Disarming Masculinities

Conventional wisdom has it that men enjoy a ‘special relationship' with weapons, a view which seems to be corroborated by empirical evidence. The relationship between ‘masculine' men and weapons is such a prevailing cliché that one finds it everywhere, from advertising to left-wing revolutionary posters, fascist imagery to the novels of Hemingway, war memorials to homoerotic art, from the porn industry to feminist critiques of male militarism. Weapons systems are designed mostly by men, marketed mostly for men and used mostly by men—and in many parts of the world, they are the primary source of death for men. Boys are given guns and swords to play with or they make them for themselves. Adolescent male warriors and middle-aged male hunters pose for cameras brandishing their weapons. Michael Ignatieff describes entering ‘zones of toxic testosterone' in the Bosnian war.1 War memorials depict muscular men clutching their guns or hurling grenades with flexed, oversized pectoral muscles bulging out of the opened shirts of their uniforms.

If one considers gender, in this case masculinity, to be socially constructed, and one additionally wants to further the cause of disarmament, it becomes evident that this bond between men and weapons and how this is linked with violent notions of masculinity need to be investigated and analysed further in order to be able to develop sustainable disarmament policies. The importance of analysing violent masculinity gains even more significance if one accepts the notion of conflicts increasingly being ones of ‘identity', in which the gendered ethnic identities that are constructed and mobilized tend to be highly militarized.2

In this article, I will analyse some of the ways in which enactments of masculinities and the wielding of weapons go together, the sexualized imagery used in conjunction with weapons, and the models of masculinity that lie behind these concepts. I will argue that the public display, the threat of or actual use of weapons is an intrinsic part of violent, militarized models of masculinity. The specific ‘message' conveyed by the display and use of weapons is dependent on the social and cultural environment.

I will argue that weapons are part of one notion of masculinity, a militarized view that equates ‘manliness' with the ‘sanctioned use of aggression, force and violence'.3 Weapons are used as status symbols but also as tools to achieve economic and social gains, wielding power over unarmed males and females. This can often be linked to a crisis of masculinity, when there is a ‘fear of loss of male power and privilege'4 through social transformations, leading to a backlash in which ‘traditional' gender roles are reinforced. The construct of the male warrior/protector relies on the suppression of others including competing concepts of masculinity. Weapons and their public display seek to underline the ‘manly' prowess of the bearer, but tragically often also undermine it—men are not only disproportionately the perpetrators of violence, but also often its victims.

This contribution is intended to open up discussion. As I consider gender roles to be highly dependent on the cultural and social environment in which men and women act, I will start by delineating which socio-cultural environment I shall examine. Unfortunately, by necessity rather than by choice, the limited scope of this study will lead me to concentrate heavily on ‘western' (i.e. North American, European and Australian) perceptions of masculinity, though I will endeavour, where possible, to broaden this scope.