Dominant discourses of military servicemen position them as more prone to psychological damage than the general population, but as reluctant to seek psychological assistance, because of the military culture of ‘toughness’, a military masculinity, that values stoicism, emotional control and invulnerability and implicitly excludes ‘feminine’ characteristics like emotionality. This is seen as a barrier to military personnel seeking help, by implicitly discouraging emotional disclosure and expression. This article presents an analysis of semi-structured interviews with six male military and ex-military personnel, focused on their experience and understandings of emotion, emotional expression and ‘mental health’ in the military. The dominant construction of military masculinity certainly renders some forms of emotion inexpressible within certain contexts. However, we argue that the construct is more complex than a simple exclusion of the ‘feminine’ and the ‘emotional’. We explore how the highly masculine notions of military solidarity and ‘brotherhood’ create a ‘safe’ masculine space within which men could share their emotional experiences, but also highlight how this space for emotional expression is relatively constrained. We argue that these notions of solidarity and brotherhood open a space for emotional connection and expression that must be respected and worked with creatively, in therapeutic and other interventions.

(2019). Masculinities and emotional expression in UK servicemen: ‘Big boys don’t cry’? [journal article - articolo]. In JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10446/174741

Masculinities and emotional expression in UK servicemen: ‘Big boys don’t cry’?

Fellin, Lisa Chiara
2019-01-01

Abstract

Dominant discourses of military servicemen position them as more prone to psychological damage than the general population, but as reluctant to seek psychological assistance, because of the military culture of ‘toughness’, a military masculinity, that values stoicism, emotional control and invulnerability and implicitly excludes ‘feminine’ characteristics like emotionality. This is seen as a barrier to military personnel seeking help, by implicitly discouraging emotional disclosure and expression. This article presents an analysis of semi-structured interviews with six male military and ex-military personnel, focused on their experience and understandings of emotion, emotional expression and ‘mental health’ in the military. The dominant construction of military masculinity certainly renders some forms of emotion inexpressible within certain contexts. However, we argue that the construct is more complex than a simple exclusion of the ‘feminine’ and the ‘emotional’. We explore how the highly masculine notions of military solidarity and ‘brotherhood’ create a ‘safe’ masculine space within which men could share their emotional experiences, but also highlight how this space for emotional expression is relatively constrained. We argue that these notions of solidarity and brotherhood open a space for emotional connection and expression that must be respected and worked with creatively, in therapeutic and other interventions.
articolo
2019
Mcallister, Lauren; Callaghan, Jane. E. M.; Fellin, Lisa Chiara
(2019). Masculinities and emotional expression in UK servicemen: ‘Big boys don’t cry’? [journal article - articolo]. In JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10446/174741
File allegato/i alla scheda:
File Dimensione del file Formato  
Masculinities and emotional expression in UK servicemen Big boys don t cry.pdf

accesso aperto

Versione: publisher's version - versione editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione del file 601.07 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
601.07 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Aisberg ©2008 Servizi bibliotecari, Università degli studi di Bergamo | Terms of use/Condizioni di utilizzo

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10446/174741
Citazioni
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact