sam as a character that breaks the 'us vs them' dichotomy of hunting with the conditions of his monstrosity is not only something that is deeply inherent to the narrative's exploration of the familial dynamics that sam disrupts, both metaphorically (in terms of hunting as a metaphor for the cycle of abuse) and literally but it's also something that is deeply internalised by every character that bears witness to the same conditions of sam's monstrosity that the audience does but most importantly both dean and sam himself.
there are a lot of aspects to the way that dean approaches sam's involvement within his own agency/independence as well as The Family Business that mirror or directly correlate with sam's monstrosity and when it's worth condemnation vs not but by far the most interesting aspect of this to me is the fact that there is an inherent separation between the idea of sam, sammy, that is not monstrous but is capable of becoming so and the sam that is unknowably monstrous and is capable of corrupting/encroaching on/preying on the sammy isn't/is not yet monstrous. like this idea is mostly explored within dean's idea of sam and monstrosity, either separately or together, but there are a few moments within which sam demonstrates a subconscious awareness of this separation, and subjects himself to it as well, and most of them are within 4.21 and explored as the fact that the Sam—corrupted and monstrous—that Sammy—othered regardless—is to be protected from is ultimately someone that sammy cannot escape. it is in him and evil ('them') and giving into it means freedom or an entire 'acceptance' (the usage of his monstrosity—"maybe there's no escape. after all, how can you run from what's inside you?" / "don't let anyone or anything get in your way."—something he's explicitly expressed since 4.04) of himself.
there will always be an 'us vs them'. it is vital to supernatural. and regardless of the fact that sam exists to break the dichotomy, the dynamic of the structure is one that demands you fit into it and ultimately, i think this manifests within the ideas of sam's monstrosity, more than it does around it, while he perpetually struggles to fit into his role under 'us' so much so that his struggle becomes a vital part of his role. it becomes a non-role that's present in examples of the dynamics of his and dean's relationship as well as the patriarchal structure that i've talked about previously
#i'm trying to write something else about sam's anger and revenge and in rereading the 4.21 transcript #i'm realising another apsect of how internalised dean's(/john's) own ideas of sam's monstrosity are in sam's own psyche #really and truly no wonder sam never used his abilities again #it's all mixed up in the idea of his independence and certain parts of his agency #and his deviance from the 'us vs them' dichotomy is immediately corrected the second he steps outside it #i think season two and dean's inherited control over sam's fate proves that the dichotomy is able to be bent and shifted #in order to fit some idea of sam's monstrosity within the 'us' in 'us vs them' #so it circles back around to my idea of supernatural's patriarchal structure in that the greatest sin is disobeying your patriarch #dean's idea of the dichotomy has not been shifted or has no intent to bend to fit sam's monstrosity within 'us' in season four #so sam's monstrosity and personhood are both compartmentalised through the 'us vs them' structure #and the moment he becomes 'them' is the moment he is deserving of death should dean decide so. save him or kill him #well at least he dies human: well at least he dies part of 'us'/before he becomes 'them'
thinking on the gordon arc this afternoon, and gordon - sam parallels and really. gordon just literalises the show's racial subtext around monstrosity as a metaphor: the monster as a dangerous outsider, but also a covert threat. it taps into the racist, bio-essentialist idea that men of colour (people of colour in general) are somehow by nature, inherently more violent, bloodthirsty, and savage. gordon is the first hunter we're presented with who 'goes too far' and the end of his arc has him transformed into a literal, bloodthirsty monster - decapitated via one of the show's bloodiest deaths.
(2.03)
gordon is the one who points out sam's difference in this episode, the first whiff of danger from the hunting world for our brothers. but the twist is, of course, gordon is the one not much like our two white protagonists. he's dangerous. he's the original hunter to raise the question: how different is a hunter, from the things he hunts? he's made the voicebox for the white supremacist, fascist rhetoric underlying hunting. while played by a black actor. what a show! (side note: the 2.10 ending is an absolutely insane moment. lmaoo let's call the cops on the black man and phew we're free the day is saved! what a show indeed!)
GORDON
"You think she's so different? still want to save her? Look at her. They're all the same. evil, bloodthirsty." (2.03)
GORDON
"What are you doing, man? You doing this for a fang? Come on, Dean, we're on the same side here."
DEAN
"I don't think so, you sadistic bastard." (2.03)
GORDON
"...what kind of worthless scumbag have you got to be to turn against your own race?" (2.10)
he's framed as a vindictive killer by this narrative, explicitly presented as a foil for dean in his introduction, for dean to come to terms with the merciless logic of hunting. but the thing is, when it comes to sam, he's also right. sam is marked as different by this narrative. not just in the matter of his literal monstrosity, his demon blood.
(5.02)
(5.11)
it's no coincidence that sam is the one who brings this arc full circle (3.07), the one shown to be excessively violent in his retribution (a running theme of s3: did sam come back right?). sam's vicious execution mirrors gordon's backstory - him heartlessly executing his sister. see, sam is often the one positioned as the brother who 'goes too far'; it's a running theme right from the series outset, continuing past its initial five season run. his apparent ruthlessness is baked into the show's language marking his character as innately monstrous compared to his brother, who only turns monstrous from his job as his protector. sam's violence, unlike dean's, is framed as deviant. it's an idea communicated cleanly by the show's stupid MoC lore - see, abel is the one initially tempted by lucifer (9.11).
(3.07)
(1.12) using this as an early example of the show illustrating sam's supposedly cutthroat nature - allowing for the killing of a man to save dean's life.
(4.21) character thesis statement tbh! no matter what you do, you can't change your designated role in this story - you are its monster, from your very nature
(10.03) again - endlessly fascinating how sam gets to be the truly monstrous one even when he's the human hunter trying to capture his brother the literal demon.
looking back on the show then, sam's arc as 'the hunter who goes too far' in s9 runs parallel to gordon's back in s2-3. and it's a theme echoed in previous subplots, like his soulless arc in s6, and the benny arc in s8 (that plot has the additional subtext of sanism in its use of martin). while he might be dean's foil in his introduction, gordon has in fact, more in common with sam. and it comes down to the racial subtext of his arc. gordon wasn't 'turned' by the life; that cruelty was there all along in his very nature, present in his first kill. the edge of tension and danger behind his character on this show relies heavily on leaning into its racist subtext. gordon's inherent difference exists at the surface on this show by virtue of his casting. it gets sublimated into scapegoating - his character as a dangerous extremity, somehow separate from the rest of the hunting world.
ELLEN
Don't do that, Sam.
SAM
I - I thought you said he was a good hunter.
ELLEN
Yeah, and Hannibal Lecter's a good psychiatrist. Look, he is dangerous to everyone and everything around him. (2.03)
the way the show marks sam's difference then, operates by the same real essentialist logic that marks gordon's difference. monstrosity as a fantasy metaphor for a covertly dangerous, deviantly violent Other operates by the same logic as racial Othering in real life. it operates by the same racist fear that's used to justify the aggressive policing and surveillance of minority communities. sam is the white character metaphorically branded as the show's central monster; gordon is the character who exposes the bare, racist, skeleton of that metaphor, allowing it to be seen clearly in the light of day. the logic that violence and danger originates from a society's designated monsters, those its categorised as inhuman. the show tries to explore the grey (as gordon describes it in 2.03) but it never manages to fully escape this logic, in order to sustain its premise. it's for that very reason gordon could never be played by a white man - and why sam's narrative becomes immediately troubling, if you imagine him played by anyone other than a white man.
Sam, Dean & Double Standards (by the narrative and by the audience)
These are all things that have been mentioned numerous times before. I'm more summarizing here to put it in one place.
The show, as well as the audience, works with a heavy Dean bias when judging actions, motivations or morality from Sam vs Dean.
Sam, when speaking about John's behavior towards them, or to John directly, is angry, defiant and a brat.
Dean, when standing up to John at the end of season 1, or calling out the wrongness of John's orders in season 2, he is brave, standing up for himself and protecting Sam.
Sam (over)killing Jake, or acting "cold" (like the other hunters), is a sign of evilness and darkness in Sam. It's a sign something is Wrong, something non-human taking over, something that must be stopped because it's not Sammy.
Dean doing the same (outside of MoC arc), being out-of-proportion violent, impulsive and mean, "when is decapitation not my thing?" is either Dean doing The Job or it's Dean just dealing with his feelings and should (and is) met with sympathy.
Sam's "good" traits, like consistent empathy and kindness, are a perfomance. He's just pretending. "Puppy dog eyes"? A mask. On the other hand, his justified anger in response to mistreatment, the moments where he is violent (like other hunters), or outwardly acts like John (even with completely different motivations), must be his true self and him "unfiltered". The real Sam holds an inherent evil in him and in these moments he is showing his true colors.
Dean's "good" traits are real. His "bad" traits, like his violence, his anger, his objectification of women, him acting like a direct copy of John at times and legitimately upholding John's ideals/rules, are 100% a perfomance. It's not really him, it's the trauma that makes him perform, because the real Dean is good and kind and misunderstood.
Sam being "rough" in bed (one of these examples being Sam being raped but viewed as "kinky sex" by the audience, and another being him while soulless) is proof that he is violent. Sam is a monsterfucker and Sam is a slut. Oh, and his dick kills women, which is super funny.
Dean's race fetish, Dean's porn habits, Dean's inappropriate comments about and directly to women, don't mean anything. He's just performing, because in reality Dean is a good lover and treats women right. Or, scratch that, Dean is doing it to hide his bisexuality, it's just shame, he doesn't actually believe all that! The poor fella.
Sam, when working with Ruby –who manipulated & groomed him, and who worked for the people that groomed Sam since before he was born–: not only the audience says he put a demon above Dean, that he was selfish/stupid or that it was a sign that he really must've had evil inside. But also Dean, who knew Sam worked with Ruby because he a) was trying to avenge Dean's death, and b) wanted to use his demon blood/powers for good and to take back his own autonomy/story, and c) himself pointed out and recognized that Ruby was manipulating Sam, still judged Sam for putting a demon above Dean and being selfish/stupid/a traitor and used it against Sam and to imply Sam becoming a monster/losing his humanity (=goodness).
Dean, when working with Crowley, the show framed it as a fun bromance, the audience viewed it as a fun bromance, and Sam was angry at Crowley, not at Dean.
Sam was a junkie, selfish, evil and a monster for drinking demon blood (/being manipulated into drinking demon blood after being non-consensually injected with it as a baby), despite killing less people during that time than they did using the demon blade or during any other arc. (Dean is the one that tells Sam to use the knife instead, because killing others is better than Sam becoming non-human/non-Sammy). Despite Sam's personality and feelings and motivations and goals of wanting to be “good” not changing during that time. Dean punished and blamed Sam for it through season 4 and 5, and it changed their dynamic forever.
But Dean, who refused to listen to Cain when Cain tried to let him know about the consequences of the Mark/addiction to the blade, was not only badass and cool, but he also was pitied and the audience as well as other characters felt for his struggle. The audience constantly talks about how it was all because of the pain he was feeling from Sam's selfish betrayal (setting a boundary and telling Dean he wouldn't violate, and wouldn't let a stranger violate Dean physically & psychologically against his will for months). Dean's situation was tragic, while Sam in his own situation was evil/bad. (And most importantly, Sam was there for Dean and tried to help him through it all, and kept believing in him to the end. He didn't give Dean an ultimatum or conditions in order to keep/earn Sam's love and acceptance of him. Dean did the opposite.)
Sam was solely blamed for the Apocalypse, for “freeing Lucifer”, but both Sam and Dean were equally manipulated into breaking the first and the last seal. Both of these seals were required to free Lucifer and to start the Apocalypse. Dean breaking the first seal is mentioned a single time in season 5, and then it's just Sam being blamed for the rest of it again. Charlie (the show) thanks Dean for saving the world in front of Sam, while only reminding Sam about the loss of the women he loved and liked as if it's a joke.
(Which also reminds of Castiel saying in season 13 “WE let Lucifer out of the Cage, and he never stopped being OUR responsibility” after Sam had repeatedly said “NO” to Lucifer in season 11 in order to keep him locked up. Castiel let Lucifer out ALONE, and he lied to them about it, and he went after Sam and Dean's backs about it, and yet, somehow, Sam still gets blame for it? The one person who said NO, repeatedly? And Castiel comparing his possession by Lucifer, that he spent watching TV in his head, and that he actively said Yes to out of his own will, to the decades of torture and violation and trauma Sam went through with Lucifer. The trauma that was so bad that everyone expected Sam to die from the memories (that CAS made him remember in the first place)).
Sam was blamed for “not looking for Dean” (who he watched literally explode + Crowley would've been more smug about it if Dean had gone to hell and last time Dean died he went to heaven + Sam was completely alone and had just spent months dealing with Hallucifer and the fresh trauma of the cage and soullessness + the weapon having a "kick" would imply "it kills both of you" and not "it kills one person and sends the other one to Purgatory" + Kevin already translated everything there was to know about the weapon as well). He was called selfish and a traitor for it.
But when Dean refused to look for Mary in season 13 (who went through the rift ALIVE, with Lucifer who let Sam and Dean live all that time, and with them having Jack to help them find her, and with Sam by his side), when he told Sam there was No Point in looking for her, because she was Dead Anyway, nobody said anything. "That's a completely different situation."
Sam was judged for trying to survive, for living with Amelia and Riot and finding hope in them, both by the show and the audience. He was selfish for it, and weak, and giving up. He was judged for Stanford as well, for abandoning Dean.
Dean living with Lisa is looked at with sympathy (sympathy for Dean, at least), by characters in the show, the writing, as well as by the audience. People were happy for his short time of normalcy. He was portrayed as the domestic Family Man who deserved a normal life after his life of struggle and hardship.
Bobby judged Sam for Amelia and "the non-agreement", but supported Dean with Lisa & Ben, and didn't like that Dean still tried to look for Sam, because Dean deserved to move on. Bobby knew Sam was alive, but he also knew something was off about Sam, and he knew Sam was hunting and not "safe", but he saw it as Fine anyway, because at least Dean is safe & happy. He even tells Dean directly "hunting means getting your guts ripped out at 30", that he didn't want that for Dean, but Bobby didn't say the same thing about/to Sam who was hunting and acting differently during the same time. If Dean being happy & safe means Sam getting his guts ripped out at 30, that's a compromise Bobby is willing to take.
Dean blamed Sam for not taking care of Kevin, of abandoning him when he needed Sam, telling him "Kevin was our responsibility".
In the very same episode, Dean scolds a grieving Kevin who just watched his girlfriend brutally murdered in front of him, telling him it's all part of the job. In the same season, Dean sees Kevin barely hanging on, mentally and physically, and instead of telling him to take a break, he gets him drugs/pills to keep him awake so he can keep working. He tells Kevin his mom is definitely dead, that there's no point in looking, because Kevin's usefulness is more important than Kevin's happiness and family. Kevin, who asks Dean to please not lie to him again, because it's gonna get Kevin hurt again, lies to Kevin and then immediately after Kevin gets killed because of that lie/omission of knowledge.
Dean gets to give an apology speech to Kevin for his death, but Sam is not allowed to apologize to Charlie because "you got her killed", despite Charlie having chosen to leave on her own, while knowing herself that she had a target on her back because of the book. The book that she offered to look for, with both Sam and Dean's knowledge.
Dean killing Amy –going out of his way to follow her after she left to live a "normal" life with her son that she was trying to protect and keep alive– was Dean killing a monster, it was Dean rightfully suspicious of crazy & delusional Sam's feelings/interpretations of Amy, the woman who saved Sam's life.
Sam killing Emma –who was like one feet away from Dean and about to kill him and met him 10 minutes ago– was jealousy and revenge.
Sam and Amelia was betraying Dean.
Dean and Benny was Dean finding a true friend, and defending and being loyal to that friend.
People want Sam to be “angry” and “defiant” again like he was in the early seasons, and complain about older Sam being too beaten down, but when late seasons Sam DOES stand up for himself or tries to argue, like in season 9 about Gadreel, or telling Dean off in early season 8, he is judged again. He's suddenly dramatic and selfish and whiny or ungrateful. He's being an infant.
Sam was the one who protected and fought for Jack while Dean kept trying to kill him. Sam was the one who convinced Dean to give Jack a chance. He's barely recognized for it. But Dean took Jack driving & fishing for a single day and suddenly Castiel says to Dean “you did more for [Jack] than any of us”. Dean would not have been able to be in the position to do anything for Jack, if Sam had not kept Jack close to them in the first place.
When Sam tries to save Dean from his deal in season 3 by using his powers, Dean tells him no. And when Sam tries to make a deal to bring back Dean in season 4, and when Dean is back and thinks Sam was successful in making the deal, he yells at Sam for it, tells him he shouldn't have. Sam tries everything to avenge Dean's death and clearly does not move on, and he gets punished for it. He follows the agreement about moving on in season 8, and it's also wrong, because it's a non-agreement and it's betrayal.
Dean is angry at Sam for voicing a boundary after Gadreel, interpreting it as "Sam wouldn't do everything possible to save me" (not what Sam meant). Dean mocks him for it. But Dean is also angry at Sam when Sam does everything possible to save Dean in S10, and despite Sam having told him multiple times that he wouldn't give up actively looking for a cure.
It doesn't matter what Sam does, it's wrong, it's selfish and stupid, it's ungrateful. It shows there's darkness in Sam. He's just masking himself with the good-guy act.
It doesn't matter what Dean does, his intentions were good and his circumstances tragic, and that's what matters. He is misunderstood and deserves sympathy.
I love this scene so much, because it really forces you to remember the essential tragedy of Sam as a character: the boy who survived his excruciatingly traumatic childhood by clinging to the dream of getting out – who wanted out so badly that he’d sacrifice everything he’d ever known and all the love he’d ever experienced – now knows he’ll never get out. That this strange, airless universe where his job is following dead bodies and coming home to an abandoned fortress and killing things until someday one of them kills him instead – that this is permanent and eternal. And he tries to be at peace with that, even though we have never, not for one second, seen him look comfortable or relaxed or like he’s enjoying anything while on a hunt.
And to me the saddest part of it all is that hunting has finally taken from Sam the one thing he struggled so hard to maintain – hope. He doesn’t expect anything different anymore. All the fight has gone out of Sam, all the righteous anger he began with, the knowledge that he could be forced into a life he hates as a child, but *not forever.*
Because it turns out, yeah, forever. A combination of unresolved trauma and genuine love for his brother means that he’s fully submitted to this life he clearly finds grueling and joyless. And he no longer even gives himself the refuge of dreaming that one day he’ll run away.
#this is one of those scenes I’d LOVE to see the original script for#because the actual lines could very easily be played so differently#like you could absolutely play this as unambiguously positive#rather than the way Jared is playing it where you feel the weight of the question before he even answers#and his answer sounds like an admission of defeat#<- @peanutbutterandbananasandwichs#im kind of obsessed with season eleven visiting this aspect of sam’s characters again#like they do something similar when they mirror sam’s character with alex’s in 11.12#like the conclusion to the interpersonal conflict between claire and alex is very blatantly 1.01-esque#and it’s very interesting to me that they felt the need to reiterate this aspect of sam’s characters especially after season ten#it’s very 4.12 and 4.13-ish in it’s deconstruction of sam’s agencies after the content of season three#fundamentally different contexts (s3/4 vs s10/11) esp relating to sam’s character and motivations#but just the continued re-recognition of this as foundational to him makes me soooo 😖 (<- me)
theres a parallel between the violation of lucifer going through sams memories in 11.10 and dean going through sams memories in 5.16. both of them make derisive comments over adolescent sam's sexuality and both of them take the events out of context in order to draw a Larger Meaning that benefits them. sam's mind isn't allowed to be his own, his very thoughts are the subject of intense scrutiny by his abusers who go over everything with a fine tooth comb and cast judgements on him. they're both literally in his head. 5.16 being the same episode we find out sam and dean are soulmates who share a heaven and 11.10 being all about lucifer trying to convince sam to let him into his body because he was Made to be his vessel. you can never be free
thinking about this scene and ruby's choice of words in the sentence, "your appetite's gotten much bigger," and how it feels like something a mom tracking the growth of her newborn would say and while, yes, there's the immediate double meaning of their relationship and the fact that ruby is grooming sam into the perfect vessel for lucifer, not just physically but she's also grooming his willpower out of him through both addiction and a similar kind of control/relationship dynamic that dean has over sam, but only to an extent that manipulates sam into thinking he still has control over himself and replacing it with a kind of complacency that you would typically find in any relationship that can be described as provider and their ward, there's also the overhanging dynamic of mother and son. the choice of ruby's words mirroring that of a mother's takes the physical substance of her demon blood out of a role that's just physical and mental relief for an addict or just a source of/perpetuation of power and into a role of a substance that is not only nurturing and nutritious but also necessary; there's an indirect comparison between demon blood and breast milk. this is crucial to sam's relationship with demon blood as a substance:
azazel describes his blood as being 'better than mother's milk' when the origin of sam's power, something that is now inherently tied to his motivations and agency as a character, is revealed to have been as a result of the being sam and his family have been hunting all along, the being that killed his mother. there's an intrinsic link between azazel feeding sam his blood and ruby's relationship with sam with how they relate to each other as metaphors for childhood sexual assault. there's another angle added to this when it's revealed that mary is the one that had originally let azazel into their home and that john had known this about sam but chose to keep the information from him. there's also the idea that ruby had originally coerced sam into having sex with her, inherently relating their sexual relationship and demon blood to one another and placing it at the forefront of their seemingly collaborative relationship. there's also more to consider when you relate the idea of azazel possessing samuel's body to bargain with and ultimately kiss mary — an act of almost explicit incest that had transpired through coercion — to the metaphor of childhood sexual assault as well the idea that mary named sam after her father, the same man whose body was used to violate her and, by proxy, violate sam's
this kind of fuels my idea of sam as a nucleus character when it comes to the exploration of the inherent rot of/within the nuclear family; there's an existing atmosphere and set of relationship dynamics that basically ensures that he will be assaulted and violated in some way or another over and over again. in 1.06 skin he tells his college friend, "anyway, what can i do? it’s my family," as a conclusionary sentence to his absence at school and why he takes part in hunting and i think that's a pretty perfect encapsulation of how childhood abuse, particularly sexual abuse, goes unnoticed or without intervention. it's their family so they either don't report or bring attention to it at all either because they don't want to hurt their family or because they think it's normal. it's their family so even if they do report or bring attention to it, it's dismissed because it's their family. it makes this all the more satisfying that he's referring to hunting here, the family business, because hunting is the ultimate metaphor for rot within the nuclear family in supernatural. hunting has provided the ultimate atmosphere for sam's bodily and mental autonomy to be violated over and over again; it's also quite literally his fate to be violated by lucifer and the power azazel violated his body to give him propels him further and further into this fate first under the guise of genuine agency then once again through the same genuine guise of agency but accompanied by a more prevalent force of abuse
I'm scared, Sam. All the time.
I've seen it, too. What he really looks like, behind whatever vessel. It still keeps me up at night.
How do you deal with it?
so....I don't really see much analysis around how central patriarchal manhood and masculinity are to the show. and specifically, how it conceptualises strength/weakness through its two leading characters' arcs. so here's an attempt.
(warning: this post is LONG and incoherent. i'm not kidding)
like i do think that the show's differential framing of both brothers, especially during the kripke era, reflects their creator's own complicated relationship with masculinity (the way kripke venerates a certain brand of masculinity in interviews and through his work. is awfully fascinating to me lmao)
on one hand, dean as a character embodies the kind of easygoing masculinity most men grow up aspiring to, or feel pressured to emulate. on the other hand, sam is very much presented as the 'weaker' nerdier brother - someone who men might identify with, but would resent doing so. and honestly, I think that resentment manifests in the show through uneven narrative treatment. because society at large punishes and polices men for being 'weak'.
hegemonic masculinity and manhood are at the core of dean's character. to ignore that fact is to fundamentally misunderstand what he represents. people tend to fixate on gender performativity over gendered patterns of behaviour when it comes to him - and yes, the particular ways he shows care (to sam, especially) defies what could be considered superficially masculine. but to me, it's more important to consider that trait within the greater scheme of his personality. traits like his propensity towards anger and outwardly expressing it, his tendency to take charge and lead, the stubbornness with which he clings to his beliefs and opinions, often unable to make concessions. because admitting wrongness would mean admitting to weakness. these are all universally human traits of course! but they're also very gendered traits when bundled together. care, for dean, is another avenue by which he remains in control. and remaining dominant and in control is central to how strength is conceived of within hegemonic masculinity. to take care of others represents strength; to be taken care of represents weakness. reliquishing control, in that sense, represents a failure of masculinity.
his overall character arc revolves around masculinity being a burden he resents, intensified by how he was raised. children are afforded vulnerability, care and protection - in the ways men aren't. he admits it himself - he never got to be a child. as the show goes on, he learns to occasionally concede and step back. he learns to reign himself in sometimes. but this core sense of who he is never fully changes, because that would involve willingly giving up a degree of control that existentially threatens his sense of manhood. and true change, at its heart, requires both admitting to weakness and letting go - two things incompatible with hegemonic masculinity. the show never ends up lingering long on his mistakes - he's cushioned from consequences in a way that doesn't push him to fundamentally change his way of being.
(now I'd also argue that the end of s5 as the end of dean's growth arc makes most sense through this lens. he learns to give up control and let go; he has to learn to trust in sam's strength to defeat lucifer)
two prominent examples of dean losing control are his hell torture subplot and his post-Purgatory/MoC arc. in fact, i think the latter ends up being a weaker mirror of the former. dean 'breaking' in hell under alistair's torture is presented as his big moment of weakness, a momentary failure to uphold masculinity (weakness emphasised through comparisons with john, literally being called daddy's little girl). he responds to his own victimisation by turning into the torturer, the one who inflicts violence and dominates, and in doing so neutralises the loss of control that comes with being a victim. losing oneself to violence and anger gives men an avenue to lose control without coming across as overtly weak - he still gets to assert control over those in his vicinity, through pain and terror. it's a snapshot of how the cycle of patriarchal violence and abuse perpetuates itself.
sam's struggles with masculinity revolve around his exclusion from hunting/heroism, a 'Boys Club' if you will - that dean and john belong to but one he's not granted equal participation in. his 'deficient' masculinity (according to the show) is presented at a surface level (incredible that in this show. you're considered a pansy for eating a salad) but is also confirmed on the level of narrative framing. i think the way the show tends to stress his mistakes as acts of weakness is the clearest example of this. decisions he makes that transgress the boundaries of acceptable masculinity are punished the harshest. for example, re: ruby - the real problem was never that he slept with a demon, but that he let himself not only get seduced by a woman, but led around by her. sam leaving hunting and settling down post s7 is treated unsympathetically, punished as a matter of selfishness, of lacking strength. dean settles down with a woman and her son post s5, he becomes a substitute husband-father, a protecting patriarch. sam's flashbacks post s7 are framed as an indulgent romantic melodrama - a contrast heightened by dean's paralleling flashbacks: a gritty, violent battle across Purgatory. one brother lets himself fall prey to the illusion of comfort (at the hands of a woman), the other fights back like a man to protect those under his watch.
much of sam's early seasons character arc is about him striving for the same heroic masculinity he sees in his brother, the kind he considers himself too inadequate to reach. his behaviour towards dean post s4 (calling him 'weak' for his post-Hell trauma) is just him turning the tables. it's him articulating - out loud - that thing the narrative and other men within the story punish him for. vulnerability, ultimately, is anathema for a man. his stubborn drive to achieve his goals, doggedly sticking to the path he's chosen, asserting himself over dean - all reads as him mimicking both dean AND john. left alone, vulnerable and emotionally the weakest he's ever been after dean's death, he turns towards emulating his two clearest role models for strength. unfortunately, none of this works out because as I mentioned earlier, his growing powers are inherently tainted on a subtextual level. the powers were given to him in the first place through an act of violation, forced upon him (and from a deal made by his mother). it's strength granted to him by a woman. his powers make him dependent on something outside of himself and his own internal will. even when pushing himself towards heroism, he can't escape the trap of being branded weak.
(misogyny is a critical component to hegemonic masculinity. and oh boy the way that's presented in spn......i could write a book about it lol)
part of what makes sam so interesting to me is the way in which his masculinity reads as liminal. even when he's judged for his failure to conform to hegemonic masculinity, he's never presented as effete or morally ambiguous enough to fit into an archetype like the sly, queercoded villain (see instead, a character like crowley is almost a textbook example). at the end of the day, he's still a categorically moral, heroic character. he turns to demon blood out of good intentions. when he lies, conceals, and avoids - it's never ambitious scheming pursued for personal gain. he's a flawed hero in that he's marked as a weak hero by the overly harsh standards of masculinity framing his story. he repeatedly experiences forms of vulnerability considered unpalatable in men, without compensating for those violations with punishing, retaliatory violence. which to me, makes his victories all the more compelling.
as messy as the series gets in its later seasons, I do think its thematic perspective on masculinity shifts somewhat. and we see it primarily through sam's development as a character. a common criticism I've seen thrown at him is how 'passive' he gets in the later seasons. but what i see instead is a character who learns to adapt, someone more settled in his skin, embracing the qualities in himself once deemed weak - by a different era, by different writers. older sam doesn't default to aggression as easily. he prefers to talk things over before a confrontation. he turns to diplomacy, he tries to seek understanding, he chooses empathy. but he's also steadfast in his decisions; he's more self-reliant, he learns to trust himself. he no longer returns fire with fire as his younger self would. he learns to let go of the struggle for control, and in that process learns to be kinder not only to himself but to the people around him. his concluding arc ultimately ends up being an optimistic one. the cycle of self-destructive masculine violence (also the cycle of patriarchal abuse) ends with his brother's death. he lives his life out embodying a new mode of masculinity and strength, one that allows for vulnerability.
#this episode is so awful#because dean is SO unfair to sam#throughout the whole thing#he doesn’t even try to put himself in sam’s position#at all#he just guilts sam throughout in a kind of crescendo of blame that culminates in the samulet going into the trash#i hate it (via themegalosaurus)
What’s disturbing to me there is “playing footsie with brace-face.” Dean is an adult demeaning an eleven-year-old girl by insulting her appearance, and the kind of condescending prurience in “playing footsie” reflects a disturbing strain in Dean’s thinking about Sam’s sexual or romantic relationships. It’s revealing how much Dean emphasizes the idea that Sam is acting on a crush, rather than seeking out a normal, family Thanksgiving (the aspect of the situation that Sam himself cites). One of the ways Dean defends himself against Sam questioning the Winchester model of family or finding it insufficient to his needs is to assume that Sam is prioritizing sexuality over family and then subtly or not-so-subtly pathologize that sexuality, and seeing Dean apply that particular defense mechanism to something Sam did when he was eleven is quietly horrifying. It’s a moment that makes me really uneasy, more so than Dean’s extreme perspective bias in DSotM, because I do get how far up his own subjectivity Dean’s headspace was at that point in canon, and I think it’s understandable and not totally unsympathetic, though not excused.
if you think about it. azazel is sams demonic father, he has his blood. azazel is lucifers son (not in the human way but we cant really apply earth rules here. demon blood is related to lucifer), which makes sam a descendant of lucifer as well. meaning that in a way sam, lucifer and jack all actually share blood. and are in fact, family in the literal sense. a family which dean is Not part of, because even though sam and dean share blood, they do not share THAT blood
how many times did Sam feel triggered and scared around Cas just to reassure himself it was Cas, and trust him completely, even as he was actually Lucifer? Lucifer, ridiculing him, so familiar to him, terrifying, while Sam just tells himself it’s on him, he’s the one with trauma, he just saw Lucifer in the Cage and now he can’t stop? While “Cas” makes comments that sit under his skin and make him feel ridiculous and on edge?
It’s about how Sam doesn’t even question for a second being degraded in minor ways by his loved ones even when in reality it’s someone who spent decades torturing him. How could it not at least feel somehow familiar, given the time they spent together? But he just accepts that it’s Cas.
i think sam’s inability to kill john in 1.22 is a kind of impotence i hadn’t been able to name until now even though it’s treated as such by john in the episode. you weren’t man enough to put your feelings aside and do what needed to be done etc etc. like despite the fact that sam is narratively assigned the role of oedipal son in his relationship he cannot in the end kill his father kill the demon that’s destroyed his family or avenge his girlfriend and mother (ofc dean will get to later). i guess this is one of the big reasons sam and john’s relationship feels much more like a father-daughter relationship to me than a father-son one. like a disobedient son kills his father a disobedient daughter refuses to be possessed by hers she runs away.
adihildilid tags: i can’t disregard them ig but for me dean is more good son bc in his obedience he is eventually empowered as john’s chosen heir << prev
fr like. where is... idk I have a post about this. but truly istg one of the weirder ways people in this fandom parse patriarchy is by like assuming this cartoonish One Alpha to Rule Them All vs Everyone Else dynamic when like. not for nothing. observing men irl will so quickly demonstrate that this is not how it works men are so enthusiastic about enforcing their place in the hierarchy and for most of them. in many situations. that place is the middle and enforcing That by being subordinate is good for the entire institution ergo worth it because it means they maintain their place at the top in whatever their special exception situation is (usually at home) or it buys them their upcoming place at the top when the current king falls* like people will have fun with how eager dean is to fall in line around men he respects and likes. up to a point. and godbless all in good fun. but it's simply not a headscratcher it's normal. it's delicious & nutritious because it's average not because it's some crazy contradiction
*not that I think dean is cynically calculating this At All. but most men aren't so.
kind of an interesting parallel between 2x03 and 8x01, where in bloodlust dean asks sam to hit him back after punching him (sam refuses) and in we need to talk talk about kevin dean throws sam to the floor to test if he's a monster before insisting sam do the same to him (sam refuses). 8x01 is particularly fascinating bc after sam says no dean commits the violation on himself, splashing his own face with holy water cutting his own arm with the knife. ofc i've always loved that scene bc it does so much to set up the dynamic for s8 and it suggests dean's entitlement towards sam's body (probably you could say the same for bloodlust but the lack of overt anger makes it more compelling bc its rarer) but i also like the way both these scenes underline the fact that dean legitimately finds catharsis in physical violence while fully understanding the potential these behaviors have to create an insurmountable gap in the sibling power dynamic. like similar to typical sibling behavior of "don't tell dad i hit you i'll let you hit me back" but they're adults and their father is dead so there is no one to tell there's no risk of formal punishment they're responsible for regulating their own relationship. so dean attempts to close that gap by offering sam the same catharsis through violence but it doesn't work bc violence doesn't make sam feel good it makes him feel monstrous. BUT ALSO these two moments stand out bc dean very rarely attempts to close the gap.
Can u give an example of what u mean by a Sam transgression that Dean shares and doesn't get hate for? Ig I'm just not really understanding that post but would like to! /gen
yeah sorry for being vague AND bitter lol that post was honestly based on 2x19 and 7x04 and how the first scene sam is (rightfully) "called out" for but I've rarely seen anyone mention dean giving a very similar response in the second scene #circular spn discourse then we die
ahhhhhhhh dad and Dean on a hunt together while little Sammy stays home with his imaginary friend. Sam can't go on the hunt because he's soft and sweet and has an imaginary friend (which he has bc he's lonely bc he can't go on the hunt.) Innocence must be protected. Always on the outside of the bubble. Jealous and lonely and oh so safe. And Dean who would never ever have an imaginary friend bc first of all, LAME, childish, and Dean is not a child and never was but sam is a child for longer than he expects or desires, he's a child for so long that even LITTLE KID DEAN has outpaced him. He's baby brother FOREVER!!!! NO FAIR.
dailybridgerton
romaincrisis
yousharknotpass
pixelskylines
2087
amandla
snowghoul
discoholicmusic
turnnoffyourmind
