Instagramming the Infantry: gender and the British Army on social media
5th October 2022
By: Alex Starling, BA Sociology student
This blogpost has been written following Alex’s experience on our Level 6 Professional Experience module, working alongside Dr Natalie Jester and Dr Charlie Parker on a project entitled project ‘Instagramming the Infantry: gender and the British Army on social media’.
As part of my professional experience module NS6001, I carried out a placement assisting in research for Dr Nat Jester and Dr Charlie Parker of the University of Gloucestershire’s research project ‘Instagramming the Infantry: gender and the British Army on social media’. This data scoping analysed twelve posts by the British Army Instagram account between 13th May 2022 to 25th June 2022 (British Army, 2022(a), British Army, 2022(b), British Army 2022(c), British Army 2022(d), British Army 2022(e), British Army 2022(f), British Army, 2022(g), British Army, 2022(h), British Army, 2022(i), British Army, 2022(j), British Army, 2022(k) and The Royal Family and British Army, 2022).
The British Army and symbolism
The British Army is one of the key symbols of the British nation state according to a poll on attitudes towards British nationality (Thompson and Gardiner, 2012). The nation state as a concept exists, as explained by Howard (1979), in part as “a sense of differentiation from other communities” (Howard 1979). Howard further explains that nation states, which must to some degree use nationalism to survive, utilise “some degree of militarism” (Howard, 1979), which is used to create a shared identity within the nation state, as “most memorable incidents in the group memory usually are of conflict with, and triumph over, other communities” (Howard, 1979). In Britain, another key component of the nation state is the Royal Family (Thompson and Gardiner, 2012), which is both symbolically and functionally linked with the British Armed Forces (Thompson and Gardiner, 2012 and National Army Museum, Undated). This view is supported through data scoping carried out as part of my research. This data scoping found a pattern in posts, especially in June 2022 (the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee month). There was a consistent theme across some of these posts, focussing on the Queen and the link between the British Army and the Royal Family. Through a data scoping table, it could be observed that common imagery in the British Army’s Instagram posts were: representations of the various branches of the British Military in combat and ceremonial uniforms, The Royal Family, weapons and flags – both military and the Union Flag (British Army, 2022(f), The Royal Family and British Army, 2022, British Army, 2022(h)).
The British Army and Representation
In terms of the representation of women and LGBT+ people in the British Army, many posts in which women are prominently present are those to do with the Queen’s Jubilee. Those women shown, being members of the Royal Family, rather than serving members of the British Army (British Army, 2022(a), British Army, 2022(b), British Army 2022(c), British Army 2022(d), British Army 2022(e), British Army 2022(f), British Army, 2022(g), British Army, 2022(h), British Army, 2022(i), British Army, 2022(j), British Army, 2022(k) and The Royal Family and British Army, 2022). This can be explained through understanding that the British Army culture is one of hegemonic masculinity (Louise and Sangster, 2019 and Woodward and Winter, 2004). Arguably, what is viewed as the ‘traditional’ image of the British Army, is in fact the institutional embodiment of hegemonic masculinity and “an organizational culture defined, essentially, in opposition to femininity.” (Woodward and Winter, 2004, pp. 295-296). Related to this is the fact that, in none of the posts analysed in the data scoping project, were LGBT+ people mentioned. That is not necessarily to say that there were no LGBT+ people in any of the posts, rather, that no LGBT+ people were consciously, actively represented. It may be argued that this is not a problem, however, it should be noted that June is Pride month, which celebrates those whose sexuality or gender identity makes them a minority.
Given that “Between 1955 and January 2000, the UK Armed Forces (AF) and Ministry of Defence (MOD) enforced a ban on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and related (LGBT+) service, dismissing or forcing the immediate retirement of thousands of personnel because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” (Paige, Dodds and Jones, 2021), it clearly looks as though the Army has made significant progress, given that it now has a British Army LGBT+ account. However, the fact that the British Army has an LGBT+ account looks somewhat tokenistic, when in the most important month for LGBT+ recognition and celebration, the main British Army account made no acknowledgement of LGBT+ people.
Using Instagram as a propaganda tool
Kohn’s (2017) research on the use of Instagram as a propaganda tool by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), is somewhat applicable to studies regarding other military forces use of Instagram. Kohn’s (2017) research found that Instagram build “a system of obedient subconscious internalizing based on artistic appreciation that undermines the ability to be critical of the photo’s content.” (Kohn, 2017). He goes on to argue that “Instagram photos focus on … the possibility to create ‘pretty’ images to document the ‘beauty’ of nature”.(Kohn, 2017). This can be used to encourage “admiration for the ideological framework that draws a natural connection between nature and the actions of the army, between the grandeur of the natural world and glory of weapons, and between the individual observing nature and the soldier who becomes one with it.” (Kohn, 2017). This can be seen in the displays of the British Army’s power and equipment in Eastern European countries in some of these Instagram posts, which is significant due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in which the photos are taken in aesthetically pleasing natural surroundings (British Army, 2022(b), British Army, 2022(d), British Army, 2022(e), British Army, 2022(h)). This aestheticization of the military serves to portray the military, it’s actions and it’s implied and explicit values, appear more acceptable and palatable to the public.
In conclusion, through my work on this project, I found that the British Army: 1) has a culture of hegemonic masculinity, which leads to the marginalisation and tokenisation of women and LGBT+ members of the Army; 2) has an intimate link with the Royal Family, which has contributed to the two institutions being fundamental parts of the British nation state and prominent components of British national identity; and 3) the British Army can be understood to use Instagram as a propaganda tool, with the goal of making the military and their actions appear more socially acceptable to the public. In terms of further research in this area, there is plenty of scope for further such studies due to the woefully small amount of academic literature in the areas discussed. Another aspect of research which could be undertaken, is that of analysing how military social media accounts are interacted with by their audience, for example, in terms of the comments they receive on their posts.
References
British Army (2022(a)) [Instagram] 13th May, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CdgUqC5qP34/?hl=en, Accessed 10th July 2022.
British Army (2022(b)) [Instagram] 17th May, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CdqrHThFOGx/?hl=en, Accessed 7th July 2022.
British Army (2022(c)) [Instagram] 20th May, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CdxdFbeo9L7/?hl=en, Accessed 5th July 2022.
British Army (2022(d)) [Instagram] 25th May, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/Cd_Kl5EIpm-/?hl=en, Accessed 5th July 2022.
British Army (2022(e)) [Instagram] 31st May, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CeO1CuqIoIS/?hl=en, Accessed 4th July 2022.
British Army (2022(f)) [Instagram] 1st June, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CeRXKTYoIwO/?hl=en, Accessed 1st July 2022.
British Army (2022(g)) [Instagram] 7th June, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/Cefx2mkIj5I/?hl=en, Accessed 22nd June 2022.
British Army (2022(h)) [Instagram] 9th June, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CelnDk2I4Sw/?hl=en, Accessed 22nd June 2022.
British Army (2022(i)) [Instagram] 10th June, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CeoKbKFIqjx/?hl=en, Accessed 22nd June 2022.
British Army (2022(j)) [Instagram] 24th June, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CfMZgvKo13n/?hl=en, Accessed 1st July 2022.
British Army (2022(k)) [Instagram] 25th June, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CfOIWgAoh-y/?hl=en, Accessed 1st July 2022.
Howard, M. (1979). War and the Nation-State. Daedalus, 108(4), pp. 101–110. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024637 Accessed 25th July 2022.
Kohn, A. (2017) ‘Instagram as a naturalized propaganda tool: The Israel Defense Forces Web site and the phenomenon of shared values’, Convergence, 23(2), pp. 197–213. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856515592505, Accessed 14th July 2022.
Louise, R. and Sangster, E. (2019), Selling the military: a critical analysis of contemporary recruitment marketing in the UK, published by ForcesWatch and Medact, London, 2019, Available at https://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Selling-the-Military-WEB.pdf, Accessed 24th July 2022.
Paige, C., Dodds, C. and Jones, C. (2021), ‘Mental health and well-being of LGBT+ Veterans dismissed from the British Armed Forces before January 2000’, Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health, 7(1), pp. 122-126, Available at https://doi.org/10.3138/jmvfh-2021-0032, Accessed 25th July 2022.
The Royal Family and British Army (2022) [Instagram] 2nd June, Available at https://www.instagram.com/p/CeTl_75MNkm/?hl=en, Accessed 27th June 2022.
Thompson, H. and Gardiner, B. (2012) ‘What does the Union Jack mean to you?’, YouGov, Available at https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/05/01/what-does-union-jack-mean-you, Accessed 25th July 2022.
Woodward, R. and Winter, P. (2004) ‘Discourses of Gender in the Contemporary British Army’, Armed Forces & Society, 30(2), pp. 279–301. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X0403000207, Accessed 14th July 2022.