The concept of “interpersonal masculinity” refers to how masculine traits and behaviors are expressed and perceived within social interactions and relationships. This theme is illustrated in the seventh chapter of Miguel Street, especially through the character BigFoot. BigFoot is feared in his community, not necessarily because of his actions but because of his appearance. He is silent, sulky, large, dark, and potentially dangerous. His physicality and demeanor alone prompt the community to label him as a “troublemaker.” The community’s fear of Big Foot reveals how assumptions based solely on appearance can shape interpersonal dynamics.

 In the text, Big Foot is associated with the negative reputation steel bands often had at the time: “It was people like BigFoot who gave steel bands a bad name. Big Foot was always ready to start a fight with another band, but he looked so big and dangerous that he himself was never involved in any fight.”(NaiPaul) Here, Big Foot’s intimidating appearance alone prevents people from challenging him. Society has already branded him as dangerous, without real interactions to confirm or challenge this image. 

However, Big Foot’s character becomes more complex after an interaction with the narrator and a dog. The narrator describes, “When I and the dog came to him, he seemed to forget his foot, which was bleeding badly. He began hugging and stroking the wet dog, and laughing in a crazy way.”(NaiPaul) This moment reveals a softer side of Big Foot, showing that he isn’t merely the cold, intimidating figure the community imagines. Instead, he is capable of affection and humor, aspects of his personality that contradict the community’s assumptions. This interaction serves as a reminder that masculinity, as interpreted through appearance alone, often hides the other side of the character.

The theme of masculinity continues when Big Foot loses a boxing match. The narrator notes, “Big Foot was in tears. He was like a boy, and the more he cried, the louder he cried, and the more painful it sounded. The secret I had held for Big Foot was now shown to everybody.”(NaiPaul) Here, the community witnesses a vulnerability in Big Foot that challenges their expectations of him as a stoic, unbreakable man. His tears reveal an emotional depth that society often discourages men from showing, as masculinity is frequently associated with stoicism and emotional restraint. This vulnerability in Big Foot suggests a more nuanced view of masculinity, one that acknowledges the emotional complexity of men who may not fit traditional masculine stereotypes.

In today’s society, displays of male emotion are within certain cultural contexts. According to Pew Research, about three in ten men describe themselves as very masculine, while 54% see themselves as somewhat masculine, and 15% as not too or not at all masculine. Initiatives like Men’s Health Month aim to combat toxic masculinity by encouraging men to embrace emotional wellness and express themselves more openly, thus challenging outdated norms around masculinity. 

Another character, Bogart, also embodies a version of toxic masculinity within the context of Miguel Street. Toward the end of the chapter, Bogart faces arrest for bigamy, as he is accused of fathering a child in Caroni and then abandoning the mother. When asked why he left, one character explains, “To be a man, among we men.”(NaiPaul) In this line, there’s an implication that infidelity is normalized among men in Trinidad and that abandoning one’s responsibilities is somehow tied to a “manly” status. Bogart’s behavior suggests that infidelity and abandonment are seen as displays of masculine freedom or dominance, highlighting a toxic aspect of masculinity that prioritizes male ego over ethical relationships. 

In comparing Big Foot and Bogart, we see how Miguel Street presents contradictory depictions of masculinity. Big Foot, while physically intimidating, ultimately reveals a softer, vulnerable side, challenging assumptions about what it means to be masculine. In contrast, Bogart’s actions reflect a toxic aspect of masculinity where infidelity and irresponsibility are celebrated. Together, these characters illustrate the complexity of masculinity in society and underscore how expressions of masculinity can vary widely, challenging and sometimes reinforcing social norms around male behavior.

Work Cited

Naipaul, V.S. Miguel Street. Vintage International, 2002. 

Parker, Kim. “On Gender Differences, No Consensus on Nature vs. Nurture.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 5 Dec. 2017, www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/12/05/on-gender-differences-no-consensus-on-nature-vs-nurture/.