It might seem difficult to face the urgent matters of conflict resolution without considering how men and masculinities are and can be. Yet, despite greater mainstream recognition of this question of men and masculinities, especially since the adoption of UNSCR Resolution 2106 in 2013, this is still often not at the centre of work on peacebuilding. Indeed, positive peacebuilding needs to work against structural violence at all levels.
With continuing male domination of political leadership in malestream national and international politics in handling or creating crises, different groupings of men almost always figure prominently in the lead-up to armed conflicts. Militaristic patriarchal (vertical) leadership is accompanied by militaristic fratriarchal (horizontal) power amongst the people, mainly men, making up soldieries. These issues can be understood at the macro-societal levels (such as between nations), meso-levels (such as institutions and communities), and micro-levels (between people and within individuals). Such levels of analysis are interdependent, so disentangling what contributes most to specific violent conflicts – a charismatic leader, inter-governmental policy, or the economy – is not easy.
Standing back a little, at the macro-societal level, there are established links between the greater likelihood of societal internal violent conflict and male domination of labour force participation. The most gender unequal and homophobic countries also have the highest level of societal violence and are most at risk of armed conflict within their own territory. However, before seeing this in too simple terms: societies with the most positive attitudes to homosexuality are also those most likely to be arms exporters – perhaps an indirect relation to histories of capitalism, colonialism, liberalism, and even homonationalism (that favourably associates nationalism and LGBTIQA+ people or their rights). Meanwhile, women’s well-being tends to link with societal peacefulness.
At the level of the meso-level institutions, hyper-tough, violent masculinity underpins most armed conflict as well as the operation of gangs, vigilantes, and militias. This has impacts at the micro-level– on individuals, families, and communities. A micro-level approach focuses on interpersonal and individual practices, including those supporting or destabilizing violent or peaceful masculinities.
So, to turn all this on its head – if men are the main perpetrators of violent and armed conflict, men and masculinities need to change towards peace and nonviolence. This also means changing men who are not the immediate perpetrators of violence. In their book, Societies at Peace, Howell and Willis pose the question: “what can we learn from peaceful societies?” In societies where masculine bravado, repression, and denial of fear defined masculinity, violence was likely to be higher, whereas when men were permitted to acknowledge fear, levels of violence were lower. With less gender differentiation, men were more nurturing and caring, male-led violence was less likely, and women were seen as capable, rational, and competent in the public sphere. Moreover, where bravado was prescribed for men, definitions of masculinity and femininity were often very highly differentiated.
The global IMAGES project has found that predictors of men’s more gender-equal, peaceful attitudes included: men’s education; mother’s education; men’s reports of father’s domestic participation; family background of mother alone or joint decision-making parents; and not witnessing violence to their mother. In turn, such self-reported attitudes from men predicted more gender-equal, peaceful practices, domestic participation and childcare, satisfaction with their primary relationship, and less interpersonal violence. Micro-approaches to masculinity, peace, and justice feedback to macro-and meso-approaches, with patriarchal power entwining with global intersectional inequalities.
This is, however, only part of the story. Many studies, especially with young men, highlight male vulnerability and challenges in striving for idealized representations of manhood. These are unachievable for most and often result in risks to safety and well-being. While many soldiers are men and many victims/survivors of sexual violence during war are women, men and boys are also victims/survivors of sexual violence, often involving denial and shame. Policy frameworks for peace that only consider women and girls as victims, and men and boys as perpetrators, might omit men’s, women’s, and other non-binary genders’ suffering, vulnerabilities, risks, and needs.
More broadly, whereas negative peace is directed at ending hostilities or overcoming legal oppression, positive peace works against structural violence at deeper levels. Putting together positive peace and the transformation of men and masculinities, at all points and levels in peacebuilding, means challenging and intervening with men and masculinity as the problem in peacebuilding in its multiplicity – not simply tinkering with gender stereotypes, images, and roles. It fundamentally means changing men, masculinities, and intersectional inequalities, not as an add-on. Making peace = changing men, and vice versa.
This blog draws on work with Kopano Ratele, Tamara Shefer, and Anisur Rahman Khan.
Jeff Hearn
Jeff Hearn is a professor and writer in Finland (Hanken School of Economics), Sweden (Örebro University), and the UK (University of Huddersfield), and a long-term activist on changing men and masculinities. His most recent books are: Age at Work, with Wendy Parkin, Sage, 2021, Knowledge, Power and Young Sexualies, with Tamara Shefer, and Digital Gender-Sexual Violations, with Matthew Hall and Ruth Lewis, both Routledge 2022.
