Paradox In Boyhood

For boys, boyhood is an era characterized by an inability to control future events. This idea is introduced in Eric L. Tribunella’s “Boyhood” in which Tribunella analyzes the purpose of having boy literature and brings to surface the plethora of subgenres within boy literature. This chapter is included in the 2011 publication Keywords for Children’s Literature, edited by Philip Nel and Lissa Paul. Just a few years later, in 2014, Richard Linklater debuts his movie Boyhood which is about a fictional boy, Mason, growing up. By following Mason’s growth, Linklater offers commentary of how Mason is both plagued by but at points, escapes from what Tribunella refers as the “subaltern status.”(Tribunella 22) However, Tribunella ultimately fails to

address the implications if a boy is indifferent towards the “fundamental paradox” (22) and maintains an unconcerned attitude towards constraints.

One parallel that can be drawn between the two works is the depiction of the boy being incapable of asserting control over his own life. Historically speaking, the word “boy” was initially used in a contemptuous manner to refer to subaltern status of servants or slaves (Tribunella 22). If a similar definition is applied to the traits of boys then they would be described as “flawed, inchoate, or incomplete…” (Tribunella 22) To extend the idea, Tribunella goes on to suggest that there exists a “subaltern status of youth” (22). The whole notion of lower status and one of “constraint and confinement” (22) echoes throughout Linklater’s film. On a symbolic level, it is represented every time Mason is forced to travel from town to town. He is also rocked by family instabilities ever since he was a kid. An attitude of hopelessness starts to appear when Mason stops

reacting. Linklater fully demonstrates the incompetence of Mason when his drunk stepdad hurls glassware towards his direction. Since there is nothing Mason could do to assuage his raging stepfather, he sits quietly and acts as if nothing happened. Another example from Linklater’s work is when Samantha is dropped off at a new school following the desperate attempt to flee from Mason’s drunk stepdad. Just as Samantha is disembarking from the car, she complains how she never even got to say goodbye to her former friends. When this comment pushes Mason’s mom to unleash her stress verbally, Mason just mutely climbs into the front seat without saying a word. Both examples from Linklater’s film support Tribunella’s statement on the inferiority of boys. Mason acknowledges the fact that he has no control and therefore chooses not to react, but later on Linklater reveals that Mason needed an escape.

Mason’s reaction to his own inferior status aligns with Tribunella’s expectations of literary representations of boys. In one instance, Tribunella argues the following phenomenon in children literature:

Boys in children’s literature frequently chafe against their inferior status, and the qualities and scenarios of boyhood are symptomatic of either resistance to that status or attempts to escape it. (22)
Even though Mason wears a nonchalant and indifferent appearance, Linklater reveals that he always felt constrained. When Mason meets a girl at the pool party, he tells her that he wants to get control of his own life. Ultimately, he wants to do anything that he wants and he wants to break free from these chains. In the beginning of the film, his stepfather wants to control him by making him do an excessive amounts of chores. Later on, his new stepfather again tells him that as Mason’s stepfather, he has certain expectations. And for Mason, his only escape is to go with his friends. Or in some cases to devote his time to spray painting. This inability to make his own life choice constantly pesters him. This leads to the development of his nonchalant attitude simply because Mason does not want to care. This is also seen during the exchange between Mason and his photography teacher, the audience finds out that Mason could care less about homework. In the center of his passion, Mason just wants to express himself, he wants to be the master of his own fate. Furthermore, there is a scene in which Mason is taunted by the bully in the bathroom. Time and time again, Mason shows that he is steadfast and maintains his composure. In terms of Tribunella’s words, Mason would want to be the fictional boy that seeks to “transcend the limitations of boyhood or to claim the privileges of manhood.”(22)

Tribunella fails to address literature examples when boys are shown to be indifferent to resisting the “fundamental paradox” (22).

While Tribunella does address the fact that “contemporary culture might harm or fail boys” (25) the question of not reacting to the limitations of boyhood remains unanswered. In contrast, Linklater’s film hints that time is the best cure because eventually, everyone will grow up. With it, the “subaltern status” (22) is left behind. Notably, Mason’s personality goes through a cyclical continuum.

Both Tribunella’s literary analysis and Linklater’s film provide commentary on
The film Boyhood differs from the essay “Boyhood” in part due to the works being intended for different audiences and purposes. The essence of the film is to capture, as fully as possible, the growth of the protagonist, Mason. On the other hand, the essay is meant for analysis on literature that specifically boys would read. As a result, while Tribunella focuses more on how types of literature can provide a safe haven for boys, he ignores the aspect in which boys do not escape and instead assimilate with their flaws. What Linklater showed in his film is an ability to grow up out of boyhood with

nonreaction.