Conflict Resolution: Feminist Perspectives
Summary and Keywords
The academic study of conflict resolution was born as as a critique of mainstream International Relations (IR), which explains why feminist theory and conflict resolution share many things in common. For example, both feminists and conflict resolution scholars challenge traditional power politics grounded in realist or neorealists analyses of conflict. They also share the core belief that war is not inevitable and that human beings have the capacity to resolve conflicts through nonviolent means. In the past two decades, with the expansion of feminist scholarship in IR, feminist interventions in conflict resolution have gained more currency. This essay reviews feminist scholarship in conflict resolution, with particular emphasis on five elements: critiques of the absence and/or marginalization of women in the field and an effort to include women and to make women visible and heard; articulation of a unique feminist standpoint for approaching peacemaking and conflict resolution, which is essentially different to, and qualitatively better than, mainstream (or male-stream) perspectives; feminist theorization of difference in conflict resolution theory and practice (challenges to essentialism, intersections, power and privilege, culture); feminist redefinition of central concepts in the field, especially violence, power, peace, and security; and original feminist research and theorizing, including field research in conflict areas, designed to transform rather than just reform the field. This essay argues that in order to further expand and institutionalize conflict resolution studies, mainstream scholars must be willing to engage seriously the contributions and critiques of feminists.
Although the term “conflict resolution” has been in use for quite some time, only in the past two decades has it been institutionalized as a distinct field of study in the academy and as a body of knowledge and applied skills that can be utilized in many spheres of our personal, social, and political lives. Because the academic study of conflict resolution emerged as a critique of mainstream International Relations (IR), feminist theory and conflict resolution have much in common. First and foremost, they share a critique of traditional power politics grounded in realist or neorealists analyses of conflict. Further, feminists and conflict resolution scholars share the core belief that war is not inevitable and that human beings have the capacity to resolve conflicts nonviolently. Yet, despite the striking similarities between conflict resolution theory and feminist theory, feminist perspectives and feminist scholars and practitioners remain marginalized within the field of conflict resolution, much like their counterparts in other fields of inquiry.
Feminist interventions in conflict resolution have been similar in many ways to feminist critiques in other disciplines and fields of inquiry, but they have gained more currency in the past two decades, with the expansion of feminist scholarship in IR. Feminist perspectives on conflict resolution ranged in tone and political goals and, like other political interventions, they can be organized along a continuum, from liberal calls for inclusion and visibility within the emerging field of study and practice to more radical interventions which have called into question the underlying assumptions and mainstream theories in the field. The latter interventions did not call for reforms within the field but rather demanded its radical transformation. As part of the effort to transform conflict resolution, a new generation of feminist conflict resolution scholars has engaged in original theorizing and groundbreaking research, including in conflict-torn regions. The original scholarship published as a result of these studies, which will be discussed later in this essay, underscores the centrality of gender to conflict resolution theory, research and practice. The body of original feminist research in conflict resolution highlights issues and dimensions of conflicts that have remained unexamined in conventional, nonfeminist, conflict resolution scholarship.
Feminist scholarship in conflict resolution has included at least one element, though often some combination of several, from the following list:
1. Critiques of the absence and/or marginalization of women in the field and an effort to include women and to make women visible and heard.
2. Articulation of a unique feminist standpoint for approaching peacemaking and conflict resolution, which is essentially different to, and qualitatively better than, mainstream (or male-stream) perspectives.
3. Feminist theorization of difference in CR theory and practice (challenges to essentialism, intersections, power and privilege, culture).
4. Feminist redefinition of central concepts in the field, especially violence, power, peace, and security.
5. Original feminist research and theorizing, including field research in conflict areas, designed to transform, not merely reform, the field.
In this essay, I focus primarily on feminist perspectives pertaining to the analysis and resolution of conflicts, which have been traditionally described in IR literature as “international conflicts” and/or “ethnic conflicts.” Feminists, like other critical scholars, have called the terms themselves into question and suggested alternatives. In addition to critically examining various feminist critiques of conflict resolution theory, research, and practice, this essay highlights original and noteworthy contributions that feminist scholars and practitioners have made to conflict resolution study and practice. Finally, I discuss some new directions for feminist work in this area and examine the prospects and challenges for a fruitful collaboration between scholars of conflict resolution and feminist scholars.
Challenging Exclusion and Marginalization: Struggles for Inclusion, Voice, and Visibility
Early interventions centered around the question “where are the women?” in conflict resolution theories, research, and such practices as mediation and negotiation. Feminist scholars challenged the absence, exclusion, and marginalization of women’s experiences, voices, and perspectives both at the negotiation tables and in textbooks (Rifkin 1984; Kolb and Coolidge 1991; Stamato 1992; Sharoni, 1993; Taylor and Miller 1994; Kolb 2000; Anderlini 2007; English 2009). They questioned why, despite the fact that 51 percent of the world’s population is female and that women across the globe have been at the forefront of peace and justice struggles since at least the turn of the century, women continue to be marginalized, if not excluded, from official policy-making circles or at best are confined to the margins of political debates concerning peace and security. They further suggested that paying attention to women’s experiences would greatly contribute to both the analysis and the resolution of conflicts (Sharoni 1993; 1995; Cockburn 1998; 2007; Byrne 2009). Many feminists insisted that because women and girls constitute at least half of the world population, their experience should be counted and carefully considered alongside the experience of men (Taylor and Miller 1994; D’Amico and Beckman 1995; Turpin and Lorentzen 1996). Others, on the other hand, argued that because women are different to men, mostly due to a gendered socialization and experiences in conflict, they may be uniquely positioned to offer creative approaches to conflict resolution and peacemaking (Eisler 1989; Boulding 1992, 1995; Reardon 1993; Fearon 1999; Fearon and McWilliams 2000).
In the academy, the struggle was led primarily by graduate students with feminist consciousness who drew attention to the exclusion of women’s voices and perspectives from course syllabi and major texts. They also pointed out the absence of women faculty, especially in programs that focused on international conflict resolution and offered graduate degrees in the field (Sharoni 1993; Stephens 1994; English 2009). These interventions called for the inclusion of work by women and on women in the emerging conflict resolution canon, and for the hiring of women faculty, whose teaching responsibility would include developing new courses that focused on gender and conflict. Around the same time, women and feminist practitioners in the growing field of mediation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) began to call into question the assumption that mediation and negotiation were gender-neutral processes. They highlighted differences in women’s and men’s experiences of the conflict as well as in processes of mediation and negotiation and their outcomes (Hill 1990; Chataway and Kolb 1994; Dewhurst and Wall 1994; Watson 2004). The critiques were similar to feminist critiques in other fields. Feminists called into question the dominant discourses of mediation and negotiation for the masculinist assumptions and expectations. Grounded primarily in rational-choice theories, negotiators were expected to be rational, competitive, utility-maximizing individuals, while mediators were proffered to be neutral and objective. Feminists argued that these expectations valorize behaviors that are associated with men and therefore perpetuate their dominance in the field. Instead, they introduced alternative perspectives on conflict, mediation, and negotiation, focusing primarily on power dynamics and social aspects of relationships (Kolb and Coolidge 1991; Kolb 1992; Taylor and Miller 1994; Kolb and Putnam 1995; Ely and Meyerson 2000; Putnam and Kolb 2000).
In the area of policy making, feminist perspectives on conflict and conflict resolution challenged the absence of women at all decision-making levels and especially at the negotiation tables (Cravers 1990; Kolb and Coolidge 1991; Watson 1994; Mazur 2002). More recently, researchers using datasets examined the impact of gender inequalities on intrastate conflict. They concluded that states characterized by gender inequality are more likely to experience intrastate conflict (Caprioli 2000, 2005; Caprioli and Boyer 2001). Along with the expansion of this body of literature, debates about gender inclusiveness and its implications for conflict and peacemaking have become commonplace in advocacy circles, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs) around the world. Women within these organizations have worked tirelessly to transform policies and practices in the direction of gender-mainstreaming. UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is viewed as a serious milestone in the laborious process of infusing gender awareness and sensitivity into peacemaking and peacekeeping (Anderlini 2004; Anderlini and El-Bushra 2004; Cohn et al. 2004).
A Different Standpoint or Essentialist Theorizing?
While many feminists continue to focus on documenting women’s contributions to conflict resolution and peacemaking and advancing “gender mainstreaming” within international organizations that intervene in conflicts, others have warned against the tendency to “add women and stir,” which may not have a significant impact on the analysis or the resolution of conflicts (Zalewski 1995; Daly 2005; Squires 2005; Squires and Weldes 2007). At the same time, feminists inspired by women peace activists around the world have insisted that women have a different perspective on questions of war and peace and therefore can make unique contributions to peacemaking and to conflict resolution initiatives (Boulding 1992; Reardon 1993). Although feminists enthusiastically embraced the project of highlighting women’s activism around the world, the claim that women’s agency stems from their sex categorization was not unanimously endorsed by feminists.
Indeed, there has been an ongoing debate among feminists, as in scholarly and policy-making circles and the general population, on whether the mere call for equal participation of women in political affairs would guarantee a more peaceful agenda. The fact that throughout history more women than men have organized against war and in search of nonviolent ways to resolve conflicts has been used by some feminists as to establish the case for women’s special relationship to peace and for a unique feminist standpoint on peacemaking and conflict resolution (Cambridge Women’s Peace Collective 1984; Eisler 1989; Boulding 1992; Alonso 1993).
Those who wish to maintain the status quo of male-dominated politics have often used as examples of such hawkish, nationalist, and warmongering female leaders as Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Madeline Albright, and Condeleeza Rice (Fukuyama 1998). However, most feminists working on these issues nowadays insist that it is not one’s biological sex, but rather one’s overall political perspective and vision and the gendered systems that shape them, that affect one’s inclination for war or peace (Hunter and Flamenbaum 1993; Zalewski 1995; Tickner 1997; Caprioli 2000; Peterson and Runyan, forthcoming).
This debate has triggered many conversations among feminist scholars and activists, inspiring more complex theorizing that takes into account women’s experiences as both victims and perpetrators of conflict and makes clear that the call for the inclusion of women at the negotiation table is first and foremost a call for the inclusion of different perspectives. Toward this end, some feminists sought to demonstrate that women do have a special relationship to peace and to explain why and how it differs from conventional male perspectives.
During the latter part of the nineteenth century, primarily in Europe and North America, women activists and feminist scholars began to explore and articulate the connections between their struggles for emancipation as women and their pursuit of justice and peace. A prime example of this perspective was Virginia Woolf’s 1938 treatise Three Guineas, which was written in the form of a letter in response to a man’s question on how to prevent war. Woolf suggested that the issue of “how to prevent war” was linked to the broad complex of social relations and gender inequalities that prevailed in society at that time. She challenged the separation between the private and public domains which, she argued, has maintained women’s exclusion from public and political roles. Her prescription was to bring the private world of women into the public world of men to transform both (Woolf 1938).
Since the mid-1970s, much feminist work has sought to explain women’s predisposition to peacemaking and the non-violent resolution of conflicts. Some argued that because women experience sexism and violence they can empathize with other victims and support movements for justice and peace (Brownmiller 1975; Enloe 1987). Others insisted that it was women’s experiences as nurturers, and especially the practice of mothering, that provides the basis for a unique feminist standpoint on peacemaking and conflict resolution (Noddings 1984; Brock-Utne 1985; Reardon 1985; Ruddick 1989). Sara Ruddick’s work on “maternal thinking” is exemplary of feminist theorists who claim that there is an “authentic” universal experience of mothering, which when released from patriarchal control can challenge militarization and nurture peaceful relationships (Ruddick 1989). The contention that women have unique peacemaking qualities and skills has later come under attack for reinforcing cultural practices and social expectations, which tend to equate men and masculinity with war and patriarchy.
A major work at this time was Betty Reardon’s influential book Sexism and the War System (1985), which challenged the dominant view at the time within the field of peace studies that “women’s issues” (usually narrowly defined by men) are secondary or collateral to the central concerns with questions of peace and war. Reardon equated war with patriarchy, militarism with sexism, and peace and world order with feminism (Reardon 1985). She appealed to peace movements and to peace researchers to place women’s experiences and feminist analyses at the center of their work and to utilize education as a means to produce the visions and capacities for social transformation. Along these lines, empirically supported research in the fields of negotiation and mediation suggested significant differences in conflict resolution styles between women and men (Rifkin 1984; Maxwell 1992). Drawing mostly on Carol Gilligan’s work, the skills required for successful mediation and negotiation were initially viewed as more compatible with women’s values and dispositions (Gilligan 1982). Nevertheless, most feminist research and writing about mediation, especially family law mediation, have strongly criticized mediation as a process, insisting that it often puts women at a disadvantage (Woods 1985; Shaffer 1988; Girdner 1989; Ellis 1990; Hill 1990).
This period saw the emergence of scholars who referred to themselves as “feminist peace researchers.” Paying close attention to the peace movement and to women’s roles within it, they engaged in challenging conventional scholarship on questions of war and peace and searching for new theoretical frameworks and strategies to address these questions. This project grew out of the realization that the process of conducting corrective and compensatory research had shown that the scientific method – with its emphasis on objectivity, freedom from values, and abstract reasoning – reflected the experiences, mindset, and expectations of Western white males (Carroll 1972; Forcey 1991; Tickner 1992; Sylvester 2002). The result was new theorizing, research agendas, and methods that were qualitatively different from the research reflected in such flagship male-dominated journals as the Journal of Peace Research and the Journal of Conflict Resolution.
These feminist theories and critiques examined such topics as the linkages between the public and private domains, those between the violence of war and violence against women, and those between sexism and militarism. Although some feminists occasionally compared their experiences to those of other disenfranchised groups, for the most part the effort to articulate unique feminist perspectives on peace came at the expense of addressing differences among women, such as those based on race, class, and sexual orientation.
Feminists Theorize Difference in Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice
Feminist explorations of difference in relation to conflict and conflict resolution have centered around two central themes in contemporary feminist debates. The first is a critique of the treatment of women as a monolithic entity, which is essentially different to that of men. The second, related theme addresses differences among women.
Over the last two decades, feminist scholars have raised important theoretical and methodological questions that challenged the treatment of women and men as monolithic entities, diametrically opposed to one another. In the context of peace and conflict studies, these critiques called into question the common juxtaposition of men-warriors and women-peacemakers (Elshtain 1987; Sylvester 1987; 1989; Forcey 1991; Sharoni 1998; 2001; Skjelsbak 2001). These questions arose in the context of broader theoretical discussions, involving both a conceptual shift from a focus on “women” and “men” to a focus on “gender” as a socially constructed category and a methodological shift from empiricism and materialism to constructivism (Ackerly et al. 2006).
From a social constructivist perspective, gender is both an analytical category and a relational social process (Butler 1990; Scott 1990; Butler and Scott 1992; Ferguson 1993). Further, feminists have insisted that no categories, identities or practices associated with being women or men are natural or universal. Given this contention, any attempt to generalize differences between women and men, as collectivities, comes at the expense of differences among women and men as well as at the expense of historical specificity. Inspired by this new theoretical perspective, feminists writing about war, peace, and conflict have engaged in theorizing and original research that took into account the multiplicity of women’s voices and perspectives in different contexts (Elia 1996; Connolly 1999; Mason 2005). The attention to difference allowed feminists to examine critically contradictions and conflicts not only between women and men, but also among women, and more recently among men (Sharoni 1998; 2008; Whitworth 2004). As a result, there is now a rich body of literature that addresses constructions of masculinity in conflict, peacekeeping, and peacemaking (Zalewski and Parpart 1998; Masters 2008; Parpart and Zalewski 2008; Sharoni 2008).
For example, feminists insisted that women’s perspectives on war and peace, like gender identities, are socially constructed and therefore must be examined in relation to the particular historical and sociopolitical contexts that shaped them. Along these lines, feminists insisted that women’s struggles for peace and contributions to conflict resolution initiatives cannot be understood apart from women’s participation in and support of wars (Elshtain 1987; Sylvester 1987; Elshtain and Tobias 1990; Forcey 1991). In the context of our discussion on difference, feminists argued that attempts to separate women’s involvement in war from their struggles for peace reduce the complexity of women’s experiences and their diverse responses to conflict. This perspective led to extensive research on the role of women in militaries and in various support roles for militaries and militarization (Turshen and Twagiramariya 1998; D’Amico and Weinstein 1999; Enloe 2000; 2007; McKelvey 2006). Feminist research has also encompassed women in national liberation movements, including those who used armed struggle as one of their modes of resistance (Sylvester 1989; Abdulhadi 1998; Sjoberg and Gentry 2007).
Feminists insisted that paying attention to difference is important not only in order to recover silenced and marginalized voices and validate individual identities, but also as a way of exposing structured inequalities and power differentials. It was this realization of power imbalances at the mediation table that inspired feminist critiques of the mediation process, especially in the field of divorce mediation and family law (Woods 1985; Shaffer 1988; Girdner 1989; Ellis 1990; Hill 1990). Feminists insisted that understanding difference can be instrumental to examining power structures and relationships. To illustrate this point, Peterson and Runyan (2009:86) use the phrase “global gendered, racialized, and sexualized divisions of power, violence, and labor and resources.” This theoretical contention was inspired by feminist theories of intersections, which emerged in the context of and in relation to social movements, especially those led by people of color, gays and lesbians, women, and working-class people.
By “intersections,” feminists referred to the interconnectedness of gendered identities, structures of domination, discrimination, oppression, exploitation, and violence (Crenshaw 1991; Mohanty 2003). These theories grew out of the experiences of women who felt that their histories and struggles were not reflected in the agenda of the feminist movement in Europe and North America. They included women of color, lesbians, working-class women and women in the global south, arguing that their experiences as women need to be examined in relation to other experiences shaped by their race, culture, ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation. Women of color in the US insisted that they can only be part of a feminist movement if it incorporates the notion of difference and does not force them to choose between their struggle against sexism and their commitment to end racism (Moraga and Anzaldua 1983; hooks 1984; 1990; Collins 1992; Anzaldua and Keating 2002). Along these lines, women in the global south who were engaged, alongside men, in struggles for national liberation, called into question the simplistic distinction of men-warriors and women-peacemakers. Furthermore, because these women were involved in a dual struggle, for national liberation and for women’s liberation, they began to explore and address the linkages between gender oppression and the broader political context within which it unfolds (Stephenson 1983; Jayawardena 1986; Mohanty 1991).
Feminists who theorize difference see that gender identities and gender relations are socially constituted through complex interrelated processes. As a result, the actual content of being a man or a woman and the rigidity of the categories themselves are highly variable across cultures, contexts, and time. Understanding the existing linkages between different, usually interlocking, systems of domination and oppression and between different cartographies of struggle is central to the analysis of conflicts and the exploration of prospects for their resolution. Taking difference into account and applying feminist theories of intersections to conflict resolution does not involve merely paying attention to race, gender, and class as variables in a particular case study. Rather, intersectional analysis should be used to uncover the distribution of power within systems and relationships and especially to reveal how unequal distribution of power and privilege can sow the seeds and lead to the escalation of conflict.
Feminists Redefine Central Concepts in Conflict Resolution Theory, Research, and Practice
Most, if not all, feminist literature dealing with conflict and conflict resolution begins with the premise that concepts such as violence, power, security, and peace are gendered (Cohn 1987; Tickner 1992; Enloe 1993; 2000; 2007; Sharoni 1995; Pettman 1996; Agathangelou 2004; Mazurana et al. 2005; Rai and Waylen 2008; Shepard 2008; Peterson and Runyan 2009). Feminist reformulations of violence, power, peace and security have broadened the range of political discourse by challenging the narrow definition of “women’s issues” and “politics.” This work has the potential to transform the theories, research, intervention methods, and public debates that frame our understanding of conflict in all sphere of social and political life.
Conflict resolution theory and practice rests heavily on such concepts as violence, power, peace, and security, and for the most part scholars and practitioners in the field have embraced the conventional conceptualizations of these central ideas. Accordingly, the definition of violence has been limited to physical violence and power has been understood mostly as “power over,” characterized by competition, domination and control. Similarly, mainstream conflict resolution has accepted conventional conceptualizations of peace and security. These conceptualizations have been for the most part grounded in an understanding of political life as a matter of government institutions and policies; competition between states and parties over interests, needs, and values; and clashes of powers and ideologies. Because the meaning of security has grown out of concerns about war and peace – understood as opposites – within the international state system, the meaning of peace has been limited to simply the absence of war and the understanding of security has been limited to “national security.”
Feminists continue to challenge conventional understandings of central concepts in the field for ignoring, obscuring, and marginalizing a broad range of issues, voices, and perspectives. Judging from the growing body of feminist literature on war, peace, security, and international politics more generally, feminists have been quite successful in disrupting dominant paradigms and conventional ways of theorizing conflicts and their resolution. Given the quantity and quality of the scholarship on war and peace produced by feminists in the past two decades, it is reasonable to expect that mainstream scholars will join their progressive counterparts and critically engage this literature.
Feminists who have engaged in projects of rethinking concepts such as violence, power, peace, and security searched for alternative formulations that would resonate with the daily lives and struggles of women in different conflict zones around the world. The search for alternative formulations focused on questions such as, what roles do women play in conflicts and in the processes designed to bring about their peaceful resolution? How do they define violence, power, peace, and security? What are the particular strategies, processes, and organizational frameworks that women employ in their conflict resolution efforts and in their struggles for peace and justice? And how do women’s and men’s lives change, during conflict and post-conflict? In many ways, feminist reconceptualizations of violence, power, security, and peace offer a conceptual framework that can address all these questions and more.
Most conceptualizations of violence within the field of conflict resolution are informed by Johan Galtung’s theorizing about violence. According to Galtung, peace researchers, scholars, and practitioners must look beyond the manifestations of direct, physical violence, which often leave marks on the body. His theory encompasses two additional types of violence: structural violence and cultural violence (Galtung 1975, 1990).
While feminists have generally found Galtung’s theorizing of structural and cultural violence compatible with feminist interpretations of violence, they have been greatly disappointed that neither he nor his male counterparts have paid much attention in their work to the gendered nature of violence (Confortini 2006). Early feminist theorizing on violence addressed mainly direct, physical violence, and associated violence with men and nonviolence with women (Eisler 1989; Kirk 1989; Boulding 1992). These conceptualizations became more complex as feminists began to articulate connections between violence against women and structural and cultural forms of violence including the war system (Sharoni 1994; Agathangelou 2004; Sachs et al. 2007; Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2009). The shift in feminist thought to theorizing differences and articulating intersections resulted in more nuanced conceptualizations of violence, which greatly enrich Galtung’s definitions of structural and cultural violence. The main difference, however, is that feminist conceptualizations of violence tend to be context-specific, grounded in particular struggles, and addressing systemic violations of people’s rights and dignity based on gender, race, ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation, among other things. Feminist redefinitions of violence offer conflict resolution scholars and practitioners conceptual tools to look beyond the symptoms of violence and examine its root causes. In most cases, there were structured inequalities and/or asymmetrical power relations, which tend to propel and fuel violence.
Feminist reconceptualizations of power are especially relevant to the resolution of international conflict since, like many conflict resolution frameworks, they offer a critique of the paradigm of power politics that has dominated the field of international politics and diplomacy for almost a century. Feminists have taken issue with conventional conceptualizations of power grounded in violence and dominance because they overlook other such dimensions and characteristics of power as energy, capacity, and potential. This critique is often referred to as the difference between “power over” and “power to” (Hartsock 1983; Eisler 1989; Margolis 1989; Boulding 1992).
The powerful feminist slogan “the personal is political” has inspired many feminist attempts to redefine power in relation to conflict. Accordingly, issues like division of labor within the household, self-esteem, depression, or violence against women, which women tended to view as their private issues, are reframed as political issues, originating from and reflecting unequal power relations. Along these lines, power can be defined as agency, manifesting itself in examples of women’s activism in conflict areas. As the conflict transforms their lives, these women feel empowered to shape its course and outcome (Sharoni 2001). More recently, feminist reconceptualizations of power have been influenced by Michel Foucault’s theorizing on power. According to this formulation, power is everywhere, producing and shaping the meaning of everything we do (Shepard 2008). If everything we can see is shaped by and in turn shapes power relations, then everything we see is gendered, raced, and imbued with structured inequalities. This complex and multifaceted conceptualization of power has much to contribute to the analysis and resolution of conflicts.
Feminist scholars and activists have long called into question the pervasive understanding of security as “national security.” Thus they challenged the tendency to conflate security with national security, which takes for granted state power and the existing political status quo. They raised serious concerns with the overwhelming priority of states to invest funds and energies in the military and then rely upon the threat of using the army to “protect” the collective citizenry (Harris and King 1989; Ruddick 1989). Feminist case studies from around the world support the argument that states, far from being the providers of security, as is often assumed, have become a primary source of insecurity, especially for women and other underprivileged groups (Harris and King 1989; Sharoni 1993; Agathangelou 2004; Scuzarello 2008). Based on this evidence, feminists have concluded that the more preoccupied a government is with what it calls “national security,” the more insecure are its vulnerable constituents (Enloe 1987; 2007; Sharoni 1994; Abdo and Lentin 2002; Sachs et al. 2007). Feminist reexaminations of dominant security discourses point out that “security” has become more an instrument of mystifying rhetoric than a concept with any analytical precision.
Furthermore, appeals to the need for security have quite often been used (by states) to justify the most blatant military campaigns and territorial expansions. The post-September 11, 2001 era has not only provided ample evidence to support this proposition but also inspired some brilliant, highly original feminist scholarship (Falcon 2006, Jiwani 2006, Russo 2006, Faludi 2007, Riley et al. 2008). Feminist reconceptualizations of security suggest a shift from thinking about security in mutually exclusive, zero-sum ways (i.e., “national security”) to focusing instead on “human security” or “global security.”
Nevertheless, many feminist critiques go beyond the critique of “national security” to question the very idea of “security” as a totalizing patriarchal concept that cannot accept any disorder, incoherence, or lack of control. In contrast, feminists suggest that security is always partial, elusive, and mundane (Sylvester 1989; Tickner 1992). Feminist interpretations of security do not treat it as an absolute end or as a scarce resource which needs to be possessed, but rather as a very complex and elusive process that needs to be negotiated and renegotiated as change occurs in different historical and sociopolitical circumstances (Tickner 1992). More recently, feminists have challenged other feminists and peace activists who tend to define security as an outcome that can be achieved rather than as a discourse. In these flawed formulations, the term “security” is often used interchangeably with the term “peace,” and both assume the end of armed conflict (Jabri 1996; Mackay 2004; Shepard 2008). Feminist reconceptualizations of security can transcend what Laura Shepard (2008:127) refers to as the “theoretical tautology of defining conflict as the absence of security and security as the absence of conflict.”
Feminists, regardless of the particular theories or struggles they are associated with, have generally accepted Galtung’s conceptualization of peace, which is grounded in the distinction between negative peace and positive peace (Galtung 1990; Confortini 2006). Indeed, early feminist theorizing on peace and conflict defined peace as more than the absence of physical violence, insisting that “real” peace must involve the absence of all forms of violence, including structural and cultural violence, and the presence of justice and equality for all (Boulding 1992; Reardon 1993). Peace is viewed as an outcome that seems rather impossible to achieve.
Drawing on examples from the ongoing conflicts and political processes in Israel, Palestine and Northern Ireland, Sharoni (2001:174) argues that “the transition from conflict to post-conflict realities is more complex and multi-faceted than a simple departure from a negative situation (i.e conflict) to a positive one (i.e. peace).” Cynthia Enloe (1987:538) suggested a more modest definition that emerges from “the conditions of women’s lives,” and involves “women’s achievement of control over their lives.” While this definition is both more subtle and more complex than conventional conceptualizations of peace, it still conceives of peace as a tangible outcome. Instead, some feminists suggest that peace does not have a fixed meaning, that it should rather be viewed as a political discourse. The definition of “peace,” like that of any other term, reflects the political position of the person or group who defines it as well as the particular sociopolitical context within which it is constructed. Different definitions of peace often reveal different degrees of commitment to social and political change or compliance with the prevailing status quo of power relations, including the gendered divisions of power and labor in a particular society. This formulation urges feminists and other conflict resolution scholars not to assume but to probe whether the mere signing of a peace agreement is likely to improve women’s lives and bring about gender equality.
In sum, feminists have long realized that the processes of refining and implementing feminist interpretations of central concepts in the field cannot be limited to the confines of the academy (Giles 2008). Today, there is consensus among feminists on the need to ground research on conflict and peacemaking in the diverse experiences of women in conflict zones. By rethinking peace and security from the daily lives and struggles of women around the world, feminists and other critical scholars can expand the understandings of peace and security to include questions of development; environmental degradation and ecological concerns; gender, race, and class inequalities; abuses of human rights; and attacks on cultural and ethnic identities (Agathangelou 2004; Agathangelou and Ling 2004; Philipose 2007; Lind forthcoming). Feminist reformulations of central concepts such as power, peace, and security represent an important step toward feminist theorizing in conflict resolution.
Toward Feminist Transformations of Conflict Resolution Theory, Research, and Practice
Challenging the centrality of men’s experiences and theories and paying attention to women’s lives, feminists insist, has the potential to shed light not only on the gendered aspects of social and political life, but also on other forms of structured inequality. That is, feminist perspectives are valuable not only because they call attention to gender differences, but also because they emerge from women’s experiences and women represent one particular example of a disenfranchised and marginalized social group (Harding 1991; Ackerly et al. 2006). Feminists generally agree that we must ask not only what are the voices and perspectives that have been marginalized, silenced, or excluded from conventional conflict resolution scholarship, but also what are the assumptions, processes, and practices that have enabled and perpetuated these exclusions.
Toward this end, many feminists engaged in tireless work to integrate gender and feminist perspective into conflict resolution, while others have called for a radical transformation of the field. Some chose to conduct original field research in particular conflict areas, while others have put their efforts into transforming policy debates related to conflict resolution.
The term “transformation” has become increasingly popular in peace and conflict resolution studies. While still a somewhat amorphous term, its growing popularity points to the limitations of other such terms as “management” and “resolution.” According to John Paul Lederach (1995:17), “unlike resolution and management, the idea of transformation does not suggest we simply eliminate or control conflict, but rather points descriptively toward its inherent dialectic nature.” In other words, transformation, more than other concepts, takes into account the dynamic nature of social conflict and the potential changes it can trigger in individuals, groups, and structures. Moreover, Lederach and others prefer the term “transformation” over “resolution” or “management” because it is more dynamic and cannot be used to impose harmony or peace at the expanse of justice (Nader 1991). From a feminist perspective, the term “transformation” marks more than merely a linguistic departure from conventional approaches to the study and practice of conflict. It is also a concept that can be easily integrated into feminist perspectives on conflicts.
The move away from conventional toward new approaches to the analysis and resolution of conflicts, or from conflict resolution to conflict transformation, has theoretical, methodological, practical, and political implications. Figure 1 identifies four key dimensions that are interrelated and offer a framework for analyzing contemporary feminist scholarship:
(1) a move from universal to context-specific theorizing;
(2) a move from top-down/prescriptive to bottom-up/elicitive intervention models;
(3) a move from scientific (positivist) to constructivist (postpositivist) research; and
(4) a move from politics oriented toward the status quo to politics oriented toward social change.
As Figure 1 underscores, however, although conventional and new approaches rest on different sets of theoretical assumptions which inform different intervention models and political practices, they should not be treated as diametrically opposed to one another but rather as two poles of a continuum.
Feminists have insisted that their interventions are not designed to discredit or delegitimize conventional approaches and practices but rather to point out to their hegemony in the field and open up space for other perspectives. Along the same lines, the proposed framework is not designed to idealize new approaches and their related practices but rather to point out potential venues for future research.
As the literature on women and gender issues in conflict zones demonstrates, feminists have long sought to ground theoretical explorations in empirical research and case studies. Theoretically, this body of literature focused primarily on women’s involvement in conflict resolution efforts, peacemaking initiatives, and social justice campaigns at the grassroots level with an overemphasis on the potential of dialogue and alliances between women across political divides. Research also highlighted the impact of conflict on women’s lives, with a special emphasis on critiquing militarism, nationalism, and ethnic conflict (Yuval-Davis 1997; Cockburn 1998; 2007; Fearon 1999; Cohn and Ruddick 2003; Giles et al. 2003; 2004; Jacoby 2005). A few feminist scholars, whose lives were shaped by the conflicts they study, have expanded the analysis, and have documented the multiple identities and struggles of women in conflict zones, including the treatment of feminist identities and nationalist identities as mutually exclusive, which has been a source of tension in cross-community women’s alliances (Rooney 1995; Sharoni 1995; Hadjipavlou 2006; McEvoy 2009).
Feminist scholars have also worked to document women’s experiences not only as victims of violent conflict but also as perpetrators, and as agents of change. This body of work included accounts of the struggles of women within national liberation movements to link their struggles for national liberation and gender equality (Aretxaga 1997; Abdulhadi 1998; Moser and Clark 2001). Feminists have also begun to pay close attention to women’s roles in perpetuating violence, both within militaries and in other movements that have used armed struggle (Sjoberg 2006; Sjoberg and Gentry 2007).
The growing interest in violence against women in conflict zones, among mainstream scholars and policy makers, is noteworthy. Once a taboo in conventional analyses of conflict, the interplay between the violence of political conflict and violence against women has become part of the mainstream discourse on conflicts. Using the phrase “rape as a weapon of war,” mainstream media accounts have done more to sensationalize these crimes than to address their root cause or offer ways to resolve them. Critical feminists, however, rose to the challenge and sought to contextualize and historicize these accounts. The result is a rich body of literature, addressing the interplay between gender violence and other such structured inequalities as class, race, and ethnicity, as well as various constructions of militarized masculinity (Zarkov 2001; Green 2004; Sachs et al. 2007; Koukkanen 2008; Sharoni 2008; Whitworth 2008).
Critical feminist scholarship on conflict has proliferated in the aftermath of September 11, 2009. Feminists were among the first to systematically deconstruct the dominant discourse deployed by US officials and policy makers to represent and respond to the attacks. They have called into question the pervasive manipulation of fears, threats, and insecurities as pretexts for military violence and for the expansion of US imperialism (Eisenstein 2004; 2007; Falcón 2006; Tetreault 2006; Faludi 2007; Philipose 2007; Richter-Montpetit 2007; Riley 2008; Sharoni 2008). Feminist scholars have also scrutinized myriad manifestations of heightened militarization and aggressive nationalisms in all spheres of life (Whitworth 2004; Enloe 2007; Sutton et al. 2008), the violent attacks on Muslims and people of Middle Eastern decent, as well as the changes in US immigration policies and practices (Oxford 2005; Hunt and Rygiel 2006). Above all, numerous feminists have been quick to challenge the cynical use of the narrative of rescue and the hijacking of feminism in order to legitimize, in the name of women’s liberation, the US-led attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq (Abu-Lughod 2002; Russo 2006; Sjoberg 2006). As a whole, this diverse body of feminist scholarship reflects careful attention to difference, brilliant analysis of intersections, and sound grounding in particular economic, social, cultural, and political contexts.
Other promising developments in feminist perspectives on conflict involve feminist perspectives on environmental degradation and environmental conflicts (Gorney 2007; Urban 2007; Sze 2007; Detraz 2009). This literature is very important because environmental conflicts and conflict originating from globalization have become central within the conflict resolution field, even if at present little or no attention has been devoted to their gendered dimensions. Another exciting trend in feminist scholarship on conflict resolution addresses post-conflict issues including reconstruction and transitional justice (Cockburn and Zarkov 2002; Handrahan 2004; Bell and Ni Aolain 2005; Bell and O’Rouke 2007). There has also been a dramatic increase in attempts to bridge the divides between feminist academics, activists, and policy makers (Cohn et al. 2004; Giles 2008). Although projects designed to facilitate exchange and collaboration among feminists in different arenas have not been without their challenges, they have transformative potential. Whether it is a network of women in conflict zones, a gathering of women at the World Social Forum or a campaign for a UN resolution like UNSCR 3125, these initiatives offer a space, a discourse, and strategies that conventional conflict resolution scholars and practitioners will increasingly find difficult to ignore.
Conflict resolution as a field has rapidly expanded in the past three decades. Yet a careful examination of current trends in the field reveals a fundamental failure to come to terms with the changing nature of conflicts across societal levels. By and large, scholars and practitioners in the field continue to embrace the key assumptions, while systematically overlooking the gaps, silences, and absences embedded in these assumptions and in the field as a whole. To seriously consider these gaps, scholars, practitioners, and activists who are committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts have to engage in critical conversations both with people whose lives have been entangled in protracted conflicts and with scholars in other disciplinary fields of study, such as development, gender, and cultural studies, which have faced similar challenges. Because feminists have much to contribute to this endeavor, it is troubling that our interventions continue to be relegated to the margins of the field, especially in the arena of international conflict resolution.
While men’s recognition of the significance of feminist and women’s perspectives to conflict resolution is no doubt an important step toward establishing the legitimacy of feminist theorizing in the field, it is not enough. What is needed to advance the project of feminist theorizing in conflict resolution is a critical examination of the field that will go beyond calls for the inclusion of women’s voices and feminist perspectives. The field of conflict resolution is at a crucial and exciting crossroad. As people and social movements around the world engage in struggles to shape their futures, the global political context within which theories are constructed and applied is volatile and uncertain. Feminist perspectives on conflict can inspire new approaches to theory, research, practice, and activism. To engage feminism, conflict resolution scholars need to learn to embrace difference in conflict and conflict resolution. More specifically, in addition to coming to terms with the role of gender, such an approach will enable scholars and practitioners to explore questions of culture, history, disparities in power and privilege, and new understandings of identity and community which emerge in the context of struggles against different structures of inequality and oppression along the lines of, among other things, gender, ethnicity, race, class, sexuality, and nationality.
Conflict resolution as a field has yet to treat feminist theory as a central perspective that has much to offer to the analysis and resolution of conflicts. Nevertheless, feminists, publishing their work primarily in feminist magazines and working in collaboration with colleagues in other fields, have developed an impressive body of literature that should be incorporated into the conflict resolution canon. As this impressive body of original scholarship underscores, feminists have the theoretical grounding and practical experiences and skills to radically transform the existing field of conflict resolution. However, for this to happen, the male scholars who currently dominate the center of the field would have to share their positions of power with the brilliant feminists whose work has been relegated to the margins for too long! The further expansion and institutionalization of conflict resolution studies depends on the willingness of mainstream scholars to engage seriously the contributions and critiques of feminists.
Abdo, N., and Lentin, R. (eds.) (2002) Women and the Politics of Military Occupation: Palestinian and Israeli Gendered Narratives of Dislocation. New York and Oxford: Beghahn Books.Find this resource:
Abdulhadi, R. (1998) The Palestinian Women’s Autonomous Movement. Gender and Society 12 (6), 649–73.Find this resource:
Abu-Lughod, L. (2002) Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others. American Anthropologist 104 (3), 783–90.Find this resource:
Ackerly, B.M., Stern, M., and True, J. (eds.) (2006) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Agathangelou, A.M. (2004) The Global Political Economy of Sex: Desire, Violence, and Insecurity in Mediterranean Nation States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:
Agathangelou, A.M., and Ling, L.H.M. (2004) Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11. International Studies Quarterly 48 (3), 517–38.Find this resource:
Alonso, H. (1993). Peace as a Women’s Issue: A History of the US Movement for World Peace and Women’s Rights. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Find this resource:
Anderlini, S. (2004) The A-B-C to UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. At www.peacewomen.org/un/sc/ABC1325.htm, accessed June 30, 2009.
Anderlini, S. (2007) Women Building Peace: What They Do, Why It Matters. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Find this resource:
Anderlini, S., and El-Bushra, J. (2004) The Conceptual Framework: Security, Peace, Accoutability and Rights. In International Alert and Women Waging Peace, Inclusive Security, Sustainable Peace: A Toolkit for Advocacy and Action. London: Hunt Alternatives.Find this resource:
Anzaldua, G., and A. Keating eds. (2002) This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions of Transformation. New York and London: Routledge.Find this resource:
Aretxaga, B. (1997) Shattering Silence: Women, Nationalism and Political Subjectivity in Northern Ireland. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Find this resource:
Bell, C., and Ni Aolain, F. (2005) Foreword: Women’s Rights in Transitioning and Conflicting Societies. In C. O’Rourke (ed.) Women and the Implementation of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. Magee Campus: Transitional Justice Institute, University of Ulster, Derry, Ireland, pp. 121–39.Find this resource:
Bell, C., and O’Rourke, C. (2007) Does Feminism Need a Theory of Transitional Justice? An Introductory Essay. International Journal of Transitional Justice 1, 23–44.Find this resource:
Boulding, E. (1992) The Underside of History: A View of Women Through Time. 2 vols. Newbury Park: Sage.Find this resource:
Brock-Utne, B. (1985) Educating for Peace: A Feminist Perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.Find this resource:
Brownmiller, S. (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. New York: Simon and Schuster.Find this resource:
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Butler, J., and Scott, J.W. (eds.) (1992) Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Byrne, S. (2009) Beyond the Ethnonational Divide: Identity Politics and Women in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. PhD dissertation. Kingston: Queens University.Find this resource:
Cambridge Women’s Peace Collective (1984) My Country Is the Whole World: An Anthology of Women’s Work on Peace and War. London: Pandora Press.Find this resource:
Caprioli, M. (2000) Gendered Conflict. Journal of Peace Research 37 (1), 51–68.Find this resource:
Caprioli, M. (2005) Primed for Violence: The Role of Gender Inequality in Predicting Internal Conflict. International Studies Quarterly 49 (2), 161–78.Find this resource:
Caprioli, M., and Boyer, M. (2001) Gender, Violence and International Crisis. Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (4), 501–18.Find this resource:
Carroll, B. (1972) Peace Research: The Cult of Power. Journal of Conflict Resolution 16 (4), 586–616.Find this resource:
Carroll, B. (1987) Feminism and Pacifism: Historical and Theoretical Connections. In Ruth R. Pierson (ed.) Women and Peace. London: Croom Helm, 1987, pp. 2–28.Find this resource:
Chataway, C., and Kolb, D. (1994) Informal Contributions to the Conflict Management Process. In A. Taylor and J. Miller (eds.) Conflict and Gender. Cresskill: Hampton Press, pp. 259–80.Find this resource:
Cockburn, C. (1998) The Space between Us: Negotiating Gender and National Identities in Conflict. London and New York: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Cockburn, C. (2007) From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis. London and New York: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Cockburn, C., and Zarkov, D. (eds.) (2002) The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and International Peacekeeping. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Find this resource:
Cohn, C. (1987) Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals, Signs 12 (4), 687–719.Find this resource:
Cohn, C., Kinsella, H., and Gibbings, S. (2004) Women, Peace and Security: Resolution 1325. International Feminist Journal of Politics 6 (1), 130–40.Find this resource:
Cohn, C., and Ruddick, S. (2003) A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction, Boston Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, Working Paper 104. At www.genderandsecurity.umb.edu/cohnruddick.pdf, accessed July 2009.
Collins, P.H. (1992) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Confrotini, C. (2006) Galtung, Violence, and Gender: The Case for a Peace Studies/Feminism Alliance. Peace and Change 31 (3), 333–67.Find this resource:
Connolly, L. (1999) Feminist Politics and the Peace Process. Capital and Class 69, 145–59.Find this resource:
Cravers, C. (1990) The Impact of Gender on Clinical Negotiating Achievement. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 6, 1–18.Find this resource:
Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review 43, 1241–99.Find this resource:
Daly, M. (2005) Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and in Practice, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, and Society 12 (3), 433–50.Find this resource:
D’Amico, F., and Beckman, P. (eds.) (1995) Women in World Politics: An Introduction. New York: Bergin and Garvey.Find this resource:
D’Amico, F., and Weinstein, L. (eds.) (1999) Gender Camouflage: Women and the US Military. New York: New York University Press.Find this resource:
Detraz, N. (2009) Environmental Security and Gender: Necessary Shifts in an Evolving Debate. Security Studies 18 (2), 345–69.Find this resource:
Dewhurst, M., and Wall, V.D. (1994) Gender and the Mediation of Conflict: Communication Differences. In A. Taylor and J. Miller (eds.) Conflict and Gender. Cresskill: Hampton Press, pp. 281–302.Find this resource:
Eisenstein, Z. (2004) Against Empire: Feminisms, Racisms, and the West. London and New York: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Eisenstein, Z. (2007) Sexual Decoys: Gender, Race, and War in Imperial Democracy. London and New York: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Eisler, R. (1989) The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. New York: Harper and Row.Find this resource:
Elia, N. (1996) Violent Women: Surging into Forbidden Quarters. In L.R. Gordon, T.D. Sharpley-Whiting, and R.T. White (eds.) Fanon: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 163–9.Find this resource:
Ellis, D. (1990) Marital Conflict Mediation and Post-separation Wife Abuse. Law and Inequality 8, 317–39.Find this resource:
Elshtain, B. J. (1987) Women and War. New York: Basic Books.Find this resource:
Elshtain, B. J., and Tobias, S. (eds.) (1990) Women, Militarism, and War: Essays in History, Politics, and Social Theory. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.Find this resource:
Ely, R., and Meyerson, D. (2000) Advancing Gender Equity in Organizations: The Challenge and Importance of Maintaining a Gender Narrative, Organization 7 (4), 589–608.Find this resource:
English, P. (2009) Sexism and Conflict Resolution: How the Practice of Sexism Excludes the Feminist Perspective in the Field of Conflict Resolution. MA thesis. Portland State University.Find this resource:
Enloe, C. (1987) Feminist Thinking about War, Militarism, and Peace. In B. Hess and M. Ferree (eds.) Analyzing Gender: Social Science Research. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 526–47.Find this resource:
Enloe, C. (1990) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:
Enloe, C. (1993) The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:
Enloe, C. (2000) Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:
Enloe, C. (2007) Globalization and Militarization: Feminists Make the Link. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Find this resource:
Falcón, S. (2006) “National Security” and the Violation of Women: Militarized Border Rape at the US–Mexico Border. In Incite! Women of Color against Violence, Color of Violence: The Incite! Anthology. Cambridge: South End Press, pp. 119–29.Find this resource:
Faludi, S. 2007. The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America. New York: Metropolitan Books.Find this resource:
Fearon, K. (ed.) (1999) The Story of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. Belfast: Blackstaff Press.Find this resource:
Fearon, K., and McWilliams, M. (2000) Swimming against the Mainstream: The Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. In C. Roulston and C. Davies (eds.) Gender, Democracy, and Inclusion in Northern Ireland. New York: Palgrave, pp. 117–37.Find this resource:
Ferguson, K. (1993) The Man Question: Visions of Subjectivity in Feminist Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:
Forcey, L.R. (1991) Women as Peacemakers: Contested Terrain for Feminist Peace Studies. Peace and Change 16 (4): 331–54.Find this resource:
Fukuyama, F. (1998), Women and the Evolution of World Politics. Foreign Affairs 77 (5), 24–40.Find this resource:
Galtung, J. (1975) Structural and Direct Violence: Note on Operationalization. In Peace: Research Education Action. Essays in Peace Research Vol. I. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.Find this resource:
Galtung, J. (1990) Cultural Violence, Journal of Peace Research 27 (3), 291–305.Find this resource:
Galtung, J. (2002) Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View. In J. Galtung, C. Jacobsen, and J. Brand-Jacobsen (eds.) Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend. 2nd edn. London and Sterling: Pluto Press.Find this resource:
Giles, W. (2008) Reflections on the Women in Conflict Zones Network: Lessons from the Past and Forward-Looking Possibilities. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (1), 102–12.Find this resource:
Giles, W., and Hyndman, J. (eds.) (2004). Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:
Giles, W., de Alwis, M., Klein, E., and Silva, N. (eds.) (2003) Feminists under Fire: Exchanges across War Zones. Toronto: Between the Lines.Find this resource:
Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:
Girdner, L. (1989) Custody Mediation in the United States: Empowerment or Social Control? Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 3, 134–54.Find this resource:
Gorney, E. (2007) (Un)Natural Selection: The Drainage of the Hula Wetlands, An Ecofeminist Reading. International Feminist Journal of Politics 9 (4), 465–74.Find this resource:
Green, J. (2004) Uncovering Collective Rape: A Comparative Study of Political Sexual Violence. International Journal of Sociology 34 (1), 97–116.Find this resource:
Hadjipavlou, M. (2006) No Permission to Cross: Cypriot Women’s Dialogue across the Divide. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 13 (4), 329–51.Find this resource:
Handrahan, L. (2004) Conflict, Gender, Ethnicity and Post-conflict Reconstruction. Security Dialogue 35 (4), 429–45.Find this resource:
Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. New York: Cornell University Press.Find this resource:
Harris, A., and King, Y. (eds.) (1989) Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder: Westview Press.Find this resource:
Hartsock, N. (1983) Money, Sex, and Power: A Theory for Women? In L. Nicholson (ed.) Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, pp. 157–75.Find this resource:
Hawkesworth, M., and Alexander, K. (eds.) (2007) War and Terror I: Raced Gendered Logics and Effects in Conflict Zones. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 32 (4), special issue.Find this resource:
Hill, E. (1990) Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Feminist Voice. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 5, 337–79.Find this resource:
hooks, b. (1984) Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press.Find this resource:
hooks, b. (1990) Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End Press.Find this resource:
Hunt, K., and Rygiel, K. (eds.) (2006) (En)Gendering the War on Terror, Aldershot: Ashgate.Find this resource:
Hunter, A., and Flamenbaum, C. (eds.) (1993) On Peace, War, and Gender: A Challenge to Genetic Explanations. New York: The Feminist Press at CUNY.Find this resource:
Jabri, V. (1996) Discourses on Violence: Conflict Analysis Reconsidered. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Find this resource:
Jacoby, T.A. (2005) Women in Zones of Conflict: Power and Resistance in Israel. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.Find this resource:
Jayawardena, K. (1986) Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World. London and New Jersey: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Jiwani, Y. (2006) Discourses of Denial: Mediations of Race, Gender and Violence. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Find this resource:
Kirk, G. (1989) Our Greenham Common: Not Just a Place but a Movement. In A. Harris and Y. King (eds.) Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder: Westview Press.Find this resource:
Kolb, D. (1992) Women’s Work: Peacemaking in Organizations. In D.M. Kolb and J.M. Bartunek (eds.) Hidden Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind-the-Scenes Disputes. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 63–91.Find this resource:
Kolb, D. (2000) More than Just a Footnote: Constructing a Theoretical Framework for Teaching about Gender in Negotiation. Negotiation Journal 16 (4), 347–56.Find this resource:
Kolb, D.M., and Coolidge, G.G. (1991) Her Place at the Table: A Consideration of Gender Issues in Negotiation. In J.W. Breslin and J.Z. Rubin (eds.) Negotiation Theory and Practice. Cambridge: PON Books, pp. 261–77.Find this resource:
Kolb, D.M., and Putnam, L.L. (1997) Through the Looking Glass: Negotiation Theory Refracted Through the Lens of Gender. In S. Gleason (ed.) Workplace Dispute Resolution: Directions for the Twenty-First Century. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Find this resource:
Koukkanen, R. (2008) Globalization as Racialized, Sexualized Violence: The Case of Indigenous Women. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (2), 216–33.Find this resource:
Lederach, J.P. (1995) Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Find this resource:
Lind, A. (fothcoming) Queering Globalization: Sexual Subjectivities, Development, and the Governance of Intimacy. In M.H. Marchand and A.S. Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistance. 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
McEvoy, S. (2009) Loyalist Women Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland: Beginning a Feminist Conversation about Conflict Resolution. Security Studies 18 (2), 262–86.Find this resource:
Mackay, A. (2004) Training the Uniforms: Gender and Peacekeeping Operations. In H. Afshar and D. Eade (eds.) Development, Women and War: Feminist Perspectives. Oxford: Oxfam GB, pp. 100–8.Find this resource:
McKelvey. T (2006) One of the Guys: Women as Aggressors and Torturers. New York: Seal Press.Find this resource:
Margolis, D.R. (1989) Considering Women’s Experience: A Reformulation of Power Theory. Theory and Society 18 (3), 387–416.Find this resource:
Mason, C. (2005) Women, Violence and Nonviolent Resistance in East Timor. Journal of Peace Research 42 (6), 737–49.Find this resource:
Masters, C. (2008) Body Counts: Reading Moments of U.S. Militarism from the Margins of International Politics. PhD dissertation. Toronto: York University.Find this resource:
Maxwell, N. (1992) The Feminist Dilemma in Mediation. International Review of Comparative Public Policy 4 (1), 67–84.Find this resource:
Mazur, A. (2002) Theorizing Feminist Policy. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:
Mazurana, D.A., Raven-Roberts, A., and Parpart, J. (eds.) (2005) Gender, Conflict, and Peacekeeping. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Find this resource:
Mohanty, C.T. (1991) Cartographies of Struggle: Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. In Mohanty et al. (eds.) Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Find this resource:
Mohanty, C. (2003) Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Find this resource:
Mohanty C., Torres, L., and Russo, A. (eds.) (1991) Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Find this resource:
Moraga, C., and Anzaldua, G. (1983) This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. New York: Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press.Find this resource:
Moser, C., and Clark, F. (eds.) (2001) Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence. London and New York: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Nader, L. (1991) Harmony Models and the Construction of Law. In K. Avruch, P. Black, and J. Scimecca (eds.) Conflict Resolution: Cross-cultural Perspectives, Westport: Greenwood Press, pp. 435–54.Find this resource:
Noddings, N. (1984) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:
Oxford, C. (2005) Protectors and Victims in the Gender Regime of Asylum. NWSA Journal 17 (3), 18–38.Find this resource:
Parpart, J., and Zalewski, M. (eds.) (2008) Rethinking the Man Question: Sex, Gender and Violence in International Relations. London and New York: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Peterson, S., and Runyan, A. (2009) Global Gender Issues in the New Millennium. 3rd edn. Boulder: Westview Press.Find this resource:
Pettman, J. (1996) Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics. London and New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Philipose, L. (2007) The Politics of Pain and the End of Empire. International Feminist Journal of Politics 9 (4), 607–16.Find this resource:
Putnam, L., and Kolb, D. (2000). Rethinking Negotiations: Feminist Views of Communications and Exchange. In P. Buzannell (ed.) Rethinking Organizational Communications from Feminist Perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage.Find this resource:
Rai, S., and Waylen, G. (eds.) (2008) Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:
Reardon, B. (1985) Sexism and the War System. New York: Teachers College Press.Find this resource:
Reardon, B. (1993) Women and Peace: Feminist Visions for Global Security. New York: SUNY Press.Find this resource:
Richter-Montpetit, M. (2007) Empire, Desire and Violence: A Queer Transnational Feminist Reading of the Prisoner “Abuse” in Abu-Ghraib and the Question of Gender Equality. International Feminist Journal of Politics 9 (1), 38–59.Find this resource:
Rifkin, J. (1984) Mediation from a Feminist Perspective: Promises and Problems. Law and Inequality 2, 21–2.Find this resource:
Riley, R.C.T. Mohanty, and Pratt, M.B. (eds.) (2008) Feminism and War: Confronting US Imperialism. London and New York: Zed.Find this resource:
Robin, R., Mohanty, C.T., and Pratt, M.B. (eds.) (2008). Feminism and War: Confronting US Imperialism. London: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Rooney, E. (1995) Political Division, Practical Alliance: Problems for Women in Conflict. Journal of Women’s History 6 (4)/7 (1), 40–8.Find this resource:
Ruddick, S. (1989) Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Boston: Beacon Press.Find this resource:
Russo, A. (2006) The Feminist Majority Foundation’s Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid: The Intersection of Feminism and Imperialism in the United States. International Feminist Journal of Politics 8 (4), 557–80.Find this resource:
Sachs, D., Sa’ar, A., and Aharoni, S. (2007) How Can I Feel for Others When I Myself Am Beaten? The Impact of the Armed Conflict on Women in Israel. Sex Roles 57, 593–606.Find this resource:
Schweickart, P., Carroll, B., and Afary, J. (eds.) (2006) Feminism, Peace, and War: A Special Issue. NWSA Journal 18 (3).Find this resource:
Scott, J.W. (1990) Deconstructing Equality-Versus-Difference: Or, the Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism. In M. Hirsch and E. Fox-Keller (eds.) Conflicts in Feminism. New York, Routledge, pp. 45–67.Find this resource:
Scuzzarello, S. (2008) National Security versus Moral Responsibility: An Analysis of Integration Programs in Malmo, Sweden. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender. State and Society 15 (1): 5–31.Find this resource:
Shaffer, M. (1988) Divorce Mediation: A Feminist Perspective. Toronto Faculty of Law Review 46, 162–200.Find this resource:
Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (2009) Militarization and Violence against Women in Conflict Zones in the Middle East: A Palestinian Case Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Sharoni, S. (1993) Conflict Resolution through Feminist Lenses: Theorizing the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict from the Perspectives of Women Peace Activists in Israel. PhD dissertation, George Mason University.Find this resource:
Sharoni, S. (1994) Homefront as Battlefield: Gender, Military Occupation and Violence against Women. In T. Mayer (ed.) Women and the Israeli Occupation: The Politics of Change. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 121–37.Find this resource:
Sharoni, S. (1995) Gender and the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: The Politics of Women’s Resistance. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Find this resource:
Sharoni, S. (1998) Gendering Conflict and Peace in Israel/Palestine and the North of Ireland, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27 (4), 1061–89.Find this resource:
Sharoni, S. (2001) Rethinking Women’s Struggles in Israel–Palestine and in the North of Ireland. In C. Moser and F. Clark (eds.) Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 85–98.Find this resource:
Sharoni, S. (2008) De-militarizing Masculinities in the Age of Empire, Austrian Political Science Journal 37 (2), special issue: Counter/Terror/Wars: Feminist Perspectives, 147–64.Find this resource:
Shepard, L. (2008) Gender, Violence and Security. London and New York: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Sjoberg, L. (2006) Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Find this resource:
Sjoberg, L., and Gentry, C. (2007) Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics. London and New York: Zed Books.Find this resource:
Skjelsbak, I. (2001) Is Femininity Inherently Peaceful? The Construction of Femininity in War. In I. Skjelsbaek and D. Smith (eds.) Gender, Peace and Conflict. London: Sage, pp. 47–68.Find this resource:
Squires, J. (2005) Is Mainstreaming Transformative? Theorizing Mainstreaming in the Context of Diversity and Deliberation. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 12 (3), 366–88.Find this resource:
Squires, J., and Weldes, J. (2007) Beyond Being Marginal: Gender and International Relations in Britain. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (2), 185–203.Find this resource:
Stamato, L. (1992) Voice, Place, and Process: Research on Gender, Negotiation, and Conflict Resolution. Mediation Quarterly 9 (4), 375–86.Find this resource:
Stephens, J. (1994) Gender Conflict: Connecting Feminist Theory and Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice. In A. Taylor and J. Miller (eds.) Conflict and Gender. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 217–36.Find this resource:
Stephenson, C. (1983) Feminism, Pacifism, Nationalism and the United Nations Decade for Women. In J. Stiehm (ed.) Women and Men’s Wars. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 287–300.Find this resource:
Sutton, B., Morgen, S., and Novkov, J. (eds.) (2008) Rethinking Security: Gender, Race, and Militarization. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.Find this resource:
Sylvester, C. (1987) Some Dangers in Merging Feminist and Peace Projects. Alternatives 12: 493–509.Find this resource:
Sylvester, C. (1989). Patriarchy, Peace, and Women Warriors. In L.R. Forcey (ed.) Peace: Meanings, Politics, Strategies. New York: Praeger.Find this resource:
Sylvester, C. (2002) Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Sze, J. (2007). Water, Gender and Globalization at the US Borders. International Feminist Journal of Politics 9 (4), 475–84.Find this resource:
Taylor, A., and Miller, J. (eds.) (1994) Conflict and Gender. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Find this resource:
Tetreault, M.A. (2006) The Sexual Politics of Abu Ghraib: Hegemony, Spectacle, and the Global War on Terror. NWSA Journal 18 (3), 33–50.Find this resource:
Tickner, A. (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press.Find this resource:
Tickner, A. (1997) You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists. International Studies Quarterly 41 (4), 611–32.Find this resource:
Turpin, J., and Lorentzen, L.A. (eds.) (1996) The Gendered New World Order: Militarism, Development and the Environment. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Turshen, M., and Twagiramariya, C. (eds.) (1998). What Women Do in Wartime: Gender and Conflict in Africa. London and New York: Zed.Find this resource:
Urban, J. (2007) Interrogating Privilege/Challenging the Greening of Hate. International Feminist Journal of Politics 9 (2), 251–64.Find this resource:
Watson, C. (1994) Gender versus Power as a Predictor of Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes. Negotiation Journal 10 (2), 117–27.Find this resource:
Whitworth, S. (2004) Men, Militarism and UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Find this resource:
Whitworth, S. (2008) Militarized Masculinity and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. In J. Parpart and M. Zalewski (eds.) Rethinking the Man Question: Sex, Gender, and Violence in International Relations. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 109–26.Find this resource:
Woods, L. (1985) Mediation: A Backlash to Women’s Progress on Family Law Issues. Clearinghouse Review 19, 431–36.Find this resource:
Woolf, V. (1938) Three Guineas. San Diego, New York, and London: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1966. Originally published by Hogarth Press.Find this resource:
Yuval-Davis, N. (1997) Gender and Nation. London: Sage.Find this resource:
Zalewski, M. (1995) Well, What Is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia? International Affairs 71 (2), 339–56.Find this resource:
Zalewski, M., and Parpart, J. (eds.) (1998) The “Man” Question in International Relations. Boulder: Westview Press.Find this resource:
Zarkov, D. (2001) The Body of the Other Man: Sexual Violence and the Construction of Masculinity, Sexuality and Ethnicity in the Croatian Media. In C. Moser and F. Clark (eds.) Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 69–82.Find this resource:
Links to Digital Materials
Peace and Justice Studies. At www.peacejusticestudies.org, accessed Oct. 2009. The Peace and Justice Studies Association is a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing together academics, K-12 teachers and grassroots activists to explore alternatives to violence and share visions and strategies for peacebuilding, social justice, and social change.
UN-INSTRAW. At www.un-instraw.org, accessed Oct. 2009. UN-INSTRAW is the leading United Nations Institute devoted to research, training and knowledge management in partnership with governments, the United Nations System, civil society and academia to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment.
Boston Consortium on Gender, Security, and Human Rights. At www.genderandsecurity.org, accessed Oct. 2009. The Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights works to integrate the study of gender and of women into work on human rights, security, and armed conflict.
Women Waging Peace. www.womenwagingpeace.net, accessed Oct. 2009. The Women Waging Peace Network, brings together women peacemakers from conflict regions around the world. As part of The Institute for Inclusive Security, the project advocates for the full participation of all stakeholders, especially women, in peace processes.
WomenWarPeace. At www.womenwarpeace.org, accessed Oct. 2009. A UNIFEM portal designed to consolidate data on the impact of armed conflict on women and girls.