Droning Discourse

Abstract

How is gendered language utilised to position the United States in relation to target states to morally justify Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) strikes? State discourse of the US during the George W. Bush and Barrack Obama administrations projected an image of remotely piloted systems as mechanisms of masculine protection. US officials assert that RPAs not only protected Americans at home, they protected populations vulnerable to terrorist attack abroad. While the RPA itself was coded as masculine, RPA pilots are feminised because they are protected from battle while using the RPA. The RPA takes the position of the ultimate masculine protector and its operators become feminised in US rhetoric. The surveillant assemblage of pilot, RPA, and sensor-analytics systems sustaining the RPA, is examined through a rigorous discourse analysis of state officials’ statements during the Bush and Obama administrations. Statements are taken from a number of reputable publications including The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Al Jazeera, CNN, and BCC, among others. Statements are also taken from the report “Living Under Drones,” from the law schools of Stanford and New York University. This research begins to answer the question of how technology is gendered in relation to RPAs and RPA strikes.