Do weak states undermine masculinities?
http://www.id21.org/static/insights35art7.htm
The study of socially-constructed masculinities and their relationship to
violence reflects a healthy concern not to reduce the equation between
men and violence to simple biological determinism. To suggest that
violence is an inevitable outcome of social constructs of masculinity is
also too static. Can flawed nurturing processes fully explain the
capacity of individuals and indeed whole societies to shift between
‘cultures of violence’ and ‘cultures of peace’? Or does the
state, through its actions or inactions, shape those cultures and the
responses of individuals within them?
Masculinities can not be used as a silver bullet to explain away a wide
range of violent behaviour. The crucial question to answer is ‘when do
men become violent?’, by examining the political and economic context
of men’s lives. Is violence the outcome of failed politics? If so, is
stronger politics the answer? Such investigations would add enormously
to debates about ‘weak states’ and ‘complex political
emergencies’.
Uganda is widely regarded as a model of the ‘African Renaissance’,
yet eighteen months of field work by the Agency for Cooperation and
Research in Development (ACORD) in northern Uganda suggests that whilst
the form of the state in the north is strong its key function of citizen
protection is weak. Most people have moved to ‘protected villages’
with a military presence, but rebels raid with impunity, seizing men,
women, children, and properties at will. Men, therefore, live in
conditions in which it is virtually impossible to fulfil ‘masculine’
roles as providers and protectors, husbands and fathers. The research
also witnessed widespread human rights abuses committed by the state,
through its armed forces and police, including rape, killings,
extra-judicial executions.
Findings
indicate that:
State inaction in the face of human rights abuses had eroded men’s
self-respect, resulting in widespread feelings of fear, intimidation,
humiliation, frustration and anger, often expressed in violence against
self and the social sphere, in the forms of alcohol abuse, suicide
attempts and domestic violence. The impossibility of seeking
redress through formal channels prompts some men into passive or active
resistance to the state further prolonging war. The threat to
masculine roles and identities brought about by a weak state causes
violence, rather than ‘masculinities’ per se.
Weak states are damaging, on the one hand demanding that individuals
surrender their power to the state whilst on the other failing to keep
its side of the bargain - providing protection. Men surrender the role
of ‘self-defence’ to the state: if it is weak and fails them, the
men suffer damaging consequences to their self-esteem and
‘masculinity’.
The policy implications for NGO interventions in peace building are
challenging: clearly, peace education aimed at tackling socialisation is
not the solution. Further key policy implications include:
NGOs need to question and understand the political and economic context
which undermines what are mostly non-violent constructs of masculinity.
The state’s right to the monopoly of violence, political and human
rights theory has it, derives from its capacity to protect its citizens,
yet persistent inaction in the face of assaults on its people
disqualifies the state from enjoying that monopoly. Holding the
state to account rather than the individual, based on analysis of
political context rather than social constructs, is a delicate but
important area for ‘apolitical’ NGO involvement.
If men need help, it is to recover their dignity, their voice, and their
‘masculinity’.
Contributor(s): Chris Dolan
Funded by: Fieldwork was conducted from May 1998 to January 2000 for
DFID as part of COPE (Consortium for Political Emergencies)
Date: 08 January 2001
Further information:
Chris Dolan
ACORD
52 Horseferry Road,
London SW1P 2AF, UK
Tel: +44 (0)207 227 8600
Email: chrisd(AT)acord.org.uk
ACORD, UK
