Content
About this brief
Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions- For policymakers
- Brief created: 2024
- Sign up
Hegemonic Masculinity and the Power-Centric Method of Conflict Prevention
Brief about:
Chapter in an Edited Book (2024)
Written by:
This chapter critiques the power-centric approach to conflict prevention, arguing that it often fails to protect civilians effectively. Yet this power-centric approach is often consider as a natural approach to conflict due to the hegemonic conception of masculinity security discourse. The naturalisation of hegemonic masculinity in security affairs leads to an emphasis of the use of power and militaristic strategies.
The research aims to highlight the limitations of power-centric methods in conflict prevention, emphasizing the need for alternative approaches that do not rely on hegemonic masculine norms. The study critiques the assumption that using power to change the behavior of violent actors is the only viable method of conflict prevention. This critique is supported by feminist theories of international relations and an analysis of US presidential discourse on protection.
Key findings
- Power-centric conflict prevention strategies are often associated with increased fatalities.Evidence
Analysis of US military operations and presidential discourse shows a correlation between power-centric language and higher conflict fatalities.
What it meansReliance on power to change behavior can lead to more violence, highlighting the need for alternative approaches.
- US presidents' discourse on conflict prevention often emphasizes power-centric methods.Evidence
Examination of US Presidential Papers since 1989 reveals a significant focus on using power to protect civilians.
What it meansThis focus on power-centric methods limits the effectiveness of US conflict prevention efforts.
- Power-neutral and power-negative strategies can be more effective in preventing conflict.Evidence
Examples from feminist peace activities and international relations theories demonstrate the success of non-power-centric approaches.
What it meansEmbracing alternative strategies can improve the outcomes of conflict prevention efforts.
Proposed action
- Adopt non-power-centric conflict prevention strategies, i.e. approaches that are not prrimarily focused on changing someone else's behaviour by means of power. Such alternative include country's own efforts at saving victims of violence by means of development cooperation, humanitarian work and by accepting more refugees. Parties to disputes could prevent conflict by using self restraint, emphasising dialogue and aiming at agreements that restraint the use of force mutually.
Develop policies that emphasize mutual restraint, relationship building, and support for victims rather than punishment of perpetrators. Encourage international cooperation and support for such strategies through diplomatic channels and multilateral organizations.
- Incorporate feminist perspectives in conflict prevention policy-making.
Include feminist scholars and practitioners in the development of conflict prevention policies. Promote education and training on feminist approaches to international relations within government and military institutions.
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Hegemonic Masculinity and the Power-Centric Method of Conflict Prevention
Cite this brief: Kivimäki, Timo. 'Hegemonic Masculinity and the Power-Centric Method of Conflict Prevention'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/hegemonic-masculinity-and-the-power-centric-method-of-conflict-prevention/
Brief created by: Professor Timo Kivimäki | Year brief made: 2024
Original research:
- Kivimäki, T., Hegemonic Masculinity and the Power-Centric Method of Conflict Prevention In Research Handbook on Conflict Prevention, (pp. 181–197), Cheltenham: https://doi.org/10.4337.9781803920849. –
Research brief:
This chapter critiques the power-centric approach to conflict prevention, arguing that it often fails to protect civilians effectively. Yet this power-centric approach is often consider as a natural approach to conflict due to the hegemonic conception of masculinity security discourse. The naturalisation of hegemonic masculinity in security affairs leads to an emphasis of the use…
The research aims to highlight the limitations of power-centric methods in conflict prevention, emphasizing the need for alternative approaches that do not rely on hegemonic masculine norms. The study critiques the assumption that using power to change the behavior of violent actors is the only viable method of conflict prevention. This critique is supported by feminist theories of international relations and an analysis of US presidential discourse on protection.
Findings:
Power-centric conflict prevention strategies are often associated with increased fatalities.
Analysis of US military operations and presidential discourse shows a correlation between power-centric language and higher conflict fatalities.
Reliance on power to change behavior can lead to more violence, highlighting the need for alternative approaches.
US presidents’ discourse on conflict prevention often emphasizes power-centric methods.
Examination of US Presidential Papers since 1989 reveals a significant focus on using power to protect civilians.
This focus on power-centric methods limits the effectiveness of US conflict prevention efforts.
Power-neutral and power-negative strategies can be more effective in preventing conflict.
Examples from feminist peace activities and international relations theories demonstrate the success of non-power-centric approaches.
Embracing alternative strategies can improve the outcomes of conflict prevention efforts.
Advice:
Adopt non-power-centric conflict prevention strategies, i.e. approaches that are not prrimarily focused on changing someone else’s behaviour by means of power. Such alternative include country’s own efforts at saving victims of violence by means of development cooperation, humanitarian work and by accepting more refugees. Parties to disputes could prevent conflict by using self restraint, emphasising dialogue and aiming at agreements that restraint the use of force mutually.
- Develop policies that emphasize mutual restraint, relationship building, and support for victims rather than punishment of perpetrators. Encourage international cooperation and support for such strategies through diplomatic channels and multilateral organizations.
Incorporate feminist perspectives in conflict prevention policy-making.
- Include feminist scholars and practitioners in the development of conflict prevention policies. Promote education and training on feminist approaches to international relations within government and military institutions.