Sexed Bodies and Military Masculinities

Abstract

This article explores the European Union (EU)'s Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) through a framework based on feminist institutional theory that highlights the durability in the dynamics of gender relations. Path dependency based on historic features of military institutions-a strict sex division based on ''gender war roles''-has influenced the development of different CSDP bodies. The CSDP is sexed because male bodies dominate the organizations studied, yet this remains invisible through normalization. A dominant EU hierarchical military masculinity is institutionalized in the EU's Military Committee, combat heterosexual masculinity in the Battle groups, and EU protector masculinity in the EU Training missions. The CSDP embodies different types of military masculinities; the relations between them are important for the reproduction of the gender order through a gendered logic of appropriateness. Yet, this too is invisible as part of the informal aspects of organizations. While women's bodies are written out of the CSDP, the construction of femininity in relation to the protector/protected binary is central to it. Two protected femininities are read in the texts. The vulnerable femininity of women in conflict areas is important for how the CSDP understands itself in relation to gender mainstreaming. In relation to the vulnerable femininity, CSDP constructs an EU protector masculinity, in turn, set against an aggressive violent masculinity in the Downloaded from areas where missions are deployed. Women's bodies are absent from the CSDP and they lack agency but are nevertheless associated with a protected femininity.

The European Union as a Masculine Military Power: European Union Security and Defence Policy in ‘Times of Crisis’

“…What we see today is not a clear militarisation of CSDP – as if it was not already shaped by military discourses, strategies and technologies – but rather an advancement and normalisation of militarism and the militarised masculinities associated with it. We find that within CSDP more aggressive combat masculinities have come to exist alongside entrepreneurial and protector masculinity (Kronsell, 2016a, 2016b).…”

“…To date, few scholars have been interested in how CSDP discourses, practices and policies have been gendered as such -an important exception being Annica Kronsell's (2016aKronsell's ( , 2016b) work which will be discussed below (cf. Muehlenhoff, 2017).…”

“…Kronsell (2016a) argues that CSDP is based on different masculinities: ‘A dominant EU hierarchical military masculinity is institutionalized in the EU’s Military Committee, combat heterosexual masculinity in the Battle groups, and EU protector masculinity in the EU Training missions’ (Kronsell, 2016a: 311). Kronsell’s (2016a, 2016b) work provides an important starting point for our analysis. However, similar approaches to how militarism and military masculinities are embedded in and shaping CSDP are still absent.…”

“…Within research on CSDP and the EU's role in international security more broadly, most authors then concur that the EU lacks effective military means and that it is a small military power at best, thereby either constituting an image of the EU as impotent and not masculine enough or subscribing to the idea that the EU is a different kind of power that, even if it deploys military force, is less defined by its military capacity. What has been absent from the literature, with the exception of the work of Annica Kronsell (2016aKronsell ( , 2016b, is an explicit engagement with how the EU exhibits military masculinities and is constituted as a masculine military power. To address this gap in the literature, our article asks how militarism and military masculinities are inscribed in CSDP, particularly in the aftermath of the recent so-called times of crisis.…”

Bodily States on Screen: Gendering Spheres of Influence inHouse of Cards

“…Subjects in international security are created per-formatively through states' behaviour as masculinised protectors. In a similar vein, Annica Kronsell describes EU security policy as founded upon protector masculinity (Kronsell 2016). States as gendered subjects are performed similar to human subjects (Wadley 2009).…”