Theorizing in international relations has focused its attention on creating a framework through which events in the international system can be analyzed and – to an extent – predicted. Through most of the discourse, the role of gender in analyzing international affairs has been marginal. Apart from the existing biological differences between the sexes, ‘gender’ in international relations comprises of the socially constructed power relations between men and women. These relationships of power vis-à-vis “the other” result in social inequalities at the domestic and the international level. In order to highlight the role of gender in international politics, J. Ann Tickner, in “Gendering World Politics” and “Gender in International Relations” expounds upon the Feminist theory and the niche occupied by women in international system. By placing an emphasis gender in development, the global economy and in international security, Tickner attempts to delineate the future of a Feminist IR.
Coupled with the end of the Cold War, the increasing popularity of the ‘third debate’ that stressed upon the role of material and ideational factors in analyzing international relations, led to the feminist perspective gaining considerable momentum. The feminist theory posits that despite IR’s claim at being neutral, politics in the international affairs have taken on a gendered role, with a bias towards “masculine” attributes. The male-oriented nature of discourse regarding IR, was seen to be a reflection of the “superiority” of men and the rampant exclusion and discrimination of women in the policy-making, matters pertaining to international security and the international political economy. Therefore, the prime concern of feminist theorists has been to explain and address the causes of the “unjustified asymmetry” between the social and economic status of men and women. Hence, feminists believed that ignoring “hierarchical constructions” at the domestic level would result in the perpetuation in the relationships of domination and subordination.
With regard to international security, Tickner believes that there has been a great“emphasis on power and autonomy and claims to objectivity and rationality”. These characteristics attributed to states in the international order are biased against women and do not fully represent their perspectives and behaviour. As women have been underrepresented in history, their presence in the international system is disregarded. Tickner stresses upon the fact that the behaviour of states in a situation of war of all against all is a rather “masculine” construct and therefore the author objects to the universality awarded to the self-interested behaviour of states in the state of nature. She claims that the self interested nature of states only represents the actions and behaviours of men who are actively involved in international affairs. In addition, feminists also criticize the rational choice theory on the basis of it portraying individuals as self-interested profit maximizers, as they consider the models proposed as painting only half of the picture.
Furthermore, Tickner also tries to dispel the argument that wars are fought to protect the more “vulnerable” individuals in society. Pointing out the horrors of war including the rape as a military strategy, and the casualties of war which mostly include women and children, the author draws attention to the fact that the international system, with its focus on states and survival, seeks to perpetuate the dominance of men over women. Finally, contrary to the dearth of documentation of women in the military or other ‘masculine’ positions, women have been seen to occupy a critical position in peace movements, which draw upon more “feminine” characteristics of human nature – such as care giving and connectedness. The association of men with war and women with peace has served to not only reinforce the socially constructed gender hierarchies, but has led to the devaluation of the idea of peace as well.
Tickner article presents an extensive literature review regarding gender and international relations, incorporating the ideas and often dissenting opinions of feminist theorists. She has also substantiated her arguments with the use of examples, which add credibility to her work. All in all, the piece was rather informative and provided a different lens through which international relations and state behaviour can be examined.
Coupled with the end of the Cold War, the increasing popularity of the ‘third debate’ that stressed upon the role of material and ideational factors in analyzing international relations, led to the feminist perspective gaining considerable momentum. The feminist theory posits that despite IR’s claim at being neutral, politics in the international affairs have taken on a gendered role, with a bias towards “masculine” attributes. The male-oriented nature of discourse regarding IR, was seen to be a reflection of the “superiority” of men and the rampant exclusion and discrimination of women in the policy-making, matters pertaining to international security and the international political economy. Therefore, the prime concern of feminist theorists has been to explain and address the causes of the “unjustified asymmetry” between the social and economic status of men and women. Hence, feminists believed that ignoring “hierarchical constructions” at the domestic level would result in the perpetuation in the relationships of domination and subordination.
With regard to international security, Tickner believes that there has been a great“emphasis on power and autonomy and claims to objectivity and rationality”. These characteristics attributed to states in the international order are biased against women and do not fully represent their perspectives and behaviour. As women have been underrepresented in history, their presence in the international system is disregarded. Tickner stresses upon the fact that the behaviour of states in a situation of war of all against all is a rather “masculine” construct and therefore the author objects to the universality awarded to the self-interested behaviour of states in the state of nature. She claims that the self interested nature of states only represents the actions and behaviours of men who are actively involved in international affairs. In addition, feminists also criticize the rational choice theory on the basis of it portraying individuals as self-interested profit maximizers, as they consider the models proposed as painting only half of the picture.
Furthermore, Tickner also tries to dispel the argument that wars are fought to protect the more “vulnerable” individuals in society. Pointing out the horrors of war including the rape as a military strategy, and the casualties of war which mostly include women and children, the author draws attention to the fact that the international system, with its focus on states and survival, seeks to perpetuate the dominance of men over women. Finally, contrary to the dearth of documentation of women in the military or other ‘masculine’ positions, women have been seen to occupy a critical position in peace movements, which draw upon more “feminine” characteristics of human nature – such as care giving and connectedness. The association of men with war and women with peace has served to not only reinforce the socially constructed gender hierarchies, but has led to the devaluation of the idea of peace as well.
Tickner article presents an extensive literature review regarding gender and international relations, incorporating the ideas and often dissenting opinions of feminist theorists. She has also substantiated her arguments with the use of examples, which add credibility to her work. All in all, the piece was rather informative and provided a different lens through which international relations and state behaviour can be examined.
No comments:
Post a Comment