totally detached from the ‘object’ of research is also rigorous and scientific. However, the recognition of an issue such as rape in war, requires capacity to ask questions and see problems that often only arise from subjective experience and reflection. The argument of the positivists also assumes, of course, that it is ever possible for social scientists to shed their subjectivity. A feminist epistemology would ask the social scientist to reflect on his and her subjectivity, and ask to what extent is it influencing the way he or she constructs the social realities under analysis and the questions posed in research?. A feminist epistemology experiments with research methods which question the relationship between ‘researcher’ and ‘researched’. It questions power relationships of all kinds and, I would argue, enables us to ask, who is the research for? It is a feminist epistemology that has enabled me to travel from a background in political science (a discipline quite dominated by what could arguably be termed a ‘masculinist epistemology’ to anthropology. Anthropology gave me methods for exploring politics which political science with an emphasis on quantitative methods and elite interviews, lacks. A feminist epistemology enabled me to justify such methods in scientific terms. I describe myself as a political scientist who works as an anthropologist, and notably as an anthropologist of peace. These are all ideas that have guided my approach to teaching and research. I take my feminist epistemological framework to mean that I am looking beyond the impact on women of particular structures, actions, events etc. I also look at the impact of but also on men and understandings of masculinity in any approach to a research question. It is not about ‘adding women’ into research. It involves a more profound exploration of power relations and contingent possibilities. Broadly my work is composed of two overarching themes: ‘violence’ and ‘participation’. Firstly, I am concerned with how violence impacts on the possibility of taking part in social, economic and political life and whether a ‘violence free politics’ is imaginable and possible. Secondly, I am interested in what makes participation democratic and capable of transforming the conditions for participation itself. Amongst those conditions are the social understandings and meanings attached to gender identity. These impact on both violence (roughly two thirds of homicides are committed by young men 15 to 44 on young men 15 to 44)
Violence has a deep impact in many ways on how women can gain agency to shape and reshape the world.
and on participation (the ongoing domination of political life by men). While male on male violence might account for the majority of homicides, women are deeply impacted by other forms of violence, most of which are committed by men. Increasingly, the phenomenon of feminicide is being recognized also, notably in Latin America, which involves the killing of women because of their gender. Violence has a deep impact in many ways on how women can gain agency to shape and reshape the world. There is nothing ‘essentialist’ about this approach to knowledge and research. A feminist epistemology recognizes the multiple constructions around the feminine and the masculine. That these categories are outcomes of other intersecting identities around race, class and sexuality. A feminist epistemology recognizes the significance of these varied constructions. So, I bring this orienting framework to work on violence and security in Latin America, for instance. The methodologies I have
worked with are all based on various participatory processes. In Medellin, Colombia, I have worked with the Observatorio de Seguridad Humana on what we call ‘security from below’. This is a methodology involving co producing knowledge between academics and communities, in which community researchers enable academics to understand the everyday experiences of chronic violence, differentiating experiences of women , children, youth, the LGBT community and displaced people. In Tegucigalpa, Honduras, women in the violence torn colonias, have also used the methodology to gain voice and agency on what kind of security they need and to question the so-called ‘security’ of state agents. At present I am beginning a research project using the methodology in four cities of Mexico. But I also have worked in the North of England, particularly Bradford, on methodologies for co producing knowledge around participation, around the nature of power and we have built a Community University, as an experiment in knowledge exchange. This research has been in the context of a city recovering from the riot of 2001, where mostly Asian lads, provoked by the far right, took on the police, exacerbating tensions in the city. We set up in Peace Studies, a ‘Programme for a Peaceful City’ to work with communities in Bradford around these tensions. Some of this research could be called ‘action research’. However, I also do more traditional research, but I try to give it a steer towards its implications for peace in politics, for instance my research on elites and violence in Latin America, and my current theoretical engagement with the relationship between politics and violence. You have many years experience working in post-accord and post-conflict settings, especially in Central and South America. Could you tell us more about how social change is taking place in Latin America, specifically on grassroots and community levels? Why is the local-level so important and what is the role women are playing? I do very much believe that the capacity for critique and self organizing at the grassroots level in Latin America generates extraordinary insights into the democratic capacities of ordinary people, often without much formal education. My experiences in war settings in Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia, in particular, have shown the creativity with Many Peaces Interviews - 39