From Steve (hopefully this posts correctly)

Hoganson centers her study of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War in the “cultural frameworks” of the period. Part of these “cultural frameworks” are political culture, “the assumptions and practices that shaped electoral politics and foreign policy formulation”, as well as “gender convictions”, “meaning the ideas about appropriate male and female roles” (3). In using these categories Hoganson is attempting to ground foreign policy decisions, concerning the imperialist wars of the late 19th and early 20th century, in a “wider cultural context”, primarily focused on “gender politics” (in case the title did not give this away already), instead of using “traditional” historic lenses such as: economics, strategic intervention, political motivation. Instead Hoganson uses these ideas to “fill in the gaps” for his narrative (14).

This book was published in 1998 and as such, I believe, that some of his gendered assumptions and statements are not as fully formed as ones we can work with today. Certain general statements she makes such as, “It may seem implausible that such a seemingly personal phenomenon as gender convictions would have far-reaching political implications, but by stipulating social roles for men and women, gender believes have significantly affected political affairs” (3). I do not see this as an “implausible” statement, probably due to me having an academic background. Yet, I do not Hoganson’s work reaching a much broader audience other than historians and individuals that are concerned with gender construction. Even latter Hoganson, her conclusion mirroring his introduction, goes to state that “historians are only beginning to methodically investigate the connections between gender beliefs and foreign policy developments, they have uncovered plenty of evidence suggesting that gender beliefs have affected the appeal of militant and peaceful policies at different points in history” (206). Maybe gender was just a new way of analyzing historical periods in 1998, I lack the historiographical knowledge to give a definitive answer though. Hoganson engages with the idea of gender and constructs a narrative that explains the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars in light of this information. She seems at times one step from away from addressing the power held within the social construction of gender roles, both male and female, in effecting real life power structures; foreign policy.

In addressing the post about “honor” below me I’d like to say something too. In this post it is stated, “The definition of honor changed a bit throughout the book as the definition of manliness changed. It was something people were striving for but could not seem to hold onto.” I agree completely with this statement. It can be seen that both the idea of manliness and “honor” changes throughout historical periods. These gendered assumptions are never solid but always in a state of flux. These gender constructs affect both men and women’s identities are within Hogansons “cultural frameworks”, especially men in Fighting for American Manhood. I believe it is important for us to realize that “personal phenomenon” such as “gender convictions” play a immediate role in shaping peoples rhetoric as well as their actions.