The Future of Feminist Security Studies: The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind

       Feminist Security Studies (wherever the semantic emphasis falls) seems to be a field with a bright, if not clearly one-directional future.  What I mean by this is that of all of the academic disciplines, those I respect the most are those which are constantly questioning their goals, methods, and terminology.  Just like research which is bettered by changing the research question to fit the results, rather that squeezing the results into some pre-conceived theory, I believe that academic disciplines should not take their fundamental tenets (or their names) as divinely written in stone.  I see nothing wrong, and, in fact, everything right, about a field writing to question and evaluate their practices, values, methodology and even its name. 

           Ann Jones (1994) would agree with me, stating “Researchers…commonly present [their ‘subjects’] with a list of predetermined questions, designed to elicit the information the researchers want, and keyed for quick reduction to faceless numbers – a ‘scientific method’ very different from listening to what women have to say for themselves” (pg. 155). 

The feminist curiosity that Cynthia Enloe writes about would appear to be a useful perspective for any academic, because by approaching everything, even one’s dearly held “traditions” with a critical mind, one can discover new links, new theories, and new conclusions. This is why I feel confident about the future of Feminist Security Studies.  If many people in the discipline are utilizing this feminist curiosity, the discipline will remain alive and vital.  (One hopes that their curiosity might puncture any egos unwilling to keep changing.)

I am still undecided about whether I think that sticking with the conventional definition of “Security Studies” is a positive approach; it does allow for those unfamiliar with feminist theory to grasp the ideas with a familiar framework. If such a framework were discarded, how would analysis be carried out, and how would anyone outside FSS be able to understand it?

            On the other hand, changing existing power structures from the inside can be arduous and ultimately an exercise in futility.  Perhaps the solution would be to continue to grow and expand FSS, drawing on both reframed traditional academic practices of the discipline of Security Studies, and also new academic practices created by FSS scholars.  This could, hopefully, grow to such proportions that it would seriously rival traditional Security Studies. 

            While perhaps an overly optimistic view, I think that a re-definition of the term “Security” has such far-reaching consequences that it is worthy of much academic (and policy-makers’) attention.  Because so far, to me “Feminist” Security Studies is simply a more holistic view of “Security Studies.”  It is not a niche, it is a view of International Relations that includes, and focuses on women.  And this does seem like a good idea, doesn’t it, given that over 50% of the global population is, guess what: women!

            Women already play an enormous role in “war” and “peace-”time International Relations.  It’s about time we started studying that role in detail.  Perhaps then we would be able to see things in a light that is clear and piercing enough, that we would be able to break the cycle of history and head off in a new direction.

Ann Jones'  "Why doesn't she leave?" In: Next Time She'll Be Dead. Boston: Beacon Press. 1994.