On the Importance of Feminist Responses to Militarization
Three Proposals To Enrich the Debate
Over the past few years, militarization has become one of the most vigorously debated issues in Mexico. This is true, in part, because the government has given unprecedented new powers and privileges to the military. And it is also true because battles in courtrooms and classrooms, as well as various struggles in defense of life, have brought the issue of militarization into sharp relief.
Women lead much of the activism against militarization. This includes the search for those disappeared by state forces, protests against the presence of the National Guard in Mexico City’s subway and anti-militarist contingents during the March 8 demonstrations, among other examples.
Feminist researchers challenge and critique the expenditure of state funds on militarization instead of on health services, education or violence prevention. Throughout the region, a growing number of women lawyers are fighting for justice for the victims of armed conflict and for an end to military impunity, while others are working to restrain the military through domestic and international courts.
Although militarization isn’t exclusively a feminist or a women’s issue, women have historically played a key role in resisting war, and today feminists are integrating abolitionist and anti-militarist positions into their activism and ways of thinking.
I will share a short reflection on this, which may be of interest to those who are already engaged in—or curious about—ongoing struggles against the myriad forms of violence.
One can understand militarization in many ways, but it would be a mistake to get bogged down in disputes over the definition of the word. Today in Mexico, militarization is a growing phenomenon no matter how it is understood. It is important to clarify the nature of a feminist response to this.
Critical lineages
The most basic way to describe militarization is as an increase in the presence of armed groups formally linked to the state, but militarization is much more than that. “Militarization is the step-by-step process by which people or things become increasingly controlled by the military, or begin to rely on militaristic ideas for their well-being,” writes professor Cynthia Enloe.
In the United States, people often talk of the militarization of the police as a way to make sense of their increasing use of weapons of war. In many Latin American countries, soldiers, in addition to police, have an active role in detaining and arresting people—that is, they play a role typically assigned to police. In Mexico, this is referred to as the militarization of public security.
Many women have thought through militarization and state violence, often (but not always) from a feminist perspective. Some are better known than others.
Rita Segato, Pilar Calveiro, Alicia Hernández Chávez, Catalina Pérez Correa and Beatriz Magaloni are among the most prominent scholars working on this issue in Latin America. There is also a tradition of critical thinking by Black women in the United States and Canada on the abolition of prison and police, which offers valuable insights into the effects of militarization. Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Robyn Maynard and Mariame Kaba are notable among these voices.
Other attempts to contend with militarization and violence emerge on the part of those who are resisting state violence and working to support victims of it. In Mexico, civil society organizations such as Intersecta or Data Cívica regularly publish studies of militarization and journalists like Daniela Rea and Marcela Turati do important reporting. Likewise, activists often express anti-militaristic sentiments through art, music and other creative practices.
Three proposals to enrich the debate
Having had the chance to read and digest at least some of the work produced by the thinkers and activists mentioned above, I would like to propose three analytical perspectives that could contribute to a feminist approach to militarization in the current era of renewed feminist struggle.
First, it is crucial to understand that feminist perspectives on militarization emerge from homes, streets, prisons and classrooms. The most important among them are not products of the academic Ivory Tower. They grow from conversations among researchers, journalists and those engaged in grassroots organizing.
Second, feminist approaches to militarization should center the lived experiences of the people and communities in conflict zones, especially non-combatants. Victims of state violence are the real experts on the exercise of military power. While we ought to take official narratives into account, it is vital to gather information directly from the people and groups who have endured violence and, whenever possible, engage in a process of dialogue and shared learning with them.
Third, a feminist perspective on militarization must be intersectional, taking into account capitalism, racism and xenophobia. The focus is not on representation, incorporating a “gender perspective” or seeking parity within existing structures.
Intersectionality is required to imagine the world we want to live in and to avoid the pitfalls of what scholar R. Elizabeth Velásquez Estrada calls “negative peace.”
Writing about El Salvador, Velásquez Estrada noted that the peace accords promoted a “a male-centered notion of negative peace, or absence of violence between the Salvadoran state and the FMLN guerrilla army, that left economic inequality and violence against women unaddressed and continued the legacy of racialized violence against those defined as ‘outside’ the imagined Salvadoran nation.”
Continual militarization in Mexico
Despite his promise to break with the model of the War on Drugs, the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) has continued the security policies of Felipe Calderón and Enrique Peña Nieto.
Under AMLO, there are more soldiers and marines deployed than at any other time in the past 20 years. The National Guard was stood up in 2019, early in AMLO’s term. This force replaced the extinct Federal Police; today it is controlled by the Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA). Most members of the National Guard are soldiers.
The National Guard has given the SEDENA more influence in terms of manpower, and also because of the construction of new bases and related infrastructure throughout the country. The Army and the National Guard have also played a lead role in the enforcement of anti-migrant policies.
Today the Secretariat of Defense controls several companies owned by the Mexican state, and it has requested record sums to fund its activities. This is taking place regardless of its role in the disappearance of 43 students in what is known as the Ayotzinapa case, and its refusal to share information about what took place with investigators, among many other rights violations.
The army is building, renovating and operating over a dozen airports in Mexico, including in Mexico City (the Felipe Ángeles International Airport) and in many other cities in the country. It also now runs a commercial airline, which will start flying this month under the name Mexicana.
SEDENA is building the “Tren Maya” in the Yucatán peninsula, which the military will control. It is also building a railroad in Sonora. It’s possible the army has other logistical and infrastructure projects underway that have not been disclosed to the public. As if that wasn’t enough, the army now manages all of the customs houses along the county’s borders.
What’s more, last year the Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR) took control of Mexico’s 14 most important ports. Months ago, it was confirmed that the Navy, which is notorious for severe human rights violations (including dozens of forced disappearances), is in charge of another megaproject: the Trans-Isthmus Corridor, a maquila and logistical corridor that will run from the Atlantic to the Pacific across the narrowest part of Mexico.
AMLO has gone much further than previous presidents, handing the military more power than it has had since the first post-Revolutionary civilian president was elected in 1946.
All of this has taken place without any reform or democratization of the military. Military immunity remains intact, as does its political autonomy, control over its budget and its ability to select active duty (unelected) Secretaries of Defense and of the Navy.
Meaningful feminist action against militarization demands that defunding and abolishing the police and military are at the center of the struggle against all forms of violence. In the meantime, at least in the Mexican case, achieving democratic reforms in the army and advocating for the demilitarization of civic life and public security could be vital elements of the practical and immediate horizon of feminist struggle.
This article is based on a November 2023 talk I gave at the Diploma in Feminisms and Women’s Struggles in Latin America, organized by the Center for University Studies of the Universidad Mayor de San Simón (CESU-UMSS) in Cochabamba, Bolivia; the Feminist Constellations Platform at the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies (CLACS) at New York University; and the Andrómeda Foundation.
First published in Ojalá.
 | A guest post by
|