Week 12: Moving Forward: Feminism, Gender and Knowledge

Earlier this week I watched a short documentary on Aljazeera, in which a Zimbabwean journalist, Stanley Kwenda, tells a story about child smuggling. Kwenda wrote an article to compliment his documentary and it expressed the value of his work. He believes it represents an indigenous voice on the issue, with knowledge on the land and the culture, as opposed to the voice of a “white foreign correspondence.” Though Kwenda did not outright discuss standpoint theory in his article, I believe this theory informs his ontology. As I watched the documentary I kept thinking about knowledge and power and I found myself thinking back to Carol Cohen’s “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals.” One of Cohen’s points, which resonated with me, was her reminder to always ask, who is the subject? The subjects of Kwenda’s documentary are three Zimbabwean children and through the use of standpoint theory, Kwenda creates a space for their marginalized voices. I found the question of subjects to be significant in both Sandra Harding’s “Gender, technology, and militarism: An engagement with Eric M. Blanchard” and Judith Hicks Stiehm’s “These on the military, security, war and women.” Therefore, I will consider the way these authors conceptualize the issue of subjects and how this issue intersects with notions of power and knowledge.

Harding discusses two central points in her article. First, she argues that the relationship between militarism and advancements in scientific and technological knowledge simultaneously drive one another. Harding ties advancements in military technologies to patriotism, using the example of the atom bomb. She explains how “Western science and Western militarism have co-produced, or co-constituted each other.” This relationship shapes our ontology; the way we value advancements in knowledge and consider progress to be “good” thing. She reminds us that we need to ask: who do these advancements benefit and who suffers as a consequence of “progress”? Second, she articulates the value of feminist standpoint theory. This theory opens space for and attributes value to women’s voices. Thus, Harding addresses questions of power and knowledge within security discourses by reminding us of the multifaceted meanings of violence and security, while also reminding us of the importance of women as subjects in these narratives.

Judith Hicks Stiehm’s “These on the military, security, war and women” also addresses themes of power within security discourses. Her many points address the intersections of gender and international relations. My response examines thesis xxx, which is as follows:

The government is said to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If men have a near monopoly on force, what can we learn from how women manage in a culture where they are, essentially, unilaterally disarmed?

In asking what can be learnt from women, Stiehm is asking us to consider women as subjects in security and political discourses. Her thesis is shaped by the underlying assumption that men and women (can) experience violence differently. Further, her thesis is related to Harding’s point, in that the monopoly of force men possess is part of a larger project of expanding scientific knowledge on technology. This discourse values certain types of knowledge and power (read: objective and rational) over others (read: qualitative and emotional). Stiehm’s thesis illuminates the different and gendered voices we need to consider in security discourses.

Stanley Kwenda’s documentary illuminates several important themes discussed in Harding and Stiehm’s work. Embedded in a postcolonial context, his article illuminates the significance of standpoint theory, for as a Zimbabwean man he is able to tell a story about youth in Zimbabwe. The documentary traces the experience of three youths (two girls and one boy) who engage with smugglers in their attempts to flee Zimbabwe to South Africa. While Kwenda’s documentary and article can be seen in one way to represent local knowledge, the concept of gender is invisible. While watching Kwenda interview the two girls, Julia and Juliet, I found myself wondering, if they were being interviewed by a woman how different would the stories they told have been? Kwenda’s status as an educated male demonstrates a hierarchy of knowledge (he is a journalist and speaks English with his crew before switching back to the local language) that separates him from the girls.

Furthermore, one of the girls he interviews explains that she is living with a man she met at the “taxi rent,” who pays her to sell oranges and eggs. Kwenda does not question this arrangement, nor does he consider the exploitative (whether in a labour or sexual context) implications it may have. In anther scene he mentions girls do not go down to the river by the border alone, as they are putting themselves in danger of being raped. But Kwenda does not elaborate on why there is a high risk of sexualized violence, or how this contributes to different definitions of “security” for girls and boys. He lumps girls and boys into one subject category, thus silencing any gender differences. In conclusion, the above readings and Kwenda’s documentary demonstrate the significance of feminist standpoint theory as well as the need to ask who is the subject and also, who is telling the story?

Bibliography

Harding, Sandra. “Gender, technology, and militarism: An engagement with Eric M. Blanchard.” In Feminism and International Relations: Conversations about the past, present and future. Edited by J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg. New York: Routledge, 2011,  164-168.

Kwenda, Stanley. “The African Story, told the African Way.” Aljazeera. Accessed November 24, 2011.<http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/africainvestigates/2011/11/2011111683134191559.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_medium=MasterAccount&utm_term=tweets>.

Stiehm, Judith Hicks. “These on the military, security, war and women.” In Gender and International Security: Feminist perspectives. Edited by Laura Sjoberg. New York: Routledge, 2010, 17-23.

Week 11: Peace and Moving Beyond Violence

Nadine Puechguirbal’s chapter “Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding, and Post-Conflict Resolution” provides insight to the relationship between gender and the United Nations (UN). Puechguirbal highlights several important developments to the UN’s incorporation of gender, such as Resolution 1325 and the efforts of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to recognize the multifaceted meaning of gender mainstreaming. But there are many deeply gendered structures which continue to restrict the impact of these changes. Puechguirbal explains that one of the central limitations of incorporating gender sensitivity in peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions is the UN’s use of language. In texts like Resolution 1325, men and women are continually divided into traditional binaries (men=fighters and protectors, women=victims and protected). Furthermore, these texts conflate women with children, the disabled and the elderly, thus removing women’s agency.

A second obstacle Peuchguirbal identifies is the way the UN uses gender as a tool rather than a critical way of viewing the world. This observation reminded me of The Whistleblower, a film I watched a few weeks ago. This film tells the story of Kathryn Bolkovac, an American police officer who participated in the UN's peacekeeping mission in post-war Bosnia. While serving as head of the Gender Affairs unit, she discovered rings of sex smuggling. She uncovered layers of corruption, as the perpetrators of the smuggling ranged from the local police, through an American private military firm (DynCorp) and up into the executive branches of the UN. 

 Puechguirbal’s chapter and The Whistleblower both highlight the impact of the UN’s use of gender as a “problem-solving” tool in peacekeeping. In contrast, Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai, shows that peace and development can be possible when gender is used as a world view. Comparing these films, two different models of “peacebuilding” are illuminated; The Whistleblower represents an institutional top-down approach, whereas Taking Root represents a local, grassroots one. 

Examining The Whistleblower through the frame of Peuchguirbal’s chapter illustrates the causes of Bolkovac’s challenges. The way gender sensitivity was included in the UN’s mission in post-war Bosnia utilized gender as a “problem-solving instrument.” Thus, gender was kept as separate, as seen by the Gender Affairs unit Bolkovac was in charge of. Also, this approach prevented recognition of the masculinized military presence on women and men in, which was complicated by the presence of a private military firm. Lastly, gender as a tool rather than a critical perspective made it difficult for some personnel to take gender sensitivity seriously. This is epitomized in a scene where local Bosnian policemen ignore the case of a woman who has suffered several injuries as a result of domestic violence. This scene also addresses the intersectionality of race, gender and violence, as the policemen state their belief that the women deserved her injury because she is Muslim. 

            Although the example of Bosnia in The Whistleblower represents a UN mission and Taking Roots is focused on local activism in Kenya, both speak to the idea of building peace and security. The grassroots approach advocated by the Green Belt Movement shows there are alternative and gender sensitive approaches. This film tells the story of Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan woman who founded the Green Belt Movement. Her actions demonstrate that she was using gender as a critical tool rather than a problem solving tool. By talking with women about their daily lives she found the deforestation around their communities was causing a lack of firewood and water. This was changing their cooking habits; the women shifted from cooking traditional meals to using food that had many carbohydrates and was highly refined. The change in diet had a substantial impact on the health of their families and communities. As a way to change this, Maathai encouraged the women to plant trees to reduce the detrimental impact of deforestation. Gradually the movement grew and as it developed, the knowledge, confidence and livelihood of the women involved (as well as their communities) grew too. 

This film shows the vital role women play in peacebuilding. It demonstrates that approaches to change do not always need to be “culturally sensitive.” As several of the women note, some men were opposed to the women in their communities planting trees, as it was not a “traditional role” for Kikuyu women. As many cultures are patriarchal, the gender roles have been shaped according to hegemonic masculinities. This is reflected in the Puechguirbal chapter, as she reminds us that after a conflict, women are expected to return to their post-war roles. The everyday, lived experiences of women are foundational for the peace, security and sustainability of their communities. Thus, it is absolutely necessary to use gender as a world view rather than as a problem solving tool. 

Bibliography 

Puechguirbal, Nadine. “Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding, and Post-Conflict Resolution.” In Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations. Edited by Laura J. Shepherd. Routledge: Oxen: 2010, 161-175.

Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai. Directed by Lisa Merton and Alan. Canada: Mongrel Media, 2009.  

The Whistleblower. Directed by Larysa Kondracki. Canada: Gen One, Canada Inc. and Barry Films, 2010.