Advertisement

Uniform Matters: Body Possibilities of the Gendered Soldier

  • Sine N. Just
  • Line Kirkegaard
  • Sara Louise Muhr
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter analyses the military uniform as a material and symbolic gendered marker of identity and belonging. It investigates the ways in which the military uniform affectively relates body possibilities of enacting profession with gendered identities. Taking the intersection of affect and discourse as our point of departure, we conceptualize and study affective-discursive body possibilities as experienced and expressed by male and female soldiers. We develop four affective figures of body possibilities from our empirical material: becoming-soldier, becoming-woman-not-soldier, becoming-soldier-not-woman, and becoming-soldier-woman. These four figures become affectively charges as the uniform accommodates different bodies differently, thereby inviting diversity, but also positing diverse bodies as minorities, as deviations from the normal soldierly body. We end by discussing how such charging is always inhibiting, but also enabling.

References

  1. Ahmed, S. 2004. The cultural politics of emotions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, A. 2014. Not in the mood. New Formations: A Journal of Culture, Theory, Politics 82 (Autumn): 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashcraft, K. 2013. The glass slipper: ‘Incorporating’ occupational identity in management studies. Academy of Management Review 38 (1): 6–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, K. 2005. Organization, surveillance and the body: Towards a politics of resistance. Organization 12 (1): 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackman, L., and C. Venn. 2010. Affect. Body & Society 16 (1): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollmer, G.D. 2013. Pathologies of affect: The ‘new wounded’ and the politics of ontology. Cultural Studies 28 (2): 298–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan, T. 2004. The transmission of affect. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brott, S. 2002. A theory of the affective body: Deleuze, space, bodies. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/67285/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018.
  9. Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Carreiras, H. 2006. Gender and the military. Women in the armed forces of western democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Carreiras, H., and G. Kümmel. 2008. Off limits: The cults of the body and social homogeneity as discoursive weapons targeting gender integration in the military. In Women in the military and armed conflicts, ed. H. Carreiras and G. Kümmel, 29–47. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clough, P. 2008. The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia and bodies. Theory Culture & Society 25 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Czarniawska, B., and H. Höpfl, eds. 2002. Casting the other. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Dale, K. 2005. Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization 12 (5): 649–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1988. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  17. Despret, V. 2004. The body we care for: The figures of Anthropo-zoo-genesis. Body & Society 10 (2–3): 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dowling, M., R. Nunes, and B. Trott. 2007. Immaterial and affective labor: Explored. Ephemera 7 (1): 1–7.Google Scholar
  19. Finn, M., and P. Dell. 1999. Practices of body management: Transgenderism and embodiment. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 9 (6): 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fotaki, M., and N. Harding. 2018. Gender and the organization. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Fotaki, M., K. Kenny, and S. Vachhani. 2014a. Thinking critically about affect in organization studies, special issue call for papers. Organization. http://org.sagepub.com.esc-web.lib.cbs.dk/site/includefiles/call_for_papers.xhtml
  22. Fotaki, M., B.D. Metcalfe, and N. Harding. 2014b. Writing materiality into management and organization studies through and with Luce Irigaray. Human Relations 67 (10): 1239–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fotaki, M., K. Kenny, and S. Vachhani. 2017. Thinking critically about affect in organization studies: Why it matters. Organization 24 (1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  25. Hardt, M. 1999. Affective labor. Boundary 2 26 (2): 89–100.Google Scholar
  26. Hemmings, C. 2005. Invoking affect. Cultural theory and the ontological turn. Cultural Studies 19 (5): 548–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Höpfl, H. 2003. Becoming a (virile) member: Women and the military body. Body & Society 9 (4): 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kenny, K. 2012. ‘Someone big and important’: Identification and affect in an international development organization. Organization Studies 33 (9): 1175–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenny, K., and E. Bell. 2011. Representing the successful managerial body. In Handbook of gender, work and organization, ed. E.L. Jeanes, D. Knights, and M.P. Yancey. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Kenny, K., S.L. Muhr, and L. Olaison. 2011. The effect of affect: Desire and politics in modern organizations. Ephemera 11 (3): 235–242.Google Scholar
  31. Knudsen, B.T., and C. Stage. 2014. Global media, biopolitics and affect: Politicising bodily vulnerability. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knudsen, B.T., and C. Stage. 2015. Affective methodologies: Developing cultural research strategies for the study of affect. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. La Caze, M., and H.M. Lloyd. 2011. Philosophy and the ‘affective turn’. Parrhesia 13: 1–13.Google Scholar
  34. Leys, R. 2011. The turn to affect: A critique. Critical Inquiry 37 (3): 434–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Linstead, S., and A. Pullen. 2006. Gender as multiplicity: Desire, displacement, difference and dispersion. Human Relations 59 (9): 1287–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Massumi, M. 1995. The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique 31 (Autumn): 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Massumi, B. 2002. Parables for the virtual: Movements, affect, sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muhr, S.L., and B. Sløk-Andersen. 2017. Exclusion and inclusion in the Danish military: A historical analysis of the construction and consequences of a gendered organizational narrative. Journal of Organizational Change Management 30 (3): 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muhr, S.L., K. Sullivan, and C. Rich. 2015. Situated Transgressiveness: Exploring one Transwoman’s lived experiences across three situated contexts. Gender, Work and Organization 23 (1): 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prendergast, M., C. Leggo, and P. Sameshima, eds. 2009. Poetic inquiry: Vibrant voices in the social sciences. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Pullen, A., C. Rhodes, and T. Thannem. 2017. Affective politics in gendered organizations: Affirmative notes on becoming-woman. Organization 24 (1): 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sasson-Levy, O. 2011. The military in a globalized environment: Perpetuating an ‘extremely’ gendered organization. In Handbook of gender, work and organization, ed. E. Jeanes, D. Knights, and P.Y. Martin, 391–411. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Seigworth, G.J., and M. Gregg. 2010. An inventory of shimmers. In The affect theory reader, ed. M. Gregg and G.J. Seigworth, 1–25. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sinclair, A. 2005. Body possibilities in leadership. Leadership 1 (4): 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thrift, N. 2008. Non-representational theory: Space, politics and affect. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Vachhani, S. 2013. (Re)creating objects from the past: Affect, tactility and everyday creativity. Management and Organizational History 8 (1): 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wetherell, M. 2012. Affect and emotion. A new social science understanding. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ———. 2015. Trends in return to affect: A social psychological critique. Body & Society 2 (12): 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sine N. Just
    • 1
  • Line Kirkegaard
    • 2
  • Sara Louise Muhr
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Communication and ArtsRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Center of Social WorkUniversity College AbsalonSorøDenmark
  3. 3.Department of OrganizationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations