I am just embarking on a new research project, on the above theme, designed to run from September 2008 for two years. The project arises out of my earlier work. From 2004 – 2007 I made a study of feminist organizations active against war and militarization, and for peace, in twelve different countries around the world. This was published in the book From Where We Stand – see link in the column on the right.
Feminism and movements against militarism and war
One of the findings of that research was that many women’s organizations in a range of countries have originated when some women split away from mixed organizations of men and women. Everywhere I went, women discussed their choice to be ‘women’ in terms of contrast with the mainstream movement. While sharing with other organizations an understanding that capitalism and nationalism are causes of war, they believe that the sex/gender system (‘patriarchy’), too, is a driving force in war. In constructing masculinity and femininity in a relation of power and violence, patriarchy is a factor perpetuating the ideology of militarism, the militarization of societies and the legitimation of organized violence as a tool of policy.
In this belief, feminist antiwar activists propose that an end to war is impossible without a transformation not only of economic and political relations but also of gender relations. They believe the anti-war movement as a whole would be the stronger for including this among its goals and developing strategies to achieve it.
Socialisms, anarchisms and pacifisms in tension
Feminism is not the only source of divergence and tension in the antiwar movements of the UK and other countries. Pacifism, in both radical and moderate forms, sits uneasily with more militant left traditions that, while opposing capitalist and imperialist wars, may support armed liberation struggles. And the various socialist and marxist tendencies co-operate uneasily with religious organizations (Christian, Muslim and others) within broad coalitions for peace. Anarchist tendencies emphasize the state as a major cause of war, and also diverge on process. While critical of other left groups’ hierarchy and authoritarianism, they also alienate pacifists by not adhering to nonviolence in their practice.
The aim of the research
The purpose of this action-research project is to better understand these varied and sometimes antagonistic tendencies, and to stimulate dialogue within and between organizations. It will look for elements of a shared understanding of the forces that drive militarization and war, and will identify impediments to coherence in our campaigns. The aim is to contribute to co-operation, with modest but tangible gains in effective activism for demilitarization, disarmament and sustainable peace.
Five case studies
I plan to make case studies in three countries and two international organizations. The countries are the UK, Japan and South Korea. The international organizations are War Resisters’ International and the International Action Network on Small Arms. In approaching the case studies I shall be focusing on organizations’ various….
(1) values; (2) analyses of militarism, militarization and war; (3) strategies of opposition; (4) methods in practice; (5) and relationships with other organizations
The research will involve participation and observation, reading organizational literature and related theoretical work, and interviewing key actors individually and in groups.
Methodology: qualitative, participant, ‘insider’ and action research
The research design is clearly qualitative. In addition, you will see from my short biography (link ‘About’ on the left) that I am actively engaged in parts of the movement myself, and in this sense this is ‘insider’ research. It is also action research as defined by peace researcher Adam Curle who wrote, ‘Action research aims not only to discover facts, but to help in altering certain conditions experienced by the community as unsatisfactory’. In ‘action mode’ I plan to prompt small group discussions both within and between organizations and where feasible to prompt shared activities. I will generate working papers along the way, which, when agreed with participants, will be made available for wider discussion, appearing as Research Profiles (see link in the column on the left). In general, I plan to use this website as a research tool, and invite correspondence on this log from any of you concerned with similar issues. Please just click ‘comment’ below and type your message.
A note on research ethics
The research reflects two values. One is respect for the necessary diversity in social movements such as ours, and the decisions each individual and group has made concerning the type of organization in which they pursue their work for peace. The other is respect for the participant. I will fully inform all involved about what I am doing and why, and be clear about what are to be considered research situations and which are not. I shall feed back to each group and person what I learn from them, invite their comments and negotiate formulations of findings. I will acknowledge and respect my sources, and in particular, I shall always get specific prior agreement from anyone I wish to cite in interim papers on the website or ultimately in published work.
Phase 1: September – December 2008
I am currently engaged in the case study of War Resisters’ International and its Spanish affiliate Alternativa Antimilitarista : Movimiento de Objecion de Conciencia. WRI is specially interesting for its deep adherence to pacifism and nonviolence, combined with a clear commitment to social and economic transformation. Of particular interest will be the way these values and analyses have been acted out in relations, within and outside WRI, with some on the left who, faced with extreme injustice and oppression, renounce nonviolence. WRI is also interesting for the ups and downs of feminist activism, both in the international and in affiliates and sections such as AA-MOC. WRI and feminist antiwar organizations share a commitment to prefigurative methods and to equality and respect. Interesting questions to explore will be how this works out in practice, what the organizational response to feminist activism has been, and to what extent a gender analysis of militarization and war has been adopted and shaped WRI / AA-MOC strategies.
Cynthia Cockburn
Women in Black against War, WILPF, and
Visiting Professor, Dept of Sociology
City University London
<c.cockburn@ktown.demon.co.uk>
