Abstract
The research of masculinity conceptualized in this book is based on a (strong) socio-constructivist perspective. What exactly do we mean when we say that something is “socially constructed?” Above all, “socially constructed” refers to the “avoidance of inevitability,” meaning that a given “X” is not naturally determined, or inevitably the way it is. Rather, it emerges and is shaped as part of social processes. The basic use of social constructivism is “awareness raising,” such that its “global” and “local” aspects can be differentiated one from another. “Global” aspects refer to the idea that the world we inhabit and the experiences we go through should by and large be considered socially constructed; “local” aspects refer to claims regarding the social construction of something specific, that is, raising awareness of something specific (Hacking 1999: 6).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For more, see M. Zinn et al. (2005) “Introduction,” in Gender Through the Prism of Difference, ed. Maxine Baca Zinn, Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, and Michael A. Messner, 1–10 (New York: Oxford University Press).
Following Kimmel, in mainstream US culture, masculinity that has become standard is that of the white, heterosexual, early middle aged man. The Hegemonic definition of masculinity is the powerful man, and manliness is equated with strong, successful, capable, and reliable ( Kimmel (2004a) “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender ldentity,” in Feminism & Masculinities, Oxford Readings in Feminism, ed. Peter F. Murphy, 182–196 (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 184).
For more, see Fuller (2001) “The Social Constitution of Gender ldentity among Peruvian Men,” Men and Masculinities 3 (3): 316–331.
Men have had the role of warrior across cultures and time, even though many scientists agree that there is no evidence of men being biologically predisposed for war. It has been shown that hormones, even size and strength, have a minimal role in successful fighting. Instead the warrior process is learned (just like gender). This can be easily seen from the great number of patently successful female and unsuccessful male fighters ( Solomon (2007) “War,” in Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender (4), ed. Fedwa Malti-Douglas, 1518–1522 (Detroit: The Gale Group)).
Despite the variations in participation of men and women in various armies throughout the world, the point here stands that armed forces are male institutions, and masculine and male dominance is a characteristic of all national militaries ( Woodward and Winter (2007) Sexing the Soldier: The Politics of Gender and the Contemporary British Army Transformations (London: Routledge): 20). War roles are assigned primarily and often exclusively to men. Women certainly participated in many wars, at times as openly as men. For example, during World War II, the Red Army contained some 8 percent women fighters in various fighting roles.
The Partisans in Yugoslavia and guerrilla forces in general had an even greater number of women in their ranks ( Goldstein (2004) “War,” in Men and Masculinities, A Social, Cultural and Historical Encyclopedia, ed. Michael Kimmell and Arny Aronson, 815–817 (Santa Barbara: ABC Clio)). From at least the fourteenth until the nineteenth century, women were an integral part of European armies. As armies became much more professional and bureaucratic, they became an exclusively male domain (Klein and Bradford 2004: 546–548).
Cynthia Enloe studied the impact that the end of the Cold War had on gender (re)defining. She points out that every postwar period is filled with a series of questions: What does change? What does not? Will the reduction of militarism transform concepts of masculinity? Is it reasonable to expect the appearance of new attitudes in men and women toward gender roles? See Enloe (1993) The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press): 25.
In Kimmel’s words: “American men have no history. Sure, we have stacks of biographies of the heroic and famous, and historical accounts of events in which men took part, like wars, strikes, or political campaigns. And we have group portraits of athletes, soldiers, and the men who run unions and political parties. There are probably thousands of histories of institutions that were organized, staffed, and run by men … But these books feel strangely empty at their centers, where the discussion of men should be. Books about men are not about men as men. These books do not explore how the experience of being a man structured the men’s lives, or the organizations and institutions they created, the events in which they participated. American men have no history as gendered selves; no work describes historical events in terms of what these events meant to the men who participated in them as men” ( Kimmel (2005) The History of Men (New York: State University of New York Press): 3).
Gezeman encountered (at the beginning of the twentieth century) many Montenegrin men who no longer fit the picture depicted of their fathers and grandfathers ( Gezeman (1968) Čojstvo i junaštvo starih Crnogoraca (Cetinje: Obod): 34).
To canonize means select texts, persons, objects, and monuments and “imbue” them with the highest values and meanings. For more, see Aleida Assman (2008) “Canon and Archive,” in Media and Cultural Memory/Medien und kulturelle Erinnerung, ed. Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning, 97–109 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Djeka Savićev and Mikonja Šaranović from Bjelopavlića did not want to kill a Turk in his bedroom (lest they wake the kids in the process), so they left a sword by his pillow (38); Rade Vukašinov would not allow the Turks to cut up the dead Sćepan Jankov, who had carried his father’s head to the vizier of Skadar (38); Mirko Sutanov was sought and had his brother killed by the Turks. One Turk was caught and left for Mirko to kill when he returns. Upon his return, Mirko, rather than kill him, released him (39); Božina Stojanov forgave Lazo Novakov for an attempted murder, because the former was a hero (55); Veko Ilinčić did not want to kill Peruta Drljević in revenge for the death of his nephew killed by the Drljevićes. Rather, he killed a different Drljević (in order to make the Turks lament) (67); Even when they had no one to avenge, both individuals and tribes sought battle in order to show that their heroism is no smaller than that of others (70); Two warriors, Milisav Mišnić and Veko Ilinčić, wanted to fight because neither would admit that the other was the better warrior, saying: “I can neither pass by you, nor live knowing you are better than me.” They agreed to settle the issue by capturing and presenting a live Turk to the Morača tribe. Veko caught a Turk, but Milisav did not. Thereupon, Milisav always deferred to Veko, although Veko would not hear of it (97); Niko was young and had not seen battle, and his sister, Janica, doubted his heroism. Mother and sister prayed for their son and brother, and told him not to be frightful, lest people mock him. Upon hearing that he was injured, the sister cried out in joy “I now have a hero brother.” Seeing their mother in tears, Janica reproved her: “why are you crying when you know he went to strike and be struck?” (73); A mother went into battle with her sons. When one of the sons died, his three brothers cried at the funeral, to which the mother responded: “Why are you crying? Did you think that all of you would return unscathed home? By my word, if another one does not die, I will wish never to have borne you.” “This is what I want, that they be sons and die, for if they do not die, they are to be called daughters.” (75); The mother of Veko Ilinčić would not allow the execution of her son’s murderer, Radovan Kukorog. “If I cannot see Veko living, I would not see you dead either” (75). Many other examples abound ( Miljanov (1964 [1901]) Primjeri čojstva i junaštva (Beograd: Branko Djonović): 38, 39, 55, 67, 70, 73, 75, 97).
Saša Nedeljković conducted research among Montenegrins in the village of Lovićenac (in Serbia). It showed that “traditional” views of Montenegrin masculinity are still operative, that they still determine social relations and influence the construction of an ethnic identity of rural Montenegrins in Serbia (Nedeljković (2010) “Maskulinitet kao alternativni parametar etničkog identiteta: Crnogorci u Lovćencu,” Etnoantropološki problemi 5 (1)).
The land of Montenegrin tribes is almost entirely limestone. The land is barren, craggy, with patches of grass only in the cracks and fissures, and meadows only in sinkholes and valleys. In Montenegrin tribal regions there is no other arable land except in these sinkholes and valleys, and the land there can be tilled by hand only, with potatoes and corn practically the only edible vegetables able to grow ( Cvijić (1991 [1922–1931]) Balkansko poluostrvo (Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva): 367).
The number of tribes varied, with some disappearing (e.g., Ridjan and Nikšić tribes) ( Filipović (1991) Čovek medju ljudima (Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga): 104).
For example, the geographic conditions of the Katun nahija offer no possibility of winter grazing. Still, tribes got formed in this area. In any case, a tribe could be formed without possession of summer and winter areas, but not without using them (Istorija Crne Gore (1975) Istorija Crne Gore. Knjiga treća (Titograd: Redakcija za istoriju Crne Gore): 470).
For more, see Ćirić-Bogetić (1966) Komunice u Crnoj Gori u XIX i početkom XX veka (Cetinje: Obod).
Due to population growth, tribes and groups had to expand their grazing territory, causing clashes between tribes, but also among members of fraternities within a single tribe. This was one of the main reasons for emigration, much more than Turkish violence (M. Cvijić (1966 [1922–1931]) Balkansko poluostrvo i južnoslovenske zemlje, osnovi antropogeografije. (Beograd: Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika Socijalističke republike Srbije): 106–110).
For more, see Petrović Petar II Njegoš (2012 [1847]) The Mountain Wreath (Chicago: Aristeus Books).
Copyright information
© 2016 Branko Banović
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Banović, B. (2016). The Hero between Poetry, History, and the Past: The “Making of” the Model of the Traditional Man. In: The Montenegrin Warrior Tradition. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137552280_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137552280_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-57657-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-55228-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)