Frustrating Anti-Gun Biases in Scholarly Publications on Guns

I was recently asked to review Guns in Law (University of Massachusetts Press, 2019), for CHOICE, a monthly publication of the Association of College & Research Libraries designed to help librarians decide which books to add to their collections.

I was excited to have the assignment because I know the first editor, Austin Sarat, from my participation in “The Social Life of Guns” symposium at Amherst College. Sarat was also one of the editors of the book that came from that symposium, The Lives of Guns, to which I contributed an essay on technologies of concealed carry in Gun Culture 2.0. I also saw that two of the seven chapters were written by sociologists, Jennifer Carlson writing about her work on police and the Second Amendment and Laura Beth Nielsen on “Good Moms with Guns.”

The first page of the introduction by Sarat, Lawrence Douglas, and Martha Merrill Umphrey was notable for quoting Cicero on the morality of self-defense, but by page two my excitement had faded considerably.

The paragraph in the image above betrays a frustrating anti-gun bias, invoking non-scholarly ideas that are neither necessary nor helpful in making the analytical point the authors wish to make.

Sarat, Douglas, and Umphrey begin by drawing on Elizabeth Anker’s essay, “Mobile Sovereigns: Agency Panic and Gun Ownership.” (Side note: In the footnotes they cite this as an unpublished manuscript from 2017, but in fact it was published in The Social Life of Guns in 2018, early enough to get the citation correct in Guns in Law.)

This sloppiness notwithstanding, they write:

Carrying a gun, Anker suggests, “reinstantiates a type of individual sovereignty when other forms of sovereign power seem out of reach.” It is an expression of what she calls “mobile sovereignty” and a source of “omnipotent power” that masks or removes insecurities and feelings of inadequacy or helplessness.

Although I don’t agree completely with Anker’s take, her concept of “mobile sovereignty” bears some similarity to the old idea of “law abiding one-man armies” and offers a novel perspective on concealed carry as DIY security.

So far, so good. But the passage just quoted ends with a footnote (#16, in the image below) that is quite revealing of the authors’ true feelings about guns and gun owners.

For no reason whatsoever, the authors’ invoke a statement from the historian  and advisor to President John F. Kennedy, Arthur Schlesinger: “men doubtful of their own virility cling to the gun as a symbolic phallus and unconsciously fear gun control as the equivalent of castration.”

They cite as the source of this quote B. Bruce-Briggs (FWIW: incorrectly leaving off the hyphenation between the two last names), but the passage is easily traceable to Schlesinger’s book, Violence: American in the Sixties (Signet, 1968).

Schlesinger’s book is not a work of historical scholarship, but a polemic, and the idea of people clinging to guns as a symbolic phallus is not the product of scholarly research but merely a long-standing pseudo-Freudian bias. (About which I have written before on my other blog: “Paging Dr. Freud” and “Psycho-Sexual Analysis of Guns, Part 2”).

Schlesinger calls his biased POV a “psychiatric suspicion.” Below is the original context of the passage in Schlesinger’s book.

Despite its weak scholarly foundation — Bonnie and Clyde! — the gun as a “symbolic phallus” line was so choice that it was one of 5 passages highlighted in the front matter of Schlesinger’s book.

And it is unjustifiably given scholarly credibility by being invoked without comment or reservation in Guns in Law.

From here, the paragraph which began so promisingly with Anker’s concept of mobile sovereignty only gets worse. Without indicating that they were quoting someone other than Anker, the authors write:

A gun “makes a little man feel big, a stupid man feel clever, a frightened man brave, and an insecure man feel sure.”

The reference here (footnote #17) is to a 4 page essay by Walter Menninger, “Guns and Violence: An American Phenomenon,” published in the American Journal of Social Psychiatry, which had a short-lived existence in the 1980s (1981-1987). But it turns out, these are not Menninger’s words.

Although the AJSP is not significant enough to be accessible through my campus library, I was able to find the source of this quote through other means. The quote is not even from a scholarly source. It is taken from a story in the New York Journal American newspaper from 1965.

I know this not because I was able to find the original story (which I am still trying to get through inter-library loan), but because I found another reference to it in a book by Carl Bakal, The Right to Bear Arms (McGraw-Hill, 1966).

Don’t let the title fool you; this is not a pro-Second Amendment book. Like the editors of Guns in Law, Bakal invokes the guns make “a stupid man feel clever” line approvingly. Bakal says the idea that “it makes a little man feel big,” etc. sums up the view of psychiatrists and criminologists. I will be quite interested to get my hands on the original article to see the basis for this “summing up” claim.

Bakal, who was a photographer not a social scientist, continues by approvingly listing the types of persons who feel comfort in carrying a firearm: (1) “The basically insecure individual,” (2) “The criminal sociopath,” and (3) “The psychotic.”

Although Sarat, Douglas, and Umphrey do not explicitly endorse this perspective, by sneaking this line in between quotes from Anker, they raise questions as to whether they would.

A final note on the sources of these ideas. Schlesinger invokes the movie Bonnie and Clyde to support his gun as symbolic phallus idea. For his part, Bakal draws his Freudian analysis from the novelist Ian Fleming (as seen in the image below, in material on the same page as his discussion of the New York Journal American story).

This highlights a problem that often manifests itself when one’s understanding of something is largely mediated by popular culture.  It reminds me of the line in the movie Malibu’s Most Wanted when the white wannabe rapper from Malibu, Brad “B-Rad G” Gluckman, is asked how he knows “what goes down in the ‘hood.”

B-Rad responds, “B.E.T.”

B-Rad G from Malibu’s Most Wanted

I’m not sure I trust those whose knowledge of gun owners is largely based on popular culture and stereotypes to teach me about guns any more than I trust B-Rad G from Malibu to teach me about South Central L.A.

Now I need to find the motivation to read past page 2 of this book.

5 thoughts on “Frustrating Anti-Gun Biases in Scholarly Publications on Guns

  1. Once again Dr. David, you have “raised the bar” to an even higher level of marksmanship.
    How delusional and condescendingly biased Merrill Umphrey writes subjectively about ‘us who carry,’ feeling big, powerful & clever, when nothing could be further from the truth. The only person who has ever expressed as such, possibly disingenuously, is presidential candidate Mayor Buttigieg when he was in the service. And to dive deeper into this diatribe, to write “white men,” shows tremendous ignorance of reality. All lawful gun owners of any demographical group represents a high level of integrity with humbleness, and respect with appreciation for the ‘tool’ they carry.
    Thanks, by the way, for linking your previous writings as references throughout your blog. Shoot safe, shoot often!

    Like

  2. My dissertation advisor once quipped to me to the effect that 90% of what gets published turns out to be wrong. He actually said something stronger, but since I don’t remember his exact words, I don’t want to misquote Gil too badly. But I think the word “crap” may have been in there somewhere.

    Nowadays, it seems just a bit of what gets published is crap from the start. Its unethical, to me, for these folks to be interjecting personal biases and cheap shots into what is supposed to be an authoritative academic publication. I can write authoritatively about a few things that are in my c.v. quiver, all irrelevant here. Anything else is personal opinion and mine is as valid as Joe the Plumber’s and not more.

    I don’t suppose, David, that you can write a formal academic review of this publication and put your thoughts into the literature with Professor after your name?

    Like

  3. Pingback: Frustrating Anti-Gun Biases in Scholarly Publications on Guns — Gun Curious – 17GEN4

  4. In my unscientific observations, it seems that there is a large element of “projection” in the attitudes of anti-gun folks. I really enjoy the dawning comprehension when they go to the range with a competent instructor and find out for themselves what it’s like. Thank you for your articles and classes! – Tim

    Like

  5. Pingback: A Gun “Makes . . . a Stupid Man Feel Clever” | Gun Curious

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.