Looking at the role of gender in conflict cycles, conflict management, and peacebuilding processes is the objective of “The Gender Dimensions of Social Conflict, Armed Violence and Peacebuilding”, an r4d project that has been hosted for three years by the Gender Centre and just been renewed for another three years. What are its first conclusions and future directions? Answers from Dr Christelle Rigual, International Research Coordinator.
Why did you launch this research project in 2014?
This project emerged from an acknowledgement that gender and conflict studies lack a fine-grained understanding of the gendered dynamics of conflict and peacebuilding at the local level. Quantitative conflict studies have generally uncovered correlations between gender equality and peace at the macro-level, yet insights on the micro-mechanisms for this connection are still rare. Building upon work by Dr Jana Krause, former research lead who conceptualised the research proposal and design from her PhD dissertation “Non-Violence during Ethno-Religious Conflict in Indonesia (Ambon) and Nigeria (Jos)” at the Institute, the project proposes to investigate the link between gender relations, conflict cycles and peacebuilding at the local level. The rationale for this research is timely. The UN Women, Peace and Security agenda has driven debates and programmes on the conditions of women in conflict and peacebuilding at the international levels, but further gender-sensitive insights on local initiatives for conflict management and sustainable peace are in high need, as illustrated for instance by the literature on the “local turn” in peacebuilding, or by the “inclusive” and “sustainable peace” concepts advocated by international organisations worldwide. By actually investigating, in close connection with the affected communities, how gender operates in conflict settings and supports or hampers peace processes, this project is well positioned to generate insightful and highly needed findings on the gendered dimensions of local efforts at conflict resolution.
What types of problems and case studies does this project focus on?
Seeking to investigate conflict dynamics at the community level, the project compares gendered mechanisms in three types of conflicts in Indonesia and Nigeria. The two countries have been selected for comparison as they share several macro-similarities, such as a large and very diverse population (with many ethnic and religious groups represented), a mid- to low-level of social inequality, a history of colonisation followed by autocratic rule and a democratic transition in the 1990s, as well as mid-level violent communal conflicts that were not subject to UN peacekeeping interventions. In each country, three types of conflicts are investigated and compared: ethno-religious conflicts opposing Muslim and Christian communities in Jos (Nigeria) and Ambon (Indonesia), anti-governmental movements in Aceh (Indonesia) and Delta (Nigeria), as well as resource-driven vigilantism in East Java (Indonesia) and Enugu (Nigeria). For each case study, the country coordinators, Arifah Rahmawati and Wening Udasmoro in Indonesia and Mimidoo Achakpa and Joy Onyesoh in Nigeria, work in close cooperation with local researchers and experts who supported field investigations and helped us gain access to the affected communities. Overall, more than 300 interviews have been conducted with villagers, religious and political leaders, armed combatants, and peace activists with the aim of uncovering the interrelations between different constructions of femininity and masculinity, gender roles, and violent conflict cycles (escalation of conflict, de-escalation, conflict management, and peacebuilding activities) at the local level. The second phase of our research, which will start in mid-2017, will focus more specifically on gender dimensions of peacebuilding activities, comparing and contrasting various peacebuilding practices and programmes at the grassroots, national and international levels.
One of the objectives was to identify promising methods for gender inclusion in order to strengthen peacebuilding processes. After three years, do you think you have fulfilled that goal?
The r4d programme has an inbuilt ambition of generating impact through scientifically backed findings. As scholars and researchers focusing on gender, we are intensely aware of the way in which gendered knowledge shapes the world, and thus privilege a participatory way of generating insights that valorise local standpoints and situated knowledges of both women and men. By carefully documenting gendered dynamics in conflict-affected communities in this way, and by analysing, in close partnerships with the communities, how gender operates in fostering conflict and promoting peace, the project contributes important knowledge to science, but also informs decision-makers and peacebuilders in a grounded way. A recent trip to Indonesia where we conducted roundtable debates and a focus group discussion with local experts and affected communities acted as a reminder of the complexity and multiplicity of the actors, stakes, and expectations at the local level, and the need for involving everyone in assessing the usefulness of our findings. Yet, we believe that taking a step back from the multiple and complex idiosyncrasies of our case studies, and systematically analysing our rich data help detect patterns and generate valuable insights for those committed to making peace sustainable.
Can you give a concrete example?
One of the first systematic analyses of interviews from the project compares gendered dynamics of ethno-religious conflicts in Ambon and Jos. While the two settings present many disparities in terms of social and gender arrangements, political organisation, and culture, it is interesting to note that several gendered dynamics operated along the same lines in both locations. First, both Ambon and Jos experienced similar “initiates” for the conflict, or enablers, including a high level of unemployment for the male youth, as well as high consumption and abuse of psychoactive substances (alcohol in Ambon, and smoked tetrahydrocannabinol in Jos) on top of existing crystallised ethno-religious identities. In both settings as well, the conflict shifted from small-scale brawls to large-scale violent and organised destructions, where violence spread through the circulation of rumours. Rumours acted as a vessel from which information on violence and crystallisation of ethno-religious identities stiffened, and as a trigger for immediate retaliation, whether the information reported was fact-based or not. This mechanism is gendered at two levels: rumours circulate through gendered networks within the communities (youth groups, women groups), and the content of the rumours themselves can be gendered (with for instance information on attacks against women further activating the “protecting” role of men and triggering retaliations). Finally, dynamics of conflict management also shared similarities in both places. The mechanism of rumour control was particularly powerful in preventing escalation and retaliations. Groups of elder men forcefully discouraged the spreading of rumours and punished physically the ones who spread them further or engaged in fighting. Interfaith cooperation also was a striking feature in both regions and took several forms: for instance, women cooperated across religious divides in conflict time by maintaining local markets and ensuring the provision of foodstuff across communities; youth groups engaged in interfaith dialogues and implemented rumour-checking mechanisms through mobile network groups. These dynamics are only initial glimpses from the rich empirical information coming up from the project. The team is now dedicated to further analysing gendered dynamics in all settings and to collectively editing a book on gender and the management of violent conflict.
After three years, can you conclusively assert that “Yes, gender has an impact on the resolution of conflict”?
The project is investigating intersubjectively constructed relationships between gender, conflicts, and peacebuilding. As such, we expect to find gendered arrangements to produce conflict management types in intersection with other status positions (such as ethnicity and age). Emerging findings tend to support this assertion, illustrating that gender is an omnipresent and productive construct which underlines and shapes responses to conflicts, and which is in turn shaped by conflict dynamics. Not surprisingly, the project also disturbs stereotypical constructions of femininity and masculinity that portray women as peaceful and men as war-prone. Adopting a gender lens allows us to analyse less visible forms of agency in which women take part in conflict as combatants (as for instance in the case of the Aceh insurrection) or as demonstrators (as in the anti-mining movements in East Java). The research also uncovers many forms of peace-making masculinity from authoritative movements where elders seek to prevent conflict escalations through tight social and rumour control, or through interfaith dialogues and sport competitions. Overall, one striking finding from the research is that only a gender lens focusing on micro-dynamics of conflict can uncover these hidden but promising grassroots conflict management and peacebuilding processes.
Can you tell us about the research consortium and collaboration between the partners? It is known that research efforts conducted by teams located across the globe suppose a particular approach.
Certainly working in such a diverse team, with partners from different backgrounds and located in very distant locations from one another, presents many challenges. Issues of communications are pervasive, with Internet connections being for instance particularly disrupted in Nigeria, and different time zones complicating the smooth exchange of information. Yet, it seems that our team has found its own modes of communication and its distinctive team spirit. We try to all meet at least once a year as a team, and these times are useful not only for organisational purposes (designing and consolidating the research design, methods, and field research, brainstorming and collaborating on publications), but as in-depth intellectual exchanges as well. As the international coordinator, I really sought to create a “safe space” for each partner so that ideas, questions, suggestions, and critiques can be safely shared without fear of being judged. It seems to me that this approach is particularly powerful in allowing all types of insights, feedback, and ideas to be creatively integrated into our discussions and to scale up our results ultimately. Our next team meeting is scheduled for July 2017 in Abuja, where we will support the national coordinators in holding a national workshop on dissemination of findings, plan ahead for the second phase of our field research, and work on concretising our publication plans.
Is there a potential application of your results that you would really like to see realised one day – although I know that this question, with its transition from social sciences to social engineering, is always disturbing for a researcher?
It is still very early, and many more insights will certainly come up from our extremely rich empirical findings, but the initiatives of rumour controls and interfaith togetherness seem extremely promising in curbing violence spreading and identity crystallisation in ethno-religious conflict settings. Perhaps digging around how our gendered approach could contribute to adapting, in context- and gender-sensitive ways, these conflict management practices could be one important achievement for the project. Contributing, thanks to our research and recommendations, to improving inclusively the status of women and men in post-conflict settings, where women’s voices are often neglected in spite of the significant roles they are taking as breadwinners, heads of households, and leaders during conflicts certainly also remains one implicit and ambitious goal shared by all our team members.
Illustration: Nigeria, 2013. © Reuters.