fmpВестник Московского Университета. Серия XXV. Международные отношения и мировая политикаLomonosov World Politics Journal2076-7404Московский государственный университет имени М.В.Ломоносоваfmp-20Research ArticleТЕОРИЯ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙTHEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSГендерная проблематика в исследованиях феномена войныGender Perspective in the Studies of WarСкороспеловаТ. В.SkorospelovaT. V.

Скороспелова Татьяна Владимировна — доктор исторических наук, доцент факультета мировой политики

119991, Москва, Ленинские горы, 1

Tatiana V. Skorospelova — Doctor of Sciences (History), Associate Professor at the School of World Politics

1 Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991

tvs@fmp.msu.ruФедеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Московский государственный университет имени М.В. Ломоносова»Lomonosov Moscow State University2019191120201137791Copyright © Скороспелова Т.В., 20202020Скороспелова Т.В.Skorospelova T.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://fmp.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/20

Гендерные исследования, появившиеся в теории международных отношений еще в годы «холодной войны», окончательно оформились в качестве полноправного научного направления уже в 1990-е годы. С самого начала в центре внимания подобных исследований оказались ключевые для всей теории международных отношений концепции и понятия, такие как «государство», «власть», «безопасность», «война». Именно на вкладе гендерных исследований в изучение проблематики войны в современных условиях и сделан акцент в данной статье. В первой части рассмотрены взгляды исследователей на традиционные гендерные роли, приписываемые женщинам в условиях военных действий: образы женщины-матери и хранительницы очага, женщины-жертвы. Показано, что за ними кроется более широкий комплекс проблем, связанный с индоктринацией определенных властных отношений в обществе в целом. Во второй части статьи автор обращается к проблеме восприятия в академическом и медийном дискурсе новых гендерных ролей, в рамках которых формируются образы женщины-солдата и воина, а также женщины-террористки. В этой связи автор обращает внимание на своеобразный парадокс: если на практике, в ходе меж- и внутригосударственных военных действий, объективно происходит стремительное закрепление за женщинами новых гендерных ролей в том, что касается войны, то в теории и массовом сознании продолжают доминировать традиционные гендерные стереотипы. В этой связи автор заключает, что именно вопросы безопасности и войны и в дальнейшем будут играть определяющую роль в развитии гендерных исследований в теории международных отношений, и обозначает несколько наиболее перспективных направлений в этой области.

Feminist studies, first introduced in international relations theory back in the Cold War, established themselves as an independent research field in 1990s. From the onset, feminist studies have been focused on the key concepts and notions of the IR theory, such as ‘state’, ‘power’, ‘security’, and ‘war’. It is exactly the role of gender perspective in the studies of war in the modern context which is the central issue of this paper. The first section examines feminist views on traditional gender roles attributed to women at war: the image of mother, the keeper of the hearth, and the image of victim. The author emphasizes that behind these roles lays a much broader set of issues, which involves legitimization of a particular structure of power relations in society in general. The second section focuses on perceptions of new gender roles of women at war, which include the images of a woman as a soldier and a terrorist, both in the academic discourse and in the media. The author underlines a paradox in this regard: whereas the practice of inter- and intrastate conflicts has already resulted in the entrenchment of the new female gender roles, gender stereotypes continue to dominate both the IR theory and mass consciousness. The author concludes that the issues of war and security will continue to play a crucial role in the development of feminist studies in the IR theory and outlines several promising directions for further research in this area.

теория международных отношенийгендергендерные исследованияфеминизмгендерные стереотипывойнабезопасностьфемининностьмаскулинностьtheory of international relationsgendergender studiesfeminismgender stereotypeswarsecurityfemininitymasculinityReferencesВиног радова С.М. Государство, безопасность, суверенитет: международные отношения в зеркале феминизма // Политэкс. 2010. Т. 6. № 4. С. 53–68.Vinogradova S.M. 2010. Gosudarstvo, bezopasnost’, suverenitet: mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v zerkale feminizma [State, security, sovereignty: International relations in the mirror of feminism]. Politeks, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 53–68. (In Russ.)Виноградова С.М., Панцерев К.А. Гендерный мировой порядок: эволюция «феминности» и «маскулинности» (некоторые аспекты теории и практики) // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 6. Философия. Культурология. Политология. Право. Международные отношения. 2016. № 1. С. 97–109.Vinogradova S.M., Pantserev K.A. 2016. Gendernyi mirovoi poryadok: evolyutsiya ‘feminnosti’i ‘maskulinnosti’ (nekotorye aspekty teorii i praktiki) [Gender world order: The evolution of ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ (some aspects of theory and practice)]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University, series 6, no. 1, pp. 97–109. (In Russ.)Митрофанова А.В. «Человеческая безопасность» — вызов национальному суверенитету? // Ученые записки. ИАМП. М.: Дипломатическая академия МИД России, 2001. С. 34–53.Mitrofanova A.V. 2001. ‘Chelovecheskaya bezopasnost’ — vyzov natsional’nomy suverenitetu? [‘Human security’ — a challenge to national sovereignty?]. Moscow, Diplomaticheskaya akademia MID Rossii Publ., pp. 34–53. (In Russ.)Сергунин А.А. Российская внешнеполитическая мысль: проблемы национальной и международной безопасности. Нижний Новгород: Нижегородский лингвистический университет, 2003.Sergunin A.A. 2003. Rossiiskaya vneshnepoliticheskaya mysl’: problemy mezhdunarodnoi i natsional’noi bezopasnosti [Russian thought in foreign policy: International and national security issues]. Nizhnii Novgorod. (In Russ.)Тикнер Дж.Э. Мировая политика с гендерных позиций. Проблемы и подходы эпохи, наступившей после «холодной войны». М.: Культурная революция, 2006.Tikner D.E. 2006. Mirovaya politika s gendernykh pozitsii [World politics from a gender perspective]. Мoscow, Kul’turnaya revolyutsiya Publ. (In Russ.)Торкунов А.В., Мальгин А.В. Современные международные отношения. М.: Аспект-Пресс, 2012.Torkunov A.V., Mal’gin A.V. 2012. Sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Modern international relations]. Moscow, Aspekt Press Publ. (In Russ.)Цыганков П.А. Теория международных отношений. М.: Юрайт, 2016.Tsygankov P.A. 2016. Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Theory of international relations]. Moscow, Yurait Publ. (In Russ.)Balasingham A.A. Women fighters of the Liberation Tigers. Jaffna: Thasan Printers, 1993.Balasingham A.A. 1993. Women fighters of the Liberation Tigers. Jaffna, ThasanPrinters.Brittain M. Benevolent invaders, heroic victims and depraved villains: White femininity in media coverage of the invasion of Iraq // (En)gendering the War on Terror / Ed. by K. Hunt, K. Rygiel. London: Ashgate, 2006. P. 73–96.Brittain M. 2006. Benevolent invaders, heroic victims and depraved villains: White femininity in media coverage of the invasion of Iraq. In Hunt K., Rygiel K. (eds.). (En)gendering the War on Terror. London, Ashgate, pp. 73–96.Brouneus K. Truth-telling as talking cure? Insecurity and retraumatization in the Rwandan Gacaca courts // Security Dialogue. 2008. Vol. 39. No. 1. P. 55–76.Brouneus K. 2008. Truth-telling as talking cure? Insecurity and retraumatization in the Rwandan Gacaca courts. Security Dialogue, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 55–76.Brownmiller S. Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975.Brownmiller S. 1975. Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, Simon & Schuster.Chang I. The rape of Nanking: The forgotten Holocaust of World War II. New York: Basic Books, 1997.Chang I. 1997. The rape of Nanking: The forgotten Holocaust of World War II. New York, Basic Books.Coomaraswamy R. Tiger women and the question of women’s emancipation // Pravada. 1996. Vol. 4. No. 9. P. 8–10.Coomaraswamy R. 1996. Tiger women and the question of women’s emancipation. Pravada, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 8–10.Elshtain B.J. Sovereignty, identity, sacrifice // Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 1991. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 395–406.Elshtain B.J. 1991. Sovereignty, identity, sacrifice. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 395–406.Elshtain B.J. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.Elshtain B.J. 1987. Women and war. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Encyclopedia of feminist theories / Ed. by L. Code. London; New York: Routledge, 2002.Code L. (ed.). 2003. Encyclopedia of feminist theories. London, Routledge.Enloe C. Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women’s lives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.Enloe C. 2000. Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women’s lives. Berkeley, University of California Press.Farmanfarmaian А. Did you measure up? The role of race and sexuality in the Gulf War // The geopolitics reader / Ed. by S. Dalby, P. Routledge, G.Ó Tuathail. London: Routledge, 1998. P. 286–293.Farmanfarmaian А. 1998. Did you measure up? The role of race and sexuality in the Gulf War. In Dalby S., Routledge P., Ó Tuathail G. (eds.). The geopolitics reader. London, Routledge, pp. 286–293.Goldstein J.S. War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Goldstein J.S. 2001. War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Hansen L. The little mermaid’s silent security dilemma and the absence of gender in the Copenhagen school // Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 285–306.Hansen L. 2000. The little mermaid’s silent security dilemma and the absence of gender in the Copenhagen school. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 285–306.Huston N. Tales of war and tears of women // Women and men’s wars / Ed. by J.H. Stiehm. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1983. P. 272–282.Huston N. 1983. Tales of war and tears of women. In Stiehm J.H. (ed.). Women and men’s wars. Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp. 272–282.Keohane R.O. International relations theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint // Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 1989. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 245–253.Keohane R.O. 1989. International relations theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 245–253.Logan S. Remembering the woman in Rwanda: When humans rely on the old concepts of war to resolve conflict // Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work. 2006. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 234–239.Logan S. 2006. Remembering the woman in Rwanda: When humans rely on the old concepts of war to resolve conflict. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 234–239.McKay S., Mazurana D.E. Where are the girls? Girls in fighting forсes in Northern Uganda, Sierre Leone and Mozambique: Their lives during and after war. Montréal: Rights & Democracy, 2004.McKay S., Mazurana D.E. 2004. Where are the girls? Girls in fighting forсes in Northern Uganda, Sierre Leone and Mozambique: Their lives during and after war. Montréal, Rights & Democracy.Orford А. Muscular humanitarianism: Reading the narratives of the new interventionism // European Journal of International Law. 1999. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 679–711.Orford А. 1999. Muscular humanitarianism: Reading the narratives of the new interventionism. European Journal of International Law, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 679–711.Rajasingham-Senanayake D. Between reality and representation: Women’s agency in war and post-conflict Sri Lanka // Cultural Dynamics. 2004. Vol. 16. No. 2/3. P. 141–168.Rajasingham-Senanayake D. 2004. Between reality and representation: Women’s agency in war and post-conflict Sri Lanka. Cultural Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 2–3, pp. 141–168.Parashar S. Women, militancy and security: The South Asian conundrum // Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives / Ed. by L. Sjoberg. London: Routledge, 2010. P. 168–188.Parashar S. 2010. Women, militancy and security: The South Asian conundrum. In Sjoberg L. (ed.). Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives. London, Routledge, pp. 168–188.Powley E. Strengthening governance. The role of women in Rwanda’s transition. Washington, D.C.: Hunt Alternatives, 2003.Powley E. 2003. Strengthening governance. The role of women in Rwanda’s transition. Washington, D.C., Hunt Alternatives.Sjoberg L. Agency, militarised femininity and enemy others: Observations from the War in Iraq // International Feminist Journal of Politics. 2007. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 82–101.Sjoberg L. 2007. Agency, militarised femininity and enemy others: Observations from the War in Iraq. International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 82–101.Sjoberg L. Introduction // Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives / Ed. by L. Sjoberg. London: Routledge, 2010. P. 1–14.Sjoberg L. 2010. Women fighters and the ‘beautiful soul’ narrative. International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 92, no. 877, pp. 53–68.Sjoberg L. Women fighters and the ‘beautiful soul’ narrative // International Review of the Red Cross. 2010. Vol. 92. No. 877. P. 53–68.Sjoberg L. 2010. Introduction. In Sjoberg L. (ed.). Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives. London, Routledge, pp. 1–14.Sylvester C. Feminist theory and international relations in a postmodern era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Sylvester C. 1994. Feminist theory and international relations in a postmodern era. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Tickner J.A. Gender in international relations: Feminist approaches on achieving global security. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.Tickner J.A. 1992. Gender in international relations: Feminist approaches on achieving global security. New York, Columbia University Press.Tickner J.A. Hans Morgenthau’s principles of political realism: A feminist reformulation // Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 1988. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 429–440.Tickner J.A. 1988. Hans Morgenthau’s principles of political realism: A feminist reformulation. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 429–440.Van Evera S. The cult of the offensive and the origins of the First World War // Offense, defense and war / Ed. by M.E. Brown. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998. P. 69–118.Van Evera S. 1998. The cult of the offensive and the origins of the First World War. In Brown M.E. (ed.). Offense, defense and war. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 69–118.Wilcox L. Gendering the cult of the offensive // Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives / Ed. by L. Sjoberg. London: Routledge, 2010. P. 61–82.Wilcox L. 2010. Gendering the cult of the offensive. In Sjoberg L. (ed.). Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives. London, Routledge, pp. 61–82.Women, gender and terrorism / Ed. by L. Sjoberg, C.E. Gentry. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2011.Sjoberg L., Gentry C.E. (eds.). 2011. Women, gender and terrorism. Athens, University of Georgia Press.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.