Search

What are the connections between health and the work of sustainable peacebuilding? In what ways do our interests, methods and practices intersect? What are the differences where we can learn from each other? This paper looks at community issues of structural and direct violence, racism, trauma, and environmental justice, while considering strategies and theoretical insights that are useful to addressing deep social injustices related to health and peace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than 20 years ago, Black feminist scholars and others built a case for working for peace and justice from the intersections of people's multiple identities. A body of scholarship focused on intersectionality thinking has subsequently arisen. Working for social justice from identity intersections is thought by some scholars and activists to have broader appeal and to be more efficacious. However, to what degree today's social movements actually use intersectionality discourses has heretofore remained an open question. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of data from a longitudinal study of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), a social movement organization (SMO) thought to be highly likely to use intersectionality discourse reveals surprisingly low levels of actual use in public materials. However, intersectional discourse significantly increased over prior periods during WILPF's involvement in the recent civil society consultation process to develop a US National Action Plan under Security Council Resolution 1325 regarding women and security issues. The findings suggest that an ideological commitment to inclusion was not sufficient to produce intersectional discourses; a combination of an external mediated political opportunity and an internal demographic threat to the movement's longevity were necessary before discursive change occurred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both the Bush Administration and the peace movement in the United States generated high levels of public support for opposing policy perspectives in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. We hypothesize that this seeming anomaly can best be explained by both pro-war and anti-war framing performing well on seven dimensions of resonance and potency. To assess our hypothesis, we use NVivo software to data-mine and analytically model the text of speeches made by President Bush as well as official statements issued by 9 different US peace movement organizations between September 11th and December 31st of 2001. The results support our expectations. Framing in President Bush's speeches took full advantage of discursive and emotional opportunities to craft highly resonant and potent messages supportive of war and repression. In response, framing by U.S. PMOs both challenged and harnessed hegemony. In challenging hegemony, PMOs undermined the symbolic and emotive basis of resonant and potent pro-war framing while simultaneously attaining resonance and potency among traditional constituents belonging to oppositional cultures. In harnessing hegemony, PMOs utilized the same opportunities available to the Bush Administration to mobilize consensus and action beyond its traditional adherents. Four contributions of our research to the literature are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political elites use deeply engrained beliefs regarding soldiers and citizenship to mobilize support for war and limit dissent. To analyze how the US peace movement has responded to this hegemony, we qualitatively and quantitatively analyze statements from up to 15 US peace movement organizations over three wars (the Gulf War, 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War). We find that PMOs altered their constructions of soldiering and citizenship in response to social history, elite counter-framing, shifts in the political and cultural climates, and to their organizational identities. Battling the mythology of being anti-soldier during the Vietnam era, PMOs have increasingly expressed support for soldiers while developing a discourse portraying pro-war elites as betraying soldiers. Mobilization late in a protest cycle, opening political opportunities and the public?s weariness of nationalism encouraged PMOs to challenge American identity during the Gulf War. In contrast, mobilization early in a protest cycle, rapid political closure and a hyper-patriotic, security conscious climate all encouraged PMOs to harness nationalism in the aftermath of 9/11. Promoting peace became the duty of American citizens. Splits within the UN and extensive transnational mobilization encouraged PMOs to strengthen international hegemony during the Iraq War. Our study highlights how the lessons of past contention combine with structural and culture changes to shape movement framing strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]