Governing Bodies Through Water: Turning Boys Into Men and Reducing Bodies to Biology

Abstract

Drownproofing, a swimming technique focused on the prevention of drowning, became popular in the United States in the mid-twentieth century. Although women performed better in drownproofing, they still had to conform to masculine standards, methods, and expectations. In this article, I explain why drownproofing instructors used masculine standards to teach a technique in which women performed better. I argue that the reason for that had less to do with drowning and more with the need to protect students’ masculinity and to turn them into “real” men. Men not only tolerated the harsh swimming drills, but they also learned, through science, that inequalities among bodies are natural, biological, innate, and, therefore, inescapable. Relying on archival materials and interviews with former students of drownproofing, this article shows how masculine values are sought after and used as norms even when women’s characteristics would be more advantageous. This research advances conversations about masculinity, sport, and national identity.

Introduction

In the late 1940s, sixty young men and women gathered at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (Gatech) swimming pool in Atlanta, Georgia. The swimming coach, Fred Lanoue, tied their feet and arms with ropes, and one by one he pushed them into the water. A crowd of journalists, students, and professors eagerly watched, wondering how long these young individuals could survive without drowning. Surprisingly, they floated in the pool for an impressive average of 4 hours and forty-three minutes, thanks to an innovative technique at the time called drownproofing.

Drownproofing, invented by Lanoue in the 1930s, is a drowning prevention technique. It was a mandatory requirement for all Gatech students from 1940 to 1988 ¹ and gained popularity at other universities, institutions, and clubs in Atlanta and beyond. ² The technique involved unusual drills, including tying students’ hands and feet together before they jumped into the pool. It resembles the “dead man’s float” and involves lifting the head slightly out of the water with arm movements, breathing, and then lowering the head back into the water.

Learning drownproofing required self-control, discipline, persistence, and endurance, characteristics usually associated with men and masculinity and valued in all sorts of sports and physical activities. Historically, sports cultures have been closely intertwined with masculinity, as they are often connected to power, skill, and strength. In Western culture, sports have become the leading definers of masculinity, creating, and reaffirming masculine identities and marginalizing and regulating women (Connell 1983; Wheaton 2000).

Drownproofing, like many sports and athletic techniques, constructed gender dualism by distinguishing between men's and women's bodies. However, unlike most sports, drownproofing does not prioritize strength and force. Instead, it relies on physical characteristics such as muscle-to-fat ratio, which varied across individuals and influenced their ability to perform the technique. As a result, the dominant masculine traits associated with sports did not confer an advantage in drownproofing. Women often outperformed men, aligning with Lanoue's theory, because of “natural” higher levels of bodily fat, which facilitated floating. Despite their superior performance, women were still required to learn drownproofing by adhering to masculine values of self-control, endurance, pain tolerance, and resilience.

In this article, I argue that drownproofing was a masculinizing technology that enforced normative ideas about bodies through scientific knowledge. It compelled women to conform to masculine standards, methods, and goals, and to equal expectations, despite their superior performance. This contradiction can be attributed to drownproofing’s primary aim: to not just prevent drowning, but also to build and protect students’ masculinity, turning them into “real men”.

Here, boys’ transition into manhood occurred through the governance of students’ bodies, employing physical and psychological restraints like binding limbs, shaming, threats to students’ grades, and appeals to gendered notions of masculinity. Additionally, scientific theories were utilized to perpetuate a gendered narrative about bodies, accentuating biological differences that were seen as inherent, natural, and unavoidable.

These strategies taught students normative masculine ideals, biological determinism, a “the ends justify the means” mindset, and the need for a self-controlled, self-monitored, optimized body. Students left the course equipped with survival skills in water and the understanding that traits often associated with men (emotional self-control, endurance, discipline, perseverance) were essential for excelling in sports and surviving challenging situations. These teachings reinforced three beliefs: (1) physical differences between bodies are organized by gender and understood biologically, making them inherent to individuals; (2) these “natural” distinctions could not be sexist because they were backed up by science, based on empiricism and objectivity; (3) as bodily differences are biological and natural, subjecting women’s bodies to masculine standards is justified.

By telling the story of drownproofing and of the individuals who learned not only how to survive in the water but also how to perceive their bodies in relation to others, I build on classic studies of masculinities in sports (Connell 1983; Messner 2007; Messner and Sabo 1990) to show the intellectual operations necessary to legitimate masculine standards and characteristics during a physical activity in which women performed better than men. Drownproofing’s history shows how masculine characteristics persist as norm, even when women’s bodies perform better in a particular sport. As a masculinizing technology, drownproofing diminished the significance of physical characteristics that conferred advantage to women, emphasizing instead the power of masculine psychological, behavioral, and emotional techniques. Consequently, drownproofing encouraged a masculinizing project that regarded innate, biological inequalities among bodies as natural and, thus, unchangeable.

Data and Methods

Data for this article was collected according to Gatech IRB guidelines from two main sources. First, I conducted four interviews with men and women who took classes with Lanoue at Gatech in the 1950s and 1960s, and with a current swimming coach who still teaches drownproofing at the university. Interviewees were recruited through personal connections and introductions by the Gatech Alumni Association. Interviews focused on individuals’ experiences with Lanoue, drownproofing, and their perceptions of gender differences in the techniques taught.

Second, I relied on twelve pre-recorded oral histories obtained from Gatech’s oral history program, which included accounts from men and women who had taken drownproofing between 1950 and 1988. In analyzing these oral histories, my emphasis was also on their perspectives on drownproofing, Lanoue, and the gendered aspects of the course. Stories published in a recent issue of the Gatech Alumni magazine ³ support the interviews conducted.

I anticipated interviewees’ potential discomfort in recalling negative course experiences and addressed these risks in the consent form. Contrary to my expectations, the prevailing mentality of “the ends justify the means” was so strong that individuals today perceive drownproofing as a positive experience that was “worth it.” They were enthusiastic about sharing their memories, and I even received unsolicited emails from people who learned about my research and wanted to contribute their stories.

The data analysis process involved transcribing, organizing, and ordering the collected data followed by a coding process that included repeated cycles of reviewing, refining, and memo-writing (Glaser and Strauss 2000). The latter facilitates the systematically recording of thoughts, observations, and reflections about the data and emerging categories or themes, as well as noting potential relationships and conceptual connections. Coding was conducted using an open-ended approach, which enabled the labeling and grouping codes based on emergent discursive themes, like biological determinism and body optimization. These categories— and others— underpin the understanding of how drownproofing contributed to the construction of normative ideas about masculinity and femininity, perpetuating the belief in innate and inescapable bodily inequalities.

“Keep Your Head in the Water”: War, Science, Drowning, and Drownproofing

In the beginning of the twentieth century in the United States (U.S.), sports and exercise had been the subject of many policy programs that shaped the bodies and health of U.S. citizens (Moran 2018). The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) marked this history. It was a work relief program for young men during the Great Depression that aimed at building young boys into men, preparing them for future lives as heads of their households and making them more attractive to future employers in the private sector. Initially, the program was focused on building athletic manual labor; but with the advent of the Second World War in the 1940s, the program started to build citizen-soldiers, training enrollees in noncombatant military techniques (Moran 2018).

The lived experiences of men during the Second World War, such as injuries and disabilities threatened the ideal of the masculine man enacted by the CCC, and also threatened American national identity. For this reason, in the mid-twentieth century, the U.S. government launched a series of policy programs—from public service announcements to physical examinations—that shaped men’s bodies, enforced normative masculinity, and “provided a state-sanctioned space for boys to make the transition into manhood” (Moran 2018, 80). The Children’s Bureau's height-weight tables and Eisenhower’s Council on Youth Fitness are two important examples.

These “body projects” regulated certain kinds of bodies and left other kinds untouched. They emphasized physical hardiness as an ideal to be pursued and used idealized images of muscular, youthful, men’s bodies as metaphors for national strength. These idealized, embodied symbols served as models for gender, racial, and other cultural norms (Jarvis 2010, 14). By building and maintaining a “hegemonic militarized masculinity,” these programs associated physicality and manhood with national identity.

The connection between body and masculinity was not a phenomenon exclusive to the US. In the Soviet Union, “opinion-makers were earnestly attempting to create ‘responsible,’ ‘respectable,’ ‘cultured’ men” (Clements et al. 2014, 221) who were models of character and deportment. Through working hard and following the instruction of their fatherly mentors, these men contributed to the nation’s greatness and featured prominently in the image of hegemonic masculinity prevalent throughout the European world in the twentieth century (Patarin-Jossec 2020).

The history of drownproofing cannot be divorced from this historic context. As the American government and other institutions established policies that shaped men’s bodies and enforced normative masculinity, universities followed suit. Lanoue’s drownproofing was a way to establish at Gatech a standard of masculinity connected to ideas of proudness and militarism.

Lanoue was hired as Gatech’s head swimming coach at the end of 1930s. He was an experienced swimming coach from Atlanta who had taught at other swimming clubs in the region. According to some of his students, Lanoue was disabled during the First World War. His ship was wrecked, and he had to survive in the water with a broken leg until rescue came (Barbara Chambless, pers. comm.). Studies on disability and masculinities have shown that the acquisition of impairments leads to profound life changes, which in turn affect men’s social entitlements and their masculine sense of self (Paccaud and Marcellini 2022; Smith and Hutchison 2004). It is through the body and its physical abilities that one shows compliance with gender norms that are socially expected for one’s sex category and that others use to assess expectations. For this reason, the stigma of impairment disturbs gender norms and the capacity of performing social roles attributed to one’s gender, affecting power relations (Gerschick 2000). This occurs because disability can result in the loss of privileges, as individuals may struggle to conform to gender norms, ultimately diminishing their influence and authority in their respective gendered group.

The life experience of being disabled and surviving a shipwreck while impaired may explain his unorthodox teaching methods of simulating dangerous situations in the water by tying together hands and feet, and his emphasis on developing students’ masculine characteristics, such as self-control, discipline, etc. But most importantly, Lanoue’s life experience motivated him to develop a swimming technique focused on the prevention of drowning.

Contrary to many swimming coaches in the 1930s and 1940s, who believed swimming’s focus should be learning how to cross a pool from one side to the other using different strokes, Lanoue believed swimming had to be about the prevention of drowning (Folk St. John 1951). Lanoue’s focus on drowning instead of pretty strokes reflected a broader anxiety of the time about people dying in the water. For Lanoue, drowning should be seen not only as a public health problem but, within the context of the Second World War, a national security concern.

As a public health issue, drowning was connected to low access to bodies of water and swimming pools. In the beginning of the twentieth century in the U.S., access to swimming pools was restricted to the affluent class and most people did not know how to swim (Wiltse 2007). As a result, in the 1930s, drowning was the fourth leading cause of all fatal accidents in the U.S. (Hahn 1968), killing around 7,000 people every year (Lanoue 1968). With the advent of the Second World War, the high number of people dying from drowning was extrapolated from a familial or perhaps local concern to an issue that demanded nationwide attention, becoming a national security concern. Important news outlets of the time such as the Atlanta Constitution Magazine reported that during the first year of the Second World War, the U.S. lost more lives by drowning than by all other causes combined (Folk St. John 1951). According to Lanoue, a third of these lives could have been spared had the swimmers been trained for the situations they were likely to face (Lanoue 1968). For him, drownproofing came as a solution to both public health and national security problems: it would save the lives of civilians as well as soldiers-to-be.

Drownproofing was adopted by Gatech at the end of the 1930s, when Lanoue was hired as head coach. The technique was also adopted by many other universities and institutions throughout the U.S. and abroad. It was so well received that Lanoue published a book that describes, in his own words, the technique and the science behind the technique. What makes the history of drownproofing at Gatech particularly interesting is that the course remained a requirement to graduate until the late 1980s. In other words, until 1988, ⁴ students could only receive a diploma in engineering or mathematics from Gatech they had taken and passed the drownproofing class. This requirement was extended to all Gatech students because, according to Lanoue (1968) “civilians can also get multiple cramps, they can get injured in the water and, more than anything else, they can suddenly become part of the military” (86). This statement demonstrates the unpredictability of events during the Cold War. For Lanoue, Americans were at the brink of a war; and in the face of an imminent war, anyone could be called to serve the Armed Forces. Therefore, all students should be trained in survival techniques, such as drownproofing. The rapid dissemination of the course to other universities and institutions throughout the 1940s, along with Gatech’s decision to make drownproofing a requirement to graduate, exemplify an anxiety existent at the time for protecting highly educated, able-bodied men from dying of easy-to-avoid causes during periods of international conflict.

Drownproofing as Technology

The control of body and mind was essential to succeed in drownproofing. An effective drownproofed body was not only controlled physically by the ropes around feet and hands but also emotionally through verbal reprimands, shaming techniques, threats to course grades, and appeals to gendered notions of masculinity. These strategies governed bodies, ideas, and behaviors.

The strategies Lanoue used to “encourage” students to accept his unorthodox techniques included physical and psychological intimidation. Physically, he threatened to “flay students if they gave up,” reminding them that learning drownproofing would not be accomplished without a some anguish (Martin 1955). A Gatech alumnus remembers that (Larry Woodall, pers. comm.) when boys had difficulty sinking, Lanoue (and later coaches) held a black rubber brick to make them sink. He would also hit students’ hands with a stick if they tried to hold onto the edge of the pool (Robert Browne, pers. comm.). Intimidation and physical restraint often appeared together with teachings that questioned these boys’ masculinity. Endurance of physical pain marks the achievement of manhood, setting some men apart from others in a hierarchy of masculinities (Messner 1992). It is part of what it means to be a man. Doing and thriving in painful physical activities is seen as the perpetuation of masculine ideals; it is a “moral, emotional, and physical education, leading to the formation and reproduction of a hegemonic model of masculinity” (Patarin-Jossec 2020, 25).

Psychologically, there were two main forms of intimidation. Men were required to swim naked (Robert Browne, pers. comm.), a to create vulnerability and humiliation (Cover 2003). The unclothed body invites the gaze of others, bringing to their heads thoughts about sex, sexuality, the obscene, and the immoral (Scott 2010). In addition to the vulnerability created by being unclothed, nakedness during the drownproofing course also allowed the boys to compare their bodies to others, indirectly comparing their masculinity, something we discuss further below. ⁵

A second psychological form of intimidation was to instill fear of failing. For most of the students, drownproofing was a terrifying technique, first because the risk of dying was real. Students remember Lanoue telling them not to worry if they passed out during the test, the body’s natural reaction would be to prevent water from coming into the lungs. This would save the student from drowning and ensure an automatic A in the course. ⁶ Second, students knew they would not be able to graduate if they did not pass the course. Since it was virtually impossible to be excused from taking the course (Martin 1955), students had no other choice but to learn the method and to take the final test at the end of the semester. To get an “A” in the course, students had to successfully drownproof the length of the pool and back (∼100 yards) without touching the bottom (Basil Cooper, pers. comm.).

Fear, shame, and humiliation were all techniques Lanoue used to control how students learned drownproofing; however, the end goal was not simply a student who followed rules. The drownproofed individual had also to be capable of self-control. Because one of the main goals of the technique was to remain afloat for hours, spending the minimum amount of energy moving and breathing was required, as was controlling strong emotions like stress and anxiety, which would create panic, accelerate the heartbeat, and thus increase the amount of energy spent. Those emotions—appropriate for being tied up in a pool—become obstacles to the achievement of the optimum performance. To succeed in learning the technique, pass the course, and get their diploma, students had to remain calm in the pool even when most of their bodies were underwater and their limbs were tied tightly with ropes.

The kind of self-control needed to remain calm in such a frightening situation was logically construed by Lanoue based on three presuppositions that follow from one another. First, body and mind must be conceptionalized as two distinct separate structures that, albeit independent, affect each other. Second, emotions can negatively affect our bodies, that is, the causes of fear, anxiety, and stress can be seen and felt on the body in a negative way. Third, there is a state in which bodies are unaffected by emotions. In other words, despite the negative consequences of emotions on the body, they can be controlled. The necessary control of these emotions was exercised, as we have seen, through fear and shaming, but also by instilling on students a sense of responsibility for the control of their own bodies and emotions. Only self-controlled individuals reached the optimum condition which allowed them to remain afloat in the water, pass the course, and get their diplomas.

Inability to self-control and endure emotional distress and physical injury is perceived as failure and weakness by those who value masculine ideals (Cogan, Haines, and Devore 2021). Studies in masculinity have shown that men work hard to attain an expected performance of self-control (Ekenstam 2017; Griffin et al. 2022). The result of this performance is the desired manhood, an individual capable of handling his emotions. But this comes with a price. Just like with drownproofing students, men with a high sense of responsibility for self-control experience a feeling of split between body and mind and find it hard to express their feelings (Lilleaas 2007).

When teaching drownproofing, Lanoue governed bodies through physical and psychological constraints, and emotions and behaviors through appeals to self-control. But drownproofing was not simply a technology of physical and psychological control, it allowed for the control of ideas. To persuade students to learn drownproofing through his methods, Lanoue taught the principle of “the ends justify the means”: drownproofing drills may be hard and scary, but the result was positive. He connected the effort of learning drownproofing and succeeding in it to an idea of meritocracy, according to which “the only way to achieve satisfaction is to keep trying to do your best” (Lanoue 1968, 66).

Many students of his remember he would say that all humans can do more than they think they can, until they learn they can do it (Barbara Chambless, pers. comm.). The coach was so successful in persuading students that “achievements follow from pain and anguish” that still today they support the method and believe it is good and necessary. In his interview to the Georgia Tech Alumni Oral History Project, Dudley Moore (class of 1958) ⁷ recalled: “I thought I was going to die but it was a wonderful experience.” Similarly, Paula Humphreys (class of 1958) ⁸ said, “thank God I did not have to take it, but it was a wonderful course.” When I interviewed former students of Lanoue and of drownproofing at Gatech, I heard similar comments. Barbara Chambless, one of the first women to take drownproofing at Georgia Tech told me (pers. comm.) that the experience of learning drownproofing was empowering. She said: “[it] was wonderful […] I came out feeling a lot more comfortable and confident. I can go on an ocean cruise now and not be so scared.” Robert Browne, former drownproofing teaching assistant also agreed (pers. comm.) that the method “was fantastic. I really did [enjoy]. And I do to this day. I've taught my children and my grandchildren.”

And this trend seems to have existed for quite some time. In the 1970s, after Lanoue’s death, the then swimming coach carried out a satisfaction poll with 1,000 randomized Georgia Tech alumni who took the course over 10 years. According to the results published at Gatech’s alumni magazine, 80 percent of the students endorsed the course and thought it should be kept as a requirement. A recent project developed by the Gatech Alumni Association to remember drownproofing reinforces that trend. Most alumnus have good memories of drownproofing and coach Lanoue. ⁹

After the fear, humiliation, and intimidation instilled by drownproofing, students were able to reconceptualize the emotional and physical pain they felt (Andreasson and Johansson 2019), incorporating it into their whole experience in a way that turned it into a pleasurable memory, erasing the pain completely and reinforcing their end goal of learning, passing, and obtaining their diplomas. These students’ accounts show how the emotional and physical control required to learn drownproofing was justified by a mentality of “the ends justify the means.” Focusing on the outcome, rather than on the journey to it, Lanoue was able to convince students, parents, and the school administration that pushing young people into a pool with their feet and hands tied up taught them something about life, perseverance, and moral choices.

By using techniques of physical, emotional, and behavioral control, instilling on students a need for self-control, and controlling ideas by imposing the principle of the “ends justify the means,” Lanoue construed drownproofing as a technology of the self. According to Foucault et al. (1988), technologies of the self are technologies that “permit individuals to effect by their own means or with the help of others a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality” (Foucault et al. 1988). Drownproofing created individuals who sought not only to pattern their bodies but their minds, emotions, and ideas. But more than a technology of the self, I argue that drownproofing was also a normative script (Clarke 2010), a directive on how bodies should behave. By being a combination of skills and attitudes (Lanoue 1968, 13), drownproofing not only allowed control over bodies, ideas, and behaviors but it was also a complete rulebook on how to operationalize this control; a control exercised first by Lanoue but posteriorly exercised by the students themselves.

Nevertheless, Foucault’s theories are insufficient to analyze situations when power operates in bodies that are gendered. Feminist scholars working at the intersection of bodily techniques, power, and gender have highlighted the limitations of Foucault in examining the degree and intensity to which the disciplinary techniques are determined by gender. Women’s bodies require distinct discipline strategies from men’s (Markula 2003). They are usually subjected to a masculinizing strategy of rough physical training that conforms their physical appearance, behavior, and performance to a masculine model. This kind of training “serve as a technology of control and power exercise, anchoring women in normative practices potentially accentuating gendered power relationships” (Patarin-Jossec 2020, 17). Drownproofing operated as more than a swimming course; it was a technology of control that transformed boys into men and masculinity into a process that women had also to embody.

Floating Like a Man

Lanoue’s student body at Gatech was comprised mostly of young white men. ¹⁰ To convince them to agree with his unorthodox techniques, Lanoue used the physical and psychological intimidation techniques described previously, which also involved the strategies of questioning students’ masculinity and appealing to gendered notions of what it means to be a man. For Lanoue, drownproofing was not only about teaching how not to drown, but also about helping young boys to become men (Barbara Chambless, pers. comm.).

Bodily characteristics determined how the drownproofing experience would be for each student. According to Lanoue’s research, white men usually had equal capacity to stay afloat. Because most students learned drownproofing successfully and passed the course, Lanoue blamed students’ fear and non-compliance on lack of masculinity. When a student failed at learning drownproofing or was too scared to try the drills, Lanoue would say he “g[a]ve up like a boy.” Lanoue would always tell his students that when learning difficult and scary techniques, “the men gut it out, the little boys quit; it is purely a test of character” (Martin 1955).

As studies of masculinity show, masculinity is a life-long project (Connell 2005), one that starts during early childhood. When growing up, boys encounter and perceive the relations of domination from the gendered system of power where they live and, compelled by powerful institutions such as the school, they feel pressured to act in certain ways. It is through institutions and their structures and routines that hegemonic masculinity is established. Training exercises and tests that assess physical and mental strength play a crucial role in making sure hegemonic masculinity is maintained (Barrett 1996).

Hegemonic forms of masculinity are commonly demarcated by the display of bodily strength and sporting skills (Renold 2005; Swain 2006). However, the search for an elusive ideal body form and the pressure to perform masculinity based on rigid notions of what it means to become a man can be overwhelming to young men (Bhana 2020). It certainly was for those learning drownproofing at Gatech. By appealing to a partial, fragile manhood still “under construction,” Lanoue guaranteed compliance. To these young men, there was no alternative to training hard, performing the drills, and passing Lanoue’s course if they wanted to keep their status as a man and receive a diploma from Georgia Tech.

The prestige of belonging and carrying the name of a reputable institution such as Gatech was also used by Lanoue to coerce students into complying. In his book, he proudly states that he was not only teaching young men how to survive, but also “making a real contribution to [their] maturing process,” training them to develop the “capacity to properly evaluate dangers in an ordinary situation” (Lanoue 1968, 70). Gatech’s students were expected to mature into men, to “become a credit to himself [and to] Gatech” (ibid, 70). Being a man was not only something you prove to yourself, but it was also a collective endeavor, something you had to prove for the benefit of the institution whose name you carried. Serving a collective entity or a team through the display of one’s ability to override the needs of the body and the self is seen as a masculine ideal (Cogan, Haines, and Devore 2021).

Researchers of masculinity have paid particular attention to how social structures like schools and universities enforce the normative bodily characteristics and patterns of behavior. Influenced by Foucault’s ideas, these researchers have shown how schooling systems have functioned as an important site of reproduction of masculinity. These institutions honor, glorify, and extoll idealized forms of masculinity taken as “the norm” (Connell 1987, 1990). In the school social structure, people with less normative bodies are trapped in an asymmetrical power relationship with their more-normative-bodied counterparts, who have the power to validate and recognize gender as appropriate or inappropriate. These individuals feel an inescapable feeling of failure, which is created by the institutions to which they belong. As Barrett notes (1996), the contradiction of this masculine culture is that “while the organization creates experiences of inevitable failure, there is no legitimate way for members to justify failure” (135).

This failure happens because gender is accomplished collectively, through a process of recognizing and acknowledging the behaviors and identities of others. For this reason, the body becomes an essential asset that allows for social recognition as appropriately gendered beings (Petersen 1998). And it is in the body, broadly understood to encompass physical traits and ways of moving and behaving (Gerschick 2005), where the label of masculinity can be identified. When Lanoue appealed to students’ lack of masculinity through shaming and intimidation techniques, he instilled certain body norms: norms about how men should look, feel, and behave in opposition to how boys look, feel, and behave. Men had to be strong, tough, resistant, endure the difficulties of their environment and of what it is expected of them. These gendered norms produce uniformization of physical appearances, control of gestures, and embodiment of certain values, disciplining bodies that are made “docile” (Foucault 1995).

These sets of norms for gender performance are an obvious idealized form of masculinity that is historical and social dependent, a “hegemonic masculinity” (Connell 1987). At Gatech, during the years of drownproofing as a requirement, hegemonic masculinity served two main purposes. First, it reinforced an idealized notion of the masculine body, naturalizing particular ways of being, thinking, and behaving that would constitute a goal for the students. Second, it isolated this masculine notion, separating it from what would be expected of women, something we will discuss in the next section. When we consider these two purposes, we learn that the masculinity required in drownproofing had to be learned through idealized notions but also protected: boys had to become men and to be regarded as different from women.

To drownproofed bodies, masculinity was as much a requirement as improving apnea. Students learning drownproofing were seen by their institution, coaches, and each other as in need of masculinity, of those characteristics that society associates with men that are natural, inescapable and need to be developed from boyhood. None of the students I interviewed questioned the need for these characteristics and their importance to their lives outside the university. On the contrary, they were thankful for developing resistance and toughness. Basil Cooper, who met Lanoue and learned drownproofing from him said (pers. comm.): “I actually enjoyed the course. If I ever was in a boating accident or something like that, I had a fighting chance surviving.” Students never saw the requirement of becoming tough, strong, resistant as something necessarily sexist because women were also expected to learn and pass drownproofing.

The Natural Floater: Women, Swimming, and Equality

Trusting scientific studies of the period and his own observations, Lanoue claimed that women, because of the higher content of fat in their bodies, would learn drownproofing more easily than men: they are “natural” floaters. Barbara Chambless, one of the first women to take drownproofing at Georgia Tech, in 1958, remembered that: “we [women] float higher up in the water than men do. And even though I was 115 pounds, I would float right here [pointing to her cheek] if someone did not make waves. I could just keep breathing without having to bob up or anything” (pers. comm.). Because of assumptions about bodily differences regarding fat content between men and women—something regarded as biological and providing women a “natural talent”—Lanoue developed special techniques for men and women that differed in a couple of details, such as the position of the body when floating.

Although drownproofing was designed to take into consideration differences in floatability between women and men, Lanoue was aware that there was variation inside these categories. Some men had difficulty sinking just because they had denser bones. In these cases, Lanoue recommended them to use the general women’s technique. In his book, he writes: “if, after a few seconds, you still remain horizontal, you are simply on the stout side and must use the general women’s technique. Don’t feel disappointed if you fall into this group, because from 10 percent to 20 percent of your brethren do” (Lanoue 1968, 24). Despite the many exceptions to the rule “women float; men sink,” Lanoue still chose to base his teachings and theories about floatability on a perceived deterministic connection between sex and capacity to stay afloat in the water.

The insistence on framing sex as an explanatory variable despite evidence to the contrary is common in scientific experiments. Reducing differences to sex categories may seem reasonable to us because our Western customs and values were construed based on a kind of social organization that understands sex as a dichotomic category. However, many feminist scholars (Hammonds 2000; Haraway 1997; Keller 1985; Martin 1991; Subramaniam 2014) have shown how self-evident differences among men and women are, in fact, culturally produced and presented scientifically and in the popular culture to justify the organization of a society dominated by men (Moore and Kosut 2010). In a world where men are in control and where masculinity is a life goal, anything that defies manhood is undesirable, even if the outcome can be perceived as positive.

For example, in the passage from Lanoue’s book just mentioned, there is an assumption that some men would feel disappointed because their bodies would benefit more from the drownproofing technique developed for women. By using a technique that is better adapted to their body type, these men would float better and learn drownproofing faster. However, in Lanoue’s view, some men would find that association disappointing because having their (under-construction) masculine bodies associated with women is an affront, a recognition of their failure in becoming men. Connell (2005, 54) notes that men commonly use performance superiority in sports to reproduce men’s hegemony over women and bolster their own masculinity. What is interesting in the case of drownproofing is that a man’s body, with all its masculinity does not guarantee prowess in floating. Notwithstanding, using the women’s technique — a recognition of one’s capacity to float more easily — was still regarded as disappointing.

This presumed disappointment happens despite the added benefit of floating more easily and being able to learn drownproofing faster. Despite explaining that a high number of men (10–20 percent) would benefit more from the “women’s” technique than the men’s, Lanoue insists on classifying the drownproofing technique into “men’s” and “women’s”. A third category is never proposed. The two types, classified according to a dichotomic understanding of sex, remain despite ample evidence pointing to the need for a category reformulation. That illustrates how drownproofing was not only about surviving in water, it was about becoming a man. For many of drownproofing students whose masculinities were under construction, floating like a woman would distance them from their goal of becoming a man.

The scientific discourse used in drownproofing to explain variability of floatability was a discourse that naturalized inequalities between women and men. These bodily inequalities are framed by science as natural, physical, universal, transhistorical, permanent truths, whose result is the control of women’s bodies by institutions dominated by men (Moore and Kosut 2010). Framing the ease with which women float as a law of nature tells us more about Lanoue and the society in which he lived than about some innate, self-evident biological difference between men and women. Arguing that these biological differences make a difference in women’s and men’s lives and are inescapable can be read as part of a masculine project of objectifying the world that excludes any other way of conceptualizing subjects and objects. Objective laws of nature are human ideas and therefore imbued with values, goals, objectives, and desires (Keller 1985). It is part of the “feminism in science” project to show the limits of this masculine project of objectification present in most scientific theories, showing how these theories are in fact, products of cultural and social relations (Haraway 1988; Harding 1993). In the context of drownproofing, this scientific masculine project of floatability not only affected the construction of masculinity in young men, but it also impacted women’s lives.

Because of the supposedly easiness with which women floated in the water and their fragility, they were conferred a different treatment in the pool. Barbara remembers that Lanoue was nicer to her. He did not tie her up or push her too far because he knew she was not going to survive (Barbara Chambless, pers. comm.). When women were first admitted at Gatech in 1958, drownproofing was not a requirement for them, possibly because there was a big difference in what it could offer to men and women. Whereas girls were learning how to survive, boys were learning how to become men (Barbara Chambless, pers. comm.). Boys needed to learn how to become men, while women did not need any similar process of becoming. Lanoue could not appeal to an intrinsic manhood or possible womanhood if the girls failed, like he did with the boys. The threats, intimidation, and shaming were efficient techniques only with strong masculine bodies.

When the first group of women admitted at Georgia Tech learned that drownproofing was not a requirement for them, they were unsatisfied with what one of them called “this special treatment” (Barbara Chambless, pers. comm.). They petitioned with the university for drownproofing to be taught to women as well. The reason behind this petition was not related to fear of water or because they wanted to learn how not to die in case they fell in the water. In fact, among this first group of women admitted in 1958, most of them were experienced swimmers (Barbara Chambless, pers. comm.). The real reason for petitioning to take the course and wanting to master the method was to fight the “special treatment” conferred to them. The fact that drownproofing was not opened to women was an affront to these students because in their view, they were no different than men (Barbara Chambless, pers. comm.).

This kind of rationale aligns with the demands of the 1950s feminist movement, which preached equality of treatment to men and women. This egalitarian feminist ideology combatted the old ideology of the housewife as a fragile, complicit character women had to play and that was stereotyped by magazines and other media and sought equality between sexes in all areas (Friedan 1976). Women were as strong and tough and even went through harder conditions at work and home than many men. For women enrolling at Gatech at this time, there was no reason they should not be able to take drownproofing. Drownproofing was difficulty and passing it was a symbol of courage and strength, characteristics that were usually not associated with women. Mastering drownproofing was symbolic for these women. The feeling of recognition and appreciation for passing a course that even men failed conferred confidence and self-esteem to these young women: a feeling that they could be equal.

The problem with this “equality” is that it is one construed in manly terms (Irigaray 1995). Women learning drownproofing were fighting against this differential treatment because in their views there was nothing on their bodies that was importantly different from men’s. In separating how drownproofing was taught to men and women, Lanoue was using biological differences to justify different treatments. The use of bodily differences to separate men and women bothered these young women who, perhaps even unconsciously, perceived unfairness in differentiating men and women by sex. They knew they were as capable of learning drownproofing as men, and they proved that. Nevertheless, in fighting for the same treatment, they masculinized their bodies. They located their ability to learn not on equal biological characteristics such as the same lung capacity or muscular strength, but on gendered attributes, like being strong, tough, brave. In doing that, these women reinforced the need, in drownproofing, for a masculinized individual.

In short, when teaching drownproofing, Lanoue initially differentiated women from men by fat content and by a supposed fragility of women when learning the technique. The methods he employed to teach drownproofing were harsh and intended also to build an inherent and always-in-development masculinity in the male students. In this sense, drownproofing naturalized inequalities between the sexes and encouraged a way of thinking about the women body as inferior in terms of endurance, resistance, and robustness. The scientific discourse about the variability of floatability employed in drownproofing used biological facts to construct sexual differences and therefore justify different treatments of men and women. When this inequality was challenged by some women, drownproofing became a masculinizing technology that taught and reinforced cultural notions of masculinity. This technology instilled these women with normative ideas about how they should look, feel, and behave, exalting characteristics usually identified with men. If the women wanted the same treatment, they had to prove themselves by showing they possessed masculine bodily, emotional, and behavioral characteristics.

Conclusion

The history of drownproofing presented in this article shows what happens with hegemonic masculinity when it is the women who perform better in a sport. Lanoue designed drownproofing as more than a swimming course, but a masculinizing project that set masculine standards about bodies, behaviors, emotions, and science to men and women.

The control of students’ bodies through drownproofing achieved four goals. First, it encouraged normative ideas of masculinity. Boys were expected to become men. Their masculinity had to be learned but at the same time protected. They had to go through dangerous and uncomfortable situations and thrive despite them. They learned how men should look, feel, and behave in opposition to how boys look, feel, and behave. Their always-in-construction masculinity was protected through distinguishing and separating men from other genders. As for the women, there was no sense of womanhood in need of construction. They fought for equality of treatment without realizing that they were in fact reaching for an equality in manly terms.

Second, drownproofing valued biological determinism, even when women proved better. Lanoue’s students left Gatech believing that scientific statements about bodies are scientific facts and therefore inescapable. They learned that bodily differences were organized in terms of genders and sexes and understood in biological terms, which made them inherent to the individual, something “natural.” Because these differences were supposedly natural, it was justifiable to treat distinct bodies differently. These naturalized differences were not perceived as sexist because they are based on empiricism and objectivity.

Finally, a mentality of “the ends justify the means” and the need for self-control are the last two objectives reached by drownproofing. Students learned that they were the ones ultimately responsible for their bodies and they needed to be able to self-control. Through a mentality of “the ends justify the means,” they learned that physical and emotional pain were necessary to make their institution proud and becoming a man.

Drownproofing is embedded within the context of “body projects” of the twentieth century U.S., when policies and programs connected bodies with masculinity and manhood and emphasized not only ideal physical characteristics but behavioral and emotional traits that encouraged hegemonic masculinity. As a university’s “body project,” drownproofing used scientific authority to influence how young people thought about gender, masculinity, and bodies. By tracing the history of drownproofing as more than a swimming method, this article showed how masculinizing projects use bodies, fear, science, education, and even grades to establish and reinforce normative masculinity. In a world where men are in control and where masculinity is a life goal, anything that defies manhood is undesirable.