Committee for Conflict Transformation Support

CCTS
Review 23

Gender and Conflict Transformation (part 2)

Conflict transformation and its relationship to gender transformation

Conflict transformation is based on values and approaches that run counter to prevailing, dominatory models of masculinity and which if applied to male-female relations would transform them. The model of power on which it is based is not one of power over others but of power for and with them (Boulding, 1978). In situations of asymmetrical conflict, characterised by oppression, those who are disadvantaged may find it impossible to enter into a co-operative relationship with those who exploit or exclude them until they have increased their own relative power. However, transformative, nonviolent approaches to empowerment and conflict – as so eloquently expressed in the speeches of Martin Luther King – focus not on overpowering opponents but on getting into a relationship with them which is respectful and constructive. Their goal is an inclusive solution to the conflict, not the defeat of those currently in power.

The methods of nonviolent conflict transformation are themselves inclusive and based on the widest possible participation. They necessarily, therefore, involve those who in conventional terms are weak, as well as those who are strong. Physical prowess and the capacity to dominate are not the force on which nonviolence relies. Nor is status in the societal hierarchy. Here at last, then, those who are marginalised in current power relations can take their place alongside those who are not, but who choose to divest themselves of dominatory power in order to seek solutions to conflict that are truly inclusive and transformative. In such processes women can take an equal place and the marginalised can join in or indeed take the lead.

Within the framework of nonviolence, women and men can work together as equals, co-operatively. There is a remedy for injustice that does not negate the humanity of the opponent, and that remedy not only permits but relies on the participation of people in all sectors and categories of society. The primary role is that of ‘ordinary people’ – those in the middle and grass-roots levels of Lederach’s proverbial pyramid (1994) – who should as a consequence find a place at the negotiation table or at least be represented there.

If nonviolence is based on unconditional respect for all human beings, in theory it should, at a stroke, deconstruct gender. It must be admitted that neither Mohandas Gandhi nor Martin Luther King has a spotless reputation in terms of gender awareness. It is hard for anyone to step outside the social patterns and assumptions of his or her own time. It will be for women to take their place, not wait to be given it. I see that as positive rather than negative. Empowerment does not consist in waiting to be given power. Whatever their own human limitations, the values by which Gandhi and King lived and died are the values of unconditional human respect. Those values point away from gender, as a constraint that limits the expression of that respect or as an obstacle to the full expression of anyone’s full human potential.

While conflicts disrupt prevailing patterns and are all too often extremely destructive, they do – potentially at least – create a window of opportunity for positive change – including change in gender relations. Prevailing win-lose models of conflict block such change and reinforce gendering. The values of nonviolence are in fundamental contradiction both to sex discrimination and to war. Addressing and transforming the violence of gender-based injustice will contribute to and be part and parcel of addressing war as the dominant mode for conducting conflict. And by the same token, questioning the humanity of war (as it is increasingly being questioned) and recognising its traumatising and dehumanising impact on men will contribute not only to our questioning of the institution of war but to deconstructing the current models of masculinity on which it is based. Since male and female gender constructions exist in relationship, the whole axis will shift, giving men and women the chance to reach a new understanding of who they are and the infinite variety of roles open to them as human beings.

Trying to put the theory into practice

Those of us who are in the business of conflict transformation wrestle constantly with gender issues. Not everyone will buy into the particular theoretical framework I have outlined, but the ‘mainstreaming of gender’ is an international project that none dares question. Even societies where gender constructions are particularly oppressive pay lip service to it. While this is progress and creates a space for gender to be taken seriously, in practice, most of the action that results from the declarations and logframes takes the form of programmes and add-on provisions for women, and attention to ‘gender balance’ in processes that are not of too much political significance. The fundamental connection between war and masculinity is not made – either in the donor countries, which in some cases are rather comfortable with their own wars and overwhelmingly male leadership, or in the countries where they promote ‘conflict prevention’ and ‘peacebuilding’.

I suggested above that within the ethos of nonviolent conflict transformation gender should have no place. That might seem to imply that we should just ignore it and treat people we meet as equals. But that is to ignore the current reality. Injustice and exclusion cannot be removed by pretending it isn’t there. It’s like the old idea that we should be ‘colour blind’. In our own relationships it may be possible, to some degree, just to assume equality, but not if we are to bring about change in wider society.

There is a dilemma in this. It is sometimes hard to know when one is challenging gender and when one is reinforcing it. For instance, women-only events or groups or sessions or meetings often cause unease and even anger. Not only do men feel excluded but often some women feel they are having imposed on them a kind of female identity they do not like. Other women, in turn, will consider this view to be socially and politically unaware. It can also be (logically) argued that since gender roles are created and maintained in relation to each other they must be deconstructed together and therefore addressed by men and women working in conjunction. Although this is perhaps the ideal, it ignores the fact that those who are disempowered by a relationship usually need to act to address their own weakness before co-operation becomes a possibility.

Since one of the effects of current gender constructions is to prevent women in many social contexts from thinking concertedly together and, once they have done so, from articulating their findings in the public arena, I believe that helping to create the opportunities for them to do so is vital. Many women are disempowered by the presence of men and need to meet in all-women groups initially. From my own experience of working with both mixed and all women groups, I know how much difference such opportunities make to women’s effective thinking and participation. I know too how much easier the communication is, how relaxed and uncompetitive participants usually are, and how much more fun we tend to have. I also feel sometimes that I, together with those I work with, am being ghetto-ised.

I feel sorry for men caught up in the weightiness of their current social profile. And I wonder how much they would gain from meeting without women. Would they find communication even more difficult or would it ease things and create a safe space similar to all women workshops? Here my experience is necessarily limited. Ideally one would do as in other bi-partisan contexts and have separate and joint meetings to talk about gender; but as always generalisations may be contradicted by specifics – not only specific contexts but specific sub-groups and individuals. From my viewpoint, the reality of current power-relations makes preparation on the part of women more important. But many of the women I have worked with have emphasised the need for women and men to come together to explore their relationships and look together at the nature and impact of gendering in their society.

In practice, the advances that have been made in addressing gender inequities, including those related to conflict and peacemaking, have been achieved largely, I suspect, through all-women endeavours, with the support of gender-aware men.

A list of civil society contributions to peace processes, for instance (based on the 13th issue of Accord, 2002, and supplemented by workshop participants) includes the following:

Preparing the ground of public opinion for peace agreements and holding leaders to a peace agenda
Raising public awareness and mobilising support for peace processes – forming a ‘peace constituency’ or movement
Organising/ participating in informal, parallel processes
Eliciting and channelling ideas/ proposals; building consensus for a settlement
Representing different sectors in formal processes
Ensuring that minorities and marginalised people have a voice – locally and nationally
Generating broad ‘ownership’ of agreements reached
Drawing on elements of history/ tradition/ culture that support peace
Designing and implementing symbolic events for peace and reconciliation
Devising and implementing local confidence-building measures
Establishing local mediation capacities and helping to resolve local manifestations of the conflict
Setting up local mechanisms (e.g. peace committees) to monitor the implementation of local and national agreements
Local peacebuilding: facilitating and participating in processes to heal hostility and division, through dialogue, co-operation and reparation
Supporting the development of participatory politics and co-operation on issues of common concern (like economic development)
Upholding human rights and the rule of law
Promoting and developing peace education within the school system and in society

All of these can be done by women and within a female constituency, so that women’s perspectives and priorities can be brought into play and women’s efforts and contribution maximised. Many such activities have been undertaken by women and have had an important impact. Sometimes, precisely because they are not trapped within existing power politics but marginal to them, women are able to act in ways that would be more dangerous for men. Because they are not seen as a threat, they are sometimes better able to exercise moral authority in a given situation and defuse aggression. They may also have a better perspective on what is happening for similar reasons.

The pages of different issues of Accord (the international review of peace initiatives published by Conciliation Resources) or the videos produced by Responding to Conflict (and many other sources) attest to both the capacity of women to contribute to peace, and their determination to do so. But they also indicate a pattern (with exceptions) of exclusion from the higher echelons of power. This is true of most countries across the world, in war or peace, as any glance at a local newspaper will confirm. To take one example, in an article on ‘Women’s contribution to peacebuilding in northern Uganda’ (Oywa, 2002):

‘Despite the fact that Acholi women have demonstrated both their motivation and capacity to be involved in peace initiatives, they continue to be marginalised from many of the official initiatives to address the war.’

And Yasmin Jusu-Sheriff (2000), writing about the work of the Sierra Leone Women’s Forum, says:

‘Women believed that their hard work in the democratization process would be rewarded by places at the negotiating table, but politicians recognized that the ideas and attitudes thrown up by the women’s movement had the potential of destabilizing traditional politics, so they discouraged further participation by women in leadership.’

I believe the feminisation of politics would indeed be revolutionary – not because of profound fixed, inbuilt differences between women and men but because of a profound difference between ‘masculine’ values, approaches and strengths and ‘feminine’ ones. And I believe that a major shift in the balance between the two in our ways of doing politics could be highly beneficial, indeed transformative.

In the Accord article cited above, the author notes that ‘the lack of an ideological framework to guide their peacebuilding activities blunted the movement’s effectiveness. Forum discussions were long and inclusive, but the analysis was shallow and the consensual style prevented a clear and consistent long-term vision being elaborated’. Analysis and synthesis, differentiation and consensus, are complementary skills. Those who are used to exercising one set of abilities rather than the other can benefit from learning to adjust the balance. It is my experience that women given analytical tools and encouragement do an excellent job. They are often quicker at grasping the nature of a task than men are because, I think, they are less preoccupied with ‘getting it right’ and being seen to do so, more willing to enter into the process in an experimental way.

The international NGOs, government departments and donor agencies in which we work can support women’s participation and be sensitive to the gender-related needs and possibilities of those who live in conflict zones. We can do everything in our power to support women in making their voices heard and in mobilising together for participation at every level. We can encourage men not only to make way for women but to learn from them.

Looking at ourselves

I think that we also, inevitably, embody to some degree the gendering of our wider societies. We need to recognise the gendered nature of our own field – look at the bibliographies, see how few women are represented in them and wonder why that is so. I would argue that it is because we are a male-dominated field, reflecting as much as challenging the norms of our own societies.
Our organisations have staff from different backgrounds and cultures, but they still tend to reflect the same, cross-cultural pattern of male ascendancy in their hierarchies of role and power. That may be because men have more often had the opportunities (and made the choice) to give total commitment to their work in an increasingly workaholic organisational culture. Women’s lives, whatever the theory we espouse, tend to be more complex than men’s – or at least we have stronger habits of recognising and honouring that complexity. We also have more social encouragement and biological pressures to do so. These realities are not specific to our field and this is not a contest of victim-hood. But women often cannot and do not wish to choose between work and other responsibilities and relationships. The more frenetic work-life becomes, the more this means that women will probably not end up at the top, unless they shift to adopting the traditionally male approach of prioritising work above all else.

I would be interested to discuss with fellow field-practitioners, male and female, what difference they think their gender makes to their practice – in terms both of their own approach and of the way others regard them and the work they are given or choose to do. I wonder, for instance, whether the higher level of women’s participation in local, community level mediation, in contrast with male conflict transformers’ predominant involvement in international and high-level work not only reflects the roles society assigns to them but also their own interests, lifestyles and sense of role.

I observe that some organisations apparently feel it is acceptable for there to be an all male facilitator team when the group to be worked with is mixed, but would not use an all-female team in such a group. And still ‘peace processes’, at the political level, are overwhelmingly male, not only in terms of those who ‘come to the table’ but of those who facilitate their deliberations. The argument for using male facilitators and mediators in these contexts is that women would not be respected in those roles by ‘top’ men. That could be true. I have seen men reluctant to accept women in a lead role and treat them with less courtesy than they would a man. Women who exercise the authority of an agreed role are often seen by men as authoritarian, when similar behaviour from men is considered perfectly proper. And when the ending or continuing of war is at stake it is hard to discount the importance of that. I believe, however, that respect can be won if a job is done properly. And I do not believe that mediator or facilitator ‘acceptability’ is the only reason for the imbalance.

I wonder if it is mostly men who get involved in work related to high-level negotiations because unconsciously they are attracted to that model of power. Is it because they see themselves more easily in that role? Perhaps the men amongst us are often more comfortable in and excited by high level political interplay than their female counterparts and like working with other men in those contexts. Sometimes they may be less irritated by what I regard as arrogance. On the other hand they may be more provoked by men who somehow press their own, male ‘power buttons’.

For myself, I confess that I often feel irritated and patronised by men who are aware of their own importance. I find working with them particularly difficult and not easily rewarding. In a predominantly male group and in a predominantly male facilitation team I can feel quite isolated and sometimes angry, particularly if the women participants seem, by and large, to accept their gendered position. Yet most of the time I work very comfortably with male colleagues and find that we do not fall into gendered roles in the way we work together. It seems we are able to get beyond cultural constructs.

It is always hard to know what to put down to gender and what to see as a matter of individual personality, but there may be some generalisably different tendencies in men’s and women’s approaches to practice. The relative degree of attention given by women and men practitioners, on average, to psychological and emotional conflict dynamics on the one hand and political aspects of conflict on the other would, for instance, be interesting to examine and evaluate. Likewise relative emphasis on ideals and aspirations or on ‘realpolitik’.

Another, perhaps related, comparison to make would concern relative tendencies towards synthesis – story-telling and consensus seeking – on the one hand and analysis and differentiation on the other. This supposed gender dichotomy, in which the former tendency is usually associated with women and the latter with men, is particularly interesting because this is also seen as a north-south cultural dichotomy. There is an assumption in the north that northern males are more supportive of feminist agendas than men in ‘traditional’ (southern) societies, who are represented as un-reconstructedly macho. This overlap between perceived female tendencies and perceived traditional (equated with southern and eastern) cultural emphases, if there is any truth in them, suggests a more complex set of relationships and points to culture rather than biology as the explanation.

I think it is helpful to recognise that we are all caught in a place between our own rhetoric and ideals and the current realities of the wider world. We are not immune to its pressures and constraints but caught up in its dynamics. We want to do the very best we can in the short term, because the needs are urgent. If we waited till the world was fundamentally different the change would never happen. Yet I think that by working all the time with current realities on their own terms we may severely limit our potential impact for more fundamental change. We are in danger of becoming players in the process of war by other means, rather than in the process of ‘positive peace’ (Galtung in Miall et al., 2000).

Gender and Conflict Transformation continued >>