Masculinity

A theme that presents throughout the literature is the concept of masculinity and the way in which it influences identity issues for individuals in the workplace (Beech et al., 2017; Brunger et al., 2013; Higate, 2001) The literature is largely focused upon the military as a hegemonic masculine environment (Brunger et al. 2013; Higate, 2001) so a comparative study is required within this research to pursue the possibility that the same masculinity presents in the environments of police and emergency services. For this particular study, examining the concept of masculinity within the service environment supports the connection that the individuals have with their former employer and presents the challenges they face when pursuing post-service employment, and post-service life satisfaction. Further, understanding the influence of masculinity in the service environment helps in ascertaining the extent to which any differences between the post-service responses of males and females are contributed to by the masculine environment. With the body as a starting point, and with consideration of the physical demands of military training and service on the body, Godfrey et al. (2012) address the issue that it is the feminine comparison that serves to feed the conception of the masculinity of the military body. That is, a gendered body is produced in this environment where the military body is ‘first and foremost a masculine body’ (Godfrey et al., 2012, p. 553). Godfrey et al. (2012) state that ‘masculinity achieves meaning within patterns of difference’ (p. 553) and that success in the use of the body is measured with the masculine associations of not quitting and pushing through and contrasted to the feminine associations of weakness and giving up. Godfrey et al. (2012) suggest that the body is taken to even greater extremes in the military to create an almost robotic response that resembles the strength and ability of a ‘cyborg’ (p. 555). In this instance the ability exceeds even the masculine definitions and the gendered lines are further blurred (Godfrey et al., 2012). It is important to note that the approach to the gendered body in this context is not male specific. That is, men and women are expected to achieve these outcomes to become part of the military body and achieving the masculine or cyborg height is the outcome of the training and repetitive behaviours available to both genders (Godfrey et al., 2012). Of course, this is a weighted statement given that the men enter the service training with the associations of masculine terminology such as strong and powerful whilst the women enter the training with the feminine associations of weak and soft (Godfrey et al., 2012). Therefore, the women need to prove that they are capable of the demands of the masculine associations, whereas the men just need to prove that they are not within the bounds of the female associations.  

However, beyond the body are the activities undertaken in military basic training (King, 2006). King (2006) suggests that the activities and rituals performed by individuals during military training to ensure social cohesion and the group collective goals are hypermasculine. Failure to meet the requirements of these group tasks is to be associated with feminine behaviour, normally weakness, and exclusion from the group generally follows (King, 2006). King (2006) suggests that it is not just the activities but the masculine nature of the activities that render them fundamental to the formation of the social groups that perform their tasks with individual commitment to the collective goal. 

Connell and Messerschmidt’s (2005) theory of hegemonic masculinity is relevant here as it suggests that hegemonic masculinity serves as a normative model wherein men learn to position themselves against other men. It confirms the fact that masculinity and femininity have meaning in relation to each other, and it is this relationship that renders gender a dynamic process in hegemonic masculine organisations (Buschmeyer & Lengersdorf, 2016). In its original form, hegemonic masculinity was a framework that explained the patterns of practice that allowed men’s dominance over women (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). The concept was explored in education with relation to male behaviour and bullying, in criminology in relation to the deviant behaviour of males, but also in media representation of men, such as war imagery (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). This addresses the question of whether women have to appear and/or perform as men to be accepted in organisations such as police, military and emergency services. But also, whether men have to perform more intensely as men to also be accepted in these service organisations. Most important here is the application of the concept of hegemonic masculinity to organisations (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Barrett (1996) applied this specifically to the military where it was stated that hegemonic masculinity was entrenched but was becoming problematic from an organisational standpoint. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) do not dispute that masculinities are subject to change and that challenges to hegemony are common but to challenge the repetitive training techniques of the military, which are reflected to a certain extent in both the police and emergency services, would be a considerable challenge to deeply entrenched processes. As such, preventing an individual from defining themselves within the parameters of the organisation is unlikely to occur at that point.  

There is some merit to be applied to critiques of Connell’s (1990) original concept, in particular, the allocation of masculinity to certain hegemonic models (Beasley, 2008; Donaldson, 1993). This seems to be a fluid concept where an individual may be a hegemonic model in one environment, but not meet the same criteria in another. This position lends credence to the practices of hegemonically masculine organisations such as the military which include social isolation as part of their training techniques to establish masculine behaviours (Godfrey et al., 2012). The masculinity is then deeply embedded before any exposure to other potentially hegemonic masculine environments occurs, ensuring that the individual is dedicated to the single group collective and not externally influenced (Godfrey et al., 2012; Higate, 2001). The masculinity is then not questioned. This is important to understand considering Buschmeyer and Lengersdorf’s (2016) claim that hegemonic masculinity is not one sort of masculinity in society. Where they suggest it is a space to examine power relations more than studies of men, and that new masculinities are arising all the time (Buschmeyer & Lengersdorf, 2016), it begs the question whether organisations such as military, police and emergency services are one of the slower moving areas to embrace these alternative masculinities. Higate (2001) suggests that masculinity in the military is strong, as do Godfrey et al. (2012) with their discussion of the military body. While new masculinities are developing in the areas of education and ‘involved fathering’ (Buschmeyer & Lengersdorf, 2016, p. 199), these remain at a distance from organisations such as the military and its para-military counterparts.  

Higate (2001) in his work on the transition of individuals from military to civilian life suggests that not only is the hegemonic masculinity of the armed forces part of the gender ideology to be considered in terms of the institutionalisation of individuals; it is also something to be considered during their transition period. He suggests that it is this gender ideology of the military that continues to influence the individual when they move into the civilian workforce. In fact, previous work conducted by Jolly (1996) indicates that almost 75 percent of surveyed participants pursued employment in what Higate (2001) considers to be ‘masculinised institutions’ (p. 452). This is significant when examining the transition practices of these individuals and the way in which their transition experience influences their post-service job satisfaction. Higate (2001) proposes that it is this continuity of employment in the masculine space that has an impact on the success of transition. He believes this behaviour is part of the camaraderie and masculinity of the institution with which the individuals now most comfortably identify and that they seek this out in future employment (Higate, 2001). It also serves as a barrier to successful transition because it is can be argued that so long as the individuals maintain this continuity they do not actually transition. They then do not need to invest in their own identity work. To draw this conclusion is to consider the fact that it is not institutionalisation or repetitive training or loss of camaraderie in isolation that are barriers to successful transition; but these factors as they exist and/or function inside the gender ideology (Bergman et al., 2014; Brunger et al., 2013; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Higate, 2001). Higate (2001) suggests that individuals will make non-conscious decisions to move into workplaces that have gender familiarity. He raises the possibility that the failure of these individuals to seek help post-service, particularly with emotional or mental health issues, the use of substances such as alcohol to excess, and increased rates of homelessness together with the types of future employment that are sought are all indications that gender ideology forms part of these individuals’ ‘civilian trajectory’ (Higate, 2001, p. 456). The most important element of Higate’s (2001) work is his suggestion that the ‘transformative effects of military service’ are long term and need to be addressed accordingly (p. 457). This leads to the need to examine the literature directly surrounding the transition of individuals from these services. 

Understanding a masculine space – hegemonic masculinity in police, military and emergency services

A hegemonic masculine organisation functions with masculine and feminine characteristics in contrast to each other (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). For former members of the police, military and emergency services, this means that the masculine characteristics of strength are encouraged and rewarded; and any negativity or weakness is labelled and punished as feminine (Agostino, 1998). This behaviour regime is applied to both men and women in the services. Matthew explained ‘once they knew who you were and…that you could…do what you’re told and help each other out then you become one of the boys type of thing….’. It is systematic and opaque in nature, making it difficult for the individuals to understand the transformation of the way they see each other and themselves. Hegemonic masculinity can be difficult to define, but for the purposes of this work it is the nature of an organisation that is borne of masculine characteristics and in reinforcing these characteristics, either directly or inadvertently, oppresses female characteristics. The masculine characteristics of physical strength, commitment, endurance, power, as well as rank and hierarchy are valued and represent indicators of success in these organisations. In contrast, attributes (or behaviours) that are not valued and are discouraged, such as weakness, whingeing, complaining, disputing rank and hierarchy, questioning practices, lack of effort, failure to commit, and not playing as part of a team are characterised as feminine and are treated as measures of poor performance in these organisations. Jasper thought that ‘it shouldn’t be like that, it should be…people are actually given tasking on their strengths’. Instead, his experience was that ‘they’re taught from early on that it’s their way or the highway or you get charged’. 

This analysis does not delve into the lack of equal opportunity in the police, military or emergency services nor does it need to examine the oppression of women in these organisations. Instead, the concept of hegemonic masculinity is most effective in examining the identity work of this group when viewed as a lens through which masculine characteristics are encouraged and feminine characteristics discouraged, and both men and women alike are affected by this environment.  

It is in this hegemonic masculine space that the first identity changes are experienced by the individuals. Lucy described it as being broken down and rebuilt as a soldier and Conrad described being a police officer as a feeling of being invincible and how the feeling pervaded every part of his life. Similar sentiments are described by all participants to differing degrees. Matthew recalled it as just doing what he was told, ‘to sit down, shut up, and listen…’. This is a result of the masculine nature of the training that starts with the development of a military body which is ready to face the necessary situations in combat (Godfrey et al., 2012). The participants from all three services, the police, military and emergency services, describe similar environments, where training is such that strength and power are enforced and weakness is discouraged. The use of masculine based activities with repetitive enforcement creates new identities in individuals by reinforcing behaviours that are conducive to their role, but less conducive to their everyday life (King, 2006).  Vanessa explained ‘..we were basically taken to a range with about 100-150 different firearms and we just got to shoot, it was an upskilling thing…’.  She further explained that they ‘disposed of hundreds of thousands of bullets’. The training creates new physical identities through the development of the ‘military body’ (Godfrey et al., 2012, p. 542), while also reinforcing new behaviours and practices to create service identities. Their socio-mental re-creation is also an embodied re-creation. The literature (Godfrey et al., 2012; King, 2006) confirms that these activities are crucial to the operation of the organisation but the impact on individual lives is considerable. The hegemonic masculine environment further enforces these masculine characteristics by positioning men against each other in a measure of their own masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Gary explained ‘…your team became your life and that was pretty toxic…’. This is apparent in the stories from the participants across all three organisations as they struggle with the loss of their team post-service, the likes of which are rarely replaced outside of service, and the lack of camaraderie that they feel in new employment. This group mentality that stems from the masculinity of the training and repeated activities is another important element in the individual’s identity connection to the service organisation.