Former president of the American Sociological Association, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, remarked in 2006 “that the boundary based on sex creates the most fundamental social divide”. Therefore, scholars should take this divide into account when studying a social phenomenon. The statement was bold, and still is, as it suggests that gender is at the root of social ills (and hence the solutions to them). Nevertheless, I want to suggest that an extreme manifestation of this divide, toxic masculinity, can be used to explain a contemporary social malaise, that is (the mindsets of) individuals who commit acts of terrorism in the name of religion. A brief explanation of toxic masculinity would help set the tone for its link to religious extremism.
In academic parlance, toxic masculinity describes negative socially constructed attitudes towards the male gender role. ‘Toxic’ refers to the effect this strand of masculinity can have on men (and women for that matter). It may be emotional damage in the sense of having to suppress interests and emotions traditionally seen as feminine such as being taught that “men don’t cry”. Then of course there is the physical manifestation of this toxicity where the man resorts to violence to demonstrate his masculinity which also helps to keep feminisation at bay. The whole point of toxic masculinity is to show that masculinity is exclusive and exclusive at all costs to the individual. It offers no alternative discursive space for men who enjoy baking or cry easily. It encourages emotional distance and can lead to physical violence in one.
The link between toxic masculinity and violence committed in the name of religion is unmistakable. Unfortunately, Muslims today dominate the headlines when incidents of religious extremism transpire. It is then common for innocent Muslims to have to explain to non-Muslims why these terrorists do what they do. There is in fact a historical backdrop to this convenient linkage between Muslims and violence; this has to do with the politicisation of masculinities. The dictum “Knowledge is power” was certainly true during the colonial period. The colonial discourse on sexuality often involved an Orientalist appropriation of masculinity with an attitude of contradictions. As author Jasbir Puar noted: “Muslim masculinity is simultaneously pathologically excessive yet repressive, perverse yet homophobic, virile yet emasculated, monstruous yet flaccid”. Such a discourse conveniently (and dangerously) ignores the stereotypes Muslims have historically been subjected to so that they are viewed as prime suspects after a terrorist act (although these suspicions have time and again proven to be true).
One needs to move away from this colonial mindset and from excessive attention towards Muslims as the perpetrators of terrorism. Apart from the fact that there are non-Muslims who commit violence in the name of religion (one may think of the Christian fundamentalists in the US), there is one common factor among these terrorists’ acts: the perpetrators are almost always men. Other than religion, gender needs to be another social category studied to understand why men commit such violence. There has to be something wrong with the way these men are raised in their families. They may be indoctrinated to view women as inferior so that violence is seen as a naturally masculine form of expressing this superiority. It is an extreme form of patriarchy that normalises violence against women, which then sets the precedent for violence against anyone who is seen to possess deviant religious beliefs.
It is also noteworthy to consider how women are implicated in the discourse of toxic masculinity. Though toxic masculinity initially does concern men, women themselves have established a significant foothold in various terrorist networks. The phenomenon of women joining such networks is a complex one; scholarship is divided on whether such women are liberated from traditional gender roles or whether they’re merely pawns in a masculine chess game. Whichever view one is inclined to take, the fact is that women who do join terrorist networks under the guardianship of their male counterparts are being trained to think and behave like men, not to mention to handle weapons and machinery like men. In short, there is a process of normalisation initiated by men so that female liberation is tied to violence at all costs, just as how toxic masculinity is tied to violence.
While it isn’t accurate to describe all women who join these organisations as simply passive individuals who fall under the trap of patriarchal control and hence the frame of toxic masculinity, there are women who are indeed recruited (by ISIS, for example) to embark on traditional masculine roles of moral policing. An example is the Al-Khanssaa brigade which was an all-women police unit in ISIS used to morally police women’s dress and behaviour, much like how it is done in Saudi Arabia or even Iran. Whether these women embark on such a role because of divine duty or feminist causes, the fact is that such activities do fall under a patriarchal framework of subjugating women to patriarchal authority through the use of force if necessary, thus the link to toxic masculinity.
A good example of this process can be found in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka. Women were recruited into the LTTE under the guise of female liberation. Making this type of liberation synonymous with national liberation (for their homeland) was a strategy employed to further LTTE’s cause of a violent struggle for their homeland. This could be seen in their tactics involving suicide. The most notorious LTTE suicide attack was done by a woman named Thenmozhi Rajaratnam when she assassinated then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. She was useful in propagating LTTE’s toxic masculinity due to the fact that as a woman, she was unlikely to raise suspicion of being violent since women were traditionally viewed as weak and submissive. Toxic masculinity affects both men and women, whether they are the perpetrators or the victims. Women in this case only further emphasise toxic masculinity as normative.
The link between toxic masculinity and violence, whether committed in the name of religion or not, can also be seen in attacks where the victims are male individuals who do not conform to the heteronormativity that the perpetrator espouses. The Orlando night club murderer Omar Mateen shows how toxic masculinity promotes inequality by literally getting rid of deviant men, in this case, homosexuals. For an attitude that is so destructive, toxic masculinity is also very basic as its roots go back to the household; there are news reports explaining how a significant number of men who kill have committed domestic violence. Toxic masculinity espouses the absence of empathy in men so that taking someone’s life is routine behaviour, if not honourable.
The reality is toxic masculinity knows no race nor religion. While extreme interpretations of religion can be used to explain why an individual commits a terrorist act (one done in the name of religion), it is not enough. Instilling religiosity and a thirst for religious knowledge in young men should not be divorced from efforts at instilling attitudes like chivalry and empathy in these same individuals. A nation reacts only when toxic masculinity is manifested publicly through a terrorist act committed by a zealot. Yet, this panic is a late reaction to the men who already feel entitled from young. Even then, the panic revolves around a moral policing of how these individuals should interpret their religious scriptures. This is not enough. Counter-terrorism strategies and rehabilitation measures should take into account the individual’s perception of religion and manhood. Ideally, this would have been taken care of from young. At the end of the day, toxic masculinity begins at home. If we realise this fact, we can start changing the way we raise boys to be men.
There are two ways we can react to acts of terrorism committed usually by men. We can continue to react with a moral panic and further criminalise such males and their acts. Legal action can only do so much. They can only serve as deterrents and hopefully prevent future incidents of terrorism from happening. Another alternative approach would be the soft approach. That is, redefining what masculinity really is, or at least, promoting ideals of masculinity that are devoid of using violence to assert one’s manhood. This effort can only begin at home and in schools. ⬛
Imad Alatas is currently an Executive at the Middle East Institute (MEI) in NUS where he co-manages MEI’s publications and social media. He enjoys writing on the topics of gender and religion in society. He plays football during his free time.
