Let me begin this post by saying how difficult it is to judge the actions of the soldiers involved. Not to make a judgment on anyone’s character and including myself in the mix, I truly do believe that each of us is susceptible (though we may have different levels of susceptibility) to commit the same actions that each of the soldiers implicated did. We are all exposed to the same hyper-“masculine” ideals rampant in U.S. society, so it would only make sense that we are all capable of committing such actions.
Puar and Phillips both comment on this hyper-“masculine” ideal prevalent in the U.S. These hyper-“masculine” ideals very roughly and briefly include a need to be “strong”, violent, in power, etc. I believe this is a climate that engulfs all of the U.S. despite Bush claiming that “their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people” (Puar 14). It is precisely this nature that created the atmosphere for the torture, especially the type of torture.
Puar talks about this hyper-“masculinity” in regards to homophobia. It is a well-known fact that there is a lot of homophobia in the military. I believe this is partly to do with the stereotypes we have about gay men as being effeminate (which not all gay men are) contradicting with the “fact” that “real” men are “masculine.” As Puar details, this also touches upon the fact that femininity is viewed down upon in American society. Women in the military, such as England, are thereby more inclined to act masculine (sometimes even surpassing men’s actions) in an attempt to fit in with their male counterparts. Just to illustrate the reality of this situation for women, I know that when I was in an all-male, hyper-“masculine” organization, I began to feel this sort of pressure. Between talking derogatorily about women and boasting their own perceived image of masculinity, it was an exhausting situation to be in. I ended up leaving the organization because I did not want to try to fit into their standards; however, if I had not left, the way I carried myself would have had to change drastically in order for me to be able to survive in the organization. I image this pressure for women to be all the higher in the military. In that way, England’s actions are logical (not synonymous with excusable) in that type of hyper-“masculine” setting.
Moving past that tangent about women and femininity in the U.S., sex between men is still viewed as particularly taboo/disgusting. (Sex between women, on the other hand, is disgustingly viewed as “sexy” and it is particularly “masculine” to watch two women have sex.) For men to take on a “feminine role” of having sex with other men is degrading. That, in concurrence with how queerness is perceived in the Muslim world, is why American soldiers focused so heavily on sexual acts between men as forms of torture. If there were not a climate of homophobia and anti-femininity in the U.S., the thought of “gay sex” (do not like this phrase, but it is what the article kept using) would not have crossed the soldiers’ minds as a possible mechanism of torture. I think it would still not have crossed their minds regardless of whether or not homophobia were a problem for Muslims. The reason I believe this is because the “sexual acts simulated are all specifically and only gay acts” (Puar 33). Even though American soldiers raped women detainees, they did not force women upon other women or men upon other women. They only forced men upon other men. This means that the American soldiers themselves thought there was something particularly degrading or exceptional about forcing men upon other men.
Phillips also describes a hyper-“masculine” environment, but in a different light. He talks more about violence and the need to feel physical domination (as opposed to the mental domination/humiliation that Puar refers to). One quote that particularly stood at to me was when Keller spoke about his first experience with torture (Phillips 59). He said that it was “uneventful”, anticlimactic in a sense. This type of boredom then fostered the environment that allowed for increasingly torturous and violent tortures to occur. (I will stop here so as to not make this post too long.)
Phillips and Puar both note the importance and influence of this ideal of hyper-“masculinity” in the military and American society in general.
I think your idea of hyper masculinity is so true. As a society we become so influenced by the news and media that we become susceptible to the construction that are created. In our case this is hyper masculinity. When we think about the people in our military we are taught that the most capable people of protecting us are strong men and they alone are the only ones who can do that job. When we come to the realization that women and homosexuals are just as strong and capable of the job as men are we outcast them because society tells is that it not normal. I believe that Puar job was to promote the type of awareness of that persuades people to look differently at these issues and eventually be able to denounce those social constructions that make up these issues. I think that’s what Olivia was getting at in her post. She talks about moving past that taboo of hyper masculinity. Once we do that we can move past those immoral constructions. I think that Phillips also talks about hyper masculinity but in the form of physical domination and torture. When we think about the history of masculinity, the first thing that comes to mind for me is a country built by men. This idea of domination over others. Even though that domination was both mental and physical, I think the same could be said for torture. Torture can be a structure of having power over other. I think that idea of power is a common theme in our class, recognizing what structures are in power and how do they create these ideals.
ReplyDeleteOlivia explains that because “[American soldiers] did not force women upon other women or men upon other women. They only forced men upon other men,” this proves that they “themselves thought there was something particularly degrading or exceptional about forcing men upon other men.” Although I agree with this statement, I feel as if it leaves out one of Puar’s most compelling arguments. Puar asserts that the attention on homosexual rape “preempts a serious dialogue about rape…more significantly, the rape of…women both inside and outside of detention centers” (26). Using the same logic as Olivia’s argument that emphasizing homosexual rape illustrates that it is viewed as particularly “exceptional,” does the almost negligible coverage of rape of women illustrate that it has become unexceptional, or commonplace? Puar questions this lack of attention on the rape of women, asking the following questions: “Why are there comparatively few photos of women, and why have they not been released? Is it because the administration found the photos of women even more appalling? Or has the wartime rape of women become so unspectacular, so endemic to military occupation, as to render its impact moot?” (26).
ReplyDeleteI guess my reasoning for this post is that with all of the attention on the impact that both American and Middle Eastern cultures have on the perception of acts of homosexuality, it is easy to forget that ALL forms of rape are intolerable. Just because homosexual rape ha become so politicized doesn’t mean that the rape of women should be accepted as common and accepted practice.
I think Olivia makes excellent points regarding how heteronormativity renders forced homophobic acts methods of torture. However, I think Puar makes a strong argument that the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib represent more than just homophobia. As Puar elucidates, these photos are also racist, mysoginist, and, importantly, imperialist. Instead of merely eliciting an emotive response, these photographs should make us consider the ways in which sexual domination is intrinsic to colonial domination and empire building. These photos are not isolated incidents or exceptions. Because heteronermativity is inextricably linked to U.S. patriotism, it should come as no surprise that sexual domination emerges in the colonizing process. Puar also brings to light questions pertaining to the presence of women in torture situations and how we understand this. When reading this, I immediately thought of Virginia Woolf's essay Three Guineas, in which she discusses war as a male phenomenon. In her essay, she argues against educating women in the same way as men, as men's education has socialized them to be competitive and violent. The involvement of women in the torture at Abu Ghraib supports this idea and suggests that war stems from the competitive attitudes fostered in our education system. As a result, women that have undergone similar socialization processes to men are equally susceptible to succumbing to violence. Thus, violence through sexual domination is not a gendered phenomenon. Rather, it arises from competitive attitudes and a need for domination cultivated by our society. I think Puar makes a convincing argument that sexuality is a fundamental aspect of American patriotism and, consequently, sexual domination is an inherent component of U.S. domination and expansion. Additionally, Puar briefly mentions that these acts are perhaps linked to war mentality and occupation universally. I think this is an interesting point to mention and I can't help but think, considering historical evidence, that sexual acts of torture are not particular to American domination but, rather, colonial domination and occupation at large.
ReplyDeleteI like that you touched upon the Bush comment in your post in reference to hyper-"masculine" ideals pertaining to the act of torture. What I found the most interesting about the readings assigned for today were the references to domination in the form of killing throughout chapter 3 of Phillips. On page 52 Adam is quoted in a tape recorded for his mother saying, "Got a shitload of ammunition and nothing to do with it. We got 10,000 rounds of machiine gun ammunition and.. not a lot of things to shoot. There's no killing left to do, mom. They didn't leave me any killing, those bastards". While his mother goes on the explain that he was quoting a movie, these words gave me a better glimpse inside of Adams head during his time in Iraq. Many soldiers were deployed believing they were going to put their skills to the test, that they would be able to seek revenge for the acts of 9/11, that they would be heroes for the American nation, and when they reached Iraq, this was not the case. While torutre is not an act that I condone, I can see how soldiers that entered this environment with such a vendetta, and a mindset of killing, could find themselves in situations where they were taking part in forms of torture. I better understand how an evironment that Adam constantly described as boring and lonely could be very dangerous for individuals trained to kill.
ReplyDelete