Abstract
Private military and security companies (PMSCs) have gained increasingly in importance over the course of
the past two decades. Yet, given the intransparency of the industry and the heterogeneity of the companies
that comprise it, we thus far know little about the actors involved. In this article, we offer preliminary insights
into the self-representation of PMSCs, based on a gender-discourse analysis of the homepages of select
companies and their main professional associations. We argue that survival in an increasingly competitive
industry not only hinges on size, market share or effectiveness, but is also inherently gendered. PMSCs
and their associations draw on the one hand on civilized and accepted forms of masculinity and femininity,
presenting themselves as ‘highly skilled professional’ military strategists and ordinary businesses akin to banks
or insurance companies. At the same time, however, PMSCs also engage in strategies of (hyper)masculinization
and pathologization to set themselves apart from mercenaries, their private competitors and state security
forces. In this respect, companies appear to view themselves as ‘ethical hero warriors’. Whether intended
or not, their strategies have political consequences. Within the security industry, they contribute to the
creation and maintenance of a norm regarding what constitutes a legitimate PMSC, to which more or less all
companies strive to adhere. Vis-à-vis other security actors, these strategies seek to establish PMSCs as being
superior because, unlike these actors, such companies are super-masculine and able to live up to the growing
and sometimes contradictory demands of changing security contexts.
