TY - JOUR
T1 - Family values? Sexism and heteronormativity in Feminist Evolutionary Analytic (FEA) research
AU - Kinsella, Helen M.
AU - Sjoberg, Laura
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 British International Studies Association.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/4/1
Y1 - 2019/4/1
N2 - In this article, we focus on the subset of evolutionary theorising self-identified as Feminist Evolutionary Analytic (FEA) within security studies and International Relations. We offer this accounting in four sections. First, we provide a brief overview of the argument that reproductive interests are the 'origins' of international violence. Second, we break down the definitions of gender, sex, and sexuality used in evolutionary work in security studies generally and in FEA specifically, demonstrating a lack of complexity in FEA's accounts of the potential relations among the three and critiquing their essentialist heteronormative assumptions. Third, we argue that FEA's failure to reflect on the history and context of evolutionary theorising, much less contemporary feminist critiques, facilitates its forwarding of the state and institutions as primarily neutral and corrective bulwarks against male violence. Fourth, we conclude by outlining what is at stake if we fail to correct for this direction in feminist, IR, and security research. We argue that FEA work misrepresents and narrows the potential for understanding and responding to violence, facilitating the continued instrumentalisation of women's rights, increased government regulation of sexuality, and a more expansive form of militarism.
AB - In this article, we focus on the subset of evolutionary theorising self-identified as Feminist Evolutionary Analytic (FEA) within security studies and International Relations. We offer this accounting in four sections. First, we provide a brief overview of the argument that reproductive interests are the 'origins' of international violence. Second, we break down the definitions of gender, sex, and sexuality used in evolutionary work in security studies generally and in FEA specifically, demonstrating a lack of complexity in FEA's accounts of the potential relations among the three and critiquing their essentialist heteronormative assumptions. Third, we argue that FEA's failure to reflect on the history and context of evolutionary theorising, much less contemporary feminist critiques, facilitates its forwarding of the state and institutions as primarily neutral and corrective bulwarks against male violence. Fourth, we conclude by outlining what is at stake if we fail to correct for this direction in feminist, IR, and security research. We argue that FEA work misrepresents and narrows the potential for understanding and responding to violence, facilitating the continued instrumentalisation of women's rights, increased government regulation of sexuality, and a more expansive form of militarism.
KW - Conflict
KW - Evolution
KW - Feminism
KW - Gender
KW - Terrorism
KW - War
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056849655&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056849655&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S026021051800044X
DO - 10.1017/S026021051800044X
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85056849655
SN - 0260-2105
VL - 45
SP - 260
EP - 279
JO - Review of International Studies
JF - Review of International Studies
IS - 2
ER -