Masculinity and military culture in post-1945 Germany

Soldierly Perception of Masculinity in Imperial Germany 1880-1914

According to the researchers, from last two centuries shifts have been experienced in Germany's war system. New forms of masculinity arose in 1945, when Germany was totally surrendered and so did the regime of Nazi's. The regime of Nazi's was a heroic one and after World War II new forms of masculinity arose in Germans. War system is a vital determiner of masculinity; such that changes in one have an impact on the others as well.

New configuration gives significance to refusal and gives less importance to subordination and obedience. Germany remained occupied and divided from 1945 to 1990. The years which followed the War were combined with the feminization of German society and this resulted in valorization of refusal.

The masculinity was a bit shifted to nation-state as far as occupied society was concerned. The increased pressure from the market made the society a more individualized one. It would not be wrong to say that in all western societies refusal became very common but none of the Great Powers possessed a culture of military which incorporates the idea of refusal.

According to the researchers, this mere shift is subject to the institutionalization of refusal that took place within Bundeswehr; this led to the valorization of German society on the whole. The military forces of Germany were isolated because of the deadly combat and the new generation of Germany saw the failure of the Nazi's period. If one would closely study the analysis, the history and the series of evidences then only the trends and the changes in masculinity can be understood. The relationship which existed between masculinity and war can be clearly understood if it is viewed in a longer evolutionary perception. One can even challenge the inevitability of the assumptions by making comparison between the review of archeological evidence and ethnography (Gardiner, 2004).

Historical Context

Berlin has a vast and a great history behind it. This city is not only filled with museums and monuments but one would also get to see all sorts of five story streets with stone worked apartments and buildings in it. Not only this, but a number of subway stations, canals, and hangs in the air which totally looked like clouds. A sweet aroma was often spread over the place. Apart from vast history this city even had persistent modernity. The history of Berlin is particularly inevitable and is tilted towards the 20th century, unlike the history of Paris, London, New York or even Rome (Gardiner, 2004).

Just like the other big cities, Berlin is also a multiplicity. Berlin of the Kaiserreich was the imperial city which continuously worked for the achievement of disdainful targets which it had set for itself just to be in competition with Britain and France. Then there was Berlin of Weimar era, of Otto Dix and the nightclubs. Then another one was Berlin of the Third Reich which does not have a single description.

There is one Cold War Berlin as well, which is cut into two halves by the demonstration of an iron curtain. Today's Berlin is also there in line, which is titled as Berlin after the Wall (1991), in the book of John Borneman. These Berlins are no longer in existence now; they are just present in the form of newspaper cuttings, books, grainy photographs, nightmares and bad memories. There is an unsubstantiated link with the past now, it exists just like an imagination.

Berlin after the wall is the only Berlin bearing worthy substance. The German parliament called Bundestag had its home in Reichstag, which is a stone and steel building touching the yellow skies of Berlin and have an unintentionally ironic glass. The building was designed keeping in view the democratic value of transparency. The modern structure was designed so that visitors can see the work of their representatives by looking down from overhead galleries. The actual workings of the German government are characterized by local-national alliances, intricate compromises and bureaucratic inertia (Katzenstein 1987).

The idea of staring down at the lawmakers present in session from the galleries of the new Reichstag building presents an infinite distance, which makes sense to a great extent. When a young man having close contact with political process was questioned regarding the apathy of ordinary Germans towards national politics, declared the fact that Germans consider politics to be a business of politicians.

The reason behind this thinking was the fact that the people were not able to do anything because they are not aware of the process of doing anything. The gap which occurred between past and present is actually attributed to the increasing distance between the government and people. Evasions and elisions surround the city of Berlin, where the space once captured by the Wall is not even considered an absence.

The West-that-was shaded imperceptibly by the East-that-was which resulted in the construction of renovated and modern apartments, buildings and departmental stores, each of which followed the Berlin obligatory style in construction. It has now become immensely easy to walk from West to East on erstwhile, which was not possible once without the cost of lives (Gardiner, 2004).

Masculinity and Germany

Several researchers considered the German history in detail to find out clues by considering the prior reconfigurations. The researchers aim at understanding the place of refusal in masculinity construction and the normalization of refusal in Germany. Its inception began in 1945, with the occupation and defeat of Germany, and the consequent dissolution of armed forces and the division of the country. It was further followed by the integration of Federal Republic into the Western Alliance and the inclusion of the German Democratic Republic into the Warsaw Pact. However, the part pertaining to GDR is not a part of this project (Gardiner, 2004).

The 1945 occupation of Germany resulted in the isolation of Germany from the immediate conditions of war. The Cold War in West Germany occurred due to the nuclear capabilities and capacities of the primary opponents. But, unexpectedly, West Germany created a situation of total isolation from actual combat on the frontlines of the Cold War. German soldiers were not killed in combating for decades between the reunification with the East and the founding of Bundeswehr, despite the fact that the country was occupied firstly and then had to host several large foreign troops (Gardiner, 2004).

There occurred a reunion of Germany and Western Europe. Unlike the British and French, Germany's military was not indulged in any sort of conflicts occurring with the latter half of decolonization. Moreover, the military of Germany was not even associated with peacekeeping chores too. The Federal Republic served as a strictly defensive entity due to the consistent mistrust of European neighbors and provision of the German Fundamental Law.

Second World War had totally changed the place, position and worth of whole Europe especially of Germany. This is the agreed statement of most of the researchers, who worked for bringing the relations of war and peace at the nib of pens. Joshua Goldstein (2001) was also of this idea.

History shows the Germany as a very aggressive, nationalist, belligerent and prominent state before the Second World War but in the war system and afterwards its positions revolutionary changed as an isolated, mingled comparatively peaceful state. The appraisal of military values was turned away in a proper documented way as to the maleness (masculinity). Germany was still a participant of war but its monopoly and superiority was considerably reduced and a comprehensive uncertainty of all the things related to military (Borne man 1998a, 302-302).

Now there are some questions raised i.e. how it made possible to arrange these two different elements together? The presence of any hidden underlying relation between the changes in war system and masculinity was also a question to be answered? Did the amplified assessment of refusal have some role in regard? (Gardiner, 2004)

There were some important questions of continuity and discontinuity. But the most important thing was that a society totally got changed in social values after the war repositioning. Germany had got an instant new and somehow deprived and desperate position and this new position opened the path for others to make desirable changes in the standard and values which were closely linked with masculinity.

It happened gradually as the incompetent and inaccessible forces such as obedience were gradually moved away to military values and standards. This is a claim that in recent German history there is a shift of masculine values to the obedience and discipline and same as to supreme military qualities towards refusal, liberty and frankness. It is rightly said that to participate in a war system can leads a nation's military values to a more courageous stance (Gardiner, 2004).

Researchers take Germany for an instance to illustrate their point-of-view about the prolonged trends in war period and masculinity in wars. The theory of war and masculinity is not just about to concentrate on progressive or developmental starting ingredients but it has to make ways to sort out all other causalities and disorders along with the statistical figure of all the losses whether they are generically or just destructively occurred (Gardiner, 2004).

The shift of military and social values has become a permanent trend in Germany after it weakens position in war. Although this change did not happen all of a sudden but many factors were involved in gradually changing the situation, there was still a back way to tackle the hurdles and to restore the previous standards and for these strong, sincere and collective efforts are needed to be carried out by promoting the culture and law.

Some grades this change as a natural process of refusal .If someone has to do some deliberate destruction of a particular religious, racial, political or ethnic group for the purpose of wiping them completely; it will be quite a difficult task to do but it will be possible if the order was given with the bet of one's life. Germany possessed a very racial behavior in both of world wars but did not completely succeed in it. Germany needed to learn that refusal at first step is less hard than that at the mean point otherwise these extremists behaviors will shift to the next generations to make their survival more difficult (Gardiner, 2004).

Discussion

The Origins of Masculinity and War

Joshua Goldstein was an anthropologist with a political science background. He stated about a strong relationship between war sand masculinity in his recent book. Practically this is an obvious claim which various meanings remain contentious (Goldstein 2001). It raises some questions as about the extraction from western society in this regard, about the connection of war and masculinity, and whether this connection is biological or cultural?

There are also some ethical and social grounds for questions to be answered as about the future of such persons, who got defeat in soldiery skills? Could the link between war and masculinity at any way a process to subjugate women? How it will be possible? Are there such generically discriminated rules existent in any other civilized society?

The questions that we pose are fairly basic and quite unlike certain queries given in the field of anthropology. They are highly important to social integration, justice and peace issues, making them very valuable for people at large. Working under the assumption that most of the academic isn't under the influence of sociobiology and that any projects that follow are far away from any biological determinism, we can determine that the gut-instinct link that is present between war and men is a simple product of biology or nature and over a widespread population.

It is possible that this link is almost exclusively a product of nature. Generally, we get to hear the argument that men are predisposed to violence because it is in their nature. War therefore, becomes a function of this nature. To put it down into a simple phrase, any war is the result of a human male's nature (Gardiner, 2004).

Goldstein however, presented a hypothesis that presents a flip side to this argument. According to him, war is what leads to masculinity, not the other way around. Not only this, but according to him, the origins of gender are not natural. Rather, gender is rooted in intergroup conflict's socio-cultural organization.

Through comparative anomaly, a rather interesting question was raised by Goldstein: across cultures we can see a lot of variability present between gender norms and intergroup conflict (essentially warfare in different goals, styles and modes). It was interesting to note that the cultures wherein war was common and wide spread, variations in war gendering tend to be almost nonexistent (Goldstein, 2001).

This research focuses primarily on the linkages and consequences, in the general context but also specifically for Germany. When we talk about a clear historical link present between gender and war, it goes far beyond this project's scope. This does not mean that it is not possible. Going over the collected evidence and attempting to find a way to study it could lead to some very interesting results. Going over the last two hundred years of German history and trying to determine the influence it has had on the evolution of the idea of masculinity and the system of war, should provide fascinating results for the world and contemporary Germany (Goldstein, 2001).

Masculinity: Origins and Variation

The concepts themselves i.e. gender and sex, haven't seen a lot of development until recent years. Even the differentiation between them and the manner in which they should be used is hardly straightforward. It is not just in the topic of war where gender and sex is discussed and examined in great detail. There is also the ever important debate of nurture vs. nature. Outside of academic circles, the terms sex and gender tend to be used as synonyms. So while it might be easy to attribute 'culture' to gender or/and 'nature' to sex, it would be highly inaccurate and misleading on an existential and historical scale (Goldstein, 2001).

The origins of the word 'sex' lie in Latin. It originates from the term 'sexus' or 'secus', which means 'section' meaning the female or male parts of humanity. In the beginning, there wasn't much use of the term and it wasn't until the sixteenth century that the term was specifically applied to one gender. In the late half of the sixteenth century and onward towards the middle of the seventeenth that women started being referred to as the 'gentle/weaker / fairer sex'.

Between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, the terms were shortened to simply 'the sex'. After the late eighteenth century, use of the term spread to the biological and medical writings of the time. In the modern day, the term 'sex' is used to allude to erotic behaviors. It wasn't until the start of the twentieth century that the complete connotations of the terms were understood, especially the contemporary meanings (Williams, 1983, 283-86).

Part of the contemporary meanings was a situation where 'active eros' tends to overcome the 'section of humanity' which means any place except an application form. An interesting insight that we gain from history is that 'gender', as a term, was mostly used in pure grammatical methods. It only entered the English language once the 60's and 70's feminist movement began and differentiated humans into men and women. This sectioning of humanity was done on the basis of several cultural aspects with connotations that made their way well into the twentieth century (Williams, 1983, 285).

When we look at history, we can see that using the term 'gender' in place of sex, keeping in mind both term's proper grammatical usage and associations, came from an active sense regarding sex and sexual behaviors, not from an urge to go away from the physical or bodily sex. There is a commonly held notion, especially amongst progressives that the cause for justice is better served by providing a clear distinction between gender and sex. They believe that by bringing a clear distinction between culture and biology, it would be easier to study cultural concepts and determinants. Once biology is out of the question, we can study sexuality while keeping in mind history (Winter, 2001).

It is important that when both terms are being used in an uncritical manner in order to distinguish the differences present between culture and biology so that the gap present between nurture and nature is crossed instead of increased. The attempt to differentiate between gender and sex not only goes beyond history but it is far from a simple process.

During the process, there are three sets of binary divisions which wind up being reinforced and they are: the differences that are present between culture and biology being determination agents, between females and males are biological organisms and between females and males being cultural subjects. It is possible to forcibly map these divisions out into one singularly differentiation plane (WRI, 2000).

The Masculine Continuum and Soldierly Qualities

While this paper has made the effort to talk about gender and sex in general terms, our study is focused primarily on masculinity. The term 'masculinity' refers to a certain set of traits and characteristics that is necessary for men to have. This makes it neither a gender nor sex. There is a generally held notion that becoming a man involves acquiring certain appropriate, masculine traits. It is possible that acquiring masculine traits requires that phenotypic 'maleness' has to be present (Gardiner, 2004).

David Gilmore conducted a study regarding the different masculine values that are held by various cultures all across the globe and then compiled in his book, Manhood in the Making (1990). The results of his findings showed that there are several areas where in we can observe a lot of variation. The similar areas included generosity, audacity, public performance, protecting, provisioning, procreation, marriage and sex.

When we look at the ethnographic records, it is observed that there is much variation present regarding the kind of roles that men have to play under different conditions. There were some cultures that considered harvesting crops to be a purely masculine task. Similarly, there were other cultures that said that harvesting was purely a task for women, something that a true man would avoid.

There were other cultures where certain tasks were done by men and women but others were considered to be purely women or men's tasks. In Central Brazil, the Mechinaku hold physicality and carousing traits for young men and efficacious and responsible family living for adult men to be the top masculine traits (Gregor, 1977). Different cultures have different traits that they consider being key masculine traits. In Andalusia Spain, they consider performative excellence as the best masculine trait (Gilmore, 1990).

When we see the overall picture we have of sex and gender's biocultural constitution, the diversity that we observe between gender and sex roles is consistent. Furthermore, when we see the different mix of traits and characteristics available to us, they are subject to a complex assignment between women and men. There are a certain blend of traits and characteristics which are generally considered to be supremely and clearly masculine i.e. duty, bravery, self-discipline and toughness. These characteristics tend not to show the same level of variation amongst cultures as certain other traits and are considered to be clearly linked to fighting wars (Gould, 2002).

Masculine traits are encouraged and inculcated through a wide and extensive group of passage rites, informal testing, competition and public ritual. However, these rituals and practices are not adopted by every warlike society; instead other modes are used for grooming soldierly masculinity. The unity of cross culture depends on how well maturity is brought up. Individuals must be trained, earned and regularly appraised and proven (Gould, 2001).

Further interpretations were done by Gilmore and shared his idea about masculine commonality based on neo- Freudian psychoanalysis (Gilmore 1990, 26 -27). Although his ideas are based on facts, they are still unable to explain the basic masculine characteristics along with testing and rites that are linked with building up of men.

The theory of neo-Freudian basically discusses the experience of male after he is separated from his mother. This is known as developmental trauma. Apparently, this trauma came in to existence from the formation of gender which is different from his mother along with the establishment of autonomous identity.

It is true that all individual men have to separate from their mothers; however, a few cultures do not allow soldierly traits for these men. The fact is that that the culture of soldierly traits is mostly found in those people who are involved in war system.

In addition to this, cultures that do not have any kind of military masculinity are not segmented, belonging to foraging groups Kelly (2000). They are not prepared for war, thus the sample of Gilmore, Tahitians and Semai are included in this (Gilmore 1990, 201-219).

The Sex/Gender System

Manliness exists under a socio-cultural context and even the most omnipresent aspects form the greater part of the cultural system. That is why it is said that manliness is not an uncomplicated precipitate of customs and practices. Although the linkage between war and masculinity is a quite obvious one but the perspective of the gender under which such masculinity generates is important to consider. In order to identify the gender issue, this paper has given consideration to the ideas of Gayle Rubin which was related to sex-gender system (Bartov, 2000).

"The Traffic in Women" is an essay which was written in 1975 by Rubin, there were a few bold dialogues in this essay which carried great importance and are absolutely true. The dialogues said that the literature which has been written on both anti-feminist and feminist approaches is a long cognition on the questions which are related to origin and nature of the women oppression and also on their social subordination (157). This is the reason why this essay is regarded as an important tool in carrying out analysis regarding the gender and the division of labor.

If Non-feminist and feminist writings are brought into consideration then we realize that the culture takes gender as a certain thing. When a discussion of gender is made in the "crisis of masculinity" it is usually in a conservative manner. It was pointed out by Rubin that the feminists focus on the beginning of subordination. Nobody is sure as to what is actually the real problem, is it culture or nature? An analysis of post-modernist can give a suitable answer, but it is commonly believed that the feminist analysis of gender domination buys modes of power and male categories (also see Bundeswehr, 1997; FAZ, 2000a, 2000b).

The problem is still in existence, as no hypothesis have till now succeeded in identifying the real origin of gender oppression. If it is said that women are weaker than men as far as their power and wealth is concerned, then it would not be totally wrong, but why is it so, is still a question. If the answer to this question is seen from a man's perspective, then the answer seekers go even a step backward because men usually try to empower women.

According to a male conspiracy theory (Patriarchy), all men are by nature more aggressive, dominating and oppressing then most of the women. These characteristics of men thus provide them with an upper hand to perform well in the battle field, where they even support each other. Another part of this theory focuses on the limitations of a woman or more specifically a mother. Under which it highlights the duties towards the children, the weak bodies, and the inclination towards pacifism which are a few factors that act as barriers in the life of women (see Funck, 2002).

Much of the analysis that has taken place on gender oppression mostly avoids questions concerning the reasoning of labor division. These questions regarding the origin of gender oppression are often evaporated in the air and more focus is laid on the gender prejudice which takes place through cultural engineering. Even though this fact about inequality is acknowledged by all but its reason is never stated.

Conclusion

Sex is basically a mixture of characteristics which exist due to an amalgamation of cultural and biological aspects. Manliness fits perfectly in the gender system under a set of standards which is expected by the society that all the men would follow. These standards change a little with a change in culture, but when it is related to wars then the standards remain constant. To sum up one can say that Masculinity is present everywhere in a society where fighting takes place.

Different backgrounds are responsible for the variation found among the cultures. In the cultural view, masculinity is the characteristic which involves financial activity, sexual reproduction, social association and family form, though these matters differ in each culture.

The societies which are peaceful or do not have wars on a constant basis, have less respect and honor for armed forces due to which they do not value the development of a soldier. Whereas, the countries such as Germany, which are pugnacious, have much more esteem for the soldierly masculinity as they are well aware of the fact that they will protect them in warfare. These sophisticated beliefs concerning the significance of manhood, lead to the development of further resources for training and strengthening purpose.

Thus, it is said that wars and masculinity occur at the same time, manliness grows in a country as the warfare in tend to increase. This matter needs to be further investigated but several researchers also agree to the fact that amplified wars bring about greater number of armed forces, which is a sensible suggestion.

Encouragement of maximum number of boys towards soldierly masculinity can be achieved by means of building resources, services as well as proper system of management for them so that, they can be properly treated as well as rewarded for their sacrifices and services, given for the benefit of Germany. In this way, many groups involving in combat can be connected up by this coordination.

A model which lead certain groups to accept a system in which a proportion of its members posses soldierly characteristics is not possible, however, there is one type C adaptationist model possible. There exist different groups which vary according to the existence of soldiery masculinity - may be by 'pre-adaptation' of characteristics for some other aspiration such as hunting, tradition or for some benefits, most likely in armed conflict. These groups may possibly do well through their strong defense or using their defeating power and may extend, by means of burying their manliness in local representation of battleship.

Even the soldiery manliness is not enough for war. Other groups can replicate such masculine characteristics as they would see it as a benefit in fighting wars. They would adopt such characteristics although they would be uncertain about their success.

Growth of masculinity is due to the force which is exerted by the social complexity; it is the point where the system for wars comes forward. Further study needs to be done on this topic however, other reasons maybe responsible for the development of war system, such as selective forces may perhaps directly shape them or they might be created from whole cloth that is, parasitical approach, or else any other existing representations at that time.

If they are once created or formed, then by means of replication, invasion, robbery, migration, or any other way of infectivity, they can be easily smeared. Both the modes are inclusive of each other, and maybe in the future, these resources, and management systems in Germany acquire great importance ahead of wars.

As a consequence, wherever the war initiates, masculinity itself begins to grow and encourage the young boys to come into this field. This has become a difficult injudicious of masculinity and femininity. Therefore, a question is automatically raised that why men? This concern indicates that whenever such issues of warfare arise, why only maleness is forced to come up as soldiers of the country?