Troubling Masculinities: Changing Patternsof Violent Masculinities in a Society Emerging
from Political Conflict
Fidelma Ashe and Ken Harland
Men’s dominance of the political and military dimensions of theNorthern Ireland conflict
has meant that the story of the conflict has generally been a story about men. Ethnonationalist
antagonism reinforced men’s roles as protectors and defenders of ethnonational
groups and shaped violent expressions of masculinities. Due to the primacy of
ethno-nationalist frameworks of analysis in research on the conflict, the relationships
between gender and men’s violence have been under-theorized. This article employs the
framework of Critical Studies of Men and Masculinities to examine these relationships
and also explores the changing patterns of men’s violence in Northern Ireland.
During the early years of second wave feminism the constitution of men’s gendered identities
remained concealed in gender analysis. The newly emerging and radical feminist
movements of the 1960s recognized that, historically, men had been the subjects of social
and political inquiry and many feminists at that time wanted to place women at the forefront
of analysis. Feminism’s core analytical focus on femininity resulted in the equation of gender
analysis with studies of women; men remained genderless, the norm and the standard
by which the identities of women were evaluated. However, by the 1980s gender studies
had started to examine men as a gendered category, giving rise to new directions in feminist
research that culminated in an explosion of academic interest in men and masculinities in
the 1990s. Since then, masculinity or masculinities, “that previously untraversed frontier”
in feminist analysis, has become “gold rush territory.”1
While in other geopolitical contexts it seemed like “everyman and his dog”2waswriting
about masculinities during this period, in Northern Ireland masculinities remain uncharted
territory in political analysis. The reasons for this lack of interest are paradoxically both
simple and complex, and we consider them in the early part of this article. The article then
engages in an exploration of the analytical and political value of addressing the category
of masculinities in political research on Northern Ireland. Turning the analytical lens to a
core concern of mainstream analysis it draws out the value of assessing the relationships
between masculinities and changing patterns of violence in the region since the onset of
the Troubles in 1969.
Masculinities and Mainstream Analysis
The global upsurge in academic discourses around masculinities from the 1980s was
generated by a range of social, cultural, and political changes that led to claims that
traditional forms of normative masculinities were being eroded by new social conditions.3
Social changes that weakened traditional models of gender identities fuelled interrogations
of masculinities in other geopolitical contexts and in Western Europe and North America
in particular.4 Even when feminists sent out “mixed messages” about the ability of men to
engage critically with their gender identities, social changes generated what was largely a
deconstruction of masculinities by male academics and writers.5
As the next section reveals, Northern Ireland was not immune to the effects of the social
changes that fuelled men’s engagement with masculinities elsewhere. However, the onset
of the Troubles reinforced traditional forms of masculinities and created conditions that
preserved men’s power in both public and private arenas; the fortification of men’s power
tended to marginalize feminism both culturally and politically.6 However, the dynamics of
the conflict, explored in more detail in later sections, do not explain fully why mainstream
analysis in the region has paid so little attention to studies of masculinities. Theoretical and
institutional frameworks have also played a role.7
In other contexts the increasing influence of post-structuralism from the 1970s created
affinities between mainstream political theory and feminism. The deconstruction of subjectivity,
the critique of traditional theories of power and the “cultural turn” were common
to both scholarly traditions. Referring to the North American context, Newton writes that
by the late 1980s “male authored ‘postmodern’ theories of knowledge, identity, and power
had brought male colleagues closer theoretically to their feminist colleagues.”8 Yet, despite
the institutional integration of critical gendered analysis into the academy and the growth
of explorations of masculinities, feminism remained on the borders of mainstream analysis
even in contexts such as Scandinavia and North America where it ismore firmly established
both educationally and politically. Yet, in general, social and intellectual change combined
to increase feminism’s influence within the academy from the 1980s, which helped frame
gender as an integral aspect of discussions of democracy, identity, difference, and justice.9
The influence of contemporary political theory on formulations of human subjectivity
was a key theoretical development that supported the integration of gender identities
into more traditional areas of political analysis.10 The human subject has increasingly
been understood “as being constructed and continuously reconstructed out of a variety
of competing discourses.”11 Subsequently, identities become framed as products of narratives
and practices. This understanding of identities often draws on post-structuralism’s
re-conceptualizations of power as operating through multiple modalities such as ethnicity,
gender, class, and sexuality, thereby increasing the space for the integration of gender into
understandings of identities.12 Most scholarship in the region has not been influenced by
the “cultural turn” and ethnic blocs tend to be viewed as concrete political entities that limit
the space for gendered analysis to emerge.13 Analyses of the conflict have concentrated
on ethnicity for obvious reasons and have generally focused on the strategies and political
agendas of ethnic groups as opposed to ethno-gendered groups.
Additionally, the inequalities, antagonisms, and violence constituted through gendered
relationships have not been viewed as core concerns for political analysis by themainstream.
In the context ofNorthern Ireland political research has coded a range of identities as core or
peripheral sites of analysis.Moreover, the institutional power-sharing framework reinforced
the marginal location of gender politics in the political realm. The peace Agreement14 in
1998 was framed around elite negotiations and bargaining that reinforced the continued
importance of the political standpoints, strategies, and struggles of ethno-nationalist communities.
Rather than creating the conditions for a model of devolved government based
around heterogeneity and diversity that recognizes the political standpoints of a range of
marginalized groups including women, the Agreement reinforced the political power of
ethnic blocs.15
While feminists have continued to try to push issues such as the political underrepresentation
of women on to mainstream agendas and have highlighted the continuing
occlusion of gender in analysis, which has prompted some mainstream scholars to scrutinize
the political and communal positioning of women, studies of masculinities remain the
preserve of a small number of feminist theorists. For some mainstream theorists masculinities
are not relevant. Even against the background of the perceived “failures” of militarism
in the region, masculinities have remained outside of the boundaries of critical analysis. In
contrast, the end of the Vietnam War provoked intense reflection on American manhood.16
Masculinity did not cause the conflict, but as illustrated below it has been an integral
aspect of its contours.17 Twenty years on from the paramilitary cease-fires that opened space
for the development of processes of demilitarization, interrogations of the interactions
between particular constitutions of masculinities and the ethnic conflict have not been
sufficiently developed or integrated into the broader analysis of the conflict or conflict
transformational processes in the region. In the absence of thorough academic scrutiny,
masculinities have become framed through sensationalized journalistic accounts of the
hyper-masculinity of high profile paramilitaries such as Johnny Adair.18 Feminism provides
much more than a reductionist theory of patriarchy to analysts mapping the intersectionality
of identities in contexts of ethnic antagonism. We utilize the framework of Critical Studies
of Men and Masculinities to illustrate how masculinities were an element in “formations of
violence” during the conflict and conflict transformational periods.19 This framework views
identities as socially constituted, multi-faceted and open to reconstitution. Illuminating
masculinities as elements in the conflict, and identifying howcertain models ofmasculinities
engender a range of power-effects frames masculinities as an important area of concern in
the analysis of Northern Ireland’s conflict and conflict transformational process.
Critical Studies of Masculinities
The framework of critical studies of men and masculinities (CSMM) was originally set
out by Jeff Hearn and David Morgan to provide a theoretical agenda to guide analytical
work across a range of studies of men.20 CSMM was designed to consolidate and extend
feminism’s critical focus onto the terrain of masculinities21 by theorizing masculinities as
historical, context dependent, shifting, and multi-faceted identities.22 From this perspective,
men’s gender identities, or their masculinities, are constituted through social discourses
and practices; they are not biologically determined.23 Subsequently, the constitution of
masculinities depends on the particular constructions of men’s gendered identities that
become dominant or normative within specific societies, groups, and contexts. Moreover,
reflecting the influence of the work of Raewyn Connell, CSMM understands masculinities
as intersectional identities shaped not only by gender but also by factors such as ethnicity,
social class, sexuality, age, and disability.24
The complexity of the cultural constitution ofmasculinitiesmeans that what constitutes
normative masculinities is constantly shifting and open to reconfiguration through social
change. Moreover, the intersectionality of masculinities results in relationships of power
and subordination between groups of men.25 Most of the critical literature in the area
recognizes that while men as a group benefit from the social organization of gender,
particular groups of men are located in socially subordinated positions due to, for example,
their ethnicity or social class.26 Subsequently, analysts have struggled to define the core
ideals of masculinities with some scholars suggesting that the category should be kept open
and undefined.27
Despite the slippery nature of the concept scholars have identified a range of features
that have tended to be associated with normative masculinities in contemporary Western
societies. Independence, autonomy, superiority, dominance over others, heterosexuality, and
aggression or violence are strongly identified with the achievement of normative models
of masculinities. Unsurprisingly, the issue of men’s violence has been of particular interest
to scholars working in the area of domestic violence,28 but scholars working in the areas of
nationalism and international relations have also engaged with the relationships between the
ideals of normative masculinities and men’s involvement in violent nationalist conflicts.29
These studies have illustrated how the ideals of normative manhood have served nationalist
struggles by forming part of the discursive narrative that, to borrow from Althusserian
terminology, “hails” or “calls” men to protect and fight for the nation.30 Nagel comments
that: “terms like honour, patriotism, cowardice, and duty are hard to distinguish as either
nationalist or masculinist, since they seem so thoroughly tied both to the nation and to
manliness.”31
While masculinities in contexts of nationalist conflict are constituted through these
broad ideological themes, the complexity of masculinities means that a localized analysis
of their constitution provides greater insight in to the relationships between masculinity and
political violence within particular geopolitical contexts. The following section exposes the
specific configurations of masculinities, class and nationalism that produced patterns of
violent behaviour by groups of men during the conflict in Northern Ireland. In a changing
political culture characterized by processes of de-militarization the narratives and practices
of violent masculinities will reconfigure, and we map these changes in later sections,
paying particular attention to young men. However, the framework of CSMM reminds
researchers that studies of men and masculinities can inadvertently occlude women and
wider networks of gender inequality from the analysis. The occlusion of women in analyses
of men reflects an approach that has become known as men’s studies; a framework that has
been heavily criticized for failing to place the analyses of masculinities within the broader
context of the historical relationships of gender.32 Such an approach would be particularly
regressive in the Northern Ireland context given that gender inequality and power have been
under-theorized. A critical analysis of masculinities directly informed by feminist concerns
can provide a point of engagement that opens a broader analysis of gender focusing on
the reproduction of gender inequities through the constitution of both masculinities and
femininities.
Moreover, as the analysis of the changing patterns ofmen’s violence in Northern Ireland
develops, it will become clear that certain models of masculinities have a range of negative
effects on men. However, these costs occur in broader networks of gender oppression and
the narratives that emerge around the costs of violent masculinities have implications for
wider discussions of gender inequality. Therefore, we pay close attention to the effects of
violent nationalist masculinities on women’s positioning in both the conflict and conflict
transformational period.
Masculinities and the Troubles
Understanding the dominant models of masculinities within particular societies is an important
starting point for engaging with masculinities and political violence. Prior to the period
of the Troubles, normative gender roles in Northern Ireland were generally reflective of
those in other industrialized Western societies.33 The dominant construction of masculinity
revolved around the core idea that developing a normative masculinity required the
achievement of the protector/provider role. Traditionally, the role of protector/provider underpinnedmen’s dominance in both the workplace and the family.34 Conversely, normative
femininity was achieved through the roles of wife and mother.35
Middle-class men achieved the protector/provider role mainly through the professions
and business ventures. Up until the 1960s heavy industries such as shipbuilding, which
tended to be located in protestant working-class areas, provided a family wage and enabled
working-class protestant men to secure breadwinner status within the family. Catholic men
tended to be employed in the lower end of the job market. Catholics were employed predominantly
in unskilled and lower-paying jobs, such as clothing manufacture and textiles.36
The number of foreign multinational companies in Northern Ireland rose from 7 in 1958
to 27 in 1968 generating many new manufacturing jobs37 filled by both Protestant and
Catholic workers.38
From the 1970s, the Northern Ireland economy had begun to reflect more general
economic trends in industrialized societies, including a decline in the heavy engineering
industries that provided employment for working-class men. Declining heavy industries in
Northern Ireland were replaced by service industries and a large public sector. By the 1990s,
the combined effects of the neoliberalism and globalization had reshaped the social and
economic contours of most European and North American countries, including Northern
Ireland. The conflict shaped the effects of these broader economic trends. Political murders,
sectarian assassinations, car-bombings, petrol bombings, and the actions of paramilitary
groups created “a defender” mentality in the working-class communities that bore the
brunt of the violence and were also blighted by high levels of unemployment. Moreover,
the conflict created costs for companies operating in Northern Ireland and many shifted
production to other countries. However, the “peace dividend.” which was delivered mainly
in the form of European funds meant inward investment returned. For example, between
1995 and 1999 €400 million of European funding supported 13,000 projects in Northern
Ireland that focussed on job creation, social inclusion, urban and rural regeneration, and
cross-border co-operation.39 Economic investment in the region led to a period of sustained
economic growth and large-scale redevelopment40 including the £400 million Victoria
Square retail development in Belfast City Centre and more recently the Titanic Quarter
Scheme costing over £1 billion. However, the impact of broader economic restructuring on
working-class men’s ability to secure their traditional breadwinner role was reflected in the
new forms of employment created. Of the 52,320 jobs created during the “peace dividend
years, 1995-2000, more than half were part-time and generally low paid.”41
In other geographical contexts the decline of traditional male working-class jobs, the
impact of feminism and increased consumerism had generated interrogations of masculinities
and adaptations by some men to the new social conditions.42 Much of the literature in
the 1990s and 2000s suggested that masculinities in late capitalist societies were in a period
of crisis or transition, which at times resulted in erroneous claims by some commentators
that power was being redistributed from men to women.43 Moreover, ideas that the traditional
male role actually harmed men were popularized by academics, pressure groups and
the media during this period.44
The political conflict in Northern Ireland smothered these kinds of debates, and while
a few men’s groups did emerge in that context, they had little impact on gender politics. In
a society that was emerging from a conflict where a patchwork of mural representations of
hard men covered urban spaces,45 claims that contemporary feminism had rendered men
the “disposable sex” were unlikely to gain political momentum. Similarly, notions that
women’s social advances had given them legal advantages over men were less likely to
be taken seriously in a society that has no female high court judges.46 Also, as Stephen
Whitehead points out, one of the problems with crisis of masculinities discourses is that
the claim of crisis “speaks of masculinity in the singular; usually white heterosexual and
ethno-centric.”47 As indicated above, due to the political contours of the society men
involved in political research continued to focus both intellectually and in some cases