In the book entitled An Intimate History of Killing, Joanna Bourke discusses the culture of war and the heroism of a soldier. She includes the stories of men who revealed their admiration for their fathers or the fathers of their friends who had fought in a war. This youthful admiration of soldiers and fascination led to the popularization of combative games that involve a winner who kills and a loser who dies. Little boys shouting out, “Bang! Bang! You’re dead” in a game of Cowboys and Indians, and purchasing GI-Joes, guns, and fighter planes are captivated by the concept of going to war. These boys want to be known as the heroic, “cool” fathers who share first-hand experiences with bloody conflict (Intimate, 1-32). Why is the picture of a soldier killing another human being one that signifies masculinity? As we discuss masculinity in violence, the topic of gangs comes into play. A recent issue concerning the US is the increasing number of gang members who are serving in the military forces. These are individuals who are trained by the US government to enact war, and after their deployment they are applying these skills to conduct organized violence at home. How does this problem conflict with the image that society portrays of a soldier? How does the presence of gangs in the military threaten national security, and what can be done to resolve this issue? With these questions in mind, we will delve into the topic of war and gang-related violence as they relate to the social perception of masculinity, and we will pay close attention to the application of international relations theories to this discussion.
With feminist international relations interests in mind, much research has been conducted to prove the relationship between acts of murder and the intention of the killer to proclaim masculinity through violence. One term used in these studies is dominant masculinity, which is a behavior that subordinates women in society in an effort to gain power, authority, and physical toughness. This behavior has been associated with mass murderers, and clarifies some of the psychological factors that contribute to violent conduct. Mass murderers often have encountered some form of failure and subsequent public embarrassment and anger that motivates them to seek power and control over society through acts of violence (Hegemonic Masculinity, 65). On inner-city streets, violence is the means by which conflicts are resolved. Violence is a necessary characteristic, or norm, of the structure of inner-city street culture. Young men who grow up in poor, urban environments turn to violence to project an image of masculinity and to earn the respect of their peers. This trend contributes to the spread of gangs (Hegemonic Masculinity, 65).
If we translate this research into the language of war, acts of violence are the product of powerful, masculine ability that merits authority and respect. This topic touches upon Bourke’s discussion in An Intimate History of Killing of the father-figure who is a former soldier. The father figure tells stories with pictures of bloody, violent scenes and valiant troops of men who defeat their enemy. This is a man who has the authority to end the life of another human being, and who has the respect and camaraderie of his fellow soldiers and his country. Young boys grow up envying the masculinity of a heroic soldier with this image in mind (Intimate, 9-11). What happens when the gang culture enters the war culture? Are soldiers able to represent the nation if they are also associated with gangs? How does this impact the way that the youth admire soldiers and military culture?
The FBI reports that the number of gang members serving in the military has increased dramatically in recent years. Reports have exposed Marines on Parris Island wearing gang apparel, paratroopers displaying gang hand signs near Fort Bragg, infantrymen with gang tattoos at Fort Hood, and gang-related graffiti on military vehicles in Afghanistan (CBS). At least 53 gangs have been identified within each department of service in the US military forces. In the 2011 assessment of national gang threat, the FBI stated, “Law enforcement officials in at least 100 jurisdictions have come into contact with, detained, or arrested an active duty or former military gang member within the past three years” (FBI, Stats 2011). Gang culture has expanded throughout the military as a result of transfers and deployments to new regions nationally and internationally. This issue starts from the point of military recruitment. CBS reported that, “Since 2003, 125,000 recruits with criminal histories have been granted what are known as ‘moral waivers’ for felonies including robbery and assault” (CBS). Military recruits are able to conceal their gang-related tattoos and enter the military with an evident criminal record. In many cases, street gang members enlist in the military to escape the gang lifestyle or as an alternative to incarceration. However, in many cases they revert back to their old ways once they’ve met other gang members in service. Other gangs enter the military to strategically gain access to weapons and combat training or to expand their gang’s network. The spread of gang activity in the military is directly correlated with the expansion of gang culture in America (FBI, Stats 2011).
Military-affiliated gang members pose a major threat to law enforcement due to their access to military weaponry and combat training skills, especially once they’ve taught their fellow gang members what they learned while in service (FBI, Stats 2011). When we look more closely into the military culture and gang-related culture, we see some points of similarity. Both gangs and military troops consist of members who sacrifice their lives for a common cause and for the sake of their unit. As a result, both of these groups exist with a strong sense of camaraderie and passionate dedication. Involvements within both groups have been linked to acts of violence and social perceptions of masculinity. Gang activity is considered criminal and threatening, but gang members are still admired by the youth that are influenced heavily by gang culture in their neighborhoods. As soldiers are admired by the youth, gang members in the military may serve as role models to the youth that are currently affected by gang cultures in their hometowns. This could lead to young people growing up to join the military-related gang network and expand it further. If the image of a soldier is flawed by criminal behavior, how will this affect social perceptions of heroism? Masculinity is associated with respect from peers, power in authority and physical toughness. This perception of masculinity doesn’t falter when gangs enter the military, but the valor of a soldier’s duty is damaged when that soldier is also committing crimes at home. Perhaps the increase in gang activity in the military will contribute to a diminished sense of patriotism. As a result, the soldier role-model for youth may be replaced with an inspirational role in society, one that may disagree with serving the nation, or that may take a non-violent approach.
Clearly, the relationship between society’s perception of masculinity and its fascination with military violence is rooted in feminist international relations theory. A feminist would argue that the presence of gang members in the military is a consequence of the unchallenged social perceptions of masculinity and how that’s influenced gang activity and violence. Realists perceive the issue of transnational networks of organized crimes as a threat to security. Therefore, realists would suggest that military-related gangs can threaten national security because they’ll fight for the interests of their gangs despite their allegiance to their country. Constructivists insist that individuals act based on the culture or identity to which they wish to belong. A gang member who is enlisted in the military cannot identify with both labels and has to act based on the interests of one or the other. Therefore a constructivist might agree with a realist on the point that the split objectives of a military-related gang member would lead the individual to act upon one or the other identity, possibly threatening national security.
In class we spoke about how organized crime is an integral part of society, and we learned that it accounts for an illegal global exchange of goods and services valued at $10 trillion. This fact makes the depletion of transnational crime networks improbable and even hurtful to society. If gang-related crimes grow to the point that they become an integral sect of the military, they will be too incorporated in the system and nearly impossible to combat. Stricter regulations should be placed on filtering gang members out of the pool of recruits. More action should be taken to limit gang-related activity nationally as the national statistics of gang involvement are directly related to military statistics. Liberal international relations theorists would suggest that the creation of institutions that combat gang involvement and violence is the solution to this issue. Programs are currently in place to reduce gang activity by deporting illegal immigrants who have ties with gangs. Yet these institutions aren't effective enough to bring resolution to the issue of gang activity in America, and the problem with gangs is growing. I tend to agree with the constructivist perspective that a sense of identity gives reason to your actions. Therefore, I’d promote better education, support systems, and access to proper resources for stable living conditions in gang-stricken regions of the country. If people have an outlet outside of gang activity to be productive citizens, they’ll associate themselves with positive social identifiers and gang activity, both nationally and in the military, will decrease. Military-related gang activity is an critical issue affecting America today, and if we don’t work together to negotiate a solution for this problem, it will grow to the point that it will threaten national security, cause destructive social trends, create a negative view of the military and its soldiers, and will become an integral, undefeatable aspect of the military society.
Pictures of military-related gang activity are featured below:
Source for first picture: CBS, Source for second and third pictures: FBI
Works Cited
"2011
National Gang Threat Assessment." FBI. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Nov.
2012.
<http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment>.
Charles,
Christopher A.D. "Hegemonic Masculinity and Mass Murderers in the United
States." Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.academia.edu/1199492/Hegemonic_Masculinity_and_Mass_Murderers_in_the_United_States>.
"Exclusive:
Gangs Spreading In The Military." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 11
Feb. 2009. Web. 04 Nov. 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-3107316.html>.
Thanks a lot for the post Emilie this is a really interesting topic! My question is related to your comment about Constructivism and soldiers' identities. Why do you believe that a soldier's identity as a gang member would conflict with their identify as a member of the United States Military? Do you believe that if someone is a gang member it means that they are unable to be dedicated soldiers ready to die for their country?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Jeremy! In terms of your question, a constructivist would insist that an individual can only identify with one label or affiliation. The example that Professor Craig made in class was that a constructivist would suggest that a multiracial person can only identify with one of those races as his/her identity. A constructivist would say that an individual can only identify with being a gang member or a soldier, and he/she cannot possibly be committed to fulfilling both interests at the same time. A soldier's duty is to serve and risk his life for his country, but a gang member has that commitment to his gang. A realist would say that this separate affiliation would lead a gang member to serve the interests of the gang instead of those of the military. This occurred recently with the news of gang members who smuggled military weaponry outside of the military and who taught their combat skills to their fellow gang members at home. A constructivist would argue that this gang member has a dedication to his gang; therefore he/she can’t be dedicated to his/her role in the military. Can a gang member die for his country? The answer to that question according to IR theory is yes, if he chooses to be affiliated with the military instead of his gang.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify: a constructivist doesn't necessarily hold the view that identities must always be singular. The point of view I mentioned in that regard was Mary Kaldor's, who suspects that some identities are *constructed* in exclusive, singular ways ("If you are a good X, that must be all that you are!") while others are *constructed* in more cosmopolitan ways ("You can be an X and a Y"). Constructivists might then go on to say that the choice of whether identities are exclusive or inclusive depends on both the instrumentality of each path for the individual, and also on the social context (and "structures") in which they operate. So: to your gang member/soldier identity clash; I think there are many reasons that the two identities might be hard to reconcile with one another from a constructivist position, as they are produced by radically different structures; but that's not to say that applies to ALL identities. Some will be highly compatible.
DeleteJust to clarify: a constructivist doesn't necessarily hold the view that identities must always be singular. The point of view I mentioned in that regard was Mary Kaldor's, who suspects that some identities are *constructed* in exclusive, singular ways ("If you are a good X, that must be all that you are!") while others are *constructed* in more cosmopolitan ways ("You can be an X and a Y"). Constructivists might then go on to say that the choice of whether identities are exclusive or inclusive depends on both the instrumentality of each path for the individual, and also on the social context (and "structures") in which they operate. So: to your gang member/soldier identity clash; I think there are many reasons that the two identities might be hard to reconcile with one another from a constructivist position, as they are produced by radically different structures; but that's not to say that applies to ALL identities. Some will be highly compatible.
DeleteI was not aware of how large of a problem this was in the military! Great post! My question is, do you think that gang members in the military is always a bad thing? My opinion is that gang members who enter the military might be changed for the better. They are taken away from the pressure of gang life and put into a more productive and legal environment. They then have to go through rigorous training that not only trains their bodies, but also their minds and makes them more mature. I think that the new allegiance to brotherhood that they create may allow at least some of the gang members to realize that they should get out of the life in a gang. It allows for space to think about their lives and where they will go from there. The time spent in the military has been proven to make young men mature in their mindsets and will give them a new perspective on life. Personally, I think allowing gang members into the military will be a great personal benefit to them, without being too detrimental to society. I feel that they would come back more mature and more able to get themselves out of gangs. If not, I'd propose "gang counseling" for those identified gang members to know about their options after the military.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Valerie! Before I started my research for this post, I hadn't heard of the issue either. I see your point here, and I agree that the military offers a structured lifestyle, lessons in maturity and respect for authority, and a sense of brotherhood that can be helpful for reforming gang members. The research I've done shows that gang members get pulled back into gang activity once they've found other gang members in their military troops. Once multiple gang members form a unit and they all have access to military training and weaponry, this propagates the very behavior that poses a threat to national security. Even if the gang member doesn’t continue with illicit activities while serving in the military, once he gets back home there are few resources available for him to avoid returning to his former gang. Clearly there are several issues that arise due to the central problem of gangs entering the military.
DeleteThe following isn’t a point that was covered in my research, but I’d like to extrapolate on the potential negative effects of the military on the actions of gang member. Research tells us that an individual who decides to become involved with gang activities could be trying to proclaim a sense of masculinity. This masculine status is associated with acts of violence, a right to authority, and the respect of others. The military offers tools and training to enact violence and has a hierarchical structure. Gang members that enter the lower ranks of military duty could potentially become frustrated by their lack of power or respect compared to their commanding officers. This struggle could lead the gang members to seek violent or illicit activity as a means of proclaiming the masculine authority and respect for which they strive.
I’m not a psychologist, but I believe there are multiple possible outcomes to gang members entering the military, and the military isn’t necessarily the best outlet for gang members to reform their ways. What we need are programs that handle the issue of gangs from their roots before they expand and produce problems in areas such as our military. Psychological treatment should be integrated in these programs, but I don’t know if offering that treatment to gang members currently in the military would be successful. Consider that gang members aren’t often open about their gang affiliations while serving, the numbers shown in the FBI research are from an anonymous survey. This issue is a complex one, and I don’t believe that there is one correct answer about how to address the problem correctly, but I hope that this has helped answer your question!
Thanks for the great post Emilie! You really addressed the issue from all angles. Now I know that feminist IR is not necessarily about women. It is more about the role gender plays in world politics in general. However, one of your points about masculinity made me question the opposite feminist view.
ReplyDeleteYou say, "Mass murderers often have encountered some form of failure and subsequent public embarrassment and anger that motivates them to seek power and control over society through acts of violence"
In what way does gender specifically enhance one's violent tendencies? Why is it that you rarely hear about female mass murderers. We must get the stereotypes of the violent and/or heroic male military figures from somewhere. Are men more likely to be in gangs than women? I know that this is getting more into psychology, but if you came across any of this in your research I'd be interested to hear about it!
Thanks for the comment Madison! You bring up some very intriguing questions.
DeleteIn the context of my readings, I don’t know the reason why there are less reported female mass murderers or gang members than male. Most of the articles I read simply described the masculinity of the violent intentions of these individuals and provided examples of men fulfilling these roles. However, I did look further into the topic of female participation in gangs, and I came across a study done at Stanford University that indicates a recent rise in female participation in gangs. Women have participated in gangs since the supposed advent of gang activity in the1800’s. The article I looked at says that his new trend is a result of impoverished living conditions and the search for a social identity, a perspective with which constructivists would agree. From a feminist perspective, the rise in female involvement in gangs could be a product of the female search for power in a male-driven society. Therefore, women are trying to proclaim their own authority and power in society through a role that is identified with masculinity and violence. The statistics definitely bring support for the case that violence is linked to our culture’s perception of masculinity. If you’re interested in further researching this topic, the article that I’m referencing is found here: http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/ganginterv/hfemalegang.htm.
Concerning the stereotypes that exist concerning male heroic roles in the military, we can look back to the book I referenced in the beginning of my post, An Intimate History of Killing by Joanne Bourke. Bourke describes a social culture most commonly associated with the mid-20th century in which the male father figures and role-models tell war stories that influence the aspirations of young boys. The heroic stories that these father figures shared could have been a means of disguising the immense fear and vulnerability that one experiences in wartime, especially during that period of American involvement in multiple wars and conflicts. Little boys looked up to these soldiers and father figures, and they would play games that imitated violence and war after their examples. Cowboys and Indians, GI Joes, heroic comic books, toy guns, and military propaganda were used to gain support for the US involvement in the wars and helped establish to the heroic soldier stereotype.
Great post Emilie, I was wondering if you ran across the effects that the gang members have during their service in the military. You mentioned above that they could engage in gang related actions in their company, but what is the overall effect they have on the structure? I understand the worry about their potential loyalty and service, but it seems as though their job as a soldier wouldn't have much of an affect on the overall strength of an army or the state.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you mentioned that constructivists believed that someone could only be part of one identity, in your example either a gang member or a soldier, but I was under the impression that it was the interplay between all of the identities that a person might have that creates structure. I might be wrong on that, but I thought a constructivist might believe that the identity of a soldier when they return would affect the way that they interact with the gang, as they would identify with both. Wouldn't the returning soldiers come back to their gang with a stronger sense of nationalism after fighting for their country? I understand that if my assumption of multiple identities is wrong, this would not be the case, and also that some soldiers return with less patriotism anyway, but how might those gang members affect the international nature of some gangs, as their allegiance is less to the gang and more to the country? Is it possible that gang members returning from war actually strengthen a state's security by decreasing the international nature of their criminal activity?
These are just conceptual questions, and I understand that I could be wrong, but I feel like there is more to the issue than the gang members simply making the army less strong and reinforcing masculine stereotypes. Also, did you ever come across a figure comparing the amount of female and male gang members who joined the military? If there are more women joining gangs alone than there are women gang members joining the military a feminist theory would have to account for that gender gap and its impact. It might say something about the masculine image in general. I'm just curious though, as it is something to mull over.