Masculinity and Conflict

Abstract

The concept of masculinity does not sit alone but is understood in relation to notions of femininity within the broader concept of "gender" or the structure of gender relations. This is the way in which the social environment constructs men and women's social positioning with reference to assumptions around embedded gender defined roles and traits and attaches specific values and ideas to frequently unquestioned, societal gender hierarchies, or socially accepted gendered norms (Connell 2005; Kimmel 2000). Masculinity, although affiliated to the male body, is therefore interlinked with idealized beliefs and discourses around what "men should be like" or what men naturally are like (Duriesmith 2016, p. 27; Flood 2002). Relationally, this is supported by theories of what women naturally are and should be and typically built around gender binaries such as men as active, public, and strong and women as passive, private, and weak (Cohn 2013). These beliefs and assumptions about the natural condition of men and masculinity impact upon the male sense of identity, which is then reproduced in gendered social action. The association of masculinity with conflict is complex. Cultural and social understandings of masculinity typically place men as more violent and with a greater affiliation to war-making institutions such as the military. Although it is recognized that there is not one type of masculinity and that masculinities are changeable and contested, assumption around what it means to be a man have very real consequences for the practices of conflict. Taking masculinity seriously helps us understand better why conflict takes place, how conflict is fought, who is impacted, and in what way. This entry covers areas of subtopics in the masculinity and conflict literature such as hegemonic masculinity, military masculinities, and the role of masculinity in wartime violence and sexual violence. Also covered are some areas of newer research that examines alternative masculinities in non-state armed groups, peacebuilder masculinities and the notion of the "new man" masculinity.

Of predators and new men: how ideology matters in constructing military masculinities

“…With regard to non-state armed groups, Riley (2020) shows that there is an emerging strand of literature that deals with variations of masculinities which focuses mostly, but not exclusively, on more equal masculinities within Leftist guerrilla groups. Dietrich Ortega (2012, p. 491) finds that guerrilla groups from Colombia, El Salvador and Peru carefully construct guerrilla masculinities which "are not based on the devaluation of women in general, but on the temporary construction of particular guerrilla femininities, which allow male-female bonding and comradely complicity, and unveil expressions of guerrilla masculinities beyond the predominant association of men with violence".…”

“…Secondly, military masculinities do vary greatly across different ranks, operational purposes, and mission type such as peacekeeping operations. Furthermore, there is an emerging literature about forms of more equal masculinity in mostly Leftist guerrilla groups which hint at the importance of ideology for the construction of masculinities (Riley 2020). However, the question how to theorize this relationship remains unanswered so far.…”

“…Only recently, discussions about varying gender regimes and more equal forms of masculinities in the context of non-state armed groups have emerged 1 . Here, studies focus mostly on Leftist guerrilla groups implying an effect of ideology on the specific form of military masculinity (Dietrich Ortega 2012;Gonzalez-Vaillant 2015;Riley 2019Riley , 2020. However, while these empirically rich analyses underline the importance of ideology for military masculinities, how to conceptually and theoretically grasp the relationship between ideology and military masculinities in armed groups remains unclear so far.…”