Representation Of Masculinity In British Poetry Of The First World War

In looking at representation of female voices in the popular canon of First World War poetry, what needs to be established first are terms such as ‘masculine’, ‘masculinity’, and the difference between ‘hegemonic masculinity’ and the ‘masculine hegemony’. The root of these terms lies in ‘sex’ and ‘gender’.

‘Sex’ refers to our biology and the differences it attributes to people on the basis of their reproductive abilities and one’s anatomy. Thus, “Sex is the biological difference between men and women.” (March, Smyth and Mukhopadhyay 17) ‘Gender’, however, is a social construct and is wrongly attributed to one’s sex; gender is fluid, and a result of social conditioning. Thus, gender “refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.” (World Health Organisation)

‘Masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are therefore gender attributes and since gender is a social construct, they are not restricted by sex and can be used interchangeably. These terms are used in reference to characteristics that go beyond the socially established sexual norms. ‘Masculine’ refers to characteristics that are socially attributed to males (assertiveness, aggression, bodily strength) but this term can be applied across sexes.

The notions of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ seem to remain fixed in terms of ‘male’ and ‘female’ identities, although they should not be. In Gender Ironies of Nationalism, Mayer explains this idea further as such:

“Social re-production (re)produces gender through daily repetition of acts/performances—or what Judith Butler (1990) calls “performativity.” In other words, what we perform repeatedly—based on norms that predate us—is what we become, regardless of biological chromosomes. In this sense, gender is divorced from sex (biology) and, therefore, “masculinity” does not necessarily have to be the domain of a biological “male” or “femininity” the domain of the biological “female.”

‘Hegemonic masculinity’ differs acutely from ‘masculine hegemony’; R W Connell coined the term ‘hegemonic masculinity’ in trying to explain the fact that different types of masculinities exist and amongst these variations, there comes one that is superior to the others in a cultural as well as social context. It describes how specific types of men occupy positions of power, and proceed to legitimize, reinforce and naturalize it (Carrigan et al 1985). According to Pramod Nayar, ‘masculine hegemony’ is situated within the context of gender as a whole and refers to the hegemonical dominance of masculine ideologies in terms of society. (Nayar article, 2)

If masculinity during the War is to be defined by those who served at the Fronts and in the army, women cannot be excluded from the narrative. Vera Brittain served as a nurse at the Voluntary Aid Detachment. At the age of eighteen, May Wedderburn Cannan too joined the VAD. She later worked at a railway canteen that served soldiers, in France, in 1915 – an experience that inspired her poem ‘Rouen’. Philip Larkin chose this poem to be included in Oxford Book of Twentieth Century English Verse, because he found it “enchanting”.() Carola Oman, a friend of May Wedderburn Cannan, served in the VAD alongside her. Her poem, ‘Brussels, 1919’ speaks of the wait that was experienced by those at home for the returning men of War.

Women did not only serve as nurses, but also took up jobs across sectors to make up for the men at service. They served in ammunition factories and in kitchens, and in military hospitals, all of which were termed as “home front”.

“Home fronts” were the spaces given to women as the area where they could express their support for the War and help the soldiers who were serving at the lines of action. These “home fronts” were meant to be different from the Fronts of action, but these helped lend a sense of masculinity to the women. Women were promoted as working towards helping the men and helping the soldiers at war by providing them with the resources they needed to fight the fight. The notion of providing is traditionally a ‘masculine’ notion and as such the women were taking on a masculine role and fulfilling their duties without complains. Masculinity thus was not a notion related to only men. However, identity was, in the beginning, associated with masculinity and thus, the work done at the “home front” was seen as aiding the men, not at par with what they were doing themselves. The act of being a soldier and serving the nation in that sense was the greater of the two masculinities.

Therefore it was established that the women would stay at home and men would go to war. The men by going to war would be protecting Mother England, the feminized nation as mandated by the normative masculine identities. The fact that the men were the only ones who experienced war in person, later served as the justification for the popular canon of War poetry: the men were there at the war fronts and experienced the war first hand. Those who were the protectors know the true plight and those were being protected do not have an experience as being the ones to fight for another, for pride and for honour and therefore, what little experience they have is exactly that – little.