Kristin L. Hoganson, Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars (Yale University Press, 1998).
Why I Assigned This
The U.S. History Survey at VMI tends to be overwhelmingly comprised of International Studies and History Majors, so I decided to make Spring 2026 all about U.S.-Latin American relations. Little did I know how relevant this topic would be when I chose this book in Fall 2025.
I read Hoganson as a graduate student just learning what gender history actually meant and how it could be useful for more traditional fields of historiography. It has been one of my favorite books since that point. I first assigned a chapter from Hoganson when I taught this class at Lynchburg College in Spring 2017, so when I decided to focus on U.S.-Latin American relations this semester this was a natural choice.
How Students Responded
The focus on gender was initially a turn-off, and it took some effort to get my students over that gut reaction. Once they did, they appreciated the argument even if they did not completely buy it. This was particularly true of my International Studies majors, who are trained to focus on structural issues such as economics and politics rather than the “squishier” ideas of culture. Universally, they appreciated the argument about political culture and particularly the use of political cartoons.
The Assignment
I have been experimenting this year with having AI help me write an AI-resistant writing prompt. While not foolproof, the suggestions do make it more difficult to use generative AI to create an essay. I do still have a total ban on all facets of generative AI for this assignment because I follow the VMI Work For Grade policy. They were to write a 1,000 to 1,500-word essay with the following components:
Part 1: Close Reading and Conceptual Mapping (300 words)
- Select one specific concept from *Fighting for American Manhood*
- Define the concept using Hoganson's own language.
- Identify two separate moments in the book where this concept appears, citing specific page numbers.
- Explain how the meaning or function of the concept **changes, deepens, or becomes more complicated** across those moments.
Part 2: Primary Source Intervention (350-400 words)
- Locate one primary source not assigned in this class that was produced between 1880 and 1910.
- Briefly describe where you found the source, why you selected it, and what initially stood out to you.
- Analyze how this source supports, complicates, or contradicts Hoganson's argument about gender and imperialism.
- Identify one assumption about masculinity, femininity, or national strength embedded in the source that might not have been obvious to its original audience.
Part 3: Positional Reflection as a Historian (250-300 words)
- Reflect on how your own background, academic interests, or national context shaped the way you read Hoganson. You might consider your major, how the focus on gender challenged your assumptions, whether you found an argument unconvincing, uncomfortable, or especially persuasive, and why.
Part 4: Historiographical Pressure Test (300-350 words)
- Prompt: Imagine that a historian writing in 2035 argues that *Fighting for American Manhood* overemphasized gender at the expense of global structural forces (such as capitalism, geopolitics, technology). Using Hoganson's text, your primary source, and the analysis from parts 1 to 3: Explain where Hoganson's framework remains powerful and where it may require revision. You are not required to reject her argument, but you must stress test it.
The Verdict
While my students were not entirely convinced, I still find Hoganson’s book incredibly useful in providing a counterpoint to the more “traditional” accounts of this period of U.S. History, so I would use it again. I will probably not assign the entire book, but the introduction is truly effective at showing students how to construct an argument and use theoretical approaches effectively in analysis. I also find Hoganson to be an excellent writer who can clearly lay out an argument, seamlessly present evidence to support it, and produce an eminently readable theoretical work.
The assignment worked very well. It provided excellent feedback on what students found intriguing and challenging in the reading. It taught them some basic skills for identifying primary sources and thinking historiographically. However, I would note two things I would implement next time. First, to foreground the idea that you must critique the book written, not the one you wish the author had written. Second, a bit more focus on the differences between primary and secondary sources.