Feminism and the Role of Gender Politics in International Relations - Literature review Example

? Feminism and the Role of Gender Politics in International Relations This essay is about the correlation between feminist approaches and international relations. First, the essay will provide summaries of the reviewed articles followed by critiques of the articles and a conclusion at the end of the essay. J. Ann Tickner’s article speaks of the relationship of the feminist approaches to international relations, that there has been no real confrontation or relation between the two. Why should they be reconciled? The article’s long and meaningful title was taken from linguist Deborah Tannen’s book; the author was quoted as saying that there are cross-cultural issues involved in women and men communications. Issues between feminist and experts in international relations cannot be reconciled; the reasons could be that feminists and scholars of international relations are working on different realities and knowledge perspectives. Tickner states that silence occurs between feminists and IR women scholars because of their drawing on different realities and using dissimilar epistemologies. Some IR scholars refer to gender as “a category of analysis”. Gender differences must be appropriately understood with more constructive dialogues on both sides. In bridging the gap between feminist and IR scholars, Tickner focused on feminist answers to questions and ideas from ordinary IR scholars. Identified were three types of misunderstandings on the debate between feminists and IR scholars: 1) the misunderstandings about what gender means in personal conversations and actions; 2) the various realities or nature of things as expressed by feminists and non-feminists when they talk about international politics, considering that feminists also do not talk about the same subject matter of IR; and 3) the epistemological gap about the question that feminists do not deal with theory. Claims of gender neutrality in language are filled with masculinist assumptions. Feminists provide the meaning of gender with socially and culturally constructed words like “power, autonomy, rationality, and public,” words which belong to the masculine world. These words have opposites (weakness, dependence, emotion, and private) which refer to the feminine gender. Masculine characteristics are designated with positive values, and both masculinity and femininity are interrelated: to be called “a man” one must not exhibit “womanly” weaknesses. Martin Wight (1995 as cited in Tickner 1997) lamented the lack of international theories about Western philosophies because the international system was characterized with less intellectual and moral aspects. Wight’s thoughts had some significance in that feminists had problems with theories when referring to the international subject. Realist and feminist theories could not reconcile. IR scholars comforted with the Kantian tradition that promoted a healthy debate on social relations and not on anarchy. Linklater (1982 as cited in Tickner, 1997, p. 5) supported the concept that citizens should cooperate with other states to develop “free lives.” IR scholars posit that Kant’s philosophy on women depends on time which can easily be countered in a gender-sensitive world. Feminists believe that the Western philosophy is embedded with masculine traditions that cannot be depended upon in creating a gender-sensitive IR. Tickner concluded that feminists and IR scholars have never reached a point of agreement; instead, their conversations have always been misunderstandings about ideas and theories on feminism and international relations. Some of the reasons for their misunderstandings are the use of ontologies and epistemologies, but also on power differences. IR scholars do not know full well feminist approaches. Both sides have to settle their differences by means of constant dialoguing and understanding of the problems. However, feminists and constructivists can share the same ontology, although there are some differences. IR feminists see that gender and power should go together in the process of construction, but constructivists argue on the contrary. The debate between IR feminists and theorists may have reached a dead end but times work for a conversation. This means conversation should be worked out in the twenty-first century. (Locher & Prugl 2001, p. 111) The 1970s saw the beginning of a burgeoning literature on gender equality wherein many of the authors in the field pushed for a shift of focus from powerful actors to “putative powerless.” This is the gist of Craig Murphy’s (1996) article titled, ‘Seeing women, recognizing gender, recasting international relations,’ which touches on several papers about gender and international relations, one of which was Berenice Carroll’s ‘Peace Research: The Cult of Power.’ Caroll, according to Murphy, showed that we have to change our views in order to see the real picture of how women contributed to the making of international society. Caroll also made predictions that peoples of different culture, race, class, and gender would cooperate to provide a reformed discipline, with emphasis on gender and experience of women. Murphy stressed that the new literature on women and gender is a welcome opportunity for researchers in international relations. Works of women should be recognized and must be included in this field where their contributions seem to be excluded. Peace researchers emphasized gender equality, first contained in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, which closed down in the 1980s. The peace researchers and peace educators continued their work analyzing gender and war, which influenced women’s peace movements and other women organizations within the armed forces, foreign service, and political organizations around the world. Later, the University of Southern California and the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women motivated feminists through conferences. The field of international relations should investigate and discuss the work of women in world politics. Some studies have only touched on the contribution of a few women in world politics but have ignored the work of diplomats, statesmen, and commanders where women have their presence. There are a few studies but lacking empirical work about women and power, or what Caroll termed “the powers of the allegedly powerless” (Murphy 1996, p. 516). Caroll’s predictions may have come true to some degree and according to the culture of the people in the different places of the world. In the United States, women play a significant role in public and private organizations. We see women participating in international organizations and in decision making. The book, ‘Women in Foreign Policy: The Insiders’ by Nancy McGlen and Meredith Reid Sarkees, focuses on women (and men) whose jobs included policy making. Jeane Kirkpatrick was a significant player in international relations. Also, the work of Hicks Stiehm titled ‘Arms and the Enlisted Woman’ provided the inside job of women who helped shape American foreign policy. Enlisted women in the Armed Forces, though not in the limelight and the center of power, carry out tasks that are essential to decision making of the executive branch. In Europe, North America and in some parts of Asia, women play active roles in decision making and in international relations. There are still language discrepancies when it comes to gender that this can be corrected as time goes by. Enloe’s (1990) book, ‘Bananas, beaches, and bases: making feminist sense of international politics,’ provides an analysis of women taking primary roles in world politics. The book shows how researchers who investigate the role of women’s peace movements put limitations on their work by ‘using conventional, state-centric definitions of international relations and of the actions that might influence policymakers’ (Murphy 1996, p. 517). The women whose works need to be cited are those diplomatic wives and the civilian women who serve military bases, workers in export-oriented industrializing sectors of the newly-industrializing countries in the Third World, and the women who served colonial and neo-colonial projects. Enloe’s book has a secret motive in that, at first, she provides the readers engaging, often very funny, narratives, but with serious topic about women, the powerless. Enloe motivates researchers to find the women in the powers that be. She concludes that the work of women in the corridors of power, though they remain secret, is always significant in the field of international relations. Conclusion The first part of this essay focused on the misunderstandings of feminists and scholars of international relations. We have noticed a significant change in the relationship and the narrowing of the gap of the misunderstandings in that in many parts of the world today women play active actors in the field of international relations. Feminists and IR scholars are said to be conversing although there are countries that have remained traditional in acquiring the services of women in world politics and international relations. There are women who have followed the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir and even Indira Gandhi of India. They are models of the feminist concept of the new leader. The articles cited in this essay were written in the last part of the twentieth century, the time when women and feminists were active but were not too radical when not given their chance to speak and assemble as it is today. There may still be a little gap between feminists and IR scholars but this can be closed up in not too distant future. Feminists are more active in many disciplines and more courageous in many aspects. References Enloe, C. 1990, Bananas, beaches and bases: making feminist sense of international politics, University of California Press, Berkeley. Locher, B & Prugl, E 2001, ‘Feminism and constructivism: worlds apart or sharing the middle ground?’ International Studies Quarterly, vol. 45, pp. 111-129, viewed 29 October 2013, via ABI/INFORM Complete database. Murphy, C 1996, ‘Seeing women, recognizing gender, recasting international relations’, International Organization, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 513-538, viewed 29 October 2013, via JSTOR.org. Tickner, J 1997, ‘You just don’t understand: troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 41, pp. 611-632, viewed 29 October 2013, via ABI/INFORM Complete database. Read More