Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
and Practice
Texts and Protocols
Volume 27
Series editor
Hans Gnter Brauch, Mosbach, Germany
123
Betty A. Reardon
International Institute on Peace Education
New York, NY
USA
Dale T. Snauwaert
Educational Foundations and Leadership
The University of Toledo
Toledo, OH
USA
The cover photograph as well as all other photos in this volume were taken from the personal photo
collection of the author. A website on this book with additional information on Betty A. Reardon,
including links to videos and a selection of the covers of her major books is at: http://afes-pressbooks.de/html/SpringerBriefs_PSP_Reardon.htm.
ISSN 2194-3125
ISBN 978-3-319-11808-6
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-11809-3
With life-long friend Peggy Park Mautner at a reception following the award ceremony for the
MacBride Prize at Georgetown University in 2009. (See also the photo in: Betty A. Reardon
Dale Snauwaert (Ed.): Betty A. Reardon: A Pioneer in Education for Peace and Human Rights
Presented by Dale Snauwaert (ChamHeidelbergNew YorkDordrechtLondon: SpringerVerlag, 2015): 4)
Preface
ix
Preface
security, peace, and justice. The preface is divided into three parts: (1) Reardons
Ethical Framework; (2) Violence, Patriarchy, and the War System; and (3)
Transforming Patriarchy and the War System.1
I would like to thank Mary M. Darbes for her thoughtful feedback in writing this Preface and for
editing efforts on this volume.
2
Betty A. Reardon, Debating the Future, Network 8, no. 3 (1980): 17. See also Womens
Movements and Human Futures, Convergence 8, no. 3 (1975).
3
Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1992); Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, trans. Ted
Humphrey (Cambridge: Hackett, [1795]1983); Martha Nussbaum, Kant and Cosmopolitanism,
in Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kants Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman and Matthias LutzBachmann (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997).
4
Michael J. Perry, The Idea of Rights: Four Inquiries (New York: Oxford University Press,
1998). Henry Shue, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Afuence, and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1980).
Preface
xi
function as tools for the realization of the conditions necessary to human dignity.5
They are instruments for protecting equality: Human rights are the inspiration
and the practical tool for confronting and overcoming injustice. They have provided
the most signicant progress to date in gender equality.6
Reardon conceives peace and justice in terms of the realization of human rights:
A sustainable world peace can only be assured through the universal actualization
of human dignity.7 She maintains that: Human rights standards are the specic
indicators and particular measures of progress toward the realization of peace.
Human rights puts esh on the bones of the abstraction of peace and provides the
details of how to bring the esh to life.8 A society, both national and global, that
secures the human dignity of all citizens through the realization of their rights is the
standard for a just and peaceful society.
Betty A. Reardon, Human Rights Learning:Pedagogies and Politics of Peace (San Juan, Puerto
Rico: UNESCO Chair for Peace Education, University of Puerto Rico, 2010), 46.
6
Betty A. Reardon and Anthony Jenkins, Gender and Peace: Towards a Gender Inclusive,
Holistic Perspective, in Handbook of Peace and Conict Studies, ed. Johan Galtung and C. Webel
(New York: Routledge, 2007), 228; [see Chap. 7 in this volume].
7
Reardon, Human Rights Learning: Pedagogies and Politics of Peace, 46.
8
Human Rights Learning: Pedagogies and Politics of Peace, 47.
9
Human Rights Learning: Pedagogies and Politics of Peace, 55. Chap. 3.1 in volume 26 of this
series.
10
Johan Galtung, Violence, Peace, and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3
(1969); Cultural Violence, Journal of Peace Research 27, no. 3 (1990).
xii
Preface
Reardon and Jenkins, Gender and Peace: Towards a Gender Inclusive, Holistic Perspective;
[see Chap. 7 in this volume].
12
Betty A. Reardon, Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the
Prevailing Patriarchal Security System, in The Gender Imperative: Human Security Vs. State
Security, ed. Betty A. Reardon and Asha Hans (New Delhi, India: Routledge, 2010), 13; [see
Chap. 8 in this volume].
13
Reardon and Jenkins, Gender and Peace: Towards a Gender Inclusive, Holistic Perspective;
[see Chap. 7 in this volume].
14
Reardon, Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the Prevailing
Patriarchal Security System, 14; [see Chap. 8 in this volume].
11
Preface
xiii
rationalize discrimination and oppression. Our present social order is overly characterized by these negative values, both feminine and masculine.15
Masculine does not objectively describe male sexuality, but rather connotes
what society has determined as appropriate male characteristics to aspire to and
value.
Values are not biologically determined, masculine values and feminine values, like the
concepts of masculinity and femininity, are socially derived, largely from imposed sex
role separation. One becomes masculine or feminine as a consequence of learning and
experience. Women are not necessarily born more loving than men, any more than blacks
are born more suited to manual labor and whites to perform managerial functions. The
social order and the dominant social value systemssexism and racism, respectively
determine those designations.16
These social and value structures are interrelated dimensions that fortify patriarchy. Reardon goes on to explore what she identies as the related psychological
underpinnings of patriarchy, ultimately rooted in fear and projection deep within the
human psyche. She maintains that
the problem originates in the very roots of the human psyche, and will not be fully
resolved until the majority of the human family recognizes the need for all individuals to
involve themselves in the transformational struggle. Fomari (1974) argues that as individuals we all bear some responsibility for war, and I would argue the same for sexism, the
fundamental source of which lies within each of us. Social structures, economic and
political processes, like architecture and other art forms, derive from images arising from
the human imagination and the human experience. Although we are profoundly inuenced
psychologically and socially by the structures, it is ourselves who create and can change
them. It is the successful pursuit of the inner struggle [which] I believe constitutes the
central transformational task.17
15
Betty A. Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 1st Syracuse University Press ed., Syracuse
Studies on Peace and Conict Resolution (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1996
[1985]), 3; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].
16
Debating the Future, 18.
17
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 45; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].
xiv
Preface
A major function of others is, in fact, to meet various needs we cannot fulll ourselves.
When these needs are recognized as positive and good, we love or feel kindly toward the
others who fulll them. When they are negative or bad, we hate and despise the others and
fear their power over us. For only by granting them such power can we abnegate
responsibility for our own negative behavior. A classic case of this process is attributing
temptress behavior to women who lead men astray and making the prostitute but not her
client culpable before the law. We usually manage to punish others for our own sins.
Society thus needs criminals and enemies. Eve was the rst of many to serve mankind.
Because we have yet to learn the full wisdom of the popular sage Pogo (We have met the
enemy and he is us), the enemy is always other, and feared. It is widely acknowledged that
both sexist society and the war system are kept in order by the capacity to use or threaten
the use of violence against those others who arouse fear.18
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 6; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 98.
20
A Feminist Critique of an Agenda for Peace (United Nations, Division of the Advancement
of Women GAP/1994/WP.2, 1994), 6; [see Chap. 6 in this volume].
21
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 4; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].
19
Preface
xv
will abide by morality and law, not on principle, but out of fear of retaliation. In the
absence of a sovereign it is rational to use any means necessary, including violence,
to pursue ones own interests, as long as one is in a position of superior power. This
is the condition of anarchy, a Hobbesian state of nature; it is inherently a war of all
against all. For the realist anarchy is the presumed context of international
relations.
Under the conditions of anarchy, power (and fear) take precedence over law and
morality. In fact, the international anarchical system is in a continual state of war, in
the sense that war is always imminent. Under the conditions of anarchy self-defense
is rational. Others, however, not knowing ones intentions with certainty, will
respond out of self-defense with an increase in arms. The result is escalation, leading
to an increased probability of the outbreak of violent conict. This phenomenon is
referred to as the security dilemma: to defend ones self is to increase the probability of conict; defense, pursued in order to be secure, leads to insecurity. Thus,
given the anarchical assumption a state of war is generatedan inevitable and
perpetual state of insecurity. The only way to maintain negative peace or a state of
cold war under these conditions, that is, a state of relations free from actual ghting
in the context of a state of perpetual insecurity, is through a balance of power. If
power is balanced between states, wherein no one state or group of states is dominant, then a state of cold war or negative peace can be maintained without the actual
outbreak of hostility, for the balance of power deters aggression by posing a signicant retaliatory threat. From this perspective, security is state-centric and is
contingent upon the means and exercise of military force. The credible threat of this
force is in turn contingent upon the maintenance of a highly militarized social
system.22 Reardons insight is that this system is symbiotically interdependent with
the values, dynamics, and imperatives of patriarchy.23 Within this patriarchal war
system violence against women has several distinct manifestations, which illuminate
its injustice, including the following:
military prostitution, trafcking and sexual slavery; random rape in armed conict and in
and around military bases; strategic rape; the use of military arms to inict violence against
women in post-conict as well as conict situations; impregnation as ethnic cleansing;
sexual torture; abduction to serve as wives to combatants, cooks and materials bearers;
sexual violence within the organized military and domestic violence in military families;
domestic violence and spouse murders by combat veterans. No doubt there are forms of
military violence against women (MVAW) not taken into account here.24
22
Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997); F. H. Hinsley,
Sovereignty, Second Edition ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Robert Jervis,
The Spiral of International Insecurity, in Perspectives on World Politics, ed. Richard Little and
Michael Smith (New York: Routledge, 1991). Michael Joseph Smith, Realist Thought from Weber
to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1986).
23
Reardon, Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the Prevailing
Patriarchal Security System. [see Chap. 8 in this volume].
24
Betty A. Reardon, A Statement on Military Violence against Women Addressed to the 57th
Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, (2013), 23; [see Chap. 9 in
this volume].
xvi
Preface
From the perspective of the above analysis, Reardon maintains that peace and
justice require a fundamental transformation of the patriarchal war system, entailing
a fundamental paradigm shift in human consciousness.
The above outlined ethical framework and critical analysis of patriarchy and the
war system provides a clear picture of the pathways to transforming patriarchy and
its militarism and injustice. There are at least four basic transformations required:
1. The general adoption of a feminist, holistic, gender-equal perspective.
2. A fundamental change in world view, which includes the widespread inclusion
of feminists values into all levels of society, including the public domain and
government.
3. Shifting the conception of security from national security to human security, and
a cosmopolitan ethic.
4. Widespread increase in self-awareness among the population.
First, while Reardon acknowledges that a monolithic conception of feminism
does not exist due to it necessarily entailing a pluralistic understanding, she
maintains that the common core perspective of all feminisms is the ethical assertion
of the equal human value of all persons, male and female. The adoption of this core
feminist perspective further acknowledges that patriarchal society is founded upon
Toward a Paradigm of Peace, in Peace: Meanings, Politics, Strategies, ed. Linda Rennie
Farcey (New York: Praeger, 1989); Learning Our Way to a Human Future, in Learning Peace:
The Promise of Ecological and Cooperative Education, ed. Betty A. Reardon and Eva Nordland
(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994).
26
Betty A. Reardon, A Statement on Military Violence against Women Addressed to the 57th
Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, (2013), 1; [see Chap. 9 in
this volume].
25
Preface
xvii
gender (and other types of) inequality, which has led to pervasive exclusion and
marginalization of women.27 The general adoption of this feminist perspective as a
way of seeing and understanding through the basic category of gender is critical and
necessary for the transformation of patriarchy.28 Included in the gendered perspective is a holistic orientation. Holism generates an understanding of life that is
interrelated and interdependent: life is understood as an interdependent web of
relationships within which respecting and caring for the inherent dignity of life is
imperative. This view is a perspective of deep equality. This holistic ontology in
turn leads to the inclusion of all life in the moral community.
Second, from a feminist perspective, transforming patriarchy necessarily
involves a profound shift in values toward a widespread inclusion of positive
feminine values. As Reardon maintains:
Feminists assert that current societal problems require the application of the following
societal values: love, genuine caring for others; equity, fairly sharing all that is available to
the group; and empowerment, helping group members to achieve fulllment, cooperation
and maturitymaking together for mutual fulllment. Feminism is profoundly transformational, for it calls for fundamental changes in personal values and human relationships as
well as in structures and systems. This position is particularly feminist because it calls for
the extension into the public sphere of the values of caring, cooperation and mutuality that
have been traditionally conned to the private sphere. Such an extension would be transformational because the equal application of feminist criteria to public policy would result
in more concern for human needs and less concern for the maintenance of military power
the ultimate result of the distorted weight given masculine values.29
The current patriarchal value system is the antithesis of the cosmopolitan ethic of
human rights; the widespread inclusion of feminine values in public life is a necessary condition for the realization of human rights, which protects and cares for the
equal dignity of all persons.30 The presence of women is a strong cause for the
reduction of violence.31 This value shift would in turn inspire a transformation of
our conception of national security toward human security.
Feminist Concepts of Peace and Security, in A Reader in Peace Studies, ed. Paul Smoker,
Ruth Davies, and Barbara Munske (New York: Pergamon Press, 1990); [see Chap. 5 in this
volume].
28
Reardon, Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the Prevailing
Patriarchal Security System, 12; [see Chap. 8 in this volume].
29
Betty A. Reardon, Moving to the Future, Network 8, no. 1 (1980): 14; [see Chap. 2 in this
volume].
30
Reardon and Jenkins, Gender and Peace: Towards a Gender Inclusive, Holistic Perspective,
228; [see Chap. 7 in this volume].
31
See for example, Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
(New York: Viking, 2011).
27
xviii
Preface
From this perspective the aim of human security is to protect life and to
enhance its quality. Questions of security would center around these questions:
What are the fundamental threats to human life? And, how can we overcome these
threats in a life enhancing manner?34 Thus, security would pertain to the overall
quality of life of individuals.
Fourth, the internal psychological dynamics of fear and projection that are
understood to be underlying psychological elements of patriarchy and the war
system call for a widespread increase in reective capacity and self-awareness.
A necessary condition of the transformation is how we address the war within
the struggle created in every human being by the cleaving of the total human
potential and personality into two distinct and separate parts, male and female,
which are molded into socially rigid and conning sex roles.35 The transformation
of patriarchy requires that we integrate and heal our own internal traumas and fears,
and become self-aware in ways that check our strong tendency to project our
shadow onto others.
These four pathways of transformation require in turn pedagogical processes
of learning and development that promote the understanding and embodiment of
human rights and human dignity. To this end, Reardon articulates three forms of
reective inquiry: critical/analytic; moral/ethical; and contemplative/ruminative.
Critical/analytic reection involves the discernment of power, an understanding
Reardon, Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the Prevailing
Patriarchal Security System, 33; [see Chap. 8 in this volume].
33
ibid., 7.
34
Reardon, Feminist Concepts of Peace and Security, 139140; [see Chap. 5 in this volume].
35
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 78; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].
32
Preface
xix
xx
Preface
Dale T. Snauwaert
Acknowledgments
xxi
xxii
Acknowledgments
All are evidence of the capacities and inspiration we derive from the human
networks in which we do this work.
Human connections are especially important to the substance of this second
volume. The inquiry into the roles of gender in the achievement of peace is a eld
of peace knowledge that aspires to fundamental changes in human relationships,
moving from a framework of hierarchy and authoritarianism to one of the equal
human value of all persons and authentic democracy, as evidenced by the enactment of personal and political values of comprehensive moral inclusion, and
demonstrated in quotidian, intimate, and public behaviors infused by the core
conviction that the realization of universal human dignity should be the primary aim
of politics. My ideas and arguments about how to achieve these changes have been
inuenced by learnings derived from those whose early work inspired me such as
Elise Boulding and her landmark publication, The Underside of History and contemporary scholars who have vividly portrayed the underside of the present such
as Cynthia Enloe. Most of my gender learning, however, has been the product of
cooperative projects and professional relationships with feminist scholars and
activists (mostly, but not exclusively women) with whom I have shared in efforts to
advance the role of women in peacemaking, in designing security policy, in the
practical politics of peace, and in the concerns of peace research and peace studies.
Many of them have become good friends, some appearing in photographs in this
volume. Learning and striving with them has inuenced my thinking and provided
a source of energy for a struggle for gender equality that often daunted, but was
never abandoned. It continues, and as is the case with peace education, the exciting
new work of younger feminist scholar activists (male as well as female) compels me
to continue to take as much a part as possible in that struggle.
New York, June 2014
Betty A. Reardon
With old friends, from left Mary Toohy (high school), Peggy Mautner (since toddler days), and
Peg Carter (early 1960s IWO days) at 75th birthday and retirement reception
These essays on gender and peace were developed within the same professional
contexts, as were those on peace education in the previous Volume 26 in this
series. However, the thinking articulated in this Volume 27 was more directly
influenced by my involvement with international womens movements, as well as
personal experience with issues of gender in professional and activist settings.
Each of these selections was instigated by developments in civil society
movements and in the responses of the peace knowledge field to those
developments. Several are extracted from longer originals, which are available
in their entirety at the Ward M. Canaday Center for Special Collections at the
University of Toledo.
This volume comprises two major parts. The first part offers: the introductory
commentary on my work on gender and peace by the editor, Dale Snauwaert; my
acknowledgments of the contributions of those who made the publication possible
and dedication to those who have long supported me through many stages of my
life, especially during the production of these two volumes; and this rationale on
the organization and selections that appear in the second part. That part is divided
into three stages of learninggenerations of the evolution of how I have come to
view the imperative of gender in analyzing and confronting the peace problematic.
These selections chronicle several stages in my interpretation of the inextricable, integral links that bind together the fates and futures of the marginalized,
deprived, and oppressed to the perpetuation of war and armed force as the ultimate
arbiters of power in the patriarchal world order. These interpretations have
certainly influenced how I view the tasks of peace education, but they derive less
from experience as an educator than from the actual politics that unfolded through
my 40 years of direct involvement with international womens movements for
human rights and peace, womens national resistance to war, injustice, and
ecological devastation, and womens efforts to realize their own rights as citizens,
economic agents, and autonomous individuals, even as they advocated and acted
on behalf of other marginalized groups. There is no doubt that this has been a
political struggle, striving toward a more equitable distribution of power in both
public and private spaces, in all human relations, within the public order and the
xxv
xxvi
realms of peace knowledge. The selections that appear here have been chosen to
illustrate learnings from my experience in both these spaces and all these realms.
The learning has been deeply personal, professionally daunting, and infinitely
meaningful to me.
In the first 10 years of my work as a full time peace educator, during my tenure
at the Institute for World Order (IWO) I had little or no gender consciousness. As
did most of my colleagues, I assumed that gaining the franchise and opportunities
for professional work constituted the necessary substantive achievement in the
advancement of womens equality. Certainly, I thought, I myself had benefitted
from these developments. Womens perspectives would, of course, now be
included in the political and academic discourse, obviating the need for a special
place in these fields. These assumptions were soon shattered, as I was to suffer a
rude awakening of the dormant early learnings about race, class, and gender that
had not been a primary focus of my social concerns for some time, (except for
those issues of racial and economic justice that came as subject matter into my
classroom teaching.) As I began to live the gender reality in the peace knowledge
world, and as the worldwide womens movement broke into consciousness, a
powerful gender learning process began to parallel the peace education I was
undergoing in the academic realms of universities, schools, and my own teaching.
The two processes intersected in the convergence of my early encounters with
Freirean popular education in 1973, the experiences of the International Womens
Year in 1975, and my resignation from the IWO in 1976, that I believed at the time
to have been precipitated by differences over needs and priorities in the
development and dissemination of world order education. I was later to discern
that the differences were not genderless.
As the second generation of my peace learning opened new opportunities to
contemplate a wider variety of pedagogies and substantive priorities in peace
education, this period also provided professional and reflective space in which to
contemplate some of the missing dimensions of the world order approach to peace,
and what I saw to be significant blind spots on the part of its practitioners that
obscured the fundamental obstacle to peace that lies in the subservient status of
women. As my own eyes were startled out of gender blindness, I came to see
gender as a major factor in the peace problematic itself, and even more seriously as
an obstruction to the research and education the peace knowledge field was
attempting to bring to its resolution. I joined those feminist peace researchers and
peace educators who undertook to persuade others in the field to remove the
blinders and confront the complexities of gender as it affected our work and our
professional relationships.
With the persistence of these women and a few supportive men, questions of
women or gender and peace inched their way into the field. The selections in this
volume demonstrate some of my own efforts to push forward gender questions as
central to the politics of peace and, as such, an essential subject of peace education
as I began to argue that gender should be integral to peace research. They are
organized (as are those in Volume 26 are) into three phases or stages of learning
deriving from the political context of each stage and the relevant learning
xxvii
37
Freedom of Religion and Belief: a Fundamental Human Right (New York. International
Association for Religious Freedom and Peoples Decade for Human Rights Learning, 2010).
38
See Discrimination: The Cycle of Injustice (Sydney, Australia: Holt-Saunders, 1977).
xxviii
Betty A. Reardon
Contents
Part I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
8
8
10
12
15
16
19
30
Part II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
....
37
39
....
41
....
43
xxix
xxx
Contents
3.4
3.5
3.6
and the
......
......
......
......
War
....
....
....
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
48
49
52
59
60
.........
.........
.........
61
63
66
.........
69
.........
70
73
84
.
.
.
.
45
.
.
.
.
Part III
......
87
......
......
89
92
......
94
Contents
7.4
7.5
7.6
xxxi
97
101
106
...
...
...
109
112
113
...
115
...
117
...
120
...
122
...
...
126
127
.....
129
.....
132
.....
.....
133
138
141
151
153
10