December 2000 Insights Issue #35Do weak states undermine masculinities?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:
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:
If men need help, it is to recover their dignity, their voice, and their 'masculinity'. Contributor(s): Chris Dolan Further information: Other related links: |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Views expressed in INSIGHTS are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.
|
|||||||