Paths to Peace and Conflict: From the Body to the International

Edx Course

Non-State Actors and International Relations

In international relations, the traditional focus is on sovereign states. Through time, the discipline has also recognized the importance of international organizations, multinational corporations and civil society. The latter have, however, been more marginal in the study of peace and security but have gained increasing attention, most significantly after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001. With that shift in focus. We have a tendency to think of non-state actors as negative, which they certainly can be. But there are also positive actors in many ways, with non-governmental organizations and other civil society actors playing a significant role in the resolution of conflict and in peacebuilding in many regions of the world. In this class, we're looking at different types of non-state actors. In the field of international relations, the state has been the dominant actor and focus of attention. We assume that states are coherent actors with authority over both defined territory and the use of force. The inverse is then assumed to be true of non-state actors. They are not perceived as cohesive actors, and they are assumed not to have authority over either defined territory or a population. Nor are they thought of as commanding monopoly of the use of force. And this is despite the fact that in many parts of the world, particularly ones that are in conflict, the state is often unable to provide security to its citizens. And as feminist scholars have often noted, the state is actually often what undermines security. And here it is also important to remember that feminists do not see the state as being monolithic because gendered lenses show us that people are actors, the system has multiple hierarchies and it is characterized by multiple relations as Joshua Goldstein has argued. The state's inability to provide security requires us to think of non-state actors as relevant and peacebuilding, and we must have an open mind to the different types of non-state actors. These can include non-governmental organizations, charities, faith based groups, lobby groups, multinational corporations, diasporas and organized ethnic groups, even celebrities, most of whom would be considered positive actors. The negative actors, however, include organized criminal organizations and terrorist groups, which are often opaque and thus difficult to analyze. Many of these organizations may have direct ties to states, and some even receive funding from them. Furthermore, some non-state actors have standing in international organizations and can engage in public-private partnerships. To add a layer of complexity we also need to think of some state actors who have agency in peacebuilding. These include autonomous territories, regions and cities that have the ability to contribute to local and regional dialogue, have influence on the shaping of ideas and their implementation, but do not have access to decision making at the international level. And this all goes to show how difficult it can be to ascertain their standing and significance: They lack a formal mandate to act on the international scene. The key elements, however, are that non-state actors do not exercise formal control over a population or territory, although their informal power can be significant and they may, in some instances, step in to fill the government's shoes even without its consent. Political communities below the state make war. This includes substate rival communities, organized armed groups, terrorist organizations. And there's therefore a false dichotomy between these actors and states. But the fact that non-state actors engage in war also means that they must participate in peacebuilding if it is to succeed. And non-state actors can be very effective in peacebuilding and conflict resolution, in part because they have issue expertise stemming from the fact that they focus on very few things, whereas the state must be a jack of all trades. Non-governmental organizations in particular have become increasingly active in mediation and conflict resolution. Their success is sometimes attributed to the fact that they are not bound by the constraints of bureaucracy. They can just gamble a bit more than traditional state actors when entering this field and choose whom they speak to and under what conditions. They are also often perceived as honest brokers and more likely to convey accurate information. In a world where the legitimacy and reputation of actors are a strong source of influence, this is a valuable asset. The lack of focus on non-state actors in international relations reflects the public- private divide that is so entrenched in the field. By addressing this divide, we see a new model of the international order. Feminist scholars have long argued that we need to recognize that the public and private are inherently linked. And by deconstructing the public private dichotomy, we're also able to break down the state/non-state dichotomy. It can therefore be useful to have your gender lenses on when you think about these things. Gender dichotomies in global politics include personal/political, emotional/rational, interdependent/independent, passive/active inside/outside and woman/man as Jean Bethke Elshtain argued in 1988. The public/private is probably the most relevant because we have a tendency to marginalize private spaces where non-state actors also may be more prevalent. The public private divide, therefore, mirrors the division. We expect to be present between state and non-state actors. Things that happen in private spaces, domestic violence and marital rape among them, have so long been treated as private matters and even something that takes place beyond the control or authority of the state, argues Amy Eckert. But certainly this matters in creating peaceful and secure societies. The importance of non-state actors became more recognized in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the U.S., as I said. But that focus was almost exclusively on armed non-state actors. These are important, but we also need to consider other types of such actors who have engaged in peacebuilding much longer than this. I hope this overview has helped you see the reason and the feminist argument that instead of focusing on states alone, we need to focus on a broader array of actors, including those traditionally understood as non-state and therefore outside of the reach of international relations.

4 State and Non-State Actors: Beyond the Dichotomy by Peter Wijninga, Willem Theo Oosterveld, Jan Hendrik Galdiga and Philipp Marten in the Strategic Monitor 2014: Four Strategic Challenges.

Critical Geography of Peace

In this lecture, I will explain the main contributions of critical geography of peace in relation to the crucial importance of space in peacebuilding processes. Critical geography of peace is quite new academic field that has developed in the last two decades and is the result of the crossover between critical geography and peace studies. This field is making very useful contributions to promote analysis and activities in favor of a positive peace, that is a peace based on justice and social transformations. It should be borne in mind that until recently, space had been analyzed in relation to war and geopolitics, but not to peace processes. However, peace processes take place in concrete spaces in a specific geographical context and therefore is necessary to understand the characteristics. Critical geography of space is closely related to a process experienced by peace studies in the new century called Local Turn. It refers to the growing attention paid to all the local dimensions in peace processes, actors, dynamics, cultural interests, etc.. This attention arises from the awareness that the only way to build a peace that is sustainable is one that is accepted by local populations and that corresponds to their needs and desires. Both the local turn and critical geography of peace are based on theoretical perspectives critical of the liberal peace approach, such as the critical theory, or pluralism, feminism and post-colonial studies. The liberal peace approach has dominated international peace and security policies since the end of the Cold War. But it has been questioned, among other things, because it promotes and imposes standardized uniform policies based on Western ideas, such as the state reconstruction, democracy and the free market without taking into account local actors' needs and cultures. These critical perspectives, on the contrary, argue that peace processes should be led by local actors and respond to their interests. However, they also remind us that local factors are closely related to global ones. It should be added that this growing importance given to the local level is a novelty. In it, the local level has traditionally been seen as irrelevant in a globalised world, and both liberalism and Marxism have tended to disqualify it as backward and contrary to development. Political geography of peace has conducted numerous studies and provided very interesting theoretical contributions. First, it shows that space and peacebuilding strongly condition each other. This argument comes from the ideas of critical geography built in the 1970s, which understand space not as something physical, but as a social construction based on social and power relations. And therefore, it is dynamic and changing. Of course, such as Lefebvre and Harvey theorized that space is constructed by social relations, class, gender, race, etc., and that at the same time, space contributes to the construction of society. So, for example, the capitalist system has created the spatial structures with great socio-economic imbalances globally between north and south, but also at the local scale with discriminated neighborhoods in large cities. Applying this vision, political geography of Peace argues that space conditions peace processes, how they are implemented, how resources are managed and so on. But at the same time, as we'll see later, peace processes should be seen as processes of transformation of space. Secondly, critical geography of peace hasn't generated a lot of situated knowledge, that is, it has provided many case studies to explain how peace is built in specific places. These studies help us to understand that there is a great majority of situations on the ground, for example, in many context of armed conflict, there are places that are islands of peace with local peace initiatives, while in countries where there is no war, or the war has ended, there are high levels of violence. This provides a more complex view of the relationship between war and peace and helps to overcome the binary dichotomy between war and peace as complete opposites and the idea that there is a linear transition from war to peace. Thirdly, these analyses have contributed to a more complex understanding of peacebuilding as a social construction. They have helped to see peace not as a final result as something idealized or utopian, but as an ongoing process that is constructed through negotiation, as the fruit of our relations that exist in a given space between different actors who confront different social and political projects, and who even have opposed concepts of peace. A fourth contribution of critical geography of peace is that it pays greater attention to the importance of discourses on space in peace processes. Space is not only a social construction but also a mental construction with perceived space. We imagine it, and attribute to it our subjective, emotional, cultural dimension, sometimes linked to our own identity. As critical geographers say, when we attribute these symbolic meanings to a space, we turn it into a place which is an interesting concept they use, in that some places have a strong symbolic meaning for certain groups who associate them with repression, with their struggles, with their identity, etc.. It is therefore important to analyze the symbolic meaning and use it in favor of peace and coexistence. Some interesting studies in this regard have focused on the Mostar bridge destroyed during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and then rebuilt or Tahrir Square in Cairo, a symbol of protest movements. A last contribution of critical geography of peace lies in its normative orientation. Its aim is to build a lasting peace with social justice. And to this end, it proposes a transformation of space to dismantle the geographies of war; the structure of a space generated by conflict, based on territorial domination, violence, and exploitation, and to build geographies of peace; that is forms of organization of space based on peaceful and just relations, reducing inequalities between social groups and territories.

Spaces of Peace by Annika Björkdahl & Stefanie Kappler (2021) in The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding and Peace Formation, Oliver P. Richmond and Gëzim Visoka, eds. Oxford University Press.

Geography and Peace by Nick Megoran, Fiona McConnell and Philippa Williams (2016) in The Palgrave Handbook of Disciplinary and Regional Approaches to Peace, Oliver P. Richmond, Sandra Pogodda and Jasmin Ramović, eds. Palgrave Macmillan.

The Concept of Gender and Gender Roles during Conflicts

Welcome to the module on the concept of gender and gender roles during conflicts. In this module, we want to introduce you to the concept of gender and why it matters for understanding war, conflict and peace. We will present you the main findings of the literature on gender and conflicts, notably related to how gender roles and identities evolved during conflict and post-conflict periods. We will also explore how women and men are traditionally perceived in conflict contexts, as well as in policy and academic research. This will allow us to better understand how gender roles are mobilized for specific types of femininities and masculinities and what it means to trespass these roles. Finally, we will explore how violent conflicts produce different kinds of gendered vulnerabilites. For instance, taking the shape of wartime sexual violence. Besides me, the teachers in this module, are doctor Guðrún Sif Friðriksdóttir who will tell you about post-conflict masculinities in Burundi? And Dr. Itziar Mujika Chao, with whom we will discuss the lack of a gender perspective in conventional international relations and peace and conflict studies, as well as what feminist interventions can bring to the field. We hope you enjoy the lessons in this module, so let's get started.

Gender and Conflict

Gender is a very disputed concept, traditional definitions of gender usually related to learn differences between men and women, as well as to masculinities and femininities, which do not always correlate to men and women, respectively. On the other hand, sex relates to biological bodily differences. Recently, gender studies have progressed beyond the male - female binary and advocate for and all genders approach. This means that our understanding of gender should not simply rely on a distinction between men and women, but also pay attention to gender and sexual minorities. Another point that is important to remember is that gender differences are not static. They vary across cultures and within cultures according to class, age, caste, religion and so on. They also evolve over time. It is therefore impossible to talk about, for instance, women in general and any discussion about gender has to be contextualized. In most of popular and political discourses about gender, there is a confusion that is made between gender and woman. In fact, what it is to be a woman cannot be understood in any given society and at any given moment without understanding what it is to be a man at the same time and place and vice versa. In addition, many researchers in gender studies argue that what matters is not so much whether one is a woman or a man or another gender, but the kind of gender roles and models that one enacts. For instance, a woman can act in a very masculine way and still be viewed as a woman, and a man can act in a very feminine way and still be viewed as a man. Also, most people will behave in a more masculine or feminine way depending on the circumstances. So how and why does it matter when studying conflicts and violence? Well, most of the literature published in conventional peace and conflict studies, as well as in conventional international relations studies, is gender blind. It usually assumes that only men are involved in conflicts or don't mention gender at all. When gender is taken into account, most of the literature presents a rather simplistic view of the gendered impact of conflicts, which can be summarized as follows. Men fight and women are victims in particular of sexual violence. However, over the past decades, an increasing number of scholars, in particular in the field of feminist peace research and feminist peace security studies have started researching gender related issues such as female combatants, female child soldiers, gender based violence in conflicts and so on. We can identify some of the main findings of that literature. For instance, first, there is a relative consistency of gender roles in conflicts all over the world. With a minority of recognized female combatants. Though disproportion varies, there are very few female combatants in national conventional armies around five percent. But they can be a lot more numerous in non-state armed groups, sometimes up to 40 percent of combatants. Another finding is that all around the world, the image of combatants is linked to a specific ideal type of masculinity, which is captured by the concept of militarized masculinity. It means that the masculinity of many male soldiers changes with military training, giving birth to a specific masculine identity. This identity relies on specific attitudes and values such as physical strength, willingness to use violence, but also to sacrifice oneself and the importance of weapons. In practice, however, not all combatants fit that model. Third, feminist literature has shown that gender divisions and gender stereotypes can be understood as one of the basis of structural, physical and cultural violence everywhere in the world. Femininity is usually associated with passivity and weaknesses, and this justifies the political, economic and cultural exclusion of individuals who are judged as not masculine enough. It is also used to justify discriminatory practices and, of course, gender based and sexual violence. In all these processes, the concept of hegemonic masculinity is crucial. Hegemonic masculinity embodies the more honored way of being a man, and only a minority of men might enact it. It varies across time and cultures, but in all cases it legitimizes the global subordination of women to men. Feminist literature has also shown that violence in conflicts is legitimized by a highly gendered language and highly gendered stereotypes. For instance, the discursive feminization of enemies. The dichotomisation of sexes is a way of creating in groups and out groups as the enemies are feminised and the defenders of the community, groups or nation are, on the contrary, masculinist. Finally, feminist research in the field of political economy has shown that the economy of war is largely dependent upon the exploitation of women's labor, notably within armed groups. It has also demonstrated that there is a link between gender inequality, underdevelopment and conflict. In other words, the more societies gender equal, the more developed and peaceful it is. This theoretical advances have been crucial to prove the importance of adopting a gender approach when studying peace and conflict processes. However, there are still many limits to the research that is produced, and much progress still has to be made. For instance, the confusion between gender studies and women's studies lingers in spite of the fact that most of us agree that the two types of studies are largely different. This means that issues affecting other genders are often ignored, overlooked or assumed to be anecdotal. For instance, this is still the case of wartime sexual violence against boys, men or sexual and gender minorities. One of the consequences of these limits is that the interface between research and policy is very difficult to build. Policy makers tend to interpret research results as a call for introducing quotas for women and to think that they have ticked the gender box when they have recruited or invited women. For instance, it's important to understand that gender in peace processes cannot be done by involving women alone of agendas have to be taken into account and attention has to be paid to gender roles and models. More generally, what matters most is to address the way masculinity is and femininity are defined during conflicts as these are at the roots of many forms of violence. End of transcript. Skip to the start.

Women, gender and conflict: making the connections by Martha Thompson in Development in Practice 16. 3-4 (2006): 342-353.

Gender Identities During Conflict

Gender roles and identities evolved significantly before, during and after violent conflicts, for instance, right before, but also during and after violent conflicts, we witnessed an exacerbation of masculine values and in particular of militarized masculinities. This is accompanied by valorization of men during the conflict, as well as by your celebration of war masculine heroes during and after the war. In parallel, women often serve on the grounds on which to persuade men to exert their masculinity and to vanquish the enemy. The idea is that women and children have to be protected by men against the enemy because they are considered as more vulnerable and as less likely to be able to defend themselves. In particular, the stress is put on the fact that women can suffer rape, torture or death during war, giving the male soldier a special duty to protect women from such consequences. This means that popular and political narratives around gender roles and identities during violent conflicts are rather simplistic. The stories that men fight and that women are likely to be victims. In fact, all genders are victims and all genders fight. As we have seen in the previous video the military relies on the construction of soldiers and specifically masculinities terms. While women have always been part of the military, their presence has been systematically marginalized. In conventional armies their role has typically been camp followers, that is, service and maintenance workers, rather than those involved in active combat. They can work as cooks, nurses, secretaries, cleaners and so on. In non-state armed groups, the situation is often quite different, and women have often taken up combatant positions as well. For instance, during the wars in Eritrea, El Salvador, Sierra Leone or more recently in Ukraine, sometimes they are kidnapped and forcefully involved at a very young age, this means that depending on the conflict area, young girls make up from 10 to 34 percent of child soldiers. But beyond the potential involvement in armed groups, violent conflict can have a deep impact on women's identities and roles. For instance, in families where men have gone to fight, women become heads of families, and that entails new economic and social responsibilities for them, as well as considerably more work. They have to deal with the consequences of violence at the local level, for instance, in terms of everyday security, of access to water and food or the destruction of local facilities and so on. These new tasks can be empowering because they take women away from the ideals of submissive womanhood. But at the same time, the conflict period also exposes them to higher risks, for instance, of rape, of forced recruitment, or of sexual trafficking. That being said, feminist scholars have cautioned us against interpreting these higher risks for women as specifically related to the period of violent conflict. Instead, feminist scholars have developed the notion of continuum of violence. Which draws connections across different forms of violence perpetrated before, during and after conflicts. In particular, feminist literature has shown that forms of violence exerted against women during conflicts can be related more broadly to gendered power structures and in particular to patriarchy, which existed before the beginning of the violent conflict. So it is important to understand that women do not face new but amplified risks during conflicts. In parallel men's roles and identities change, too. In order to understand how we have to differentiate between those who take up arms and those who don't. In general, civilian men are likely to be disempowered by the violent conflict because the resources that they used to have or control are no longer available or accessible. This is, for instance, the case of their job, but also the land they owned or the cattle. Their sources of wealth and power have disappeared, and the communities to which they used to belong are often scattered or decimated. Generally speaking, we can say that violent conflicts disempower civilian men as breadwinners and providers because they have fewer opportunities for obtaining an income. In addition, men who don't take up arms and even most of those who do are also unable to protect their families. It means that they are unable to perform an important task related to their masculinity. Patriarchal norms underpinning gender identity are at the heart of the problem because they aggravate men's sense of failure and frustration. The figure of the ideal man as a strong fighter and protector, never defeated and never giving up, a figure of authority and of leadership is impossible to perform during violent conflicts for men who don't or can't take up arms. In addition, poverty distorts gender identity because men are then unable to provide for the household. This can result in various forms of violence as a means of maintaining control and power because as research has shown,violence and aggression are one easy way to reassert masculinity. At the same time, men who do take up arms are empowered by the weapons they hold, but they are also at great risk because of the circulation of weapons. Because each side in conflict associates men with wealth and power, men are the main targets for killing, but also for torture and imprisonment during violent conflict. This means that the consequences of violent conflict on men's rules and status are extremely paradoxical, like what happens for women. It is also important not to forget other genders. We know that sexual and gender minorities are particularly at risk during violent conflicts. In a context where very specific types of masculinity and femininity are valued, they are generally seen as cultural and societal threats by all militarized actors. Little research, unfortunately, has been done on how violent conflict impacts the identities and rules of gender and sexual minorities, but we know that they face higher threats of all forms of violence and in particular of sexual violence, of trafficking and of forced displacement. In terms of gender relations, it is worth noting that the frustrations and trauma generated by violent conflict for all genders may be channeled into aggressiveness in values and highly destructive forms. This can give birth to destructive behavior for all genders, but especially amongst men. In particular, we can often witness during and after violent conflicts, high rates of alcoholism, depression, suicide and suicidal thoughts, domestic violence, abandonment of spouse and children and so on. All of this contributes to further family breakdown and further violent reactions, feeding a cycle of violence that lingers long after the end of the conflict. So to summarize, research has shown that when it comes to gender identities and roles during violent conflicts, there are two parallel processes at play. On the one hand, violent conflict makes it more complicated for all genders to enact traditional models of masculinity and femininity. But on the other hand, new or alternative gender models are emerging or strengthened, such as the militarised masculinity model.

Changing gender role: Women’s livelihoods, conflict and post-conflict security in Nepal, by Luna KC, Gemma Van Der Haar, and Dorothea Hilhorst in the Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 4.2 (2017): 175-195.

The article examines how the Maoist conflict in Nepal affected women ex-combatants and non-combatants, looking at shifts in gender roles during and after the conflict particularly from the standpoint of current livelihood challenges. The article also considers how women experience state and non-state responses meant to improve their livelihoods security in the post-conflict setting.

Gender and Vulnerabilities

Gender based and sexual violence during conflicts are not a new phenomenon. They have existed for as long as there has been war, but the work undertaken by feminists since the 1990s has contributed to place these issues at the top of the international agenda. All violent conflicts are also characterized by high rates of gender based violence. We can define gender based violence as a violence that targets individuals because of their sex or their sexually constructed gender roles. Gender based violence includes, but is not limited to, various forms of sexual violence. It is important to underscore the fact that all genders and not just women can be victims of gender based violence and of wartime sexual violence. Of course, sexual violence constitutes the most well known type of wartime gender based violence, but it displays different characteristics for different genders. For instance, women are more likely to be raped, forcefully impregnated or used as sexual slaves. They are also more likely to be victims of other forms of gender based violence, such as forced displacement and kidnapping. In order to understand how and why sexual violence against women occurs during wartime, it is important to remember the concept of continuum of violence that I mentioned in the previous video. In many societies, even in peacetime, gender roles and norms, marginalized women, politically and legally condone violence in the family and permit discrimination against women and girls in various spheres. These rules and norms create an environment where violence is likely to disproportionately affect women when conflicts escalate. In that sense, wartime sexual violence against women reflects the patriarchal structure of society, where the women, the female body is seen as the territory to be owned and controlled by some men. In other words, wartime gender based violence and wartime sexual violence take their roots in patriarchal norms and masculine domination that exist in peace times. For instance, rape is particularly effective as a way to assert men's domination because of the concepts of honor and shame that are attached to women's bodies in peacetime. It is therefore possible to say that female rape is as much a form of communication between men, then it is a way for men to exert the domination of women's bodies. According to the so-called weapon of war theory, rape against women is used as an instrument of terror,a war strategy and an ethnic cleansing tool. Women from the other ethnic group are specifically targeted for being raped and their genital organs destroyed. Women, thus cannot procreate anymore or carry children from the other ethnic group. But it is also important to mention that rape can result from opportunistic behavior by soldiers. Soldiers can rape for a variety of reasons, for instance, because of a lack of discipline or because sanctions against such behavior are rarely implemented by military officers, in spite of the fact that most armed groups and armies forbid sexual violence. And these acts have heavy and long term consequences, they generate problems associated with sexual and reproductive health like fistulas, for instance, they also result in unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV infections, mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, among many of the consequences. In parallel and contrary to common representations, men and boys are also victims of gender based and sexual violence. Men are more likely than women to be victims of non-sexual forms of gender based violence. In particular, they are more likely to be bluntly killed. It is estimated that men make up more than 80 percent of conflict casualties worldwide, and they are also more likely to be maimed and injured. We also know that sexual violence against men and boys exists, but we don't know exactly to what extent because male survivors of sexual violence are even less likely than women to report those acts. It is therefore extremely difficult to document because of a combination of shame, confusion, guilt, fear, but also stigma. It is, however, estimated that men and boys make up around a third of all victims of conflict related sexual violence worldwide. Of course, wartime sexual violence against men is less talked about than wartime sexual violence against women, but it is still very important because it entails a symbolic appropriation of the masculinity of the other group. It is a proof, quote unquote, not only that the victim is a lesser man, but also that his ethnicity is a lesser ethnicity. In other words, perpetrating sexual violence on men is a way to assert domination over them and to ensure their submission. This is also why sexual torture in detention so often used, for instance, in the well-known cases of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Male survivors have the feeling of having been turned into victims, which is incompatible with masculinity. The man should have been able to prevent himself from being attacked and he should have been able to take it like a man. Many male survivors also fear of being accused of homosexuality, which is in many societies strongly socially stigmatized. And it is even a criminal offence in some countries like Burundi or Uganda. Violated men are seen as unable to protect themselves, so they won't be able to protect their women and their community. Sexual violence against men means not only the empowerment and the enhenced masculinization of the offender, but it also means the dis- empowerment of the individual victim and more generally of his family and community. And since men and male power constitute the backbone of patriarchal societies, that is of most societies around the world, sexual violence against men is a way to create a feeling of vulnerability and disempowerment of the community via the subjugation of its members. Many post-conflict societies find it difficult to accept the existence of sexual violence against men. Because of gender stereotyping, men cannot be victims, they can only be perpetrators. There is also an inconsistency between masculinity and victimhood. The feminization of male victims is sometimes reinforced through the view that only women can be raped. And also, it's important to recall that international support programs for victims of sexual violence target women only or women primarily, and therefore it reinforces the equation that is made between victims and women, thereby excluding male victims or confirming their feeling that they have been turned into women. When talking about gender vulnerabilities in conflict, it is also important to remember that sexual and gender minorities are likely to be particularly vulnerable and targeted for all sorts of violence. These individuals are often forced to hide their gender or sexual identity. If it becomes known they are likely to face discrimination, homophobia, as well as various types of abuse, like harassment, bullying as well as sexual violence. End of transcript. Skip to the start.

I have to speak: Voices of Female Ex-Combatants from Aceh, Burundi, Mindanao and Nepal

Gender in Conventional IR

Gender analysis have been traditionally unseen and sidelined in international relations and also in peace and conflict studies. It is true that feminist perspectives have had a presence in both Although we could say in general that they are still in the margins, like to say, continuously cracking the margins. Feminist perspectives started to gain importance in IR since the 80s and gained quantitative importance through the 90s, especially in peace and conflict studies with the fall of communism and the wars in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and also shortly after the effects of 9/11. One of the initial contributions here is the key question, which is still today Central. Where are the women? Cynthia Enloe posed this question later accompanying it With a need of a feminist curiosity, both when we look at the functioning of international relations, but also when we look at conflicts. Since then, the focus has changed from women to gender to the centrality of feminist perspectives as well. I think it's important to mention these three categories. First, to look at where women are because such a picture, this gives clues about the gender based power dynamics of what is going on. But we also need to look at gender as a power relation and as a category of analysis in order to look not only to women as a homogenous group in any society, but to identify women as an heterogeneous group that might function according to different gender based power relations as well. And of course, gender means also looking at men or any other gender dissidences. How do they move under gender-based power structures? How do they function under these structures? Do they reproduce them? And if they do, how? Looking at gender also means dismantling the binaries that sustain it as well, hegemonic femininities and masculinities, women and men, peaceful and violent, emotional and rational and so on. This bring us to see that in between these dichotomies, there are different gender identities which are also affected by gender based power structures and how such structures tell us different gender identities need to function. Here, of course, a queer lens pushes us to new limits as well. Now, of course, this means questioning all previous central assumptions within IR and peace and conflict studies, because until the arrival of feminist researchers, gender was unseen and therefore international politics, conflicts and wars, peace was understood to be gender neutral. As I was saying, feminist perspectives and contributions make a radical questioning of what has been previously identified as central regarding key concepts, processes or actors for example. If we look at the states, the military security, violence, diplomacy, for example, which has been key for traditional IR we clearly see that they have all been understood through a male or masculine gaze and function as such. We see this, for example, in relation to how we have traditionally understood wars and therefore how we respond to them or what we understand as peace or development. Here, one of the main ideas is that women are different or dissident's gender identities experience differently processes such as conflicts, wars or peacebuilding, for example. These experiences have not been taken into account because those that were masculine experiences were understood as gender neutral and as the only experience. This also means, for example, identifying other international or local actors as such in a context where states have been identified as main actors and relations between states as main dynamics in IR. Women and dissident identities, everyday life or care work, for example. Of course, this means turning upside down the gender binaries through which international relations and politics are understood and analyzed and also function upon. This has also meant to deconstruct traditional gender roles, for example, which means that women do not necessarily need to be pacific or more peaceful, caring or emotional, and that men also dissent to join militaries or women also participate in conflicts as combatants. An idea that I think we need to acknowledge here is also the feminist contributions are grounded in feminist grassroots activism, which means that all these contributions at the academic or theoretical levels emanate from the ground and everyday experiences and activism. So there is a continuous conversation in between the theory on the ground that activism and that, I believe, is one of the key values of feminist perspectives in IR and especially in peace and conflict studies. Researchers within feminist peace studies and feminist security studies have done several contributions, and we can't name them all right here right now, but I think some key issues are the following. The dismantling of the erroneous understanding of women and gender as synonyms, which has been continuously done. Women and gender are not synonyms, first of all, and applying a gender perspective, is not adding women And stirring, or at least it should not be. And having a gender perspective does not mean per se having a critical, having a critical feminist perspective either. Also, when we refer to women, we're not speaking about a woman or women as an homogeneous group. the idea of women being heterogeneous, sharing commonalities, yes, but also full of differences, sometimes even exerting a specific power relations, is what enriches the analysis. For me another important point here is how critical feminist perspectives have brought the focus to the ground or the grassroots and to the everyday. What happens in daily life? What happens in those communities in which no one has paid attention before? What happens in those arenas in which no attention has been directed? And here it has been key also to look at the private sphere, as well as to how the public sphere functions upon the private sphere, or how these everyday life is also part of international relations and politics, and how, of course, part of wars and peace building farther than the most spectacular images or happenings in which they have traditionally focused on. This also bring us to the idea of the continuum of violence which Cynthia Cockburn coined. Violence is not something sporadic spectacular out of the normal as it has been traditionally identified looking at armed conflicts and wars.Violence is continuously present in the everyday and is part of all spaces of life here the most important idea in relation to conflict and peace is that peace does not start when the violence stops and vice versa. Which peace and whose peace starts? And which violence and whose violence apparently ends? The example of violence against women or gender based violence, for example,allow us to see how it is a continuous element both in peace and conflict and how it takes different forms - or not- under different political context and spaces. For me, it's key also the linkage that has been done by feminists in relation to militarism and war and how gender in itself feeds militarism and is a cause for militarization and war. Another key idea here can also be the critique that feminists have directed to the overall actuation of international organisms. These actors have had have usually a central role in post-conflict and peacebuilding, and they tend to be among others. Of course, those who direct the official processes. It's true that such organisms have taken a more sensitive gender perspective or that are increasingly taking women into account. We can see this, for example, with the adoption of the United Nations Security Council resolution, Thirteen, twenty five and the whole women peace and security agenda. However, what do these measures bring? So, for example, they do refer to the participation and protection of women, but of what kind, where and by whom? Here one of the main critique has been that the resolutions have those elements of the sources that they emanate from. That is the United Nations Security Council a nmasculine androcentric and liberals space in itself.

Militarized Masculinities

Well, I think it's very important for us to understand how gender identities are linked to the creation, the maintenance and the reconciliation of conflict, and by gaining a better and deeper understanding of the connection between gender identities and gender roles to conflict and violence we the global community should be in a better position to understand the very many different dimensions of armed conflict and hopefully it's resolution. So this should make us better able to deal with violent conflict when it occurs and ideally to prevent it from happening in the first place, which should be what we are all aiming for. The most obvious thing that comes to people's minds when thinking about masculinity and violence is probably ideas of toxic masculinity and how ideas of masculinity may be used to encourage violence or encourage men in particular to be violent. And this is absolutely something that we need to look further at and to look into what society can do to alter these ideas of masculinity, which in the end do not end up serving our communities very well. Notions of masculinity and femininity are something that is constructed by communities and therefore they should be able to be changed. Having said this, I would like also like to see more nuanced ideas of the connection between masculinity and conflict and violence and not fall into the trap of thinking that automatically everywhere in the world, masculinity is always connected to violence. So the concept of militarized masculinity refers to when ideas of what men are and should be like is closely linked to the military, what a soldier should be like, basically. And there's been a lot of research and writing about this based on work, especially in the USA and the UK. These very big countries with huge militaries that impact their societies. Based on this militarized masculinity can be seen as a view of the ideal manhood as related to violence, power and weapons and the image of the warrior because the strongest symbol of men and masculinity and what men should be like. An idea which has been put forward, is that this is so strong that it affects the whole gender order far outside the military as an institution. The explanation of why why this is is based on the necessity to find ways to motivate men to fight. Why would someone volunteer to go to fight in a war? Wars are terrifying situations. You risk your life, you witness horrific things and kill other people. Why would you sign up for that? And the idea is that in order to motivate young men, usually young men, to join war, they are being offered manhood instead. Join war and you will become a real man. And this is so powerful that it affects the idea of manhood in the whole society. However, having said this, I think we can't have a universal idea of what militarized, that is connected to the military means, it can mean different things in different contexts. For some, the military may be power, violence, misogyny and homophobia. For others, it may be more a symbol of discipline, for example, which does not have to be such a bad thing. In my research, soft parts of soldiering came up all the time when talking about being a good, competent soldier. Physical strength was not necessarily mentioned that often, and certainly less often than being a team player, being able to reach well out to civilians and being a good leader, et cetera. My research focused on the reintegration of ex- combatants in Burundi, and to be honest, I came to Burundi with some preconceptions about the masculinity ideas of former fighters. But what surprised me was, in fact, the lack of connection between ex combatants post-conflict ideas of masculinity and militarization. What came up much more up in interviews and in the various informal conversation I had with ex combatants during my time in the field was resentment towards everything connected to the military or rebel groups. And the reason for this is that in Burundi, the hegemonic masculinity, the one that's dominant way of thinking of masculinity, is very much focused on the home. A man in Burundi needs to get married and become a father, and this also holds for ex combatants. And what complicates the issue is that in Burundi, there's a bride price, meaning that in order to get married, a man needs to get money and or goods to the family of the bride. Therefore, marriage and then manhood's is something you basically need to pay for. And socioeconomic status becomes very, very important for masculinity construction. Of course, people always find ways to deal with difficult situations, and there are many cases of men and women in Burundi living together as husband and wife without the bride price having been paid. These kind of marriages are referred to as illegal marriages, however, and those of my informants who were in these illegal marriages felt very, very ashamed of this fact. So in Burundi, I certainly found many ex combatants feeling that they were failures as men, but this was not related to the fact that they did not have access to a weapon or a uniform anymore. In fact, when speaking of their time spent in combat, it was with resentment and many of the men felt that they had wasted their time in combat, which they could have spent in school or starting businesses, which could have led to a better situation for them today, both economically and thus as conforming to the ideals of masculinity. The main thing to take away from this is to be aware of all the nuances there are in the connections between masculinities, militaries and violence, and not to make assumptions between contexts. What militarized masculinity actually looks like is different between context and whether it's the hegemonic masculinity varies as well. It's certainly important for us as a global community to learn and understand how masculinity ideas can be a driver of conflict and what we can do to prevent that. We absolutely need more work on this. At the same time, I would want to be open to all the different nuances and avoid assuming that masculinities and conflicts look the same everywhere. I think we should also explore how ideas of masculinity could be a positive force. For example, my work in Burundi so that when talking about ideal men, a lot of the ex combatants spoke of conflict resolution skills and other traits related to the Bashingantahe the traditional conflict mediators. According to this, real men should be good conflict mediators. Having said that, there was a lot of different kinds of communal violence during my time in Burundi and domestic violence is rife. So obviously many men speak about peace and non-violence on the one hand, but act differently in other settings. Judging from this, we still have quite a bit to go before we understand when and under what conditions masculinity and violence connect and when not.

Intersectionality and Intervention

Intersectionality as an analytical tool

In this lecture, I want to talk to you about the concept of intersectionality. Intersectionality is a concept that was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 in her article "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Anti-Discrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics". Kimberlé Crenshaw is a scholar and lawyer from the United States, and she coined this particular concept in recognizing that the law treats people differently, very much according to the categories of identity that the sociopolitical and cultural system defines them with. The concept of intersectionality is used today in a wide variety of fields that go well beyond the subject of law. I'm going to refer to this book on intersectionality written by Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge. And I'm going to give you an operating definition of intersectionality to begin this lecture. So in this book, it states intersectionality investigates how intersecting power relations influence social relations across diverse societies, as well as individual experiences in everyday life. As an analytical tool, intersectionality views categories of race, class, gender, sexuality, nation, ability, ethnicity, and age, among others, as interrelated and mutually shaping one another. Intersectionality is a way of understanding and explaining complexity in the world, in people and in human experiences. You might recognize some of the categories we use in intersectionality based on popular conceptions of identity. You've seen identity categories being used in movements like #MeToo, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and Pride parades. These types of movements are examples of more recent activities that try to highlight different types of inequalities that exist in our societies. And that's what intersectionality attempts to demonstrate to us by not only highlighting one type of equality over another, or versus another, or sets it up in its exclusivity that it's just about gender or just about race, but is instead taking a look at the ways in which these different categories impact each other and then impact the role and experience individuals have in the society that they're living in. I'm going to try to give you an example to try to demonstrate how we can conceptualize this. So I'm pretty sure that you're familiar with what's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was invoked in 1948 and as a key convention for the United Nations to express the fact that all human beings are equal. The problem has been, though, that when we refer to human beings as one sort of entity and in this case, man, there is an assumption implied there, that there are no socio-political differences that are employed within our cultures and political systems or in the law that in fact work towards differentiating people rather than supporting the notion of a universal right. So let's take this universal man in this declaration. And this has been demonstrated also in political philosophy, where there is an assumption about the individual in philosophy and the relationship between the individual, this is "man", and the government, that this individual is a kind of an abstract concept of a human being. But it's often been predicated on the image, in fact, of a man and not just a man, but often a white, middle-class, ethnically European male. When rights are determined according to that sort of image, it's not a neutral image, but it's an image that comes with a lot of assumptions. And then people who are not identified in this same way will find that they can be and are treated differently. Because of the fact that despite this idea that all human beings that are that is all men are equal, we have seen at various moments throughout the years, that attempts to fight for rights to be equal to this image of this man have arisen. And so this is where you see the women's rights movement emerging. And this is already emerging in the European context, at least in the 1700s. So, and actually even before, but really started to gain steam in the early 20th century through many of the earlier feminist movements. However, many of these movements, it started earlier, they're already looking at the differences between men and and women. These earlier feminist movements only considered women of a particular race, age and class. So they, in fact, did not really attempt to rectify inequality for all women, but rather for women of a particular identity category. So as such, we've seen other movements emerging, like the civil rights movement in the United States. It was also acknowledging that race relations are very much influenced by inequalities and were invoked to attempt to eradicate the inequalities between races. We've seen the same thing with the Occupy Wall Street movement dealing with class differences and economic differences, and also with the Pride parade where people who identify in the LBGTQIA2S+ categories, that have up until recently been subjected to inequalities regarding their own orientation or expression of gender are finding ways to raise their levels of equality. The focus on these types of categories have been criticized, not least in our popular culture, as being identity politics or where people are fighting for special rights rather than equal rights. But if we take a look at this idea of this universal man being here, and then we can think about, you know, where we see the farther away one gets from being this universal white, middle-class, heterosexual man, that identities start to intersect and denote what sort of power a person has in that particular community. As such, we can take a look at these power dynamics and look at this universal man in relation to women, say, in general, who have had fewer rights and that's where they were fighting to get rights up to this man, and then we're in the women's movement, there haven't been acknowledgement of black women's rights and the ways in which they're actually more marginalized compared to sort of this notion of a general woman. So black women here and there are men who are in the Black Lives Matter who are also enjoying greater rights than say black women. So we start to see that people are measured up against this universal man are are finding themselves in different levels of equality in relation to this abstract concept. Also we see that in the LGBTQ communities that they may find that if they're male or if they're female or if they're black or brown or another racial category in addition to an ethnicity or religion, that their levels of power in relation to this universal man varies according to the types of identities that pertain to their experience. So as an example, then, in law, going back to Kimberlé Crenshaw's work, she noticed that a white, middle-class, heterosexual male would be treated differently in American law than would be a white, middle-class woman who would who would then also be treated differently and often was endowed with greater rights in the sense than, say, a black male in the same court of law, or a brown Muslim woman would be accorded in the same court of law. Therefore, a core feature of an intersectional lens is power relations. And it's these relations reflecting our societal norms that determine how much power we have in relation to each other as human beings and also the power we have between us and our government institutions. As such, through intersectionality, we gain a wealth of additional knowledge and insights into the possibilities and challenges for building more equitable and peaceful societies.