A feminist perspective can make security discourse more reflective of its own normative assumptions. In respect of an expanded human security concept, a feminist perspective highlights the dangers of masking differences under the rubric of the term ‘human’. A critical feminist perspective is geared towards addressing the politics of multiple overlapping identities. Since gender is intertwined with other identities such as race, class and nationality, the dichotomy between universalism and cultural relativism is overcome by connecting individual experiences in a particular location to wider regional and global structures and processes. An overview of a number of feminist and security-studies schools of thought reveals the extent of universalizing tendencies and gender silences within such discourses. The conceptual and political commensurability of the gender and security constructs is often overlooked. An emphasis on identity politics may thus help to clarify the ambivalence of human security as both a political project of emancipation and an analytical framework. A case is therefore made for more fluid context-based interpretations of gender in human security. In this regard it is posited that alternative feminist approaches, such as those rooted in the African context, could facilitate dialogue within and across supposedly irreconcilable standpoints.
African Human Security Initiative (AHSI) , 2004. African Human Security Initiative: A Project by African NGOs; available at http://www.africanreview.org/contact.htm (accessed 13 August 2004).
2.
Bakker, Isabella , 1997. ‘Identity, Interests and Ideology: The Gendered Terrain of Global Restructuring’, in Stephen Gill , ed., Globalization, Democratization and Multilateralism. New York: United Nations University Press (127–139).
3.
Bellamy, Alex J. & Matt McDonald , 2002. ‘The Utility of Human Security: Which Humans? What Security? A Reply to Thomas & Tow’ , Security Dialogue33(3): 373–377 .
4.
Booth, Ken , 1997. ‘Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist’, in Keith Krause & Michael C. Williams , eds, Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. London: UCL Press (83–120).
5.
Buzan, Barry , 1991. People, States and Fear, 2nd edn.New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
6.
Buzan, Barry ; Ole Wæver & Jaap De Wilde , 1998. Security: A New Framework For Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner .
7.
Cilliers, Jakkie , 2004. Human Security in Africa: A Conceptual Framework for Review, a monograph for the African Human Security Initiative; available at http://www.africanreview.org/docs/humsecjun04.pdf (accessed 24 August 2004).
8.
Cock, Jacklyn & Alison Bernstein , 1998. ‘Diversity and Disadvantage: Feminist Perspectives from the USA and South Africa’ , Politikon25(2): 17–29 .
9.
Elshtain, Jean , 1987. Women and War. Brighton: Harvester .
10.
Enloe, Cynthia , 1996. ‘Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How To Overcome the Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations’, in Steve Smith , Ken Booth & Marysia Zalewski , eds, International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (186–202).
11.
Eriksson, Johan , 1999. ‘Observers or Advocates? On the Political Role of Security Analysts’ , Cooperation and Conflict34(3): 311–330 .
12.
Evans, Graham & Jeffrey Newnham , 1998. Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin .
Grant, Rebecca , 1991. ‘The Sources of Gender Bias in International Relations Theory’, in Rebecca Grant & Kathleen Newland , eds, 1991. Gender and International Relations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press .
15.
Hansen, Lene , 2000. ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’ , Millennium: Journal of International Studies29(2): 285–306 .
16.
Hoogensen, Gunhild & Svein Vigeland Rottem , 2004. ‘Gender Identity and the Subject of Security’ , Security Dialogue35(2): 155–171 .
17.
Hughes, Christina , 2002. Key Concepts in Feminist Theory and Research. London: Sage .
18.
Juma, Monica K. , 2003. ‘Building Mechanisms, Institutions and Instruments for Peace and Security in Africa’ , The Third African Women’s Peace Table Seminar, Department of Defence, Pretoria, South Africa, 28 October; available at http://www.saferafrica.org/DocumentsCentre/Seminars/ThirdAfricanPeaceTable/Speeches/MonicaJuma/DOD-1A.asp.
19.
Knudsen, Olav F. , 2001. ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization’ , Security Dialogue32(3): 355–368 .
20.
Kolawole, Mary M. , 2002. ‘Transcending Incongruities: Rethinking Feminisms and the Dynamics of Identity in Africa’ , Agenda54: 92–98 .
21.
Ling, L. H. M. , 2002. ‘The Fish and the Turtle’, in Michael Brecher & Frank P. Harvey , eds, Millennial Reflections on International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (283–288).
22.
Liotta, P. H. , 2002. ‘Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security’ , Security Dialogue33(4): 473–488 .
23.
McDonald, Matt , 2002. ‘Human Security and the Construction of Security’ , Global Society16(2): 277-295 .
24.
Marchand, Marianne H. & Anne Sisson Runyan , 2000. ‘Introduction: Feminist Sightings of Global Restructuring: Conceptualizations and Reconceptualizations’, in Marianne H. Marchand & Anne Sisson Runyan , eds, Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistance. London: Routledge (1–22).
25.
M’boge, Fatoumatta & Sam Gbaydee Doe , 2004. ‘African Commitments to Civil Society Engagement: A Review of Eight NEPAD Countries’ , AHSI Paper6: 1–10 .
26.
Moya, Fikile-Ntsikelelo , 2004. ‘Time To Close Chapter 9?’, Mail & Guardian ( Johannesburg ), 4–10 June.
27.
Msimang, Sisonke , 2003. ‘HIV/AIDS, Globalisation and the International Women’s Movement’ , Gender and Development11(1): 109–113 .
28.
Paris, Roland , 2001. ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’ , International Security26(2): 87–102 .
29.
Peterson, V. Spike , 1992. ‘Security and Sovereign States: What Is at Stake in Taking Feminism Seriously?’, in V. Spike Peterson , ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner (31–64).
30.
Peterson, V. Spike , 2000. ‘A Gendered Global Hierarchy?’, in Greg Fry & Jacinta O’Hagan , eds, Contending Images of World Politics. New York: St. Martin’s (199–213).
31.
Peterson, V. Spike & Anne Sisson Runyan , 1993. Global Gender Issues. Boulder, CO: Westview .
32.
Runyan, Anne Sisson , 1992. ‘The State of Nature: A Garden Unfit for Women and Other Living Things’, in V. Spike Peterson , ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner (123–140).
33.
Suhrke, Astri , 1999. ‘Human Security and the Interests of States’ , Security Dialogue30(3): 265–276 .
34.
Sylvester, Christine , 1996. ‘The Contributions of Feminist Theory to International Relations’, in Steve Smith , Ken Booth & Marysia Zalewski , eds, International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (254–278).
35.
Sylvester, Christine , 2002. Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
36.
Thomas, Caroline , 2002. ‘Global Governance and Human Security’, in Rorden Wilkinson & Steve Hughes , eds, Global Governance: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge (113–131).
37.
Thomas, Nicolas & William T. Tow , 2002. ‘The Utility of Human Security: Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention’ , Security Dialogue33(2): 177–192 .
38.
Tickner, J. Ann , 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press .
39.
Tickner, J. Ann , 2001. Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Columbia University Press .
40.
Tickner, J. Ann , 2002a. ‘Feminist Perspectives on 9/11’ , International Studies Perspectives3(4): 333–350 .
41.
Tickner, J. Ann , 2002b. ‘Feminist Theory and Gender Studies: Reflections for the Millennium’, in Michael Brecher & Frank P. Harvey , eds, Millennial Reflections on International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (321–329).
42.
Tickner, J. Ann , 2002c. ‘Feminist Perspectives on International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes , Thomas Risse & Beth Simmons , eds, Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage (275–291).
United Nations Commission on Human Security , 2003.Human Security Now. New York: Commission on Human Security ; available at http://www.humansecurity-chs.org/finalreport/index.html (accessed 17 February 2004).
45.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) , 1994. Human Development Report 1994. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press ; available at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1994/en/ (accessed 14 February 2005).
46.
Walker, R. B. J. , 1992. ‘Gender and Critique in the Theory of International Relations’, in V. Spike Peterson , ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner (179–202).
47.
Walt, Stephen , 1991. ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’ , International Studies Quarterly35(2): 211–239 .
48.
Wyn Jones, Richard , 1999. Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner .
