Alternative Dominant Masculinity: An Intersectional Observation of the Combat Soldier

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine the construction of different masculinities through the intersection of gender, ethnicity, and cultural context. The paper will show that this intersection occurs through a process of “reciprocal ethnicization” between ethnicity as a social category and the surrounding ethnic culture. Ethnicity influences the construction of an ethnic cultural context, which subsequently influences the construction of ethno-masculine identities. In this way, there is a mutual influence of ethnicity on the cultural context and vice versa. The study is based on an examination of the military, which is a central organization for the construction of masculine identities; and it will focus specifically on combat soldiers, who constitute the most significant model of idealized masculinity. I argue that in order to construct the combat soldier, infantry brigades create various images of the combat soldier as a result of the different ethno-cultures of each brigade.

1. Introduction

Critical diversity studies in organizations is a growing field of research, which attempts to build an alternative understanding of the positivistic and essentialist view of diversity. From a critical point of view, diversity is perceived as a socially constructed and perpetuated ongoing contextual process [1]. Within the broad range of critical theories examining diversity in organizations, one of the most recent and fruitful approaches has been the notion of intersectionality [2, 3, 4].

Intersectionality concentrates on the way social and cultural categories intertwine, focusing on how power relationships are constructed through an intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, and other categories of social differences [5, 6, 7]. As such, intersectionality involves more than research on gender differences between men and women and within each group [8]; it is also concerned with analyzing social and cultural hierarchies within various discourses and institutions [9].

Based on intersectionality, the aim of this paper is to examine the construction of different masculinities through the intersection of gender, ethnicity, and cultural context. I argue that this intersection occurs through a process of “reciprocal ethnicization” between ethnicity as a social category and the surrounding ethnic culture. The cultural context of the organization is constructed according to ethnic characteristics and therefore becomes ethicized. This ethnic surrounding, in return, takes part in the construction of ethnic identities. Thus, ethnicity influences the construction of an ethnic cultural context, which subsequently influences the construction of ethno-masculine identities. In this way, there is a mutual influence of ethnicity on the cultural context and vice versa.

This study is based on an examination of the military, which is one of the most notable organizations for the construction of masculine identities; specifically, those of combat soldiers, who constitute the most significant model of idealized masculinity. More specifically, in the research, I examine two infantry brigades in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) – Golani and paratroopers. Both brigades have the same military occupation and designation and share the same training, nonetheless, each brigade is characterized by different culture and branded by different image. The differences in the cultures of these two brigades are the product of ethnic characteristics. I argue that in order to construct the combat soldier, infantry brigades create various images of the combat soldier as a result of the different ethno-cultures of each brigade. In other words, the intersection between gender, ethnicity, and cultural surrounding constructs various masculinities.

The contribution of this research is threefold: First, it deconstructs the dominant masculinity while challenging its hegemonic image and indicating that this image is diverse. Second, studies on organizational masculinity have demonstrated that masculinity is not composed solely of gender, but also of additional social classifications, which creates a multiplicity of masculine discourses, identities, and practices that produce different forms and models of masculinities [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Following these studies, I wish to deconstruct the hegemonic masculinity while suggesting an alternative. Following these studies, I wish to deconstruct the hegemonic masculinity while suggesting alternative images to hegemonic masculinity. Furthermore, I would like to enrich the use of intersectionality in organizational study, where the use of intersectionality theory is still in its inception [4]. Although masculinity in organizations has been examined as part of a complex social construction that is influenced by hierarchies and various social categories [16, 17, 18, 19], the use of intersectionality has not been utilized to examine masculinities in organizations. Furthermore, while intersectionality research has focused on inequality [1, 4, 20, 21] I would like to apply the research of masculinity not only to the examination of inequalities but also to the challenging of hierarchies and power relations of hegemonic masculinity while suggesting alternatives.

Finally, research reveals that diverse masculinities are constructed based on ethnic characteristics that are embodied in cultural context. Critical theories of diversity have shown that diversity is contextual, localized, and situated [22, 23]. While these studies referred to the negotiation process within a context and to challenging or resisting the context, I argue that the context is part of the intersection that creates organizational identities. The intersection does not occur only within a specific context; instead, the context takes an active part in the intersection. In this way, the intersection is made up of gender, ethnicity, and cultural context. Furthermore, by making the cultural context a category in the intersection, I wish to explore intersectionality by examining both micro and macro levels of intersectionality on the individual, organizational, and societal levels [2, 4, 24].

The paper is organized as follows: I will begin by theoretical framing of diversity and masculinity in organizations. In the following section, I will present the methodology of this study and the research background. In the third section, I will examine the process of constructing ethnic cultural context, followed by the intersectional process of challenging the hegemonic masculinity while suggesting alternatives.

2. Diversity in organization

Early studies on diversity in organizations focused on the way inequality is based on social categories such as gender [25, 26, 27] and racio-ethnicity [28, 29].

While these studies were based on a sociological paradigm, the following research is based on a psychological paradigm that focuses on the constraints and limitations faced by minorities in the organizations [1]. These studies examined the impact of social categories of various organizational aspects on the individual, such as equal opportunities [30] and performance [31] networks [32]. While the research mentioned above focused on the structure and mechanisms that created and perpetuated inequality, later research explained inequality as a result of prejudice and discrimination.

Initial notions concerning diversity in organizations were concerned with societal differences so that social inequalities could be managed and used by the organizations to influence performance, for instance, [33].

Critical diversity literature has questioned these approaches: First, studies on diversity have resulted in a narrow understanding of diversity in organizations, since they focus on a single category difference while neglecting the influence of, and intersection with, other categories. Second, these approaches demonstrate a lack of reference to a specific context and its role in shaping the meaning of identity. a critical point is concerned with inadequate reference to power that led to essentialized differences, without referring to historical, institutional, or socio-economic context [1, 34].

Critical diversity literature addressed these points and focused on a discourse through which identities and diversity are constructed in specific contexts [35], and the meaning of diversity in organizations is negotiated [36, 37], masculine identities [38, 39] and whiteness in organizations [40] are also discussed.

The most fruitful critical approach to diversity – one that has been slowly entering the research of organizations, and on which this paper is based – is intersectionality [4]. This concept emerged at the end of the 1970s in feminist theory, as a new way of examining social, cultural, political, and economic inequality [41]. Intersectionality began as a way of understanding the interconnectedness of gender, race, class, and later other social categories such as ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and nationality that occur both at the micro level of the individual and the macro level of institutions, society, and culture [5, 6, 7, 42]. Intersectionality is concerned with the analyzation of social and cultural hierarchies within various discourses and institutions; it reveals multiple forms of discrimination and inequalities and provides a critical view of how an individual or group becomes “the other” in normative surroundings within Western culture [8, 9, 43, 44]. Rather than focusing on one dimension, intersectionality theory emphasizes the complexity of multidimensional categories.

Applied to organizations, intersectionality has enabled the examination of multiple identities in organizations and their connection to the wider social context, which leads to the analysis of the power relations underneath the process of constructing identity [2, 3, 45]. Later research moved toward a structural dimension of inequality [20, 44, 46, 47] and to an understanding of both the influence of micro and macro, of the individual, and of the cultural and organizational level [48].

The first study of intersectionality in organizations focused on the intersection of gender, race, and class as a basis for inequality in organizations [46]. This study was followed by other studies examining the various intersections of religion, age, sexuality, nationality, management, and professions [23, 49, 50]. While the literature on intersectionality in organizations has gained much attention in recent years [2, 4, 24, 46, 51], it has mostly focused on the double (or triple) mechanisms of social oppression and inequality of women, thereby neglecting the role of intersections in influencing organizational masculine identity struggles, which are the focus of this paper. Furthermore, while studies of intersectionality have focused on the production and reproduction of inequality in organizations, I wish to highlight the way in which intersectionality challenges the image, perception, and demands of organizational identities, more specifically, in challenging the hegemonic masculinity while suggesting an alternative.

Based on the notion of intersectionality, I wish to examine the “performative view” of diversity that is actively produced within the organization [22] and to show that, identities are constructed while performing day-to-day activities based on various categorizations and classification systems [23]. Furthermore, I wish to move from the individual level and link it to the structural levels [4] by examining the construction of identities in the interaction between the culture of the organization and society. In this way, the research will broaden the intersectional theory of diversity by deepening the analysis of the context of intersectionality [52], and by showing that context plays an active part in the process of constructing identities within the organization. I argue that context does not just set the boundaries of the intersection but is one of the components of the intersection.

3. Organizational masculinity

Organizations are an important site for the construction of masculinity and masculine identities. In recent years, more and more attention has been given to the processes in which masculinity is experienced, performed, and negotiated in the context of work [12, 13, 14, 15, 53]. Studies on organizational masculinity demonstrate the multiplicity of masculine discourses [54], the multiplicity of masculine identities [11, 55, 56], and the various practices that sustain and recreate different forms of masculinities [10, 57].

Based on Connells’ research on masculinity [39], researchers began examining masculinity in organizations as a social construction process, this enabled them to explore the multiple, dynamic, fluid, and complex nature of masculinity. Consequently, more attention was given to the power relations between different types of masculinities [16, 18], including men from blue- and white-collar occupations [19], black and white men [17] and heterosexual vs. gay men at work [58]. As a result, masculinity is perceived nowadays as multidimensional and experienced differently in various organizational contexts and in different organizational ranks and occupations [38, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64].

Within organizations, the military is one of the most significant sites for the construction of masculine identities since it has been socially, culturally, and historically perceived as a male institution that relies on dichotomous definitions of femininity and masculinity for its existence [57, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69].

The combat soldier is observed as a meaningful model of masculinity and is associated with physical potency, power, aggressiveness, independence, discipline, sexual potency, violence, heterosexuality, commitment to mission, facing difficult situations, a sense of imperviousness, and, above all, manhood [38, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73]. In this sense, the combat soldier represents the dominant ideal of masculinity. However, existing literature regards the image of a combat soldier as unitary and homogenous. In the current paper, I use intersectionality to challenge the homogenous image of military hegemonic masculinity by deconstructing its unidimensional images of the combat soldier. I argue that the various masculinities are constructed through an intersection of gender, ethnicity, and cultural context. While challenging the hegemonic image of masculinity, the soldiers assert legitimacy for ethno-masculine identities previously considered inferior to the hegemonic masculinity and suggest that they may offer alternative masculine identities.

4. Methodology

The analysis is based on a qualitative methodology that utilizes a semiotic-interpretive approach, which is particularly well-suited for examining the subjective point of view of individuals operating within the studied frame of meaning [74]. This approach looks for the experiences, perceptions, and behavior of the respondents. Additionally, it enables to examine ethnic identity as a product of social construction that is the product of performances.

Based on the interpretations and experiences of sixty combat soldiers, the current study proposes a grounded theory [75]. This research strategy provides an understanding of the social processes under examination and develops theoretical considerations that are rarely studied in this field, thus leading to the generalization of subjects’ experiences and interpretations and the formation of a broader theoretical statement.

4.1 Data collection

The study is based on semi-interviews with sixty soldiers serving as combat soldiers in two infantry brigades in the Israeli military. The interviewees were combat soldiers who had completed their obligatory military in the range of one to three years after they have completed their service. Each interview lasted between one and two hours and was recorded and transcribed. In order to locate interviewees, I began with personal contacts or public notices, following that I used a snowball method. In order to evade the similarity bias of this sampling method, subjects were selected from varied social networks and from various geographical areas. The interviewees derived from diverse residential zones, lifestyles, socioeconomic status, family, religious, and ethnic backgrounds.

Using semi-structured interviews obtained a few identical questions, however, they were encouraged to elaborate outside the scope of the question they were asked, and to illustrate their answers by telling anecdotes, on the assumption that these narratives would further enrich the data.

All interviews began with a general question regarding the interviewee’s military service. Although the intention of the general question was to create and was to produce a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere, I assumed that even this general question would generate relevant information about the brigades’ respective organizational cultures. Following this, the soldiers were asked specific questions about the most notable features of their brigades, their perceptions of combat soldiers, and their ethnic identity.

The question enabled me to learn about the brigades’ cultural characteristics and the process of constructing the combat soldier and to identify the unique culture, and especially, the unique masculinity of each brigade.

4.2 Data analysis

Intersectionality analysis offers not only one but multiple methodology approaches [73]. This study is based on an interpretative approach and a hermeneutic reading, which involves searching for repetitive patterns in order to decipher concealed meanings [76]. This enables us to focus on the perception and interpretation of the interviewees.

I began the first reading by looking at the interviews for the brigades’ cultural characteristics. I collected all the quotes that demonstrated the brigades’ cultural behaviors, practices, and norms. In the second reading, I identified the masculine characteristics that each soldier displayed while describing the brigades. While analyzing the culture of the brigades, I realized that ethnicity played a crucial role in the process of constructing the culture and the soldiers’ identities. Therefore, in the third stage, I began an analysis of the cultural characteristics of each brigade, based on ethnic category. During the fourth stage, I analyzed the process of constructing masculine identity through the intersection of ethno-culture, gender, and ethnicity, based on the ethno-culture of each brigade.

These three categories became the basis of my theoretical model. In the following section, the process of data analysis and sense-making will provide further validation for the intersection of these categories as the basis of constructing an alternative masculinity that challenges hegemonic masculinity.

The analysis will be based on cultural characteristics that became apparent from the interviews, including noise level, appearance and dress code, music, phenotype, and the soldiers’ nicknames. Beforehand the findings and analysis, I will introduce the background of the brigade and ethnicity in Israeli society.

4.3 Case study

4.3.1 Golani and paratrooper brigades

The research foci, the Golani and Paratrooper brigades were selected out of a varied infantry units in the IDF with the same designations. They share the same demands, activities, and purposes, and both the brigades go through the same training. Nevertheless, each of them has a very distinctive culture, image, and identity.

This basis of the distinctions is different cultural characteristics: the Paratrooper is professed, both by society and the military, as prestigious and elitist joined by unique symbols. This is a volunteer brigade and there is a selection process. The military provides them distinct uniforms, and they undergo parachute course, which entitles them to the end paratrooper wings. Paratroopers see themselves as a notable brigade, with an admired heritage and a history.

Since its establishment, the Golani brigade has been known as the “people’s brigade,” a symbol that continues to be a substantial part of the brigade’s ethos. There is no selection process, and it is not a volunteer-based brigade. However, many desire to enlist in Golani because of its exclusive culture. While the paratroopers know as one who stresses the values of excellence and superiority, Golani stresses family values and brotherhood. I argue that these cultural differences are based on ethnic characteristics. So while in each brigade there are soldiers from various ethnic origins, each brigade is characterized by one specific and different ethnic culture; the Paratrooper brigade is perceived as Ashkenazi (immigrants from Europe and North America), while Golani is perceived as Mizrahi (immigrants from Arab countries).

Characteristics	Golani	Paratroopers
Trademark	“The people’s brigade”	elitist
Values	family	excellence
Enlistment	assignment	volunteer-based
Uniform	regular uniform; black boots; brown beret	special shirt; red (brown) boots; red beret; paratrooper wings
Culture	Mizrachi culture	Ashkenazi culture
Dress code	Sloppy	Neat
Behavior	noisy,; disobedient, undisciplined	quiet, obedient,; disciplined
Music	Mizrahi and Arabic	mainstream Israeli,; pop
Phenotype	dark skin	blond with blue eyes
Nickname	“Arab”	“Yellow”

4.3.2 Ethnicity in Israel – “Ashkenaziness” and “Mizrahiness”

“Ashkenaziness” and “Mizrahiness” are two enduring ethnic identities in the Israeli society. Profoundly embedded in Israeli culture and public discourse. Israel despaired to become a “melting pot” for immigrants from different countries and cultures [77]. The idea of the melting-pot society was to eradicate all ethnic differences, in order to merge all into one collective with a single nationality [78]. Mizrahi immigrants were expected to go through “de-socialization” process that demand them to abandon their traditional customs, which were perceived as culturally subordinate. The military was one of many institutions that took part played in “re-socializing” the Mizrahi immigrants in order to adopt the “advanced” and “progressive” Western culture [79].

It was only during the 1970s that critical sociologists started to examine Mizrahi’s “Mizrahiness” and the reasons for ethnic inequality and unequal access to opportunities; inequalities that persist even today [80, 81, 82, 83, 84]. As part of the critical discourse, “Ashkenaziness,” which was historically associated with the social elite in Israel, and hence considered normative, neutral, and non-ethnic, was exposed as an ethnic identification [78, 80].

There is until nowadays an innate ethnic perception regarding Mizrahiness and Ashkenaziness that is based on a hierarchy that holds these ethnic groups as distinct. However, most of the discrepancies between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi are not so much as o result of origin but rather become largely symbolic [84].

As a result, in my discussion of Mizrahiness and Ashkenaziness, I will discuss the cultural characteristics and construction of each group, rather than the origin of each identity. What emphasizes this hypothesis is that soldiers in each brigade, regardless of their ethnic origin, undergo a process of socialization that teaches them the ethno-culture of the brigade [85].

5. The ethno-cultural context

5.1 Noise and quiet

In each brigade, I identified diverse characteristics. The first character is the difference between noise and quiet. Golani soldiers characterize their brigade as a “neighborhood” and associate themselves with resistance and lack of discipline, which is reflected in their music and singing, and the rowdy impression they create.

For example, Ehud, a Mizrahi who served in the Golani brigade, describes the boisterous nature of the brigade:

“It’s like … we make a lot of noise and trouble, and when the commander tells us to shut up, it’s… who the hell are you, like… we can talk, [and] say whatever we want; we are not listening [to you]. Even if you’re a really good kid, Golani is Golani. It’s not like there were no Ashkenazim in Golani; there were lots. Really, some even came from a kibbutz… but… I don’t know how it turned out like this, in my squad and in the squads above me and below me, there were lots of Mizrahi.”

Ehud indicates that noise was one of the characteristics of Golani, and in doing so, refers not only to the volume of speech itself but rather to the lack of discipline and disobedience represented by it. In identifying noise with Mizrachiness and implying that quiet is characteristic of Ashkenaziness, he emphasizes that it is not innate, but cultural. Ethnicity is not a matter of origin, of essential identity, since there are also Ashkenazis in the Golani brigade. Instead, it is a cultural characteristic that is perceived as Mizrahi, and that serves as one of the behavioral norms of the Golani brigade.

The paratroopers, on the other hand, are characterized as quiet and disciplined. This is not to say that there is no singing in the paratroopers brigade, but it is not a major feature of this brigade.

Gilad, a former paratrooper of Ashkenazi origin, describes the differences in the Paratrooper and Golani brigades according to noise level:

“In the training camp, Golani’s squad commanders sing with the soldiers in the dining room […]. It’s very different than in the paratroopers, where only the soldiers were singing. Our squad commanders never sang with us. I was shocked to find out that Golani’s squad commanders sing with them.”

Singing is not forbidden in the paratroopers, but it is not considered to be characteristic either. The commanders do not criticize it, yet they do not take an active part. In contrast, in Golani, this norm is encouraged by the commanders.

Ami, a paratrooper of Mizrahi origin, discusses the ethnic aspect of noise level and the way each brigade is perceived:

“Yellows are wimps […] they are old, they don’t make too much trouble; [are] not very interesting. An Arab is someone who is warm, makes noise, has presence, [is] hot-blooded, and has many discipline problems.”

Noise in Golani represents presence and power, existence, as opposed to being weak and unnoticed. However, for the paratroopers brigade, which perceives itself as being an elite unit, quiet means strength. These soldiers do not have to prove their power since their position is secure. The maintenance of a quiet environment reflects the firm confidence they have in their standing.

The Golani brigade’s status, on the other hand, is not assured and is not taken for granted, so they announce their presence by making noise. Thus, loud, exciting, and stimulating singing becomes one of the symbols that represents strength for Golani. Moreover, their use of noise to attract attention and status is not just a matter of volume or noise level, but rather, symbolizes defiance against accepted behavior, not only of the army but of society as well.

5.2 Music

While music becomes a vehicle for the expression of sound and volume, the music that soldiers listen to, both at home and in the military, is, in and of itself, a differentiating characteristic. Paratroopers, overall, tend to listen to Israeli mainstream and rock music, whereas Golani soldiers listen to Mizrahi and Arab music¹.

The following quotes by Tamir, a Mizrachi paratrooper, illustrate the socialization process that soldiers undergo, involving music-related expectations that characterize each brigade:

“Most of the music we hear is what you call Israeli music, and most of the time we were sitting with a guitar at night, before we went to sleep, and started playing and singing. Before I was enlisted I did not connect to this kind of music; I listened to Mizrahi music, but the Israeli music I’ve listened to during my military service stayed with me until today. The paratroopers made a dramatic change in me.”

While Mizrahi music is predefined as ethnic the “Israeli music” preferred by paratroopers is presented as “neutral.” Furthermore, whereas the “Mizrahi” music is perceived as “the Other”, as “non-Israeli,” while the “Israeli music,” identified with Ashkenaziness, is perceived as neutral and non-ethnic [88]. However, the perception of Israeli music as “neutral” does not imply that the music does not have ethno-cultural characteristics, but rather, it reinforces that their status as the hegemonic group is taken for granted.

5.3 Appearance and dress code

Another characteristic differentiating the two brigades is appearance and dress code. While at first glance it looks like all uniforms are the same (khaki uniforms, army boots, a variety of pins, and emblems) and the only obvious difference is the color of the beret, closer scrutiny discloses a much wider diversity in appearance. The following quotes describe differences in the dress codes. As we can see in the quote of Ami, a paratrooper of Mizrahi origin:

“The colors of the berets are very different. In Golani, they decided that it would be the color of the terrain.²Our [paratroopers] beret is red, which is more prestigious. Elite units all over the world wear a red beret. It also looks better. In my opinion, if someone sees red or brown, red is always more attractive. The type of uniform is also very different, and it is really distinct between both brigades. We wear our shirts outside our pants. And of course, we wear red boots. The other units are not that different, they all wear black boots and a regular uniform. The color of the beret is the only thing that makes them distinctive. In the paratroopers, in fact, everything is different; everything.”

Liran, a former Golani soldier of Mizrahi descent, adds to the description:

“In Golani, when they [the soldiers] go home, they do not straighten the elastic band on top of the boots, as the master sergeant requests. They place it downwards. And they also wear their pants very low, as low as they can. Then they shorten the weapon strap, so you can see the top of the weapon over their shoulder. All sorts of stupid Golani stuff. The paratroopers, on the other hand, whenever you see one of them at the central bus station, they look very neat: the elastic band is on top of the boots, and the weapon strap is the standard length.”

These quotes illustrate the fact that each brigade has different dress codes constructed through various practices. Even though the military supposedly dictates an identical dress code for both brigades, in practice, two different modes of dress have developed. Paratroopers have unique uniforms and symbols and the soldiers comply with military disciplinary rules and are expected to adhere to a strict dress code that represents order, discipline, and prestige. Golani soldiers set different rules for themselves that push back against the requirements of the military; their sloppiness projects a general lack of compliance with wider military norms.

In providing a different uniform for paratroopers, the army positions them as distinct and elite, whereas Golani soldiers create their own distinctive mode of dress. In fact, the unofficial Golani uniform is not only different from that of the paratroopers but also contradicts military regulations in general. The Golani dress code, expressing disorder and a lack of discipline, challenges the hegemonic cultural concepts of the institutional demands.

5.4 Phenotype

The last separating characteristic I will refer to is phenotype. The skin is supposed to reflect one’s “natural identity,” and the skin color becomes a cultural and/or political mark [89]. So, prior to one’s acting or speaking, a process of classification occurs, during which, the individual is classified into a particular ethnic group due to his phenotype and is then expected to act in a way that follows that group.

Every group has its own expectations from its soldiers, and these expectations are related to a certain phenotype. An example of this, we can see in the words of Ofer, a Golani soldier, who is half Ashkenazi and half Mizrahi:

“I’ll give you one example. It’s a bad one, but I remember it. I had this squad commander; he was a complete Nazi; he was mean. One day, [a guy named] Shai Grossman arrived from a kibbutz and I remember what he did to him one lineup. [He shouted:] ‘Hey, Yellow, come here. You, if you don’t paint your face every morning and report to me black, I’ll kick your ass.’ I can’t say that this was what influenced me, but after you see this again and again, there’s no doubt that at some point, even unconsciously, you start thinking that black is good, and that being Mizrahi in the army is good.”

As we can see from the quote there is an altered expected phenotype in each brigade. The white phenotype that signifies the Ashkenazi hegemony in Israeli society is perceived as wrong, out of place, and incapable of full assimilation to Golani. The group is unwilling to accept the continued presence of the “Other” inside the group, so he is compelled to modify himself to the others in the group.

This discussion concerning skin color and the use of skin color to outline the group is a segment of the fixation of stereotypes; nonetheless, at the same time, it exposes the fact that these stereotypes are the outcome of social construction of ethnicity.

The last differentiating feature is the characterization of paratroopers as “yellow”³ and Golani soldiers as “Arab.” Gilad, an Ashkenazi paratrooper, describes this phenomenon:

“The paratroopers are perceived as Ashkenazim, as “yellow”, and the majority are indeed of Ashkenazi origin. In the battalions, for example, I’d say they are about half and half. But on the squad commander training course, where you find the best people of the brigades and the battalions, you can see the difference. A good number of Paratroopers who get there are “yellow”, that is Ashkenazim, good kids, wearing glasses. They are always on time, they do not get into trouble, they do not argue. Well, they do argue but … only about professional stuff. They think they are the smartest. They are good soldiers. You ask them to do something and they will do it. Golani soldiers [on the other hand] are the “Arabs” of the course; they are like… from the “hood”.”

The paratroopers are, first and foremost, characterized in terms of the color: yellow. Being “yellow” means being disciplined, organized, and obedient and meticulous who seeks excellence.

According to Gilad’s description, paratroopers do not define themselves but talk about the way they are perceived by others. This is reflected in his use of the third person: “paratroopers are perceived as Ashkenazim.” Only later does he switch to the use of the first person: “it’s as if they think… we think we are the best.” When speaking in the first person, he talks of excellence and refers, inter alia, to the selection process they go through to become paratroopers. In doing so, he describes the cultural characteristics of paratroopers in neutral terms.

On the other hand, Golani soldiers are described according to distinctive ethnic characteristics that represent the background of the Mizrahi. While the paratroopers do not perceive or call themselves “yellow, Golanis’ soldiers are the ones who call the paratroopers “Yellow” and refer to themselves as “Arab”. They consciously adopt Mizrahi characteristics, perceived in Israeli society as inferior, and flaunt them. Instead of eliminating them, as might be expected, Golani soldiers embrace the Mizrahi identity that has been imposing on the Mizrahis [78] and excesses it through their appearance, behavior, and by calling themselves “Arabs.”

As I have illustrated, each brigade has its own cultural characteristics that coincide with operational and professional demands. Within each brigade, these characteristics are not neutral but incorporate specific ethnic content. While the Golani brigade represents and displays Mizrahi culture, the paratroopers represent and display Ashkenazi culture.

The issue here is not the essential, inherent identity of each soldier in the brigade; ethnicity exists in everyday action, culture, practical experience, personal experience, and interpretation. No matter the ethnic origin of the soldiers in each brigade, it is the performance of the ethnicity of the particular brigade that matters and is central.

Moreover, the construction of culture in Golani represents a process of resistance to the normative (culturally Ashkenazi) perception of the military organization. Golani soldiers, therefore, construct and preform a contrasting (Mizrahi) ethno-culture that is perceived as inferior to the “normative” (Ashkenazi) culture.

In the following section, I will examine the intersection of the ethno-cultural context with gender and ethnicity that construct alternative masculinity, as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Reciprocal ethnicization.

The brigades’ ethnic characteristics are founded on the Israeli ethnic cultures that characterize and comprise the first facet of “reciprocal ethnicization.” Once ethnicity, as a social category, penetrates the brigades, it creates ethnic context and constructs ethnic culture. These ethnic cultures are the basis for the construction of the soldiers’ identities.

Both brigades train combat soldiers who represent the ideal preferred masculinity, however, as I argue, there is more than one image of combat soldier masculinity. Through a socialization process, the soldiers learn the brigade culture, which they continue to perform in their day-to-day activities. This enables the second facet of “reciprocal ethnicization” that occurs when the soldiers not only learn the ethno-cultural context, but the ethno-cultural context constitutes their organizational identity. Moreover, the continuous performance of this ethno-cultural context maintains and perpetuates the culture of each brigade. This process of “reciprocal ethnicization” serves as the basis of the construction of ethno-masculine identities. More specifically, it demonstrates that there is not only one unitary and homogenous image of the combat soldier, but rather, different types of images for the same role.

While the military presents soldiers with clear expectations of behavior and appearance, the Golani brigade sets a different code. Through cultural characteristics that distinguish the brigade, Golani soldiers construct defiant masculinity. This process challenges the hegemonic masculinity represented by the Paratrooper brigade while suggesting the construction of a legitimate alternative identity for the hegemonic masculinity. The construction of different masculinities and the challenge of accepted homogeneous hegemonic masculinity occur through the intersection of gender, ethnicity, and the cultural context construct.

6. Conclusions − Intersectional observation of the combat soldier

Both brigades studied here to share one military objective, yet they exhibit different cultures, which serve as fertile ground for the creation of different masculinities. The basis for these differences is ethnic characteristics that are expressed through dress, music, phenotype, nicknames, and noise level, and create an ethnic culture for each brigade.

This paper demonstrates the way in which an organizational cultural context acts as a vehicle for intersectionality since the process of constructing different combat soldier masculinities takes place via an intersection between masculinity, ethnicity, and cultural context. Each brigade demands certain cultural behavior from the soldiers, alongside operational and professional requirements. In this way, the organizational identity is composed not only of the job requirements but also of the cultural context.

As I have demonstrated that intersectionality [6, 7, 8, 9] enables a deeper understanding of the process of constructing organizational identities.

While studies on organizational masculinity have demonstrated that masculinity is composed of an intersection of gender with other social classifications, which creates different models of masculinities [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. The use of intersectionality theory allows to challenge of hegemonic masculinity and therefore the possibility of alternative dominant masculinity. In this way, intersectionality exposes the struggle of “the other” to become a legitimate alternative identity, masculinity, and culture. By doing so, the research suggests that intersectionality enables a deeper understanding of the characteristics that influence the construction of hegemonic masculinity and challenges the social hierarchies of masculinities.

I showed that the intersection occurs through a process of “reciprocal ethnicization” between ethnicity as a social category and the surrounding ethnic culture. So the intersection does not occur only within a specific context, instead, the context takes an active part in the intersection. In this way, the intersection is made up of gender, ethnicity, and cultural context.

Furthermore, this study attempts to highlight the micro–macro intersection [2, 4, 24] by illustrating how the organization enables individuals to perform and manage intersectionality through a cultural context. While focusing on individuals in groups within the organization, the research extrapolates the processes and mechanisms of the organization that are embodied and resonates within the individual. In this way, the study illustrates how social categories such as ethnicity and gender are preserved and perpetuated, not only by institutional mechanisms, policy, and structure but also by individuals through “reciprocal ethnicization.”