In V.S. Naipaul’s collection of short stories, Miguel Street, interpersonal masculinity is demonstrated through positive and negative ways of behavior like inciting fear for respect, maintaining communal bonds through folkloric legends to stage models of masculine identity, upholding reputations through tacit agreements of loyalty, and mutual admiration among men.
For example, in of the chapters titled The Coward, features an ostensibly fearsome man named Big Foot that has gained the legendary reputation among his peers for flouting the rules in Port of Spain unapologetically, even though in Trinidad they thought he was a comedian, the men within his neighborhood thought he “looked so big and dangerous that he himself was never involved in any fight…” (48). It’s even denoted in his name as “big” can mean an oversized presence that looms over, although the boys say that his most notable attribute was that “he looked dangerous, like those terrible dogs that never bark but just look at you from the corner of their eyes” (47). The other men, like the narrator and Hat, still feel protective over him because of pride to maintain a sort of machismo in their community because his reputation impacts their reputation, so they tell other people that they are really close with him even though they aren’t because he is very quiet. Therefore, there is not just pride but a sort of brotherly protection for him because they somewhat buy into the legend that he is someone to be respected because he is quiet. This is emblematic of toxic masculinity in that he is a “real” man because he is seemingly strong and dominates people with his figure without saying a word, and the other men are toxic in that they uphold this to aspire to; however, there is a positive masculinity even in this example because the other men feel enough fraternal feelings to implicitly defend him to other people.
Furthermore, despite Big Foot’s menacing behavior, one scene that demonstrates that his negative traits can be channeled for something positive was when he defends the narrator from the American soldier who was probably going to arrest and beat him up for attempting to sell him gum. Ironically, the narrator became more afraid of him because Big Foot had the ability to be more menacing and scary than the American who in general through these chapters are presented as weird outsiders, as occupying or imposing themselves in spaces they don’t belong (50).
Another instance where Big Foot challenges the construction of binary gender roles, or blurs the line between a masculine and emasculated man, when he cut his foot and glass and is find crying by the narrator and a dog.
On page 52, “He cried out loudly, ‘Oh God, I dead, I dead. A big bottle cut up my foot.’ I and the dog ran to him. But when the dog came to him he seemed to forget his foot which was bleeding bad. He began hugging and stroking the wet dog, and laughing in a crazy way…he couldn’t come to finish the work he had begun in our yard.”
What is notable is not that he was just vulnerable from the cut on his foot but willing to be friendly with the dog, which can be seen as him being warm towards himself since he was symbolized at the beginning as being this terrible dog. It upturns the toxic masculine trait of never being emotional as he is laughing and being physically affectionate rather than frightening towards the dog. It also undermines another masculine quality of doing physical labor. The downside is that because the narrator was a witness to this supposed “crime” in masculinity of showing vulnerability, Big Foot becomes fearful of the possibility of other men finding out this transgression. Another observation is that there is a sort of irony in the fact that Big Foot gets a cut on his foot because it undermines his reptuation since it symbolizes a kind of cut, a wound, and perhaps, in the later parts of the story, a scar on his figure of masculinity.
These types of gender analyses, specifically concerning masculinity, are very important because it is a lens in which we can understand everyday life and subvert our understandings of it as well to create a collective alternative to issues people face.
Naipaul, V. S. “7. The Coward.” Miguel Street, Heinemann, 1980, pp. 47-56.
Well put, Ariana. I too see how Big Foot in Trinidad both represents and contradicts stereotypical masculinity. He goes with it because he is aggressive and scary; his menacing nature is so great that no one dare challenge him or try to assert their dominance over him. At the same time, his quiet, meek, gentle nature goes against society’s perception of manliness. His interaction with the dog after he hurt his foot, as you mentioned in your post, exposes that soft side of him. It makes sense why he is a loner. He feels he’s too sensitive to fit in with the other men but obviously too frightening and masculine to have female friends. It’s a lonely world for those who defy stereotypes!
Your writing here is thoughtful and well written. I love how you encapsulated the complicated relationship Big Foot has with masculinity, often reenacting performances of what a “real man” is supposed to look or act like. In the story, his character almost seems like a caricature of manhood, often engaging in compensatory behavior (being aggressive, violent, stoic, etc) in order to avoid ridicule and shame from his peers. But as you mentioned, there is a different side to him, a vulnerable side that came out when Big Foot decided to befriend a dog that was nearby. His character is deeply layered and would be a fascinating one to dissect through a feminist and class conscious lens.