The Janus-Faced Nature of Strategic Essentialism

Strategic essentialism can be a profoundly useful tool in the arsenal of women seeking to advocate for their inclusion in conflict and post-conflict environments. However, there are notable drawbacks to using strategic essentialism, particularly in realms where masculine norms are deeply entrenched. This paper will explore the various ways strategic essentialism gets deployed in conflict and post-conflict environments by women’s movements and those advocating for the inclusion of women. Specifically, it explores how such arguments are used in both the realm of peace negotiations and women’s inclusion in post-conflict politics. It will explore both the successes and the dangers of strategically essentializing women, arguing that while strategic essentialism can be effective in advocating for political inclusion after the cessation of conflict, it actively works against women advocating for inclusion in peace negotiations, because of the perceived masculine nature of peace talks and the supposed incompatibility of feminine values. This assertion will be mapped onto Liberia as an initial case study to further understand the value and danger in using strategic essentialism. This analysis demonstrates that while strategic essentialism can be a useful tool, it is also potentially a dangerous one unless masculine norms about political agency and participation are destabilized.