|
Music > Features > Bruce Springsteen
Sex in the U.S.A.: Male Sexuality in Springsteen’s American Dream[20 July 2009] Born in the U.S.A. turns 25 this year. Hohman looks at how Bruce Springsteen stresses male sexuality as imperative to the American Dream on the seminal album, but asks, where does that leave the women?
By Charles A. HohmanTwo minutes and ten seconds into Born in the U.S.A., the first of the album’s many female characters appears. She is given no physical or character traits; just two lines detailing her relationship with a fallen male hero. “He had a woman he loved in Saigon / I got a picture of him in her arms,” Bruce Springsteen proclaims, in the voice of a destitute Vietnam vet recalling his departed brother, killed in the same war that ruined the narrator’s life. It is a telling image, and properly foreshadows the role of women in the U.S.A. where Springsteen and his characters were born. That is the U.S.A. of the American Dream, where meritocracy is accepted as gospel until it’s proven as myth, where all men may be created equal, but are born into grossly unequal circumstances. It is also the U.S.A. of rock and roll, which helped liberate bored teenagers like Springsteen, and even helped ignite a sexual revolution. Throughout his career, Springsteen has grappled with the shortcomings of the American Dream: that great myth that hard work will pay off with material comforts and prosperity. What is less established is that sexual satisfaction is an integral part of Springsteen’s American Dream; a basic human right every bit as essential as life and liberty. His ouevre is teeming with vaginal metaphors (“The River”, “Candy’s Room”, “Tunnel of Love”, “Pink Cadillac”) where the female anatomy provides some sort of sanctuary from a dark, spirit-crushing world where innocent, hard-working men are denied their entitlement. Like rock and roll itself, women are a surrogate release, pillars of stability and tokens of success. In women, both Springsteen and his characters (as much as they can be objectively separated) often find the promise that has been denied them elsewhere, but they just as often get denied here as well. Sex, like the other aspects of the American Dream, offers a lot of seductive promises, but no inalienable guarantees. Side 1: “I Got a Bad Desire” Born in the U.S.A. is a masculine album, and even the cover asserts this. The tight, ass-hugging blue jeans, the tucked white t-shirt, the bulging bared biceps, the red cap dangling off the back pocket, all converging before a giant American flag: it’s an assertive, in-your-face image, one that evokes the superpower that had won World War II and was about to win the Cold War, and its ethos of rugged individualism. Viewed from the back, Springsteen could be any of a million salt-of-the-earth guys who, often thanklessly, keep that superpower thriving. But guys is the operative word here: the various perspectives on the album are uniformly male, and within their viewpoints, women are limited in their capacity, doomed to sexual subservience and distressing domesticity. And yet, the pursuit of these women motivates much of the action on Born’s powerful first side. Nowhere is this more blatant than “Cover Me”, which follows the title track, and turns “Born”’s brief image of woman-as-protector into a motif. In it, Springsteen recoils at the horrors of this rough old world, and pleads for the most desirable solution: “I’m looking for a lover who will come on in and cover me.” Here, a woman, that one special woman and the sex she would ideally provide, offers asylum from natural disasters and manmade catastrophes. When Springsteen sings, “Promise me baby you won’t let them find us/ Hold me in your arms, let our love blind us”, one can almost envision the “Born” soldier’s late brother whispering those very words to his Saigon sweetie, as sniper fire audibly rages in the distance.
But just as women can protect from the storms raging in the cutthroat, rough-and-tumble working world, they can be the storm as well. The pursuit of women, like the pursuit of money and prosperity, can lead to danger, corruption, even punishment. And so after championing the safeguarding contentment that women can provide once attained, Born launches into two hard-luck delinquent tales, tragicomic and almost cinematic narratives of men chasing women as one more essential piece to their ideal American life. “Darlington County” and “Working on the Highway” are Born’s most linear, and arguably most obscure, compositions, but both illustrate the troubles that can trap men in search of female companionship. In “Darlington County”, two scofflaws flee New York City in search of “work on the county line”, and yes, women. Complains the narrator about the Big Apple: “The girls are pretty but they just wanna know your name.” In other words, they ask too many questions: who you are, what you do, where you’re going, and once your answers are insufficient, they quickly move on to men with bigger wallets than dreams. And so the narrator and his buddy Wayne drive 800 miles to South Carolina, where conditions are a bit more desperate. In this new setting, plunking down 200 dollars in one night makes them “big spenders”, big enough for girls to believe their fathers own the World Trade Center towers. But while the narrator grabs a girl, and makes her enough lofty promises that she not only puts out but breaks away from Darlington with him, Wayne ends up “handcuffed to the bumper of a state trooper’s Ford”. “Darlington County” contains the album’s first mention of “rock and roll”, which triggers an infectious chorus of “sha la la/ sha la la la la la”s. That seems anachronistic in 1984, until one considers that rock and roll’s “sha la la”s, among its coded language of nonsense syllables, often signify sexual ecstasy, the kind that negates mere English. Springsteen concedes as much before the second chorus, when he promises his newfound female conquest, “Just me and you we could… sha la la / Sha la la la la.” By the end, both the driving music and unison voices fade out in an ad-nauseam string of “sha la la la la”s, as Wayne heads to jail and the narrator “sees the glory of the coming of the Lord”, as he and his newfound girl drive into their uncertain but sky’s-the-limit future.
The forces that captured Wayne rear their ugly, oppressive heads again on “Working on the Highway”, a jaunty story of a road laborer, who spends his day “laying down the blacktop”. He’s out sweating, working his body raw, while promising his girl “a better life than this”. That girl is his main motivator—he keeps a picture of her in his back pocket, just to remind him of the purpose of all that backbreaking labor. But like Wayne, he too gets punished for trying to subvert his position. He elopes with the girl, and her disapproving family calls the authorities, landing him in jail doing the exact same physical labor he was doing before, this time with no lovelight to get him through the day.
“I had a girl / I had a job” recalls Joe, the storyteller on “Downbound Train”, the album’s most somber and melodramatic track. Those opening lines encapsulate Springsteen’s vision of the American dream: financial and sexual security, albeit a fragile one. For when the job goes, the girl goes as well, and Joe cannot get his life back on track. He labors for chump change at the car wash during the day, and at night, has intense visions of the girl’s return, the kind of miraculous dreams from which waking up is life’s ultimate curse.
“I’m on Fire” is an anomaly on the album: the most sonically quiet and melodically simple of its twelve tracks, with a pulsating beat, a barely-there finger-picked guitar, and a haunting synth riff. The song sounds naked, apropos for an uncommonly frank confession of sexual desire. Springsteen’s vocal is alternately frisky and creepy, as the girl’s wishes remain willfully obscure. “Hey, little girl, is your daddy home / Did he go away and leave you all alone,” he asks, before insisting his own sexual prowess, and his overwhelming desperation to get in there and fuck her. “At night I wake up with the sheets soaking wet and a freight train running through the middle of my head,” he rambles, as though his proto-emo histrionics will sway her. It fades out with brief falsetto “ooh-ooh-oohs”, once again nonsense syllables, the kind of uninhibited noises a man would make when being pleasured, or more likely in the song’s context, pleasuring himself. That side one closes with a sexual act is significant: here is fun unfettered, not tempered with tragedy, a penalty-free release from the struggles that have thus far commanded the disc. Unlike the previous three narrators, the horndog of “I’m on Fire” suffers no consequences for his bad desires. He simply funnels his aggression into sexual release, and in a forecast of the second side, sounds positively youthful.
Related ArticlesBruce Springsteen: 2 November 2009 - Washington DCBy Mehan Jayasuriya04.Nov.09 Words and pictures by Mehan Jayasuriya.
Verse-Chorus-Verse: Bruce Springsteen - “Better Days”By PC Muñoz21.Sep.09 Pop Heroism, One Song at a Time
Bruce Springsteen: Still Going Strong at Age 60By Louis P. Masur20.Sep.09 The key to his success is that Springsteen believes in what he does, but doesn’t try to live inside the rock ‘n’ roll fantasy that glorifies wealth, fame, and superstardom.
|
|
Comments
Uhm…we’re talking straight male sexuality, here, aren’t we? Please, just to be clear, we- the lavender guys- have our own issues. No offense, but we’d appreciate if writers would just make clear that everyone ins not straight, rendering the rest of us invisible.
Comment by Diepiriye Kuku from New Delhi, India — July 20, 2009 @ 2:54 am
Wow, this piece took me back… and reminded me why I ran screaming from post-structuralist media criticism at my liberal arts college.
Rock ‘n’ roll, and a lot of other things for that matter, are about the visceral experience and are not designed to be analyzed like Ulysses or other dense and symbolic literature. There are sensible and interesting conversations to be had about the sociological context of Springsteen’s music, and revealing ideas that might come out in a vigorous conversation between informed fans, but this column is just so much overcooked malarkey.
The extent to which Bruce Springsteen himself accepts similar such “deep analyses” is the extent to which he’s lost his edge over the years, and has lost his relevance to the ordinary people that he and the author of this piece ostensibly “speak for.”
Comment by critic — July 20, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Bobby Jean is very, very widely believed to be about Steve Van Zandt.
Also, I kind of feel like you glossed right over the fact that the “girl” in Working on the Highway is underage. You don’t go to jail for running away with a girl who isn’t a minor.
Comment by Just sayin — July 20, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
I can’t argue with the content of this article, but why this particular record? Isn’t the boss just one of many in a long line of rock ‘n roll artists who treat their libido like a muse? It really goes all the way back the blues. As much as this record may typify that sort of subject matter, I have to ask, why must this record in particular induce a conversation about sex any more than say, a BB King record, or a James Brown record, or even a 2 Live Crew Record for that matter???
Comment by Terrence from Albany, NY — July 20, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
This could be the most CLUELESS review of a Springsteen record, or ANY record for that matter, that I have ever read. It was like you wrote the review and THEN listened to the record. Jeez…....
Comment by Mike D. from CT — July 22, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
I’m almost beyond words—a rarity for me. You can’t possibly be talking about the same LP I have loved and studied for decades. And by study, I don’t mean develop a thesis and try to find examples to make it fit in the box (no pun intended, there are enough vaginal “references” in this piece to make me want to buy a chastity belt.) He is a STORYTELLER—this is not an autobiography. As was mentioned earlier, Bobby Jean is widely considered to be a song written when Steve Van Zandt left the band—NOT some sexual relationship gone wrong song. I was astonished to find that classic do-wop and rock syllables repeated, “ooh”, for example, was about masturbating and not part of the rhyming/pacing of this song. I hope somebody puts this article in Bruce’s hand—I can almost hear that goofy laugh from here. In the meantime, please bear down on something like “Oh Mandy, you came and you gave without taking.” I guess there’s probably a blowjob reference hidden there I missed as well. Worst piece of criticism I’ve ever read about Bruce. Do yourself a favor, though there are thousands of pages written about this LP, the 33 1/3 series is often very strong and BITUSA is one of the albums covered. Enough already from someone who is speechless. More thinking, less writing. More study about the period and the references, less onanistic pap.
Comment by EStreet4ever from Candy's Room/Deep Inside the Tunnel of Love — July 23, 2009 @ 12:19 am
Springsteen’s music is a kind of male role-playing, which makes it a lot easier to take. Springsteen expresses a nearly exclusively male perspective (best to write about what you know, even if what you know is limited). That’s fine. As an artist, he doesn’t owe us any more than his own perspective.
The objectification of him as some sort of universal spokesman for Common American, though, is the silly part. There are whole worlds of hurt he doesn’t attempt to examine in his songs (any woman whose husband or dad “left a wife and kids in Baltimore, Jack” isn’t going to really find much to care about in the carefree “Hungry Heart” - that song is Just for Men.) But that’s fine too.
Comment by Ellen — July 30, 2009 @ 7:11 am
I agree completely with estreet4ever .. this sounds like it’s written for a college class by someone stretching for something to say, positing some theory then straining to make it all work with dubious examples. Born in the USA, for someone who lived through Vietnam and the situation of the country at that time, is a very moving depiction of what happened to a lot of guys ... songs like this, and 42 shots, and others, are a voice telling it like it is when the culture of flag waving is all around him.
Comment by goodgodallmighty from Atlanta — July 30, 2009 @ 7:32 am
PopMatters sponsor
Ellen:
I am not sure how somebody can “role-play” and “present his own perspective” at the same time. The first suggests performance and the second authenticity.
I’d argue that Springsteen has been working a version of the shifting-persona strategy since day one—not as adroitly as, say, Bowie or Dylan, but with some expertise, especially with the help of Jon Landau.
For some time—since Darkness, I think—Springsteen has readily dropped the names of books he has been reading: Flannery O’Connor, Ron Kovick, etc. That (pointed) literariness is a clue to why I find his masculinity not only playful but also ironic. He, and Jon Landau (and the rock-crit establishment) want you to “read” his songs for ironies.
Hence, Ellen, I’d question whether “Hungry Heart” is “carefree” or whether a mass audience mis-read it as such. It is, after all, Springsteen himself who provides the details that problematize such a carefree reading. It is, all in all, a very literary way to write irony into the lyrics of a disarmingly gorgeous slice of pop fluff.
Comment by Johnson — July 31, 2009 @ 6:59 am
This reminds me of the fevered over-analysis of literature from some freshman Am.Lit 101. As Freudmis reputed to have said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.
Comment by Allen N from Colorado — August 3, 2009 @ 6:33 am
I think that most of us who teach AmLit would be happy to see this level of engagement from an undergraduate. Just not from a writer for a respected online journal (and just where do you think you are, Allen N., if analysis gets your goat?) who seems to be trying out his grad school vocab on an unreceptive audience—i.e., as others have said, developing a theoretical base and then jamming texts into it willy nilly.
Comment by Chuck — August 3, 2009 @ 7:21 am