The Bureaucracy of Militarism: Gender, Race and Class in the British Security State

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Regardless of which political party has been in power, successive UK governments have taken an approach to national security that relies heavily on the use or threat of force. Despite evidence that overseas military interventions, heavy-handed policing and intrusive surveillance regimes undermine the safety of ordinary people - particularly those marginalised by race, class and/or gender - investing in militarism is still often understood as the only 'realistic' way of promoting security. Meanwhile, there is vast under-investment in addressing non-military threats to people's security, such as economic inequality, pandemics and climate change. Feminist researchers have sought to understand how militaristic ways of 'doing' security come to be accepted in this way, arguing that the cultural association of masculinity with militarism, domination and control plays a role in this process. Studies from the United States in the Cold War period have shown how policymakers perform their roles in gendered, racialised and classed ways, demonstrating that masculine organisational cultures can encourage policymakers to think in militaristic ways. While the field of national security in Europe and North America is no longer so dominated by white, middle-class men, few studies have re-examined these dynamics in security institutions in the present day, particularly outside the US context.The Bureaucracy of Militarism: Gender, Race and Class in the British Security State asks: what are the relationships between the gendered, racialised and classed organisational cultures in UK national security policymaking departments and their militaristic approaches to security policy? How might the gendered, racialised and classed character of organisational cultures in government departments help to sustain militaristic and colonial ways of thinking and speaking about security in policy discussions? To address this question, I interviewed officials in UK government departments and observed their meetings and everyday working practices, analysing policy discussions on counter-terrorism and on promoting gender equality in conflict management and peacebuilding. I argue that the linking of UK security practices to constructions of middle-class, white masculinity and femininity plays a role in legitimising militaristic thinking. While the advancement of (mostly white, middle-class) women in national security has changed masculine organisational cultures to some extent, these changes have not significantly challenged government departments' militaristic worldviews. Furthermore, while security departments have sought to recruit more people of colour in order to promote 'diversity of thought' in policymaking, my research reveals how organisational norms make it difficult for officials to make anti-racist critiques of UK security policies. By illuminating the processes that shape national security policymaking, I contribute to anti-militarist and anti-colonial feminist thinking about how to unsettle those processes. My findings suggest that efforts to reimagine security governance in anti-militarist and anti-colonial ways must go beyond diversity initiatives and transform the gendered, racialised and classed norms, relations and structures that underpin militarism.The Bureaucracy of Militarism makes a unique contribution to understanding the social and cultural life of UK national security policymaking. Building on my doctoral thesis, the fellowship will enable me to develop the research into a book and a series of articles, and to share my findings with policymakers as well as academics, NGOs and thinktanks working on peace and security. In doing so, I hope to inform efforts to develop approaches to safety and security that are more just and peaceful, and that respond to the needs of ordinary people.