Valley of the wolves and the politics of masculinity

Sunday, February 19, 2006

  In the world of both domestic and international politics there remains one vital element that incessantly, habitually and sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly plays a huge role and yet often goes unrecognized by experts: masculinity. Oftentimes, world politics is a manly business and a manly discourse. Nationalism is a manly treatise. Fundamentalism is a manly intimidation. This does not mean that every male politician on earth would automatically and biologically be comfortable in speaking this specific language. Not at all. The imposition of manliness on politics can be just as restrictive for men as for women. After all, one type of masculinity is being eulogized and worshipped while all other alternative ways of existence, other ways of doing politics, are held in low esteem.

  In a world where Hamas wins elections by promising further confrontation, in a world where the state of Israel still exerts systematic violence toward Palestinians, in a world where the Prophet Mohammed is vulgarly ridiculed and depicted as a terrorist in the name of freedom of expression, in a world where angry mobs burn Danish flags and Kentucky Fried Chicken stores in the name of protest… it is a huge array of competing masculinities from all sides that we are bombarded with.

  Over the years and all around the world, antagonistic manliness has been the norm for myriad politicians, not to mention the multitudes. Where and when nationalisms clash, it is not only nationalist ideologies that wage war against one another but also the specific masculinities that are generated on each side. Where and when religious fundamentalisms threaten one another, it is not only religiosities that compete but also mutually exclusive masculinities. My nation against yours… my religion against yours… my virility against yours… As universally widespread and deeply rooted might this tendency be, its dose increases or decreases as we move from one region to another. The Middle East in general is a land where that dose tends to be high. Politics of masculinity molds and manipulates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By the same token, it also shapes the ongoing Islamaphobia and xenophobia produced in the West and the waves of anti-Americanism produced in the East. Not surprisingly, the one movie that recently came out in Turkey and was immediately perceived as a symbol of “Turkish national pride” was also stamped with politics of masculinity.

  “Valley of the Wolves - Iraq” (Kurtlar Vadisi - Irak) is the most expensive movie ever made in Turkey. The fact that it was a spin-off from a much-cherished well-known TV series magnified its fame and appeal. The starting point of the story is a real event that took place in 2003 in northern Iraq. Back then a group of Turkish soldiers were taken out of their headquarters at gunpoint and were made to wear hoods over their heads -- an image that was instantaneously perceived as national humiliation in Turkey and became stuck in the mind of many Turks, creating profound resentment. Although American officials did apologize for this deeply damaging incident, the mood behind the movie indicates that this was not enough. Somehow some “settling of scores” was needed. To give tit-for-tat is the nuts and bolts of the politics of masculinity. If you put a hood on my head, I put a hood on your head. Is it any different than what Iran did recently in response to the cartoon controversy? If you mock my Prophet I mock your Holocaust. Always the same pattern. Always the same fixation. Thus the main motif of the movie: manly vengeance.

  “Valley of the Wolves” has been openly sowing seeds of crude jingoism, machismo and xenophobia at a time when the whole world had already its fill of each. I walked out of the movie deeply distressed and concerned. It was less the movie itself that upset me than the widespread acclamation it received from people (students, journalists, bureaucrats, professionals…) from so many different walks of life.

  Nevertheless, it is worth bearing in mind not to exaggerate the movie s impact out of proportion. This is just an air-stream that will come and go, a temporary agitation that soon will be over. It is alarming, indeed, but no more alarming than the famous Rambo movies that similarly thrived on American nationalist-masculinity. The movie will not wreck, not even change, Turkish-American relations. Like so many jingoist movies produced in the East and West, this too will eventually fade away. What will solidly remain with us, however, is the politics of masculinity shared and cherished by billions everywhere. It is precisely therein that resides the potential for new movies, new bullying, new clashes.