Warning! The directory is not yet complete and will be amended until the beginning of the term.
240546 SE MM3 Militarism, Militarization and Anthropology (2025W)
Continuous assessment of course work
Labels
Participation at first session is obligatory!The lecturer can invite students to a grade-relevant discussion about partial achievements. Partial achievements that are obtained by fraud or plagiarized result in the non-evaluation of the course (entry 'X' in certificate). The plagiarism software 'Turnitin' will be used.
The use of AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT) for the attainment of partial achievements is only allowed if explicitly requested by the course instructor.
The use of AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT) for the attainment of partial achievements is only allowed if explicitly requested by the course instructor.
Registration/Deregistration
Note: The time of your registration within the registration period has no effect on the allocation of places (no first come, first served).
- Registration is open from Mo 01.09.2025 00:01 to Mo 22.09.2025 23:59
- Deregistration possible until Mo 20.10.2025 23:59
Details
max. 25 participants
Language: English
Lecturers
Classes (iCal) - next class is marked with N
- Thursday 16.10. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum D, NIG 4. Stock
- Friday 17.10. 09:45 - 13:00 Seminarraum A, NIG 4. Stock
- Monday 20.10. 09:45 - 13:00 Übungsraum (A414) NIG 4. Stock
- Tuesday 21.10. 09:45 - 11:15 Hörsaal C, NIG 4. Stock
- Thursday 23.10. 09:45 - 11:15 Übungsraum (A414) NIG 4. Stock
- Friday 24.10. 09:45 - 11:15 Übungsraum (A414) NIG 4. Stock
Information
Aims, contents and method of the course
Assessment and permitted materials
Presentations
In groups of two or three, students present the topics listed above. Each group receives one of two tasks: either describing empirical examples or presenting additional literature of their own finding. Thematically, students should orient themselves on the compulsory and additional literature suggested on Moodle. Each presentation should take up 15 minutes and propose questions for a discussion, which should go on for another 20 minutes.Final Paper
The final paper is to be written by each student individually. It should build on the topic of the presentation they were assigned and incorporate some of the literature and discussions of this course. The length should be 3–5 pages (A4, times new roman, size 12, 1.5 spacing between rows). The deadline for submission is November 30, 2025.Grading
The evaluation is based on the following three criteria: participation in class (20 points), group presentation (30 points), and final paper (50 points). In order to pass the seminar, each student has to achieve at least 60 points in total, but only provided that none of the criteria are graded 0 points. 61–70 points amount to the mark 4, 71–80 to 3, 81–90 to 2, and anything above to 1.
In groups of two or three, students present the topics listed above. Each group receives one of two tasks: either describing empirical examples or presenting additional literature of their own finding. Thematically, students should orient themselves on the compulsory and additional literature suggested on Moodle. Each presentation should take up 15 minutes and propose questions for a discussion, which should go on for another 20 minutes.Final Paper
The final paper is to be written by each student individually. It should build on the topic of the presentation they were assigned and incorporate some of the literature and discussions of this course. The length should be 3–5 pages (A4, times new roman, size 12, 1.5 spacing between rows). The deadline for submission is November 30, 2025.Grading
The evaluation is based on the following three criteria: participation in class (20 points), group presentation (30 points), and final paper (50 points). In order to pass the seminar, each student has to achieve at least 60 points in total, but only provided that none of the criteria are graded 0 points. 61–70 points amount to the mark 4, 71–80 to 3, 81–90 to 2, and anything above to 1.
Minimum requirements and assessment criteria
Teaching and Learning Outcomes:
The classes aim to improve skills such as:
- Collaborating and teamwork
- Research, presentation and investigation
- Qualitative analysis
By the end of the series of classes, the objective is that each student will be able to:
- Work cooperatively and constructively with your fellow course participants by
building thoughtful and supportive learning environment
- Understand key theories, ideas, and literature about militarism and militarization from
anthropological perspective.
- Analyze, critique and discuss theory and other literature on militarism and
militarization
- Critical engagement with theories, ideas and literature on militarism and militarization
- Improve presentation skills
The classes aim to improve skills such as:
- Collaborating and teamwork
- Research, presentation and investigation
- Qualitative analysis
By the end of the series of classes, the objective is that each student will be able to:
- Work cooperatively and constructively with your fellow course participants by
building thoughtful and supportive learning environment
- Understand key theories, ideas, and literature about militarism and militarization from
anthropological perspective.
- Analyze, critique and discuss theory and other literature on militarism and
militarization
- Critical engagement with theories, ideas and literature on militarism and militarization
- Improve presentation skills
Examination topics
Reading list
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women's lives. Univ
of California Press. Chapters 1.
Fosher, K. (2010). Anthropologists in Arms: The Ethics of Military Anthropology. 177-181.
Gusterson, H. (2007). Anthropology and Militarism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36:
155-175.
Lutz, C. (2002). Making war at home in the United States: Militarization and the current
crisis. American Anthropologist, 104(3): 723-735.
Mead, M. (2015). Warfare is only an invention—not a biological necessity. In Conflict after
the cold war (pp. 254-258). Routledge.
Refslund Sørensen, B. and Weisdorf, M. (2021) Awkward Moments in the Anthropology of
the Military and the (Im)possibility of Critique. Ethnos, 86 (4): 632-653.
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women's lives.
University of California Press. Chapter 2.
Gusterson, H. and Besteman, C. (2019). Cultures of Militarism. An Introduction to
Supplement 19.
Lutz, C. (2007). Militarization. A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics, 318-331.
Reid, J. (2008). Life Struggles: War, Discipline and Biopolitics in the Thought of Michel
Foucault. Social Text 24. In: Foucault on politics, security and war (eds.) Michael Dillon and
Andrew W. Neal, pp. 65-92. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women's lives.
University of California Press. Chapters 7, pg. 235.
Enloe, C. (2015). The recruiter and the sceptic: a critical feminist approach to military
studies. Critical Military Studies 1(1): 3-10.
Grewal, I. (2006). “Security Moms” in the Early Twentieth-Century United States: The
Gender of Security in Neoliberalism. Women Studies Quarterly 34 (1/2): 25-39.
Jenny Hedström (2022) Militarized social reproduction: women’s labour and parastate armed
conflict. Critical Military Studies, 8(1): 58-76.
Agyekum, H. A. (2022). Complicating Entanglements: Societal Factors Intruding in the
Ghana Armed Forces’ Civil–Military Relations. Armed Forces & Society, 48(4): 917-935.
Agyekum, H. A. (2023). “We Are not into Politics, but Politics Is into Us”: The Politicization
of the Ghana Armed Forces Through Patronage Exchanges between Political Elites and
Military Leaders. African Studies Review, 66(4): 967-987.
Guarasci, B. and Kim, E.J. (2022). Introduction: Ecologies of War;
https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/introduction-ecologies-of-war
Ihar, Zsuzsanna. (2023). Properties of War: The Militarization of Housing Policy and Urban
Planning in Contemporary Azerbaijan. Catalyst:
Rech, M., Bos, D., Jenkings, K. N., Williams, A., and Woodward, R. (2015). Geography,
military geography, and critical military studies. Critical Military Studies, 1(1): 47-60.
Stavrianakis, A., and Stern, M. (2018). Militarism and security: Dialogue, possibilities and
limits. Security dialogue, 49(1-2): 3-18.
Woodward, R. (2016). Military geography. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People,
the Earth, Environment and Technology: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, 1-
7.
of California Press. Chapters 1.
Fosher, K. (2010). Anthropologists in Arms: The Ethics of Military Anthropology. 177-181.
Gusterson, H. (2007). Anthropology and Militarism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36:
155-175.
Lutz, C. (2002). Making war at home in the United States: Militarization and the current
crisis. American Anthropologist, 104(3): 723-735.
Mead, M. (2015). Warfare is only an invention—not a biological necessity. In Conflict after
the cold war (pp. 254-258). Routledge.
Refslund Sørensen, B. and Weisdorf, M. (2021) Awkward Moments in the Anthropology of
the Military and the (Im)possibility of Critique. Ethnos, 86 (4): 632-653.
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women's lives.
University of California Press. Chapter 2.
Gusterson, H. and Besteman, C. (2019). Cultures of Militarism. An Introduction to
Supplement 19.
Lutz, C. (2007). Militarization. A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics, 318-331.
Reid, J. (2008). Life Struggles: War, Discipline and Biopolitics in the Thought of Michel
Foucault. Social Text 24. In: Foucault on politics, security and war (eds.) Michael Dillon and
Andrew W. Neal, pp. 65-92. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women's lives.
University of California Press. Chapters 7, pg. 235.
Enloe, C. (2015). The recruiter and the sceptic: a critical feminist approach to military
studies. Critical Military Studies 1(1): 3-10.
Grewal, I. (2006). “Security Moms” in the Early Twentieth-Century United States: The
Gender of Security in Neoliberalism. Women Studies Quarterly 34 (1/2): 25-39.
Jenny Hedström (2022) Militarized social reproduction: women’s labour and parastate armed
conflict. Critical Military Studies, 8(1): 58-76.
Agyekum, H. A. (2022). Complicating Entanglements: Societal Factors Intruding in the
Ghana Armed Forces’ Civil–Military Relations. Armed Forces & Society, 48(4): 917-935.
Agyekum, H. A. (2023). “We Are not into Politics, but Politics Is into Us”: The Politicization
of the Ghana Armed Forces Through Patronage Exchanges between Political Elites and
Military Leaders. African Studies Review, 66(4): 967-987.
Guarasci, B. and Kim, E.J. (2022). Introduction: Ecologies of War;
https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/introduction-ecologies-of-war
Ihar, Zsuzsanna. (2023). Properties of War: The Militarization of Housing Policy and Urban
Planning in Contemporary Azerbaijan. Catalyst:
Rech, M., Bos, D., Jenkings, K. N., Williams, A., and Woodward, R. (2015). Geography,
military geography, and critical military studies. Critical Military Studies, 1(1): 47-60.
Stavrianakis, A., and Stern, M. (2018). Militarism and security: Dialogue, possibilities and
limits. Security dialogue, 49(1-2): 3-18.
Woodward, R. (2016). Military geography. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People,
the Earth, Environment and Technology: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, 1-
7.
Association in the course directory
Last modified: Mo 27.07.2026 09:27
war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, and the exchange of bombardments between Israel
and Iran. These events raise questions about the role of militaries in our societies e.g. the
generation and spread of militaristic ideas, or how we can understand the military as a
(social) institution in and of itself. Militaries are important, large-scale public organizations
with very specific defining characteristics, namely the production, management and use of
legitimate, state-mandated organized violence (Boene 1990). While a host of anthropological
studies have dealt with these dimensions of the armed forces, studying the military seems to
generate debate in anthropological circles. That is because anthropological studies generally
tend to focus on the victim’s perspective, often ignoring the perpetrators of violence (cf.
Tomforde and Ben-Ari 2021). Additionally, many view the military as morally tainted and not
worthy of anthropological exploration. Finally, investigating the military, militarism and
militarization, brings anthropologists into politically charged areas.
In the series of classes, we will explore why it is important or worth engaging and
understanding how militaristic ideas are created and come to be, and how we can study the
military as an institution from an anthropological perspective. Drawing from various
disciplinary debates (anthropology, gender studies, geography, etc), we discuss processes of
militarization, militarism, and how these processes reach into society more generally.
Through the course readings, discussions and activities, participants will engage deeply with
the military, war, militarism and processes of militarization.Structure of Classes:
The course is structured into four double units (sessions) of teaching. Each session will be
introduced by a lecture, followed by plenary discussion of the course reading. The second
unit of each session will be led by students. Students will be divided into groups to
collaboratively reflect on the themes of the course and prepare presentations of their key
insights. Student presentations are expected to go beyond the reading list through identifying
and analyzing empirical cases and bringing the course literature into constructive dialogue
with additional conceptual readings, e.g. from wider debates in anthropology, security
studies, area studies, among others.
Student presentation may not simply summarize texts that relate to the theme, but need to
augment the understanding of the key concepts. Students will receive feedback from the
lecturer and peers during the class, helping them to prepare the written exam.