Feminist perspectives : The contribution of ann ticker to the revision of the concept of security

Résumé du document

As a searcher in international relations, Ann Tickner was firstly stroke by the law number of women working in the field. She then realised that not only were women excluded as researchers, but also as subjects of study. That was the first step of her carrier as one of the main feminist authors in international relations theory. The work of Ann Tickner relies on classical visions of security and on their challengers, to introduce a brand new vision of International relations based on the concept of gender. Her main query was to know how the International Relations field would look in we introduced women in the field. International relations studies were born with realism, in the aftermath of the Second World War. For realist thinkers, security is defined in terms of national security. National security comes from power, in an anarchical world where no structure exists to regulate the relations between countries. Ann Tickner defines realism as concentrated on the "security of the State, which has to be achieved by increasing military capacities." The boundary between the state order and the international anarchy is tight, due to the lack of a central authority, which would "curve power's aggressive ambitions" .

Extraits

[...] Gendered images about warriors are not the last to be biased. Our media depict bored and angry young men in Muslim countries, who only aim is to destroy every symbol of the hated Western civilization. The attack on the towers is highly symbolised, as they epitomized urban life, which gathers Western values that are at stake. Materialism, liberalism, capitalism, and feminism Tickner adds, are targeted. On the other side, the West is reinforcing the defiance toward these countries trough a gender reality. [...]

[...] It could be seen as a mere adaptation to a new world order, as the military dimension was not enough to ensure the security of the State in an interdependent world, facing multiple threats. But it was a real challenge to classical theories, since it deeply questioned the fundamental assumptions of the field. First of all, voices rose from the South to question the fact that security was usually studied from the “perspective of great power security interests”[5]. Ann Tickner refers here to the work of Mohamed Ayoob, who states that the quest for security in the North may have actually led to greater insecurities in the south[6]. [...]

[...] When women are discriminated, economically, socially and politically, it is half of the population that is put out of the game. Ann Tickner doesn't advocate a “feminized society”[20], but rather a society in which “gender differences are les polarized and gender structures are less hierarchical”[21]. Finally, what is the role of feminist theorists in conflicts? They have been reproached not to support the war in Afghanistan, whereas fighting the Taliban regime was an occasion to support Afghan women[22]. Feminist theory hesitates on this point, as on the question to know if women should engage in conflicts as fighter in the name of gender equality, or rather protest against wars, in the name of women's special relationships with peace. [...]

[...] Socialisation rather explains the place of women and men in the society, and their role toward war. Even if both men and women recognize that war gives a meaning to life, young boys are taught to be tough in order to become good soldiers. Women, as potential mothers, are rather given a role of caring, associated with the image of peace. This scheme actually devaluates bit women and peace, since it is often presented as a nice but unrealistic ideal. [...]

[...] The state or the enemy is usually refers as and international conflicts can sometimes be interpreted as a personal contest between two leaders. It was the case for the first Gulf war in 1991, which was described as a war between Saddam Hussein and George Bush. The image of Mr. Cheney writing on the 2.000 pounds bomb destined to an Iraqi target Saddam. With appreciation, Dick Cheney” speaks for itself. In this virile idea of conflict, it seems logical that women are excluded from the military process. They are actually the one wars are fight for. [...]