The fact that there is a connection between toxic/hegemonic masculinity and fascism[1] is pretty obvious, and my early reading reveals a rich literature on the topic. From this literature (and from the abundance of examples we’re subject to every day), I’ve pulled together a few observations to try to develop a more complete explanation of the connection.
- Fascism is (often) a way men—especially young men—perform masculinity (as per Butler). In this sense, it is little different than lifting weights, racing cars, buying annoying loud car stereos, installing ridiculous lift-kits on their oversized pickups, or any number of other actions designed to signal “I’m a Man.” It may be vastly more harmful than these other things, but in many ways the basic motivation is the same. As such, it’s not only easy for fascist leaders to find their “brown shirts,” but there exists a pool of brown shirts enacting fascism even in the absence of a leader.
- The alignment between fascism and toxic/hegemonic masculinity is deep. Both favor “strength”—both physical and metaphorical—as the most desirable characteristic (it’s no accident dictators are called “strong men”). Both are built on (often) violent opposition to an enemy. Both love militarism (guns, camo, uniforms, etc). Both prize physical fitness and sport. (But it’s got to be aggressive/violent sport. No curling in the alt-right, I suspect.) And both primarily consist of cis straight men.
- Historical fascism has often occurred right after—and clearly in response to—movements promoting the equality of women and the LGBTQ community. In pre WWII Italy and Germany, in Brazil in the 2010s, and in the U.S. today, fascist political movements had strong anti-gay, anti-feminist elements. No doubt many other examples exist. The literature on this is extensive.
- Why then didn’t the U.S. have a fascist movement after the women’s rights movement of the 1920s, as did Germany and Italy? Well, first off, we did. But before it could take off, we were at war with European fascism. This war gave men another means of performing masculinity, and so apart from giving fascism a bad name, it also undercut the performance-drive that might have recruited more young U.S. men to fascism. Of course, they still constructed the war as the men fighting to save the ladies back home, so the appeal to toxic/hegemonic masculinity remained.
- But why is masculinity so bothered by feminism or LGBTQ rights? Toxic/hegemonic masculinity is defined by its negatives. As per Said’s notion of Orientalism, “Real Men” in such communities define themselves primarily by what they are not: weak, emotional, compromising, gay, women. If one defines one’s masculinity by the degree to which you are unlike and in opposition to the Other, and then that Other suddenly gains social status, then your own social status is correspondingly reduced (in your own mind, at least). Phrased differently: the thing that makes a hero great is the power of the enemy he defeats. Minimize the power of the villain and you’ve reduced the status of the hero. If you are totally the opposite of a woman, but then “woman” turns out to be a good thing, what does that make you?
- Can there be fascism without toxic/hegemonic masculinity? I don’t know. I suspect not, but I’m not sure. I’m wondering about the left-wing authoritarian movements (Stalin, e.g.), but I don’t know enough to answer.
- Can there be toxic/hegemonic masculinity without fascism? I don’t know this either, but I also suspect not. Or at least, not eventually. There may not be enough such people to form a significant political movement, but online communities of proto-fascists are rampant. And I think attempts to appeal to such masculinities by even mainstream political parties are always steps—no matter how incremental—toward fascism.
[1] A quick note on terminology: I’m using “fascism” loosely here. If it bothers you, substitute authoritarianism.
Image credit: https://twitter.com/BrunaLab/status/1108346134077018112?s=20&t=B_YIIMDkMFBfXMiLoAtr6g
Rhetoric & Running 