Crossing Boundaries during Peace and Conflict

Transforming identity in Chiapas and in Northern Ireland

M. Hoewer

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9781137382863
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137468741
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Social Sciences

The book takes the reader into the world of women who become actively involved in various mobilization processes in the peace and conflict situations in Chiapas and in Northern Ireland. Detailing how women cross identity boundaries in regions of conflict, the book combines traditional and qualitative research methods in groundbreaking new research.

I

Addressing Complexity and Difference: A Theoretical and Practical Framework

1

Identity in Transition: Concept, Context, and Complexity

Introduction

Why is it important to look at the interconnection of identity categories in processes of social change? And how do the making and change of gender, ethnic, and other identity categories intersect during periods of conflict and conflict settlement? Setting the conceptual framework, this chapter addresses existing gaps in the study of ethno-national conflict and conflict settlement. It does so by highlighting the need to explore the making and change of intersecting identity categories during these processes. Women’s experiences are largely written out of official narratives of ethno-national conflicts to protect the “manliness” of armed conflict based on a hegemonic (heterosexual) masculinity (Cohn, 2013, p. 23). Feminist research has highlighted that this exclusion prevents conflict societies from being transformed into peaceful ones (Cohn, 2013; Enloe, 2002; Kronsell & Svedberg, 2012). Not only does the exclusion of women’s experiences of conflict avert from understanding and unlocking social dynamics and discourses that fuel injustice, inequality, and violence, but it also does not take account of the fact that identity categories are not static and change during periods of ethno-national conflict. Building on findings of identity change during peace and conflict (Hoewer, 2013; Mitchell, 2006; Todd, 2005, 2007), my research primarily focuses on the way the making and change of ethnic and gender identity intersects during periods of ethno-national contention and conflict settlement. First, I ask if and how identity changes, second, I reveal the intersection of gender and ethnic identity change, and finally, I explore the connection between identity and social change in a comparative fashion.

The concept of identity has gained a certain prominence in social science research on race, gender, ethnicity, and class. In comparative politics, identity plays an important role in work on nationalism and ethnic conflict (Horowitz, 1985). In international relations, the idea of “state identity” is at the center of constructivist critiques of realism and the analysis of state sovereignty (Wendt, 2004). Further, identity is a focus of many studies of gender, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, and culture in political theory (Anthias, 2006; Alsop, Fitzsimons, & Lennon, 2002; Todd, 2005). Feminist research on ethno-national conflict has highlighted issues arising from the gendered image of national identity, which predominantly focuses on women as mothers and men as warriors and protectors of women and children.¹ First, the positioning of women in the role of a mother and portraying them as “naturally peaceful” does not reflect the actual reality of ethno-national conflict; it ignores the fact that some women fight in ethno-national movements and support militarized violence (Ruddick, 1989, p. 176). Second, being represented as reproducers and as the embodiment of the ethno-national collective, women acquire political meaning as targets of violence (Jayawardena, 1986; Yuval-Davis, 1997). Finally, the way motherhood and peacefulness are rooted deeply in women’s gender identity and turn women into natural peacemakers (Cohn & Jacobson, 2013, p. 111) obscures women’s agency. The naturalization of women’s peacefulness depoliticizes their activism in the public sphere and excludes them from peace talks and other political decision making (Waylen, 2000). In order to enhance the understanding of peace and conflict and contribute to the development of sustainable peace, I will critically explore these public perceptions of gender and ethnic identity. This monograph enhances understanding of peace and conflict by listening to and learning from women’s perceptions, perspectives, and experiences of ethno-national mobilization and conflict settlement in Chiapas and in Northern Ireland.

Part I of this research sets out to provide a theoretical framework and a methodology for an analysis of identity change in peace and conflict situations that allows us to acknowledge and address the complexity of those processes. Chapter 1 introduces identity as key concept and ethnicity and gender as central boundaries, highlighting the significance of intersectional analysis of boundaries during ethno-national conflicts and peace processes. The chapter also addresses challenges in the application of the concept of intersectionality to policy analysis and research practice (McCall, 2005; Yuval-Davis, 2006). It does so by further developing Michelle Lamont’s boundary approach (Lamont, 2012; Lamont & Molnar, 2002) and proposing a multilayered analysis of the ways in which different identity shifts are interrelated with objectified social changes. The second part of chapter 1 outlines the author’s positioning toward and within the research, the research design, and methodology. It introduces an innovative active participatory research approach created for this project.

Intersectionality and Difference

The assumption that men and women are socially constructed by the operation of material and social structures grounds this analysis of changes in gender and ethnic identity in peace and conflict processes. My research builds on existing criticism of theories of international relations in the particular field of ethno-national conflict and its inscribed preferences for masculinity and for a particular form of sexual difference (Sluga, 2000, p. 17). In order to address these criticisms, we need to look at not only the ethnic or national, but also the gendered and class perspectives in the interpretation and analysis of ethno-national conflict and peace processes. Providing a framework for doing so, intersectional analysis of social divisions has come to occupy a central space in both academic research and in policy analysis. Intersectionality analysis provides the opportunity to shine a light on the different characters of social structures, such as gender, ethnicity, race, sexuality, age, generation, and the like, and the way these structures impact processes of identification. Applying an intersectional framework to the in-depth research of the way female activists interrelate gender and ethnic identity in peace and conflict situations contributes to the operationalization of the analysis of complex processes and structures.

Intersectionality is a term invented by feminist scholars to capture the complex interplay of social forces that affect the lives of women and men as members of particular races, classes, ethnicities, and nationalities, with different sexual orientations, and from different generations (Crenshaw, 1991; Hill Collins, 1990; Yuval-Davis, 2006), and which places some individuals in disadvantaged positions. The concept of intersectionality suggests that these above-mentioned processes of oppression are specific, but at the same time interrelated. Originally, the focus of intersectionality was the problematic dynamics evolving from the construction of difference and from the “solidarities of sameness” during processes of social mobilization against discrimination.

Within indigenous struggles, as in Chiapas, the so called white, Western feminist approach of equality to notions on indigeneity often leads to controversy, as equality within a Western context is often understood by indigenous women as sameness. Therefore, many indigenous women criticize feminism as a “white,” “Western” concept, for assuming homogenized feminist or “gender interests” (Molyneux, 2001), and for not allowing us to look at distinctions within the category “women” (Leigh, 2009).

On the other hand, a strong focus on ethnicity and group rights ignores intragroup differences. In the context of gendered power structures, the omission of difference is problematic, as the discrimination that many women experience is shaped by other dimensions such as race, class, sexuality, age, and so on. Defining the relationship between gender and ethnicity or race as antagonistic often leads to the perception that a focus on gender equality is dividing, obscuring, and weakening the strength of an ethno-national movement (Leigh, 2009, p. 81; Yuval-Davis, 1997) The asymmetry between men and women in different social, political, economic, and cultural contexts impacts the way in which feminist approaches are developed in this context.

Feminist efforts to politicize experiences of women and antiracist efforts to politicize experiences of people belonging to particular ethnic groups often seem to occur on mutually exclusive terrains. Although racism and sexism intersect in the lives of people, they seldom do in feminist and antiracist practices or in policies for the transformation of ethno-national conflicts (McCall, 2005, p. 1773). Hence, if political practices only tackle one side of a social identity, for instance, either “woman” or “Catholic/indigenous,” they transfer the identity of a Catholic or indigenous woman to a location that resists telling the full story of women’s lived experiences within ethnic boundaries.

“Praxis has been a key site of intersectional critique and intervention” (Cho et al., 2013, p. 786). While the term has been used since the 1980s, some feminist activisms have long placed an intersectional approach at the core of their social mobilizations. For instance, during the 1960s and 1970s, Chicana feminist mobilizations focused on issues of race, nation, gender, sexuality, and class, providing the basis for a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” approach to social identities (Blackwell, 2011, p. 208).

The intersectionality approach has been developed within a wider feminist attempt to de-essentialize categories of analysis. Anti-essentialism in the late 1980s was driven by the concerns of women of color that women’s experiences were not only overlooked by men, but also by the feminist mainstream that mainly focused on white women (Hunter, 1996).² Intersectionality urges us to take into consideration the complexities of social dynamics and inequality, to question the term women as a basis for unity, and to place greater emphasis on existing differences between women (Mohanty, 1992, p. 85).

Feminist scholars address the problem of intersectionality by drawing on the common analogue many feminists are using between the situation of women and the situation of ethno- national minorities. Following hooks (1981), the lack of acknowledging difference implies that all women are white and all blacks are men. Acknowledging difference was a central aspect of the black women’s movement, which set out to deconstruct the categories of both women and “blacks” and to develop an analysis of the intersectionality of various social divisions, most often—but not exclusively—focusing on gender, race, and class.³ This idea has found its way into the policy agenda of the United Nations, as is evident in the resolution on the human rights of women at the 58th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, which recognized “the importance of examining the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination, including their root causes from a gender perspective” (Resolution E/CN.4/2002/L.59, as cited in Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 194).

Any attempt to essentialize ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, or working classness as specific forms of concrete oppression inevitably creates narratives and categories that reflect hegemonic discourses of identity politics; it further obscures experiences of the members at the margin of the specific group by constructing a homogenized “right way” of group belonging (Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 195). The ignorance of complexity and of existing differences becomes problematic, when experiences of conflict by Catholic or indigenous people who are of a particular gender—mostly male—determine conflict resolution policies.

The question is: how do we think intersectionally and how do we do intersectionality? At the core of intersectionality analysis is the adoption of an intersectional way of thinking about how sameness and difference are constructed in relation to power. Second, we need to look at categories of identification as fluid and permanently changing, of creating and being created by existing power dynamics. (Cho et al., 2013, p. 795) Third, we have to explore how intersectionality works as a multilevel process (Marx Ferree, 2009) on cognitive processes and the development of feminist agency.

We need to pay attention to the homogenizing incentive in academic scholarship, and indeed in academic feminist research. Clarity is often achieved at the expense of visibility, agency, and identity of those represented. Focusing on the way different identity categories and social structures intersect enables us to bring together gender and ethnicity. It provides a framework to look at different identities and experiences, for example, at the particular situation of indigenous women in Chiapas and Catholic, working-class republican women in Northern Ireland.

Considering the possibility that different backgrounds, such as ethnicity, nationality, age, class, sexuality, and the like might shape the interests of women differently (Mihesuah, 2003, p. 5) is central to the formation of women’s “strategic gender interests” (Molyneux, 1985, p. 43).

The concept of strategic gender interests acknowledges the impossibility to generalize about women. Being derived deductively from the analysis of women’s subordination, it further focuses on alternative and more satisfying sets of arrangements to existing unequal power structures (Molyneux, 2001, p. 43). The notion of women’s interests is based on the presumption that all women share a set of interests; some of those interests evolve from women’s traditional gender roles, others challenge the existing gender hierarchy. The distinction here is between “practical” and “strategic” (Molyneux, 1985) or “feminine” and “feminist” (Alvarez, 1990) gender interest. I use this categorization to reveal a shift between the moment women from marginalized communities organize in defense of their community and the moment when they consciously and strategically campaign against unequal gender structures within and across the boundaries of their communities. This research looks at the evolving shared strategic gender interests in social mobilizations as evidence for the triggering of the gender boundary. Gender interests and the highlighting of the gender boundary does not evolve in a vacuum, but intersects with other boundary processes.

Recognizing the different boundaries that intersect within women’s diverse politics of belonging (Yuval-Davis, 2011) opens a space for women’s activism to evolve across ethnic and class boundaries. It requires the acceptance that women are rooted in their own identity but at the same time can shift in order to take part in an intercultural dialogue with women who share their gender interests, but have different identities. This transversal activism is determined by the way the ethno-national boundary is highlighted in the community (Yuval-Davis, 1997).

My research contributes to a better understanding of the complexities of identity categories and the way they are affected by mechanisms of mobilization in different sequences and dimensions of conflict and peace processes. Intersectionality is centrally linked to the analysis of power, yet discussing categories of identity versus structures of inequality is a significant challenge to intersectionality (Cho et al., 2013, p. 797). Instead of placing them in opposition, we need to analyze power structures and identity processes in connection.

In feminist studies, the salience of identity categories is often interpreted as a product of power relationships, which are embedded and reproduced through historical discourses (Butler, 1990). Defining women as the “other” reveals an important dichotomy that impacts upon the labelling of social practices as male and female (Epstein, 1988; Gerson & Peiss, 1985) and positions women in the private and men in the public realm. This brings to light a power distinction between men and women, which leads to the marginalization of the latter by the dominance of the male group in order to control or restrict women’s access to resources and to positions of power. The possibility of shifting gender identity plays a significant role for understanding possible power shifts in pursuing a more equal society and a sustainable peace.

Feminist research has identified opportunities and difficulties in applying the concept of intersectionality to policy analysis and research practice (McCall, 2005; Yuval-Davis, 2006, 2011); for instance Choo and Ferree critically remarked that the concept is often used without explaining what it entails (2010, p. 130). Further, the aim for completeness at the expense of clarity of analysis reveals a challenge in applying an intersectional research approach (McCall, 2005, p. 1778).

The debate as to which categories to include in intersectional analysis⁴ reveals a lack of conceptual coherence of intersectionality. Further, there is a need to include perspectives to problematize relationships of power and to take account of the way inequalities are multiple determined (Choo & Ferree, 2010, p. 131). My research further develops this analytical framework by exp...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• Part I   Addressing Complexity and Difference: A Theoretical and Practical Framework
• Part II   The Voices
• Part III   Connecting Voices: Lessons from Collective Identity Processes
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index