Although we have only read a fraction of what is a very lengthy novel, I found that I was immediately drawn to the close relationship that Ishmael and Queequeg begin to develop in the first couple of chapters. While we discussed that the sharing of beds between men when they stayed in a place like an inn (or other communal place for working class men to eat and sleep) was a normal practice, there seemed to be a deeper level of intimacy present between Ishmael and Queequeg which became apparent to me during the night that they first shared their bed at the inn: “Upon waking next morning about daylight, I found Queequeg’s arm thrown over me in the most loving and affectionate manner. You had almost thought I had been his wife” (Chapter 4)
Additionally, this affectionate behavior continues in Chapter 11 with “Queequeg now and then affectionately throwing his brown tattooed legs over mine, and then drawing them back; so entirely sociable and free and easy were we…” This interaction really surprised me seeing as this novel was written in the nineteenth century, and Melville’s audience would be less than accepting of the intimate nature of a relationship between two men. Additionally, Melville’s use of the words “free” and “easy” in the quote above signal a kind of ease and heightened level of comfort between the two men. Something else that made their relationship stand out to me was Ishmael’s level of concern for Queequeg when he didn’t open the door to their room during his “Ramadan”, or the way that Ishmael draped a jacket over Queequeg in an effort to keep him warm while he practiced his religious obligations.
It led me to consider the limitations and freedoms that gender, and subsequently male sexuality allowed at the time. It also led me to consider how much affection, between two men, constituted too much affection (in the eyes of society during the period). Outside of an explicitly sexual relationship how affectionate could men be with each other, and how could they express their affection for each other, without having their masculinity questioned? Additionally, while considering these thoughts it dawned on me that masculinity and sexuality change in relation to women. Ishmael and Queequeg are able to share a level of intimacy and ease when it’s just the two of them, and it reminded me of the behavior present between men in exclusively male spaces. Places like locker rooms (in present times) or the room at the inn, provide men with the space to act in ways that they would never usually act in spaces with a mix of men and women. I think it will be interesting to see if the crew’s time at sea will reflect this idea or not, and if societal rules that relate to gender and sexuality, change while they are at sea.
I was wondering what you guys thought of Ishmael and Queequeg’s relationship? Do you all think that Ishmael and Queequeg’s relationship could mark the beginning of a romance or is their behavior explained by the fact that they felt comfortable enough to express themselves in an exclusively male space?
Last semester, I took PSY 430: Psychology of Intimate Relationships. We watched a short film about a study in which male testosterone was measured in a group a males who spent time together. A female pheromone was introduced to each male (I’ve forgotten how it was dispersed in the room), and then male testosterone was then measured again. The testosterone levels increased, and it was assumed that in the presence of females, men’s testosterone levels will increase as a sense of heightened competition is now at stake for reproduction purposes. Your analysis reminded me of this study. As men are spending 3-5 years in close quarters on a whaleship in a stressful situation, it’s likely that testosterone levels will not be as high as when women are present; even though whaling was a very male dominated trade.
Recently (tonight actually), a friend tagged me on twitter to a meme in which Melville “outs” Queequeg and Ishmael as gay. I know there are theories on it, and through this, I surmise that this theory is becoming more popular, but I had to disagree with my friend and the meme. I think the theory that Queequeg and Ishmael as a homosexual couple, or a “thing” totally ignores intersectionality and the concepts and attitudes of intimacy, kinship and behavior in non-White societies. Just like many other aspects of Queequeg that shock Ishmael in his initial ethnocentrism, I think Queequeg’s openness and comfort is also looked at from Ishmael’s narrow viewpoint. This could be something that you might want to explore further in your analysis.
This is a really interesting analysis and exploration. If you’re considering investigating this further for your next essay, I think you’d find some of Michel Foucault’s essays and interviews to be helpful and interesting; he poses some similar questions (not specifically regarding Moby-Dick, more of a social commentary) and offers a unique approach. Your consideration of gender limitations is addressed in an interview with Foucault called “Friendship as a Way of Life.” Although Foucault mainly discusses male homosexuality, his ideas also pertain quite directly to homosocial behavior and male-male intimacy. Interestingly, he considers the homosocial bonds that men form in extremely masculine settings like prison and war, which I think are comparable in some ways to life at sea and in whaling ports, etc. Sorry to ramble, I just thought it might be a helpful/interesting source to consider if you were thinking of exploring this topic further. I’ll leave a link just in case: https://commoningtimes.org/texts/mf_friendship_as_a_way_of_life.pdf