To what extent does a feminist perspective require the re-structuring of the study of international relations?

Introduction:

In late 1980 and early 1990, the feminist theories of International Relations came into the discipline of IR, “breaking the powerful bond among manly men, state and war” (Tickner, 2010:196 and True, 2009: 237). Feminism moves the study of IR toward a wide-ranging and comprehensive analysis of players, structures, organizations and “their transformations” (True, 2009:237). Several publications and conferences created and enhanced the driving force for a feminist study of IR. Among the early publication, now classics of the field, is Cynthia Enloe’s ‘Banana, Beaches and Base’ published in 1989 (Steans, 2003:428). In addition, J. Ann Tickner’s text, ‘Gender in International Relations: Feminists Perspectives on achieving global security’ (1992) and Christine Sylevester’s ‘Feminist theory of International Relations in a Postmodern Era’ (1994) contributed a lot and made their mark in the early 1990s (Peterson, 1998: 581-583 and Wibben, 2004: 97). In IR more generally there are varieties of feminists’ theoretical perspectives. While all the feminist strands are different in approach, they are united by seeking to re-think IR’s basic parameters to understand global politics in 21st century (Tickner, 2010:198). Since the fundamentals of the IR is laid without a proper attention to the equality of women and men, the re-structuring of the feminist IR will certainly require a fundamental change in it.

In the last twenty years, the classical tradition in IR has appeared under continued attack on a number of fronts, and from a diverse range of critics. Recently, feminist thinkers ad scholars have condemned IR as one of the most “gender-blind”, indeed “crudely patriarchal”, of all the institutionalized forms of contemporary social and political analysis. Feminists want to challenged some of the most basic elements of the classical paradigm and have advanced an alternative vision of IR; by redefining power as “mutual enablement” rather than domination, and offers normative values of cooperation, care giving, and compromise in place of patriarchal norms of competition, exploitation, and self-aggrandizement (Adam, 1996).

Feminist theory emerged from the feminist movements. The history of feminism can be divided in three waves. The first wave emerged in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the second occurred in the 1960s and 1970s and the third extends from the 1990s to the present (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2004: Online). Many developed countries hosted conferences, programs, panels with a focus on gender and/ or feminist approaches in IR. Steans, 2003: 431). Three major conferences did open the feminist thought on the IR scene; “the 1988 Millennium: journal of international studies conference at the London School of Economics, the 1989 conference at the University of Southern California, and the 1990 conference at Wellesley” (Wibben, 2004: 98).

The centre of attention for IR feminist theories is social relations, mainly “gender relations; rather than anarchy,” and they see that the gender subordination as a result of international system which is socially constructed hierarchies (Tickner, 2010: 197). Furthermore, feminist define gender as socially constructed characteristics; what men and women ought to be (Zalewski, 1995: 341 and Tickner, 2010: 195). These social constructed characteristics are described as strength, rationality, independence, protector and public which are associated with masculinity while characteristics such as, weakness, emotionality; relational, protected and private are associated with femininity.

In the states as both men and women live in; give more positive value to masculine characteristics compare to feminine ones “at least in public sphere”. The foreign policies of states are frequently recognized by law in terms of “hegemonic masculine” characteristics. These characteristics are not in favour of feminists, and requires a desirable foreign policy which is the one which do the best for “power and autonomy” and protects it citizen from outside threats. Consequently, the gender distinctions organize social activities between groups of human (Harding, cited in Tickner, 2010:196).

Over twenty years from now, feminist ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Over twenty years from now, feminist critics and practitioners have become a regular part of the discipline of IR (Ackerly, 2006:5). Since then, the feminist scholars have brought many serious issues with gender and theory in the previously “gender-blind and theoretically abstract IR field” (Ackerly, et al. 2006: 1).

Cynthia Enloe’s book, ‘Banana, Beaches and Bases: making feminist sense of international politics’ which was published in 1990 was a pressing force. Enloe’s book contained compelling images and analysis which brought gender in the context of international politics, and her book is regarded the most wide-ranging feminist interpretation of IR (Steans, 2006:428). Enloe has demonstrated her points by asking “where are the women?” and exposing “how much power it takes to maintain the international political system in its present form” (Enloe, 1990: 3). Enloe (cited in Wibben: 2004: 105) stated various ways in which women are present everywhere in IR, it is the lenses through which certain activities are seen by IR that obscure the work done by women, for example, sex workers, diplomatic wives, outside military bases (Murphy, 1996: 517 and Steans, 2003: 428). Enloe not only wanted to take women’s lives seriously, but also to move women from the margins to the centre as a subject of knowledge in IR (Smith and Owens, 2008: 182).

J. Ann Tickner ‘gender in international relations: feminist perspectives on achieving global security’, book is giving a systematic treatment of IR theory from a feminist point of view. Tickner (cited in Murphy, 1996: 521) intended to expose the manliness foundation of the of the field and to observed what the discipline might seem if the “central realities of women’s day to day lives were included.” Tickner believed that the entire western philosophical tradition was occupied in masculinist idea to serve as underpinning for constructing a gender-sensitive IR (Tickner, 1998, 617).

Feminists sought to challenge the ‘boundaries’ of mainstream IR by drawing attention to how an ‘ontology based on unitary states operating in the asocial, anarchical world, provided few entry points for feminist theories, since these were grounded in an epistemology that took social relations as its central category of analysis (Tickner, 1997: 616).

Feminist IR scholars have developed not just a toolkit of methods but ways of incorporating ontological and epistemological reflection into methodological choice that lead them to rethink the boundaries of IR discipline (Ackerly, 2006: 4). The fundamental contribution of feminists in IR has been in promoting re-evaluation of the ontology’s and epistemologies of the discipline (Ackerly, 2006: 4). In relation to the ontological foundation of the discipline, feminist have criticized traditional assumptions about the actors and activities relevant to analysis of international politics. As a result of these development in understanding actors and agency, the epistemologies of IR have also been influenced by feminist scholars. The ways knowing; in the discipline have become much broader in recent years (Ackerly, 2006:4). In contrast to twenty years ago, feminism is universally accepted as matter in IR disciple.

Despite, the feminist attempts and influences to the study of IR challenging classical tradition, the effect on the mainstream discipline, remained to be marginal particularly in US, and there has no attention paid to feminist perspectives by other critical approaches (Sylvester, 1994b cited in Tickner, 1997: 611). Most feminists remain profoundly dissatisfied with their reception in and impact on the discipline.

Tickner’s move toward non-gendered global security has two key components. First the discipline must rethink its basic concept and commit to analysis in multi-dimensional and multi level terms. Second, IR must recognize and take seriously ‘how so many of the insecurities affecting us all, women and men alike, are gendered in their historical origins, there conventional definitions, and their contemporary manifestations (Tickner, 129).

In IR there are a wide variety of feminist theoretical perspectives variously identified as Marxist, radical, psychoanalytic, socialist, standpoint, liberal, and postmodern, describe the causes and consequence of women’s subjugation and segregation trying to introduce ways and strategies for removing it. Though all the strands of feminism disagree on reasons, but all of them are trying to understand women subordinations in the society. (Zalewski, 1995:340-341 and Tickner, 1997: 670) IR feminists share a common interest in gender equality and gender emancipation. (Tickner, 2010: 198 and Smith & Owens, 2008:181-184). Many “feminist are progressive in the sense in which Martin Wight was using the term” (Tickner; 1997:620). While the other strands of feminism; psychoanalytic traditions which “look for causes of women’s inequality in socialization practices of early childhood, radicals, Marxists, and socialists look for explanations in structures of patriarchy” naturalizing women’s subjugation and oppression, or “in the labor market with its gender discriminations and divisions” between public and private work (Tickner; 1997:620).

Liberal feminist is much more close to the traditional theory. Liberal feminist documents many aspects of women’s subordination for example, income inequalities and human rights violations. Furthermore, liberal Feminist sees both men and women equal and they criticize the exclusion of women from positions of power in IR (Smith and Owens, 2008: 181-182). They seek to include women as subject of study, for example, state leaders, women soldiers and so on and argue that the equality between men and women would bring more national capabilities by giving state a better overall pool of diplomats, politician and soldiers. They argue that reform is necessary, only to ensure the establishment of equal rights in the public, sphere; the education right, voting right and so on (Smith and Owens, 2008: 181 and Heywood, 1998: 252). Moreover, liberal feminist believe that for achieving women equality, it necessary to remove legal and other obstructs that have prevented women to have the same opportunities and rights as men (Tickner, 2010:199). Many post-positivist IR feminist are critical of liberal feminism. They point out problems with assessing gender inequity using statistical indictors. Furthermore, post-positivist feminist point out that gender inequality continue to exist in societies that have long since achieved formal equality so we must go deeper into our investigations of gender hierarchies (Tickner, 2010:199).

Marxist feminism, as the name implies the influence here is Marxism, with its insistence on the role of material, primarily economic, forces in determining the lives of women (Smith an Owens, 2008:182). For Marxist feminist, the cause of women’s inequality is to be found in the capitalism system; overthrowing capitalism is necessary route for achievement of the equal treatment of women. For Marxist feminists, the focus of theory of world politics would be on the patterns by which the world capitalist system and patriarchal system of power lead to women being systematically disadvantaged compared to men (Smith and Owens, 2008: 182).

The feminist standpoint theory has come forward out of socialist feminism and the idea of particular class system (Smith and Owens, 2008: 182). Feminist standpoint theories argue that women’s experience at the margins of political life have given them perspectives on social issues that provide valid insights into world politics (Smith and Owens, 2008: 182-183). The feminist theorist offers a critique of theories constructed by men who put themselves in the position of policy-makers. Feminists critically examine IR from the standpoint of people who have been systematically excluded from power. J. Ann Tickner (cited in Smith and Owens, 2008:183) reformulated the ‘six principle of political realism’ developed by Hans Morgenthau. Tickner showed how the seemingly ‘objective rules of Morgenthau in fact reflect male values and definitions of reality, rather than female ones. In response to this, Tickner reformulated these same rules taking women’s experience as the starting point.

The Constructivist feminism argues for adding a social layer to IR analysis when re-thinking the ways for understanding international politics. “They emphasis the ideational rather than the material elements of global politics.” They challenge realist approaches about states as unitary actors; instead they see states as dynamic result of the social process that constitutes their existence (Tickner, 2010:200). Poststructuralist feminism is particularly concerned with the way dichotomized linguistic constructions, such as strong/weak, rational/emotional, and public/private, serve to empower the masculine over the feminine. (Tickner, 2010: 201)

Post-colonial IR feminist has examined gender subordinations and works at the intersection class, race and gender and “blurring the boundaries between politics, political economy, and other relations of dominations/subordinations.” From this view point and recognizing this, they seek to redress these subordinations within their own cultural context, rather than through some universal understating of women’s, need (Tickner, 210: 203 and Smith & Owens, 2008:184).

Conclusion:

Since the last two decades, feminist have restored women’s visibility in international scene, explored gendered construction of international concept and policies, and questioned the naturalness of gendered categories that are shaped by global politics. Many challenging tasks are identified by feminist scholars and activists. These includes elimination of biases of mainstream IR, bringing women apparent in social, economic and political subject in international politics, structuring theoretical understandings of IR from women point of views in order to empower women as subject of knowledge. (Steans, 2003: 435). Having given a short summary of what feminism entails in relation to IR and varying views from scholars, it is no mistake to say that feminist have major challenge of complete acceptance in international matters. Hence they require immense re-structuring so as to be able to achieve their aim.

References:

Ackerly, A.B. et al. (2006) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge University Press.

Adam, J. (1996). Does ‘gender’ make the world go round? Feminist critiques of international relations. Review of International Studies, 22 , pp 405-429.

Enloe, C. (1990) Banana, Beaches and Basses: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. University of California Press.

Heywood, A. (1998) Political Ideologies: An introduction. Basingstoke, Macmiillan.

Peterson, V.S (1998) ‘Feminism and International Relations: Gender and History’, 10(3), pp. 581-589.

Smith, S. and Owens, P. (2008)’Alternative approaches to international theory’ in J. Baylis, S. Smith and O. Patricia eds, The Globalization of World Politics, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, pp. 174-191.

Steans, J. (2003) Engaging from the margins: Feminist encounters with the ‘mainstream’ of International Relations. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(3), pp. 428-454.

Tickner, J.A (1992) Gender in International Politics: Feminist perspective on achieving global security. Columbia University Press. New York.

Tickner, J.A. (1997) You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagement between Feminist and IR Theorist. International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), pp. 611-632.

Tickner, J.A. (1998) ‘Continuing the Conversation’, International Studies Quarterly, 42(1) pp. 205-210.

Tickner, J.A. and Sjoberg, L. (2010) ‘Feminist’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki. and S. Smith eds, International Relations Theory: Discipline and Diversity, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, pp. 195-212.

True, J. (2009) ‘Feminist’ in S. Burchill et al. Eds, Theories of International Relations, 4th Edition, Palgrave Macmillian.

Wibben, A.T. (2004) Feminist International Relations: Old Debates and New Directions. Pp. 97-109.

Zalewski, M. (1995) ‘Well, what is the feminist perspective on Bosnia?’. International Affairs, 71(2), p.339. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Murphy, C.N. (1996) ‘Seeing Women, Recognizing Gender, Recasting International Relations. International Organizations/ The MIT press. 50 (3), pp. 5130-538.

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2004) Feminism . Online: [Accessed date 05 May 2010].