he is trying so desperately to negotiate position?
I seriously wonder if “boys urinating on other boy’s belongings stemmed in simple “boy behavior”, or if it was a racial prank would a Black child’s reaction be racially motivated, or could that child ever see these pranks as simply “boy culture”.
“Boys who are under constant pressure to assert power or be labeled a weakling are more likely to level cruelty at others with little recognition of, or regard for, its emotional impact. Boys are cruel, in part because they are afraid, and their need to defend against that fear is ironclad.” Have we in this instance found the reason for physical abuse towards women or does this power assertion also turn on itself towards other men? And if this is the case, can we accept this type of explanation for crime against women and is crime culturally and racially more evenly distributed now? Does this window of understanding allow us to slacken our intolerance on crimes against women and children? If striving for masculinity and equality lends itself to more pain perhaps we should be rethinking our cultural norms and becoming more intolerant no matter the cost.