Gendering Insecurities, Informalization and "War Economies"

Citation:

Peterson, V. Spike. 2016. “Gendering Insecurities, Informalization and ‘War Economies.’” In The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Development, edited by W. Harcourt, 441-62. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Author: V. Spike Peterson

Abstract:

David Roberts (2008) observes that defining human security is more contentious than defining human insecurity (also Burke 2007). Like many others, Roberts draws on diverse literatures referencing institutional, indirect, or structural violence to generate a definition of insecurity as “avoidable civilian deaths, occurring globally, caused by social, political and economic institutions and structures, built and operated by humans and which could feasibly be changed” (2008, 28). Indirect or structural violence refers to the presumably unintended but recurring patterns of suffering or harm that result from the way social institutions or structures “order” expectations, norms, and practices.1 “War” is arguably a display of structural violence at its extremity. Feminists have produced incisive accounts of how in/security, violence, conflicts, and wars are pervasively gendered.2 But existing analyses tend to focus on masculinist identities and ideologies in the context of embodied and “political” forms of violence, leaving aside how these are inextricably linked to economic phenomena.

Keywords: informal economy, informal activity, human security, international relations, social reproduction

Topics: Conflict, Economies, Informal Economies, War Economies, Feminisms, Gendered Power Relations, Masculinism, Security, Human Security, Violence

Year: 2016