What do you think?
Rate this book
Gender and Culture Series
Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire
Hailed by the New York Times as "one of the most influential texts in gender studies, men's studies and gay studies," this book uncovers the homosocial desire between men, from Restoration comedies to Tennyson's Princess.
244 pages, Paperback
First published April 15, 1985
About the author
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
31 books268 followersEve Kosofsky Sedgwick was an American academician specializing in literary criticism and feminist analysis; she is known as one of the architects of queer theory. Her works reflect an interest in queer performativity, experimental critical writing, non-Lacanian psychoanalysis, Buddhism and pedagogy, the affective theories of Silvan Tomkins and Melanie Klein, and material culture, especially textiles and texture. Drawing on feminist scholarship and the work of Michel Foucault, Sedgwick uncovered purportedly hidden homoerotic subplots in writers like Charles Dickens, Henry James and Marcel Proust. Sedgwick argued that an understanding of virtually any aspect of modern Western culture would be incomplete or damaged if it failed to incorporate a critical analysis of modern homo/heterosexual definition, coining the terms "antihomophobic" and "homosocial."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
November 29, 2023
This is one of the first books that opened the new theoretical school of queer theory. As such, it made a lot of people mad back in the day and it is still pissing people off today. Sedgwick claims that the patriarchy has been using women to get closer to men. This is where she loses many people. This is where she lost several people in my grad class (you would think a bunch of English majors would read and pay attention). If people would read on they would see that she goes on to say that using women to do that does not make a man gay. It is of making new bonds or strengthening existing ones. It does not mean you do not love the woman you married, but there is still a "bros before ho's" connotation to it. And it is not true of all men, but good grief! If you look around you can see that a lot has not changed since the Middle Ages and that women can still be used as bargaining chips. This makes the patriarchy uncomfortable because homosocial bonding (aka, bros) is all fine and dandy. But the second the homosocial becomes homosexual, everything goes to hell in a hand basket before the offender even knows what happened. This is a very watered-down and condensed summary of Sedgwick's work, and does not do her brilliance justice.
Shelved as 'dnf'
August 11, 2015My patience for this kind of needlessly convoluted academic writing has worn thin over the years.
June 28, 2017
A comprehensive study, not only of homosexuality in literature, but "homosocial" desire articulated through love triangles which include the female subject within non-canonical texts. I think I've found some inspiration for my thesis ;-)
December 31, 2012
Need to read this again to let it sink in properly, but a couple of my tutors have very much subscribed to Sedgwick's line of thought, in part if not in whole, and it all made a lot of sense to me. It's easy to apply it to the Arthurian legends, or to the 'Sagas of Warrior-Poets' in Norse studies...
My perennial problem with literary theory is that people make it sound far too complicated when they write books like this, but this isn't too bad, at least.
My perennial problem with literary theory is that people make it sound far too complicated when they write books like this, but this isn't too bad, at least.
June 10, 2013
This book was obviously written with a real passion, genuine enthusiasm, and good intentions. Also, it was one of the first of its kind, so kudos, I’ll give Kosofsky that.
However, the writing style is simply atrocious. As for your possible reaction to the argumentation in the book: it can go either way--you will either accept Kosofsky’s interpretation and like the book, or you will see many of her concepts as farfetched, and remain skeptical.
However, the writing style is simply atrocious. As for your possible reaction to the argumentation in the book: it can go either way--you will either accept Kosofsky’s interpretation and like the book, or you will see many of her concepts as farfetched, and remain skeptical.
July 8, 2007
The theories presented in this book have affected me so much that I can't help applying them to everything I see and/or read. Highly intriguing, and TRUE.
March 28, 2022
men create intricate rituals which allow them to touch the skin of other men
May 12, 2018
I think what most people find offensive about Sedgwick’s theory is that women exchanged as objects of economic exchange (Patriarchy) is rooted in the desire to strengthen homosocial bonds between men. I find many heterosexual readers of Sedgwick’s work are appalled by this because they assume Sedgwick is calling them gay (spoiler alert, she isn’t). Sedgwick’s theory is a counter argument to your conventional homophobic discourse; that homosexuality is deviant or derivative from heterosexuality. Sedgwick’s theory repositions the homosocial as an essential cultural brick to a very layered wall. I think that what most readers find shocking while reading Between Men is this refocusing on the emphasis of non genital male-to-male relationships (not that these relations never become genital, she notes they have the potential to do so).
Overall, this is an incredible work of genius that’s well communicated through extensive literary analysis and historical citing.
Overall, this is an incredible work of genius that’s well communicated through extensive literary analysis and historical citing.
December 22, 2009
I shouldn't pretend like I read the whole thing--but this is where the central pivotal idea of my thesis was discovered: triangular structures of power. She says that women are fungible (great word!) and that only the men matter with lots of examples that are less useful if you haven't read the source books. Since I hadn't there was a lot of skimming.
But of the 50% I did read, I would say it's pretty good. Start with the introduction and proceed as you feel necessary. Sedgwick has an annoying habit of bringing up points and then leaving us to make connections and figure out their significance. Just a heads up, friends.
But of the 50% I did read, I would say it's pretty good. Start with the introduction and proceed as you feel necessary. Sedgwick has an annoying habit of bringing up points and then leaving us to make connections and figure out their significance. Just a heads up, friends.
January 17, 2018
Its responsibility and accountability is still incredibly relevant. In fact, I would never go as far to think that Sedgwik's typology of homosociality will ever go out of vogue. However, this text does not lend itself to the widest array of usage considering that the author does use incredibly specific (and interesting) examples to explore her concept.
The current and future LIT educator in me will totally consider photocopying the intro and some portions of the text to offer students as necessary reading for queer lit theory. The "meat" of this text may not be for the casual reader, especially if they are disinterested in Classical or Victorian white male writing.
The current and future LIT educator in me will totally consider photocopying the intro and some portions of the text to offer students as necessary reading for queer lit theory. The "meat" of this text may not be for the casual reader, especially if they are disinterested in Classical or Victorian white male writing.
January 25, 2022
I think I would enjoy this more if I could have read it casually, not having to make detailed notes in order to understand as much as possible.
The thoughts and concepts here are brilliant but I got lost so many times in the analysis, which sometimes seemed very far-fetched. I'm missing a lot of theoretical bacground to be able to appreciate it more.
The language of the book is very difficult and every word is important for understanding, so I found myself, after long years of reading both fiction and non-fiction almost exclusively in English, searching for definitions in a dictionary - and many times I came back empty-handed.
The thoughts and concepts here are brilliant but I got lost so many times in the analysis, which sometimes seemed very far-fetched. I'm missing a lot of theoretical bacground to be able to appreciate it more.
The language of the book is very difficult and every word is important for understanding, so I found myself, after long years of reading both fiction and non-fiction almost exclusively in English, searching for definitions in a dictionary - and many times I came back empty-handed.
August 1, 2022
Bros being hoes
February 24, 2022
my partner looked at the title of this and said “that was me last night” so i think homosociality is going ok
February 23, 2018
Sedgwick's theory of paranoid cognitive model evolves from here to "Touching Feeling". Once you get the grips of her argument, it's hard not to see homosocial desire as shaping the world. This model of relationship leads to paranoid cognition, as lapsing to oscillation between homophobia and homosexual desire is the shunned, or abject, side of this desire. Her way of demonstration is crucial, because for the bourgeois era literature has been the best way to give shape to inner dialogue and consciousness of self and the social.
Theoretically this book is nearly groundbreaking, rhetorically it is robust. My poor knowledge of 17th and 18th century English literature made it slow read for me. Book to come back to.
Theoretically this book is nearly groundbreaking, rhetorically it is robust. My poor knowledge of 17th and 18th century English literature made it slow read for me. Book to come back to.
December 24, 2021
2.5
only read a couple of chapters for my final dissertation, so it could be that i simply didn't find what i was looking for.
still an incredibly convoluted text that shouldn't necessarily be as dense.
only read a couple of chapters for my final dissertation, so it could be that i simply didn't find what i was looking for.
still an incredibly convoluted text that shouldn't necessarily be as dense.
Read
March 27, 2024Only read excerpts for uni
April 19, 2023
Si pudiese ponerle más me quedaba sin estrella en el cielo pa darle
la reina de mis sentraña
la reina de mis teorías
te pongo una estatua en medio caí
la reina de mis sentraña
la reina de mis teorías
te pongo una estatua en medio caí
August 30, 2017
I read this and Sedgwick's other book Epistemology of the Closet. Of the two, Epistemology is better. It is a newer book, and it's clear that Sedgwick's ideas are more developed, more considered, and a little more "modern." There are times in Epistemology that Sedgwick refers to Between Men for further reading, but never is it completely necessary to understand the book. While this book is a fine academic work, you're better off reading just Epistemology.
March 24, 2010
1. I was drawn to this book mostly because I knew there was a chapter on The Mystery of Edwin Drood, and that novel needs a good analysis of the race-sex-class dynamics Dickens used. More generally, it's an interesting book. What I didn't expect, but was pleased to find, was how much time Sedgwick spends writing about the role of women in the texts she chooses. I thought that enriched her analysis, although I do think the book would have benefited from a clearer discussion of the role misogyny plays in these texts.
2. Sadly, I've only read a couple of the texts she uses (although I know a bit about some of the others, and nothing at all about one or two). However, this didn't impede my understanding and I never felt like I should run to Wikipedia to look up a synopsis. Sedgwick lays out the information very clearly. Her actual analysis is something of a vocabulary lesson - but it is always interesting. And, hey, new words are good for you.
3. But was it necessary to bring in Freud?
2. Sadly, I've only read a couple of the texts she uses (although I know a bit about some of the others, and nothing at all about one or two). However, this didn't impede my understanding and I never felt like I should run to Wikipedia to look up a synopsis. Sedgwick lays out the information very clearly. Her actual analysis is something of a vocabulary lesson - but it is always interesting. And, hey, new words are good for you.
3. But was it necessary to bring in Freud?
January 7, 2023
Sure we love our bros but that's because we fought other dudes together, we drank together, and the love sometimes is huge and more important than erotic love, but that's because we are fellows, we are comrades. Nowadays when you state that you love your bros it's instantly interpreted as homosexual desire.
If there's one thing i would like to tell these so-call 'gender theorists', it is that their emotional landscape is so desolated, and they don't understand love at all, love which is far far greater than sexual desire. That also explains their distaste for concepts like nationality or race (racism makes sense if you ask me).
Wonder how Western 'social studies' have become so perverted, universities have become wasteland full of horny whores and feminine guys with uncontrolable dicks and masturbation addicts?
If there's one thing i would like to tell these so-call 'gender theorists', it is that their emotional landscape is so desolated, and they don't understand love at all, love which is far far greater than sexual desire. That also explains their distaste for concepts like nationality or race (racism makes sense if you ask me).
Wonder how Western 'social studies' have become so perverted, universities have become wasteland full of horny whores and feminine guys with uncontrolable dicks and masturbation addicts?
September 8, 2021
I am reading this in sections for uni so far the intro and ch 2
I am less than impressed. Seems to be a lot of anachronistic thinking with gibberish that is meant to be so dense it hides that there is no real ideas
I am less than impressed. Seems to be a lot of anachronistic thinking with gibberish that is meant to be so dense it hides that there is no real ideas
Read
July 14, 2014On missing Frank Kermode: "The graphic schema on which I am going to be drawing most heavily in the readings that follow is the triangle."
January 16, 2024
This is a very difficult book for me to review. I nearly gave it a two, but I ultimately decided not to penalize the book too much for my own failings. This book is a discussion of the way that men in literature (and by extension, in the society that provided the fodder for that literature) interacted with each other - and how women have historically taken the role of a conduit facilitating those homosocial relationships in some form or another.
The biggest thing that prevented me from getting more out of this book is that I simply don't know enough gender theory or queer theory to have experience reading this type of material. That made many of the chapters obscure and challenging. Not all of them are as heavily relient on theory (or so it seemed to me) and as a result those slightly more narrative sections went a little faster and smoother and both entertained and taught me more. Further, this book uses specific literary works as case studies and snapshots of particular eras to document and expound on the way in which homosocial relationships were mediated by women - but there wasn't enough exposition about those works to fully situate the arguments, and unless you had read them previously it certainly feels like much would be missed. Of course it is a perfectly valid response to say "read the books!" but that seems unrealistic and also unnecessary - I suspect that a little more real estate spent contextualizing the arguments would have paid dividends.
The biggest thing that prevented me from getting more out of this book is that I simply don't know enough gender theory or queer theory to have experience reading this type of material. That made many of the chapters obscure and challenging. Not all of them are as heavily relient on theory (or so it seemed to me) and as a result those slightly more narrative sections went a little faster and smoother and both entertained and taught me more. Further, this book uses specific literary works as case studies and snapshots of particular eras to document and expound on the way in which homosocial relationships were mediated by women - but there wasn't enough exposition about those works to fully situate the arguments, and unless you had read them previously it certainly feels like much would be missed. Of course it is a perfectly valid response to say "read the books!" but that seems unrealistic and also unnecessary - I suspect that a little more real estate spent contextualizing the arguments would have paid dividends.
February 22, 2020
The ideas and arguments here are definitely really important in terms of how men relate to one another--historically, but also today. In particular, the basic argument that male relationships are largely built around sexual desire, repression, and rivalry is a good insight.
August 30, 2022
With a book like this, one read is certainly not enough. It’s a tremendous milestone in ‘studies’; an important call for a different sort of view of masculinity and homo- and heterosexuality in nineteenth-century Britain, and in the present.
March 18, 2020
Interesting but dense.
Read
August 22, 2020Skimmed more than half of this because I hadn't read some of the texts used to further the argument
January 26, 2021
男性通過「性主體」這個身分結成同盟，一個男人實現了「主體化」便能獲得認可，反之則被逐出男性集團，而實現「主體化」便是通過「擁有」一個可以讓他支配的女人，讓女性成為性客體來確立自己為性主體。同時，男性集團恐同的原因是因為有可能成為男同性戀的慾望對象而被性客體化。厭女與恐同一體兩面。
Read
August 4, 2023So true bestie
November 28, 2023
This is what Donna Tartt is thinking about when she writes twinks.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews