In her new book, Laura Sjoberg points out that feminist scholars have had an uneasy relationship with the field of war studies. This discomfort has fostered two very different perspectives regarding how academics concerned with gender should approach the study of conflict. One view is that feminist security scholars should seek to place themselves within the boundaries of the traditional study of international relations. ^{Footnote 1} This approach sees “gender as (sometimes) a part of war theorizing, sometimes not,” depending on the subject under consideration (p. 281). A second, alternative perspective asserts that feminists risk losing their identity if they accept that their work must fit within the confines of traditional conflict studies (p. 281). Rather than accept the restrictions associated with established research approaches, proponents of this viewpoint suggest that feminists would be better served by maintaining an intellectual distance. ^{Footnote 2}

Sjoberg rejects these two perspectives as the only appropriate means of framing the relationship between feminism and the study of war. Gendering Global Conflict is an effort to demonstrate that there is value in a “third way” in which feminist studies of conflict neither accept a segregated role within war studies nor stand completely apart from this research program (p. 283). This third way is premised on the belief that a consistent emphasis on gender when conflict is studied can yield valuable insights that would otherwise be neglected. The book thus forms her attempt to demonstrate that “war cannot be understood without the use of gender as a primary analytical category” (p. 3).

Toward this goal of removing what she perceives to be the artificial boundaries separating gender studies from war research, Sjoberg devotes the bulk of the individual chapters to an exploration of different aspects of existing conflict research, illustrating how scholars might effectively incorporate an emphasis on gender. The scope of the book is impressive, with chapters providing a critical examination of established explanations for conflict based on the levels of the international system, the dyadic relationship between states, the state level, and the individual. Sjoberg also explores how an emphasis on gender might be used to interpret and explain the adoption of particular strategies and tactics associated with war.

It would be impossible in the context of this brief discussion to describe the full range of theories of war that Sjoberg considers when employing what she describes as a “gender lens” (p. 6). There are, however, some key themes that do emerge within the study that I wish to highlight. One of these is the claim that the international system is not adequately characterized by the concept of anarchy. Sjoberg suggests that a more productive approach instead is to regard the international system as a gendered hierarchy that prioritizes characteristics associated with masculinity over those linked to the feminine. In this interpretation, conflicts that take place between countries may be explained as a function of a “competition for masculinized dominance in which states, as gendered actors in a gendered system, are out to dominate rather than survive” (p. 98). Violence emerges as a product of disagreements among states concerning their relative place in this gender hierarchy, or is attributable to leaders who perceive that the masculinity of their states has been called into question (p. 100).

Sjoberg also addresses the question of why civilian victimization, and in particular the sexual victimization of women, takes place in the context of war. Established explanations for this phenomenon have included such issues as the inability of military organizations and communities to police the behavior of their members and prevent abuse. ^{Footnote 3} The author offers an alternative interpretation; considering when the intentional victimization of civilians is employed as a strategy of war. Her argument is that women in war are often portrayed within their own countries as “beautiful souls” who simultaneously represent the nation as well as perpetuate it through reproduction (p. 197). ^{Footnote 4} Within this context, the sexual victimization of women is an opportunity for soldiers to call into question the virility of their enemies through a demonstration that those foes are powerless to protect “their” women. Given the role of women in reproducing the nation, sexual attacks in the context of war also threaten the ability of victimized groups to perpetuate themselves (p. 221).

How war is experienced is a topic, Sjoberg suggests, that would also benefit from the adoption of an emphasis on gender. If the majority of war-studies research is concentrated on the causes of war or the strategies and tactics associated with wartime violence, the author advocates an alternative emphasis on the ways in which wars disrupt and impact the lives of ordinary citizens. This consideration of how individuals “live gendered war(s)” includes concerns with the often-uncompensated labor that women are expected to provide in support of the military’s mission (pp. 143, 244); it also notes the challenges that women confront in the context of war when carrying out the functions associated with traditional gender roles, such as child care and the preparation of meals (p. 258). Sjoberg points out that gender-based concerns with the effect of wars on the lives of average citizens extends to the interests of men as well, noting that there is a normative expectation that men will act as “soldier-protectors” during the war or confront the risk of having their masculinity called into question (pp. 266–67).

How successful is Sjoberg in demonstrating that gender should form a primary basis for analysis in the study of conflict? While she certainly makes a strong case that the issues associated with gender deserve greater attention in the context of war studies, there are at least two reasons to doubt that the wholesale adoption of such an approach would benefit research in this field.

First, as Sjoberg acknowledges within the text, feminist research is extraordinarily diverse and at times contradictory (p. 49). The author’s response to this diversity is to favor what she terms a dialogical approach that “sees the substance of feminist analysis in its differences, seeing feminist war theorizing as not a result, but a process, and a journey of observation, critique, reformation, and reflexivity” (p. 54). While a dialogical approach serves to fit competing feminist ideas within a single framework, it falls far short of establishing a coherent paradigm for feminist theory that might parallel realism or liberalism. A core virtue of realist and liberal frameworks is that they are unambiguous in identifying what they consider to be the key factors that drive conflict and cooperation in the international system; this clarity allows for scholars within these traditions to build upon one another’s work. A dialogical approach does not appear to provide the same opportunity to develop a scalable research program.

A second item that would make it challenging to employ gender as a central basis for analysis in the study of war concerns how one might identify the gendered identities of states, a largely unaddressed question in this book. As I previously noted, Sjoberg highlights the importance of state gender identities in her consideration of the potential for conflict within the international system. Validation of assertions that countries with “hypermasculinist” characteristics are more likely to select bellicose leaders (p. 163) or engage in conflict (p. 147) hinge on an ability to categorize states as holding particular gender identities in a convincing manner. Yet the study is relatively silent concerning how to determine which states are more masculine or feminine in their identities, suggesting only that the coding of state press releases might prove productive in this effort (p. 103). Providing a valid and reliable means of coding the gender identities of states thus seems a critical and unfulfilled prerequisite for demonstrating that gender should be at the center of war studies.

Despite these limitations, this is an important and insightful contribution to the study of conflict. Beyond serving as a useful guide to existing work in the field of feminist war studies, it also identifies intriguing paths for future research. Gendering Global Conflict stands as a strong and convincing argument that research by scholars who study war would benefit from a greater emphasis placed on issues of gender.