Hegemonic Masculinity In The Indian Army

1678 Words7 Pages
Connell states that hegemonic masculinity is likely to be established only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal and institutional power. Using this definition the military men can legitimately make a claim to hegemonic masculinity. As service members they are agents of the state domination, legally vested with the right to use lethal force in order to maintain domination. Similarly, in the case of the Indian army, it may be interesting to see how the army personnel not only represent the ideal masculinity but also use their institutional power in order to establish their masculinity as hegemonic. However, before going further it is also important to understand the distinction between external and internal hegemonic masculinities. As Demetriou points out, external hegemonic masculinity refers to masculine power embedded in the structure of an institution, while internal hegemony is hierarchical structuring of masculinity over other masculinities and femininities within the institution. This section will however only focus on how the Indian army and other state military forces create an external hegemonic masculinity in an attempt to subordinate femininities and other masculinities. The internal hegemonic masculinity is also important as it shows how hierarchy of masculinities exists within the state military but that is beyond the focus of this thesis. External Hegemony can be firstly explained in the case of the Indian Army following a strategic

More about Hegemonic Masculinity In The Indian Army

Open Document