Feminist Security Studies, to a greater extent than the other widening
deepening perspectives covered in this chapter, comprises sub-approaches which adopt different referent objects, epistemologies and methodologies. With the exception of traditional military-state centric approaches which leave no room for gender and security, Feminist Security Studies can thus be seen as a microcosm of ISS itself. The most significant questions on the post-ColdWar Feminist Security Studies agendawere: first, howto further develop the standpoint Feminist approach associated with J. Ann Tickner and Cynthia Enloe presented in chapter 5, particularly how to tackle the problems connected to its epistemology of experience; second, how to integrate a new set of events; and third, how to respond to Constructivism and quantitative Feminism. The Tickner approach has been the most prevalent one within Feminist Security Studies, in terms of which conceptualisation of security is adopted and how it is introduced by most textbooks (Pettman, 2005; Kennedy-Pipe, 2007;Tickner and Sjoberg, 2007).This approach hasmuch in common with Critical Security Studies and Human Security in calling for an expansion of the referent object to include women and nonmilitary security sectors (Hoogensen and Rottem, 2004; Hudson, 2005; Hoogensen and Stuvy, 2006). InTicknerswords, Feminists adopt amultidimensional, multilevel approach committed to emancipatory visions of security that seek to understand how the security of individuals and groups is compromised by violence, both physical and structural, at all levels (Tickner, 2001: 48). Feminist analysis has as a consequence generally taken a bottom-up approach, analyzing the impact of war at the microlevel (Tickner, 2001: 48), deepened the referent object and widened the sectors to which security is applicable. Epistemologically, those working in the Tickner tradition have usually adopted experiences as their key concept. The absence of women in traditional ISS approaches and the form that gender-specific threats to womens security take are closely connected to the fact that [too] often, womens experiences have been deemed trivial or only important in so far as they relate to the experiences of men and the questions they typically ask (Tickner, 2005: 7). Feminist research, according to Tickner, is thus informed by the assumption that womens lives are important and that the routine aspects of everyday life that help sustain gender inequality should be brought out (Tickner, 2005: 7). This leads to a preference for methodologies that embrace an ethnographic style of individually oriented story-telling typical of anthropology (Tickner, 1997: 615) or hermeneutic and interpretative methodologies that allow subjects to document their own experiences in their own terms (Tickner, 2005: 19). The attraction of an epistemology of experience for Feminist Security Studies aswell as forCritical Security Studies is that it brings in subjects marginalised by state-centric and other collective concepts of security, for instance victims of wartime rape or sex-trafficking (Stiglmayer, 1994; Pickup, 1998; Denov, 2006; Jackson, 2006). Yet the weakness of an epistemology of experience is that it rests on standpoint feminisms view of women as forming a coherent subject distinct from that of men. Many standpoint feminists therefore developed diversity feminism that understands identity as informed not only by gender but by ethnicity, class and race (Dietz, 2003: 408). This opened up a bigger variety of gendered referent objects and experiences, but it also created the problem of how to unite a feminist movement and consciousness across multiple experiences. The problem was in short that Feminist epistemology in the realm of international security must either decide to curtail the admission of all womens experiences or accept, as other fields have done, that there is a need to judge and select, even within the feminist perspective (Grant, 1992: 95).
This is not only a matter of selecting which women to include. Rather,
the more fundamental problem is that experience relies upon an ambiguous construction of the individual subject, gendered structures and the privileged status of the researcher. Experience is on the one hand a concept that promises a direct link to (marginalised) subjects everyday lives and to a deeply subjective, narrative and often emotional form of knowledge. Yet this subject is on the other hand constituted through a gendered structure: it is only conceivable as a gendered experience if gender is already accepted as a frame of reference. As Joan Scott (1992: 27) explains, experience leads us to take the existence of individuals for granted (experience is something people have) rather than to ask how conceptions of selves (of subjects and their identities) are produced. Accepting Scotts call for giving the production of identity centre-stage, some Feminists moved in a more Poststructuralist direction (Sylvester, 1994; Weber, 1998). As chapter 5 and the section below lay out, this implies a concern with the construction of identity, and in the specific context of Feminism and gender with the often ambiguous and multifaceted articulation of gendered subjects. Gender comes into Feminist Poststructuralist focus, first, as the way in which other referent objects states, nations or, for instance, religious groups are gendered, that is constituted as masculine or feminine. Feminists working in this tradition resonate with Poststructuralist and Critical Constructivist analyses which trace the use of gendering representations as part of their broader study of security discourses and narratives (Campbell, 1992; Weldes, 1996). Second, gender comes into focus through an account of competing constructions of the gendered referent object itself and of the policy spaces or silences that ensue (Hansen, 2001; Berman, 2003). To take the example of sex-trafficking in women, one of the key themes on the post-Cold War Feminist Security Studies agenda, Feminist researchers point to the constitution of trafficked women as either the victims of kingpins and manipulation or as illegal migrants seeking entrance into the labour market of the EU (Pickup, 1998; Petersen, 2001; Berman, 2003; Aradau, 2004a; Jackson, 2006). Victims are to be assisted, although not necessarily given asylum, while the illegal migrants are scheming subjects to be deported. The key point for a Poststructuralist Feminist analysis is here not to identify the real representation, but to explore and criticise how subject constructions condition how women can appear (Hansen, 2001). Yet not all those working in the field of gender and security would self-identity as Feminists or adopt a TicknerHuman SecurityCritical Security Studies or a Poststructuralist position. Expanding the scope of Feminist/gender research in Security Studies, Caprioli (2004a) and R. Charli Carpenter (2002) argue that Feminist Security Studies has been dominated by the TicknerEnloe approach to such an extent that quantitative, positivist and Constructivist scholarship has been marginalised. Coming fromthe quantitative tradition of Peace Research,Mary Caprioli (2004a) pointed to how Feminist theorists such as Sandra Harding have called for all methodologies to be included, and specifically to the significance of causal analyses of how gender impacts state behaviour, for instance in a Feminist version of the democratic peace theory that examines the relationship between gender equality, democracy and conflict (Keohane, 1989; Caprioli, 2000, 2003, 2004b; Caprioli and Boyer, 2001; Caprioli andTrumbore, 2003;Regan andPaskeviciute, 2003).Other quantitative studies did not, as Caprioli, self-identify as Feminist, but adopted gender as a variable in explaining public attitudes to foreign and security policy (Togeby, 1994; Eichenberg, 2003). Shifting from explaining state behaviour to women as a referent object for security, other studies explored the correlation between polity type and human rights on the one hand and womens security on the other (Caprioli, 2004b). Caprioli self-identified herwork as Feminist,whereasCarpenter (2002) argued in favour of a non-Feminist Conventional Constructivism that examines the importance of normsfor national security but does not share the political commitments of Feminism. Based on a study of humanitarian evacuations during the BosnianWar,Carpenter (2003) concluded that norms about the vulnerability of women and children conditioned the policy options available to protection workers from the United Nations HighCommissioner forRefugees(UNHCR).Hence, although adult males and male adolescents were more likely to be massacred when besieged enclaves fell to Serbian forces, women and children were the ones evacuated. Put in the language of referent objects, men weremore likely victims of gender-based violence and hence should be granted more concern by Feminist security scholars (Jones, 1994, 1996, 1998; R. C.Carpenter, 2003, 2006). The general Feminist response to quantitative and Constructivist (non-)Feminist analysis was that these did not consider women as a referent object for security, and hence could not address the gender-specific threats that women face (Carver, 2003; Bilgin, 2004c). Nor had Feminists claimed that men and masculinity were not significant or indeed that men were not more likely to die in combat, but rather that it was the constructions of masculine and feminine identities and the protector/protected dichotomies that made it seem warranted that men went to the line of fire and women stayed at home (Enloe, 1983, 1989; Elshtain, 1987; Carver et al., 1998; Locher and Prugl, 2001; Carver, 2003; Sjoberg, 2006). What a Feminist expansion of the referent object revealed was that womens security problems were privatised, marginalised or even silenced, and that their deaths were validated differently from that of military mens, not that men were not threatened. This section has emphasised the analytical and epistemological debates over how the gendered referent object might be broadened or deepened. Yet it should be stressed thatmuch, if not most, of the work on gender and security is not explicitly theoretical or engaging directly with the concept of security, butwritten in an empirical low-theory style.As a consequence, analysis often combines elements from several approaches. This empirical focus also means that Feminism has to a large extent been driven by events. Some of the key themes on the Feminist research agenda were: sex- trafficking across old EastWest boundaries (Pickup, 1998; Petersen, 2001; Berman, 2003; Aradau, 2004a; Jackson, 2006); rape as a weapon of war and other forms of wartime sexual violence (Rogers 1998; Stanley, 1999; Hansen, 2001; Skjelsbk, 2001; Denov, 2006); masculinities, peacekeeping, humanitarian intervention and post-conflict reconstruction including the difficulties of negotiating a traditional Feminist preference for non-military solutions with womens demands for protection, particularly in the light of scandalswhereUNpeacekeepers had kept prostitutes or committed rape (Handrahan, 2004; Higate and Henry, 2004); women and children as combatants and men as victims of sexual violence (Jones, 1994; R. C. Carpenter, 2003, 2006; Alison, 2004; Fox, 2004; Sjoberg, 2006; Sjoberg and Gentry, 2007); and the impact of the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on gender and security in 2000 (Cohn et al., 2004). In terms of institutionalising these debates, the key outlets were the International Feminist Journal of Politics, published from 1999, Millennium, with an anniversary special issue in 1998, Alternatives and, from the mid-2000s, Security Dialogue.