Beyond Sex/Gender: The Feminist Body of Security

Wilcox, Lauren

doi:10.1017/s1743923x11000419

Cited by 19 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…I offer this critique with respect to the authors of the CP section and for the field in which we all labor; my intervention—and this Forum more broadly—is intended to continue the conversation that began in the CP section. Lauren Wilcox proposes that “feminists could perhaps do more to engage with other critical scholars” (:599) and I agree; I suggest in response that these scholars could have begun by engaging—sympathetically, systemically, and critically—with the body of FSS in its entirety.…”

Section: Power and Positionality In The Performance Of Feminist Securmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Feminist Security Studies is theoretically sophisticated and creative: Lauren Wilcox's contribution to the CP section reflects on the precarity of “bodies that matter” (Butler ) and illuminates how “feminists' unique perspective on questions of embodiment, the relationship between the material and discursive, and the workings of power make excellent contributions to the burgeoning critical literatures on security and biopolitics” (:599). And FSS is inclusive and varied: Valerie Hudson offers an engaging and personal account of her own intellectual development as a feminist scholar of security practices and argues forcefully for the inclusion of all feminist voices in intradisciplinary debates in an effort to engage both each other and the mainstream.…”

Section: Power and Positionality In The Performance Of Feminist Securmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The State of Feminist Security Studies: Continuing the Conversation

Shepherd

2013

Int Stud Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This forum comprises seven pieces conceived in response to the recent Politics & Gender Critical Perspectives section, titled “The State of Feminist Security Studies: A Conversation” (P&G , Vol. 7, Issue 4). Throughout, we refer to this collection as “the CP section.” We are pleased to take this opportunity to continue the conversation begun in the CP section and to offer sympathetic yet critically engaged contributions in response to the original collection of essays. We hope that this forum indicates the (geographical, cultural, theoretical) diversity of feminist security studies and its multivocality, as well as providing an overview, for those not familiar with the literature, of the issues and debates currently enlivening the field.

show abstract

Section: Power and Positionality In The Performance Of Feminist Securmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Power and Positionality In The Performance Of Feminist Securmentioning

confidence: 99%

The State of Feminist Security Studies: Continuing the Conversation

Shepherd

2013

Int Stud Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…those bodies identified as female, precisely because such bodies have been underrepresented or represented in particular ways in global politics, but a focus on bodies also include attention to male, intersexual, queer, transsexual, and/or raced, classed, aged, able/disabled, or in other ways 'othered' and to how such categories are constructed and continuously reproduced. Lauren Wilcox argues, and I agree, that feminists are also uniquely positioned to theorise the body-politics of war, violence and vulnerability, without necessarily reducing these concerns as something that specifically affects women or men as sexed bodies (Wilcox 2011: 596-8, see also Wilcox 2015. My point here is that because feminists ask important questions about 'bodies' in relation to 'security', feminist scholars often have a different way into 'the political'.…”

Section: Tracing the Political In Feminist Security Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dance of militarisation: a feminist security studies take on ‘the political’

Åhäll

2016

Critical Studies on Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

My thinking about 'the political' starts with a personal puzzle: On 5 November, 2013Sven-Göran Eriksson-the former coach of the England football team-is a guest on BBC One's Breakfast television show. Sven -as the Brits like to call him-is promoting his biography but the reason this brief moment caught my attention and subsequently sparked an interest in militarisation is, firstly, that Sven is, just like me, Swedish. We both come from a cultural background that in 2014 celebrated '200 years without war', that prides itself on its 'neutral', 'alliance-free' and peace-loving history no matter how questionable such statements are. Secondly, Eriksson is a football coach; a role that one would think has got nothing to do with the Armed Forces or even the study of global politics. But, the interview happens to take place during Remembrance Week and he is sitting on the BBC sofa wearing a poppy, the pin that is sold and bought as part of the Remembrance events in the UK. As a Swede, or perhaps just an outsider, I have always found the events and activities around Remembrance Week intriguing but to see My personal puzzle -my own awkwardness -led to a research interest in the political puzzle of militarisation: how militarisation as a security practice forms part of sensemaking in the everyday. Intrigued by the political puzzle of militarisation, it is precisely the notion of 'common sense', that which we tend to accept as 'normal' and that which is deemed apolitical that takes centre-stage and moves me towards an analytical focus on 1 I wish to thank the editors of this Special Issue for the invitation to participate, the anonymous reviewers for excellent feedback on the first version of this article, and also audience members at ECPR 2014, ISA 2015 and EISA 2015 where I presented previous versions of this article. Special thanks are also due to Emil Edenborg, Jamie Johnson and Moran Mandelbaum for feedback and support.

show abstract

“…I have been interested for years in understanding war as everyday violence, and everyday violence as war (e.g., Sjoberg, 2013), drawing the work of a number of feminist scholars of global politics who are interested in experiences of war (Sylvester, 2012(Sylvester, , 2013, war as sensed (Alexander, 2012;Sylvester, 2010), war as embodied (Wilcox, 2011(Wilcox, , 2014, and war as a constant presence (Cuomo, 1996;Wibben, 2010). Among these accounts, Rachel Pain's is unmatched both in ambition and depth.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%