Conclusion
These four cases of female reenactors have shown how women try to define their places and roles within the reenactment community, which can be considered as ways of accessing a male-dominated world.
The women’s motivation to engage with this men’s world is rooted in their equally high interest in the history of the beginning of the American nation; however, their expectations regarding reenactment, the possibilities provided by the reenactment unit’s policy regarding female participation and their subsequent ways of performing the past are diverse. Two out of the four women perform a female character of the late 18th century—one because she was forced to do so by her reenactment unit’s policy of not allowing women for combat, and the other because she strongly believes that the contributions of women during the American Revolution have so far been neglected in restagings of these events. The other two women disguise their femininity in order to take part in combat as male soldiers. The practice of gender cross-dressing is ambiguous. At first glance, it evokes the assumption of equality and emancipation; however, masquerading the reenactors’ present-day female gender identity also means that women can assume positive roles only by becoming masculine. This reinforces the implicit assumption that the “masculine is superior to the feminine and that ‘masculinization’ is therefore an improvement” and progress (Carla-Uhink and Fiore, 2016, p. 202; Garber, 1993, pp. 63-68).Notwithstanding the differences between their forms of participation, all interviewees reported obstacles preventing women from becoming an acknowledged and respected part of a reenactment unit, obstacles that seem to be greater in number than for their male counterparts. Additionally, all interviewees stress that they have to work harder on developing their reenactment personas than the male reenactors of the unit.
Thus, the assumption that reenactment is a more democratic and easily accessible form of historical culture for the layperson could be reassessed when taking gender identity into account. It seems to be easier, and less provocative, for the existing reenactment community to include and integrate women who stick to their present-day gender identity and portray female characters, as women thusdo not interfere in combat, something regarded as a core defining element of reenactment by most of the male participants and a perceived marker of an idealized and revalorized masculinity. A minority of women voice their desire to take part in combat, while the majority remain outside the mainstream reenacting arenas by staying in specific, spatially defined areas of the camp.The restrictions on the participation of women in reenactment are mostly justified by the argument that reenactment must adhere as closely as possible to the 18th-century conditions. Most reenactment units perceive this as an authentic display. The use of authenticity as a regulating argument to control female participation disguises the fact that authenticity is not something essential or given, but is a socially negotiated construct. The practice of reenactment shows that, here, the construction of authenticity as an overarching value and standard is typically defined by male discourses, and it demonstrates that male power structures are at play as male reenactors authorize the historical narrative that will be accepted as correct and authentic. However, on the other hand, female reenactors stabilize and subscribe to this understanding of authenticity by not actively questioning it. Not questioning authenticity standards means women embrace the boundaries and reenact within defined roles and spaces, thereby enshrining the interpretation of the past that emerges from their performance. Challenging authenticity standards would most likely reduce their chances of becoming an (acknowledged) member of a reenactment unit.
The likelihood of questioning given standards will rise over time, with increased experience and sophistication in women’s reenactment practice. To a certain extent, this process can be grasped as women’s emancipation within the reenactment organizations, which can lead to women challenging established historical interpretations by giving voice to underrepresented women from the past during the American Revolution.The four cases of female reenactors also indicate that restaging the past can reproduce and amplify historical female roles uncritically. However, the examples of Interviewees 2 and 4 illustrate that there is subversive potential in women’s reenactment in both possible forms—either in performing as a woman from the late 18th century or in being a woman representing a male soldier from that time period. Two decisive factors for subverting strictly male narratives by female reenactors have become visible in the analysis: first, the women have to be acknowledged members of a reenactment unit, and second, they have to have a gender-sensible agenda when developing the reenacted character and while performing the reenactment itself.