TOWARD FEMINIST THEORIZING IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Simona Sharoni
Unpublished paper, revised September 1994. Based on Chapter
3 of my dissertation, "Conflict Resolution through Feminist
Lenses: Theorizing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from
the Perspectives of Women Peace Activists in Israel."
George Mason University, August 1993. Comments welcome.
Why are there so few readings by women to assign to my
students? Why is the subject matter of my discipline so
distant from women's lived experiences?
-- Ann Tickner
These are some of the questions that mark the preface to
Ann Tickner's groundbreaking book Gender in International
Relations (1992). In the past decade, women, feminists in
particular, in the field of conflict resolution have been
raising similar questions. These questions have prompted
numerous attempts to introduce feminist perspectives to the
study and practice of conflict resolution (cf. Baily 1989;
Kolb & Coolidge 1991; Ross-Breggin & Breggin 1992, SandoleStaroste 1992). However, these recent attempts to bring
feminist theories into the field of conflict resolution are
not designed to merely add another perspective to an
already existing body of literature. Rather, they also seek
to challenge the exclusion and marginalization of women's
experiences, voices, and perspectives from conflict
resolution scholarship.
More recently, and no doubt in response to such critiques,
prominent male scholars in the field have begun to treat
feminist perspectives in general and the relationship of
gender and conflict in particular more seriously. For
example, Louis Kriesberg pointed out the contribution of
feminist perspectives to the contested debate on the causes
of war and the prospects for peace and conflict resolution.
As part of his overview of theoretical frameworks,
Kriesberg called attention to the fact that "feminists
argue that a major source of war is the socialization of
men to be aggressive and concerned about appearing strong
in the sense of being ready to fight and kill;
consequently, an androgynous socialization would help
generate peace" (Kriesberg 1991, 401-402).
Another significant reference to the role of women's
perspectives in conflict resolution was made by John
Burton. Although Burton did not mention feminist
scholarship, he called attention to the significant role
women may play in conflict resolution. Women as well as
other people who have had the experience of being members
of disenfranchised, underprivileged and minority groups,
have according to Burton, a special role to play in the
area of conflict resolution and peace building (Burton,
1990). He insists, however, that "it is not that females
are more peace-oriented or less forceful than males," but
rather that "because of their social experiences" women are
better positioned to trust conflict resolution initiatives
and engage in activities that will further the prospects
for peace (Burton, 1990, 35).
Men's recognition of the significance of feminist and
women's perspectives to conflict resolution is no doubt
important for establishing the legitimacy of feminist
theorizing in the field. Yet, to advance the project of
feminist theorizing in conflict resolution requires a
critical examination of the field that will go beyond calls
for the inclusion of women's voices and feminist
perspectives. One way to begin such an examination is by
asking not only what are the voices and perspectives that
have been marginalized, silenced or excluded from
conventional conflict resolution scholarship, but also what
are the processes and practices that have enabled these
exclusions.
The major objective of this article is to create a broader
theoretical context for feminist theorizing in conflict
resolution. It begins with an exploration of the
relationship between conflict resolution and feminism.
Based on general discussion of commonalities and
differences between the two fields of inquiry, the article
examines the central debates within each field.
Conflict Resolution and Feminism: Commonalities and
Differences
An encounter between conflict resolution and feminism
raises a few important questions: What are the issues and
concerns that should be discussed in the context of such an
encounter and how can such a discussion benefit both fields
of inquiry? Such an encounter, however, is not simple since
the field of conflict resolution, like most other fields of
inquiry, has overlooked the experiences of women and has
ignored the potential contributions of feminist scholarship
to the study and practice of conflict resolution.
Feminists struggles to counter this prevailing reality in
other fields of inquiry across the social sciences and the
humanities have prompted the emergence of a distinct body
of feminist scholarship. This body of scholarship
highlights the particular experiences of women in fields
such as history, literature, psychology, sociology,
international relations and anthropology, among others (cf.
Chodorow 1978; Spender 1981; Gilligan 1982; Keller 1985;
Boulding 1992; Peterson 1992; Tickner 1992).
In their early stages, feminist projects engaged in
documenting women's voices and called for their inclusion
in different disciplines and non-academic domains. To
justify their interventions, feminists appealed to
essential gender differences, arguing that women are
essentially different in that they have an alternative way
of making sense of the world and acting within it (Chodorow
1978; Gilligan 1982; Noddings 1984; Brock-Utne 1985, 1989).
However, as soon as the part men played in oppressing and
excluding women was established, feminism faced serious
divisions. Understanding the full range of women's
experiences has entailed taking into consideration not only
the differences and structured inequalities between men and
women but also the divisions and differences that exist
between women themselves (cf. Moraga & Anzaldua 1983;
Barrett 1987; Ramazanoglu 1989).
Despite the different interpretations of feminism that mark
contemporary debates within feminist theory, feminists tend
to agree that taking the variety of women's situations and
experiences into account is not simply a matter of adding
on those which had been omitted. Many feminists have
insisted that in order to transform disciplinary paradigms
as well as social and political structures, there is a need
to move beyond feminist critiques which seek to examine why
have women's voices and perspectives been excluded from
different domains to critically examine how these practices
of exclusion take place and what enables them (cf. Jagger &
Rothenberg 1984; Hirsch & Keller 1990; Nicholson 1990;
Barrett & Phillips 1992).
Can such transformative feminist interventions take place
within the emerging field of conflict resolution? Those who
answer in the affirmative base their contentions on a
number of presumed similarities between conflict resolution
and feminism (cf. Riskin 1984; Ross-Breggin & Breggin 1992;
Sandole-Staroste 1992). Indeed, conflict resolution and
feminism emerged around the same time in the sociopolitical
context of the 1960s'. Despite the different scopes and
emphases of these two fields of inquiry, both can be seen
as attempts to map alternative paths for social and
political analysis and change. Using the academy as a
major, though not exclusive, site of growth and
development, both fields of study worked to create
interdisciplinary (or multidisciplinary) bodies of
scholarship and to emphasize the relationship between
theory, research and practice.
But, looking at similarities is not enough. There is a need
for a more comprehensive exploration that will also take
into consideration the differences between feminism and
conflict resolution as well as different perspectives
within each field of inquiry. This requires that feminism
and conflict resolution be treated not as fixed concepts
but rather as diverse fields of inquiry which encompass
multiple voices and perspectives.
Conflict Resolution and Feminism: Definitions and
Perspectives
Both feminism and conflict resolution encompass a variety
of voices, perspectives and conceptualizations. Thus, any
attempt to introduce a single definition for feminism or
for conflict resolution may result in marginalizing some
aspects and/or silencing some voices while privileging
others. Feminists whose voices have been systematically
excluded and silenced are particularly aware that "by
'fixing' the world conceptually, language at once frees
thought to think and permits it to think only one of an
infinite number of logically possible ways" (Cocks 1989,
29). By framing a number of central issues and by
introducing general working definitions for the major
concepts that will be used extensively in this work, my
intention is not to treat feminism and conflict resolution
as fixed concepts but as historically situated discourses.
Thus, particular attention will be paid to the linkages,
gaps and silences which mark the relationship between
feminism and conflict resolution as well as to the
historical and sociopolitical context within which these
discourses have been constructed and shaped.
Conflict Resolution
It may appear somewhat ironic to some that in the field of
conflict resolution, a field that has justified its
existence by appealing to consensus and compromise, there
seems to be great disagreement not only over analytical
frameworks but also over the very words employed to
articulate these frameworks. As Louis Kriesberg pointed
out, "the very words conflict resolution have been a matter
of dispute" (Kriesberg 1991, 404). Indeed, conflict
resolution scholars and practitioners are far from reaching
consensus on the definitions of conflict or conflict
resolution. The debates, however, are not simply about
semantics, but are rather related to other contested
questions and theoretical frameworks that are at the center
of contemporary debates in the field. Among these contested
questions are those concerning the role of power and
culture in conflict resolution and concerning the
distinctions between "conflicts" and "disputes" and between
"management," "settlement" and "resolution" (cf. Laue &
Cormick 1978; Burton & Sandole 1986; Avruch & Black 1987;
1991; Burton 1990, 1990a).
The debates around these contested issues inform the
different definitions of conflict resolution. For example,
John Burton's definition of conflict resolution is grounded
in his attempt to move beyond what he terms "power
politics" frameworks. Accordingly, he characterizes
conflict resolution as "the transformation of relationships
in a particular case by the solution of the problems which
led to the conflictual behavior in the first place" (Burton
1990, 2-3). James Laue, on the other hand, treated power
relations as an essential aspect of conflict. Laue argued
that "conflict may be defined. . .as escalated natural
competition between two or more parties about scarce
resources, power and prestige. Parties in conflict believe
they have incompatible goals, and their aim is to
neutralize, gain advantage over, injure or destroy one
another" (Laue 1990, 257). Conflict resolution, in Laue's
terms, should include at least three elements: (1) the
outcome should address the underlying problems or issues,
rather than just symptoms or surface manifestations of the
conflict; (2) it should be jointly determined; and (3) the
process should achieve at least some degree of satisfaction
for the parties concerned (Laue 1990, 258).
Coming to terms with the different categorizations of
conflict is crucial to the understanding of contemporary
debates in the field. A common trend in conflict resolution
has been to categorize conflicts by distinguishing between
the societal levels in which they take place -- the family,
the community, the nation or the international system.
Based on this classification, conflict resolution scholars
have identified different types of conflict: interpersonal,
intergroup and international (cf. Mitchell 1981). Most
conflict resolution scholars, researchers, and
practitioners agree that "conflict, while occurring at
quite different social levels (from inter-individual to
inter-national), nevertheless has sufficient common
attributes" (Mitchell 1981, 3). While some scholars tend to
treat these levels of analysis separately and limit their
analysis to one particular level, others stress the
interconnectedness of these levels of conflict analysis.
For Burton and Dukes, "[t]he behavior of the individual
within a society in seeking recognition and identity is not
different from the behavior of identity groups such as
ethnic minorities or nations: there is a common human
dimension in all" (Burton & Dukes 1990, 3). Based on this
assertion, Burton and Dukes have used the theoretical
framework they call "basic human needs" to offer an
alternative classification. Within this overarching
framework, they distinguish between disputes and conflicts
and between dispute settlement and conflict resolution. To
round out their typology, then, dispute settlement could be
employed in cases which involve negotiable interests, while
conflicts which involve non-negotiable human needs require
an in-depth analysis of behaviors and relationships, that
is, conflict resolution.
Regardless of which definition of conflict and what
categorization of conflict situations and processes one
favors, conflict resolution scholars, especially those
specializing in international conflict, have been recently
confronted with the limitations of existing theoretical
frameworks. The dramatic events of the late 1980's and
early 1990's on the front stage of world politics have left
their marks on the field of conflict analysis and
resolution (cf. Rubenstein 1990). Frustrated with their
inability to foresee developments such as the December 1987
outbreak of the Palestinian uprising (intifada), the June
1989 massacre in Beijing's Tiananmen Square or the
dismemberments of the Soviet Union and the Cold War order
enshrined in Yalta, most conflict resolution scholars and
practitioners have intensified their search for analytical
frameworks that will be able to predict, or at least,
analyze these unexpected events in retrospect. For the most
part, though, conflict resolution scholars and
practitioners have ignored the more fundamental challenges
that these unexpected events have introduced to the study
and practice of conflict resolution.
These fundamental challenges involve questions concerning
the readiness of conflict resolution scholars and
practitioners to critically address such massive
historical, sociopolitical and economic changes and their
implications for people's lives and struggles. In other
words, how useful is the body of conflict resolution
literature to the understanding of contemporary events in
international politics? Do we have theoretical frameworks
that are able to account for change-over-time and promote
social and political change or is conflict resolution
gradually becoming yet another tool that can be used to
reinforce the status quo? (cf. Rubenstein 1990, 1992).
In sum, contemporary developments in world politics brought
to the fore a number of crucial questions regarding the
theories, practices, and politics of conflict resolution.
These questions point to the need to reexamine some of the
underlying theoretical assumptions in the field. Feminist
interventions into the study and practice and conflict
resolution can help trigger critical discussions around
those questions by calling attention to the gendered
dimensions of the field, identifying some of the missing
voices and perspectives, and offering ways to change this
reality.
Feminism
Just as there are different perspectives within the field
of conflict resolution, there are also different
perspectives in contemporary feminist scholarship. This
section highlights different interpretations of feminism
and major theoretical debates within this field of inquiry.
Gender relations, or more specifically, gender inequalities
and women's oppression, have always been at the center of
feminist scholarship. Thus, despite major differences in
definitions and perspectives, feminists tend to agree on
two major points: (1) on the fact that gender inequalities
exist and need to be eradicated; and (2) on the need to
develop theoretical frameworks and political strategies
that will emerge from and have resonance for women's lives.
As Ann Tickner points out, "while it is obvious that not
all women are feminists, feminist theories are constructed
out of the experiences of women that have generally been
rendered invisible" (Tickner 1992, 14).
According to Linda Forcey's interpretation, feminism "takes
as proven the historical oppression of women and stresses
the interrelationship of theory and practice to eliminate
it" (Forcey 1991, 334). Forcey draws her working definition
from Virginia Sapiro (1986), who emphasizes that: "feminism
is both a way of thinking about the world, and a way of
acting in it. . .[It] is a perspective that views gender as
one of the most important bases of the structure and
organization of the social world (Sapiro 1986, 440). Beyond
these basic commonalities, however, lies a terrain of
difference. Feminist theories and practices have changed
dramatically during the past two decades, especially in
response to criticism by women of color, lesbians, and
third world women and to changes in social and political
conditions around the world (cf. de Lauretis 1986;
Ramazanoglu 1989; Hirsch & Keller 1990; Mohanty et al.
1991).
As a result, patriarchy, understood simply as a structure
of men's dominance over women, is not perceived anymore as
the primary cause of women's oppression. Instead, feminists
argue that many women are oppressed not only because of
their gender but also because of their race, class,
sexuality, culture, ethnicity or nationality (Ramazanoglu
1989; Mohanty 1991; Anderson & Hill-Collins 1992). To come
to terms with the transformative potential of this more
broadly conceived definition of feminism, that points to
the ways in which women are imbricated within a variety of
social and political contexts and power relations, one
needs to begin by critically exploring more traditional
feminist theories, most of which emerged in North America
and Europe. For this purpose, Rosemary Tong's
classification of feminist theories according to the ways
in which they view the causes of women's oppression, seems
particularly useful (Tong 1989).
For example, while Marxist feminists believe that
capitalism is the source of women's oppression (cf.
MacKinnon 1982; Davis 1983), radical feminists have
identified patriarchy as the major structure that upholds
women's oppression through legal, economic, social and
cultural institutions and practices (cf. Daly 1978; Bunch
1986). Feminists in the psychoanalytic tradition, on the
other hand, have located the sources of women's oppression
deep in the psyche, in gender identities, roles and
relationships which inform the socialization of women from
birth (cf. Dinnerstein 1976; Chodorow 1978). Socialist
feminists have attempted to weave these various approaches
together into a more comprehensive explanation of women's
oppression that provides a women's standpoint for struggle
which is also attuned to other dimensions of domination
(cf. Black 1989); a standpoint "that is an engaged vision
of the world opposed and superior to dominant ways of
thinking" (Ruddick 1989, 129).
More recently, the notion of a uniquely women's standpoint
has been subjected to criticisms by women of color and by
other feminists who grapple with the challenges of feminist
theorizing in the postmodern era and particularly with
questions concerning identity and difference. These
criticisms suggest that a unified representation of women
across class, racial and cultural lines is an impossibility
and urge feminists to expand the definition of feminism to
account for different "cartographies of struggle" -- to use
Chandra Mohanty's term -- which vary across time and
context (cf. Nicholson 1990; Mohanty 1991). These
perspectives also insist that for feminism not to become
one more hierarchical system of knowledge construction, it
must be open to and informed by a broad range of women's
voices and feminist theories.
In sum, even though contemporary feminist debates display
an array of contested theories and opinions regarding the
origins of women's oppression and the ways to confront and
eradicate it, most feminists tend to agree on the need to
challenge gender inequalities and male dominance. Feminists
have also stressed the need to take into account the
significance of women's lives, experiences and struggles
for any examination of social or political relations (cf.
Hirsch & Fox-Keller 1990; Sylvester 1990; Barrett &
Phillips 1992). To use Christine Sylvester words:
Feminist theories are diverse, but generally concur that
the invisibility of gender issues within mainstream social
theories, and of women in "important' public domains of
human existence, cannot be remedied simply by adding a
pinch of woman -- to the state, to capitalist processes and
to theories -- and stirring. Visibility requires
considerable analysis of the points in the international
system, and in the theories which depict it, where women's
behaviors and contributions are choked off and men's are
taken as the norm (Sylvester 1990, 235).
Challenging the centrality of men's experiences and
theories and paying attention to women's lives, feminist
insist, has the potential to shed light not only on the
gendered aspects of social and political life, but also on
other forms of structured inequalities. That is, women's
perspectives are valuable not only because they call
attention to gender differences, but also because women
represent one particular example of a disenfranchised and
marginalized social group (Harding 1991). This argument
underlies much of the literature on gender, war and peace
which in my opinion informs, implicitly or explicitly, most
projects on feminist theorizing in conflict resolution.
Gender, War and Peace: Feminist Perspectives
The body of scholarship on gender, war and peace dates back
at least to the beginning of the century and includes
historical documentation of women's non-violent struggles
for peace across the globe and theoretical frameworks
designed to make sense of the relationship between women
and peace, men and war, and sexism and militarism (cf.
Reardon 1985; Brock-Utne 1985, 1989; Ruddick 1989; Harris &
King 1989). In the past decade, however, feminist peace
scholars, researchers and activists have insisted that the
role gender plays in both the escalation and the deescalation of conflicts depends on the particular
historical, cultural and sociopolitical context as well as
on the conceptual framework one utilizes to explore the
gendered dimensions of serious political conflicts
(Sylvester 1987; Forcey 1991; Sharoni 1993).
Indeed, a careful examination of the literature on gender,
war and peace uncovers diverse voices and perspectives on
these issues and a change in theoretical emphasis that
occurred over time. Early feminist theorizing on gender,
war and peace began with the question "where are the
women?" This question called attention to the absence and
subordination of women in all spheres of social and
political life from the battlefields to the negotiation
tables (cf. Friedan 1963; de Beauvoir 1974; Boulding 1992).
This perspective challenged gender inequalities and
outlined methods and strategies to eliminate sexist and
androcentric biases, create an alternative body of
literature that is women-centered and equalize the playing
field for women and men in social and political life and is
often referred in feminist theory to as "liberal feminism"
(Jagger & Rothenberg 1978; Tong 1989) "empiricist feminism"
(Harding 1986) or the "equity position" (Forcey 1991) .
Yet, there were feminists who went beyond calls for the
mere inclusion in existing social and political structures.
They insisted that women's experiences and "ways of
knowing" enable them to articulate a different "voice" on
these issues ( Gilligan 1982; Reardon 1985; Brock-Utne
1985, 1989; Ruddick 1989; Northrup 1990). Based on these
convictions, the second wave of feminist scholarship on war
and peace issues focused on the differences between men and
women in both qualitative and structural terms. It
established the theoretical grounds and carved out space
for a distinct feminist standpoint, grounded in the daily
experiences and struggles of women. This position is
identified in feminist literature as "feminist standpoint,"
"radical feminism" or "socialist feminism" (Hartsock 1985;
Harding 1986, 1991; Black 1989).
Feminist standpoint perspectives seek to identify the
elements of women's voice, insight and understanding of
reality. Feminist standpoint theoristsargue that centuries
of exclusion, subjugation and discrimination have given
women perspectives on social issues which more insightfully
reveal the true structures and actors of the world than do
theories spun by representatives of dominant groups (cf.
Hartsock 1985; Harding 1991). What is particularly relevant
to the study and practice of conflict resolution is the
contention of many feminist standpoint scholars and
activists that in order to uncover and transform intergroup conflicts that involve unequal relations of power one
must look at the situation from the perspective of the
subordinate, not the master. Standpoint perspectives offer
theories and research methods that emerge "from below,"
reflecting lessons that women have learned through their
experience of subjugation.
According to feminist standpoint literature the dominant
meanings of peace and security are informed primarily by
strategic discourses and military terminology which quite
often restrict the understanding of peace to the absence of
war and the meaning of security to imperatives of "national
security." These conventional understandings of peace and
security, which often originate in exclusively male or in
male-dominated settings, feminists contend, tend to
privilege the security of states, governments and power
elites at the expense of their citizens (Cohn 1989, 1993;
Enloe 1990, 1993). Feminist critiques of the "national
security" doctrine, like those by other progressive social
movements around the world, have warned against the
disastrous implications of the overwhelming priorities of
states to invest funds and energies in armies and in the
military industrial complex and then to rely upon the
threat or use of military violence to "protect" their
collective citizenry (Reardon, 1985; Harris & King 1989;
Ruddick, 1989; Enloe 1990, 1993).
The notion of a unique coherent women's standpoint has been
subjected to criticisms both in the women's movement and in
feminist circles especially by women of color. Although
most feminists whose work is informed by feminist
standpoint theories treat gender differences as socially
constructed rather than as inherent, they are often
criticized for essentializing differences and sometimes
labeled "essentialist feminists." The critiques argued that
a unified representation of women across class, racial,
ethnic and cultural line is an impossibility and urged
feminists to expand the definition of feminism to account
not only for differences between men and women but also for
differences within each group (cf. Nicholson 1990; Hirsch &
Fox-Keller 1990; Mohanty 1991; Butler & Scott 1992).
The third wave of feminist scholarship on gender and the
politics of war and peace which is referred to in feminist
theory as "postmodern feminism" or "poststructural
feminism," insists that for feminism not to become one more
hierarchical system of knowledge construction and political
practice, it must be open to and reflect the multiplicity
of voices, perspectives and experience within feminism and
the women's movement (cf. Nicholson 1990; Barrett &
Phillips 1992). Accordingly, the understanding of gender
does not rest solely on essentialized differences between
"women" and "men," but rather points to different notions
of femininity and masculinity and to the complex
relationships between them. Work informed by these
propositions begins with the premise that differences
between individuals and groups are socially constructed and
therefore, no categories, identities or practices
associated with being a woman or a man are natural or
universal. Accordingly, identity is treated not as a
coherent and stable construct but rather as fractured and
mobile and conflict is accepted and approached as an
integral part of social and political life (Butler 1989;
Hirsch & Fox-Keller 1990; Ferguson 1993).
Conclusion
Until recently, only few scholars considered the
contribution of gender -- both as a category of analysis
and as a relational process -- to the study and practice of
conflict resolution. This problem is not unique to the
field of conflict resolution; gendered relationships and
categories of analysis have been taken for granted in
almost all academic disciplines as well as by policy
makers, diplomats and media analysts around the world.
Feminists have demonstrated how ignoring or marginalizing
women's voices and perspectives often results in theories
and methods that are partial in that they exclude crucial
viewpoints from the processes and theories through which
knowledge is sought and constituted.
To overcome this partiality, however, it is not enough to
add women or feminist perspectives to already existing
bodies of scholarship. The consideration of the role gender
plays in the study and practice of conflict resolution
should not be limited to empirical studies set to explore
gender differences or gender relations in mediation or
negotiation settings. To make gender visible in conflict
resolution one must raise questions about the often takenfor-granted assumptions which underlie the intellectual and
practical foundations of the field. These assumptions ought
to be treated as gendered assumptions which have been
constructed and mediated through prevailing power
relations.
As Ann Tickner's recent examination of the role of gender
in the discipline of international relations stresses,
"drawing attention to gender hierarchies that privilege
men's knowledge and men's experiences permits us to see
that it is these experiences that have formed the basis of
most of our knowledge" (Tickner 1992, xi). In many cases
feminists, in conflict resolution as in other fields of
inquiry, see no other choice but to plead to be included in
the discipline by stressing that women's caring and
nurturing experiences make them valuable resources in the
discipline. From the standpoint of this dissertation, women
and feminists in conflict resolution should not limit their
interventions to calls for men's recognition of the
significance of feminist perspectives. Yet, given the
present state of power relations in the field and in the
broader political context, this recognition may be an
important step toward making the field more hospitable to
women establishing the legitimacy of feminist theorizing in
conflict resolution.
Women and feminists in conflict resolution would be wise to
treat the seductive use of liberal rhetoric in the form of
invitations to a supposedly open dialogue on the potential
contributions of feminism to conflict resolution with
caution and suspicion. The problem with these invitations
for a "dialogue" is that in many cases they mark the
boundaries of possible responses and of more critical
interventions that go beyond pleas for the inclusion of
women's voices and feminist perspectives to demand a
radical transformation of the field.
To make gender visible in conflict resolution, according to
more radical feminist interventions, one must not only ask
the "woman question" in conflict resolution but also ask
what Kathy Ferguson termed "the man question" (Ferguson
1993). In other words, future feminist interventions that
seek to map new directions for the study and practice of
conflict resolution should raise crucial questions
concerning the influences of dominant conceptions of
masculinity and femininity on the construction of knowledge
about conflict and conflict resolution.
Bibliography
Avruch, Kevin. and Peter W. Black. 1987. "A 'Generic'
Theory of Conflict Resolution: A Critique," Negotiation
Journal, 3: 87-96 and 99-100.
_____________________________. 1991. "The Culture Question
and Conflict Resolution," Peace & Change, 16(1): 22-45.
_____________________________ and Joseph A. Scimecca, eds.
1991. Conflict Resolution: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New
York: Greenwood Press.
Bailey, Martha J. 1989. "Mediation as a "Female" Process."
Paper presented at the National Conference on Peace and
Conflict Resolution, Montrieal 1989.
Barrett, Michele. 1987. "The Concept of Difference."
Feminist Review, 26: 29-41.
____________ and Ann Phillips. 1992. Destabilizing Theory:
Contemporary Feminist Debates. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press.
Black, Naomi. 1989. Social Feminism. New York: Cornell
University.
Boulding, Elise. 1981. "Learning About the Future" Bulletin
of Peace Proposals, 12 (2): 173-177.
____________. 1984. "Focus On: The Gender Gap" Journal of
Peace Research. 21 (1): 1-3.
____________. 1992. The Underside of History: A View of
Women Through Time. Revised, Two Volume Set. CA: Sage
Publications, INC.
Brock-Utne, Birgit. 1985. Educating for Peace: A Feminist
Perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.
______________. 1989. Feminist Perspectives on Peace and
Peace Education. New York: Pergamon Press.
Bunch, Charlotte. 1987. Passionate Politics: Feminist
Theory in Action. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Burton, John W. 1990. Conflict: Resolution and Provention.
New York: St. Martin's Press.
____________. 1990a. "The Role of the Scholar Practitioner
in Conflict Resolution." A Paper presented at the
University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa, May 1990.
____________ and Dennis J.D. Sandole. 1986. "Generic
Theory: The Basis of Conflict Resolution." Negotiation
Journal, (October 1986): 334-344.
____________ and Frank Dukes. 1990. Conflict: Practices in
Management, Settlement and Resolution. (New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1990).
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the
Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
__________ and Joan W. Scott. eds. 1992. Feminist Theorize
the Political. New York: Routledge.
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering:
Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Cocks, Joan. 1989. The Oppositional Imagination: Feminism,
Critique and Political Theory. New York: Routledge.
Cohn, Carol. 1989. "Sex and Death in the Rational World of
Defense Intellectuals." In Peace: Meanings, Politics,
Strategies, ed. Linda Rennie Forcey, 39-72.
________. 1993. "Wars, Wimps, and Women: Talking Gender and
Thinking War." In Gendering War Talk, eds. Miriam Cooke and
Angela Woollacott. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Daly, Mary. 1978. Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical
Feminism. Boston: Beacon Press.
Davis, Angela. 1983. Women, Race and Class. New York:
Vintage Books.
de Beauvoir, Simon. 1974. The Second Sex. New York: Random
House.
de Lauretis, Teresa. ed. 1986. Feminist Studies/Critical
Studies. Bloomington and Indiananpolis: Indiana University
Press.
Dinnerstein, Dorothy. 1976. The Mermaid and the Minotaur.
New York: Harper & Row.
Ferguson, Kathy. 1993. The Man Question: Visions of
Subjectivity in Feminist Theory. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Forcey, Linda R. 1987. Mothers of Sons: Toward an
Understanding of Responsibility. New York: Praeger.
_____________. 1991. "Women As Peacemakers: Contested
Terrain for Feminist Peace Studies." Peace & Change, 16(4):
331-354.
Fox-Keller Evelyn. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science.
New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
Friedan, Betty. 1963. The Feminine Mystique. New York:
Dell.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological
Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism.
New York: Cornell University Press.
_____________. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?
Thinking from Women's Lives. New York: Cornell University
Press.
Harris, Adrienne and Ynestra King, eds. 1989. Rocking the
Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. Money, Sex and Power: Toward a
Feminist Historical Materialism. New York: Longman.
Hirsch, Marianne and Evelyn Fox Keller, eds. 1990.
Conflicts in Feminism. New York: Routledge.
Jagger, Alison M. and Paula S. Rothenberg. eds., 1984.
Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of
the Relations Between Women and Men. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Keller, Evelyn F. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kolb, Debora M. and Gloria G. Coolidge. 1991. "Her Place at
the Table: A Consideration of Gender Issues in Negotiation"
In Negotiation: Theory and Practice, eds. Breslin, William
J. and Jeffrey Rubin Z. Cambridge: Harvard Program on
Negotiation.
Kriesberg, Louis. 1991. "Conflict Resolution Applications
to Peace Studies." Peace & Change, 16(4): 400-417.
Laue, James H. 1990. " The Emergence and
Institutionalization of Third-Party Roles in Conflict," in
Conflict: Readings in Management & Resolution, eds. Burton
and Dukes. New York: St. Martin's Press.
_____________. and Gerald Cormick. 1978. "The Ethics of
Intervention in Community Disputes," in The Ethics of
Social Intervention, eds. Gordon Bermant, Herbert Kelman
and Donald Warwick. New York: Halsted Press.
Mitchell, Christopher R. 1981. The Structure of
International Conflict. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1991. "Cartographies of Struggle:
Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism." In Mohanty
et al. eds. Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
______________, Ann Russo and Lourdes Torres. eds. 1991.
Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Parker,
Andrew, Mary Russo, Doris Sommer and Patricia Yaeger, eds.
1992. Nationalisms & Sexualities. New York & London:
Routledge.
Moraga, Cherrie and Gloria Anzaldua, eds. 1983. The Bridge
Called My Back: Writing By Radical Women of Color. New
York: Kitchen Table Press.
Nicholson, Linda J. ed. 1990. Feminism/Postmodernism. New
York and London: Routledge.
Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics
and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Northrup, Terrell A. 1990. "Personal Security, Political
Security: The Relationship among Conceptions of Gender,
War, and Peace" in Research in Social Movements, Conflict
and Change, Vol. 2: 267-299.
Peterson, V. Spike. ed. 1992. Gendered States: Feminist
(Re) Visions Of International Relations Theory. Boulder,
CO: Lynne and Rienner Publishers.
Ramazanoglu, Caroline. 1989. Feminism and the
Contradictions of Oppression. London and New York:
Routledge.
Reardon, Betty. 1985. Sexism and the War System. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Sharoni, Simona. 1993. "Conflict Resolution through
Feminist Lenses: Theorizing the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict from the Perspectives of Women Peace Activists in
Israel." Ph.D diss. George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia, August 1993.
Riskin, Leonard L. 1984. "Toward New Standards for Neutral
Lawyer in Mediation." Arizona Law Review, 26: 329-362.
Ross-Breggin, Ginger and Peter R. Breggin. 1992. "Feminist
Paradigms and Conflict Resolution," ICAR Newsletter, A
Publication of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and
Resolution, George Mason University, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1-6.
Rubenstein, Richard. 1990. "Unanticipated Conflict and the
Crisis of Social Theory." In Conflict: Readings in
Management & Resolution, eds. Burton & Dukes. New York: St.
Martins Press.
_______________. 1992. "Dispute Resolution on the Eastern
Frontier: Some Questions for Modern Missionaries."
Negotiation Journal, July 1992: 205-213.
Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics
of Peace. New York: Balltine Books.
Sandole-Staroste, Ingrid. 1992. "Feminist Thought: A
Powerful Voice in Conflict Resolution," ICAR Newsletter, A
Publication of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and
Resolution, George Mason University, Vol. 5, No. 1, 7-10.
Sapiro, Virginia. 1986. Women in American Society. Palo
Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Sharoni, Simona. 1993. "Conflict Resolution through
Feminist Lenses: Theorizing the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict from the Perspectives of Women Peace Activists in
Israel." Ph.D diss. George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia, August 1993.
Spender, Dale. 1981. Men's Studies Modified: The Impact of
Feminism on the Academic Disciplines. Oxford & New York:
Pergamon Press.
Sylvester, Christine. 1987. "Some Dangers in Merging
Feminist and Peace Projects." Alternatives, 12: 493-509.
_______________. 1989. "Patriarchy, Peace, and Women
Warriors." In Peace: Meanings, Politics, Strategies. ed.
Linda Rennie Forcey. New York: Praeger.
_______________. 1990. "The Emperors' Theories and
Transformations: Looking at the Field Through Feminist
Lenses." In Transformations in the Global Political. eds.,
Dennis Pirages and Christine Sylvester, eds., Economy.
London: Macmillan.
Tickner, Ann J. 1992. Gender in International Relations:
Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive
Introduction. Boulder: Westview.