The Social Construction of Gendered Identities and the Great War, Essay Example

The notion that social discourse plays a pivotal role in creating identities is a prominent theory in the contemporary humanities, of which the discipline of history is an example. Such an account allows one to understand how society confers notions of sexuality and gender, which implies that individual subjects are understood by the dominant discourse in terms of social constructs such as »male«, »female«, »heterosexual« and »homosexual.« In line with the assignment of such identities, individuals become expected to act in particular ways, corresponding to the society’s conception of these roles. Such a phenomenon is especially visible in times of war, as calls for jingoistic patriotism are often diffused through notions that the male must go off to war, while the female must stay on the home front, contributing to the war effort in her own individual way. Looking at source materials in regards to the inter-war period it becomes clear that gender roles shaped individual reactions to war and politics, as individuals were expected to act according to their preordained identities by the same society that bestowed these identities.

Such a thesis is immediately supported when the historian examines primary materials, as it becomes clear that issues of gender define the general outlook to war. Hence, in the diary entries of Verra Brittain, the reader is confronted by the gender construct that dictates how individuals should act in these times. In Brittain’s account, there is a certain subtext that shows how society creates such roles. Thus, Brittain writes: »I showed Edward an appeal in the Times & the Chronicle for you unmarried men between the ages of 18 & 30 to join the army. He suddenly got very keen & after dinner he & Maurice wandered all round Buxton trying to find out what to do in order to volunteer for home service.« (399) Brittain thus provides a concise, historically based account of how society disseminated gender roles in the war period: society expects young men to join the military as it is the correct thing to do. Furthermore, there is no critical thought present in Brittain’s text. She dutifully shows her brother this announcement, caught up in the excitement of war. Edward concomitantly accepts the newspaper’s proclamation, immediately attempting to join a military service with his friend. Brittain and Edward are thus unconsciously determined by the expectations with which society has created vis-à-vis war: their gender roles define how they are to act in terms of the conflict. At the same time, both are unaware of this very social construct and remain uncritical to it, thus showing the potency of how subjectivity is defined by the dominant social discourse.

Although the male and the female roles differ in regards to the war, as Brittain makes clear, both gendered subjectivities are thoroughly determined by society. This is clear insofar as Brittain explicitly discusses what women were allowed to do at the outset of the war: »To-day I started the only work it seems possible as yet for women to do – the making of garments for the soldiers….even when one is not skillful it is better to proceed slowly than to do nothing to help.« (400) The difference between men and women is clearly shaped not by the gender roles, but the society that determines what a given gender is permitted to accomplish. Accordingly, the difference between men and women is a symptom of the homogeneous social discourse that confers these very gender roles. That is to say, there is a difference between how the gendered subjectivities of man and women should act in regards to war, because there is a uniform and consistent social discourse which creates this same difference. The various experiences which men and women underwent, from the perspective of gender, reflects that such experiences were structured along gender lines. But the mistake is to think that this is an autonomous decision by men and women respectively about how they should act. It is the effect of ideology, history, society and culture which shapes these ways of acting: what the man and women »should« do in war is one of the ways in which the social discourse demonstrates its hegemony. The gendered subjectivities become a sign of this very hegemony.

Brittain simultaneously nevertheless expresses the despair of the entire war situation. »Truly we of this generation are born to a youth very different from anything we ever supposed or imaged for ourselves. Trouble & disasters are menacing us the nature of which we cannot even guess at.« (403) The patriotic tones which mark the initial diary entries of Brittain undergo a radical shift. There is a realization that the individual identity has been caught up in a situation not of its own subjective making. The patriotic enthusiasm of war is an example of the mythical quality of the narrative of the heroic male and the contributing female. Yet Britain now encounters the unrelenting real horror of war, and thus simultaneously realizes that these roles, of heroism and attentiveness as examples, are merely shaped by society.

The affectivity of social discourse is present throughout Brittain’s work, demonstrating a first hand account of how one should act in times of war according to gender roles. But the gradual consciousness of the mythical status of this narrative is borne out in the confrontation with the real suffering which war creates. Men and women’s gender roles in the war are not expressions of subjective individuality, but rather pre-formed images, into which individuals are fitted. It is not that gendered experiences shape the war and society, but rather that war and society shape gendered experiences.

Works Cited

Brittain, Vera. Diary Entries and Poems on the War.« pp. 396-403.