{"id":2134,"date":"2025-12-05T14:17:36","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T11:17:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/?p=2134"},"modified":"2025-12-05T19:34:02","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T16:34:02","slug":"the-multilayered-nature-of-peace-building-womens-participation-in-peace-building-and-gender-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/2025\/12\/05\/the-multilayered-nature-of-peace-building-womens-participation-in-peace-building-and-gender-2\/","title":{"rendered":"2 – The Multilayered Nature of Peace Building. Women’s Participation in Peace Building and Gender"},"content":{"rendered":"

We republish the second part of the article \u201cThe Multilayered Nature of Peace Building.\u201d To read the first part, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Berfin G\u00fcne\u015f<\/em><\/p>\n

The roles of women in conflict and peace processes have long been predominantly defined as “victims” or passive figures “in need of protection.” However, since the last quarter of the 20th century, these limiting representations have begun to be comprehensively questioned through women’s collective resistance practices, social struggles, and political subjectification processes.<\/p>\n

Particularly since the 1990s, peace has been conceptualized as a multi-layered process that is not limited solely to the silencing of weapons, but also encompasses the transformation and reconstruction of social relations. In this context, women’s knowledge production, political participation, and agency have become more visible and debatable on a global scale.<\/p>\n

Gender in Peace Processes<\/h4>\n

In peace processes, gender is addressed not merely as a category at the level of representation, but also as a constitutive social structure that determines how these processes are designed, function, and what outcomes they lead to. This perspective has brought to the agenda a vision of peace that enables confrontation with and transformation of these structures, rather than being a terrain where militarism, patriarchal relations, and structural inequalities are reproduced. The forms of experiential knowledge filtered through women’s life practices and their understandings of justice have emerged as important tools with the potential to question and reconstruct the epistemological foundations of peace processes.<\/p>\n

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325<\/h4>\n

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) is one of the clearest reflections of this approach at the level of international law. The resolution aims to ensure women’s effective participation in peace processes and to promote restructuring based on gender equality. However, the implementation of the resolution has often remained limited to formal representation; women’s transformative participation in these processes has been restricted due to structural and cultural barriers. In only 6% of the 353 peace processes conducted between 1992 and 2019 did women participate directly as negotiators. Despite this low representation rate, various studies show that women’s meaningful participation increases the sustainability of peace agreements and accelerates social healing processes. Indeed, the finding that the likelihood of implementing agreements increases by 35% in processes where women participate is noteworthy. However, despite this potential, women’s contributions often remain at the level of “symbolic representation”; their roles are frequently limited by traditional norms such as “protection of women and children.”<\/p>\n

Women as Active Resisters and Organizers in Conflict Processes<\/h4>\n

\"\"There are many historical examples where women have participated in conflict processes not only as victims but also as active resisters and organizing actors. Women fighters within the Maoist movement in Nepal, FMLN in El Salvador, and FARC in Colombia are notable examples in this context. These experiences demonstrate thatwomen developed political consciousness during armed struggle processes, produced alternative practices against patriarchal structures, and built forms of relationship that prioritized gender equality. Indeed, the questioning of gender norms in guerrilla movements and the achievement of gender equality at a more advanced level than in society generally has enabled the germination of transformative gender policies in the post-conflict period. However, after the establishment of peace, these gains have often been suppressed by masculine power relations; women have been pushed back into traditional gender roles, and their political subjectification processes have been interrupted. The concept of “conjugal order” is frequently used to explain the redirection of women toward “normative” roles after war and the dilution of their subjectivities. The Colombian example is instructive in this respect. Women militants within FARC ensured the inclusion of gender equality principles in peace agreements; however, these gains were rolled back during the referendum process under the influence of sexist and conservative discourses. The state’s reproduction of gender norms through media and education policies led to women being coded as “moral threats” and excluded from the public sphere. Similarly, women fighters within the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka were defined solely through the identity of “traumatic victim” in the post-peace process; their existence as political subjects was largely denied.<\/p>\n

“Whose Peace” and “What Kind of Peace”<\/h4>\n

These examples reveal that peace is not only the end of conflict but also requires answering the questions “whose peace” and “what kind of peace.” Discussions are increasingly finding space regarding the need for women not only to be symbolically present at the negotiation table in peace processes, but also to transform the epistemology of the process and to be founding actors of the process with their own forms of knowledge production, understandings of justice, and life experiences. Women’s knowledge about peace, often built at the micro level, presents a holistic epistemology containing approaches based on justice, care, sociality and equality. The transformative impact of women in peace processes can be observed in examples such as Liberia, the Philippines, and Rwanda. In Liberia, the women’s movement pressured parties to initiate peace negotiations and made visible women’s collective political action power. In the Philippines, the presence of women negotiators enabled the peace agreement to be structured with a gender perspective. However, even in these examples, the institutionalization and sustainability of women’s gains in the post-peace process have faced serious difficulties. Structural obstacles in the implementation phase have gradually limited women’s influence in negotiation processes.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Defining Women Solely Through “Victim” Identity<\/h4>\n

On the other hand, Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) programs have largely ignored women militants. These programs were mostly designed based on male combatants; women’s participation in economic life, social integration and opportunities for political representation have been limited. In the examples of Nepal, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Congo, the exclusion of women fighters from DDR processes has marginalized them economically and socially. Defining women solely through the “victim” identity demonstrates that these processes are designed without a gender perspective. This situation is addressed in numerous international reports, emphasizing that women’s needs are systematically disregarded.<\/p>\n

Women’s Participation Must Be Addressed in a Multi-layered and In-depth Manner<\/h4>\n

All these experiences reveal that women’s participation in peace processes cannot be limited merely to quantitative representation; it must be addressed in a multi-layered and in-depth manner. In this context, three fundamental dimensions emerge in discussions. The first is structural participation – this refers to women’s institutional-level representation in decision-making mechanisms and negotiation processes. The second is transformative participation – here, women engage in interventions to redefine the purpose and content of peace based on gender equality and women’s liberation. The third dimension is epistemological participation – at this level, women transform the conceptual foundation of the process by enriching knowledge production about peace with alternative values such as justice, solidarity and sociality. These multi-dimensional forms of participation make it possible to conceive of peace not only as the end of conflict but also as the construction of a more just and inclusive social order.<\/p>\n

Knowledge Producers, Political Subjects and Agents of Social Transformation<\/h4>\n

In conclusion, women’s participation in peace processes is not merely a tool for compensating for their exclusion or increasing representation. It also involves a deep epistemological and political interrogation process regarding how peace is defined, what knowledge is referenced and what values are prioritized. Positioning women as knowledge producers, political subjects and agents of social transformation, enables not only the sustainability of peace but also the construction of a more just, egalitarian and democratic social structure. In this direction, women, not merely as negotiators or victims, but as founding actors who determine the direction and meaning of peace, are laying the groundwork for the construction of a new social contract.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Source: https:\/\/www.newayajin.net\/barisin-insasinda-kadinlarin-katilimi-ve-toplumsal-cinsiyet\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We republish the second part of the article \u201cThe Multilayered Nature of Peace Building.\u201d To read the first part, click here. Berfin G\u00fcne\u015f The roles of women in conflict and peace processes have long been predominantly defined as “victims” or passive figures “in need of protection.” However, since the last quarter of the 20th century, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":2123,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[93,1,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-academy-of-jineoloji","category-article","category-in-the-medias"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2134"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2134\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2148,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2134\/revisions\/2148"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2123"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}