Evidence of military involvement in sexual exploitation and aggression against civilians on peacekeeping operations has led many feminists to question the appropriateness of using soldiers to create peace. They argue that the problems stem from a particular form of military masculinity, hegemonic within Western militaries, associated with practices of strength, toughness, and aggressive heterosexuality. Masculinities, however, are multiple, dynamic, and contradictory. As they are constructed in relation to the contexts men find themselves in, involvement in peacekeeping may itself play a role in the construction of alternative military masculinities. Examining autobiographical accounts of soldiers involved in peacekeeping in Bosnia in the 1990s, I argue that there is evidence of an alternative discourse of 'peacekeeper masculinity', but question whether it fully challenges the hegemony of the warrior model. I acknowledge that peacekeeper masculinity is also problematic because although it disrupts elements of the traditional linkages between militarism and masculinity, it still relies on a feminized and racialized 'Other.' Yet, I suggest that this is not the only way in which peacekeeper masculinity can be viewed. It can alternatively be considered part of a 'regendered military' which may be a necessary component of successful conflict resolution.Please refer to the published article for citation purposes.3 autobiographical accounts. The main body of the paper then analyses soldiers' reflections on peacekeeping in three sections, considering the practices they are involved in, relations with women and relations with men. The fifth section discusses the significance of peacekeeper masculinity and the sixth concludes. CONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY MASCULINITIESFollowing the work of Connell, I use a definition of gender as practice. Gender is something which is actively negotiated by men and women, in relation to both their physical embodiment and social structures within which they live (Connell 1987; 1995; 2002a). As a result, there is more than one way -although not infinitely possible ways -of being a man or a woman. Crucially, the concept of gender is, by definition, relational. In order to construct masculinity, ideas of femininity must be constructed that are supportive and complementary.Army training is a key site where such constructions take place. This training is a 'critical period in a man's life,' which works by breaking down civilian identity and rebuilding the individual as a soldier (McManners 1993: 112). Many accounts of military training demonstrate how gender informs this process, as all things 'feminine' are disparaged, and 'manhood' is equated with toughness under fire. 2 Men, on the whole, find combat horrible and unnatural, resulting in the need for this gendered combination of harsh discipline in training, punishment for desertion, and rewards for fighting (Goldstein 2001: 253). As Enloe memorably put it: 'If masculinity "in the raw" were sufficient, there would be little need for the sweat, bli...
Hegemonic masculinity was introduced as a concept which, due to its understanding of gender as dynamic and relational, and of power as consent, could explain both the persistence of male power and the potential for social change. Yet, when hegemonic masculinity is applied in empirical cases, it is most often used to demonstrate the way in which hegemonic masculinity shifts and adopts new practices in order to enable some men to retain power over others. This is especially so in feminist International Relations, particularly studies of military masculinities, where shifts toward ''softer'' military masculinities such as the ''tough and tender'' soldier-scholar demonstrate to many feminists merely the ''flexibility of the machinery of rule.'' In this article, I challenge the pessimism of these accounts of military masculinity. My particular contribution is to build on an emergent and underdeveloped strand of Connell's work on hegemonic masculinity: how change might be theorized. I argue that hegemonic masculinity remains a useful concept, but that the process through which ''hegemony may fail'' requires rethinking. I make this argument by exploring and working through empirical material on military masculinities, drawing on both my own research and critical analysis of the literature.
Regendering the Military; theorising women's military participation. Abstract Abstract: This paper considers how, in the light of contemporary military transformations, feminist theorizing about women's military participation might be developed to take account of an emergent reality: the inclusion of increasing numbers of women in a range of roles within armed forces. A brief overview of established debates within feminist scholarship on women's military participation is provided, and we explore the trajectory of feminist strategies for change both within militaries and other institutions. The promise and limitations of UNSCR 1325 are discussed. The paper argues that existing feminist critiques often remain deterministic, and have too readily dismissed the possibilities for change created by women's participation, given the context of military transformations. Drawing on the idea of the regendered military, the paper presents a conceptual strategy for considering how feminist theorizing about the gender-military nexus can take seriously women's military participation whilst remaining alert to feminist political goals of gender equality, peace and justice.
This paper is about the experiences of Gender Advisors in NATO and partner militaries, and the question of whether militaries can contribute to a feminist vision of peace and security. Gender Advisors are increasingly being adopted as a mechanism to help militaries to implement commitments under the Women, Peace and Security agenda. Based on semi-structured interviews and a workshop with individuals working as Military Gender Advisors from 2009 to 2016 in Afghanistan, Kosovo and in NATO and national military commands and headquarters, this paper explores their own perceptions of their work, its goals, shortcomings and achievements. It highlights Military Gender Advisors' strong commitment to Women, Peace and Security aims, but the resistance their work faces within their institutions, and challenges of inadequate resourcing, preparation and contextual knowledge. Military Gender Advisors' experiences paint a picture of NATO and partner Militaries having in some places made progress in protection and empowerment of local women, but fragile and partial. These findings speak to wider debates within feminist security studies around whether and how militaries achieve human security in peacekeeping operations, and the risks of militarisation of the Women, Peace and Security agenda.
As feminists who think about war and peacebuilding, we cannot help but encounter the complex, entwined political economic processes that underlie wars’ causes, their courses, and the challenges of postwar reconstruction. For us, then, the increasing academic division between feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist (international) political economy (FPE/FIPE) has been a cause for concern, and we welcomed Politics & Gender’s earlier Critical Perspectives section on efforts to bridge the two (June 2015). We noticed, however, that although violence was addressed in several of the special section's articles, war made only brief and somewhat peripheral appearances, and peacebuilding was all but absent. While three contributions (Hudson 2015; Sjoberg 2015; True 2015) mentioned the importance of political economy in the analysis of armed conflict, the aspects of war on which the articles focused were militarized sexualities (Sjoberg 2015) or conflict-related and postwar sexual and gender-based violence (Hudson 2015; True 2015).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.