Content warning: this blog post mentions feminist theory in relation to issues of rape, genocide and war.

Recently I had the opportunity to do a deep dive into feminist contributions to the field of international relations, a discipline which of course has many parallels and connections to criminology. Feminism as a broad concept often is viewed from a human rights perspective, which makes sense as this is probably the area that is most visible to most people through progressions in the field of political participation, reproductive and sexual rights and working rights. A lesser known contribution is feminist theory to international relations (IR), specifically, its practical and theoretical contribution to security and conflict. This blog post will give a whistle stop tour through the exploration I conducted concerning the themes of security, conflict and feminism. Hopefully I can write this in a way everyone finds interesting as it’s a fairly heavy topic at times!

Security

Within IR, security has usually been defined on a more state-centric level. If a state can defend itself and its sovereign borders and has adequate (or more than adequate) military power, it is seen to be in a condition of security according to realist theory (think Hobbes and Machiavelli). Realism has taken centre stage in IR, suggesting that the state is the most important unit of analysis therefore meaning security has generally taken a state-centric definition.

Feminism has offered a radical rejuvenation of not only security studies, but also the ontological principles of IR itself. While the state is preoccupied with providing military security, often pooling resources towards this sector during times of international fragility, welfare sectors are usually plunged into a state of underfunding- even more so than they usually are. This means that individuals who depend on such sectors are often left in a state of financial and/or social insecurity. Feminism focuses on this issue, suggesting women are often the recipients of various welfare based services. The impact of wartime fiscal policy would not have been uncovered without feminism paying attention to the women typically side-lined and ignored in international politics. So while the state is experiencing a sense of security, its citizens (quite often women) are in a feeling of insecurity.

This individualisation of security also challenges the merit of using such a narrow, state-centric definition of security, ultimately questioning the validity of the dominant, state-focused theory of realism which in IR, is pretty ground-breaking.

Conflict

I’d say that in nearly all social science disciplines, including politics, economics, sociology, IR and criminology, conflict and war is something that is conceptualised as inherently ‘masculine’. Feminist theory was one of the first schools to document this and problematise it through scholarship which interrogated hegemonic masculinity, ‘masculine’ institutions and the manifestations of these things in war zones.

Wartime/ genocidal rape is unfortunately not a rare behaviour to come across in the global arena. The aftermath of the Yugoslav wars and the Rwandan genocide is probably some of the most reported cases in academic literature, and this is thanks to feminist theory shining a light on the phenomena. Feminism articulates wartime/ genocidal rape as constitutive of the dangerous aspects of culturally imbedded conceptions of masculinity being underscored by power and domination and being legitimised by the institutions which champion dangerous elements of masculinity.

Practically, this new perspective provided by feminism has altered the way sexual violence is viewed by the mainstream; once a firmly domestic problem, sexual violence has been brought into foreign policy and recognised as a tactic of war. This articulation by feminist theory is absolutely ground breaking in the social science world as it shifts the onto-epistemological focus that other more conventional schools have been unable to look past.