Harrison Potter
Dr. Janet Bland
Essay #1
19 September 2007
Wartime Behavior Patterns as a Basis for Mainstream American Masculinity
War has been a mainstay of human civilization since its inception thousands of
years ago, and throughout this long and colorful history, warriors have almost exclusively
been male. By repeatedly taking on the fundamentally aggressive and violent role of
soldier, Man has slowly come to define Himself through these violent experiences.
Although modern American society regulates the experiences associated with engaging in
warfare to a select group of individuals, leaving the majority of the American public
emotionally and personally distant from war, mainstream American masculinity still
draws heavily upon the characteristically male experience of going to war. In modern
American society, masculinity is still defined and expressed through analogy with the
behavior and experiences of men at war; however, such a simplistic masculinity cannot
account for the depth of human experience embraced by a modern man.
Whether engaging in European trench warfare or fighting through the jungles of
Vietnam, a soldier must learn to cope with the incredible mental stress brought on by the
ever-present threat of a grisly death. The physical stress introduced by poor nutrition, a
harsh and hostile environment, and the cumulative physical effect of emotional trauma
only serves to make a trying situation even more taxing. It is out of this violently
stressful environment that the coping mechanisms that characterize wartime masculinity
arise.
Potter 2
A natural response to such a violent environment is to simply behave in a way
that portrays no weakness. If the soldier does not show any signs of weakness, he finds it
much easier to convince himself that he can survive by his strength. In asserting his
control over himself by hiding all of his weaknesses, he finds a way of asserting his
control over his fate and the fates of his comrades, however illusory that control may be.
This is revealed most lucidly when these defenses are brought crumbling down. First
Lieutenant Jimmy Cross berates himself for daydreaming about enjoying a happier, more
peaceful existence with his imagined love Martha after the death of Ted Lavender. Cross
burns every picture he has of Martha in order to prevent himself from daydreaming about
her any more, believing that by wiping her from his mind he will be able to better protect
his men. Numerous vows to follow protocol more strictly, as well as to be on constant
alert against danger, are made. At first these seem like valiant efforts on the part of the
lieutenant, but further consideration reveals that his efforts to become a perfect leader are
in vain. No amount of care or discipline will allow him to guarantee that his men survive
the war. Mistaking his sentimentality as a sign of his weakness rather than of his
humanity, he tries to hide his weakness in order to become a “good” soldier: emotionless,
stoic, focused, and strong. He cannot escape his humanity, however, as the images and
dreams of a better life persist even without tangible reminders that such a world exists
beyond the confines of Vietnam.
Jimmy Cross wasn’t the only soldier struggling to maintain a facade of strength
and solidarity in the face of death and destruction. Curt Lemon made a point of always
conducting himself in the most masculine manner possible in an attempt to hide his
humanity from his fellow soldiers. A visit by the army dentist, however, revealed his fear
Potter 3
of dentists. Unable to face the shame that would be associated with admitting his
weakness, he proceeded to faint in a failed attempt to face his fear. Having thus shown
the full depth of his weakness, he could not let the matter rest until he had convincingly
demonstrated that he had overcome his fear; accordingly, he returned to the dentist that
night and insisted that a good tooth be removed, thereby reasserting his masculinity.
Azar also demonstrates a need to conceal his tender side. Whenever a member of the
company dies, rather than remaining respectfully silent in the wake of the death, Azar
chooses to make a joke of the tragedy. Ted Lavender wasn’t shot in the head; he was
“zapped while zipping.” Kiowa didn’t die of shrapnel wounds in a field of fecal matter;
he “ate shit.” Only when Kiowa’s body is finally recovered does Azar reveal through
refusing to joke about the situation that his jesting is simply his way of burying and
denying his true feelings regarding the horrors he is confronted with on a daily basis.
None of these men can own up to the fact that they are fundamentally weak and
helpless, that any one of them could die a violent death at any time. They do not seem
capable of accepting that reality, of accepting their helplessness. In their struggle for
survival they empower themselves by asserting their will over the only thing they have
control over: their own actions. They use this power to define their own masculinity in
which stoicism and strength are synonymous. This is a masculinity in which profanity
and irreverence serve to disguise genuine emotion, one with its roots in the underlying
fact that these men would rather face death than admit to fearing it. They would rather
endure any pain and commit any violent act than endure the lasting ridicule of their peers
and society.
Potter 4
This preference for temporary pain rather than lasting ignominy is a significant
point of harmony between war-time masculinity and mainstream American masculinity,
particularly as it pertains to sport. Participation in athletics is seen as an important
component of growth for a young man. Without such physical activity, the boy is seen as
weaker and more feminine than his athletic counterparts. Failure to participate in
athletics is then seen as failure to fully develop as a man. These pressures are
compounded by the desire of a young boy to impress his father. An adult man quoted by
Messner recalls his childhood relationship with his father: “I knew he would like it if I
did well. His admiration was important” (127).
Taking up a sport in this social environment is thus the path of least resistance,
however difficult or dangerous participation in the sport may be. In fact, dangerous
sports are commonly perceived as being inherently more masculine, and thus more
appealing to the potential athlete. Football players risk serious injury every game they
play, which gives them an aura of masculinity that is not shared by other athletes. This
perception is a direct consequence of the foundation of mainstream masculinity in war.
In war life and limb are constantly in peril, whereas this situation can only be
approximately simulated in sport. Nevertheless, sport serves to emasculate male athletes
in much the same way that war emasculates veterans. Furthermore, such recognition of a
male athlete’s masculinity based upon his athleticism is central to a male athlete’s athletic
experience. Distance runners are smaller, lighter athletes who do not encounter the risk
of serious sudden injury every time they compete. As a result, distance runners are not
perceived as quintessentially masculine in the same way that football players are
perceived as such. In order to assert their masculinity in spite of this bias, distance
Potter 5
runners have an overwhelming tendency to over-train: they run farther and faster than is
necessary to achieve peak race performance. This extra unnecessary running makes them
feel tougher, stronger, fitter, and more confident in their athletic ability even though it
does not benefit them physiologically, but rather puts them at greater risk of injury.
When such an injury finally occurs, these runners fail to recognize the root of the
problem as their own out of control desire to be perceived as tough and masculine, but
rather view themselves as weak for having broken down physically. This only leads to
further injury as the runner attempts to overcome the injury by asserting his masculinity
more forcefully by ignoring or otherwise downplaying the significance of the initial
injury.
Men outside of the sporting world also feel this pressing need to “Be a man!”
(Kriegel 194). American masculinity is characterized by “endurance, courage,
determination, (and) stoicism,” precisely the qualities that the soldiers O’Brien portrays
were continually striving for in their struggle to survive (Kriegel 194). These qualities
are viewed as just as essential for overcoming adversity in civilian life as they are in
dealing with the oppressive stress of warfare. Although polio ravaged Leonard Kriegel’s
body, he agreed with his childhood friends in asserting that he was lucky to have had
polio as overcoming a handicap made him “a better man” (195). War is used as an
analogy for fighting polio, and by virtue of fighting that war Kriegel is seen as more
masculine than his peers.
As much as war is used as a basis for defining mainstream masculinity, an
understanding of wartime masculinity does not lead to a full understanding of what it
means to be masculine in society at large. In those areas in which men interact
Potter 6
exclusively or primarily with each other, such as in big business or male sports teams, a
comparison of these activities with war can lead to some meaningful distinctions between
masculine and feminine behavior. In these environments harsh language such as that
used by Azar to cover his own genuine emotions is often used to avoid articulating and
discussing emotions, which are viewed as feminine. This model of social interaction is
far from complete, however, as men are not devoid of emotions. Tim O’Brien recalls in
vivid detail a man killed by his company during the war because he is horrified at having
taken part in such a killing. He also reveals the deep psychological effect that his second
wound had on him by telling of how he tried to scare Jorgensen (O’Brien). Phil Petrie
recalls that although he once tried to put the stoicism of traditional individualistic
masculinity into practice with his wife, such attempts were doomed to failure as genuine
communication beyond the bounds of traditional masculinity was needed in order to
sustain such a deep relationship (Petrie).
The essence of mainstream masculinity is derived directly from the experiences of
men at war. Stoicism and strength originated as necessary character traits of men at war.
Given the exclusively male makeup of armies, however, these characteristics came to be
associated not only with men at war, but with men in general. Thus analogies relating
mainstream masculinity and war still abound; however, these analogies cannot capture
the full masculinity of the modern man as they do not allow for the formation of intimate
personal relationships, such as that between husband and wife, which lie at the heart of
ordinary civilian life.
Potter 7
Works Cited
Kriegel, Leonard. “Taking It.” Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural Anthology. Ed.
Estelle Disch. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. 194-196.
Messner, Michael A. “Boyhood, Organized Sports, and the Construction of
Masculinities.” Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural Anthology. Ed. Estelle
Disch. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. 120-137.
O’Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. New York: Broadway Books, 1990.
Petrie, Phil W. “Real Men Don’t Cry… and Other ‘Uncool’ Myths.” Reconstructing
Gender: A Multicultural Anthology. Ed. Estelle Disch. New York: McGraw Hill,
2006. 221-226.