Reviewing these two books alongside each other emphasizes the advances and contributions of gender scholars to the fields of security and war studies: No aspect, no assumption, no phenomenon is left unexamined by “curious feminists” (cf. Cynthia Enloe, cited in International Security and Gender, p. 15). These books successfully demonstrate how “adding women” and using “gender lenses” unpick and contribute to an understanding of war, terrorism, peacekeeping, peacemaking, war fighting, and civilian–military relations—among other things. Combined, they offer an excellent and accessible introduction to gender and feminist scholarship in the fields of war and security studies.
A key understanding gained from both texts is the relationship between war and security, and “what” they are (as phenomena and as subdisciplines). For Nicole Detraz, studying security requires taking a broader perspective than studying war; in contrast, the volume edited by Carol Cohn is concerned more narrowly with war making, war fighting, and war ending. To understand the processes of global security, Detraz demands that analysis stem from listening to all actors, from soldiers and terrorists to “bush wives” and HIV patients (p. 130), and in particular from a foregrounding of the gendered lives of the marginalized and disempowered (p. 11). With this human emphasis, International Security and Gender is similar to Christina Sylvester's Experiencing War project, but Detraz also expands her focus as a result. She argues that “we should think of security as a broad umbrella, and military security/conflict should be subsumed under the umbrella along with things like insecurity in the face of natural disaster, insecurity due to loss of livelihood etc.” (p. 209). International Security and Gender, therefore, includes discussions of militarization, health crises, and climate change (Chapters 2, 5, and 6, respectively), as well as terrorism and peacekeeping (Chapters 3 and 4).
Cohn argues in the first chapter of Women and Wars that there is a need to understand the specificities of wars (p. 2) and therefore prioritizes analysis of such specificities for their own sake. But she also brings together a range of chapters to push the boundaries of traditional understandings of war, in terms of time, geography, and agency (pp. 21, 22). Consequently, the authors of this edited volume problematize the assumptions, images, binaries, and discourses built into labels of “war,” “postconflict,” and “peace” (in particular, in Chapters 7, 9, and 10). Broader security concerns emerge in this volume but, importantly, as by-products of war. However, Cohn's emphasis on gendered human agency and human concerns, like Detraz's, distinguishes the feminist approach from traditional war studies and reveals “a more complex reality” (p. 22).
These are not arbitrary editorial/authorial decisions for focus or ordering of chapter material, but go to foundational debates about what is to be understood, what is excluded from our analysis, where priorities are, how phenomena are connected, and what truths and power relations are revealed in our explanations (cf. Tarak Barkawi, “From War to Security: Security Studies, the Wider Agenda and the Fate of the Study of War,” Millennium—Journal of International Studies 39:3 [2011]: 701–16). Therefore, it is incumbent upon all politics and international relations scholars to think through what war is and concurrently whether it is simply one end of a security spectrum or the central umbrella under which other elements of security can be found (to borrow Detraz's metaphor). Reading these works does not resolve these arguments directly, but it does highlight the interconnectedness of war to human security. This makes me doubt that war can be studied without an awareness of how it is embedded in wider global security processes—historical, economic, political, and social (Women and Wars, p. 27). But also given how war is productive and implicated in so many insecurities, it seems that a study of security without due consideration of war is incomplete.
Both books are concerned not just with adopting a human-centric approach but also with convincingly demonstrating that a gendered understanding of war and security is necessary. However, a second insight of both goes to the heart of deeper debates about whether or not gender analysis is sufficient or whether it needs to be accompanied by feminist agendas of equality, emancipation, and empowerment (see also Laura Sjoberg, “Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle: Why Gender Analysis Needs Feminism,” International Studies Quarterly 50 [December 2006]: 889–910). Primarily adding gender as a variable to existing analysis is considered incomplete by feminists (albeit welcomed as a first step) because it does not address why or how gendered inequalities emerge but accepts the world as is. Feminist analysis usually begins by identifying (diverse) women in the world and their subordinate position, followed by appreciating how gender constitutes and is constituted by world politics, but it also includes a clear commitment to overcoming gender inequalities. This explicit normative element of much feminist work goes to the heart of debates about the validity of social sciences research.
Detraz is refreshingly upfront about her feminist normative agenda—and the arguments are stronger for it. Her position is that a commitment and understanding of emancipation—as freedom from insecurity—is essential for understanding security and global politics and, therefore, the basis from which change is possible. Emancipation requires strategies of development and empowerment, which she then advocates (p. 201). Yet she also recognizes a tension in these strategies, and as a result, she demands in scholarship a reflexive approach to the understanding of security, such that security and emancipation are conceived of as processes, not end points (pp. 19–20, 203). As a result, she shows that approaches that are not reflective, that fall into the trap of gender (and other) essentialism, are incomplete and contribute to existing inequalities.
The edited volume, however, makes no clear claim to a specific feminist agenda. Throughout the volume it directly refers to what feminists write, argue, and do, but always in the third person, without saying that “we/I,” the author(s), are feminists (those who are familiar with the various authors' other work will know them as such). It becomes clear, however, in reading the multifaceted chapters that feminism does so many things and is so diverse that it cannot be easily simplified under a central concept, such as emancipation. The various authors, and editor, perhaps resist self-identifying as feminists and avoid any explicit normative agenda in order to make their arguments more acceptable to those who hold onto an idealized objectivity in research. Yet the chapters reveal that gender is a “social relation which structures hierarchical power relations” (p. 5) and that war differentially and unequally impacts men and women. So seeking to flatten those structures could be an essential aim of the authors too?
This points to a related question of whether feminist scholars—or any academic group—need also to be activists and engaged with the communities they study (please see: http://genderinglobalgovernancenet-work.net/comment/the-silent-feminism/ and http://genderinglobalgovernancenet-work.net/comment/perfect-feminism-a-response-to-swati-parashar/.)
Given the lack of exposure of feminism in mainstream war/security studies, informing and generating an understanding of the gendered nature of global politics are nevertheless useful functions of these books. Both focus on women in order to highlight the different gendered experiences of war, insecurity, and violence and to further knowledge of these phenomena. The two books do not just talk about women because others do not, or because women are only “newly present”—to paraphrase Enloe, women have always been present in international relations if we chose to see them (Bananas, Beaches and Bases, 2001)—they focus on women because to do so gives knowledge of war and security. For example, looking at war practices, in Chapter 3 of Women and Wars, Pamela DeLargy discusses sexual violence and women's health in war. Not only does she, like Detraz, explain that women face additional risks during war for biological and sociological reasons, but she also discusses how sexual violence is a strategy, weapon, and endemic part of war. However, she also shows how this is a varied phenomenon in its use and meaning, and that societal pressure is forcing change in war so that rape is no longer accepted practice—although, as Detraz notes, prostitution is (pp. 40–51). Less positively however, DeLargy explains that after war, well-meaning interventions by the “international community” can have negative, unintended consequences, such as continued stigma, resentment from other “victim groups,” and retaliation (pp. 67–78). This is an important point for international politics generally, that the desire to “do good” and “do something,” such as in Responsibility to Protect actions, can be counterproductive. Detraz demonstrates, though, that good practice in postconflict health-security programs does exist, and the more successful ones combine protection and empowerment strategies, such as in Sierra Leone (p. 157).
Examining the ending of wars, Detraz, in her chapter on peace-support operations, breaks from talking about women and discusses peacekeeping masculinities. Here, the processes of “Othering” required in the construction of soldier identities and, therefore, their capacity to kill and to keep peace, and the consequences this has for security, are highlighted (pp. 69–70). This is an important reminder that gender analysis is not just “about women” but also shows how “men become men” in global politics, as well as how gender inequalities are intersected with race and imperial politics. Ruth Jacobson (Chapter 10 in Women and Wars) adds detail to Detraz's argument and further shows how the gendered nature of peace support operations impacts final peace settlements. As Chapters 8 and 9 also attest, in order to understand the shape of peace, understanding the operation of war and “postconflict” becomes essential. Feminist analysis therefore has intrinsic and instrumental insights for understanding war and security.
Both books are written in such a manner as to facilitate the teaching of both gender/women's and security/war studies courses at the advanced undergraduate level. While Women and Wars is not marketed as a textbook, it includes questions at the end of each chapter and “fact boxes” to illuminate key points, as well as further reading suggestions. I would also particularly recommend them to security and war studies scholars who are not familiar with this literature, as they serve as insightful introductions.
