How is War Gendered - Research Paper Example

 How is War Gendered? Introduction How is human conflict and war gendered? In answering such a complex question, it would be essential to tackle the aspect of human conflict and war, from a contextual basis founded on a multi-disciplinary analysis. This is influenced by the fact that when human conflict and war erupts, it is inevitable that both human hardship and suffering invariably follows. Conflict has often been deemed as the breeding ground for enhanced mass violation of human rights and freedoms. This is often through increased unlawful killings, starvation, rape, torture and forced human displacement amongst other negative effects. It is worth noting that the reason for combining human conflict and war is based upon the notion that prolonged conflict invariably leads to war, each influencing the other in a dynamic way. As is known, war affects all population segments, from the old and young, men, women and children and across the existing social strata. Thus as Alison (2004) avers, human conflict and war can be deemed as ‘gendered’, given the historical and current influences it has had on society as a whole. Not only is the effect present on those who directly engage in armed conflict, but more so, on those populations that are directly affected by the conflict. These are unfortunately the populations that face grave danger, given the lack of optimal measures for protect. Historically, while the male gender has often been associated with direct engagement in human conflict vis-à-vis the female gender’s auxiliary role in war, contemporary contexts have reshaped this ideal (Alison 2004:447). Body War and gender Smihula (2013) portrays that human conflict and war has and continues being influenced by a variety of aspects, ranging from political, social, economic, cultural and religious dimensions. Humanity comprises of different individuals, each a separate entity on his/ her own, possessing a dynamism that is ever changing. Accordingly, each human being shares some commonalities but these are often based upon personal discovery. Everyone possesses individual interests, personality, disposition and perception. However, each human being somehow, also establishes a social field within a society, within which s/he can interact in. thus, individuals portray a dynamic psychological importance to society, through establishment of both commonality and understanding between the existing subjective social contexts (Smihula 2013:12). Accordingly, as Gat (2006) portrays, Conflict theory encompasses the best presentation of the foundational basis upon which human conflict and war may be discussed. Theories of conflict as perspectives of sociology emphasize on the prevailing socio-economic and political inequalities within a social setup. The presence of such inequalities results in misunderstandings and disagreement, eventually leading to conflict and violence. No scholarly agreement prevails upon which the core motivations of war are founded. Informing this is that different motivations exist and upon which human conflict and war is based upon. Thus, motivations for those ordering war may be different from those by stakeholders that undertake in actual fighting. Three core aspects influence human conflict and war, acting as universal ideals behind wars: Power (geo-politics), Economics and Religion (religio-cultural contexts). In terms of Economics, the Economic theory projects that war should be viewed in terms of growth of prevailing economic competition within the international system. In this regard, human conflict and war is regarded as direct/ indirect result of the pursuit and competition for rare natural resources, as well as for wealth. While applicable to many contexts, counter arguments are strengthened towards invalidating this claim, based upon the increased mobility of information and capital levels the global distribution of wealth (Gat 2006:43). In connection is the geo-political angle, in relation to nationalist ideals, which invariably categorize political formations in terms of right wing, left wing and liberal ideals. Thus as Kolko (1994) presents, those in the extreme far right (especially fascists) would provide support for war. This is based upon the assertion of the natural right of a strong nation-state to take by force that which a weak nation cannot hold/ protect. Some centrists, capitalist (and often global) leaders on the other hand, often express support for ‘an economic view’ of human conflict and war. Accordingly, the foundational basis for war according to such ideals is commercial and industrial rivalry. The Marxist theory of war, as a quasi-economic explanation of the necessary importance of war, augments the aforementioned theories, providing that modern human conflict and warfare is as a result of competition for markets and resources. This is between great powers, where conflict and war is as a direct natural result of the class and ‘free-market’ system. In terms of Demographic theories, the Malthusian ideal is founded on the notion that expanding populations, vis-à-vis scarce resources are a direct catalyst of violent human conflicts. On its part, the Youth bulge theory portrays that the presence of a large male youth populace (youth bulge) that lacks peaceful and regular employment opportunities is a catalyst for future conflict. This is founded upon the disparities present between a growing populace and available resources vis-à-vis disparity between available social positions within the social system of labor division and the non-inheriting young males. This theory is informative with regard to the discussion at hand, given the gendered nature of human conflict and war (Kolko 1994:12). As a result of higher populations of youthful generations, in relation to limited resources and opportunities for self-advancement, human conflicts can become exacerbated. This is informed by the fact that such youthful populations, with little or no space for self-advancement, can become susceptible to various ideologies and inclinations. Comparatively, rationalist theories of war on their part are of the assumption that both sides to a given actual/ potential conflict are rational in nature. this is informed by the fact that each side of a conflict is driven by the need to gain the best possible outcomes, for the least possible loss on its side. This is in terms of loss of human life, property, geo-political influences and global esteem/ standing (Smihula 2013:450). Human Conflict and War as Social Constructs Towards better comprehending the diverse nature of society, as well as providing a basic insight into violence, social conflict and war, there is need for discussion of gender-based contribution and input. as Codevilla and Seabury (2006) engage, this is necessarily founded on the aspect of war being a ‘social construct’, thereby affecting upon society as a whole. From a historical analysis, in various conflicts witnessed across the globe, both prevailing governments and armed groups have and continue to routinely attack civilian populations. As a result, they are often accused of committing terrible abuses of human rights through engagement in war crimes against humanity. The presence of continued violence unfortunately often feeds on prevailing, unresolved grievances, which arise from years of destructive conflict and war. This is unfortunately informed by the failure to hold responsible perpetrators of various grave humanitarian abuses to account legally. Human conflict and war in a majority of cases has often been internal, invariably ‘spilling over’ to neighboring states and jurisdictions. This further brings into play, the international (supra-national) aspect of human conflict and war. The socio-cultural dimension pertains to a space-time continuum that is created by individual human needs. Through activation of such needs, human’s beings are able to project their socio-cultural norms, values and meanings to the rest of society. common values and norms are essential for interaction, with common meanings and task-performance being vital towards enabling both communication and understanding (Codevilla & Seabury 2006:34). Linda (2012) avers that the socio-cultural dimension is represented through social forces i.e. forces of social interests, and social distances. The latter pertains to the vectors of similarities and differences between human beings in terms of ethics, religion, status and class. The forces of social interests on the other hand, pertain to the conjoined situational vectors and goals that are created by human needs, subsequently being oriented towards others. both social interests and distances become actualized through portrayal of social norms, values and meanings, with other forces existing being chiefly psychological in nature. therefore, ‘self’ and individual/ group needs are considered forces, as are those forces that project towards a psychological equilibrium between personality, perception and interests. Moreover, there is the aspect of ‘human will’, which influences individuals to act in the best interest of their survival. Thus, while distances affect social interactions, human interests prove to be direct drivers of socialization with ‘self’ judging in the end. It is as a result of this combination that human beings ‘act’, based upon the will power present (Linda 2012:289). To be noted is that while human will is independent of the social context/ field, it is central to the link between prevailing social forces and behavior. Thus, social behaviors – actions, practices or acts – are present within the social field, as behaviors oriented towards others in society. accordingly, in the field process of conflict, these manifest themselves as the balance or balancing of power, the crystallization of a structure of expectations, or its development. A composition of expectations can be distinguished through its core generative powers or interests. This is through the manifestation of the forces of interests, human will, capabilities and distances through the medium of social norms, values and meanings. Clearly, any form of social interaction rarely, if ever at all, manifests a distinctly wholesome interaction of a single kind of power. The structuring of expectations is often dominated and characterized by a particular power at a given time (Carpenter 2003:662). Belkin (2012) presents internal as well as external conflicts are intricately intertwined, given the nature of human populations in terms of interaction, movement and attachment. As a result, what may start as an internal conflict may eventually escalate into a regional issue affecting various state actors and stakeholders. This is especially true in the contemporary arena, where the aspects of globalization and Capitalist ideals work hand in hand. Thus, the continued movement of goods, capital/ wealth and populations makes human conflict to acquire regional and global dimensions. To be noted is the fact that a vast majority of human armed conflicts in the contemporary arena are internal. Many of these have persisted for many years, continuing despite enhanced global efforts at finding amicable solutions. Such conflicts are triggered by issues related to religion and culture, ethnicity, identity and competition for scarce resources, especially mineral wealth. A prime example is the war in Afghanistan, which has witnessed escalating conflict that has resulted in the injury and death of thousands of civilians and military personnel. In this regard, various atrocities and war crimes have been committed by various parties to the conflict including the Taliban, Afghani and international security forces (Belkin 2012:23). In neighboring Iraq, it is viewed that the existing security forces have and/ or continue committing, as opposed to preventing sectarian violence. As Buss (2009) portrays, further worsening this state of affairs has been the presence of continued use of the worst practices carried out during Saddam Hussein’s rule: capital punishment, unfair trials, extra-judicial executions and torture, including rape. The Syrian conflict further avails the delicate nature of internal conflicts, which subsequently affect upon regional and global relations. Sectarian and ethnic-based conflict and violence continue affecting upon society in terms of human casualties and loss of property. Invariably, such conflicts not only draw male populations into direct engagement in armed combat, but also influence the uptake of women and children into different group formations and platoons. A vivid example would be the Palestinian struggle, where both Fatah and Hamas continue forming specialized troops, comprising of either women or child soldiers (Buss 2009:147). In relation, is the great and costly conflict that has until recently, continuously raged in the South American state of Colombia. This is between the Colombian government and FARC rebels, where the government security agencies have not only faced male combatants, but also have increasingly witnessed the effective input of female FARC soldiers. Such is the face of human conflict and war where invariably all stakeholders of society are drawn in, either directly or indirectly, in terms of engagement. Conversely, is the effect, impacts and influences on the rest of populations affected by conflicts, in terms of negative humanitarian conditions. The gendered dimension of human conflict and war is thus not new, given the varied contexts necessarily act as catalysts for violent engagement (Cohn 1987:687). Historically as Alpern (2011) portrays, the Kingdom of Dahomey engaged their women in warfare, directly and indirectly thereby sustaining the longevity of the African entity. Importantly was the fact that the women warriors as opposed to their male counterparts, had more to lose in terms of their lives and those of their children and families, hence the fervent nature in which they continuously engaged with their enemies. In the contemporary arena, human conflict and war has dynamically shifted from direct aggression and combat, morphing into what may be perceived as guerilla tactics and warfare. This is especially true with regard to the emotive aspect of global terrorism, which continues to critically shape and impact upon international relations and politics (Alpern 2011:23). As MacKenzie (2012) eludes, the global ‘War on Terror’, as initiated by America’s President George Bush Jnr., has resulted in a shift in terms of engagement. This has been influenced by the fact that terrorism has often been associated with male combatants, hence the limitations experienced in terms of dispensing their ideologies. As a result, different terrorist groupings have invariably opted for the inclusion and direct participation of not only women, but also children. The inevitable result of this metamorphosis has been increased difficulty in tackling violence in a wholesome manner, given the prevailing International laws and norms of war as presented by the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Encapsulating the laws of war and armed conflicts, IHL was developed towards mitigating the effects of human conflict and war (MacKenzie2012: Bloom 2011:34). This is through limitation of both the methods and means/ avenues of conducting armed conflict or military obligations. In addition, Human Rights Law, which is applicable during times of peace and war has been instrumental in curtailing the gravely negative effects of human conflict and war. In conclusion, the issue of war and human conflict continues being pertinent to global, regional and local politics. This is informed by the nature of war in terms of effects, impacts and influences on society as a whole. Accordingly, it is vital to re-affirm the fact that human conflict and war has (in the past), and continues being gendered. Conclusion Conflict has often been deemed as the breeding ground for enhanced mass violation of human rights and freedoms. In most cultures, the stereotypical vision of war on gender issues has been persistent. For long women have been considered as a weak gender in war issues. Most societies have emphasized that in war, men are supposed to be the fighters while women remain home to take care of children and their homes. This has been the case because of the belief that war is men’s business and not women’s. Despite the fact that gender does not determine whether a person is an outsider of war, women have always been treated as outsiders yet, they are affected by war. Women have been included in fighting teams, for instance the army, in medical teams that treat injured soldiers and also in decision mechanisms that relate to war. In addition, women have lost their husbands, fathers, sons and friends at war. Some have been raped lost property and even died because of war. Therefore, the gendered perspective of war has for long supported the chauvinistic nature of society and failed to address the real issues. Reference List Alison, M 2004, 'Women as Agents of Political Violence: Gendering Security', Security Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 447-463. Alpern, SB 2011, Amazons of Black Sparta: The Women Warriors of Dahomey, Hurst, London. Belkin, A 2012, Bring Me Men: Military Masculinity and the Benign Facade of American Empire, 1898-2001, Hurst, London. Bloom, M 2011, Bombshell: The Many Faces of Women Terrorists, Hurst, London. Buss, DE 2009, 'Rethinking 'Rape as a Weapon of War'', Feminist Legal Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 145-163. Codevilla, A & Seabury, P 2006, War: Ends and Means (Revised 2nd Ed.), Potomac Books. Cohn, C 1987, 'Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals', Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 687-718. Carpenter, RC 2003, '"Women and Children First": Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans, 1991-95', International Organization, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 661-694. Gat, A 2006, War in Human Civilization, Oxford University Press. Kolko, G 1994, Century of War: Politics, Conflicts, and Society since 1914. New York, NY, The New Press. Linda, H 2012, 'The Writing of Heroines: Motherhood and Female Agency in Political Violence', Security Dialogue, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 287-303. MacKenzie, MH 2012, 'Let Women Fight: Ending the US Military's Female Combat Ban', Foreign Affairs, vol. 91, no.6, pp. 32-42. Smihula, D 2013, The Use of force in International Relations, London: Sage Publications. Read More