Abstract
This chapter maps contemporary debates in feminist security studies (FSS) in Europe, showing the variety of issues studied via different theoretical and methodological lenses. While celebrating the richness of contemporary FSS debates, the chapter also highlights the asymmetry in knowledge production across the continent. FSS is clearly dominated by academics based in globally recognized ‘Centers of Excellence’ in Western and Northern Europe; yet our mapping also highlights scholarship in Central, Eastern, Southern, and South-eastern Europe. This underscores some obstacles scholars outside of the ‘West’ face when engaging with the discipline and calls for more inclusive transnational FSS debate in Europe.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction
The contemporary debates in feminist security studies (hereafter FSS) are rich and varied. Whether this richness lies in theoretical or methodological innovation, blending of scholarly disciplines, or studying issues others have overlooked, current scholarly debates show FSS as a dynamic, impactful, and influential discipline.
The key aim of this chapter is to map the depth and breadth of contemporary feminist security scholarship produced in Europe. Amidst the celebration of the rapidly growing and influential field, we identify existing silences, exclusions, and, importantly, possibilities for more productive feminist engagements. We follow the calls to engage with FSS ‘in its entirety’ (Shepherd 2013, 438) and strive to bring attention to less visible locations of FSS scholarship.
We argue that ‘Western’ FSS knowledge flows globally, yet the debates held in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), Southern and South-eastern Europe do not sufficiently shape the discipline. FSS scholars continue to debate knowledge production asymmetry in terms of ‘Global South’ and ‘Global North’ (Shepherd 2013). The ‘North’ and ‘South’ remain geopolitically undefined; it is assumed that the reader knows where the border between the two lies. We argue that CEE, Southern and South-eastern Europe are difficult to categorize as such. Independently whether you place these countries in the imagined South or North, European FSS is dominated by scholarship produced in the UK, Nordic countries, and to a certain degree Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The rest of Europe appears mostly silent.
We therefore highlight existing scholarship produced both in and, importantly, outside of the dominant locations and uncover some of the challenges of this uneven feminist knowledge production. This, we hope, will open up a pan-European dialogue that could lead to more inclusive transnational exchanges and truly pluralistic feminist knowledge production. To this end, we firstly trace contemporary debates on what, where, and who is FSS. We identify what, inter alia, is missing from these conversations, highlighting regional divides and asymmetrical knowledge production on the European continent. To celebrate the depth and breadth of FSS in Europe, we map the theoretical debates, methods, and variety of topics studied. In this overview, we highlight some of the FSS scholarship originating from CEE, Southern and South-eastern Europe. To show the asymmetries, we visually present the ‘density’ of FSS researchers in each country based on our list of nearly 300 scholars publishing on feminist security.
As any mapping exercise, ours is political and imperfect. This project is bound to miss some work. We hope that this initial mapping can provide a useful guide for security analysts and practitioners and open up new debates. Although this chapter is authored by the two of us, it is a result of a collective feminist effort. To map the scholarship as best as we could, we have not only analyzed leading academic journals, but also contacted our wide networks for help. It was the effort of many of our friends and colleagues that helped us create a more complete map of European FSS; needless to say, all errors and omissions are ours.
What, Where, and Who Is Feminist Security Studies?
FSS builds on early Feminist IR (e.g. Enloe 1983; Cohn 1987) which reconceptualizes security in multilevel and multidimensional terms as absence of violence, be it military, economic, sexual, or environmental (Tickner 1992, 128). Sjoberg (2011, 602) characterizes FSS as ‘the narrative generated by [FSS scholars’] arguments, disagreements, and compromises.’ The question of who and where gets to be part of this arguing, disagreeing and compromising, becomes key to our inquiry. Before we proceed to the question of who and where, we discuss what scholarly commitments FSS promises.
Basu (2013, 455) reminds feminist scholars of the debt we owe to women’s movements—not only the Western white activists, but crucially also the ‘third world, black, and queer feminists.’ FSS often focuses on lived experience, positionality, reflexivity, and emancipation of marginalized subjects (Shepherd 2013; Sylvester 2013; Wibben 2011a). It pays attention to the complexities of power and context and ‘is directed toward transformations of gendered hierarchies inherent in relations of insecurity that make people vulnerable’ (Basu 2013, 457). FSS should also take on an obligation to be resolutely anti-imperialist (Wibben 2011a).
The ongoing debate of what FSS is and should be, including its relation to the mainstream, provides an interesting insight into disciplinary dynamics. In 2011, Politics & Gender published a Critical Perspectives section on FSS (Lobasz and Sjoberg 2011, hereafter CP). All the authors of the CP section were based in the US. This was noted in the 2013 ‘The State of Feminist Security Studies: Continuing the Conversation’ Forum (hereafter ‘Forum,’ Shepherd 2013). Shepherd (2013, 438) warns against constructing ‘FSS in the image of White Western femininity’ and calls for sympathetic, systematic, and critical engagement with FSS ‘in its entirety.’ Parashar (2013, 440–441) notes that the ‘complete oversight’ of works produced ‘in locations where “(in)security” is not a matter of discourse alone but is embodied in everyday living and in “doing” research.’ The Forum discusses some European FSS, but none of the European scholars in it are located outside of Western/Northern Europe. Sylvester (2013) highlights scholarship produced in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway. McLeod (2013) is the only scholar who cites non-Western research.
Sjoberg (2016, 52) further addresses the issue of representation and notes that postcolonial scholarship and concerns are not fully incorporated into FSS scholarship. She calls for FSS to be both ‘substantively and representationally inclusive’ (ibid., 55). Nearly a decade since this debate, FSS does not appear to be truly inclusive. Haastrup and Hagen (2021) focus on one of the key FSS research foci, the UN’s Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, and note that the key Centers of Excellence on WPS are based in universities located in the Global North. Parashar observes that ‘intellectual economy of WPS privileges normative whiteness and the voices of western feminists who command resources, claim expertise and advance theories to understand conflict outside of the global north’ (cited in Haastrup and Hagen 2021, 3).
The ongoing FSS conversations clearly call for inclusion of the Global South. What these debates omit is the (lack of) inclusion within the broader European continent. FSS knowledge is produced in and around a few centers of scientific excellence (Henry 2021), and the rest of Europe remains invisible. The body of edited volumes produced in recent years within the frame of FSS and feminist IR demonstrates this exclusion, albeit the diversity of scholars and themes included vary (e.g. Gentry et al. 2018; Davies and True 2018; Ní Aoláin et al. 2018; Väyrynen et al. 2021). Similarly, one has to look very hard to find the work of scholars from CEE, South-eastern and Southern Europe in top feminist and IR journals.
What is Missing?
Our visualization of FSS scholarship in Europe (see Fig. 3.1) clearly displays the regional asymmetries in academic knowledge production mentioned above. Such differences have been sometimes referred to in feminist research through geopolitically defined categories of European ‘core’ versus ‘semi-periphery,’ East–West divisions, or ‘in-betweenness’ (Blagojevic 2004; Kulawik 2019). Scholars emphasizing local context have used these concepts to show that feminist knowledge produced from the semi-periphery is considered as ‘semi-knowledge’ and ‘never quite there’ (Blagojevic 2004). Other feminist scholars have, however, called for more transversal feminist dialogue and more localized research with transnational relevance (Nyklová 2017, 54; Pereira 2014). They argue that the narrative of difference has limited the mutual travel of feminist thought between what is referred to as the core and the semi-periphery (Cerwonka 2008 in Nyklová 2017, 54), reinforcing rather than challenging the existing hierarchies in knowledge production (Nyklová 2017, 55).
We identify similar limitations in the flow of feminist security knowledge. Gender research emerged rather late in the ‘semi-periphery’ in the 1990s as part of social sciences and humanities discipline, around the same time as feminist IR and later FSS in the West. Today, Gender Studies occupy an academically insecure position in most of the semi-periphery countries (Aavik and Raili Marling 2018). Most feminist security-related research focusing on local themes can be found in Sociology, Gender Studies or Women’s Studies, although FSS is sporadically emerging in the discipline of IR as well (Gasztold 2018; O’Sullivan and Krulišová 2020).
Our analysis reveals that the lack of recognition of feminist IR and the FSS subfield is a shared trait outside of Western and Northern Europe. Available research attributes this absence to conventional local academic cultures. In Italy for instance, the important feminist tradition that links grassroots activism and academia is missing in the field of IR and security studies.i In the Czech Republic, the masculine IR foundation entails a hierarchical and rivalry ‘macho’ culture, which ignores and/or devalues feminist research (Nyklová et al. 2019, 16). In Poland, security studies are dominated by men with practical experience (ex-military, police officers, secret services) who ‘react allergically’ to gender topics.ii
FSS has neither been academically established within the discipline of IR in most of South-eastern Europe. Specifically in the Balkans, many feminist scholars writing on related topics would not consider themselves to belong to FSS, as security studies is, with notable exceptions, still perceived in terms of ‘hard’ security.iii Similar response to our inquiries came from Estonia, France, Italy, Slovakia, or Turkey, all indicating the absence of FSS as an established academic field. Scholarship produced from these locations is thus limited in scope and influence over the FSS field.
European Feminist Security Studies: Theories, Methodologies, Issues
European FSS scholars have been shaping FSS through their theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions. There are a number of ongoing academic conversations that resonate throughout the discipline with European scholars at their core. While it is difficult to discuss all of these, below we offer some examples of feminist research conducted in Europe. We pay special attention to research produced outside of Western/Northern Europe and also highlight some issues and areas European FSS have not yet discussed.
Issues and Silences
European feminists have studied the ‘everyday’ security and militarization for some time (Basham 2013). They also focus on identity (Stern 2005), trauma and memory (Ketola 2021), embodiment (Wilcox 2015; Dyvik 2016), or affect (Åhäll 2018; Chisholm and Ketola 2020).
A number of researchers discuss the causes and consequences of sexual violence against women and men in and out of armed conflicts (Kirby 2013; Swaine 2018; Schulz and Touquet 2020; Zalewski et al 2018). Analyses tend to focus on sexual violence perpetrated during war outside Europe: for example, Schulz (2018) studies sexual violence against men in Northern Uganda; Baaz and Stern (2009) focus on the Democratic Republic of Congo; Boesten (2014) studies Peru. The few exceptions seem to be studies on Europe’s recent conflicts. These focus on domestic violence in politically contested Northern Ireland (Doyle and McWilliams 2019) and on gender-based and sexual violence during and after war in South-Eastern Europe (Kostovicova et al. 2020; Meznaric 2019; Žarkov 2007; Subotić and Zaharijević 2018).
Feminists also focus on the questions of agency and activism during conflicts (Mladjenovic 2001); sexuality (Močnik 2017); transitional justice (Björkdahl and Selimovic 2015); R2P (Kolmasova and Krulisova 2019); gender in/and DDR and SSR (Duriesmith and Holmes 2019); peacebuilding (Partis-Jennings 2017); peacekeeping (Loftsdóttir and Björnsdóttir 2015); or post-conflict justice (Brown and Ní Aoláin 2015; O’Reilly 2018). Closely related to this are discussions on militarization and militarism (Grzebalska 2016, 2021), hegemonic and military masculinities (Woodward and Duncanson 2017), or feminist perspectives of wartime memory sites (Reeves 2020). The link between the focus and location is clear here—the UK has a large military and is, like Sweden, engaged in field operations outside of Europe (Duncanson 2013; Kronsell 2012). European FSS also discusses issues of health (Harman 2021) and reproductive health (Thomson and Pierson 2018).
Another key area of investigation is the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda. The UK, being the home of the WPS ‘Center of Excellence,’ produces most knowledge on WPS alongside with the Nordic countries (Kirby and Shepherd 2021; Olsson and Gizelis 2015). WPS is central to the study of feminist foreign policy which is similarly based in Sweden (Aggestam et al. 2019) or the UK (Thomson 2019). WPS research has been indeed thriving, focusing on themes such as arms trade and political economy of militarism (Acheson and Butler 2019), exclusion of refugees from European WPS policy (Holvikivi and Reeves 2020), climate change (Cohn and Duncanson 2020), but also institutions like NATO (Wright et al. 2019) or the OSCE (Jenichen et al. 2018). Feminist scholars have also approached WPS through lenses informed by the political economy of conflict and called for re-bridging feminist security and feminist political economy (Lai 2020; O’Sullivan 2020; Stavrevska 2020).
There is limited research produced on gender and conflict from the locations outside of the ‘Centers of Excellence.’ Yet, there is a reason for optimism; FSS scholars outside of the core produce introductory FSS texts in local languages (Gasztold 2018; Krulišová and Rychnovská 2020) and engage with productive academic conversations with the West. This is the case of the monograph Feminist Perspectives on Terrorism (2020) by a Polish academic Aleksandra Gasztold. FSS research is also gaining ground in Spanish (Romero 2021) and Portuguese academia (Deiana 2018; Palacián De Inza 2019). Among the studied issues is the question of nationalism in the adoption of WPS agenda in the Balkans (Subotić and Zaharijević 2018), Ukraine (O’Sullivan 2019), or the emergence of WPS policy out of hostile anti-gender setting in the Czech Republic (O’Sullivan and Krulišová 2020).
The previously less visible post-socialist region and the fragile contexts East of Europe have gained some notice in FSS scholarship across Europe with the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine and with growing anti-gender tendencies globally. Western feminist scholars produced works on Russia as an illiberal norm entrepreneur in Ukraine (Ketelaars 2019), the gendered impact of economic insecurity in Ukraine (Mathers 2020), or on Putin’s gendered securitization of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kuteleva and Clifford 2021). A rare example of transnational European cooperation is the volume Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus edited by Ziemer (2020) and a collection entitled Gendered Wars, Gendered Memories (Altınay and Pető 2016).
Pető is also one of the key scholars writing on transnational anti-gender movements in Europe. This interdisciplinary research reveals that ‘anti-gender ideology’ campaigns create new insecurities in the form of cyber violence, reproductive health insecurity, gender-based violence, or threats of physical destruction to feminist scholars (Pető 2021). Korolczuk and Graff (2018, 802) explain that antigenderists have used the term ‘cultural wars,’ and other militarizing narratives such as ‘fight’ or ‘weapon,’ whereas their key focus has been on the politics of reproduction. Given the transnational character of this phenomenon, the existing scholarship engages with wider European locations, contributing thus to more pluralistic feminist exchanges. Such exchanges also inform the edited volume on anti-gender campaigns in Europe (Kuhar and Patternote eds. 2017) with contributors from the Netherlands but also France, Poland, or Hungary.
Theories and Methods
FSS offers both a critique of existing main/male stream theoretical discussions and, perhaps more importantly, theoretical innovation. In terms of critique, European FSS actively engages with other European IR and security studies theory. As apparent from our discussion below, FSS theorizing is a domain of Western/Northern European academia.
The feminist critique of the Copenhagen School starts with Hansen’s (2000) work and recently culminated in a still ongoing discussion between Howell and Richter-Montpetit’s (2020) critique and Hansen’s (2020) reply. Scholars also use the securitization framework to focus on gendered issues (e.g. Brown 2008; Gray and Frack 2019). Security as emancipation, the core tenet of Aberystwyth school, has also been extensively debated by FSS (Åhäll 2016).
FSS engages with disciplines other than security studies or IR. Several European researchers analyze security policies and issues via feminist institutionalism, demonstrating the relevance of this framework for FSS (e.g. Thompson 2019; Chappell and McKay 2021). Researchers who study feminist foreign policy highlight not only the lack of gender lens in foreign policy analysis (e.g. Haastrup 2020), but also engage with the English School (e.g. Aggestam and Bergman-Rosamond 2016) or postcolonial approaches (e.g. Achilleos-Sarll 2018; Stachowitsch and Sachseder 2019). Researchers focus on political economies of gender (in)security (e.g. Rai 2013) and debate the convergence of FSS and Feminist International/Global Political Economy (Elias 2015; Stern 2017; Chisholm and Stachowitsch 2017; de Almagro and Ryan 2020). There is also a growing network of scholars who identify their research as feminist peace studies (e.g. Wibben et al. 2019). A lot of work also closely engages with International Political Sociology (e.g. Tidy 2018), critical terrorism studies (e.g. Pratt 2013), or critical military studies (see Gray’s chapter in this volume). Queer theory forms another framework with which FSS scholars engage. Works by Richter-Montpetit (2018), Leigh and Weber (2018), or Hagen (2016) are just some examples of queer conceptualization of security. Race is a key element of study of security. For instance, Pratt’s (2013) work focuses on race and sexuality in relation to the WPS agenda.
The FSS commitments discussed earlier allow for variety of methodologies. Feminist research often challenges conventional ways of knowing. Many FSS scholars employ what Halberstam (2019, 13) calls ‘scavenger methodologies.’ Such methods ‘seek to centre subjects, processes, and practices historically excluded, ignored, and minimised’ (Kinsella and Shepherd 2020, 299). FSS thus aims to democratize the production of knowledge, which results in exciting methodological innovations, while allowing use of conventional methods to answer questions about gender and security.
There is a number of scholars who use quantitative methodologies to examine issues of gender and security (e.g. Joshi and Olsson 2021; Forsberg and Olsson 2021). This scholarship tends to be based in the research centers that are home to the conflict databases, notably PRIO and Uppsala. For instance, Kreft combines statistical analysis (2019) and qualitative methodologies (2020). The majority of the FSS scholars, however, use qualitative methodologies.
Studying texts and images, which could also be linked to the so-called discursive, narrative, and visual turns,Footnote 1 forms a large part of contemporary FSS. Discourse analysis is used to analyze variety of policies and practices (Gentry 2016). Wibben (2011b), for instance, develops a feminist narrative approach to security. The method of visual analysis is applied by Cooper-Cunningham (2019) or Wright and Bergman-Rosamond (2021). Feminist researchers also engage with variety of empirical sites. For example, scholars who focus on conflict textiles (Andrä et al. 2020) use curation as a method of knowing.
European FSS offers examples of ethnographic research (e.g. Björkdahl and Selimovic 2018; McLeod 2013) and excellent studies using interviews with various gendered actors (e.g. Eriksson Baaz and Stern 2009). Scholars also engage directly with actors inside hegemonically masculine institutions as ‘critical friends’ (Wright et al. 2019). Importantly, feminist scholarship considers how to study silence (e.g. Kronsell 2006) and unease (Baaz and Stern 2016). There are also a number of reflective pieces on various aspects of subjectivity and fieldwork (Bliesemann de Guevara and Bøås 2020; Cole 2017).
Concluding Thoughts
FSS is a disciplinary home for a wide range of research questions, theoretical frameworks, and methods. It challenges and enriches mainstream IR and Security Studies. European FSS is a home full of researchers who largely practice what they preach: self-reflection, inclusivity, and ethical research, as well as speaking truth to power. It can no longer be seen as marginal; if you have not engaged with it you have not been paying attention. We see ourselves as part of this disciplinary home; it brings us a lot of joy, scholarly inspiration, and, importantly, support.
Our aim was to celebrate the existing FSS research in Europe as well as to point out its shortcomings. We hope that our chapter speaks to debates about the production of knowledge. This mapping shows there is now a strong FSS network of scholars based in Western and Northern Europe which dominates knowledge production and shapes the discipline. They produce innovative and engaging knowledge that often crosses disciplinary lines, offers new methodological tools, and informs policies. This scholarship has been highlighting the dominance of Global North for nearly a decade now. However, in these discussions, a large part of the European continent appears to be left out. Central and Eastern, South-Eastern, and Southern Europe do not clearly belong to either the North or South and the limited FSS scholarship produced there does not shape the discipline.
Our mapping shows a strong connection of location to research agendas. Sweden’s feminist foreign policy gets scrutinized by Swedish feminist academics. Active engagement of Nordic countries in conflict management—be it mediation or peacekeeping—results in publications, funding, and establishment of research centers. Large militaries draw feminist attention in the UK. Yet, the rest of Europe has its issues too—be it anti-gender movements and their impact on the security of feminist scholars, women’s political activism, or local iterations of continuum of violence. Such studies are often based in different disciplinary homes—Gender Studies, Sociology, or History and rarely speak to FSS.
We hope this chapter will encourage further research into the conditions of knowledge production outside Western and Northern Europe. We also hope that it reaches those who, similarly to us some years back, had to struggle for institutional recognition of their feminist scholarship. Finally, we wish that our discussion will stimulate more transnational FSS scholarship and mentorship collaborations. There are indeed so many pressing issues European FSS should address, be it the hypermasculine far right/populist leadership; gendered health security including reproductive injustice; gendered diplomacy; feminist peace analyses; or local iterations of WPS.
Notes
-
i.
Communication with an Italian academic based abroad, May 2021.
-
ii.
Communication with an academic from Poland, May 2021.
-
iii.
Communication with Elena Stavrevska, May 2021.
Notes
- 1.
Furthermore, feminist scholarship makes important contributions to the other seemingly endless array of so-called turns (e.g. the emotional, affective, corporeal turn, material, everyday, etc.) now fashionable in security studies; indeed, much feminist work predates the nomenclature of such ‘turns’ at all (e.g. Enloe 1983; see Stavrianakis and Stern 2018, 8).
References
Aavik, Kadri, and Raili Marling. “Gender studies at the time of neo-liberal transformation in Estonian academia.” In Kahlert, Heike, ed. Gender Studies and the New Academic Governance: Longstanding Patters and Emerging paradoxes, pp. 41–64. Weisbaden: Springer, 2018.
Acheson, Ray, and Maria Butler. “WPS and Arms Trade Treaty.” In Davies, Sara E., and Jacqui True, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace, and Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190638276.013.52
Achilleos-Sarll, Columba. “Reconceptualising foreign policy as gendered, sexualised and racialised: Towards a postcolonial feminist foreign policy (analysis).” Journal of International Women’s Studies 19, no. 1 (2018): 34–49.
Aggestam, Karin, and Annika Bergman-Rosamond. “Swedish feminist foreign policy in the making: Ethics, politics, and gender.” Ethics & International Affairs 30, no. 3 (2016): 323–334.
Aggestam, Karin, Annika Bergman Rosamond, and Annica Kronsell. “Theorising feminist foreign policy.” International Relations 33, no. 1 (2019): 23–39.
Åhäll, Linda. “Affect as methodology: Feminism and the politics of emotion.” International Political Sociology 12, no. 1 (2018): 36–52.
Åhäll, Linda. “The dance of militarisation: A feminist security studies take on ‘the political’.” Critical Studies on Security 4, no. 2 (2016): 154–168.
Altınay, Ayşe Gül, and Andrea Pető, eds. Gendered Wars, Gendered Memories: Feminist Conversations on War, Genocide and Political Violence. London: Routledge, 2016.
Andrä, Christine, Berit Bliesemann de Guevara, Lydia Cole, and Danielle House. “Knowing through needlework: Curating the difficult knowledge of conflict textiles.” Critical Military Studies 6, no. 3–4 (2020): 341–359.
Baaz, Maria Eriksson, and Maria Stern. “Researching wartime rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo: A methodology of unease.” In Wibben, Annick TR, ed. Researching War, pp. 117–140. London: Routledge, 2016.
Baaz, Maria Eriksson, and Maria Stern. “Why do soldiers rape? Masculinity, violence, and sexuality in the armed forces in the Congo (DRC).” International Studies Quarterly 53, no. 2 (2009): 495–518.
Basham, Victoria. War, Identity and the Liberal State: Everyday Experiences of the Geopolitical in the Armed Forces. London: Routledge, 2013.
Basu, Soumita. “Emancipatory potential in feminist security studies.” International Studies Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2013): 455–458.
Björkdahl, Annika, and Johanna Mannergren Selimovic. “Feminist ethnographic research: Excavating narratives of wartime rape.” In Ethnographic Peace Research, pp. 43–64. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018.
Björkdahl, Annika, and Johanna Mannergren Selimovic. “Gendering agency in transitional justice.” Security Dialogue 46, no. 2 (2015): 165–182.
Blagojevic, Marina. “Creators, transmitters, and users: women’s scientific excellence at the semiperiphery of Europe.” European Education 36, no. 4 (2004): 70–90.
Bliesemann de Guevara, Berit, and Morten Bøås, eds. Doing Fieldwork in Areas of International Intervention: A Guide to Research in Violent and Closed Contexts. Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2020.
Boesten, Jelke. Sexual Violence During War and Peace: Gender, Power, and Post-conflict Justice in Peru. New York: Springer, 2014.
Brown, Katherine. “The promise and perils of women’s participation in UK mosques: The impact of securitisation agendas on identity, gender and community.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 10, no. 3 (2008): 472–491.
Brown, Kris, and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. “Through the looking glass: Transitional justice futures through the lens of nationalism, feminism and transformative change.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 9, no. 1 (2015): 127–149.
Chappell, Louise, and Fiona Mackay. “Feminist critical friends: dilemmas of feminist engagement with governance and gender reform agendas.” European Journal of Politics and Gender 4, no. 3 (2021): 321–340.
Chisholm, Amanda, and Hanna Ketola. “The cruel optimism of militarism: Feminist curiosity, affect, and global security.” International Political Sociology 14, no. 3 (2020): 270–285.
Chisholm, Amanda, and Saskia Stachowitsch. “(Re)Integrating feminist security studies and feminist global political economy: Continuing the conversation.” Politics & Gender 13, no. 4 (2017): 710–715.
Cohn, Carol, and Claire Duncanson. “Women, peace and security in a changing climate.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 22, no. 5 (2020): 742–762.
Cohn, Carol. “Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12, no. 4 (1987): 687–718.
Cole, Lydia. “An encounter in fieldwork: Subjectivity and gendered violence.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 19, no. 3 (2017): 388–389.
Cooper-Cunningham, Dean. “Seeing (in) security, gender and silencing: Posters in and about the British women’s suffrage movement.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 21, no. 3 (2019): 383–408.
Davies, Sara E., and Jacqui True, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace, and Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
de Almagro, Maria Martin, and Caitlin Ryan. “Introduction:(Re) integrating feminist security studies and global political economy: Continuing the conversation through empirical perspectives.” Politics & Gender 16, no. 3 (2020): 1–26.
Deiana, Maria-Adriana. “Navigating Consociationalism’s Afterlives: Women, Peace and Security in Post-Dayton Bosnia-Herzegovina.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 24, no. 1 (2018): 33–49.
Doyle, Jessica, and Monica McWilliams. “Transforming responses to domestic violence in a politically contested environment: The case of Northern Ireland.” feminists@ law 9, no. 1 (2019).
Duncanson, Claire. Forces for Good?: Military Masculinities and Peacebuilding in Afghanistan and Iraq. New York: Springer, 2013.
Duriesmith, David, and Georgina Holmes. “The masculine logic of DDR and SSR in the Rwanda Defence Force.” Security Dialogue 50, no. 4 (2019): 361–379.
Dyvik, Synne L. “Of bats and bodies: Methods for reading and writing embodiment.” Critical Military Studies 2, no. 1–2 (2016): 56–69.
Elias, Juanita. “Introduction: Feminist security studies and feminist political economy: Crossing divides and rebuilding bridges.” Politics & Gender 11, no. 2 (2015): 406–408.
Enloe, Cynthia H. Does Khaki Become You?: The Militarisation of Women’s Lives. Boston: South End Press, 1983.
Forsberg, Erika, and Louise Olsson. “Examining gender inequality and armed conflict at the subnational level.” Journal of Global Security Studies 6, no. 2 (2021): ogaa023.
Gasztold, Aleksandra. “Studia nad bezpieczeństwem w ujęciu feministycznym.” Studia Politologiczne 47 (2018): 316–333.
Gentry, Caron E. “Chechen political violence as desperation: What feminist discourse analysis reveals.” In Wibben, Annick TR, ed. Researching War, pp. 19–37. Routledge, 2016.
Gentry, Caron E., Laura J. Shepherd, and Laura Sjoberg, eds. Routledge Handbook of Gender and Security. London: Routledge, 2018.
Gray, Harriet, and Anja K. Franck. “Refugees as/at risk: The gendered and racialized underpinnings of securitization in British media narratives.” Security Dialogue 50, no. 3 (2019): 275–291.
Grzebalska, Weronika. “Regendering defence through a national-conservative platform? The case of Polish paramilitary organizing.” Critical Military Studies (2021): 1–20.
Grzebalska, Weronika. “Militarizing the nation: Gender politics of the Warsaw uprising.” In Altınay, Ayşe Gül, and Andrea Pető, eds. Gendered Wars, Gendered Memories: Feminist Conversations on War, Genocide and Political Violence, pp. 121–134. London: Routledge, 2016.
Haastrup, Toni, and Jamie J. Hagen. “Racial hierarchies of knowledge production in the Women, Peace and Security agenda.” Critical Studies on Security (2021): 1–4.
Haastrup, Toni. “Gendering South Africa’s foreign policy: Toward a feminist approach?” Foreign Policy Analysis 16, no. 2 (2020): 199–216.
Hagen, Jamie J. “Queering women, peace and security.” International Affairs 92, no. 2 (2016): 313–332.
Halberstam, Jack. Female masculinity. Duke University Press, 2019.
Hansen, Lene. “Are ‘core’ feminist critiques of securitization theory racist? A reply to Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit.” Security Dialogue 51, no. 4 (2020): 378–385.
Hansen, Lene. “The Little Mermaid’s silent security dilemma and the absence of gender in the Copenhagen School.” Millennium 29, no. 2 (2000): 285–306.
Harman, Sophie. “Threat not solution: Gender, global health security and COVID-19.” International Affairs 97, no. 3 (2021): 601–623.
Henry, Marsha. “On the necessity of critical race feminism for women, peace and security.” Critical Studies on Security (2021): 1–5.
Holvikivi, Aiko, and Audrey Reeves. “Women, peace and security after Europe’s ‘refugee crisis’.” European Journal of International Security 5, no. 2 (2020): 135–154.
Howell, Alison, and Melanie Richter-Montpetit. “Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School.” Security Dialogue 51, no. 1 (2020): 3–22.
Jenichen, Anne, Jutta Joachim, and Andrea Schneiker. ““Gendering” European security: Policy changes, reform coalitions and opposition in the OSCE.” European Security 27, no. 1 (2018): 1–19.
Joshi, Madhav, and Louise Olsson. “War termination and women’s political rights.” Social Science Research 94 (2021): 102523.
Ketelaars, Elise. “Geographical value spaces and gender norms in post-Maidan Ukraine: The failed ratification of the Istanbul Convention.” Review of International Studies 45, no. 5 (2019): 731–747.
Ketola, Hanna. “Trauma, memory, and peacebuilding.” In Väyrynen, Tarja, Swati Parashar, Elise Féron, and Catia Cecilia Confortini, eds. Routledge Handbook of Feminist Peace Research, pp. 240–249. London: Routledge, 2021.
Kinsella, Helen M., and Laura J. Shepherd. “The ‘brutal fecundity of violence’: Feminist methodologies of International Relations.” Review of International Studies 46, no. 3 (2020): 299–303.
Kirby, Paul, and Laura J. Shepherd. “Women, peace, and security: Mapping the (Re)production of a policy ecosystem.” Journal of Global Security Studies 6, no. 3 (2021): ogaa045.
Kirby, Paul. “How is rape a weapon of war? Feminist International Relations, modes of critical explanation and the study of wartime sexual violence.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 4 (2013): 797–821.
Kolmasova, Sarka, and Katerina Krulisova. “Legitimizing military action through “rape-as-a-weapon” discourse in Libya: Critical feminist analysis.” Politics & Gender 15, no. 1 (2019): 130–150.
Korolczuk, Elżbieta, and Agnieszka Graff. “Gender as “Ebola from Brussels”: The anticolonial frame and the rise of illiberal populism.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43, no. 4 (2018): 797–821.
Kostovicova, Denisa, Vesna Bojicic-Dzelilovic, and Marsha Henry. “Drawing on the continuum: a war and post-war political economy of gender-based violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 22, no. 2 (2020): 250–272.
Kreft, Anne-Kathrin. “Civil society perspectives on sexual violence in conflict: Patriarchy and war strategy in Colombia.” International Affairs 96, no. 2 (2020): 457–478.
Kreft, Anne-Kathrin. “Responding to sexual violence: Women’s mobilization in war.” Journal of Peace Research 56, no. 2 (2019): 220–233.
Kronsell, Annica. “Methods for Studying Silences: Gender Analysis in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity.” In Ackerly, B., M. Stern, and J. True, eds. Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, pp. 108–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Kronsell, Annica. Gender, Sex and the Postnational Defense: Militarism and Peacekeeping. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Krulišová, Kateřina, and Dagmar Rychnovská. “Jak zkoumat gender v mezinárodní bezpečnosti? Úvod do feministických bezpečnostních studií.” Mezinárodní vztahy 55, no. 1 (2020): 41–61.
Kuhar, Roman, and David Paternotte, eds. Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe. Mobilizing Against Equality. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.
Kulawik, Teresa. “Introduction: European borderlands and topographies of transnational feminism.” In Kulawik, Teresa, and Zhanna Kravchenko, eds. Borderlands in European Gender Studies: Beyond the East–West Frontier. London: Routledge, 2019.
Kuteleva, Anna, and Sarah J. Clifford. “Gendered securitisation: Trump’s and Putin’s discursive politics of the COVID-19 pandemic.” European Journal of International Security (2021): 1–17.
Lai, Daniela. “Macroeconomic interventions and the politics of postwar justice.” Politics & Gender 16, no. 3 (2020): 11–16.
Leigh, Darcy, and Cynthia Weber. “Gendered and sexualized figurations of security.” In Gentry, Caron E., Laura J. Shepherd, and Laura Sjoberg, eds. Routledge Handbook of Gender and Security, pp. 83–93. London: Routledge, 2018.
Loftsdóttir, Kristín, and Helga Björnsdóttir. “Nordic exceptionalism and gendered peacekeeping: The case of Iceland.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 22, no. 2 (2015): 208–222.
Mathers, Jennifer G. “Women, war and austerity: IFIs and the construction of gendered economic insecurities in Ukraine.” Review of International Political Economy 27, no. 6 (2020): 1235–1256.
McLeod, Laura. “Ethnographic explorations and fragmented senses of feminist insecurity.” International Studies Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2013): 459–462.
Meznaric, Silva. Gender as an Ethno-Marker: Rape, War, and Identity Politics in the Former Yugoslavia. London: Routledge, 2019.
Mladjenovic, Lepa. “III. Notes of a Feminist Lesbian during Wartime.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 8, no. 3 (2001): 381–391.
Močnik, Nena. Sexuality After War Rape: From Narrative to Embodied Research. London: Routledge, 2017.
Ní Aoláin, Fionnuala, Naomi R. Cahn, Dina Francesca Haynes, and Nahla Valji, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Nyklová, Blanka. “Research on the semi-periphery? Beyond geopolitics.” In Vohlídalová, M. and Linková, M., eds. Gender and Neoliberalism in Czech Academia, pp. 26–68. Praha: SLON, 2017.
Nyklová, Blanka, Kateřina Cidlinská, and Nina Fárová. “International relations in the Czech Republic: Where have all the women gone?.” Mezinárodní vztahy 54, no. 2 (2019): 5–23.
O’Reilly, Maria. Gendered Agency in War and Peace: Gender Justice and Women’s Activism in Post-Conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina. New York: Springer, 2018.
O’Sullivan, Mila. ““Being strong enough to defend yourself”: Untangling the women, peace and security agenda amidst the Ukrainian conflict.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 21, no. 5 (2019): 746–767.
O’Sullivan, Míla, and Kateřina Krulišová. ““This agenda will never be politically popular”: Central Europe’s anti-gender mobilization and the Czech Women, Peace and Security agenda.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 22, no. 4 (2020): 526–549.
Olsson, Louise, and Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, eds. Gender, Peace and Security: Implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Routledge, 2015.
O’Sullivan, Mila. “The forgotten lives: Connecting gender, security, and everyday livelihoods in Ukraine’s conflict.” Politics & Gender 16, no. 3 (2020): 6–10.
Palacián De Inza, Blanca. “International and National Frameworks for Women, Peace and Security (WPS) in Spain: Beyond words.” In Enhancing Women’s Roles in Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE), pp. 28–34. IOS Press, 2019.
Parashar, Swati. “Feminist (in) securities and camp politics.” International Studies Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2013): 440–443.
Partis-Jennings, Hannah. “The (in) security of gender in Afghanistan’s peacebuilding project: Hybridity and affect.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 19, no. 4 (2017): 411–425.
Pereira, Maria do Mar. “The importance of being “modern” and foreign: Feminist scholarship and the epistemic status of nations.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 39, no. 3 (2014): 627–657.
Pető, Andrea. “Feminist stories from an illiberal state: Revoking the license to teach gender studies in Hungary at a University in Exile (CEU).” In Bluhm, Katharina, Gertrud Pickhan, Justyna Stypinska, and Agnieszka Wierzcholska, eds. Gender and Power in Eastern Europe. pp. 35–44. Cham: Springer, 2021.
Pratt, Nicola. “Weaponising feminism for the “war on terror”, versus employing strategic silence.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 6, no. 2 (2013): 327–331.
Rai, Shirin M. Gender and the Political Economy of Development: From Nationalism to Globalization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Reeves, Audrey. “Kisses at the memorial: Affective objects, US militarism and feminist resistance at sites of wartime memory.” Critical Military Studies 6, no. 3–4 (2020): 306–322.
Richter-Montpetit, Melanie. “Everything you always wanted to know about sex (in IR) but were afraid to ask: The ‘queer turn’ in international relations.” Millennium 46, no. 2 (2018): 220–240.
Romero, Alicia Cebada. “El pulso de la Agenda Mujeres, Paz y Seguridad en su vigésimo aniversario.” Anuario español de derecho internacional 37 (2021): 117–158.
Schulz, Philipp, and Heleen Touquet. “Queering explanatory frameworks for wartime sexual violence against men.” International Affairs 96, no. 5 (2020): 1169–1187.
Schulz, Philipp. “Displacement from gendered personhood: sexual violence and masculinities in northern Uganda.” International Affairs 94, no. 5 (2018): 1101–1119.
Shepherd, Laura J. “The state of feminist security studies: Continuing the conversation.” International Studies Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2013): 436–439.
Sjoberg, Laura, and Jennifer K. Lobasz. “The state of feminist security studies: A conversation.” Politics & Gender 7, no. 4 (2011): 573–604.
Sjoberg, Laura. “Looking forward, conceptualizing feminist security studies.” Politics & Gender 7, no. 4 (2011): 600–604.
Sjoberg, Laura. “What, and where, is feminist security studies?” Journal of Regional Security 11, no. 2 (2016): 143–160.
Stachowitsch, Saskia, and Julia Sachseder. “The gendered and racialized politics of risk analysis. The case of Frontex.” Critical studies on security 7, no. 2 (2019): 107–123.
Stavrevska, Elena B. “Navigating to subsistence: The gendered struggles in the postwar everyday and their implications for peace.” Politics & Gender 16, no. 3 (2020): 16–20.
Stavrianakis, Anna, and Maria Stern. “Militarism and security: Dialogue, possibilities and limits.” Security Dialogue 49, no. 1–2 (2018): 3–18.
Stern, Maria. “Feminist global political economy and feminist security studies? The politics of delineating subfields.” Politics & Gender 13, no. 4 (2017): 727.
Stern, Maria. Naming Security-Constructing Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005.
Subotić, Gordana, and Adriana Zaharijević. “Women between war Scylla and nationalist Charybdis: Legal interpretations of sexual violence in countries of former Yugoslavia.” In Lahai, John Idriss, and Khanyisela Moyo, eds. Gender in Human Rights and Transitional Justice, pp. 239–264. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Swaine, Aisling. Conflict-Related Violence Against Women: Transforming Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Sylvester, Christine. War as Experience: Contributions from International Relations and Feminist Analysis. London: Routledge, 2013.
Thomson, Jennifer, and Claire Pierson. “Can abortion rights be integrated into the Women, Peace and Security agenda?” International Feminist Journal of Politics 20, no. 3 (2018): 350–365.
Thomson, Jennifer. “The women, peace, and security agenda and feminist institutionalism: A research agenda.” International Studies Review 21, no. 4 (2019): 598–613.
Tickner, J. Ann. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.
Tidy, Joanna. “Fatherhood, gender, and interventions in the geopolitical: Analyzing paternal peace, masculinities, and war.” International Political Sociology 12, no. 1 (2018): 2–18.
Väyrynen, Tarja, Swati Parashar, Elise Féron, and Catia Cecilia Confortini, eds. Routledge Handbook of Feminist Peace Research. London: Routledge, 2021.
Wibben, Annick TR. “Feminist politics in feminist security studies.” Politics & Gender 7, no. 4 (2011a): 590–595.
Wibben, Annick T. Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach. Routledge, 2011b.
Wibben, Annick TR, Catia Cecilia Confortini, Sanam Roohi, Sarai B. Aharoni, Leena Vastapuu, and Tiina Vaittinen. “Collective discussion: Piecing-Up feminist peace research.” International Political Sociology 13, no. 1 (2019): 86–107.
Wilcox, Lauren B. Bodies of Violence: Theorizing Embodied Subjects in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Woodward, Rachel, and Claire Duncanson, eds. The Palgrave International Handbook of Gender and the Military. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.
Wright, Katharine AM, and Annika Bergman Rosamond. “NATO’s strategic narratives: Angelina Jolie and the alliance’s celebrity and visual turn.” Review of International Studies (2021): 1–24.
Wright, Katharine AM, Matthew Hurley, and Jesus Ignacio Gil Ruiz. NATO, Gender and the Military: Women Organising from Within. London: Routledge, 2019.
Zalewski, Marysia, Paula Drumond, Elisabeth Prügl, and Maria Stern. Introduction: Sexual Violence Against Men in Global Politics. London: Routledge, 2018.
Žarkov, Dubravka. The Body of War: Media, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Break-Up of Yugoslavia. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007.
Ziemer, Ulrike. Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krulišová, K., O’Sullivan, M. (2022). Feminist Security Studies in Europe: Beyond Western Academics’ Club. In: Stern, M., Towns, A.E. (eds) Feminist IR in Europe. Trends in European IR Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91999-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91999-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91998-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91999-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)