You are on page 1of 29

SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science

and Practice
Texts and Protocols
Volume 27

Series editor
Hans Gnter Brauch, Mosbach, Germany

More information about this series at

Betty A. Reardon Dale T. Snauwaert

Betty A. Reardon: Key

Texts in Gender and Peace


Betty A. Reardon
International Institute on Peace Education
New York, NY

Dale T. Snauwaert
Educational Foundations and Leadership
The University of Toledo
Toledo, OH

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:

ISSN 2194-3125
ISBN 978-3-319-11808-6
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-11809-3

ISSN 2194-3133 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-319-11809-3 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014944325

Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
The Author(s) 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the
work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of
the Copyright Law of the Publishers location, in its current version, and permission for use must always
be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright
Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Copyediting: PD Dr. Hans Gnter Brauch, AFES-PRESS e.V., Mosbach, Germany
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (

With affection and gratitude, I dedicate this

volume to those who made it possible for me
to do my share of preparing it for publication.
My ability to work in the face of health
challenges was in large part due to the
personal support, help, and encouragement of
a number of good friends. This volume is
dedicated with thanks to my network of
friends within and outside the fields of peace
knowledge and peace action. Special thanks
go to my life-long friend, Peggy Park Mautner, whose constant support sustained me
through the arduous medical journey. To her,
Paula Hertz, and Dolly Holland I am truly
grateful for their sustaining ongoing care and
for the friendship from which that care arises.
Among those friendships that grew out of
colleagueship, woven into the network of
sustaining support were Ingeborg Breines,
Dorota Gierycz, Asha Hans whose visits and
emails lifted my spirits. I am grateful, too, for
Kozue Akibayashis visit from Japan in the
early stages of the journey, who helped in
undertaking the next steps. Among those
closer by who did the same were Sr. Kathleen
Kanet, Cora Weiss, and the Rev. Chloe

Breyer. Their visits and phone calls were

immeasurably sustaining as was that from all
the others who have sent their loving wishes,
including members of the congregations of
St. Marys (New York) and St. Agnes (Kyoto).
Throughout my life and professional experiences, I have been blessed with the friendship
and collaboration of many extraordinary
people, such as those I thank here and those
mentioned in the acknowledgments. They
have been a testament to the importance of
human relationships to all aspects to our
lives. They are the source of my belief that
peace must be sustained by networks of
human connections that manifest the core
peace value of human dignity and our
responsibility to each other and the world we
Betty A. Reardon
New York, June 2014

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)


Betty A. Reardon is a pioneer of feminism and a gendered perspective on human

rights, social justice, and its importance for peace research and peace education.
Reardons groundbreaking work argues that a feminist, holistic, and gendered
perspective can serve as the conceptual core of a transformation of our present
global system of patriarchy, and its culture of violence and war. Her comprehensive
work in this area has uncovered the profound symbiotic relationship between
patriarchy and the war system, and she calls for a global inquiry into alternatives to
the patriarchal paradigm. She argues for a gender-equal and socially just society
based on a cosmopolitan ethic of human rights. For Reardon, this vision of a
positive human and planetary future is realized through achieving a transformational, fundamental shift in worldview towards a paradigm of peace informed by a
gender perspective. This paradigm of peace values human equality, dignity, social
justice, human security, environmental protection, peace, and peace education. In
recognition of her internationally acclaimed contributions, achievements, and
awards as a teacher, feminist, peace activist, researcher, author, and consultant
spanning ve decades, she was nominated by the International Peace Bureau
(Geneva, Switzerland) for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013.
My association with Betty Reardon as a colleague and friend has spanned over
two decades, and began with our rst and auspicious faculty meeting together at
Colgate University in 1990. Our mutual interest and dedication to the formulation
of global peace and international human rights education has given rise to meaningful collaboration over the years. For example, as founding director of The
University of Toledos Center for Democratic Education and Non-Violence, my
colleagues and I were honored to organize the Betty A. Reardon Collection, an
archive of her published and unpublished works, which opened in 2009 in the Ward
M. Canady Center for Special Collections at The University of Toledo.
Reardons compelling and complex work on gender covers a wide range of
topics and concerns, and the intent of this necessarily brief preface is to assist the
reader in identifying, clarifying, and discussing her overarching philosophy, as well
as her central, core ideas about feminism and a gendered perspective on human



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

Reardons Ethical Framework

Central to Reardons conception of peace and social justice are two fundamental
normative assertions: equal universal human dignity and moral inclusion. These
related core conceptions constitute the ethical foundations of Reardons overarching
philosophy, including her understanding of feminism and the fundamental importance of a gender perspective.
Equal universal human dignity is the normative claim that all human beings
possess an equal intrinsic value that should be respected. In turn, this equal inherent
dignity bestows upon each person standing in the human moral community. That is,
each person is seen to be an equal member of the human moral community and thus
each person has a right to equal moral consideration. This moral inclusion is
universal in scope; it pertains to all human beings, transcending gender differences.
These interrelated, normative assertions are the basis of Reardons value-based
conceptions of peace and justice.
In making these two fundamental ethical assertions Reardon is a part of the
tradition of cosmopolitanism, which she refers to as global humanism.2 The
cosmopolitan ethical imperative mandates that we see the other as a morally equal
person. This view of moral equality is imperative if we are to transcend the
longstanding human patterns of violence, dehumanization, and objectication of
persons in favor of the recognition of their humanity, and thereby embrace their
standing in the human moral community.3
Human rights in turn constitute the principles of a cosmopolitan ethic of human
dignity. Human rights dene what the individual person is due, is justied in
demanding, and/or is protected from. In this way rights dene what moral choices
can never be made or those that must be made.4 As Reardon asserts, human rights

I would like to thank Mary M. Darbes for her thoughtful feedback in writing this Preface and for
editing efforts on this volume.
Betty A. Reardon, Debating the Future, Network 8, no. 3 (1980): 17. See also Womens
Movements and Human Futures, Convergence 8, no. 3 (1975).
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).
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).



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.

Violence, Patriarchy, and the War System

Violence is that which dehumanizes and thereby violates human dignity, and so
being, it is the core problematic of peace and justice. As Reardon states:
All violence degrades and/or denies human dignity. This is why I assert that the substance
of the eld should comprise an inquiry into violence as a phenomenon and a system, its
multiple and pervasive forms, the interrelationships among the various forms, its sources
and purposes, how it functions and potential alternatives for achieving the legally sanctioned, socially accepted, or politically tolerated purposes commonly pursued through

Reardon identies a number of threats to and violations of human dignity

inherent in various social structures and modes of thought. These violations constitute direct, structural, and cultural violence.10 These violent structures constitute a
system of domination and oppression, including ways of thinking and believing that
justify and normalize these structures. In Reardons view, patriarchy, in symbiotic
relation with militarism (the war system), constitutes the basic structure of a violent

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.
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].
Reardon, Human Rights Learning: Pedagogies and Politics of Peace, 46.
Human Rights Learning: Pedagogies and Politics of Peace, 47.
Human Rights Learning: Pedagogies and Politics of Peace, 55. Chap. 3.1 in volume 26 of this
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).



Patriarchy is a social, political, and economic system of control and domination

structured in terms of a hierarchy of human relationships and value that is based in
socially constructed gender differentiation. As such, it bestows unequal power and
value onto males who exhibit its most important values and traits, excluding and
oppressing those who do not. It is a social system that has been almost universally
in place throughout the history of human societies, and it constitutes the paradigmatic case of inequality and injustice, and thus structural violence.11 Reardon
maintains that the patriarchal system is the basis of all forms of social injustice.
Gender, the dening element of patriarchy, is not a natural phenomenon; it is a
social construct. As Reardon suggests, Gender, as the concept is generally used in
works that deal with the differences and inequalities between men and women, is a
socially derived concept, a culturally varied construct that assigns to men and
women a set of cultural roles and social functions, only minimally determined by
their respective reproductive and sexual characteristics.12 Unequal, hierarchical,
and exclusionary gender differentiation serves as both the dening structural element of the patriarchal social system and as the basis of the ideological justication
of it. It is so ingrained in human consciousness that it is often understood as a part
of the natural order; it is in turn justied and reinforced by patriarchal religious
(among other) doctrines.13 Reardon further maintains that through the tenacity of
the patriarchal mind-set and system of control hierarchal arrangements of society
based on race, class and gender [are] buttressed by inequitable access to the benets
of production . Based upon global, corporate, free market capitalism, [and]
psychologically reinforced by the fear of others, [which is] engendered by fundamentalist religious precepts and ultranationalist xenophobia, patriarchy as the basic
paradigm of human institutions continues to prevail.14
Patriarchy thereby functions also as a potent form of cultural violence. Patriarchy
is in fact value-based; in particular, as Reardon points out, it is grounded in a value
bifurcation between negative and positive masculine and feminine values. She
The positive values derive from the authentic attributes and are those that are conducive to
the full realization of the human potential in both individuals and society. The negative
values derive from the distorted attributes and are those that stie and crush portions of
human and social development. They are the values that underlie stereotypes and

Reardon and Jenkins, Gender and Peace: Towards a Gender Inclusive, Holistic Perspective;
[see Chap. 7 in this volume].
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].
Reardon and Jenkins, Gender and Peace: Towards a Gender Inclusive, Holistic Perspective;
[see Chap. 7 in this volume].
Reardon, Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the Prevailing
Patriarchal Security System, 14; [see Chap. 8 in this volume].



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
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

Socially constructed gender differences are internalized into interior psychic

constructs that shape perceptions of difference in terms of otherness; an otherness to
be feared. Coupled with the strong tendency to project onto others what we are
ashamed of and fear within ourselves, these internal psychological dynamics
reinforce the structural and ideological dimensions of patriarchy. As Reardon
clearly suggests:
It is clear that for both boys and girls the rst socially encountered other, a person they
perceive as being different from themselves, is usually of the other sex, and our experience
indicates that it is others, those different from us, who threaten us and instigate the fear that
gives rise to the notion of enemy and, ultimately, the practice of war. Society reinforces and
exacerbates this perception of otherness It is, I think, of some signicance that psychiatry
has pointed out that the enemy always becomes the embodiment of what we fear or reject in
ourselves. We attempt to exorcize our own bad spirits by projecting them on others.


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].
Debating the Future, 18.
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 45; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].


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

It is these deep fear-based psychological dynamics that underpin the symbiotic

relationship between patriarchy and the war system. One of Reardons groundbreaking insights is that there exists this symbiotic relationship. She writes:
I continue to insist [that] the oppression of women and the legitimation of
coercive force which perpetuates war, the two major pillars of patriarchy, are
mutually dependent conditions19 She maintains that militarism and militarization [are] the bastions and bulwark of patriarchy20 Patriarchy and the war
system are interrelated and interdependent manifestations of the general problem of
social violence.21 Gender inequality and its concomitant oppression of women are
integral parts of militarism.
Entailed in patriarchys hierarchical structure, and its bifurcated values and
psychic dynamics, is the perceived need, partly generated by fear of the other, to
maintain a constant systemic threat of coercive force in order maintain control and
domination. The credibility of this threat requires monopoly control of the means
and use of force. Political sovereignty is dened systemically in terms of this
control, and is most starkly visible in the theory of international political realism.
Realism is a theory of international relations that denies the existence of morality
in the international arena. It maintains that relations between nation-states are
purely political, in the sense that they exclusively concern interests and power, not
what is right or good per se. Its logic follows from Thucydides famous, dening
statement: The strong do want they can, and the weak suffer what they must.
Moral skepticism in the realist tradition is based upon the absence of international sovereignty, rendering the international system anarchy. For the realist, the
international arena is an anarchy, a state of relations without the existence of a
sovereign power to enforce morality and law. It is argued that adherence to moral
principle, law, and even mutual promises (contracts, agreements, covenants, treaties, etc.) are contingent upon the existence of an overarching authority. This
authority requires a sovereign power that is capable of enforcing obligation. States

Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 6; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 98.
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].
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 4; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].



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
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


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).
Reardon, Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the Prevailing
Patriarchal Security System. [see Chap. 8 in this volume].
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].



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.

Transforming Patriarchy and the War System

For Reardon the transformation needed for the ongoing pursuit of peace, and
thereby, a reduction in violence, requires a fundamental paradigm shift in social
values and world-views, a shift from a paradigm of war toward a paradigm of
peace.25 This shift necessitates the transformation of the patriarchal system to a
gender-equal and socially just society, one that honors the equal dignity of all
persons and is morally, socially, and politically inclusive, on all levels from local to
global. As Reardon suggests:
Stable peace requires gender equality. Fully functioning gender equality requires the
dissolution of the present system of militarized state security. The two goals are inextricably
linked one to the other.26

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
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).
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].



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
Reardon, Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the Prevailing
Patriarchal Security System, 12; [see Chap. 8 in this volume].
Betty A. Reardon, Moving to the Future, Network 8, no. 1 (1980): 14; [see Chap. 2 in this
Reardon and Jenkins, Gender and Peace: Towards a Gender Inclusive, Holistic Perspective,
228; [see Chap. 7 in this volume].
See for example, Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
(New York: Viking, 2011).



Third, one of Reardons most important achievements is her contribution to the

conceptualization of the idea of human security. Human security pertains to the
wellbeing made possible through the elimination of all forms of violence, assured
by institutions designed specically to achieve and maintain wellbeing .32
Human security presents an alternative conception of security to the Realist conception of military state security, one that is consistent with the ethical imperatives
of cosmopolitanism and feminism. Reardon maintains that
human security never can be achieved within the present highly militarized, war prone,
patriarchal nation state system. Neither, as I have argued for more than two decades, is it
achievable within patriarchy, which is the foundation of the war system. Two propositions lie at the center of [my] assertions and arguments: rst, if human security is to be
achieved, patriarchy must be replaced with gender equality, and second, war as an institution must be abolished in favor of nonviolent structures and processes for resolving
conicts and achieving national policy goals33

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].
ibid., 7.
Reardon, Feminist Concepts of Peace and Security, 139140; [see Chap. 5 in this volume].
Reardon, Sexism and the War System, 78; [see Chap. 4 in this volume].



and critique of social institutions, analysis of the structural dimensions of social

life, and a critical consciousness of the politicaleconomic origins of violence.
Moral/ethical reection addresses questions of justice, and thereby structural and
cultural violence, guided by the principles of a human rights framework.
Contemplative reection entails self-examination of internal moral motivation and
internal psychological dynamics. This reection also involves contemplating
questions of meaning and value, and exercising ones imagination to envision
alternative realities necessary for transformative action.36 These modes of reection
are the vehicles used to traverse the transformational pathways identied above.
These empowering and profound pedagogical processes could be widely used and
cultivated in most educational settings, formal and informal.
The course and development of Reardons thinking about the issues of gender
and peace reected in the essays of this collection were naturally molded by the
course of her professional development and research. However, as she often
acknowledges, her direct personal and political experience of gender and human
rights issues experienced while working within the international womens movement and numerous other activist groups and organizations over many decades,
profoundly inuenced and transformed the evolution of her thought and writing.
Within the context of this evolution, in her most recent works in the last two
decades, Reardon argues not only for the inclusion of gender into the peace
knowledge eld, but also for the necessity of confronting all forms of oppression
that exist within the global patriarchal system and culture of violence. One of the
great purposes of her work is the integration of both peacelearning and gender
issues into an overarching conceptual framework that interprets the global system
and culture of violence within the framework of a global patriarchal order. In the
context of this understanding and articulation, Reardon asserts that peacelearning
cultural action plans can be more readily created and implemented that promote
critical consciousness, authentic subjectivity, a transformational paradigm of peace,
and the construction of a global, nonviolent, gender-equal society.
Betty Reardon has signicantly enriched our understanding of the debilitating
effects of patriarchy on all human beings, men and women alike. Her deep insight
into the symbiotic relationship between patriarchy and militarism has transformed
our understanding of war, peace, and justice. She is a true feminist pioneer, identifying and articulating the gendered perspective as the primary lens through which
to understand the nature of war and its supporting social and ideological systems.

Betty A. Reardon and Dale T. Snauwaert, Reective Pedagogy, Cosmopolitanism, and

Critical Peace Education for Political Efcacy: A Discussion of Betty A. Reardons Assessment of
the Field, In Factis Pax: Journal of Peace Education and Social Justice 5, no. 1 (2011) and in
Betty A. Reardon; Dale Snauwaert: Betty A. Reardon: A. Pioneer in Education for Peace and
Human Rights (ChamHeidelbergNew YorkDordrechtLondon: Springer-Verlag, 2015).



Reardon has developed an alternative paradigm of holistic human transformation

and a positive global future through the tasks of educating and acting for peace.
Built upon a veriable knowledge base, she advocates for a profound shift in our
worldview using principles of holism in inquiry and resolution of the central
problematic of violence and inequality. As peace educators we endeavor to facilitate this transformation of consciousness, and invite the participation of human
rights and peace workers everywhere, seeking to ensure the human dignity of all.
Toledo, OH, USA, June 2014

Dale T. Snauwaert


Key Texts in Gender and Peace is a complement to a volume of selections from my

peace education writings published in this Springer series, Pioneers in Science and
Practice, edited by Hans Gnter Brauch. I extend special thanks to Hans Gnter, for
I am deeply honored to be published among the distinguished pioneers featured
in this series that constitutes an invaluable contribution to the study and history of
the eld of peace knowledge. The series reveals the evolution and development of
the eld as it has unfolded in the research and interpretations of those who envisioned the contributions knowledge and learning could make to the advancement of
peace. I rejoice in the inclusion of gender in this historical record with this particular publication intended to invite all peace practitioners to contemplate gender
issues as a central factors in our common pursuit of peace knowledge and its
ultimate goal, a sustainable and just world peace. Many gender and peace scholars
have long awaited such an invitation from their colleagues in the led of peace
This volume is the product of the collaboration of the same ne team that
produced the rst volume: Dale Snauwaert, who painstakingly edited every piece
and the retrospective reections that introduced these particular selections on
gender; Tony Jenkins, who curated and prepared for publication all the photos that
appear here and assisted me with other technical aspects of the project, and is
co-author on one of the selections; Hans Gnter Brauch, whose patient guidance
was invaluable to the entire process, who composed the nal manuscript; and the
editorial team at Springer that brought both volumes to their nal forms. I also wish
to thank Ursula Oswald for her role in the decision to include my work on gender in
this series, and especially for her invaluable contribution to our understanding of the
relationship between security and environment that informs the feminist framework
for human security that has become integral to my work in the past decade. I extend
my deepest appreciation to all of them for their essential contributions to these
books. My thanks are especially profound, because during the time of the writing
and editing, health challenges impeded somewhat my own work on the project,
leading to their carrying more of the load than any of us might have foreseen.




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

Organization and Rationale for Text Selections

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


Organization and Rationale for Text Selections

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

Organization and Rationale for Text Selections


experiences that were affecting my views on gender issues. These learnings

influenced how I integrated gender issues into my own work as I strove with other
feminist peace researchers and peace educators to achieve the place in the field that
their significance merited.
In retrospect, the gender learning process that surfaced as I revisited these
selections are an example of one of the strands of peace learning that appears in the
methodology and pedagogical framework that I outlined in a manual on freedom
of religion and belief.37 Each phase of that methodologythat was something of a
summary of my adaptation of Freire to peacelearningand the gender learning
described here provides the seeds of the generation of the next phase in which the
seeds are cultivated by new experiences and changing political and social realities.
Yet, each phase is constantly nourished by a core value of peace education,
universal human dignity.
Awareness, the first of three gender-learning phases (19741982), came with
early insights into the connection between peace and the roles and status of
women. This connection became the subject of serious reflection as I tried to
deepen my understanding of the problematic of the war system. I was convinced of
the significance of the connection as some before me had been, but we had only
limited systemic and structural understanding of what appeared to be an
overwhelmingly deep problem.
During the second, Analysis phase (19831994) a more complex awareness led
to attempts to achieve some systematic understanding, to analyze the structures
and processes of gender discrimination and oppression as they were affected by
and affected armed conflict and the institution of war. The resulting analysis
appears in Sexism and the War System (Teachers College Press, 1985), a
monograph within which I presented a conceptual framework that was the
foundation of all my gender work in this phase. I embraced the concept of
reciprocal causalityi.e., sexism and war were mutually the cause of the other
to explain the integral relationship between gender roles and war, and I began to
argue for a convergence of feminist studies and research with peace studies and
research with a feminist perspective in peace education.
Argumentation, the third, and for the moment, final phase (19952013) has
brought me to argue not only for the inclusion of gender in peace knowledge, but
also for the inevitable necessity to confront patriarchy itself as the primary origin
of the two phenomena, as well as of the general system of a hierarchical value
order among human beings that has rationalized not only sexism, but also racism
and colonialism, three major forms of global oppression that I had seen for
decades38 to be interrelated, even before I had not yet derived a conceptual
framework in which to explicate the interrelationships so as to produce strategic
action for change. The fundamental purpose of integrating gender into peace


Freedom of Religion and Belief: a Fundamental Human Right (New York. International
Association for Religious Freedom and Peoples Decade for Human Rights Learning, 2010).
See Discrimination: The Cycle of Injustice (Sydney, Australia: Holt-Saunders, 1977).


Organization and Rationale for Text Selections

knowledge is to inspire such action and to illuminate the requisite peacelearning

that could enable us to transcend patriarchy and its multiple forms of violence,
opening the space in which to construct a nonviolent gender equal society.
Contributing to the development of the next stage of conceptualization is the first
priority on my current learning agenda, helping to devise an interpretation of the
global system and culture of violence within the framework of the global
patriarchal gender order. So the learning, the speculation about, and the striving for
understanding of the interrelationships between gender and peace continue.
New York, May 2014

Betty A. Reardon


Part I

Awareness of Women and Peace Connections 19741982

Womens Movements and Human Futures.

1.1 Womens Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 Agents of Global Transformation . . . . .
1.6 Implications for Adult Education . . . . .



Moving to the Future and Debating the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1 Responding to a Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Part II

















Analysis of Interdependence of Militarism

and Sexism 19831994

A Gender Analysis of Militarism and Sexist Repression:

A Suggested Research Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Hypothesis 1: The Structural Relationships Which Link
Economic Exploitation in General, Oppression of Women
in Particular, the Arms Trade, and Military Repression
Are Manifestations of the Fundamental Patriarchal Nature
of the Global Dependency-Dominance System . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Hypothesis 2: Feminism Is a Significant Counterforce
to Militarism and Offers Useful Approaches to Processes
for Demilitarization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .













Introduction to the First Edition, Sexism

System and Epilogue to Second Edition .
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and the


















A Feminist Critique of An Agenda for Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Feminist Concepts of Peace and Security . . . . . . . . . .

5.1 Feminism and Positive Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Feminist Concepts of Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 The Radical Questions: The Links Between Sexism
and Militarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 The Conservative Questions: Maintaining Authentic
Global Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .




Part III

Hypothesis 3: Militarization Is a Fundamentally Misogynist

Policy Resulting from Excessive Emphasis on Masculine
Modes, Values and Priorities in the Conduct
of Public Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 4: Militarization Cannot Be Adequately
Analyzed Without Including an Analysis of the
Social-Political Aspects of Sexism and the Common
Underlying Psychological Causes of Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 5: Peace Research Is Contaminated by the
Same Sexist Bias as Affects Other Social Sciences, and,
Therefore, Needs to Devise a More Balanced Perspective
on the Human Condition in Order to Derive Valid Data,
Adequate to Provide a Knowledge Base for the Derivation
of a Global Demilitarization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assertion of Patriarchy as Fundamental to Peace

and Peace Education 19952013

Gender and Peace: Toward a Gender Inclusive,

Holistic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1 Introduction: Toward a New Phase of the Inquiry
into Gender and Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Connecting Women, War and Political Participation . . .
7.3 Advances in International Standards: Womens Equality
and Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .










Violence Against Women: Gendered Link Between

Human Rights and Peace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Towards an Inclusive Gender Perspective: The Emergence
of Masculinities Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Challenging the Patriarchal Paradigm: Gender Equality
and Human Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework

and Critique of the Prevailing Patriarchal Security System. . .
8.1 A Core Thesis on Human Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2 The Problem of Human Security in a Militarized World . . .
8.3 Patriarchy: A Framework for Human Insecurity and Source
of Gender Injustice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4 A Feminist Framework of Human Security and Critique
of Militarized State Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5 A Comprehensive and Integrated Approach to Human
Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.6 Confronting the Obstacles: Towards Demilitarization
and Gender Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.7 Conclusion: The Imperative of a Gender Perspective
and a Comprehensive Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .




















EpilogueToward a Strategy for Transcending

Patriarchy: Envisioning the Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


About the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



A Statement on Military Violence Against Women

Addressed to the 57th Session of the United Nations
Commission on the Status of Women, March 415th, 2013 .
9.1 Violence Against Women Is Integral to War and
Armed Conflict: The Urgent Necessity
of the Universal Implementation of UNSCR 1325 . . . . .
9.2 Identifying Forms of Military Violence and Their
Functions in Warfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3 Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .