Summers 1
Katie Summers
ENGL 305
Feminism and Gender Theory
30 October 2014
The Gendering of Brom Van Brunt in “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow”
Using Michael Kimmel’s and Michael Messners theories on masculinity studies, Josep
M. Armengol, states:
For several decades now, feminist scholars have shown how gender--the cultural
prescriptions that each society attaches to one’s biological sex at a particular time--is a
central component of social and political life. Along with other factors such as race, class
and sexuality, gender is now understood as one of the essential aspects which shape our
lives, as well as one of the main mechanisms which determine the distribution of power
in our society (Gendering Men: Re-Visions of Violence as a Test of Manhood in
American Literature 75-76).
Washington Irving’s, the author of the short story “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” creates the
character--Brom Van Brunt--in a way that displays just how one’s gender--including society’s
understanding of gender--affects the social and political realms of said person’s life, specifically
the power that he or she in his or her community. Arguably, if readers view Irving’s character in
“The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” as the stereotypical rugged labourer, they see how the socially
constructed norms of gender, typical of early American Literature, have influenced Irving’s
creation of this character. Brom’s defeat over Ichabod, the sensitive academic, then, suggests
that Brom’s masculinity is what enables Brom to beat Ichabod, further perpetuating these
masculine stereotypes.
In order for readers to analyze Irving’s creations as socially constructed norms of gender
and gender roles, they need to understand the inspiration behind gender studies--specifically
Summers 2
masculinity studies--and its impact on American Literature. According to Armengol,
masculinity studies started after scholars noticed women were not the only group subjected to
gender stereotypes. He states that “[m]asculinity studies...aim to provide new perspectives on
men’s lives and personal dilemmas as gendered beings, transforming supposedly universal
human experiences into ones that are specifically masculine. Moreover, these studies analyze
masculinities as socially constructed, context-specific and culture-bound” (Armengol 77). Many
gender theorists claim that masculinity is largely linked to social and historical contexts, rather
than biological constructions, and due to these contexts, they can change. Irving’s character falls
victim to this gendering process, as do many other characters in early American Literature. With
the increase in gender theory and masculinity studies, scholars identify literary characters whose
authors’ subject them to these social and historical contexts. Scholars claim that “[t]his growing
interest in literary men might have important social benefits, since analyzing fictional
representations of masculinity may help to better understand its social construction…[S]tudies of
cultural and literary representations of (the masculine) gender are particularly relevant to the
analysis of the social, institutional and/or personal constructions of masculinity” (Armengol 78).
By studying literary characters portraying the social construction of masculinity, scholars hope to
shed light on the social construction of gender in society at the time.
If scholars study the inspiration--arguably the socially constructed gendering--behind
Irving’s Brom, they see how his persona of masculinity is a reflection of the perception of
masculinity at the time. Daniel W. Puls, author of “Achieving Masculinity: A Review of the
Literature on Male Gender Identity Development,” claims that masculinity includes traits such as
Summers 3
…[A]ssertiveness, instrumentality, adventuresome activities, business and mechanical
interests, dominance and self-assertion, strength, confidence, outgoing,energetic, and
risk-taking (13).
One of the characters Irving creates--arguably fashioned to fit in the social construction of
masculinity--fits Puls’ definition of masculinity almost perfectly: Brom Van Brunt.
The description of Brom, alone, fits the stereotypical conception of masculinity. The
narrator of this short story makes out Brom to be the picture of manhood, embodying the
construction of masculinity. He claims Brom:
was a burley, roaring blade, of the name of Abraham, or, according to the Dutch
abbreviate, Brom Van Brunt, the hero of the country round, which rung with his feats of
strength and hardihood. He was broad shouldered and double jointed, with short curly
black hair, and a bluff, but not unpleasant countenance, having a mingled air of fun and
arrogance. From his Herculean frame and great powers of limb, he had received the
nick-name of Brom Bones, by which he was universally known. (Irving 49)
With this description, the narrator causes several implications to be made about gender,
specifically one that implies physical appearance and sexuality creates a context for masculinity.
Because Brom appears rugged and rough--strong and able--the narrator implies Brom’s
masculinity without stating it outright. Furthermore, the narrator’s description of Brom
insinuates that his physical strength and ability affect how community members view his
masculinity. Not only do his “feats of strength” deem him manly, the narrator calls him the town
hero--he is the man. Irving, arguably influenced by society’s view of masculinity--which at the
time linked to physical appearance and ability--creates a character who embodies these essential
qualities.
Summers 4
In addition to Brom’s physical appearance, Irving conceivably creates a character whose
role in the community encouraged the type of masculinity Puls describes in his definition above,
one connected to aggressive behavior, strength, and risk-taking. The narrator positively
describes Brom with a “boys-will-be-boys” mentality, which implies that men who exhibit this
“masculine” behavior are highly accepted and welcome into the community. The narrator claims
Brom “had three or four boon companions of his own stamp, who regarded him as their model,
and at the head of whom he scoured the country, attending every scene of feud or merriment for
miles round” (49). Men revered Brom as their leader, and they followed him in all of his
endeavors, which included rough-housing and fighting. Furthermore, the narrator suggests that
this “mischief” is just Brom’s way of expressing his manhood: “[h]e was always ready for either
a fight or a frolick; had more mischief than ill-will in his composition; and with all his
overbearing roughness, there was a strong dash of waggish good humour at bottom” (49).
Instead of trying to cause trouble--or “ill-will”--Brom’s search for a fight allows him to
demonstrate his masculinity. And with the narrator justifying Brom’s actions, readers get the
sense that this behavior is acceptable, especially of male characters.
Brom’s harsh actions toward Ichabod Crane toward the end of the story--resulting in
Brom’s marriage to Katrina Van Tassle--suggest that Brom’s masculinity overpowers Ichabod’s
sensitive intellect, thus suggesting advocating this aggressive, assertive, risk-taking masculinity.
Arguably, Irving created Ichabod Crane--the town’s sensitive and intellectual educator--as a foil
to Brom’s rugged and aggressive character. The narrator of the story describes Ichabod as
tall, but exceedingly lank, with narrow shoulders, long arms and legs, hands that dangled
a mile out of his sleeves, feet that might have served for shovels, and his whole frame
most loosely hung together. His head was small, and flat at top, with huge ears, large
Summers 5
green glassy eyes, and a long snipe nose, so that it might have been mistaken for a
weathercock perched upon his spindle neck, to tell which way the wind blew (43).
No part of the narrator’s description of and attitude towards Ichabod suggests his masculinity
rivals that of Broms. In fact, this description makes Ichabod seem weak and awkward. Where
Brom’s description creates an image of masculinity, Ichabod’s almost implies his lack of
masculinity. According to David L.G. Arnold, author of the essay “Fearful Pleasures, Or ‘I Am
Twice the Man’: The Re-Gendering of Ichabod Crane,” “The word ‘Ichabod’ itself suggests
this: it is a Hebrew word meaning ‘inglorious,’ an unlikely epithet, perhaps, but one that
suggests that we are to read the character as specifically de-masculinized” (2). If so, if readers
are to read Ichabod as a de-masculinized character--and Brom as the ultimate form of
masculinity--then they would deduce, with the conclusion of the story, that masculinity wins out.
Through Brom’s tricking of Ichabod--and Ichabod’s ultimate defeat--the competition for
Katrina Van Tassel’s hand in marriage is awarded to Brom Bones. According to Arnold, from
the beginning of the story:
As Irving describes him, Ichabod is gangly and ridiculous. He is not at all the kind of
person one would expect to win the heart of an eligible coquette like Katrina Van Tassel,
and this is part of the logic of Irving’s story: Katrina and the luxurious agrarian fecundity
she represents cannot, in the economy of Sleepy Hollow, be allowed to pass into the
possession of so inappropriate a suitor (1).
Arnold suggests Irving creates two characters whose forms of masculinity drastically reciprocate
each other. If Ichabod--whose masculinity appears to lack machismo--cannot win Katrina’s
hand in marriage, then Arnold suggests the appropriate suitor would be Brom. The narrator of
the story states that through Brom’s trickery, he defeats Ichabod and wins Katrina: “Brom Bones
Summers 6
too, who shortly after his rival’s disappearance, conducted the blooming Katrina in triumph to
the altar, was observed to look exceedingly knowing whenever the story of Ichabod was related,
and always burst into a hearty laugh at the mention of the pumpkin; which led some to suspect
that he knew more about the matter than he chose to tell” (61). With this description, readers
assume that Brom “triumphs” over Ichabod because of his booming masculinity.
Arguably, if readers view Irving’s creation of Brom Bones in “The Legend of Sleepy
Hollow” as the stereotypical masculine character, often found in early American Literature, they
see how the socially constructed norms of gender and masculinity at the time influenced Irving.
At this time in history, society defined masculinity through one’s physical appearance and
strength--like that of Brom Bones. And in this specific short story, Brom’s masculinity defeats
the character--Ichabod--who lacks a masculine physical appearance and strength. Rather, some
could argue that Ichabod displays features of femininity. As Armengol argues, if scholars study
this gendering of literary characters, they might link how social, political, and historical values
construct society’s perceptions of gender. By doing so, perhaps these perceptions of masculinity
and femininity can change. Maybe if Irving were to write this same story today, Ichabod--with
his sensitivity and intellect--would defeat Brom--the dense and aggressive instigator.
Works Cited
Armengol, Josep M. "Gendering Men: Re-Visions Of Violence As A Test Of Manhood In
American Literature." Atlantis: Revista De La Asociación Española De Estudios Ingleses
Y Norteamericanos 29.2 (2007): 75-82. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 28 Oct.
2014.
Arnold, David L. G. “Fearful Pleasures, Or ‘I Am Twice the Man’: The Re-Gendering of
Summers 7
Ichabod Crane.” Literature Film Quarterly 31.1 (2003): 33. Literary Reference Center.
Web. 22 Oct. 2014.
Irving, Washington. “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.” The Norton Anthology of American
Literature 1820-1865. Eds. Nina Baym and Robert S. Levine. New York: W.W. Norton
and Company, 2012. 41-62. Print.
Puls, Daniel W. "Achieving Masculinity: A Review of the Literature on Male Gender Identity
Development." (1998). ERIC. Web. 22 Oct. 2014.