Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity (review)

The measure (and evaluation) of cultural change is one of the most difficult tasks of the historian. This is doubly so when the subject is contemporary society where underlying trends are often confused by a blur of conflicting directions, but where superficial certainties abound, the stuff of journalistic proclamations, forgotten almost as soon as they are enunciated. There is no doubt that Gary Cross is aware of these pitfalls in his new book on masculinity crisis: Men to Boys. There is also no mistaking his point: the modern male is in full flight from maturity and responsibility, pursuing the dream of an eternal boyhood in his attitudes, avoidance of responsibility, cultural interests and hobbies, and relationships with other men and women. Mixing personal observation and autobiography with sociological measures, journalistic accounts, and, most extensively, a reading of television shows and films, toys and computer games, Cross skewers the irresponsibility and immaturity of his generation and their sons.

This is not entirely new. Other observers like Michael Kimmel and Susan Faludi have made similar arguments, but Cross's contribution lies in his reading of popular culture and his invocation of generational history. In a larger sense it might be argued that this work is a commentary on the theme of much of his other scholarship: the growth, development and implications of modern consumer culture. Generational terminology—The Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, the Me-Generation, and the Pepsi Generation—constitute his organizational and theoretical tools, as he ascribes to each category specific qualities of mood, style and character. These are solely conceived as male attributes, and we do not know if women shared or share the same cultural attitudes. Anchoring his critique is his affirmation of a more traditional male maturity, defined by responsibility, work, family, very like the Victorian model without the cold, emotionless, patriarchal defaults.

There is certainly evidence to support Cross's contention that modern masculinity has changed and that popular culture—or at least some aspects of it—reflect his notion of the "boy-man," perpetually frozen in a pursuit of youth. And it is admirable when an author risks autobiography to make his points. But I am not yet convinced that he has made his case. Clearly something has changed, but is it as he describes it, or more important, as he judges it? The problem, I think, rests in three places. The first is in holding up the "traditional" family (242), with a breadwinner father and housewife mother. Traditional for whom? Maybe the middle class family in the late 19th century into the 1950s. But in many, many cases throughout American history, the tradition is much more complex, with women working in agriculture, factories, and secretarial positions. The second problem is the use of generation as a historical category. Such terms are vague, imprecise, inconclusive, and too universal, obscuring very important distinctions of social class, gender (especially here), and race. Finally, there is an assumption about popular culture that requires justification. Is it the case, as it seems here, that the author's selective reading of TV shows, films, and novels, can be taken as a valid description of what the audience "got" either consciously or unconsciously? Are we the stereotypes presented in popular culture?

Certainly this is an interesting read, and Cross's obvious uneasiness with the direction of American consumer culture makes an interesting and lively evaluation. Perhaps men have become boys. But maybe we need to wait longer and dig deeper to know the meaning of the changes that Cross finds.