How is the field of international relations gendered?

Authors Avatar

How is the field of international relations gendered?

Looking at the representation of war, terror and international relations, feminist scholars such as Enloe and Cohen have suggested we look beyond the politics of diplomacy and foreign policy to consider how international politics may be built around gender relations; reinforcing notions of binary masculine/feminine identity, and how patriarchy may be used to create and maintain control both nationally and internationally.

I will be considering how the field of international relations is gendered and what effects have been caused by feminist responses and reactions and furthermore how these responses have challenged the issue of military control as a patriarchal tool.

To begin with, as always when discussing gender I must define what I mean by gender in the context of this essay discussing roles within international politics. I will be concentrating on the socially constructed identities of Men and Women and their associated characteristics of Masculinity and Femininity. Masculinity and Femininity are the characteristics which are taught by socialisation to Men and Women which are constructed in opposition to each other and are manifested in behaviours and attitudes, such as the masculine trait of rationality opposing the feminine trait of emotional. These constructed identities affect our perception of men and women in roles of power and also how we judge their work as good, bad, respectable or disgraceful.  How we identify a person’s gender will influence how we understand their political motives and objectives, and how we see differences in their policies and public acts. For example, D’Amico and Beckman (1995) highlight a discourse within political understanding which holds that Men ( people socialised as Masculine) engage in tough conflict with little cooperation as a characterised strategy of masculine leadership, yet contrast this idea  with their understanding, ‘the social construct of these opposing characteristics deny the commonality of what it means to be ‘’human’’: each of us can be rational and emotional, competitive and cooperative’, making the former seem simplistic and essentialist. Their analysis of the social constructions of gender differences suggests it may not account for all behavioural differences as there are wide crossovers between masculine traits and feminine traits which we all experience as humans.

As ‘the personal is political’ according to Feminist discourse, international politics are intertwined with local politics as Enloe states, ‘I, of course, see the ‘international’’ as embedded in the national and in the local...I also see...the ‘political’’ in many spaces that others imagine are purely economic, or cultural, or private.’ From this we can understand that the politics of gender relations are inseparable from gender relations on a local/private level because they are constructed in and perpetuated in a similar way.

Walker, (1992:197) suggests that the old sexist saying ‘A woman’s place is in the kitchen’’ is a ‘metaphor of domesticity that nonetheless suggests a possible reading of at least some aspects of contemporary world politics’’. Here he recognises women’s supporting role in politics as silent, exploited and menial, yet essential. Sylvester (1994:166) expands this metaphor, contextualising it by relating it to contemporary world politics; ‘What the woman is doing there is obliquely working amidst the unplugged freezer that is now Central Europe, ignoring the microwave that cooks and transforms everything within range.’ Here Sylvester shows the gendered divisions in International Relations; women are confined to the least visible areas of work and their efforts are undermined because of their gender such as is often seen in the domestic sphere where they are oppressed and confined to the kitchen.

Join now!

This role of the female as bound to the domestic is an extension of the male/female binary which also considers roles relating to the public and political sphere. Global and international politics are masculinised while femininity is confined to the local and domestic sphere. Masculine power is highly visible while feminine power is regulated. People with more valued characteristics (men) learn to see themselves as dominant, and those with less valued characteristics (women) are socialised to accept this arrangement – this is how gendered hierarchy is established and sustained. International relations are gendered firstly in the way that most positions ...

This is a preview of the whole essay