In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

>> 231 11 Masculinities and Child Soldiers in Post-Conflict Societies Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Naomi Cahn, and Dina Haynes A fairly substantial amount of literature has been generated over the years regarding the forms of masculinity that emerge in times of armed conflict and war (Goldstein 2001; Yuval-Davis 1997). This war-focused literature (which links to, among other things, masculinities studies) has drawn from broader theoretical research identifying an organic link between patriarchy, its contemporary manifestations, and various forms of masculinity as they arise within societies and institutions (Connell 2005; Cohen 2009). It builds on, and extends, the more general scholarship that has deepened our understanding of how masculinities are constructed and differentiated (Chodorow 1994; Connell 1987; Dowd, Levit, and McGinley, this volume). While the war literature has made significant conceptual and practical use of the term “masculinity” to explore the impacts and effects of conflict, the concept has been less applied and understood to be relevant in post-conflict and transitional contexts, as societies attempt to move away from conflict. We argue that masculinities theory and its practical implications have been significantly under-utilized as a lens to explore and address the ending of hostilities 232 > 233 Hegemonic and Hypermasculinities in Conflict Settings Masculinities theories and feminist analysis have not always worked in tandem , and only relatively recently have feminist scholars sought to address what masculinity studies has to offer feminist theorizing (Dowd 2010). Using the gender lens drawn from various strands of feminist theorizing (Ní Aoláin, Haynes, and Cahn 2011), we start by asking the “man” question, interrogating where and how men are situated in relation to the creation, perpetration, and institutionalization of violence (Dowd 2010). In particular , how are men situated in relation to systematic and structural forms of violence aimed at the destruction of groups, communities, infrastructure, and social functioning? In what ways does hegemonic masculinity work, and how do masculinities operate to benefit even those men who are at the margins of masculinity norms and practice? Are there particular aspects of hegemonic and hypermasculinity that operate in armed conflicts (and their aftermath) that can be differentiated from the forms that appear in comparatively peaceful societies? We start with the notion of hegemonic masculinity that defines a dominant conception of masculinity as “a man in power, a man with power and a man of power” (Kimmel 2009, 61). Understanding hegemonic masculinity is critical to seeing how the manifestation of manhood in multiple societal settings reinforces the power that some men maintain over women and other men. Hegemonic masculinity affirms such characteristics as “heteronormativity , aggression, activity, sports obsession, competitiveness, stoicism, and not being female or feminine” (Cohen 2009, 144). Hegemonic masculinity is “as much about [men’s] relation to other men as it is about relation to women” (Dowd 2008, 233). Somewhat ironically, even within the hierarchies of masculinity, subordinated masculinities can benefit from the social construction of male privilege and values. That hegemonic masculinities are embedded in multiple sites of social interface underscores their pervasive influence upon social interaction between groups of men, within familial and communal settings for men, and between men and women. Much of the theoretical work exploring masculinities has been undertaken in western liberal societies. Many of the assumptions built into theorizing men and male experiences are grounded in empirical and anecdotal experiences of men living in western democracies, who have at least theoretical access to a range of social and other opportunities and where there is hypothetically greater capacity for social mobility. Important to our comparative application, Western societies are generally not perceived as having abnormal or excessive levels of violence, at least not as measured 234 > 235 pervades and defines sex roles in the military (Abrams 2010). Men dominate most national and international militaries. A swathe of research provides evidence that the military trains its members to see desirable masculinity as intertwined with violence in an effort to create the appropriate mind-set of soldiers who are prepared to fight aggressively to defend their countries (Baaz and Stern 2009). The military is designed around male images that “tacitly exclude others who contradict their image of the combat, masculine warrior” (Dunivin 1997, 16–17). The military is also clearly identified with institutionalized and highly gendered practices including, until recently, homophobia and the exclusion of women from combat roles in many countries (ibid.). The opposition of military hierarchies in many states to the inclusion of openly gay and lesbian personnel is deeply implicated in the maintenance of ostensibly heterosexual and...

Share