Laura Dumin
12-05-00
Digest #2
Digest of Lisa Bloom’s Gender
on Ice
The title of this book suggests that it might be about the ways in which males and females were given different access to Arctic exploration. And, to an extent, this book does that. The introduction to the book immediately involves us in the exploration of the arctic by Robert Peary. So, naturally I came to the conclusion that this book would be mostly about Robert Peary and his arctic explorations. And, to an extent it was; but Bloom deviated from that implied purpose quite a bit. In fact, her thesis, which comes out on pg 133 of 135 is, “Gender on Ice has been my attempt to explain the interconnections between the multiple narratives of national identity, scientific progress, modernity, and masculinity across the national cultures of the United States and the United Kingdom” (133). I found that after reading all but the last two pages of the book, I had been on the wrong track as to her purpose in this book.
Bloom begins the book with a full chapter on two major American explorers, Robert Peary and Frederick Cook. She touches on the long standing argument over who really reached the North Pole (NP) first. Supposedly Cook reached the NP almost a year before Peary, but it took Cook so long to return home that he declared his finding only days before Peary. There is also the question of whether Peary was even close to the actual NP or not. But, regardless of the controversy, Peary was declared the winner, and Bloom suggests that this was because Peary had the monetary backing of the National Geographic Society (NGS). Since Bloom has now introduced us to the NGS she feels that it will be perfectly all right to spend the next 50 pages writing only about the NGS and their ‘contributions’ to scientific learning in the USA. As soon as chapter 2 began I was confused. Was Bloom here to tell us about arctic explorers or the history of the NGS?
From the beginning of the second chapter to the end of the book, Bloom alternates between bashing Peary and bashing the NGS. Bloom does touch on the idea of gender when she discusses Peary’s wife, Josephine Diebitsch-Peary. Josephine accompanied Peary to the arctic and she even published her own book about the travels (38). But, she was kept on the sidelines and forced to retain her femininity even in the midst of all the icy emptiness (38-40). Josephine was expected to keep house and to be the model of femininity for Peary. Otherwise she would have been a threat to his very masculine perception of exploration and adventure (40). Josephine was relegated to just another functional object which Peary had the foresight to bring on this trip. In the same way that Josephine was secondary, so was Peary’s African American right hand man, Matthew Henson. Bloom argues that since Henson was not white, he was unable to become a full part of the expedition (52). In fact, without Henson, Peary probably would have lost his life many times, but Peary is too much of a man’s man to admit that a black man could ever be of service to him.
In the same way, Peary also relegates the natives who help him to the role of other. When Peary sets out on the last leg of his journey, he takes only his four Eskimo helpers with him. As ‘other’ they are of no consequence to him, and they do not threaten his ‘right’ as the first man to the NP. Peary leaves Henson behind but that is more from spite than from the fear that a black man could ever share in his white male glory. Bloom takes Peary and turns him into a horror story from American history. Bloom argues also that the NGS is the main reason why Peary is still glorified to this day.
The NGS magazine began as a ‘cold’ scientific journal (58). It was only the threat of bankruptcy that caused it to become the reader friendly magazine that we now know (58-59).
It is significant that Geographic editors stressed the absence of fiction in its pages in order to acquire a prestige that was otherwise denied to discourses of mass culture. By identifying the magazine with the new technology of photography and the areas of science and industry, the Geographic […] established itself as the […] privileged realm of male activities and truth (60).
When the magazine started in 1904, the only way that you could join and receive your ‘membership’ was if someone who was already a member recommended you (63). In this way, the magazine could be kept as a tool exclusively for the well-read upper-class white male. And yet “[t]he Geographic’s use of photographs was thought by its editors to put readers of different class and educational backgrounds on the same footing” (63). The NG magazine featured ‘reality’ photos of dark-skinned natives and bare breasted women (73-75). In this way, the NG magazine was able to cater to the white man’s idea of eroticism in foreign travel. Bloom argues that this was just another one of the many exclusively male ploys that the NGS used to keep the readers happy. Eventually the readership did expand to include anyone, male or female, who wanted a subscription, but the magazine never stopped catering to the white male reader.
Peary’s backing came from a magazine that privileged manliness and adventure over all else. Is it any wonder that they continued to refuse to see that Peary may have been way off his mark? The NG magazine remains a strong Peary supporter to this day, and when other people have come out with evidence against Peary, the NGS has come out with even louder ‘evidence’ for him. All of this leads Bloom to the belief that being male seems to make the world turn in our society. Overall, I felt that Bloom spent a bit too much time male bashing and not enough time dealing with arctic exploration. In fact, she ends her book with a discussion of the Gulf War. I understand the idea of male violence and dominance, but I did feel that she had gotten way off task by that point. If Bloom had entitled this book The History of the NGS and the Explorations of Robert Peary she would have had a more appropriate title. And, as far as being ecocritical in any respect, I would have to say that she never even gets close. I do not feel that mentioning the Arctic once or twice as the destination of explorers counts as being ecocritical. Bloom never deals with the impact that Peary had on the environment. She does briefly touch on the illegitimate progeny Peary produces with an alluring and quite naked Eskimo woman, but I do not think that really count as focusing on the damage that Peary did to the environment. If you are looking to read a book that does not have on nice thing to say about Robert Peary, this is the book for you. But, if you are looking for a les biased account of polar exploration, I would suggest looking elsewhere.
- Bloom, Lisa. Gender on Ice. Minneapolis: Minnesota UP, 1993.