Juggling Models of Masculinity: Russian‐Jewish Immigrants in the Israeli Army

Abstract

The present study addresses the question "What is masculinity?" by exploring how male immigrants interpret local masculinity and the models of masculinity they portray while situating themselves in the male hierarchy of the new society. The study is based on "immigration stories" elicited by in-depth interviews conducted with 43 university students who immigrated to Israel at the beginning of the 1990s from the former Soviet Union. The analysis of the stories reveals that the immigrants employ four major practices (avoidance, mockery, maneuvering, and provocation) that unfasten the takenfor-granted link between masculinity and army service in the Israeli society, thereby resisting the hegemonic, military model of masculinity in Israel. The immigrants render meaning to their resistance of the indigenous model ("The Warrior") via the harnessing of cultural models that they carry with them from their native home-"The Russian Soldier" and "The Jewish Man"-without seeking to alter gender power relations as such. They discursively juggle between the three contesting and competing models of masculinity that together constitute a fluid and elusive "interpretative field" of masculinity. Via their interpretative work, the Russian male immigrants reconstitute their masculine identity, seeking to assert their distinctiveness and to receive social legitimation for their different conception of masculinity.The present study addresses the question "What is masculinity?" by exploring how male immigrants interpret local masculinity and the models of masculinity they portray while situating themselves in the male hierarchy of the new society. We argue that situations in which masculinity is uprooted from its indigenous cultural context and placed in contact with other models of masculinity provide important insights into the issue of "being a man" and the construction of manhood. Embarking from this assumption, we focus on migratory situationsin other words, on men and masculinity in transition.In each society, the hegemonic model of masculinity categorizes groups of men in relation to each other through "normalizing" the definition of masculinity and defining its standards and proper manifestations (Connell 1995;Foucault 1979). This is particularly true of societies in which the military has a maximal presence and role to play. In such societies, which epitomize the commanding and rigid nature of the masculinity regime, hegemonic masculinity is firmly established and thoroughly institutionalized even more than in others.

Masculinity and sexual practices in the military: a South African study

“…These observations show that the South African military likewise has its own multiple definitions of masculinities with dynamic hierarchies of identity. This vindicates the view that in every society internationally and nationally the hegemonic model of masculinity categorises groups of men in relation to each other through normalising the definitions of masculinity and defining its standards and proper manifestations (Connell, 1995;Agostino, 2003;Lomsky-Feder & Rapoport, 2003).…”

Volunteering During an Emergency

“…The intensive socialization process that youths experience for social solidarity and responsibility leads them to adopt the image of defenders of the community (Lomsky-Feder & Rapoport, 2003). The context of routine versus emergency situations derived from warfare may be considered to be a salient characteristic of community life and to have the potential to affect motives for volunteering.…”

Between a gender and a feminist analysis

“…Studies have shown that despite a certain diversity of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic masculinities, the army remains a stronghold of male and heterosexual domination, with far-reaching implications for gender relations in society generally (Ben-Ari and Lomsky-Feder, 1999;Izraeli, 1997;Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport, 2003;Sasson-Levy, 2003). For one thing, as a result of mandatory conscription, the entry of most Jewish male and female adolescents into civil society is mediated through an intensely patriarchal and warring institution (Golan, 1997).…”