The overarching theme of this project explores masculinity in the United States from the 1890s up until the 1940s. To be specific, this project will answer an essential question: How has military masculinity affected the American war-efforts since the Philippine-American War up until World War II?
As America began to slowly prove the world its imperial capabilities during the late-nineteenth century, the assembly of masculine warriors became a turning point to the original concept behind American manhood. Militarized masculinities embodied traits and identifications that challenge binary oppositions – “victor/victim, civilized, barbaric, clean/dirty, straight/queer, stoic/emotional” – allowing individuals to exercise masculine authority against others.[1] After the Philippine-American War, men would “claim significant authority by aligning themselves with military institutions and ideas.” The idea of soldiering would become an emblem for the state as toughness and strength became normalized.[2] At the turn of the twentieth century, the construct of masculinity had evolved from Victorian ideals to one that emphasized “self-control and ruggedness” in favor of military professionalism.[3]
During the Philippine-American War, the “cleansing” of racially “inferior” Filipinos was interpreted by imperialists as an opportunity for white Americans to mend their survival skills in tropical settings. This depiction complemented the idea of military masculinity as an antithesis to unmasculine men. In continuation, the idea of the new military man was supposed to be “virile, yet obedient, hearty, yet meticulous.”[4] By World War I, an assertive campaign to train troops was launched by military branches in an attempt to further discipline troops. This effort to create obedience entwined with ideas that circumvented what it meant to be civilized.[5]
By the time World War II began, the idea of masculinity transferred similar military sentiments from World War I. However, it began to reach wider audiences in an effort to expand wartime contributions. Farmers, amongst other civilians, began to embody and intertwine with military masculinities.[6] In turn, American propaganda depicted civilians as warriors metaphorically fighting alongside troops.
Through the exploration of three wars, military masculinity is understood as a construct that has slowly evolved, but quickly spread in America. It has been used countless times in justification for America’s efforts to imperialize abroad, industrialize domestically, and marginalize other racial and orientation groups. As a man in America, factors such as race or class determined one’s intimate connection and acceptance with male American culture.
During the turn of the twentieth century, America’s masculinity crisis led the nation to undergo a growth period, propelled by increasing monitoring and militarism efforts. As a result, definitions on masculinity have evolved over time, hyper-militarizing men in correlation with drive for power, domination, and control. In America, being a man depends on one’s class, race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and region of the country.[7] The ideal male, as described by sociologist Erving Goffman, was young, white, heterosexual, Protestant, fully employed, and among other attributes. Although masculinity was defined through homosocial interaction, the idea of masculine camaraderie marginalized other men who were labeled as “unworthy, incomplete, and inferior.”[8] Exploring masculinity between the 1890s and 1960s opens the opportunity to understand why this construct was recognized as an “archetypal expression of democracy” and its evolution over time in a military context through four different wars. [9]
This project will deconstruct the idea of masculinity in four wars – the Philippine-American War, World War I and World War II – and examine its impact on the war-efforts.
In the topic of the Philippine-American War, this section will examine the relationship between American imperialist efforts and the incorporation of masculine standards. By basing their assertions that Filipinos were unfit for autonomy, Americans characterized them as uncivilized savages, undeveloped, and unmanly. In addition, this section will explore the martial spirit, or the ideal hyper-masculine American white man and how Imperialists failed to consider Filipino men as manly, but rather “parodies of strenuous models of manhood.”[10] Lastly, the stereotype of feminized Filipinos – rendering men as effeminate – became a vital reason for U.S. intervention in the islands.[11]
During WWI, mental illnesses such as shell shock were defined as the inability to meet the demands of one’s gender.[12] This segment will explore “the [male] body’s signification of national strength” and the heightened vulnerability of the nation.[13] The idea that shell shock involved prolific sorrow and fatigue to “otherwise strong men,” made this illness a form of resistance against critiques in militarized manhood.[14] However, American discourse attempted to demonstrate how veterans could be symbolically represented as “superior, courageous war hero because of his sacrifice to the nation.”[15]
The final section will examine fears of femininity within masculine camaraderie and farm masculinity during World War II. In some historical accounts, there was a presence of “ample proof of ‘feminine’ qualities among battle-tested soldiers.” Military masculinities emitted anxieties onto women, homosexual men, and those who identified with femininity. These anxieties led to a range of weaknesses, including insecurity, shame, humiliation, failure, and subservience.[16] On a different note, military masculinity played a thematic role in the persuasion of young men to stay in farms in order to contribute to wartime production goals and maintaining a sizeable labor force. This section will also explore the portrayal of an ideal serviceman and farmer as white, brute, and ready to enter combat in the war and metaphorically in the farm field.[17]
[1] Kimmel, Michael. Manhood in America: A Cultural History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 4.
[2] Ibid., 12.
[3] Ibid., 15-16.
[4] Ibid., 16.
[5] Ibid., 16-17.
[6] Ibid., 16.
[7] Ibid., 21.
[8] Meladze, Victor. 2014. “US. Masculinity Crisis: Militarism and War.” Journal of Psychohistory 42 (2): 88–92, 93, 94–109. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=31h&AN=98546737&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
[9] Kimmel, 4.
[10] Hoganson, L. Kristin. Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-America and Philippine-America Wars (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1998), 134.
[11] Ibid., 137.
[12] Kimmel, 98.
[13] Belkin, Aaron. Bring Me Men: Military Masculinity and the Benign Façade of American Empire, 1898-2001 (New York; Columbia University Press, 2012), 36-37.
[14] Kimmel, 99.
[15] Stagner, Annessa C. “Healing the Soldier, Restoring the Nation: Representations of Shell Shock in the USA During and After the First World War.” Journal of Contemporary History 49, no. 2 (April 2014): 255–74. doi:10.1177/0022009413515532.
[16] Belkin, 29-30.
[17] Jellison, Katherine. 2018. “Get Your Farm in the Fight: Farm Masculinity in World War II.” Agricultural History 92 (1): 4–20. doi:10.3098/ah.2018.092.1.005.