AND NATIONAL SECURITY - By Dr. Carol Cohn - The Consortium on Gender, Security and Human ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
GENDER
AND NATIONAL
SECURITY
By Dr. Carol Cohn
6 Ploughshares Fund www.ploughshares.org 7
“As a mom, as a daughter, there is nothing I want more for
my family than a world with no nuclear weapons. But we
have to be realistic.”
– Ambassador Nikki Haley, March 27, 20171
Our thinking about national security effectively exercise power, what The conflation of manliness and
– and our national security policies it means to be “strong” and what national security occasionally takes
themselves – are shaped and limited “works” to keep us secure. These a crude form (e.g., Donald Trump’s
by ideas about gender. These ideas gendered ideas are built into the tweeted comparisons of the size and
are deeply embedded in national professional paradigms and ways functionality of his and Kim Jong Un’s
security discourse, where they of thinking that any of us, male nuclear buttons, or Hindu nationalist
underlie core assumptions about or female, adopt when becoming leader Balasaheb Thackeray’s
what makes us more secure, and national security specialists. There, justification for India’s 1998 nuclear
what counts as “rational,” “self- they deter us from cognitive and tests – “We had to prove that we
evident” and “realistic” in security political engagement with ideas and are not eunuchs”).2 But ideas about
policy. In so doing, they act as a actions that could result in greater gender are more often buried deep
preemptive deterrent to thinking security. in the assumptions and models of
complexly, creatively and truly mainstream nuclear and national
realistically about security. The fact that ideas about gender security policy. There, they make
permeate national security thinking some options appear sensible and
Before going further, please note: is, in one sense, so obvious as to others so irrational or “unrealistic” as
my focus is on ideas about gender, usually go unnoticed. Most people to not merit serious consideration.
not the gender of security analysts would probably recognize the striking For example, why in 2003 did it feel
or policymakers. I am not saying that resonance between dominant obvious to so many people that the
the people (historically, mostly men) cultural ideals of masculinity and most effective way to prevent Iraq
who theorize and decide on national precepts of American national from building and deploying weapons
security policy take the actions they security policy. Consider: of mass destruction (WMD) was to
do because they are men, or “to launch a massive military campaign
prove they are real men”; nor am • Strength is being able to protect to “smoke `em out of their holes and
I suggesting that women in those oneself using physical force. their WMD with them,” rather than
same positions would necessarily • Avoid penetration of your a regime of United Nations (U.N.),
advocate for a different concept of boundaries, your property; be and International Atomic Energy
strength and security policy simply able to penetrate the defenses Agency monitoring and inspection?
because they are women. of others. Why did aggressive, “muscular,”
• The other guy only understands militarized (masculinized) action feel
Instead, I argue something more the language of force. so much more potent than “passive,”
disturbing and recalcitrant: that • Vulnerability invites attack, (feminized) waiting and watching,
many of our assumptions and beliefs so strive to make yourself that political debate about which
about which security policies will invulnerable. course of action would actually be
be effective arise from a series of • Being afraid of violence, and of most effective was impossible?
gendered ideas about how to most risk-taking, is cowardly.
8 Ploughshares FundOur national security bias toward However, the effect of gendered through which ideas about gender
overestimating the efficacy of armed assumptions in national security act as a preemptive deterrent
violence and undercounting its costs policy goes beyond underwriting to thought in national security
(while underestimating the efficacy certain narrow concepts of strength deliberations. That is because
of nonviolence) stems from the and of how to achieve security. They gender is more than a set of ideas
depth and power of our associations also short-circuit and distort both about what men and women are or
of strength with masculinity – and deliberative and political processes, should be like. Gender functions as a
weakness with whatever we code preventing us from thinking genuinely culturally-pervasive symbolic system,
feminine. That is, the assumption and realistically about security. encoding a wealth of characteristics,
that massive military might will make activities, stances and ways of
us more secure is often not borne Political leaders, for example, are thinking as either “masculine”
out by experience (e.g., Did massive frequently accused of “being a or “feminine.” For instance, our
military superiority enable the U.S. to wimp,” i.e., of being insufficiently dominant culture encodes rationality,
win the war in Vietnam? Has the U.S. manly, when they are perceived dispassion, objectivity, invulnerability,
$5.9 trillion investment in the “War as not having sufficient appetite independence, courage, aggression
on Terror” reduced the numbers for going to war. The impact goes and risk-taking (to name but a few!)
of terrorists?3 Are we made more beyond personal insult. When political as “masculine,” while encoding
or less secure by giving a single commentators questioned whether emotion, empathy, subjectivity,
human the capacity to end life on the President George H.W. Bush would vulnerability, dependence, passivity,
planet as we know it, with a reputed “beat the wimp factor” by invading caution, intuition and nature as
“necessity” of making the decision Iraq, they reduced the complex and “feminine.”
in under 10 minutes?). momentous decision to start a war
These “masculine” and “feminine”
coded characteristics are seen as
mutually exclusive opposites, with
the former more highly valued than
“...the assumption that massive military the latter. The impact is visible in the
might will make us more secure is often premises of national and nuclear
not borne out by experience.” security strategic thinking, where, for
example, empathic imagining of the
suffering of war’s victims is seen as
antithetical to the ability to think well
about security policy, rather than as
This assumption has a remarkable down to the simplistic question of being essential to it.
staying power that derives more whether a leader was “man enough”
from the ways our beliefs about to make the decision; in the face One of the most pernicious and
gender make it feel true than from of that question, consideration of powerful effects of ideas about
a careful, rational assessment of its the strategic, political, economic, gender in national security is that
effectiveness in making the country environmental and human the mantle of “realism” is reserved
– or the people in it – more secure. consequences of war disappears. for whatever is coded “masculine,”
Yet the strength of that feeling biases The acid test of manliness eradicates while policy alternatives associated
U.S. politicians across the political other questions and ends meaningful with anything coded “feminine” can
spectrum toward supporting massive political debate. It makes advocating be summarily dismissed as “soft”
military budgets; underwrites claims for nonviolent alternatives – even or “unrealistic” before they are
that the U.S. requires a massive if they are likely to lead to better ever thought-through. For instance,
nuclear arsenal to protect itself; and outcomes – seem weak, passive, it is projected that over $1 trillion
biases presidents toward responding defensive and inadequate. will be spent on nuclear weapons
to perceived threats with military worldwide over the next 10 years.4
action. The overt impugning of masculinity, If you argued that national security
however, is not the only mechanism would be better served by spending
www.ploughshares.org 9hat to the “feminine” (her womanly
familial roles, the sentimental pull
they create toward idealistic fantasy)
immediately delegitimized as the
grounds for decisionmaking through
the invocation of “realism.”
Recommendations
If ideas about gender act as a
Artwork reimaging the bomb. Image: ICAN.
preemptive deterrent to thinking
rationally, fully, complexly, creatively
and, indeed, realistically about
that money on health care, schools, of security threaten to become
security, what are the implications for
clean water, renewable household a topic of conversation. One can
policymakers and the citizens they
energy, decent livelihoods and/or simultaneously tip one’s hat to
represent? What can we each do?
sustainable smallholder agriculture feminized concerns with familial love,
in conflict-affected countries, you bodily harm, human suffering, human
Be curious! Gender as a symbolic
would immediately be dismissed as feelings of grief, loss and despair –
system is so deeply embedded in
“unrealistic.” perhaps even the death of animals
how we perceive, categorize and
and plants – and summarily dismiss
evaluate ideas and policy options
But the truth is that even from a the possibility that they should ever
that it is often hard to notice.
national (rather than human) security be the basis upon which security
Practice being curious about
perspective, we don’t know which policy is made: “After all, we must be
where gender is shaping – or
path is more “realistic,” i.e., which realistic!”
preventing – mainstream thinking
would lead to greater national
about national security issues.
security for the countries investing The deployment of masculinized
in nuclear arsenals, because the “realism” forecloses the possibility
Pay attention to that which feels
gender-coding of this alternative, of even deliberating about the proper
true and ask why it feels this way.
“soft” path enables its instant role of those “feminized” concerns in
Do you have an empirical basis
dismissal. Thus, the investment national security policy. This is exactly
for believing it, or is it just “self-
of funds, time and brain power in the rhetorical strategy used by
evident”? If the latter, how are
projecting, modeling and comparing (then) U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
gendered assumptions working
the different outcomes of these Nikki Haley, to justify not attending
to make it feel true – and what
alternative paths is never made. This or participating in the U.N. General
questions might you ask or what
problem needs correcting in our Assembly debate on a prospective
actions might you recommend if
policy development process. global ban on nuclear weapons. The
gender did not underpin your gut-
debate and the treaty itself dared
level sense of its truth?
In national security discourse, make the human consequences of
“realism” functions a lot like the nuclear weapons, rather than the
word “wimp” – as a gendered Be alert to – and wary of – the
weapons’ supposed national security
silencer, an interrupter of cognitive use of terms like “rogue actors,”
benefit, the appropriate grounds for
and political processes. “Realism,” “bad guys” and “bad actors.”
decisionmaking. This approach, which
with its connotations of manly They short-circuit and dumb
falls on the “feminine” side of our
tough-mindedness, is deployed down our political analysis by
gender system, is deftly undercut
whenever the human dimensions reducing a complex country with
by Haley’s comments: the tip of the
10 Ploughshares Fundmany competing interests and the ideas about gender encoded Are you about to dismiss this last
motivations into a unitary male within it? Ask what other models idea as “unrealistic”? Try giving a
actor. And they trigger all the have been seriously considered, second thought to your gendered
conventional tropes of manly thought-through, modeled, assumptions...
contest (e.g., “I’m not gonna tested. And ask to be shown the
let him push me around,” etc.), evidence for any particular policy.
instead of more complex and Dr. Carol Cohn is the founding director
accurate assessments of the Finally, try an experiment. of the Consortium on Gender, Security
varied options for dealing with the Since the human, material and and Human Rights at the University of
problem at hand. financial resources invested in Massachusetts, Boston. She is a leader
militarized state security so vastly in the scholarly community addressing
issues of gender in global politics,
Monitor your own silences. outweigh those invested in any
armed conflict and security. She has
When you hesitate to propose other manner of trying to ensure
been published in a number of arenas
an idea or to oppose someone security for the world’s people
in both the academic and policy world.
else’s, ask yourself: why? Are or states, try committing to just
you unconsciously self-censoring one year of equal allocation.
out of fear of appearing “soft,” One year matching every dollar
“wimpy,” “naïve,” “idealistic” – the government spends on the
i.e., not being taken seriously nuclear arsenal, military, or private
because you veered into “the security contractors with a dollar
feminine”? If that’s the case, or spent on improving health care,
if you do speak and someone education, access to water and
tries to discredit you in this way, sustainable household energy,
try naming it and shaming it as improving access to resources
the absurd barrier to truly rational for subsistence agriculture, and
thought that it is. reversing climate change around
the world. Then, at the end of
At every step, question the that year, we can start measuring
claim of “realism” as the basis the impacts of these different
for nuclear and national security expenditures on our national
policy. Is it actually realistic or security.
does its claim to realism rely on
Notes
1 Nikki Haley. “On Nuclear Weapons,” United University Press, 2004), http://genderandsecurity. 4 Colin Archer et al. “Move the Nuclear
Nations, New York, NY, March 27, 2017 (C-SPAN), org/sites/default/files/Cohn_Ruddick_-_Femst_ Weapons Money: A Handbook for Civil Society
https://www.c-span.org/video/?426068-1/ Ethical_Perspective_on_WMDs.pdf. and Legislators,” (International Peace Bureau,
un-ambassador-nikki-haley-shell-protest-debate- Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and
nuclear-weapons-ban. 3 Neta C. Crawford. “United States Budgetary Disarmament, and the World Future Council, 2016)
Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2019: $5.9 https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/wp-content/
2 Carol Cohn. “The Perils of Mixing Masculinity Trillion Spent and Obligated,” Watson Institute for uploads/2016/10/IBP_PNND_WFC_2016_Move-the-
and Missiles,” New York Times, January 5, 2017; International and Public Affairs, Brown University, nuclear-weapons-money.pdf.
Carol Cohn and Sara Ruddick. “A Feminist Ethical November 14, 2018, https://watson.brown.edu/
Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Crawford_
In Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Costs%20of%20War%20Estimates%20
Religious and Secular Perspectives, eds. Sohail H. Through%20FY2019.pdf.
Hashmi and Steven P. Lee (Cambridge: Cambridge
www.ploughshares.org 11You can also read
