From Freedom Fighters to Terrorists

Women and Political Violence

Paige Whaley Eager

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317132271
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Politica

Women have participated in political violence throughout history, yet the concept of women as active proponents and perpetrators of political violence and terrorism is not widely accepted. Viewed as being forced by partners, sexually abused or brainwashed, the possibility of political motives is not often considered. Paige Whaley Eager addresses this to establish whether the stereotypical view is misplaced. She utilizes a framework to analyze women engaged in political violence in different contexts in order to examine structural variables, ideological goals of the organization and personal factors which contribute to involvement. Case study rich, this informative book provides an indispensable guide to examining women's role in left/right wing engagement, ethno-nationalist/separatist violence, guerrilla movements and suicide bombers.

Chapter 1 The Second Sex: Women and Political Violence

DOI: 10.4324/9781315583358-1

History is a virtual chronicle of political violence from either above or below, for or against the state, and as drama, spectacle, and power. It is a chronicle which can be read in many different ways, from the standpoint of the victim as well as the perpetrators, the tragic and the heroic, and both the evil and the good that lives after them (Apter 1997, vii).

Throughout human history, both men and women have utilized political violence to achieve their political objectives. However, engaging in political violence has been largely a man’s role. Females who perpetrate, support, both tacitly and explicitly political violence, and harbor those who commit political violence have been viewed largely as an aberration at best and demonic at worst. This book will take a fresh look at women who commit political violence by examining women’s role as ethno-national separatists, national liberation fighters, proponents of left and right-wing political violence, and suicide bombers from the late 19^th century until the present. My goal in this book is not to posit a general theory of why women engage in political violence, but to examine through various case studies how structural, ideological, and individual factors have all contributed to the actions these women take. First, however, we must examine the question of what constitutes political violence and why this term is purposely utilized rather than terrorism.

Political Violence vs. Terrorism

Terror always refers to someone else’s behavior. Terror is a strategy and not a creed (Tilly 2003, 264).

I view political violence as a much broader category than terrorism. Although there is not a single accepted definition of political violence, I view it as encompassing guerrilla warfare, national liberation movements, and sometimes even strikes and demonstrations that turn violent. “Political violence disorders explicitly for a designated and reordering purpose: to overthrow a tyrannical regime; to redefine and realize justice and equality; to achieve independence or territorial autonomy; or to impose one’s religious or doctrinal beliefs” (Apter 1997, 5). Political violence can be directed towards property, political authorities and law enforcement, but it rarely intentionally targets civilians. Moreover, political violence has a far more value-neutral connotation, whereas the word terrorism has a far more negative connotation. According to Boaz Ganor, terrorism is the “the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets in order to attain political aims.” According to Ganor, terrorism must involve three main components: (1) the threat or actual use of violence; (2) the aim of the activity must always be political such as, but not limited to: changing the regime, changing the people in power, or changing social and/or economic policies; and (3) the targets of terrorism must be civilians. Thus, terrorism is qualitatively different from political violence in that terrorism “exploits the relative vulnerability of the civilian underbelly” (Ganor 2006, 6). Terrorism expert, Bruce Hoffman, distinguishes terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime by focusing on the following criteria. To qualify as terrorism_ (1) there are political aims and motives; (2) violence or the threat of violence is utilized; (3) the act is intended to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target; (4) the act is conducted by an organization with a chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure; and (5) the act is perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity (Hoffman 1998, 43).

This is not to say that those who engage in political violence do not also often engage in terrorism, but the intentional targeting of civilians is different than a guerrilla group who ‘accidentally’ kills civilians. Another illustrative example of the difference between political violence and terrorism is the 19^th century Russian anarchists who took great pains to spare civilian casualties and expressed remorse when civilians were killed in assassinations and bombings. Although heads of state, diplomats, and police figures were often the targets of assassination attempts in the 19^th and much of the 20^th century, the advent of ‘spectacular terrorism’, or terrorism designed to inflict mass civilian causalities, has been more common since the 1970s onward (Hoffman 1998). Hence, the question of whether most political violence is now in fact terrorism is important to contemplate. In the end, though, there is no doubt that the term political violence is more value neutral, especially in a post- September 11^th world; however, I certainly do not wish to minimize the pain and suffering acts of political violence and terrorism engender for victims, families, and societies at large. However, political violence as the object of this study will allow an examination of a larger ‘data set’ of women who have been engaged in left and right-wing political violence, ethno-nationalist/separatist political violence, national liberation movements, and suicide bombings.

Another reason to separate the term political violence from terrorism is that those who engage in political violence can sometimes be classified as irregular combatants such as guerrillas, partisans, and resistance groups (Schmid 2004, 203). These agents of political violence are even covered under international law, so long as they comply with the following criteria under the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions, such as: (1) ‘irregulars’ must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (2) they must have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) they must carry their arms openly; and (4) they must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war (Schmid 2004, 203). While there is sometimes no bright-line in the real world between irregulars and terrorists, many scholars who study political violence do feel there is a qualitative difference.

Women and Political Violence

Female violence is what happens when politics breaks down into riots, revolutions, or anarchy, when things are out of control (Elshtain 1987: 170).

Even before the wave of female Palestinian suicide bombers began in 2002, some scholars from the fields of sociology, criminology, psychology, and political science have focused their attention on women who commit acts of political violence. As we certainly know, the media often is captivated by these women, and the public at large, depending on the context, sometimes cheers and valorizes these women or at other times condemns and demonizes them. For many, the sheer fact that women give birth is reason enough to be aghast when women consciously plan and execute acts of political violence.

Societies, regardless of cultural and/or religious influences, seem especially uncomfortable with women who are violent. “It seems there are only a very limited number of instances in which society can understand a woman being violent” (MacDonald 1991, xvii). Exceptions to the rule include: fending off an attacker, especially a rapist; defending her children; fighting back against a terribly abusive husband; some sporting activities,¹ and to some extent women engaged in military combat. However, while women participated in active combat and support roles in the U.S. Civil War, World War II, and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many are still uncomfortable with this issue. On the other hand, world history celebrates stories of fierce women who fought such as Joan of Arc or the ‘ferocious few’– “women who reversed cultural expectations by donning warrior’s garb and doing battle” (Elshtain 1987, 8). During World War I, some Russian women took part in combat during the Czarist period. Although few women served openly as soldiers, the role of women in war and national liberation movements has changed tremendously. However, women’s role as warriors and mothers has been difficult to reconcile. While the “image of the woman holding a rifle and baby was found in liberation movements throughout the third world” (Goldstein 2001, 81), many women were expected to retreat to the private sphere of the home once the conflict was over or national liberation was achieved.

1 See Rene Denefeld (1997).

However, the women who commit violence outside of these aforementioned exceptional circumstances are often viewed as aberrant and ‘less than a woman’. Explanations for why women do engage in violence in general, not necessarily political in nature, have included: elevated levels of testosterone,² traumatic events in childhood, and excessive feminism or lesbianism. For example, psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud believed criminal women were sexually maladjusted deviants with penis envy (Denefeld 1997, 94). Statistically, there are no more lesbians than heterosexual women committing crimes, and studies have found that women who commit violent crimes are more likely to hold traditional/conservative views rather than feminist views (Denefeld 1997, 96). The number of individuals who engage in political violence and terrorism is a very small subset of individuals, but the number of women who cross over into this supposedly ‘male territory’ is even rarer.

2 See Denefeld (1997) and Goldstein (2001).

Women who perpetrate political violence often have been viewed as engaging in such actions due to personal connections and grievances. I do not find this to be a problematic statement, but I will demonstrate in this book that this rationale in no way delegitimizes or makes less substantial women’s involvement in political violence and terrorism. Men too are motivated to engage in political violence and terrorism through a combination of ideological and personal motivations. For example, studies on male suicide bombers have found that men who came of age during the 1987 Palestinian Intifada and often experienced a personal loss or insult to the pride (e.g. being denied entrance into Israel proper, or a run-in with the IDF forces) were more likely to be suicide bomber (Haddad 2004). While women engage in political violence for all types of reasons, and yes, some may even do it for love (Nacos 2005), it is perplexing why the so-called ‘personal reasons’ consume much of the public’s and media’s fascination. Deborah Galvin (1983) argues,

Exactly why individuals become terrorists can only usefully be appreciated on a case-by case basis. Some motives are clearly personal, while in other cases individual interests may be set aside. The literature suggests women are more idealistic than men. They hold onto these ideals longer and seem less affected by cynicism. Men are more naturally lured into terrorism by promises of power and glory, while females seem attracted by promises of a better life for their children or the desire to meet people’s needs that are not being met by an intractable establishment (p. 23).

Galvin’s statement is now over 20 years old; however, the part in particular about women being more idealistic than men also was reflected in Eileen MacDonald’s (1991) discussion with German counterterrorism specialist, Herr Lochte, when they were discussing the women involved in West Germany’s Red Army Faction (RAF). The title of MacDonald’s book, Shoot the Women First, came from a conversation she had with Locthe. Herr Lochte told MacDonald, “women terrorists have much stronger characters, more power and energy” (p. xiv). While men delayed in firing, women have opened fire immediately in his experience in dealing the RAF. When MacDonald asked Herr Lochte why this seems to be the case, he replied, “Women had more to overcome just being in a terrorist group in the first place; they had to fight the sexism as well as the enemy; and the best way to prove that they were equal was to show that they were even more ruthless than the men” (MacDonald 1991, 222).

This statement, however, could be partially true in other non-violent contexts. How many times have we heard women say they have to be a better soldier than their male comrade to prove they are worthy of wearing the uniform, or a woman CEO has to show that she can handle the stress of a high-powered position as well as a man? And let us not forget the ongoing debate of whether the United States will ever elect a female Commander-in-Chief? Or discussions about whether Secretaries of State Madeline Albright and Condoleezza Rice can hold their own in a tense negotiation with North Korea or Iran? Obviously, in these scenarios women are not being ruthless in the context of purposely taking another person’s life in a terrorist attack, but the comparison is illustrative.

Exploring Women’s Participation in Political Violence and Terrorism

The female terrorist represents, perhaps, the ultimate pariah of the modern world. She is viewed as possessing an identity that exists outside the limits of political and moral discourse (Zwerman 1992, 135).

The field of study of political violence and terrorism has recently become more crowded since the September 11^th attacks; however, political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt and Frantz Fanon to political scientists such as Walter Laqueur, Ted Gurr, and Martha Crenshaw have been examining the hows and whys of political violence and terrorism for decades. This section will provide a brief overview of some of the major ‘theories’ or analytical approaches to studying political violence and terrorism. After discussing the major theoretical approaches, I will examine whether feminism (in all its varieties) can provide any leverage on the study of women and political violence and then provide an overview of how the book will progress in subsequent chapters.

Rational Choice Theory According to rational choice theory, an individual decides whether or not to participate in collective political violence on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis of a situation. He or she compares the benefits of participation in a movement to the costs associated with participation. If the benefits are greater than the costs, then she will participate; otherwise, she will not. Edward N. Muller and Karl-Dieter Opp (1986) describe the thought process of an individual according to rational choice theory.

An individual, for whatever reasons, holds a very negative opinion of the political system under which he or she is governed, and there exists an opportunity to participate in a social movement that seeks to effect political change by means of rebellious collective action. This individual is faced with a decision between two courses of action: taking part in rebellious behavior, or staying at home while wishing the rebels well. Rational individuals will compare the benefits and costs of participation with those of inactivity, and choose the course of action in which their expected utility is maximized (p. 471).

From the perspective of rational choice theory, the benefits associated with participation are generally defined as the attainment of values that are deemed “central to the well-being” of the participating individual (Klosko 1987, 557). In the context of collective movements, the benefits of success and group participation itself are often defined generally as selective incentives, or personal goods reaped only from participation in the movement, (Olson 1965) and collective or public goods, or goods that can be shared by the entire group including individuals who do not participate (Moore 1995, 424; Muller and Opp 1986). In the case of politically violent collective movements, the reward for success (the overthrow of the current regime) is a public good, available to all individuals regardless of whether or not they participated in the movement (Moore 1995, 424).

As this description implies, rational choice theory relies on two general assumptions about human nature. First, individuals are self-interested. A person is more likely to act on his own behalf rather than on the behalf of groups, with the possible exception of family and friends. Second, an individual’s actions are intended to be “efficient and maximizing” (Klosko 1987, 557). An individual analyzes the available alternatives and chooses the one most likely to achieve the desired ends with the least amount of costs. In this manner, individual actors are assumed to be sufficiently cognizant of their own interests and the relative efficacy of the various alternatives (Klosko 1987, 557; Moore 1995, 421).

In spite of rational choice theory’s parsimonious explanation for individual behavior, one theoretical consideration has rendered it inadequate, or at least incomplete, as an explanation for collective behavior. As Olson (1965) first noted, collective action often presents the rational individual with a peculiar situation: because the rewards of collective action are available to everyone with an interest in the action, individual participation is not a necessary prerequisite for receipt of the benefits. Individuals recognize that their individual contribution to the group will not significantly increase the group’s ability to succe...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1 The Second Sex: Women and Political Violence
• 2 Bringing on the Revolution: Women and Left-Wing Political Violence
• 3 Dupes of Men or Willing Participants? Right-Wing Women and Political Violence
• 4 The “Wretched of the Earth” Rebel: Women and Wars of National Liberation
• 5 Tigers, Eterras, and Republicans: Women and Ethnonational Political Violence
• 6 Female Suicide Bombers: Analyzing the Aberrant Woman’s Paradox
• 7 Concluding Thoughts on Women and Political Violence
• Bibliography
• Index