In this unprecedented and impressive study of U.S. military recruiting materials, Melissa T. Brown notes that “the military is not just another institution in America, but one that has special ties to the nation and to concepts of citizenship … . It also serves as a standard-bearer of masculinity, which both reflects and shapes socially dominant ideas about gender” (184–85). Understandings about soldiering remain connected to ideas about gender, and these do not simply come into play for military recruits and personnel. They circulate throughout popular culture, constructing and enlisting gender in service to sociocultural as well as military norms.
Since the inception of the all-volunteer military in July 1973, recruiting strategies and appeals have become more vital than ever to the task of maintaining a sufficiently staffed military force. Because they can no longer rely on conscription, the four military branches (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) have had to craft and disseminate messages and images that will appeal to potential recruits and select for the kinds of recruits that each branch covets. Brown mines these recruiting advertisements in order to better understand how specific constructions of masculinity are invoked and deployed by each of the branches. Her sample includes print advertisements published between July 1970 (many crafted in anticipation of the new policy) and December 2007. She also viewed recruiting Web sites and television advertising. For those of us who are not as knowledgeable about the U.S. military as we should be (I include myself in this group), one of the most interesting aspects of this study is the focus on the different “personalities” of the four branches.
In the aftermath of the end of conscription, economic and personal incentives have become a more important part of the recruitment toolbox for three branches of the military. These may involve signing bonuses and rates of military pay as well as promises of subsidized education and technical training that will carry over into civilian life. Appeals to duty and citizenship have been downplayed in deference to individual gains, both economic and personal. Individual self-interest and economic advancement, keywords in the neoliberal lexicon, have been sutured to the military recruitment agenda. The exception here is the Marine Corps.
According to Brown, the Army directs its recruiting appeal to “regular guys” (41) who seek economic advancement in the civilian world, along with character development and personal transformation. Given that the Army has to be able to recruit the largest number of soldiers, the effort to appeal to “regular guys” makes perfect sense. Like the Army, the Navy also offers economic inducements but distinguishes itself with the promise of adventure. The Air Force appeals to mechanically inclined young men, who have typically hailed from working class backgrounds, along with those who are motivated by technologically sophisticated activities. Not surprisingly, video games feature prominently in Air Force recruiting efforts, although they are also used by the other branches.
The Marine Corps is a standout from the other branches for its consistent and elite depiction of a warrior masculinity as an end in itself. The appeal of the Marine Corps is much more directly tied to conventional understandings of soldiering. Young men who are seeking a vindication of traditional masculinity, a rigorous rite de passage that will confer upon them recognition from a jury of their warrior peers, will enlist in the Marine Corps at great personal risk to their lives and limbs. Casualty rates for the Marine Corps and Army are much higher than those for the Navy and Air Force. These statistics have not gone unnoticed by potential recruits. The Marine Corps, with a much lower annual enlistment target than the Army, has not had to change its recruitment strategy significantly. Apparently, there are still sufficient numbers of young men (and some women) looking for vindication and validation as warriors. The Army, on the other hand, has had to work much harder to recruit volunteers. Thus, it has participated in the expression and elaboration of new masculinities, including those tied to the business world.
While the Marine Corps and the Army represent opposing poles on the spectrum of military recruitment, each of them supplies crucial ingredients for the creative and selective construction and enlistment of masculinities in the U.S. military. The Marine Corps supplies the narrative of warrior masculinity, while the Army offers a conduit to “business-world forms of masculinity” (15). In the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, we find examples of the blending of these tropes of masculinity.
Throughout this text, Brown refers frequently to the concept of “new world order masculinity,” (16) advanced by Steve Niva (Reference Niva, Zalewski and Parpat1998). This new masculinity offers a “tough and tender model of manhood,” (156) which includes previous markers of masculinity, such as toughness and aggression, but also compassion. This paradigm of masculinity fits well with the effort to portray humanitarian projects and technological prowess as key components of the U.S. military. The “new world order masculinity” is especially well suited to the recruiting strategies of the Air Force with its emphasis on humanitarian assistance and bloodless technological instruments for identifying and destroying bad guys while protecting innocent civilians, as well as combatants who wield the technologies of destruction. To the extent that economic incentives play an important role in military recruiting, they also partake of both old and new orders of masculinity by invoking the image of the male breadwinner and caretaker as well as the self-interested individual.
Speaking of those who wield technologies of destruction with minimal threat to their own lives and limbs, the link between technology, masculinity, and vicarious warfare is one of the most disturbing and intriguing aspects of this analysis. Technology offers dominance, mastery, and control to those who might not otherwise qualify for military service. Although technology may well be gender neutral in a strict sense, it has taken on gender-specific contours and dynamics. Witness the contemporary gender gap in high-tech occupations, along with the gendered, violent, and militarized narratives of video games. Small wonder that military recruiting Web sites are now offering exciting video games as an incentive for young men! As warfare becomes more virtual rather than flesh-and-blood real, for its perpetrators (but not its victims), what hazards and opportunities will technologized warfare pose for militarized masculinity?
This recent development, along with the January 2013 lifting of the ban on women in combat by the Pentagon, offers a propitious path of entry for the feminist consideration of women in the military. (It will be interesting to see how the service branches will respond to the opportunity to apply for special exceptions up until January 2016.) As Brown has demonstrated, military recruiting materials have paid scant attention to women recruits in spite of the fact that they are vital to the success of the all-volunteer force. The overriding concern, in a post-Viet Nam and -women's movement era, has been to make the military branches attractive to men, on the presumption that men will not be attracted to ventures that do not showcase masculinity. (This presumption, alas, is not unwarranted.) The implied assumption was that women could still be counted on to join masculine endeavors (with a few overtures to equal opportunity), even if they faced discrimination and exclusion from the most masculine of endeavors, combat. How will each of the military branches implement its plans for incorporating qualified women into combat positions in the aftermath of the Pentagon decision to lift the ban? I expect that we will be hearing more from the author on this topic as events unfold.
In her conclusion, Brown notes the significant underrepresentation of African-American women relative to their participation in the military branches, especially the Army. And throughout her analysis, she notes that rates of unemployment (which have had a disproportionate effect on working-class young men and women) have had a strong influence on the effectiveness of recruiting strategies.
What will happen to gender as a military recruiting tool for an all-volunteer U.S. force that is no longer based on the conscription of men and that allows women to enter the ranks of combat forces? Will masculinity continue to be enlisted in the effort? Will the enlistment of women eventually undermine the masculine effect, or will their enlistment continue to be a subsidiary aspect of the military ethos? Will women absorb the masculine ethos and make it their own? Or will they contribute something new to the military ethos? In the latter two cases, where shall we turn for alternative and critical perspectives on militarism? These questions are inspired by the history of women's and feminist opposition to militarism and this excellent study of U.S. military recruiting advertising.
