������Ƶ

The Women, Peace, and Security agenda has evolved for over two decades thanks to the efforts and conscious choices of women and men around the world. For many advocates and practitioners, this community has great value, and its vocabulary and core concepts are central to its goals. As the assumptions we uncovered in our research illustrates, the core concepts and vocabulary of WPS are not known to the U.S. national security community, or summon up problematic frames and images for U.S. decision makers and influencers—across generational and ideological divides.

A core frame that advocates may wish to use instead of or in addition to the classic WPS language is a classic of policymaking and social science:

Use a data-based frame. Security policymakers showed themselves to be heavily invested in the idea that security decision-making is a meritocratic space, driven by outcomes. As the social science data on the value of analysis and policymaking that consider gender effects grows stronger, framing the challenge as one of implementing cutting-edge findings, rather than implementing a UN agenda, is likely to be more palatable to some audiences, avoid triggering biases carried over from U.S. domestic politics, and help establish new habits of thought in younger policymakers.

Below we identify some of the specific reactions we heard to the vocabulary of WPS, to assist users in making conscious choices about whether they are attempting to teach and spread the WPS framework, or whether they are attempting to achieve policy shifts that may not engage or even acknowledge their connection to the WPS framework. In the years ahead there will be plenty of need for both types of effort.

“Women, Peace, and Security,” “Inclusive security,” and “Gender mainstreaming.” Don’t rely on this shorthand when communicating with the broader national security community. Develop a few short phrases that communicate exactly what you want in a particular context, for example, “analyzing how policies affect people of different genders differently,” “full-society participation in peacebuilding,” or “reaching different sectors of the civilian population.” When you do want to use the terms, use the explanatory phrases as well.

“UNSC 1325.” UN Security Council resolutions don’t carry any special authority in most U.S. national security circles and will surely invite hostility in some. If your context is one where policymakers will be looking for legitimacy or support in an international context, explaining how couching a policy in 1325 may help is a good idea; if the challenge is legitimacy in a domestic policymaking context, an effectiveness frame is likely better. Another alternative is to pair mention of the UN with NATO’s work on gender, as many military policymakers and observers perceive NATO as a more U.S.-friendly bureaucracy.

“Women’s role in conflict, peacemaking, or CVE.” This framing evoked essentialist feminist theory in career national security wonks. It risks alienating both those who see policymaking as difference-blind and those, women in particular, who see their own rise and status in the security establishment as at odds with a view of women as inherently peaceful, or as nurturers and influencers rather than actors. Avoid it when possible. Simple substitutions include “women’s experience” or “roles for women” or “women’s inclusion” in place of “women’s role.”

“Diversity theory” vs “empowerment theory.”  The idea of equal rights and equal access for men and women has deep resonance within the national security establishment and the broader American public. The diversity theory developed in the private sector—that teams with a diversity of experience are more resilient and produce better outcomes—has broad understanding as well. Framing WPS goals and policies in these two contexts will be helpful to security policy audiences. The idea of empowerment—although it is standard-issue in the development policy world—is less well understood among security analysts or the general public. Participation and empowerment themselves are not first-tier goals for security agencies and thus will be less compelling even when understood, unless connected to stability and security outcomes that are the job of security interlocutors.

“Gender bias” as landmine. Our interviews with decision makers uncovered no one who thought discrimination against women was okay; many with more traditional views nonetheless saw themselves as keen supporters of equality, and a striking number had a personal story about themselves as fortunate sons of strong mothers. Ensuring that the WPS agenda is not viewed as a response to or reparation for sexism, or “social engineering” in affected societies, or as a criticism of practitioners, but as social science that improves how policymakers take existing societal dynamics into account will help avoid policymakers’ perceiving that they are being accused of sexism.

Download – Changing the Conversation: Language, Concepts, and Choices that Could Broaden the Constituency that Understands WPS