Rethinking Security: Feminist Critiques and the Core Elements of National Security Discourses in Contemporary International Relations
In contemporary international relations (IR), national security remains one of the most contested and politically significant concepts. Traditionally defined through the prism of state survival, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, national security has been conceptualized primarily within realist paradigms that privilege military strength, deterrence, and external threats. However, over the last few decades, this conventional framing has been increasingly problematized by critical and post-positivist approaches, most notably by feminist IR scholars, who challenge its gendered underpinnings and narrow assumptions about whose security is prioritized and what counts as a threat.
This essay examines the core components of national security discourses in contemporary IR and evaluates how feminist scholars have critiqued, expanded, and redefined these discourses. It begins with a review of the foundational tenets of traditional national security frameworks and proceeds to analyze the feminist interrogation of these tenets, with a focus on the problematization of masculinist epistemologies, the redefinition of threats, and the emphasis on everyday and embodied security. In doing so, it reflects on how feminist theory contributes to the broader reconceptualization of security in the global order.
I. The Core Elements of National Security Discourses
At the heart of mainstream national security discourse are several foundational assumptions that have long dominated IR theory and state practice:
1. State-Centrism
National security is typically equated with the security of the sovereign state. The assumption is that the primary referent object of security is the nation-state, and its protection—especially from external aggression—is the central concern of international politics.
2. Military and Strategic Focus
The dominant threat perception is militarized, with emphasis on inter-state wars, arms races, nuclear deterrence, and alliances. Realist and neorealist theories posit an anarchic international system in which power and survival determine security behavior.
3. Externalization of Threats
National security discourses often externalize insecurity, attributing it to foreign adversaries or rogue states. This enables the construction of an “other” that justifies defense spending, surveillance, and securitized foreign policies.
4. Rational Actor Model
States are assumed to act rationally to maximize their security interests, with political leaders making calculated choices based on national interest, cost-benefit analyses, and strategic calculations.
5. Crisis-Driven Responses
Security is often conceptualized in terms of extraordinary events—wars, attacks, or acute crises—which justify exceptional measures and emergency powers. Everyday and chronic insecurities are rendered invisible.
These assumptions cohere into a powerful discourse of national security that privileges particular forms of knowledge, institutional practices (e.g., military-industrial complexes), and gendered notions of leadership and protection.
II. Feminist Critique: Gendered Assumptions and Problematization
Feminist scholars of IR—beginning in earnest in the 1980s and 1990s—have mounted a robust critique of the gendered foundations of national security thinking. Drawing from both liberal and critical feminist traditions, they interrogate the masculinist biases inherent in traditional security studies and call for a transformation in how security is conceptualized and practiced.
1. Deconstructing Masculinist Norms
Feminist theorists argue that national security discourses are deeply embedded in hegemonic masculinities—valorizing strength, aggression, and rationality while denigrating vulnerability, care, and emotion. The “security provider” is constructed as a masculinized state, while those being protected—often women, children, or civilians—are feminized and depoliticized.
Cynthia Enloe famously asked, “Where are the women?” in international politics, revealing how traditional security studies systematically erase or marginalize female agency, whether in conflict zones, policymaking spaces, or global governance institutions. Moreover, the gendered division between public (international security) and private (domestic, everyday) spheres further contributes to the invisibility of women’s insecurities.
2. Redefining the Referent Object of Security
Feminists challenge the assumption that the state is the only or primary referent object. Instead, they advocate for people-centered or human security frameworks, where individuals and communities—not just borders or regimes—are at the center of security analysis. This shift reveals forms of insecurity (e.g., gender-based violence, economic deprivation, health pandemics) that are invisible in state-centric models.
This critique intersects with broader human security paradigms, but feminist approaches emphasize that insecurity is not uniformly distributed: intersectional vulnerabilities—based on gender, class, race, sexuality, and nationality—shape who experiences what kinds of insecurity and how.
3. Critique of Militarization and the Security State
Feminist IR theory critically examines the normalization of militarism and the securitization of everyday life. Militarization is not only a policy choice but a cultural and gendered process that reifies hierarchies, legitimates violence, and suppresses dissent.
Laura Sjoberg and Caron Gentry, for instance, demonstrate how heroic masculinities and feminized victimhood underpin both counter-terrorism discourses and humanitarian interventions. The securitized figure of the “terrorist” is often gendered male and racialized, while female victims are portrayed as passive subjects in need of rescue—justifying paternalistic and interventionist policies.
III. Alternative Visions of Security: Embodiment, Care, and Peace
Feminist theorists propose alternative security imaginaries that prioritize lived experiences, relationality, and the politics of care. This entails a rethinking of security not just as the absence of violence, but as the presence of justice, dignity, and autonomy.
1. Everyday Security and Embodied Vulnerability
Feminist approaches emphasize everyday and embodied security—how security and insecurity are experienced in bodies, homes, workplaces, and communities. This includes issues such as:
- Sexual and domestic violence.
- Reproductive health and autonomy.
- Structural violence embedded in poverty, migration, and racism.
These insecurities are often overlooked in grand strategic thinking but are central to how most people experience security on a daily basis.
2. Security as Care and Relationality
Some feminist scholars advocate reimagining security through the lens of care ethics, relational interdependence, and collective responsibility. Rather than building walls or deploying force, security in this vision involves sustaining life, nurturing communities, and attending to the needs of the most vulnerable.
This resonates with posthumanist and decolonial feminist theories, which link gendered violence to planetary insecurity, environmental degradation, and the legacy of imperial violence.
IV. Institutional and Policy Impact
Feminist critiques have also informed institutional and policy innovations at global levels. The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) marked a historic recognition of the gendered dimensions of conflict and peacebuilding. The WPS agenda emphasizes:
- Women’s participation in peace processes.
- Protection from gender-based violence.
- Integration of gender perspectives in all aspects of security governance.
However, feminists have also critiqued the co-optation and depoliticization of WPS by states and institutions, arguing that tokenistic inclusion does not address deeper structural inequalities or militarized epistemologies.
Conclusion
The core elements of national security discourse—state-centrism, militarization, and external threat construction—have come under sustained critique by feminist scholars who expose their gendered assumptions, exclusions, and silences. By redefining what counts as a threat, who counts as secure, and how security is achieved, feminist IR theory contributes to a radical rethinking of security itself.
In an era marked by climate insecurity, global pandemics, digital surveillance, and gendered violence, the feminist challenge to traditional security discourses is not only intellectually vital but politically urgent. It calls for reconstructing the normative foundations of international relations, where care, justice, and dignity are as central to security as deterrence, power, and control.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.