From military to militarizing masculinities

In many societies, the military institution is discursively constructed as a key ‘masculinity maker’; compulsory military service is considered a disciplinary rite de passage that turns boys into men. Hence, the relationship between masculinities, warfare and the military as a social institution is an important field of inquiry for feminist research and critical masculinity studies (Connell, 1995). As such, it has provoked theoretical discussions about the reproduction of patriarchal gender relations and hegemonic masculinity as well as rich empirical work on the construction of military masculinities and the performances and experiences of being a soldier (Barrett, 1996; Do & Samuels, 2021).

At the same time, critical scholarship within feminism, gender studies and military studies has widened the analysis of militarism and war to encompass cultural and institutional processes of militarization beyond the military as an institution, for instance in relation to violent masculinities, popular culture, social protest and changes (Woodward & Duncanson, 2017; see also NORMA Volume 10, Number 3–4, 2015)¹

The American feminist theorist Cynthia Enloe (2000) has argued that the male soldier, represented as the hero and the warrior, is one of the most fundamental representations of masculinity, and R.W. Connell (1995) has argued that the military is the most important arena for defining hegemonic masculinity in a European and American context. This basic assumption about gender connotations, presenting men as aggressive and violent protectors and women as peaceful and non-violent caregivers, has characterized feminist studies and critical military studies during the last decades (Duncanson, 2015, 2020; Higate, 2003; Morgan, 1994; Sørensen 2015; Yuval-Davis, 1997; Woodward & Jenkings, 2011).

Many feminist scholars have also used the concept of hegemonic masculinities to grasp the dynamic and the contradictions within militarized masculinities. Claire Duncanson, for instance, has argued that the concept has been an important analytical tool for critical scholars in highlighting the multiple, dynamic and contradictory character of masculinities in the military. It has underlined that the ideal of ‘combat-experienced commanding officer is not the only form of masculinity, but it is a very powerful model, which through consent, has dominated as one form of “ideal man”’ (Duncanson, 2020, p. 471).

Some scholars have argued that while military studies and feminist research have given much attention to the construction of militarized masculinities within the military system, less scholarly attention has been paid to veteran masculinities in transitions from military to civilian life after deployment. This raises important questions about if, how, or to what extend militarized masculinities can be unmade and deconstructed, and how these processes interfere in family lives and social relations? (Bulmer & Eichler, 2017; Moelker, Andres, Bowen, & Manigart, 2015).

War and military are closely connected to nationalist discourses. These are based on the classical distinction between citizen-the-mother and citizen-the soldier and the conceptualizations of men as aggressive and violent, fighting for the sake of women and children, and women as peaceful anti-violent mothers (Encloe, 1980; Pateman, 1988; Yuval-Davis, 1997). Even though these traditional constructions have been challenged in recent decades, they are still alive and often emerge in new forms, for instance in arguments for Western military international intervention (Messerschmidt James, 2010) as well as in presentations of women going into the army or returning from military service (Alexiyevich, 1988). In many historical and contemporary contexts, militarized masculinities are also closely related to political power and dominance. This has for instance been the case in the United States, where military position and experience have been important for political influence; for instance, the position as a war hero or the opposite – a ‘wimp’ – characterized the public image of the presidents George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Buch (Ducat, 2004; Messerschmidt James, 2010).

Important theoretical contributions have been made by critical scholars who study militarization of social and cultural institutions beyond the military (Enloe, 2000; Giroux, 2008). One of the most influential scholars, Catherine Lutz, argues that:

Militarization is intimately connected not only to the obvious – the increasing size of armies and the resurgence of militant nationalisms and militant fundamentalisms – but also to the less visible deformation of human potentials into the hierarchies of race, class, gender, and sexuality, and to the shaping of national histories in ways that glorify and legitimate military action. (Lutz, 2007, p. 320)

Scholars studying militarization have further explored how popular cultural representations of soldier and war romanticize and normalize violence, especially through Hollywood films (Behnke, 2006; Boggs & Pollard, 2017; Davies & Philpott, 2012; Stahl, 2010) but also through other media. Book markets have in recent decades become infused with war memories written by former soldiers (see Woodward & Jenkings, 2018). Of countless examples, two are Mark Owen – who claims to have been the one killing Osama Bin Laden – and Chris Kyle, who’s bestselling autobiography American Sniper also became a huge blockbuster movie. Persons with experience as Navy Seals have also had commercial successes in the self-help and leadership industry in recent years. An example is Jocko Willink, a highly decorated former Navy Seal commander of Seal team 3’ s Task Unit Bruiser (which included Chris Kyle) in Ramadi, Irak. Upon retiring in 2010, Willink has become somewhat of a media celebrity on YouTube, Ted-Talks, podcasts, as well as a business consultant and bestselling author of several leadership and children’s books. In these books and media appearances, Willink thus converted his embodied ‘war capital’ and military masculinity into a prospering business and in the process contributes to reproducing the symbolic relationship between military masculinity and hegemonic masculinity.

Contributions

The five articles in this special issue contribute with a broad perspective on military masculinities exploring military institutions and military identities as well as the home front and the unmaking of militarized masculinities after deployment and the symbolic representation of the soldier as a hero.

In the first article, Peacekeeping Masculinities, Intersectionality, and Gender Equality. Negotiations of military life and civilian life by Danish Soldier/Veteran-Parents, by Kathrine Bjerg Bennike and Pauline Stoltz, the focus is on peacekeeping masculinities and the question of balancing soldiering and parenting; what it means to be a good soldier and a good parent. Based on interviews with male and female veteran-parents from the Royal Danish Air Force, who have been serving on international missions while their children have been in Denmark, the article outlines how memories of experiences of violence and protection during international peace missions can influence veteran’s understanding of protection of their children.

In the second article, Militarized Masculinities in the Home: ‘I’m not your Army Buddy, I’m you wife’, Michelle E. E. Bauer and Audrey Giles argue that there is a lack of knowledge about how militarized masculinities are conceptualized by female partners and how it influences the home front and the family relationships. The analysis is based on interviews with female partners of members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The analysis shows that the partners can create a home as a space where militarized masculinities are unacceptable, and that ‘home’ is discursively produced as a space close to family and – although connected – away from the military culture. The male partners are primarily displaying militarized masculinity outside home, whereas the home front is a space where militarized masculinities are contested.

In the third article, In-between military and civilian: Ongoing conflict, disability, and masculinity, Nurseli Yeşim Sünbüloğlu explores the challenges of renegotiating identities and masculinities as experienced by disabled veterans. The article demonstrates how instability caused by the transformation of official military identity leads disabled veterans from the Kurdish conflict to renegotiate social status and privileges along the gender and military-civilian divides in their efforts to reclaim their lost masculine privileges in their social relations and everyday lives. The article contributes to the understanding of the complex boundaries between military and civilian masculinities of veterans, in particular disables veterans.

In the fourth article, Appropriate’ing Grief: Mothers and the (un) Grievability of Military Death, Maria Rashid examines the grievability of military lives by studying the postcolonial Pakistan military’s troubled relations with the wives and mothers of dead soldiers as recipients of attention, regulation and emoluments through practices of commemoration and regimes of compensation. Drawing on fieldwork in villages, analysis of military commemorations, and interviews with officers and female next of kin, the article traces the tremendous sense of loss that refuses closure within militarized grieving rituals. It concludes that the surfeit of public and collective grief around military lives paradoxically renders these deaths ungrievable.

In the final article, Military Masculinities on Television: Who Dears Wins, Louise Pears explores the symbolic and cultural imaginaries of military masculinities and militarization and the ‘societal fetishisation of elite soldiering’ in contemporary popular culture. Via a critical reading of five recent series (2015–2020) of the British ‘SAS: Who Dears Wins’ Pears argues that the series offers a restatement of the value of military masculinity in response to growing uneasiness about uncomplicated celebrations of warfare, violence, and masculinity. Cultural anxieties around traditional images of masculinity and the British Empire with its soldiering and warfare and have led to a rearticulation of military masculinity.

It is our hope that the five articles in this special issue can contribute to further discussion and knowledge about the relationship between military institutions, warfare, and the gendered construction, deconstruction and symbolic representation of militarized masculinities.

We would like to acknowledge Sebastian Mohr who contributed with ideas and selection of articles in the first part of the editing process.

Notes

1 Special Issue: Masculinity, War and Violence. Guest editors: Ann-Dorte Christensen and Palle Rasmussen