I

Intersectionality and Peace Introduction

Elena B. Stavrevska and Sarah Smith Originally coined by Kimberlé W. Crenshaw

Centre for Women, Peace and Security, London (1989), a US critical legal race scholar,
School of Economics and Political Science, intersectionality was deployed to bring to the
London, UK fore the experiences of oppression of women of
color and how these experiences were based on
Keywords multiple intersecting axes of social division, in
particular race, gender, and class. In her work,
Intersectionality · Gender · Race · Class ·
Crenshaw (1989, 1991) showed how women of
Peace research · Peacebuilding
color were often unable to access the protections
of race and sex discrimination legislation as their
experiences were seen to not fully conform to
Synonyms
either. In this way, Crenshaw (1989, p. 140)
argued that “any analysis that does not take
Inclusion; Interconnection
intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently
address the particular manner in which Black
women are subordinated” as their experiences
Definition were not wholly dictated by either racism or sex-
ism. Since then, intersectionality has generated a
Intersectionality refers to how multiple factors or wealth of literature across disciplines and has been
systems of power and oppression – such as gen- understood as a theory, a method, and a heuristic
der, race, class, age, and sexuality – intersect in device.
defining the societal structures and people’s lived These ideas at the core of intersectionality are
experiences. In conflict-affected societies, not, though, confined to North America or the
intersectionality helps in understanding not only Global North more broadly, nor have they been
the kinds of violence people might suffer but also unexplored before Crenshaw’s articulation of
the varied interests, needs, agencies, and views intersectionality and its subsequent gaining prom-
toward what constitutes inclusive and sustainable inence. Indeed, people in the Global South have
peace. This approach, however, has so far largely long conceptualized intersectionality and used it
been absent in both peace research and as an analytical tool, even if they did not use the
peacebuilding practice. specific term. (The Global South–Global North
distinction is used in reference to the political
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
O. Richmond, G. Visoka (eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_120-1
2 Intersectionality and Peace

and economic divide between countries in the bound by a single axis of social, political, eco-
world, whereby the two terms do not depict geo- nomic, or other division. Instead, an understand-
graphic locations per se, but rather uneven global ing of power as mediated through multiple lines of
hierarchies of power rooted in colonial histories of power and identity is necessary:
exploitation and appropriation. Definitions vary, Intersectionality is a way of understanding and
but the Global South generally includes Africa, analysing the complexity in the world, in people,
developing Eurasia, Latin America and the and in human experiences. The events and condi-
Caribbean, the Middle East/North Africa, the tions of social and political life and the self can
seldom be understood as shaped by one factor.
Pacific, and South and Southeast Asia.) For They are generally shaped by many factors in
instance, in Borderlands/La Frontera: The New diverse and mutually influencing ways. When it
Mestiza, Anzaldúa (1987), and then, in This comes to social inequality, people’s lives and the
Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical organisation of power in a given society are better
understood as being shaped not by a single axis of
Women of Color, Moraga and Anzaldúa (1981) social division, be it race or gender or class, but by
center the Chicano and Latino experiences, as many axes that work together and influence each
well as the experiences of women of color, other. Intersectionality as an analytic tool gives
whose subjectivities and identities have been people better access to the complexity of the world
and of themselves.
shaped through gender, race, colonialism, and
sexuality, among others. There is also a significant Despite the ambiguities and the diversity of
body of literature that attests to prior delineation understandings and approaches, Collins and
of how interlocking and intersecting factors shape Bilge (2016) identify six core themes and ideas
human experience, most notably, but not only, by that (re)appear across the different uses of
Black activists and feminists and post-colonial, intersectionality. While these ideas are not always
Indigenous, Latina, and queer scholars (Collins present in all research, nor do they appear in the
1990; Combahee River Collective 1977; hooks same manner, they do provide useful guideposts
1981; Valdes 1997). for thinking through intersectionality (Collins and
Since the emergence of intersectionality as a Bilge 2016, p. 40). The first one is social inequal-
specific term in women’s studies and beyond, ity, which within intersectional frameworks is rec-
there have been a number of debates on its defini- ognized as based on interactions among different
tion (Crenshaw 1991; Staunæs 2003; Yuval-Davis factors, thus moving analysis beyond a class-only
2006). It is unsurprising that people understand or race-only approach, for example (Collins and
intersectionality in many different ways. Some Bilge 2016, p. 40). The second one is power, in
view it as a theory, others as a method, still others the case of which intersectional analyses focus
as a reading strategy for (feminist) analysis (Davis on the interlocking, mutually constructing, or
2008, p. 68). The most common use, nevertheless, intersecting systems of power, such as race,
is as a concept, a heuristic device or an analytical class, gender, ethnicity, age, religion, sexuality,
tool (Collins and Bilge 2016, p. 17). To that end, and others, that shape people’s lives and identities
Davis (2008, p. 78) convincingly argues that it is (Collins and Bilge 2016, p. 41). Another common
precisely the concept’s “lack of precision and its idea is relationality, which “rejects either/or
myriad missing pieces that have made it such a binary thinking and embraces a both/and frame
useful heuristic device.” She further argues that it instead,” therefore allowing for the analytical gaze
is intersectionality’s encouragement of complex- to be directed at the interconnections, rather than
ity and creativity that motivates scholars to raise the distinctions between entities and systems
new questions, explore uncharted territories, and (Collins and Bilge 2016, p. 42). The fourth
engage critically with their own assumptions theme that Collins and Bilge highlight is social
(Collins and Bilge 2016, pp. 78–79). For the pur- context, the attention to which grounds any
poses of this piece however, we find Collins and intersectional analysis (Collins and Bilge 2016,
Bilge’s (2016, p. 14) definition useful, as it dis- p. 43). The fifth and the sixth core ideas are
courages an understanding of inequalities as complexity and social justice. The former points
Intersectionality and Peace 3

to intersectionality aiming to grasp and analyze tolerating each other, which is then reflected in the
the complexity of the world (Collins and Bilge decision- and policy-making processes. This
2016, p. 43). The latter, on the other hand, is understanding, using the prism of groupism
perhaps the most contentious of the six ideas, (Brubaker 2002, p. 164) whereby (ethnic) groups
since it is not a requirement, but intersectionality are analyzed as the primary societal actors,
has been used as an analytical tool for social ascribed with particular characteristics and
justice as well (Collins and Bilge 2016, p. 45). agency, presupposes homogeneity of the groups
in question. In so doing, it disregards the various
intra-group struggles and the fluidity of social
Intersectionality in Peace Research identities beyond ethnicity. Furthermore, it also
cements ethnicity or another single category as
The use of intersectional analysis in understand- the most, if not the only, important political cleav-
ing peace is necessary for many reasons, not age to reconcile after war.
least of which is that the individuals and institu- This tendency contributes to particular
tions engaged in both peace research and dynamics, social practices, and intersubjectivities
peacebuilding are constituted by intersectional remaining unrecognized as important to under-
identities and experiences. Moreover, as Phoenix standing peace, especially gendered and
and Pattynama (2006, p. 187) rightly note, intersectional peace – what constitutes it and
intersectionality acknowledges and approaches how it might be achieved. The tendency is often
social positions as relational, and it sheds light present in peace agreements and various forms of
on the complex power relations that shape every- conflict settlements. For instance, the Dayton
day life. It pushes against “hegemonic disciplin- Peace Agreement which marked the end of the
ary, epistemological, theoretical, and conceptual war in Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes eth-
boundaries” (Dhamoon 2011, p. 230) and thus nicity as the single most important system of
challenges assumptions that can be problemati- organizing the post-war society, with the three
cally (re)produced within peace research. dominant ethnic groups (Bosniaks, Serbs, and
In contrast, both peacebuilding practice and Croats) being explicitly recognized and given
mainstream peace studies literature have predom- governing power (Stavrevska 2016). This
inantly approached the examination of post-war approach not only renders other ethnic groups
societies in a static and unidimensional manner, invisible, but it also fails to acknowledge the
portraying events, practices, and actors as fixed in differences within ethnic groups, be they along
space, time, and identity. Namely, scholars and class, gender, sexuality, age, geographical, war
practitioners have often used a “snapshot” experiences, political views, or any other lines.
approach (Kappler 2015) in analyzing conflict- The implicit assumption, therefore, is that the
affected societies, where experiences, contexts, interests, needs, and preferences for peace within
and identities are flattened, and a high degree of the ethnic groups align. Using an intersectional
homogeneity is assumed. This has sometimes approach, on the other hand, helps us understand
resulted in communities not being analyzed what peace, in the positive sense, can mean,
within their specific historical, social, and political acknowledging the plurality of subjectivities, sys-
context, as well as interests, needs, and experi- tems of oppression, and agencies that are created
ences of certain groups being assumed as and enacted as a result.
homogenous. The issue of intersectionality is, therefore, at
In that snapshot approach, peace and reconcil- the very core of understanding peace, who gets to
iation have often been understood as a mirror define it, how that definition or vision is
image of the preceding war. For example, when implemented and studied, and, ultimately, whose
a conflict is characterized as a clash between dif- voices, experiences, and agencies are marginal-
ferent ethnicities, peace is viewed as a state of ized and silenced in these processes. In other
those ethnicities reconciling or at the very least words, intersectionality offers us the possibility
4 Intersectionality and Peace

to reflect not only on the peace knowledge that is (see “▶ Women’s Community Peacebuilding in
produced but also on the systems within which the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)” and
that knowledge is produced. For instance, as “▶ Female Combatants”).
Azarmandi (2018, p. 69) notes, while in much of Feminist and intersectional peace theories
peace studies literature violence and conflict are challenge the binary epistemology of liberal and
emphasized as problems of the existing world post-liberal peace theorizing (Smith 2019, pp.
system, the analyses of power therein “continue 138–157). A good example here is that of the
to use notions of sovereign power, which is international-local and the way each dimension
exercised by a particular subject(s) or systems, of this binary is understood. Even the concept of
and understood as repressive and monolithic to hybridity (see “▶ Hybrid Political Orders and
unpack questions of violence.” The understanding Hybrid Peace”), introduced as a beyond-binary
of peace and violence, therefore, must engage analytical device in building and understanding
in an analysis of the violence and conflict that peace, with emancipatory claims and numerous
exist within and are (re)produced by power struc- caveats otherwise, reproduces a binary between
tures, be those economic, racial, or gendered constructed categories of local and non-local
(Azarmandi 2018, p. 69). In that vein, he reminds (Hameiri and Jones 2018). This binary reproduces
us that true peace will remain an impossibility if and relies on Orientalist narratives that deploy a
coloniality is not addressed (Azarmandi 2018, p. particular conception of “the local”; that is, the
69). “local’” as an intelligible category is deployed and
With this in mind, intersectional and decolonial positioned as distinct to the liberal/international.
critiques of peace studies bring to the fore Frantz (Orientalism (Said 1978) refers to a system of
Fanon’s (1963) theorization of peace as “peaceful thought that perpetuates a view of “the absolute
violence” – that is, violence and peace intersect and systematic difference between the West,
and co-exist, rather than stand as distinct or which is rational, developed, humane, superior,
opposed conditions of being. A good example of and the Orient [Said highlighted the Orient as
this is the violence enacted by colonial states in primarily the Middle East and Islam], which is
subjugating populations under colonial rule, aberrant, undeveloped, inferior” (Said 1978, p.
indeed often done in the name of “peace.” Using 300). Through such essentialist framings,
the formulation of “peaceful violence,” Fanon Orientalism presents “the Orient” as something
suggests that peace “can be understood as the “either to be feared . . . or to be controlled (by
regulation and normalisation of violence” rather pacification, research and development, outright
than as its absence (Shroff 2018, p. 148). occupation whenever possible)” (Said 1978, p.
Similarly, more recent critiques have called for 301).) Theorizing a “hybrid peace,” for example,
feminist and queer lenses in peace studies to chal- and seeking means to institute one produces and
lenge the erasure of experiences and interests that relies on an understanding of “local” actors that is
fall outside singular or monolithic assumptions homogenized through being inherently non-lib-
about both peace (who benefits and how) and eral/international. This is evident in the descrip-
societies (Confortini 2006; Mizzi and Byrne tions of what constitutes the local and how
2015; Moolakkattu 2006). They too highlight the hybridity is seen to come about in peace
problematic use of homogenizing categories, such interventions:
as “women,” and particularly in peace studies the [because] liberal peacemaking was forced to deal
collapsed portrayal of “third world women” (see with its own positionality and biases, as well as
Mohanty 1991) as either passive victims or recalcitrant nationalists, religious conservatives,
“agents of change” in conflict-affected places kleptomaniac governing elites, stubborn locals and
peoples whose worldviews was not organized along
(Shepherd 2016). This means that women’s com- a left-right secular political continuum. . .The result
plex roles, contributions, and experiences in con- has been hybrid political orders (and disorders) in
flict – especially those that fall outside these which Western ideas of how a society, polity and
assumptions – are overlooked in peace process economy ‘should’ be run reach a sometimes uneasy
Intersectionality and Peace 5

accommodation with local mores and practices. experience of White women was unable to extend
(Mac Ginty and Richmond 2016, p. 222) the same protections to Black women as it did not
The latter part of this quote explicitly delin- reflect their experiences of sexism, which often
eates “hybrid” peace in binary terms which occurs mingled with experiences of racism. These expe-
when a non-west/non-liberal other finds balance riences then were taken to not be wholly sexist
or accommodation with “western ideas of how a and thus not legitimately within the realms of
society should be run.” Taking intersectionality as protection the legislation was supposed to offer
an analytical framework would challenge these (Crenshaw 1989, 1991). The assumptions that
assumptions though, highlighting instead the institutions make then are important for who
complex axes of power that shape identities, may or may not be able to access the stated ben-
ideas, experiences, and ultimately outcomes. efits of their work, and this is true in peacebuilding
What intersectional critiques highlight then is processes as well.
the necessity for peace studies to dismantle not One area that has garnered significant attention
only the “groupism” blinders noted above but also from a critical intersectional lens is the adoption
the false binaries, such as peace/violence, perpe- and implementation of gender mainstreaming in
trator/victim, non-liberal local/liberal interna- United Nations (and other) peacebuilding prac-
tional, and so on. An intersectional analysis tice. With the adoption of Resolution 1325 in
allows us to recognize the multiplicity of vio- 2000, the UN Security Council committed to
lences that occur and power structures that exist; incorporating a Women, Peace and Security
remove the blinders on the role that gender, class Agenda into its peace and security activities and
(Iñiguez de Heredia 2018), race (Azarmandi assessments, primarily through a framework of
2018), coloniality (Berlowitz 2002), and other “gender mainstreaming” (Cohn 2008; see
systems of power play; and, relatedly, also “▶ Gender Justice and Peacebuilding and Gender
acknowledge the possibility for (a) plural peace and Conflict-Affected Economies”). These policy
(s). frameworks were significant gains for activists
and advocates who had been lobbying the UN,
particularly the Security Council, to recognize
women’s experiences of armed conflict and their
Intersectionality and Peacebuilding marginalization from formal peacebuilding pro-
Practice cesses (Cohn 2008).
In implementation however, gender
An intersectional lens is also imperative in mainstreaming and Women, Peace and Security
peacebuilding practice, whether it be conducted has often fallen short (Smith 2019; Martin de
by institutions, governments, civil society organi- Almagro 2017; Basu et al. 2020, p. 6). One criti-
zations, or individuals. While many have empha- cism of the WPS agenda and its implementation of
sized intersectionality’s contribution in terms of gender policy (such as through Gender Units in
recognizing multiple dimensions of identity that peacekeeping missions, the institution of Gender
mediate individual experience, intersectionality Advisors, and so on) is that it has rested on a
also crucially exposes how institutional structures limited understanding of gender which relates to
are implicated in the marginalization of some biological sex; that is, “gender” is used synony-
groups and individuals. mously with “women” and even then only a select
It is not that some individuals or groups have cohort of women (Martin de Almagro 2017;
more or less “categories” of identity/experience Haastrup and Hagen 2020; see “▶ Masculinity
but rather that some experiences are more readily and Conflict”). WPS has done poorly to take
acknowledged and then in turn generalized. In account of class, race, religion, age, ethnicity,
Crenshaw’s (1989, 1991) initial formulation, for sexuality, and coloniality and how these might
example, anti-sexism discrimination legislation in also be “gendered concerns” or, even if under-
the USA that was formulated based on the stood narrowly, how they also mediate women’s
6 Intersectionality and Peace

experiences in conflict, post-conflict, and the intersection of the two, Indigenous women
peacebuilding situations. (Acosta et al. 2018).
Gender policy can only have limited and With that in mind, taking insights from
circumscribed impacts where it fails to take intersectional feminist work further, it is not sim-
account of intersectional experiences and hierar- ply an issue of multiple experiences and oppres-
chies of power. While gender mainstreaming in sions (and thus a practice of inclusion or
peacebuilding has been effective at bringing light acknowledgment), but also requires critical reflec-
to some experiences and issues, it has largely tion on the structures within which oppressions
eschewed an intersectional framing and posi- are produced. This view “reveals how the
tioned gender as a “single-axis” issue – a problem intersectional lens looked beyond the more nar-
that feminist theorists have long demonstrated is rowly circumscribed demands for inclusion
more likely to obscure and perpetuate discrimina- within the logics of sameness and difference.
tion and oppression rather than overcome it Instead, it addressed the larger ideological struc-
(Cho et al. 2013; Crenshaw 1991). Applying tures in which subjects, problems, and solutions
an intersectional lens to gender policy in were framed” (Cho et al. 2013, p. 791). This is to
peacebuilding exposes how “gender” in policy say that intersectionality should not be understood
frameworks often seeks to rectify only “unidimen- by policy- and decision-makers merely as a
sional notions of discrimination” (Cho et al. 2013; demand for adding diversity to the group around
Crenshaw 1991) and thus marginalizes women’s the table, but rather as a lens that helps examine
(and men’s) experiences that fall outside these the structures on which the table rests.
frames.
There have been, nevertheless, some excep-
tions. For instance, the Gender Sub-Commission Summary
during the peace negotiations between the Gov-
ernment of Colombia and the Revolutionary Intersectionality, as an understanding that peo-
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) advocated ple’s identities, experiences, and agencies are
that the Peace Accord includes a so-called differ- affected by multiple, intersecting systems of
ent approach to building peace (Bouvier 2016). power and oppression, has gained prominence in
This approach recognizes that gender, race, class, both academic and activist discussions in the last
age, sexuality, ability, geographic location, and couple of decades. However, this critical concept
other factors play a role during conflict and in its and the perspective it provides, with notable
aftermath. To that end, the differential approach exceptions, has largely been absent from
acknowledges that different societal groups, such peace research and peacebuilding practice. As
as women and girls, Indigenous peoples, children the case studies discussed here demonstrate,
and adolescents, communities of African descent, peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and peace
small-scale and family farmers (campesinxs), research need to account for a multiplicity of
displaced people, LGTBI persons, people with experiences – as well as how power operates
disabilities, and so on, have faced different across and within assumed social divisions – in
forms of violence and have suffered differently order to understand and build a more meaningful
during the conflict (Stavrevska 2020). The differ- and sustainable peace. In looking at institutional
ential approach, in that sense, lays the foundation operations as well, the chapter has shown that
for multiple experiences and agencies to be rec- intersectionality is not merely, or only, a reference
ognized. At the same time, however, there have to identity categories but that structural and insti-
been critiques that despite the differential tutional approaches that rest on homogenized and
approach, Colombia’s Peace Accord does not generalized assumptions can compound rather
assume an intersectional perspective, as it recog- than alleviate oppression, even where the goals
nizes experiences of, for instance, women and may be social justice. That is, intersectional ana-
Indigenous peoples, but not explicitly those at lytic frameworks argue the need to see power as
Intersectionality and Peace 7

mediated through the terms of racism, sexism, perspectives (pp. 185–206). New York: Palgrave
classism, and so on in combination, not as distinct Macmillan.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge,
lines that operate separately or in parallel. In peace consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New
research specifically, the chapter argues that a York: Routledge.
“static” (non-intersectional) understanding of Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality.
conflict and conflict-affected societies collapses Cambridge: Polity.
Combahee River Collective. (1977). The Combahee River
important inequalities that shape and are shaped collective statement. https://combaheerivercollective.
by conflict and indeed can erase recognition of weebly.com/the-combahee-river-collective-statement.
conditions of structural violence that prevent html
“peace.” Confortini, C. C. (2006). Galtung, violence, and gender:
The case for a peace studies/feminism alliance. Peace
and Change, 31(3), 333–367.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection
of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of anti-
Cross-References discrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist
politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8),
▶ Female Combatants 138–167.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins:
▶ Gender and Conflict-Affected Economies
Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
▶ Gender Justice and Peacebuilding women. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
▶ Hybrid Political Orders and Hybrid Peace Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociol-
▶ Masculinity and Conflict ogy of science perspective on what makes a feminist
theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85.
▶ Socioeconomic Justice and Peacebuilding
Dhamoon, R. K. (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming
▶ Women’s Community Peacebuilding in the intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1),
Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) 230–243.
Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the Earth. New York:
Grove Press.
Haastrup, T., & Hagen, J. (2020). Global racial hierarchies
References and the limits of localization via National Action Plans.
In S. Basu, P. Kirby, & L. Shepherd (Eds.), New direc-
tions in women, peace and security (pp. 133–151).
Acosta, M., Castañeda, A., Garcíıa, D., Hernández, F.,
Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Muelas, D., & Santamaria, A. (2018). The Colombian
Hameiri, S., & Jones, L. (2018). Against hybridity in the
transitional process: Comparative perspectives on
study of peacebuilding and statebuilding. In J. Wallis,
violence against Indigenous women. International
L. Kent, M. Forsyth, S. Dinnen, & S. Bose (Eds.),
Journal of Transitional Justice, 12(1), 108–125.
Hybridity on the ground in peacebuilding and develop-
Anzaldúa, G. E. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The
ment: Critical conversations (pp. 99–112). Acton: Aus-
new mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
tralian National University Press.
Azarmandi, M. (2018). The racial silence within peace
hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a woman: Black women and
studies. Peace Review, 30(1), 69–77.
feminism. Boston: South End Press.
Basu, S., Kirby, P., & Shepherd, L. (2020). Women, peace
Iñiguez de Heredia, M. (2018). The conspicuous absence
& security: A critical cartography. In S. Basu, P. Kirby,
of class and privilege in the study of resistance in
& L. Shepherd (Eds.), New directions in women, peace
peacebuilding contexts. International Peacekeeping,
and security (pp. 1–25). Bristol: Bristol University
25(3), 325–348.
Press.
Kappler, S. (2015). The dynamic local: Delocalisation and
Berlowitz, M. J. (2002). Eurocentric contradictions in
(re-)localisation in the search for peacebuilding iden-
peace studies. Peace Review, 14(1), 61–65.
tity. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 875–889.
Bouvier, V. M. (2016). Gender and the role of women in
Mac Ginty, R. & Richmond, O.P. (2016). The fallacy of
Colombia’s peace process. New York: UN Women.
constructing hybrid political orders: a reappraisal of the
Brubaker, R. (2002). Ethnicity without croups. Archives
hybrid turn in peacebuilding. International Peacekeep-
Européennes de Sociologie, 43(2), 163–189.
ing, 23(2), 219–239.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a
Martin de Almagro, M. (2017). Producing participants:
field of intersectionality studies: Theory, application,
Gender, race, class, and women, peace and security.
and praxis. Signs, 38(4), 785–810.
Global Society, 32(4), 395–414.
Cohn, S. (2008). Mainstreaming gender in UN security
Mizzi, R. C., & Byrne, S. (2015). Queer theory and peace
policy: A path to political transformation? In S. Rai &
and conflict studies: Some critical reflections. In M.
G. Waylen (Eds.), Global governance: Feminist
8 Intersectionality and Peace

Flaherty, S. Byrne, H. Tuso, & T. Matyok (Eds.), Gen- Smith, S. (2019). Gendering peace: UN peacebuilding in
der and peacebuilding: All hands required (pp. 357– Timor-Leste. London: Routledge.
374). New York: Lexington Books. Staunæs, D. (2003). Where have all the subjects gone?
Mohanty, C. (1991). Under western eyes: Feminist schol- Bringing together the concepts of intersectionality and
arship and colonial discourses. In C. Mohanty, A. subjectification. Nora, 11(2), 101–110.
Russo, & L. Torres (Eds.), Third world women and Stavrevska, E. B. (2016). Space, class and peace: Spatial
the politics of feminism (pp. 51–80). Bloomington: governmentality in postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Indiana University Press. In A. Björkdahl & S. Buckley-Zistel (Eds.),
Moolakkattu, J. (2006). Feminism and peace studies: Spatializing peace and conflict: Mapping the produc-
Taking stock of a quarter century of efforts. Indian tion of places, sites and scales of violence (pp. 141–
Journal of Gender Studies, 13(2), 137–162. 158). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. E. (Eds.). (1981). This bridge Stavrevska, E. B. (2020). The impact of Colombia’s
called my back: Writings by radical women of color. COVID-19 response on Indigenous inclusion in peace
Watertown: Persephone Press. processes. Centre for Women, Peace and Security, Lon-
Phoenix, A., & Pattynama, P. (2006). Editorial. European don School of Economics and Political Science. https://
Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 187–192. blogs.lse.ac.uk/wps/2020/05/20/the-impact-of-
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage colombias-covid-19-response-on-indigenous-inclu
Books. sion-in-peace-processes/
Shepherd, L. (2016). Victims of violence or agents Valdes, F. (1997). Poised at the cusp: LatCrit theory, out-
of change: Representations of women in UN sider jurisprudence, and Latina/o self-empowerment.
peacebuilding discourse. Peacebuilding, 4(2), 121– Harvard Latino Law Review, 2(1), 1–59.
135. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist pol-
Shroff, S. (2018). The peace professor: Decolonial, femi- itics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3),
nist, and queer futurities. In M. Groarke & E. Welty 193–210.
(Eds.), Peace and justice studies: Critical pedagogy
(pp. 146–162). London: Routledge.