Hombres Y Machos Summary

In Hombres y Machos Alfredo Mirandé attempts to rectify what he considers misconceptions about Chicano/Latino masculinity that have been perpetuated in the writings of foreign social scientists, whose research is based on "meagre, nonexistent, and misinterpreted evidence" (5). Mirandé calls into question the negative, monolithic view of machismo and Latino masculinity according to which men are powerful, aggressive, and dominant and women are weak, submissive, and self-sacrificing. He further suggests that these negative images are used to legitimate the economic and political subordination of Latinos.

In the opening chapters Mirandé establishes a clear distinction between positive and negative concepts of machismo and provides an overview, particularly useful for the non-Hispanic reader, of explanations for the emergence of Mexican hypermasculinity. The most prevalent theory sees hypermasculinity as arising from a profound sense of impotence and inferiority caused by the Spanish Conquest; a second sees

the cultural emphasis on masculinity in Mexico as a Spanish [End Page 645] cultural trait imposed on the native populations; and a third asserts that excessive masculinity had its origins in a warring Azteca society. Mirandé's own position is that negative machismo, with such external manifestations as male aggressiveness and denigration of women, was imposed by the Spanish conquerors, while a positive form originated in Azteca culture, whose masculine ideals included humility and selflessness. Presenting a somewhat idealized vision of Azteca culture, Mirandé presumes that the clearly delineated sexual division of labor in the society made it somehow egalitarian.
From the outset Mirandé's intention to redeem the Latino macho is apparent, and the outcome of his study, based on empirical research and personal experiences, confirms his thesis that a positive model of machismo that cherishes honesty, modesty, loyalty, and standing up for one's rights (143) is prevalent among Mexican and Latino males. However, the research that leads to this conclusion is problematic for several reasons. First, Mirandé could afford to interview only 105 respondents, the vast majority of whom were of Mexican origin, like himself. Second, he limited this group to married men who were fathers and lived in intact families. No single or gay men were interviewed. Mirandé acknowledges the glaring absence of gay problematics in research on gender and masculinities in Latino culture, but he nevertheless deals with the topic in the most rudimentary way (132-39). Third, and perhaps most problematically, his long, in-depth interviews were conducted face-to-face, a situation in which the respondent inevitably tries to make a good impression on the interviewer. Rather than worry about compromised objectivity and neutrality, Mirandé claims that the results obtained through personal contact are especially authentic, given that anonymous interviews would go against Latino culture.
However, it seems clear that Mirandé's methodology shaped the answers and the outcome of his study in a particular way.

His questionnaire, which examines how Latino males view themselves, inquires into men's beliefs on the topics of machismo, masculinity, and fatherhood, but it ignores their day-to-day sexual and gendered practices. It is constructed as a series of statements with which the respondent should agree or disagree--for example, "It is natural for a man to fool around before marriage"; "A man should help his wife with chores and child care" (92-93)--and not as questions that directly ask about the behavior of each interviewee. While Mirandé praises the sincerity and integrity of his respondents, it is obvious that, had he conducted anonymous interviews and asked direct questions about marital fidelity and the equality of partners in marriage, he would have obtained very different results. He does not even question the discrepancies and

contradictions...