My paper argues for an incorporation of feminist theories into peace theories, by analyzing what is missing by not confronting feminist contributions to a theory on violence. I take Johan Galtung's theory of violence as a point of departure, as a theory that is widely uncontested in peace studies. Galtung's articulation of direct, structural, and cultural violence offers a unified framework within which all violence can be seen. On the other hand, feminism can contribute to and enrich Galtung's theory of violence in four possible ways: Galtung's theory needs to incorporate notions of gender as a social construct embodying relations of power. Dichotomous, mutually exclusive categories that shape our understanding of the world are gendered and they are key to the production and reproduction of violence at all levels. Gendered language defines the possibility and impossibility of pursuing different visions of the social world. Violence and peace can be constituted through language. Violence produces and defines gender identities and, in turn, is produced and defined by them. These contributions have important implications for peace studies: only by taking gender seriously as a category of analysis, can prescriptions for a violence‐free society be more than temporary solutions to deeply ingrained attitudes to accept violence as “natural.”

No abstract

No abstract

Public health researchers are devoting increasing attention to the growing burden of breast cancer in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), previously thought to be minimally impacted by this disease. A critical examination of this body of literature is needed to explore the assumptions, advantages and limitations of current approaches. In our critical literature review, we find that researchers and public health practitioners predominantly privilege a biomedical perspective focused on patients' adherence (or non-adherence) to 'preventive' practices, screening behaviours and treatment regimens. Cost-effective 'quick fixes' are prioritized, and prevention is framed in terms of individual 'risk behaviours'. Thus, individuals and communities are held responsible for the success of the biomedical system; traditional belief systems and 'harmful' social practices are problematized. Inherently personal, social and cultural experiences of pain and suffering are neglected or reduced to the issue of chemical palliation. This narrow approach obscures the complex aetiology of the disease and perpetuates silence around power relations. This article calls for a social justice-oriented interrogation of the role of power and inequity in the global breast cancer epidemic, which recognizes the agency and experiences of women (and men) who experience breast cancer in the global south.

No abstract