Future of Feminist Security Studies

Although we discussed many different approaches to the future of feminist security studies, one particular quote from Carol Cohn's article really stuck out to me because of how it related to our recent class discussions and because it, in my opinion, really represented the future of feminist security studies. When I read the final words of Cohn's article "Feminist Security Studies’: Toward a Reflexive Practice," her quote "...it is also likely true that no one is more likely to push a change in agenda than the organized women who live in the shadows of those elite men's decisions" (2011, p.585) made me think of one of our class discussions. I connected the term "organized women" to the organized and masculinized nature of the military.  

The quote seems to make a point that the future of feminist security studies rests in the hands of women who are often directly or closely related to a masculinized society, where they are often in the shadows and discredited (sectors like the military). And in a way I believe this opinion. Although I am not saying that only women who have these experiences will be the ones who are at the forefront of the feminist security studies, I believe that those who are will play a vital and important role. 

One of the main reasons I believe this is because of one of her earlier quotes, where she says that "...this involved asking questions such as how and why the masculinist institutions at the heart...if we study men in these institutions as men, then what can we learn? (Cohn, 2011, p. 585). She stresses the importance of studying men and masculinity as a way to progress and learn more about feminist security studies. Those who are in environments where masculinity and the masculinized society are prevalent are able to take vital experiences in order to learn more about the culture. For example, how and why these masculine institutions function the way they do, how they define masculinity and where this notion of "power" comes from. For me, this is where the future of feminist security studies lies.  

Cohn, Carol (2011) “‘Feminist Security Studies’: Toward a Reflexive Practice” Politics & Gender 7 (4): pp. 581-586.

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.

To Infinite, and Beyond

If I rubbed my crystal ball, seeking to decipher the future of feminist security studies, what would I be met with?

Nothing, probably, not being so inclined with divination. But where soothsaying denies, my mind supplies (or, at the very least, offers biased opinions and a few haphazard guesses). 

Chiefly, one day, I would like feminist security studies not to have that first qualifier. I would like the lives of women to be taken seriously and their experiences of violence, and war, and peace to be considered general experiences of violence, and war, and peace. Not general in that it is widespread, but general in that we don’t need to consider it the concern of a special interest group. Because rape, and sexualized violence, and structural violence, and although those other entities and forms of being which aren’t peace (and lets not getting started on what, exactly, peace is, anyways), concern everybody. And while I don’t advocate that color-blind or race-blind or inserttheroppressedandmarginalizedgroup-blind approaches are the way to go, at moment (because we first have to dismantle centuries of overt and institutionalized oppression, not to mention continuing prejudices and stereotypes, as well as all possible effects derived from these ugly histories--- and who knows long that will take), I hope we get to a place in the future where its not even an intentional choice but the norm.

Personally,  I agree with Professor Wibben on the potential harms of too many “feminisms” (after all, if feminism is inherently political, it has to have an agreed-upon agenda to cultivate a constituency). I also think it would behoove feminism and feminist critical security studies to adopt a wide variety of methods and to explore the bounty of disciplines. To “leave no stone unturned,” as it were. After all, systems of oppression poison all dynamics of our world, so it only makes sense to be equally comprehensive.  I believe there is a place for personal testimonials and a place for empirical observations. For participatory observation and covert reconnaissance. For assertions and for silence. This is, in part, because of my last wish regarding the future direction of feminist security studies. I think our understanding of security needs to be broadened. As nearly all of our reading has elucidated, the current US conception of security is defined by imperialist hegemonic masculinity. Security starts with the self, runs through the home, and colors relationships, cultures, societies, international networks. And as we further conceptualize a colony on Mars, I'll go ahead and assert that it'll define intergalactic life as well.


Cohn, C.(2011) “‘Feminist Security Studies’: Toward a reflexive practice” Politics & Gender 7 (4): pp. 581-586.


Wibben, A.T.R. (2011a) Feminist Security Studies: A narrative approach. Routledge.
(2011b) "Feminist politics in Feminist Security Studies" Politics & Gender 7 (4): pp. 590-595.


-Laur

On the significance of titles, notes, and (civilian)? SWAT teams

On Monday, April 22, the esteemed Cynthia Enloe visited USF. First meeting with our class privately, Enloe gave a convincing sales pitch for the importance of notes (guess I should read those....) and a well-chosen title. I appreciated the concern that she took ensuring not to giving any assumptions to the women she wrote about in her book Nimo's War, Emma's War: Making Feminist Sense of the Iraq War. I was left with the question: Can writing (or even art) ever be prescriptive then? At some point, doesn't it take an assertion about what are universal values or rights? I don't actually have an answer for that but I absolutely agree with Enloe in that nonfiction writing and journalism should avoid assumptions, judgement, and pointed language. And when writing about others, whether in a nonfiction sense or as a representation in fiction, it should never be more about the author than the subject.

The evening lecture by Enloe got more into feminist material than the class had the opportunity to (since we were focused on research methods). She analyzed the Boston Marathon and its repercussions through a critical feminist lens. Her observations on the racial profiling, Islamaphobia, absurd media coverage and abjection of rights  in the aftermath echoed what I believe a lot of critical thinking observers felt. I thought of Cohn's piece that questioned the power involved in using terms like terrorism. As Enloe supported, it certainly is a political tool to help frame an event for the audience. Maybe not run of the mill terrorism, per se, but I imagine that the Saudi student who had his apartment searched in the aftermath felt terrorized.

I also really appreciated Enloe's comprehensive look at the costs of war. I'm doing a paper on forms of political protest and when, where, and why they work. A lot of the geopolitical analysis that I have come across only take things like financial price tags and estimated military deaths into cost-benefit calculations of potential wars. I keep wondering why things like the militarization of a society, sexualized violence, or psychological trauma (all of which long outlast the combat operations) don't get considered. Enloe applied this extended cost-of-war analysis to the militarization of civilian police, as observed in the Boston bombing suspects. Until people are convinced both of the connection of these other consequences of war and the magnitude of these consequences, I find it difficult to believe that people will see the police response to the Boston marathon as a problem. Until these connections are made, I imagine people will be grateful that the greater Boston area had such resources, considering the terror that they both reasonably felt and were made to feel by the media.


Cynthia Enloe (2010) Nimo’s War, Emma’s War: Making Feminist Sense of the
Iraq War. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohn Case Study

Carol Cohn's piece, ""Motives and Methods: Using multi-sited ethnography to study U.S. national security discourses" stresses the importance of comprehensivity in research. Being comprehensive allows for an examination of multi-sited research (among other locations, Cohn interviewed at war colleges, military academies and nuclear sites). Cohn became interested in the topic when she noted gendered rhetoric while studying national security rhetoric during the Cold War era. She interviewed a wide range of individuals including: military spouses, enlisted personnel, officers, and scientists. Cohn also discusses the influence of bias and stereotypes. Biases existed on both ends. For example, she noted civilian vs. military biases, male vs. female biases, career biases, and her own difficulty interviewing whom she viewed as a war criminal.

Cohn, Carol (2006) "Motives and Methods: Using multi-sited ethnography to study U.S. national security discourses" In: Brooke Ackerly, Maria Stern and Jacqui True (eds) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge University Press: pp. 129-152.

                                                            - Laur and Edwin