That sizzling sound of masculinity, can you hear it? It comes from somewhere between the cooking of bloody red meat and its juicy marbling fat. It is becoming, just like how black crisps are spreading all over the meaty surface. And it is present, the moment they heat up their grillers and gear up with tongs. They–men–are center stage on the performativity of masculinity in the grilling of meat.
Masculinity is defined as the qualities and attributes that characterize men. But perceiving masculinity solely as a noun would be a major understatement. Sociologist Raewyn Connell in her book Masculinities talks about the importance of viewing masculinity as something beyond natural character type, norm, or behavioral average. There are processes and relationships relating to the practice of gender and gender relations that affect bodily experience, personality, and culture of men[1]. Masculinity resides in many aspects of life, from everyday things and objects to strategic places and positions, many are attributed and affiliated to men or as tools and methods to become the man. At the end, such projections of masculinity are prompt to result in the subordination of women and other men who do not fit the existing standard of manliness.
The discourse of masculinity can manifest in many ways. One of which is through unraveling gendered practices that had existed and still exists in society. It is often very close and subtle, so subtle that it actually takes time for us to realize the gendered aspects of something. Recently, food has been a growing topic of another discussion, as something revealed to be a gendered aspect of everyday life. From its cooking process, the subject of food itself, or its ecosystem, gender construction and attribution are established and are being perpetuated unconsciously through its practices.
Humans have been processing food for ages, and meat has been a part of that process since time immemorial. It is no surprise that meat and meat processing is no exception to the gendered order of food. Meat is one of the most commonly gendered foods, being associated the most with masculinity.
Butchering out things masculine that comes along the bloody meat can start with looking at the relation between men and meat. As flesh of a living creature, meat is still symbolically tying up the ancient tale of men as hunters. A piece of meat would be related to the remnants of strength and virility coming from the action of conquering[2]. It is a projection of power through acts of systematic destruction of animals, which is also a way to distinguish men as different from animals. The prehistoric practice of conquering weaker creatures, for example by hunting prey, became the myth of men’s nature by the mid twentieth century in Western culture[3]. In men’s conquest of animals, aggressiveness is present in demonstrating the performativity of masculinity; by having the power to turn animals into meat, that is to turn a living creature into an object of consumption. The performativity continued in the latter expansion of civilization. Through the advent of agriculture men’s concept of animal changed from “beast to be conquered” into “meat makers that have to be cultivated”. This shift in men’s view of animals shifted civilization; setting up the idea of women’s domestication. Women are, first and foremost, child breeders whose role is essential in the continuation of the labourful agriculture[4].
While men no longer hunt, agriculture continues into modern times and is now fused together with the meat industry to meet the demands of meat consumption. And the practice still (if not becoming more intense) projects the masculine notions it embodies. The existence of industrialization sets up the exploitation of animals as goods, while at the same time, domesticates women to only act as “food processors” that caters from the confines of the kitchen[5]. Carol J. Adams had been writing critically on the subordination that occurs to both women and animals as non-men creatures due to the gendered circumstances of meat that favours men. In the early chapters of The Sexual Politics of Meat, she explains how the celebration of male dominance exists along with the culture of meat-eating. As one of many aspects to look at, it can start with how in most Western, and some non-technological societies, meat is culturally and historically regarded as a valuable commodity. To have a hold on such a valuable commodity would be to have power over an aspect of the economy. The myth of Men as Hunters solidifies the position of power over an important resource. The myth is significant in terms of asserting power as something that constitutes masculinity, which is transposed to the idea of meat a men food[6]. The masculine euphoria of hunting, skinning, and feasting on meat seems to be replaced by another way of enjoying meat in modern times: grilling and barbecue.
There is something peculiar about the particular way of cooking through grilling in a barbecue. It is first an event before it is a way of preparing food. The common conception of barbecue cannot be separated from the popular image of white men in summer clothing, grilling meat in the backyard of a suburban house. It often appears on TV shows and other popular media coming from The USA. As previously written by Kristen L. Matthew, to a culture like America’s, barbecue also embodies a “meaty”hypermasculinity that started from the Post-War era of the 1950s. As things were becoming difficult after the war, men felt like they still needed to protect their ‘designated’ space in the political, economic, and also domestic spheres. A reinstatement of men’s position in the household was projected through the practice of barbecue. When men grill meat, women will be present to help in the preparation and cleaning up, while the men would stand as the central figure in the barbecue. By way of barbecuing in the post-war, the presence of gender roles were being reasserted. It was as well a reenactment of Men as Hunters: by repositioning men’s place in public spheres and women’s in the private sphere through complementary practices related to barbecue. Men’s dominance in barbecue also demonstrates the act of providing sustenance of the family while also being the glue that sticks the community together. But in understanding American barbecue, it is important to remember that its idea stems from 1950s America, and it precisely refers to white, middle-class American men who are not only practicing manliness but also exhibiting a sense of nationalism. American “identity”, namely having a good life, freedom, democracy, and unity, are projected through the masculine practice of barbecue. However, those American values aren’t meant for everyone, particurally not for African-Americans who barbecued as slaves to the middle and upper class whites. It was mostly practiced on the southern part of the United States, in which the history of slavery and how barbecue was done by them created a different culture of southern barbecue[7]. All in all, White America succeeded in popularizing barbecue as a way for men to enjoy their off time by cooking in a specific way, different from what is usually done by women. It shows how barbecue not only attributes, but also evolves into a performativity of masculinity.
The popularity of American barbecue can be seen in many parts of the world. The requirement of having the best meat and the best tool to grill an American style barbecue[8] makes the practice prestigious to many; yet it is not meant for everybody. In a country like Indonesia, for example, american style grills are not something that every house has. Perhaps only some of the Americanized middle and upper class have it. But the activity of meat grilling is also not something strange for Indonesians. The most familiar practice of grilling can be seen in the annual celebration of Idul Adha, during which the muslims practice qurban. Qurban is an essential practice of animal sacrifice during Idul Adha, one of the two most important holy days in Islam. It is conducted during the month of Zulhijjah, in which the pilgrimage or the Hajj is underway in Mecca at the same time. The practice follows the Quranic story of how Abraham sacrificed his son Ishmael as a testament of faith to God that had told him to do the sacrifice through a dream. But God showed mercy on him, the sacrificial body of Ishmael was replaced with a sheep. Qurban was also modelled after the sacrifice that Muhammad did during his hajj to Mecca. It is a practice of slaughtering animals such as goats, lambs, cows, oxes, and camels as a form of charity. The slaughtering must be done with a specific technique called zabiha, which determines whether a meat is halal or not. After the animals have been slaughtered, the meat will be shared to the people that need it, and in some areas it is shared with the people of the community where the qurban was done[9]. The shared meat is often processed afterwards by ways of grilling and barbecue. Satay, or skewered beef, is the most common way (although not limited to) in enjoying the meat from qurban. It is the kind of cooking that brings family and friends together after the eid prayer. They would gather and hang out outdoors to grill the meat over a grate and on top of burning charcoal.
Just like how traces of masculinity can be found in American barbecue, the same performativity is present in the festivities of Idul Adha. In finding traces of masculinity, one can start with looking at zabiha or the practice of animal slaughter in the name of Allah. Zabiha is mostly done by men, but it would reduce the meaning of zabiha if the reason for zabiha being dominated by men is because it is inherently a male activity. In the Quran, God did not mention about the importance of zabiha being done by men[10], let alone designating the practice to them. Another trace of masculinity that can be observed during qurban, is how the meat is served. Just like American barbecue, the grilling of meat and satay is also done by men. Other menus that use qurban meat such as gulai, semur, or rendang (which are all staple menus of Indonesian celebrations), are prepared and served by women. The difference in the way dishes like satay and gulai are prepared also signifies similars notion of power from having food cooked by men instead of by non-men. When satay is prepared, people are being social while they prepare and wait for the dish to finish. This also shows how the involvement of people in a meal preparation can turn cooking into a social event[11]. In many tables, satay would be the main menu of Idul Adha. On the other hand, gulai, rendang, and the like are usually cooked in private kitchens where women are traditionally ascribed to be in.
There always seems to be a man standing behind the grill. Whether it is a middle-class family having a Barbecue over a marbling steak, a humble celebration of Idul Adha, or even just a weekend cookout. It is either the dad, the boys, or the uncle, who are in charge of the cooking of meat over an open flame. As barbecue is the kind of cooking that requires an outdoor space, it has estranged its practice from daily forms of home cooking. The distinction between barbecue and home cooking also materially manifests itself on the market. Barbecue equipment like grillers, grates, and tongs are presented as more of a gear. They are hardly ever sold on the kitchen aisle for it is easier to find them amongst power drills and sledgehammers in a hardware store.
Displaying the griller as something different from pots and pans seems only to be the mere surface to a deeper, more complex matter within domestic life. Men often refrain from engaging with cooking activities inside the house. It is not rare to find them refusing to contribute in the kitchen due to their work outside of the house[12]. The significance of their role as the provider which is bestowed upon them by the virtue of traditional masculinity, drives men to neglect the overall house chores. In the course of history, house chores have been attributed to women, whereas men do not see them as a manly thing to do. Men are not raised to be familiar with nurturing roles, and so it is often the case for them to perceive houseworks as drudgery. In holding on to their masculine identity, there is a sense of autonomy that comes from contributing to the out-of-house sphere of domestic life as their contribution to the household. That sense of contribution leads them to believe that there is no reason to participate in the inside-house sphere of domestic life[13]. When it comes to their involvement within the household, their role of provider gives them a sense of power, a mentality to not meddle with feminine works inside of the house. That mentality is realized towards the kitchen, where cooking for the house happens, where it is believed by many to be the place and the activity of the women.
The presence of men in the kitchen seems to be rare enough that it becomes special and different when they decide to be present. When men cook, when they cook meat, the event turns into a hypermasculine exhibition involving fire, outdoor space, and the public[14]. Cooking barbecue on an open flame is not considered to be a domestic work nor it is the same with the cooking done by women everyday. Barbecuing is a leisure activity for men who are off from work, it is a show of skill and knowledge on food. Cooking meat is associated with power, strength, and status[15]. The preference of meat cooked using griller instead of pan and stove also indicate a display of power by setting out distance from common images of cooking which is associated with femininity. It is precisely because preparing, cooking, and serving food is foreign to men that makes food prepared by men become valuable, while at the same time it removes the value of women’s cooking as it is considered to be not as special.
Barbecue being ascribed as something masculine reveals how cooking has been domesticated. The caring and serving traits that attributes feminine characteristics are tied to the ‘traditional cultural’ notion of women as homemaker to cook for the family[16]. Women are subjugated by the practice of cooking through the attachment of domestic notions that leads to the construction of roles and responsibilities. Women’s cooking grew to be banal as it is often perceived as just another part of the day. On the other hand, whilst barbecuing meat is an activity that still happens at home it is distinguished from home cooking because of its spatiality. The barbecue happens outside of the house, on the masculine sphere of the outside. Cooking barbecue is never an obligation nor is it a duty. The masculinity of barbecue shows how cooking can be identified as non feminine and non domestic during certain occasions. When it involves open flame, outdoor space, social gathering, and when it is being done by men, cooking is no longer a must be done practice for the household being fed and cared for[17]. Their cooking is special because it is out of the ordinary. Men who are understood daily as figures who are away from domestic life are not obligated from cooking. In fact, they are distancing themselves from the practice as one of the ways of practicing masculinity, in being the figure traditionally designated to men.
The de-domestication of cooking that comes through barbecue, does not apply to every man and in every household. It is based on how most heteronormative familes are functioning traditionally. Your family, the given or the found, may and may not practice such performativity of masculinity. As there is no harm in knowing how cooking is being valued around your home, you might as well take a look on your yard; notice who is cooking behind the griller– and you may wonder, what– and why are they cooking.
[1] Connell, R. W. 2005. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. P. 71
[2] Sobal, Jeffery. 2005. Men, Meat and Marriage: Models of Masculinity in “Food and Foodways: Exploration in the History and Culture of HUman Nourishment” 13:1-2, 135-158, DOI: 10.1080/07409710590915409 (p.138)
[3] Gruen, Lori. 1993. Dismantling Oppresion: An Analysis of the Connection Between Women and Animals in Greta Gaard. 1993. “Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature” Temple University Press: Philadelphia, p. 62
[4] Ibid, p. 63
[5] Ibid, p. 72
[6] Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat. London: Continuum. p. 65-70
[7] Matthews, Kristen L. 2009. One Nation Over Coals: Cold War Nationalism and the Barbecue in “American Studies” Vol.50 No. ¾ pp.5-34, p.24
[8] Ibid, p.21
[9] Dahlan-Taylor, Magfirah. 2016. Beyond Barbarity and Concealment: Animal Sacrifice and Religious Slaughter in Islamic Responses to Postdomesticity in “Culture and Religion” Vol.17 No.3 pp.352-365
[10] Ibid, pp.352-365
[11] Daniels, Sarah, Ignance Glorieux, Joeri Minnen, and Theun Pieter Van Tienoven. 2012. More than Preparing a Meal? Concerning the Meanings of Home Cooking in “Appetite” Vol.58 pp.1050-1065 (p.1055)
[12]Sobal, Jeffery. Op.Cit., (p.144)
[13] Arrighi, Barbara A. and David J. Maume, Jr. 2000. Workplace Subordination and Men’s Avoidance of Housework in “Journal of Family Issues” Vol.21 No.4 May pp.464-487 (p.470)
[14] Sobal, Jeffery. Op.Cit., (p.144)
[15] Cupido, Rebecca Green. 2013. License to BBQ. Master Thesis. Aalborg, Aalborg University. Retrieved from: https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/78860020/Master_Thesis_License_to_BBQ_1_.pdf (p. 24)
[16] Daniels, Sarah, Ignance Glorieux, Joeri Minnen, and Theun Pieter Van Tienoven. Op. Cit., p.1055
[17] Ibid.
