La fem ir shell

Generic IR

International relations are fundamentally gendered; a feminist analysis is key to a solvent reconceptualization that accurately describes foreign policy

Thorburn (lecturer in International Relations in the Department of Government at the University of the West Indies, Mona) 2k, Diana, “Feminism Meets International Relations”, SAIS Review, Volume 20, Number 2, Summer-Fall 2000, pp. 1-10 (Article)

These developments have coalesced into what is a legitimate and coherent sub-field in international relations. A review of the main texts that represent the feminist international relations discourse to date shows two trends. These texts correspond to theoretical issues in international relations and to more “material” foreign policy issues. At both levels, writers point to gender issues and the absence of women’s lives and experiences. Beyond stating the obvious, the analyses have found that, rather than a gender-neutral discipline as some claim, the theoretical foundations of international relations are male-defined and constructed around male-female dichotomies that define female as “other.” Joan Wallach Scott, a leading feminist theorist, locates gender and its power dynamics in international relations theory and practice, arguing that the power relations inherent in international structure and politics are legitimized in terms of relations between men and women, and that the legitimizing of war has been carried out in gendered terms.14 Writers such as J. Ann Tickner, Rebecca Grant, and Christine Sylvester have turned to the theoretical foundations of international relations to understand the absence of women’s and gender issues.15 They argue that these issues shape and are shaped by international forces, although thus far they have been seldom, if ever, considered. Using a “gender lens,” these writers have broken down the discipline into its largely social sciences components, and then built them back into what is now known as international relations. They have discovered by viewing each component individually and as they are brought together, that such a process has resulted in a study entrenched in gender bias. As such, feminist understandings of the state, of war, and of security also differ widely from the androcentric understandings that shape mainstream international relations. Fred Halliday, Rebecca Grant, and Kathleen Newland have suggested areas of inquiry that arise out of the gender bias inherent in international relations theory.16 Halliday delineates three main areas for feminist inquiry in Power relations inherent in inter- national structures are legitimized in terms of relations between men and women.

international relations: the gender-specific consequences of international processes, women as actors on the international scene, and gender components of foreign policy issues. Grant and Newland propose that feminist concerns in international relations include migration issues, the gendered international sexual division of labor, women and development, and women’s rights as human rights. Cynthia Enloe, one of the most prominent scholars in the field of feminist international relations, argues that gendered stereotypes of masculinity and femininity provide the framework for the maintenance and operation of the international system.17 Her empirical work on U.S. foreign policy attempts to show how women— in their roles as diplomats’ wives, prostitutes at overseas military bases, secretaries in UN missions, and migrants who work as domestic servants to middle-class North Americans—shape the international system in fundamental ways, because they provide the means for the conduct of “official” international relations. The point is not that these are the only women actors in international relations, but that accounting for the social construct of gender is essential to a complete understanding of the workings of foreign policy. Enloe’s second work looks at the militarization processes of the Cold War and elaborates on Scott’s argument that militarization, security, and war are based and dependent upon gender dynamics.18 A third stream in the literature falls under the broader definition of international relations, looking at non-state actors— what might be appropriately labelled international feminism. Christine Sylvester’s feminist analysis of international relations theory brings her to the conclusion that feminist international relations has different understandings of cooperation and reciprocity.19 Further, feminist international relations refutes the basic Realist tenet that the international system is fundamentally anarchical. She suggests that a feminist international relations is more aptly understood as “relations international”—beyond inter- state relations to “inter-people” relations, such as that manifested by the extensive transnational networks of international feminist and women’s organizations. As Sylvester’s work suggests, the main difference between the international feminist literature and the feminist international relations literature is the much broader scope of the former.20 International feminists address topics and issues of an international nature, as well as inter-state issues, while feminist international relations is more restricted to state/government-level actions and

processes. Another difference is the weight that is given to feminism as a perspective and as a focus. Tickner, for example, starts with “established” international relations from a feminist perspective. International feminists tend to begin with feminism and feminist theory, and proceed to apply an international perspective. Like Sylvester, writers such as Nalini Persram have concluded that a feminist international relations is better understood as a critical international feminist theory of politics.21 Most recent—perhaps unimaginable even five years ago—is the perspective put forward by a book entitled The “Man” Question in International Relations.22 It is novel in that it interrogates international relations theory to locate masculinities, masculine hegemony, and men as actors. While feminist work in international relations begins from the precept that it is a male-dominant discipline and practice, this approach analyzes not only the discourse as it regards women, but.23 the way in which power relations between men and women shape and are shaped by the international relations theory and practice