Written By Josephine Metcalf

Edited By Colin Parker Griffiths

The armed forces of a nation are perhaps the most unique state institutions compared to other branches of a governmental system. Having almost exclusive access to weaponry is not the only reason for this distinction. Masculinity, as a guiding concept of gendered behavior and as a social value is utilized not only as a tool within the organization and tactics of the military institution, but also forms the cornerstone of military culture across the world. The military would not exist as it does today without idealizations of masculinity to guide its epistemological approaches regarding state security and transnational conflicts. Processes of socialization in the military, most significantly during training periods, purposefully militarize masculinity to serve the narrative and needs of the armed forces. The repercussions of this are decidedly gendered, and are felt by both those enlisted in the armed forces as well as their targets.

Masculinity Militarized: Outlining Masculinity’s Role in Ideology and in Practice

Military ideology and objectives rely on masculinity while simultaneously reconstructing it in ways that intentionally serve the defense agenda—one characterized by territorial dominance and aggression. Firstly, as with many other forms of cultural expectations, masculinity in its hegemonic construction is aspirational and unattainable by nature (Basham 31). The inability of men to perform their gender in alignment with such unrealistic ideals leads to frustration and violence even outside of the context of the military or wartime (MacKenzie 207). Seeing as men do not have a natural inclination towards violence prior to their socialization, military rhetoric—and the very existence of the institution—relies on unattainable versions of masculinity and gender constructs “to motivate predominantly male soldiers to conduct acts of violence sanctioned by the state” (Basham 29). Therefore, masculinity is militarized when reconstructed to facilitate the waging of war, and when a narrative is imposed that “the traits stereotypically associated with masculinity can be acquired and proven through military service or action” (Eichler 81). Beyond instilling a motivation for violence, ideals of masculinity in the armed forces work to cultivate self-image and collective identity among troops.

Furthermore, the military revolves around its self-proclaimed role as the protector of the nation, expressing itself as highly patriotic (Nordlinger 65). This unifying identity relies on a gendered dichotomy: the idea of a strong, violent male force fulfilling its obligation of protecting a female civil society (Eichler 83). This rhetoric is evident in examples as simple as the use of female pronouns to refer to a given nation (McCoy 44). Furthermore, the idea of women as victims is a rhetoric all too familiar in the justification of war efforts and foreign intervention. The interventions in Afghanistan by Canada and the United States in response to the campaign for the “War on Terror” is one example in which rhetoric surrounding the liberation and salvation of Afghani women became heavily mobilized by Western political and military institutions (Abu-Lughod 783). Although the unique effects war has on women does deserve attention, the utilization of the women-as-victims narrative often obscures and simplifies long-standing political and historical dynamics that are inherently founded in the invasionary presence of colonial legacies. These ‘liberation for women’ narratives allow for both the clean-cut justifications for the proliferation of conflict and violence, as well as the active mobilization of the gendered divisions in society that allow the military to operate straightforwardly in complex political contexts (Abu-Lughod 784). Thus, masculinity is militarized to instill collective justifications and motivations for violence, as well as cultivate a self-image centered around the readiness to provide protection and security, utilizing women as objects in the process. The military encourages its troops to continually strive for fulfillment of this idealized form of masculinity, pedestalizing values such as courage, strength, and fortitude, while unifying members of the armed forces in this constant quest to prove themselves. Without such compelling rhetoric and ingrained ideology, it would be impossible to maintain the military’s “institutional identity as a masculine domain in which real men are prepared to fight,” and by extension, justifying its purpose of waging war (Basham 36).

The dominant role of masculinity in the military’s institutional ideologies is evident through its concrete practices and the role of socialization in military organization. The idea that manhood must be earned is culturally relevant across the world, and the military capitalizes on this to make one’s transformation into manhood synonymous with their completion of military training (McCoy 43). In training, as well as throughout service, troops are detached from civilian life, stripped of family, class, or regional ties (McCoy 8). Through this isolated and intense training, troops are taught military values and rules for displaying aggression as well as “the rituals, initiations and uniforms that all foster a ‘cult of toughness’” (Basham 31). This process of socialization leads troops to view themselves as cohesive units, joined through the fact that they have all attempted to earn and comply with militarized masculinity. In other words, military academies and their practices, such as active combat, reinforce the idea that masculinity is central to military purpose, as they rely primarily on rhetoric that teaches troops to “to prize male camaraderie and assay their own masculinity on a universal standard of military competence”(McCoy 4). Even informal initiation practices, such as hazing, work in conjunction with formal training. This again imposes the violence entailed by military masculinity onto the soldier, and creates an emotional cohesion and inter-reliance that is built around the concepts of shared experience, fraternity, and manliness. Similarly, the further entrenchment of militarized masculinity is evident in the exclusion of and discrimination against women in military ranks. Sexual or verbal abuse of women soldiers or their targets stems from notions of the military as a place for men. There are often dispensations from enlisting women or a lack of prosecution for perpetrators of sexual violence within military ranks, lending the military a sense of entitlement that feeds its gendered self-image (Basham 34-35). The military views itself as ‘special’ compared to other governmental institutions as it has unique goals of national security and civilian protection. This self-image allows military members to rationalize or justify predatory actions (Nordlinger 45; 65). Discrimination against women is excused because it serves to informally reinforce the socialization that is formally instilled during training and service. In other words, women pose an intrinsic problem to military ideology by virtue of being non-men (Basham 34). Therefore, women soldiers are expected to adhere to the principles of militarized masculinity as well as their male counterparts, yet consistently fall short in achieving comparable success within the institution due to their gender. The military purpose requires that this self-image as being the protector of the nation remains fixed, inculcating value through promises of masculinity that unite troops and prepare them for violence. Training and socialization are the primary mechanisms through which masculinity becomes militarized. Practices of discrimination and harassment provide further, informal examples of the unique ways in which military institutions revolve around an exclusively male self-image.

Consequences of Institutionalized Masculinity in the Military: Present and Future

The evidence that masculinity informs the very purpose and ideology of state militaries
lies not only in its internal practices, but in the consideration of consequences as well. What are
the impacts of such an entrenched gendered outlook on the individual victims of state militaries,
on civil governments, and for the future of the military institution itself? Soldiers and military
men are not oblivious of how masculinity informs their values and existence, and they wield this
knowledge as they wage war. In the case of Israeli soldiers’ treatment of Palestinian civilians,
militarized masculinity has been documented as a tactic employed intentionally by soldiers.
Palestinian interviewees spoke of the purposeful targeting and humiliation of men by soldiers at
checkpoints (MacKenzie 212). Interviewees described ‘feminizing’ treatment as their individual
agency was revoked through forceful searches and inflicted violence, and since they “associate
lack of power with the feminine position, they feel doubly humiliated” (MacKenzie 213). Thus,
the act of exerting one’s masculinity over another man’s is a war tactic. Due to deeply instilled
masculine values, soldiers feel obligated to eliminate any possibility of their opponent being
‘more’ of a man than themselves, further demonstrating the effectiveness of militarized
masculinity as a motivator for armed forces. On a more institutional level, a similar disdain for
emasculation may also inform the behavior of a military. In fact, interference in the internal
affairs of a military by a civilian government is one of the main motivators for a military to take
action against their own state bureaucracy (Nordlinger 71). Civilian interference is viewed as a
threat to the cohesiveness and values of the military, pushing armed forces to take action against
their government to maintain their self-image as leading nationalists and a protecting force
(Nordlinger 65). From a perspective informed by theories of militarized masculinity, threats to
the masculine identity of the military institution—as it guards the physical monopoly on the
ability to use force in protecting the nation—can shape the action taken by a military, even
against its own civilian government. Therefore, it is clear that militarized masculinity informs the
actions of individual soldiers as well as the institutional operation of the military as a whole.

To attempt to imagine a world where militarized masculinity has been deconstructed—in which defense and international security is not equated solely to the institution of the military—further demonstrates the concept’s interwoven nature with the military institution itself. Masculinity makes “the very existence of militaries possible by normalizing war as a manly pursuit,” and rationalizes violence (Basham 41). The demilitarization of masculinity would mean both the breakdown of the idea that military service allows for one to prove their manliness or approximate the unattainable ideals of masculinity, as well as challenging the notion of militarism itself (Eichler 89-90). A demilitarized masculinity that still serves the purpose of national security could take the shape of new peacebuilding initiatives, wherein merit is achieved in relation to garnering values of empathy, equality, and mutual respect (Eichler 88). In today’s world of heightened stakes, globalization, and increased violent conflict, it may be necessary that military operations prioritize peacebuilding to a greater extent than has been seen before. The fact that “militaries have long cultivated and relied on violent masculinities” imbues skepticism as to whether the institution can undergo an adequate transformation to become grounded in the clause of peacemaking and coalition building (Eichler 88). Regardless of what the future holds, to “challenge gendered assumptions about the inevitability of military conflict”—and thus, the necessity to instill violence in men—poses a threat to the ideologies and purposes that form the foundational pillars of the military, and the logic that is mobilized to wage wars (Eichler 90).

Conclusion

Militarized masculinity positions an unattainable ideal of the male soldier as the ultimate protector of the nation as a means to justify and motivate troops to instill violence within themselves. Thus, the military’s very purpose, ideology, and tactics, hinge on ideals of masculine superiority. Military self-image is cultivated through socialization that utilizes masculinity as a unifying concept, while discriminating against women soldiers and victims. The consequences of a militarized masculinity are further evident through an evaluation of military decision-making and tactics, as well as in the consideration of the future of the international sphere.

References:

Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on
Cultural Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist, vol. 104, no. 3, 2002, pp. 783–90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567256. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.
Basham, Victoria M. “Gender and Militaries: The Importance of Military Masculinities for the Conduct of State Sanctioned Violence.” In Handbook on Gender and War, 29–46. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.
Eichler, Maya. “Militarized Masculinities in International Relations.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 21, no. 1, 2014, pp. 81–93. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24591032.
MacKenzie, Megan, and Alana Foster. “Masculinity Nostalgia: How War and Occupation Inspire a Yearning for Gender Order.” Security Dialogue, vol. 48, no. 3, 2017, pp. 206–223., https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010617696238.
McCoy, Alfred W. Closer Than Brothers: Manhood at the Philippine Military Academy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999. Nordlinger, Eric A. Soldiers in Politics : Military Coups and Governments. Prentice-Hall, 1977.