Feminist Astropolitics with Jessica West

Jessica West leads research to advance peace and security in outer space through a humanitarian focus on space for all and benefits to people and the planet. As part of this work, she interacts regularly with key United Nations bodies tasked with space security and space safety issues. Related research interests include approaches to peace and disarmament rooted in humanitarian protection and gender perspectives, as well as the impact of new technologies on space security such as cyber connectivity and artificial intelligence. Jessica holds a PhD in global governance from the Balsillie School of International Affairs where her work focused on linkages between resilience, national security, and public health. She currently holds roles as a Research Fellow at the Kindred Credit Union Centre for Peace Advancement, and a Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI).

 Jessica is pictured before a backdrop presenting an artistic rendition of the Earth. (Photo credits: Jessica West  - Profile picture | Kirthi Jayakumar - Astronomical Art) 

Can you start by sharing your background and what got you interested in the field of outer space security and governance?  

I came to the field of outer space governance serendipitously: my work and educational background had been related to conflict prevention, and I had always wanted to work at Project Ploughshares. The initial opportunity to join their team on the space file way back in 2005 was a time when very few people were thinking about space governance. For me that was exciting because it provided a chance to develop expertise and to have an impact on a field that has tremendous impact on daily life and the future of humanity.  

There is an understanding that outer space is considered the common heritage of humankind - however, reality suggests otherwise in terms of accessibility. How far is this a function of the lack of diversity in the field in itself?  

I don’t think that “common heritage of humankind” is generally accepted terminology for outer space. The Outer Space Treaty uses the wording “province” of humankind, which doesn’t have the same legal standing. “Heritage” is used in the Moon treaty – and of course the Outer Space Treaty identifies the Moon and other celestial bodies as somewhat different from the rest of outer space through its focus on demilitarizing these space – but very few states have ratified this agreement and there is clearly resistance by some states to this way of thinking about the Moon and it’s resources, let alone all of outer space. 

That said, I agree with the spirit of this question! The OST does have clear universalistic language in it, particularly Article I, which stipulates that space exploration and activities “shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development…” as well as Article II, which states that outer space “shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law…”  

What does this mean in practice? The emphasis has been on the freedom of use side of the equation, which in my view has been used to prevent additional rules and restrictions regarding how space is used and to what ends. For the most part, shared benefits has been loosely interpreted and operationalized through a focus on sharing scientific data.  

The lack of diversity – both in terms of individuals and also state participation in outer space – has definitely shaped the trajectory of human activities in space. Despite the many benefits that people all around the world have realized through the development of space capabilities and systems, the dominant underpinnings remain power, prestige, and national security, all of which have been diligently linked to notions of masculinity by other scholars, as detailed in my article on the lack of feminist approaches to space security (https://idp.springer.com/authorize/casa?redirect_uri=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42597-023-00107-w&casa_token=swfF5TBBrQ8AAAAA:pNBIozg-mE8EZ23GVPLhN2Eg1EION-nx67hX0aIK-Meu0w1NWGsPGRjBjKwk82IajhYQbM9hN1iFCu9jTQ)  

But it’s not just the lack of diversity that has fueled this dominant approach to space activities: this approach has also limited participation in the field, by shaping our ideas of who is space is for and what space is about. That’s slowly changing though as our community widens and hopefully becomes more welcoming and intentionally seeks out new stakeholders, voices, and participants.

The colonization of space has become entrenched with militarization and capitalism. How can we decolonize our approach to engaging with and using space? 

We need to begin by changing how we think about outer space. And we can do this by being more mindful of the language that we use and resisting language that is harmful. This matters because language shapes how we think, and how we think shapes how we act and engage in the world around us.

We can see the effects of these efforts when it comes to gender. There has been a concerted effort to highlight and change the “manned” language of outer space activities (see for example writings by Alice Gorman and also Cassandra Steer on space law) including concepts such as “mankind” and “manned spaceflight.” And that language is slowly changing to become more inclusive of women.

But the language of space is also militarized and colonial. For example, notions of outer space as a ”frontier,” a “Wild West,” and a “high ground” embed within them violent notions of conquest and dominance. People even use the concept of colonizing outer space as an objective of some activities including extending human life beyond our planet. We should resist this thinking.

I also believe that it is important to think about the value of space, and to recognize that it has value and exists separately from human access and activities there, and that it’s values to people are many.

Finally, I think it’s important to be aware of our own power in this process, and how it is used. The reality of my race, my nationality, my language, my education, my income….all of these things help to privilege me and my voice, and I am only slowly starting to grapple with the effects and the obligations of that power and honestly it is a little unsettling.

If you could spell out a decolonial model for spacefaring, what would that look like? 

I’m hesitant to answer this question because it’s something that I am still very much learning about. So, I would point you to the work and voices of people whom I find instructive, such as Perpetua Adar, Ruvimbo Samanga, Sahba El-Shawa, Nathalie Travino, Karlie Noon, Cristian van Eijk, …there are many more, and they are out there if you look for them.

My more philosophical response would be to suggest that there is no single model that we should follow. Knowing what not to do is the first step, and to me that involve eschewing sources of violence. Recognizing and acknowledging the many values of outer space might be the next. I’ve been intrigued by work on space governance – including lunar governance – that draws on the concept of polycentricity – the idea that governance flows through multiple points of authority and decision-making. And this spurred me to go back to some of my very first academic (and unpublished) work on outer space as being polyvalent. Which is a fancy way of saying that we need to find ways to decentre what have been the dominant values of space – including military security – and find ways to incorporate the broad array of other values, not only in how we speak about space, but in what we do and how we take decisions. This is not easy! But it is possible. Recent headlines about private companies wanting to send human ashes and other junk for the Moon – because it represents an opportunity for profit – are helping to create public space for these types of conversations. So too is the growing awareness of light pollution from human objects in orbit and its impact on the night sky.

Do current approaches to spacefaring in its current form allow room for this model to take shape? What needs to shift for us to apply a decolonial approach to spacefaring? 

We need to have a broader understanding of what colonialism is. There is a misperception that it’s only about subjugating and inflicting direct violence on people. And so, the knee jerk response to questions about colonial logic in space is that it’s not a problem because there are no people in space. But this is misguided thinking.

Like most “isms,” colonialism is a process and a logic of power. And here again I will turn to the work of Nathalie Trevino, who describes colonialism in terms of control aimed at exploitation, including over resources, knowledge, gender and other identities. We can’t change that just by bringing more people into the process: we must change how we think about space and make room for other stories and other values.

For generations, outer space has been a source of knowledge, wisdom, and succour for indigenous communities world over. Their way of accessing space has had little to do with technology - and yet, has produced meaningful impact. Do you believe a spacefaring future that would allow both sides to coexist is possible? What might it take for us to get there?

For millennia! I can’t imagine a human existence or culture without the space beyond our planet. Your question to me points to a problem with concept of the Space Age, which is demarcated by direct human access to the cosmos through rockets and satellites. And clearly this had a profound impact on human life on Earth, hence the notion of a new ‘age.’ But the concept also makes it seem as though outer space only has meaning and impact on Earth once humanmade objects and activities were able to physically go there, which in turn erases other ways of knowing and being in space. This is part of the colonial mindset, of understanding who space is for and what its value is only through the lens of those with the power to access it. And that’s wrong.

 Is there a way for different approaches to co-exist? I would hope so. To me this is key to the pursuit of peace. And it’s a process just as much as it is a destination. We can begin dropping the pretention that we should or even can dominate space, either militarily or through human technology and knowledge – by humbling ourselves to others and to power and inspiration of the cosmos. We may never get there. But what’s important is that we try.