Suchergebnisse

My paper argues for an incorporation of feminist theories into peace theories, by analyzing what is missing by not confronting feminist contributions to a theory on violence. I take Johan Galtung's theory of violence as a point of departure, as a theory that is widely uncontested in peace studies. Galtung's articulation of direct, structural, and cultural violence offers a unified framework within which all violence can be seen. On the other hand, feminism can contribute to and enrich Galtung's theory of violence in four possible ways:

Galtung's theory needs to incorporate notions of gender as a social construct embodying relations of power.
Dichotomous, mutually exclusive categories that shape our understanding of the world are gendered and they are key to the production and reproduction of violence at all levels.
Gendered language defines the possibility and impossibility of pursuing different visions of the social world. Violence and peace can be constituted through language.
Violence produces and defines gender identities and, in turn, is produced and defined by them.

These contributions have important implications for peace studies: only by taking gender seriously as a category of analysis, can prescriptions for a violence‐free society be more than temporary solutions to deeply ingrained attitudes to accept violence as "natural."

How is it possible to create more just forms of peace in our world? This article responds to calls for a feminist theory/peace studies collaboration by integrating work on feminist care ethics and conflict transformation. We propose that justpeace is possible by strengthening ways of knowing which sustainably weave together understandings of "self" and "other" to support relationships of care over dehumanization and violence. Building on Sara Ruddick's work, we argue that her "maternal thinking" can be understood as a feminist "weaving" epistemology or flexible way of knowing that promotes meaningful inclusion, symmetrical power relations, and positive peace through three major practices: (1) living with dissonance, (2) creatively overcoming disconnects between the interests of the self and the other, and (3) bridging practical goals for surviving the present with more idealistic goals for best practices in the future. As such, it provides an alternative to "othering" practices at individual, national, and international levels which reinforce asymmetrical power relations, strengthen unjust social, economic and political structures, and support violent conflict. In conclusion, we illustrate how this weaving epistemology supports human rights practices promoting people over profit, equality over discrimination and violence, and restorative rather than retributive forms of conflict transformation.