Problematizing military masculinity, intersectionality and male vulnerability in feminist critical military studies

ABSTRACT

Recent work on the multiplicity of masculinities within specific military contexts deploys the concept of intersectionality in order to draw attention to the hierarchies present in military organizations or to acknowledge male vulnerability in situations of war and conflict. While it is important to examine the breadth and depth of masculinity as an ideology and practice of domination, it is also important for discussions of military masculinity, and intersectionality, to be connected with the ‘originary’ black feminist project from which intersectionality was born. This may indeed reflect a more nuanced and historically attuned account of such concepts as intersectionality, but also black and double consciousness, standpoint and situated knowledges. In particular, what happens when concepts central to feminist theorizing and activism suddenly become of use for studying dominant groups such as male military men? What are our responsibilities in using these concepts in unexpected and perhaps politically questionable ways? This article looks at recent feminist theorizing on intersectionality, and several examples of the use of intersectionality in relation to masculinity and the military, and finally suggests some cautionary ways forward for rethinking militaries, masculinities, and feminist theories.

KEYWORDS:

• Military masculinity
• militarised masculinities
• intersectionality
• gender
• race
• class
• vulnerability
• marginal
• privilege

Acknowledgements

Thanks to a number of individuals who provided feedback to me on versions of this paper, including faculty at the Gender Institute, LSE and Alexandra Hyde, Harriet Gray, Victoria Basham, Sarah Bulmer, Catherine Baker, Melanie Richter-Monpetit, Paul Amar, and Henri Myrttinen; and especially Amanda Chisholm and Joanna Tidy. As always, I am indebted to those scholars whose work continually inspires: Cynthia Enloe and Kimberley Crenshaw.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. This point is taken up in more depth by Sasson-Levy (2011), but suprisingly not so by Higate (2012).