Critical Global Security Studies
Security: a gendered social construction
Abstract
What is security? What does the word, ‘security’ means? Is it about the protection of our borders? Is it about more? Is it about individuals? Is it the same everywhere? Through answering these questions we can come to the conclusion that security does not exist, it is a gendered, social construction as it means, the definition of security can be shaped, as it has been since the World Wars.
What is security? What does the word, ‘security’ means? Is it about the protection of our borders? Is it about more? Is it about individuals? Is it the same everywhere? Through answering these questions we can come to the conclusion that security does not exist, it is a gendered, social construction as it means, the definition of security can be shaped, as it has been since the World Wars.
In this essay I will argue how the term of ‘security’ has changed after the end of the Cold War and 9/11 especially and why constructivist scholars can rightfully claim that security is a ‘socially constructed’ expression now used by those in power for their goals to be legitimised by the population, what itself came with democracy, that leaders need the support of the citizens to be able to legitimately act. In addition, security is gendered and gender is as well, socially constructed and I will introduce, how these all come together and how ‘security’ in the end is a gendered social construction and what could be a study of security abstracted of these aspects and also, whether it is possible.
First of all, the theory that ‘security’ is socially constructed argues that individual identities are shaped by the social construction they born in and that construction is shaped by the individuals in it. ‘Security’ is therefore a changeable term, it is a common value, a word we have created and gave meaning to (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010: 3-12). The problem with this approach is that if we take ‘security’ or ‘terrorism’ as a socially constructed term, we claim that there is not reality behind and it is all only the creation of us. This kind of broader understanding of security, where it is not only about the military and borders but about individuals and rights, the term’s borders are blurred and it is not clear anymore what has to be secured and what has not, states cannot therefore show achievement as it is not clear when something is a security achievement, there is always a new security issue, anything can be a security issue what the society believes to be.
Secondly, security is gendered because it is a term created by language, it is a knowledge behind the word and all knowledge of the world is gendered, no viewpoint is gender neutral, as ‘abstract’ human, but is always reflective of dominant assumptions about masculinity and femininity (Shepherd, 2013; Peterson, 2017). Consequently, we can see, what is gendered takes into account only the two sees: male and female, yet we call these different, these are the sexes, whereas gender should mean more (LGBTQ for instance), whereas in reality it does not.
Third, gender is socially constructed because there is no abstract human outside gender, everything is gendered and gender is socially constructed, outside of language there is no material basis for talking about differences between genders, if we do not call them how we do, there would be no gender at all (Peterson, 2014). From this point of view we could now argue, gender is socially constructed and everything is gendered, therefore socially constructed, ergo nothing is real without the meaning we give to them, and it is true for ‘security’ as well.
Last but not least, where ‘security’ is socially constructed politicians shape the society’s understanding of ‘security’ (by pointing out enemies of the nation) in order to legitimise their – violent – actions and gain support. Let us just consider, how security before and during the World Wars was about physical security, the security of borders and civilians, whereas nowadays in the era of the War on Terror ‘security’ means much more, it is about individuals, rights, freedom and safety all around the World wherever we travel we have guaranteed rights for protection, it is a much broader term now, yet it has much more blurred borders, what ‘security’ actually is about.
But in order to remove this socially constructed gender lens what we look security through, the differences between the two sexes and all the genders should be removed from the roots of society and have women and all genders around the table where politics happen. Even though, we can see steps (all genders welcome toilets, legalisation of gay marriage, etc.), yet in reality equalisation does not work out, if we look at international conferences, we cannot see many women apart from Angela Merkle or Theresa May and those laws focusing on the issue mainly focus on women’s equalities, not the other genders (Hagen, 2016).
In a conclusion then, as I demonstrated, the meaning behind the term ‘security’ has broadened and continuously does since the end of the Cold War. Security is gendered and gender is socially constructed, all knowledge is socially constructed and dependent on language. In order to remove the gender and social construction perspectives from Security Studies we should remove these socially constructed meanings from society, what is even though, not impossible but a long and costly process, yet apart from gender-acknowledgement we cannot really see effective steps until today.
Bibliography
Hagen, J. (2016). Queering women, peace and security. International Affairs, 92(2), pp.313-332.
Peoples, C. and Vaughan-Williams, N. (2010). Critical security studies. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.3-12.
Peterson, V. Spike (2014) Sex Matters, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16:3, 389-409, DOI: 10.1080/14616742.2014.913384
Peterson, V. Spike (2017) Rethinking, Returning, Reflecting, Alternatif Politika, 9:3, 325-342
Comments
Post a Comment