Representations of Indigenous Masculinity in Eric Gansworth's "Smoke Dancing"

Example of academic work. Final paper written for ENGL 389: Gender and Sexuality in Native North American Literature.

In the realm of feminist studies, masculinity and the particular ways in which different masculinities are constructed is an oft-overlooked subject. While the conversation around the topic has been expanding in general, it is becoming a much more pronounced issue, especially in light of our current political climate which sees hegemonic masculinity at its strongest. However, the simple act of discussing the issue has spurred resistance, and shown how much there is to be considered when investigating gender roles and their influence on society. There is no one correct way to be a man, just as there is no one correct way to be a woman, and masculinity studies has carved out its own space within the wider sphere of feminist theory to consider this problem of manhood. Much of the scholarly work that is emerging on masculinity has come from Indigenous authors of both fiction and non-fiction.

In Eric Gansworth’s Smoke Dancing, the characters of Chief Jacob “Bud” Tunny and Mason Rollins offer specific looks into how Indigenous masculinities are constructed, the various ways they present themselves and how those presentations persist and are preserved through culture, especially on reservations. Bud appears to be a stark traditionalist, a man whose role in the community has defined the way he has acted within it. He lashes out at all those who question or threaten his authority, and his faith in his own beliefs has blinded him to the true needs of the community he claims to represent. Mason, on the other hand, strives to bring the reservation up to speed with the modern world, and has ambitions far beyond what most on the reservation believe they even have the ability to achieve. However, while he is opposite to Bud in this respect, Mason performs his masculinity in many similar ways. He sees women as objects that he has a natural right to and the world as simply ripe for his taking. Both men suffer from delusions of grandeur, and while their ultimate fates may differ, their violent and ignorant performance of their gender ruins both their lives.

It is important to recognize the historical roots of Indigenous masculinity before we can even begin to consider the way masculinity plays out in these characters’ lives. Much of the gender performance witnessed within Native American communities stems from colonial attitudes which were integrated into Indigenous communities during colonization. Indigenous peoples both on and off of reservations are still suffering the consequences of colonization and will continue to unless there is real consideration of masculine identities and actions taken to educate the population on colonialism and its unacknowledged effects. Therefore, my goals for this essay are as such: to investigate Bud and Mason’s masculinities both separately and in conversation with each other, to discuss how these masculinities are consciously constructed by Gansworth, why the two men must be represented in this way, and what the implications of such representations may be; to tie these characters into the broader circle of Indigenous masculinities and its perceptions, specifically what representations of Native American men Bud and Mason appear to fit into, and finally, to look at the character of Two-Step – what he offers to the novel, and what his role may suggest about the direction Indigenous masculinity should take.

The colonization of Native North American communities by the European colonizers nearly wiped out an entire generation of people in pursuit of establishing Western dominance. The colonizers brought not only destruction to Indigenous communities, but actively worked to convert the Native Americans to their religion by force. They implemented their values and forced their culture onto the Native Americans, and their culture was one of patriarchy, violence, and intolerance to anything deemed even slightly deviant from Western thinking. In “Cutting to the Roots of Colonial Masculinity,” Scott L. Morgensen describes how “Indigenous gender systems appeared to Europeans to be ambiguous or aberrant,” (42) and therefore indicative of a way of life which they believed needed to be exterminated entirely. The European colonizers saw the heteropatriarchal system as the natural, sensible way of life. The conscious genocide of any and all gender identities which did not fit squarely into the binary which the Western mode of thinking had established was a significant way of signaling to Native American communities that hegemonic masculinity was the “only” way to be a true, valid man. The Europeans had to undermine Native American tradition(s) and/or gender roles in order to rationalize their conquest of already settled communities. In painting their practices as abnormal and dangerous, they could better convince themselves that Indigenous men needed “saving” and that the best way to correct behavior would be to teach them hegemonic practices.

However, it would be incorrect to posit that Indigenous men represent true hegemonic masculinity. Native American communities are marginalized – and in the case of United States reservations, literally segregated from the rest of the country – and therefore, they have not been afforded the status and power which would enable them to be truly considered hegemonic. Therefore, they exhibit a type of masculinity more along the lines of protest masculinity, a subjugated form of masculinity defined as “a marginalized masculinity which cannot be based on the privileges of hegemonic masculinity but needs to rework the themes of male superiority in a context of poverty.” (Groes-Green 289) It is a masculinity classified by violence, especially towards women, and a desire to achieve hegemonic status but an inability to. Indigenous men have a proclivity towards physical violence and coercion as a means of establishing dominance, but this is a learned behavior from the Europeans. Any violence exhibited by Indigenous men is in response to the violence enacted against them and taught to them by the colonizers. Heteropatriarchal norms’ “adoption by Indigenous communities served as a further tool of colonization by turning them into policing agents for a patriarchal and now heteronormative settler society.” (Morgensen 53) These behaviors have been passed down through generation after generation, inflicting trauma on all those affected, and have been so absorbed into Native communities that they seem to be natural, even traditional. Indigenous men unconsciously strive towards a masculine ideal which has been imposed upon them, and act violently to achieve such status. They must work to prove themselves at all times, by whatever means necessary. “Colonial masculinity sustains both colonial and heteropatriarchal power by presenting its victims as the cause and proper recipients of its own violations,” (Morgensen 55) thereby ingraining these norms in communities which never upheld them in the first place.

It is easy to see how these masculine ideals have come to fruition in the character of Chief Jacob “Bud” Tunny in Smoke Dancing. The traditional values which Bud invokes to rationalize his violence against the people in his life, specifically the women and especially his illegitimate daughter, Fiction, and the community he represents as their Chief, are values which came directly from colonialism. He sees tradition as the history he has witnessed, the generations he has learned from. But those generations have been so manipulated by trauma and colonialism that their values and the colonial values imposed upon them are nearly indistinguishable from one another. Bud believes that he, having been given the power as Chief and coming from a family of high status in the community, is naturally going to be their best leader and know what is right for the people. However, underneath Bud’s dominance is a man with a deep-seated fear of losing his power, and this is what makes him lash out with such violence.

After physically beating Fiction, Bud says, “Soon, no one will be listening to the Chiefs. Be just like the white world.” (Gansworth 45) This comment, placed directly after Bud’s act of violence, signals to the reader that his true fear is of being revoked of his status and the power that accompanies it. If the reservation expands to embrace more modern values and skills, the relatively-isolated reservation will be exposed to a world which will not respect his power. Bud has carved out a place for himself on the reservation, and does not want to see himself stripped of the authority the community has given him. The effects of colonialism continue to destroy his community, yet at heart, his intentions are pure – he wants to ensure his community is not subjected to the influence of ignorant white people. “She’s not even one of our own. Maybe that’s why she has no respect for my role,” (Gansworth 44) Bud thinks to himself, and this exemplifies that Bud gets his power directly from the power he holds. It is his role in the community which allows him to perform his masculinity with such force, and any threat to him must be taught to give proper respect, if not outright eliminated. “It is a Chief’s responsibility, after all, to teach respect.” (Gansworth 45) As an Indigenous man in control of a reservation, this is his only way to exert his manhood. White people have not afforded him the chance to have any power in their world, and so Bud must cling to what he can get, just as those impoverished men who exhibit protest masculinity must cling to any semblance of authority they can find.

Mason Rollins appears to be Bud’s opposite. However, Mason’s performance of masculinity relies on a similar notion that he believes that what is best for him is also what is best for the community. Mason believes that the reservation stands its best chance by embracing modernity and bringing in newer, Western modes of thinking. While Gansworth makes it clear that staying so insulated may spell disaster, complete abandonment of traditional values is also not the solution to the reservation’s problems. Mason is tone-deaf, blinded by his ego and consistently determined to make decisions based on personal, selfish views. While he is not as outwardly violent as Bud, he does see women, in particular Fiction, as conquests. He pursues Fiction throughout the novel despite her explicit disinterest and interferes with her life in an attempt to insert himself into it. Because he sees himself as the Nation’s best option, so too does he believe himself to be Fiction’s best option. When she becomes involved with another man, Mason expects that she will simply come crawling back to him once she realizes how much she would be missing out on. “He certainly doesn’t have anywhere near the financial resources I have, and he never will,” (Gansworth 192) Mason says about Big Red, Fiction’s partner. For a struggling reservation, Mason’s wealth is a big deal. He could provide Fiction with financial security she could never have even dreamed of, and he uses this knowledge to his advantage as a means of coercion.

Mason embodies the colonial masculinity outlined above. Though he does not physically sexually abuse Fiction, he harasses and takes advantage of her from the outset. “I could probably take [Fiction] and bang her right here in the car, and no one would ever believe her; but that’s not the way I like to do things. She should be riding on my lap because she wants to be there.” (Gansworth 22) Mason clearly sees no issue with the way he treats women, because the power he continues to gain on the reservation is his only concern. Despite how obviously troubling this statement is, Mason seems to actually think that this makes him a good man. He could do these terrible things, sure, and get away with them – but he exercises restraint, so why does no one praise him for it? Mason does not need to enact “conquest and sexual violence” (Morgensen 39) upon Fiction like his predecessors have done to countless Indigenous women, because he wholeheartedly believes she will simply be his one day. Why take by force what will inevitably come naturally? This mentality places Mason squarely into a representation of colonial masculinity as well as protest masculinity. However, hegemonic masculinity is classified by the use of one’s power to persuade, not force, and that is what Mason appears to be doing here. But he does not have the consent, tacit or no, to truly be hegemonic. Mason’s performance of manhood relies on a variety of masculinities, making him hard to pin down. Just as Mason appears to his community as an outsider, a foreigner, due to his appreciation for the modern world, he is also a bit of an outsider in terms of his masculinity. Perhaps it is Mason’s connection to the Western world and society outside of the reservation which has led to his adoption of some hegemonic ideals, his power (recognized by the government and the people outside of the reservation) which allows for him to enact the same learned behaviors as white men. He straddles the line between communities, and this is reflected in his gender performance.

It is important to look at why Bud and Mason were constructed in this way, and what Gansworth is offering to Native American literature with these characters. Traditional representations of Native Americans have been fraught with racism and ignorance, painting Indigenous communities as savages, using their likenesses – often when dressed in traditional regalia – as mascots, if Indigenous communities are recognized at all. One important representation of Native American men is through the image of the “warrior,” an identity that “has continued as a stereotype imposed on Native Americans by non-Natives.” (Roberts 147) However, the warrior ideal still persists in Native American cultures, and not necessarily with a negative connotation. The warrior ideal grew out of “a natural relationship of service and duty with the rest of the community,” (Roberts 148) and men often aspire to this warrior image. For Plains Natives, the warrior archetype grew directly out of competition dancing, where men often saw their participation in the dances as a means of giving back to their communities, a way of “constructing a particular view of masculine responsibility and communal relationship.” (Roberts 154) Considering this history, it is interesting to see how Mason Rollins intersects with this type of representation of manhood in his own community. Mason was once a competition dancer himself, and it was through the relationships he formed with that community that he was able to find himself and acquire the means to achieve his goals. He was tied directly to this traditional practice, and excelled at it, but it wasn’t until he expanded into the Western world and came into contact with their ideals of masculinity that his own gender performance was affected. But while competition dancing invokes a traditional past, the practice is actually of more modern conception. “Excelling at this modern activity is a way of giving honor to the past,” (Roberts 156) and by connecting Mason to this role, we can further see how Gansworth has created a character unable to be easily fit into boxes.

In composing Mason in this way, Gansworth is implying that the gender roles Native American men have adopted and perpetuated are complex and deserving of further investigation in order to decipher exactly how Indigenous masculinity presents itself. Therefore, we must look at how Bud has also been constructed to represent the worst of colonial masculinity, and the implications of this representation. While Gansworth makes it clear through both tone and plot that Bud is a reprehensible person, and he fleshes him out well enough that the reader understands why Bud makes the decisions that he does, but he doesn’t create sympathy for Bud in the same way one could potentially read Mason as a sympathetic character. The violence Bud enacts is inexcusable, and from the outset, the reader is inclined to despise him. No amount of information given about his past makes the reader feel that he is justified in his harm and anger, because it is clear that his rage stems from social constructs and a deeper fear. The reader does not give him a chance, and they are not supposed to. By writing Bud as the poster child for colonial masculinity, Gansworth is signaling that the masculine ideals rooted in colonialism which unconsciously present themselves in Native American culture must change, or the cycle of violence they have created will never end. It is up to Indigenous peoples to recognize the gender norms they perpetuate, to investigate them, and to work on actively de-colonizing their own communities, even when the facets of their lives which they must transform are intangible.

Therefore, if Gansworth is suggesting that neither of these presentations of masculinity are adequate, then what does he offer in place of them? By the end of the novel, both Bud and Mason have suffered the consequences of their actions. Bud has lost his position as Chief, and now faces the deepest shame and resentment at the hands of his community. He has sealed his own fate, and is determined to take down anyone who has questioned him along the way. Mason, though he has spurred the reservation into embracing a number of aspects of modernity, seems to have learned no lessons about his treatment of women and how to properly listen to the members of the community he claims to care so much for. While his professional life may be thriving, Mason himself has made no progress. Instead of wrapping these characters’ arcs up nicely, the novel ends with a chapter from the perspective of Two-Step Harmony, who has been a side character throughout the novel, but, despite that, is still perceived as a pillar of the community and a true representative of the values of the reservation, as evidenced by the honor he brings to the Nation through his dancing. After Bud’s dismissal, the Nation is in desperate need of an overhaul and Two-Step is offered the position of Pine Tree Chief, which is given to one “who has sprung up from the Nation and can never be cut down.” (Gansworth 228) By positioning Two-Step to take over as a leader in the future, Gansworth is indicating that the culture those who have come before have maintained can no longer stand. It is up to the new generation to revitalize the community and to learn from the elders what will be best for all the people, not just some. Two-Step sees the faults in both Mason and Bud, and it is his recognition of those faults which will offer the greatest assistance. What Indigenous men must learn is to recognize where their performance of gender has both aided and destroyed them, and to work to fix what they have damaged. Two-Step is highly regarded by his participation in both modern and traditional practices. By bridging the gap between both tradition and modernity, taking up residence in the space between the two, Two-Step is poised to lead the Nation into its best incarnation yet.

Eric Gansworth’s Smoke Dancing offers a complex look at Indigenous masculinity, fraught with contradictions and challenging representations. His scathing look into the dangers of colonial masculinity cannot be overstated, even though this novel focuses most of its attention on its central female character, Fiction. While Bud and Mason do not offer Indigenous men a picture of masculinity to aspire to, Gansworth, by nature of even investigating masculinity as a concept, is challenging conceptions of gender which society takes for granted as natural. He offers to both literary studies and feminist theory a look into a marginalized, taboo subject within an already marginalized community. Not only does he offer criticism, but he provides a potential solution to one of the many problems colonialism has created. There is no one right way to be a man in any culture, and most certainly not in Native American cultures.

Bibliography

Gansworth, Eric. Smoke Dancing. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2004.

Groes-Green, Christian. "Hegemonic and Subordinated Masculinities: Class, Violence and Sexual Performance Among Young Mozambican Men." Nordic Journal of African Studies (2009): 286-304.

Morgensen, Scott L. "Cutting to the Roots of Colonial Masculinity." Innes, Robert Alexander and Kim Anderson. Indigenous Men and Masculinities: Legacies, Identities, Regeneration. University of Manitoba Press, 2015. 38-61.

Roberts, Kathleen Glenister. "War, Masculinity, and Native Americans." Jackson, Ronald L. and Murali Balaji. Global Masculinities and Manhood. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2011. 141-160.