Terrorism and masculinity
Terrorists’ motives need to be understood not only due to their religious or political beliefs but also because of their experiences as young men. Traditional manhood plays an important role in breeding terrorists. Men believe that they are responsible for bearing the weight of the world. They believe that their individual acts of violence will ease that pressure. It is not only religious fundamentalism that uses male socialization to fuel its ideology but every nation has used it to incite their men to go to war. Calling young men cowards motivates them to die for their nation’s cause[1].
Social construction differentiates between sex and gender. Gender is considered a social organizing principle invented just like a language. Masculinity consists of social practices and ideologies associated with man. Masculinity describes men. It is the personal and human characteristics.
Genetics forms the basis of masculinity. There are common aspects in the definition of masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is the most dominant form of masculinity. Masculinity has social status like wealth and race. It brings greater social status in many cultures. It is associated with men rather than with boys[2].
Masculinity has several characteristics. Physical characteristics include unconcern about appearance and aging. The perfect male is the breadwinner for his family and sexually aggressive. He is unemotional and does not cry. He is logical, intellectual and rational. He has leadership and dominating characteristics. He has other characteristics like being successful, ambitious and aggressive. He is also decisive and trustworthy. He forms rational opinions[3].
Professional institutions like the military recruits and trains boy to become men. Military recruits obeying and respecting their commanders and tradition. They learn how to become clean and hygienic. They exhibit courage and bravery in the face of danger. They are cut of from society and live within an enclosed environment. Civilians are transformed into soldiers by their exposure to drilling exercises, shaving heads, sex movies and hazing rituals. The military breeds a cult of toughness and masculinity.
Professional masculinity means that a person must be tough, possess endurance and exhibit courage. It is also characterized by aggressiveness and refusal to complain. Such character traits are never permanent. Trials are undertaken to separate the weak from the strong. Passing these tests at an early stage is a sign of toughness and perseverance[4].
Masculinity is associated with hardships and not quitting. It is the opposite of feminity which is associated with complaining and weakness. It is a tradition in many armies to call defeated foes as women. In basic military training instructors refer to trainees as homosexuals. Recruits who complain on the first day are called wimps, girls and whiners[5].
Women are considered to be weak and unable to have endurance. They are not fit for combat according to military. They cannot tolerate the stress associated with military training. The military is an elite club for strong men. Such men are strong and competent. They are told that they have earned this place due to their strength and endurance. It legitimates the status of those who have passed the military tests.
The privilege of membership includes being aggressive and rude when interacting with men. While on the other hand if the person is with a woman he must act like a gentleman. This is because women are soft and need to be protected from the uncivilized behavior that can be tolerated by men[6].
Physical strength and bravado define masculinity in the contemporary America. Other qualities include suppressing emotions and economic independence. Most men do not embody all of these qualities. Standards of masculinity have varied from time to time. They have also varied from culture to culture. Masculinity has been defined as different and superior to femininity. Homosexuals and husbands living at home are considered subordinates in American culture.
Naval aviators are the ideal of hegemonic masculinity. They are masters of courage, technical machinery and a reputation for boldness. Aviators are wild, reckless and risk takers. They believe that they may fly and never make it home. Therefore they have tendency to make more risks. They live for the day. They take more risks. Flying gives them a sense of independence and autonomy. They experience thrill while flying.
Aviators are elite in the military. They are the highest paid. They however come under strict scrutiny. Tough exams are used to determine the aptitude and skills of aviators. Even after passing the exams they are tested to their limits. The flight training tested and they are taught maneuvers. Failing a flying test is considered humiliating for the aviator. There is no legitimate way an aviator can justify failure[7].
Successful pilots have the ability to think analytically and repress their emotions. Hegemonic masculinity is different from other masculinities. It is considered to be normative. It embodies the most honored way of being a man. It requires all men to position themselves. It legitimated the subordination of women to men. Men who were recipients of patriarchy were showing a complicit masculinity. Hegemony did not mean violence but it meant ascendancy through institutions and persuasion[8].
The concept of hegemonic masculinity has been used in education studies to understand the dynamics of classroom life, including patterns of resistance and bullying among boys. It has been used to explore relations to the curriculum and the difficulties in gender-neutral pedagogy. It also has an influence in criminology. These studies concluded that men had monopoly on the commission of white collar crime. The concept was also used to study media representations of men. Researchers began mapping the relations between representations of different masculinities[9].
Hegemonic masculinity was used to understand men’s health practices like risk taking sexual behavior. The concept has also proved to be important in studying bureaucracies and workplaces. The institutionalization of hegemonic masculinities in specific organizations has been studied. The growing research into hegemonic masculinity has led to an expansion of the concept. The consequences and costs of hegemony have been documented and mechanisms have been uncovered about hegemony masculinity. In professional sports the enactment of hegemonic masculinity comes at considerable cost to the victors in terms of emotional and physical damage.
Masculinity operates politically at different levels. It is a form of identity at one level and means of self understanding on another level. It can be seen as an ideology that presents a set of appropriate roles and values for men. It is not natural. It is different from the biological state of maleness. It is constructed socially, historically and politically. It interprets maleness in the context of culture. It has participated in society. There are cross cultural variations in masculine styles and historical changes in the dominant definitions of manhood[10].
Masculinity has many concepts and ideas which operate to support and legitimate structures of social inequality. It naturalizes unequal power relations. Masculinity is confused with biological maleness. Masculinity is used by industrial capitalism to mobilize the workforce. It also transforms social expectations to responsibility and self esteem. It sustains the subordination and dependence of women[11].
It also sustains the sexual oppression of women. It maintains and renders acceptable patents of sexual and domestic violence against women. They are social practices that maintain male dominance. Dominant modes of masculinity are integral to maintaining a sexist culture. Masculinity is implicated in structures of power. Homosexuality is defined as being feminine and inferior. Homophobia is crucial to the definition of masculinity. It rules out men as being objects of emotional or sexual attachment. Masculinity strives to maintain the economic, political and sexual subordination of women. It is an ideological process of articulating that strategy. This is evident in the mass media, wage structures and welfare policies.
The September 11 terrorist attacks brought a new breed of Islamic suicide bombers. They were not the typical Palestinian suicide bombers who were desperate and lived in poverty. The 9/11 suicide bombers were from rich families, well educated and engaged in acts like drinking and listening to music which are contrary to the teachings of fundamentalist Muslims. These suicide bombers had plenty of motivations for perpetrating 9/11. Notions and theories of masculinity were important in motivating these terrorists[12].
The Arab world has seen many people disillusioned with their governments. They perceive the regimes to be compliant with American policies. According to their logic these regimes have failed to stop the persecution and oppression of the Palestinian people. These regimes invest millions in maintaining combat aircraft, tanks, warships and artillery. Yet these weapons are for controlling their civilian population. The 9/11 suicide attack gave terrorist groups a sense of power. They were able to inflict heavy losses on their greatest enemy: the United States and smash the myth of American invulnerability. Indeed Osama Bin Laden has reputed to say that American inventions would be used against America. The suicide bombings were a reaction to what they perceive as American actions in the Middle East and oppression of Muslims. Oil wealth in Saudi Arabia and the neighboring Arab states have not been able to solve the social and political problems which the Arab masses face. This is a major motivation for suicide bombers[13].
The United States has faced suicidal opponents before. They faced the Japanese Kamikazes during World War 2. But the Japanese were not terrorists who wanted to slaughter civilians. Instead they were disciplined soldiers who tried to stave of defeat. They were fighting for the supremacy of the Japanese empire. The US has also fought Muslim Moros in Philippines. The Moros were fanatics and ready to die for their cause but they weren’t like today’s terrorists. Today’s terrorists are driven by a desire to attain salvation through slaughter. They seek self annihilation and carnage at the same time to achieve their goals which is their concept of masculinity[14].
Some people believe that removing poverty could reduce the incident of suicide bombings. This has not been supported by evidence because suicide terrorists usually have strong motivations to perpetrate such atrocities. A “martyr” is considered to have full of hope since he is sacrificing his life for a political or religious goal. Studies have also shown that that the percentage of educated Palestinians enrolling as suicide bombers is higher than uneducated Palestinians. However economic and social disadvantages could play some role in encouraging terrorism. Economic factors like unemployment and lack of opportunities could be some form of motivation for potential suicide bombers. Poverty and unemployment are therefore no reliable indicators that they can breed suicide terrorists. Study of Palestinian suicide bombers reveals that recruiters and trainers use the label of cowardice to incite their people to become human bombs.
The Oslo peace accords between the Israelis and Palestinians also called for the creation of joint patrols to maintain security. Consequently two different professional fighting forces worked together for the accomplishment and reproduction of their masculinities. The Palestinians discovered the humanity of the Israelis. Palestinian masculinity was understood as inseparable from politics and patriarchy. Israeli masculinity was bound to professional ethics and skills.
The Palestinians focused on honor while Israelis focused on professional standards and ethics. Both were searching for the trust in the professional and social spheres. Both made performances that were constructed and devalued notions of masculinity. Israeli officers expressed concern about military ethics and consistency. The Palestinians valued physical interaction, power and citizenship[15].
Solidarity was achieved due to the material conditions and practice of shared security between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians also shared their experiences with the Israelis. They believed that the Israelis were good at using technology but had a fear of death. They also claimed to be better fighters since they were willing to die for their cause. There are many components behind a terrorist. The first component is the political and cultural aspects which help to shape the suicide bomber’s mind. The motivation and driving factors to perpetrate suicide bombing is shaped in this stage. Community approval is also vital for the first component. It is mostly educated people who derive the justification and reason to perpetrate suicide bombings.
Suicide bombing is a new phenomenon and has been used as a tactic by many terrorist groups. Religious fundamentalists and secular terrorists have both used this type of weapon against their enemies. There are many reasons which motivate suicide bombers. Usually it is believed that suicide bombers are helpless, suffering from mental disease and poor people. However studies conducted into many captured suicide bombers have found that they are much better educated and wealthy than the poor people.
Hegemonic masculinity involves taking and negotiating the task of being a man. Gender regimes in different cultures produce styles and personae which create masculine characters. It involves the institutionalization of winning styles. Hegemonic ideologies consist of contest and constant struggle in which marginalized sections are automatically subordinated. It consists of ideals and social norms which are the part of social and disciplinary activities. It is exemplified by fictional characters in films like Rambo and Terminator. Each man aspires for hegemonic masculinity. This thinking gives men the quality of having regulatory force.
Most men like to associate themselves with hegemonic masculinity because it is a source of fantasy and subordination of women. Hegemonic masculinity will always be with individuals and cannot be overcome. It has been defined as the culturally exalted form of masculinity. It is seen as a cultural ideal[16]. Research has however suggested that structures, cultural factors and individual level attributes are vital to understand the concept of hegemonic masculinity. It is likely to be established if there is a link between cultural ideal and institutional power. Ideology is used for the conception of hegemony. Any group that needs to be dominated requires a devaluation of that group by the other. This is due to gender, ethnicity or religion. This ideology establishes the structuring principle of the macro relations of power between groups. Male norms have emphasized on values like courage, aggression, autonomy and toughness of mind and body. This insight has been linked with hegemony.
Social groups are formed and hold power by means of hegemony. The ruling class establishes and maintains its domination. They can impose definition of the situation and set the terms in which events are understood. They can formulate ideas and morality as the part of the hegemonic process. They attempt to persuade the population using the media and social institutions. The state plays an important part in negotiation and enforcement.
Hegemonic masculinity considers women as potential sex objects and homosexuals are negated as sexual objects for men. Women provide sexual validation to men. This does not mean that men are hostile towards individual women. It concerns the dread and flight from women. It is common sense about breadwinning and manhood. It is brutal, violent, exclusive and hierarchically differentiated. Hegemonic masculinity may be fragile but it creates the most dangerous things we live with[17].
The most influential agents of hegemonic masculinity in Western society are priests, journalists, advertisers, politicians, filmmakers, actors, musicians, coaches and sportsmen. They are the organizing intellectuals of this ideology. They have been instrumental in regulating and managing gender regimes. They have articulated experiences and perspectives on gender relations. The actual personalities of men are not close to the cultural ideals of hegemonic masculinity. They are however in fantasy and models remote from the lives of the majority. This ideology is based on how powerful men sustain their power. This motivates large numbers of men to support this ideology due its benefits. Hegemonic masculinity has been naturalized by the sagas of heroes propagated in movies, documentaries, ballads, songs and dramas.
Hegemonic masculinity is confirmed in fatherhood but the practice of parenting by men seems to undermine it. Most men do not have an idea of what fatherhood involves. Active parenting is not considered a part of manhood. Hegemonic masculinity prevents fathers from having the skills needed to care for children. They believe that care giving behavior is not manly. The man is out there making his name in public while woman is there for home caring. Men who provide full time fathering are stigmatized as being “a bit of a woman” and “under the thumb”. The new man which is propagated through the media reinforces the social order without challenging it.
The concept of hegemonic masculinity looks at the contradictions of a gender system. Experience has shown the difficulty of liberating a dominant group. Hegemonic masculinity is a system with its own dynamics that can change the system. Ruling class masculinity believes that women don’t have a role in important matters. Hegemonic masculinity has been used to study the patterns of resistance and bullying in the prison[18]. It has been used to explore the relations to the curriculum and the difficulties in the gender neutral pedagogy. Criminology has also recently studied about the role of hegemonic masculinity in conventional crimes. Research has shown that men have a monopoly on syndicated and white collar crime. It has helped in theorizing the relationship between masculinities and crimes. Media representations of men have also been studied as having promoted the ideology of hegemonic masculinity.
Commercial sports have been focus of masculinity by the media. Hegemonic masculinity has found significant use in sports sociology. The popularity of body contact confrontational sports has seen the renewed symbol of masculinity found in sporting games. Hegemonic masculinity has been used to understand men’s health practices and risk taking sexual behavior. The concept of hegemonic masculinity has been significant in organization studies as the gendered character of bureaucracies and workplaces has been recognized. Certain organizations have institutionalized hegemonic masculinity. Formal organizations have embedded hegemonic patterns of masculinity. Managerial masculinity has been found in corporations. They are also found in schools and neighborhoods in the form of peer groups and harassment[19]. Masculinities are also overlapping in terms of the social agents which construct masculinities. Feature films in the 1940s constructed different models of hegemonic masculinity as compared with recent movies.
Hegemonic masculinity has multiple meanings which allow men to adopt it when it is desirable. But at other moments they can distance themselves from hegemonic masculinity at certain moments. Men are creating a certain body image that gives them desire and privilege. Men are maintaining their masculine status by building and maintaining this masculine body image. Hegemonic masculinities are constructed for power maintenance. There are multiple patriarchies in which masculinities operate and answer to the hegemonic form. Men who become masculine have achieved some goal. While those men who remain feminine fail in their gender and are less than men. Hegemonic masculinity is the most dominant form of masculinity in society.
The Oklahoma City bombing was the worst terrorist incident inside the United States before 9/11. An estimated 168 people were reportedly killed in this terrorist atrocity. Timothy McVeigh was the main culprit of the bombing. He claimed to have launched the bombing in response to the alleged crimes of the US government against its own citizens. He also said that he had avenged the incidents of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Sexual roles and identity play an important role in the breeding of terrorists like Timothy McVeigh[20]. The fascination with guns and bombs is also associated with masculinity in cultures that breed terrorism.
There is a connection between masculinity, terrorism and religion. They also have a hatred of homosexuality. It has been a theme of religion for centuries. Homophobia has emerged as a prominent theme to be criticized and target of violence by religious cultures of violence. Timothy McVeigh had a hatred of homosexuals. There have been attacks on gay people and gay bars by Christian groups in the United States. Hundreds of gays were killed in Iran following orders from Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Right wing Jewish activists were dismayed by acceptance of homosexuality in secular Israeli society[21]. One of the main criticisms of Protestantism has been its acceptance of homosexuality. Another right wing leader declared American cities to be like Sodom and Gomorrah. The tolerance for homosexuality by secular governments has been considered by religious extremists to be the mark of moral degeneracy.
Masculinity is a manly character which describes human beings. Throughout history literature and myth have glorified the concept of a masculine character who is independent, brave, courageous, dominating and with incredible confidence. The concept of masculinity has changed in society. It also varies in different countries. Hegemonic masculinity is the most dominant form of masculinity. It also appears in various modes. Professional masculinity means that a person must be tough, possess endurance and exhibit courage. It is also characterized by aggressiveness and refusal to complain. Such character traits are never permanent. Trials are undertaken to separate the weak from the strong. Passing these tests at an early stage is a sign of toughness and perseverance.
Hegemonic masculinity has been studied in criminology, prisons, sports and media portrayals of men. This knowledge has been beneficial in understanding the crimes perpetrated by men towards women and homosexuals. Hegemonic masculinity is a fantasy and desire rather than being the real part of most men. Hegemonic masculinity is based on the subjugation of different groups by a dominant group using coercion and intimidation to achieve its goals. The state plays an important part in institutionalizing hegemonic masculinity. Terrorism is a form of hegemonic masculinity, as most terrorists are fascinated by guns, violence, homophobia and subjugation of women. It also carries a negative definition of men who care for their children. Care giving and looking after the household are considered to be the tasks and duties of women. Hegemonic masculinity must be studied in order to ensure that the world can be a safe place from violence and terrorism.
References
Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
Downey, Jennifer I. (1999). Masculinity and Sexuality: Selected Topics in the Psychology of Men. US: American Psychiatric Pub.
Yahav, Deborah Heifetz (1999). Non Mediated Peacekeeping as Cultural Performance. US:
Antaki, C. (ed) (1988) Analyzing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods.
London: Sage.
Billig, M. (1991) Ideology, Rhetoric and Opinion. London: Sage.
Donaldson, M. (2003) ‘What is hegemonic masculinity’, Theory and Society
Stibbe, Arran. (2004). “Health and the Social Construction of Masculinity in Men’s Health Magazine.” Men and Masculinities; 7 (1) July, pp. 31-51.
[1] Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
[2] Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
[3] Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
[4] Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
[5] Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
[6] Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
[7] Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
[8] Barrett, Frank J (1996).The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Blackwell Publishers. 3,
[9] Downey, Jennifer I. (1999). Masculinity and Sexuality: Selected Topics in the Psychology of Men. US: American Psychiatric Pub.
[10] Downey, Jennifer I. (1999). Masculinity and Sexuality: Selected Topics in the Psychology of Men. US: American Psychiatric Pub.
[11] Downey, Jennifer I. (1999). Masculinity and Sexuality: Selected Topics in the Psychology of Men. US: American Psychiatric Pub.
[12] Downey, Jennifer I. (1999). Masculinity and Sexuality: Selected Topics in the Psychology of Men. US: American Psychiatric Pub.
[13] Downey, Jennifer I. (1999). Masculinity and Sexuality: Selected Topics in the Psychology of Men. US: American Psychiatric Pub.
[14] Downey, Jennifer I. (1999). Masculinity and Sexuality: Selected Topics in the Psychology of Men. US: American Psychiatric Pub.
[15] Yahav, Deborah Heifetz (1999). Non Mediated Peacekeeping as Cultural Performance. US:
[16] Antaki, C. (ed) (1988) Analyzing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods.
London: Sage.
[17] Antaki, C. (ed) (1988) Analyzing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods.
London: Sage.
[18] Billig, M. (1991) Ideology, Rhetoric and Opinion. London: Sage.
[19] Billig, M. (1991) Ideology, Rhetoric and Opinion. London: Sage.
[20] Donaldson, M. (2003) ‘What is hegemonic masculinity’, Theory and Society
[21] Stibbe, Arran. (2004). “Health and the Social Construction of Masculinity in Men’s Health Magazine.” Men and Masculinities; 7 (1) July, pp. 31-51.
