Virtuous imperialism or a shared global objective? - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 70

experience is relevant, not just at the level of the individual however, but also
in relation to the community, the state and the global order. At the same time
it is recognized that individuals are part of communities, and that gender is
a significant feature of individual identity in relation to others and is there-
fore a part of societal security (Hoogensen and Vigeland Rottem 2004). The
social constructions of gender come in to play in the analysis and the ways in
which humans have constructed their societies on the basis of gender roles,
who has the 'right' to play which roles in society (as decision-makers or as the
subjects/objects of those decisions) and how people are supposed to relate to
one another. Gender analysis is inherently social, as it relies on the construc-
tion of relationships in society as the point of analysis. Even further, however,
globalized gender analysis has demonstrated not only the dominance of male or
patriarchal-based societies, but culturally dominant societies, where the gen-
dered demands (for example, Western feminists) of one society are imposed
upon other, less dominant societies. As such, gender analysis integrates the
individual, national and global levels through acknowledgement of the social
power interactions between peoples and constructions of societies.
By identifying the articulation of security needs by those who are least
secure or in positions of non-dominance, security is reoriented away from elite
interests. Feminist analysis has much to offer in this respect, and contributes
to the identification of security needs from the margins. Feminist approaches
have had a long and established tradition of highlighting marginalized reali-
ties faced on a daily basis by, arguably, the majority of the world's population,
from economic insecurity and domestic violence, to rape as an institutional-
ized strategy of large-scale warfare, as well as from the gendered roots of war
itself. Such realities are open to, and open up, the meaning of what it is to be
secure. Additionally, it is a theoretical tradition that has a logical place in the
human security discussion, bringing the political 'down' to the level of the
individual, to bring a voice (and power) to the personal. The personal is politi-
cal, and human security, with its focus on the individual, has the potential as a
concept and a theoretical platform for policy to support these personal voices.
It is often women who find themselves at the forefront of security challenges,
but also they who find themselves immediately marginalized when attempting
to arrive at solutions for these same challenges (Karamé 2001; Hoogensen and
Stuvøy 2006; Youngs 2008). International relations, and security in particu-
lar, has sustained and maintained a militarized, elite actor focus. 'An IR lens
focused exclusively on elite interstate actors and narrow definitions of security
keeps us from seeing many other important realities' (Peterson and Runyan
1999:32). Often the dichotomy between the narrow conception of security
and a broader conception can be illustrated by the differences between mili-
tarization and structural violence; the former focused on military defence and
the removal of a physical, often institutional threat such as war or large-scale
violent conflict, and the latter representing 'reduced life expectancy as a conse-
quence of oppressive political and economic structures … that especially affects