The Concept of Nation-state, Women in Political Culture - Assignment Example

Women in Political Culture (1) Do you think relations between nations would improve and become less conflictual if women were in power? Make sure you make reference to the discussion of feminist theory and its critique of international relations theory. There are proofs that women can positively influence political culture, political approaches, and political decisions when they are part of the decision-making process. Numerous women have been largely involved in international affairs as peacemakers; working with both parties in order to come up with a diplomatic solution; coordinating with other actors and inspiring other women to be vigorously involved. Almost all women seem to have a quite different view of violence, security, and peace than majority of men. Drude Dahlerup, an expert in feminist theory, believes that women’s political involvement should be considered a potential for change. With a greater number of women in power, there has, based on the Scandinavian policymakers she has talked with, been an entire array of political changes. Chenoy and Vanaik investigate women’s political status in South Asia. Their main objective is to find out whether changing the gender balance in major agencies responsible for conflict resolution, security, and peace will create opportunities for more nonviolent solution to conflicts. They claim that it is the realism principle which prevailed in the internal conflicts in the area and the relationship between Pakistan and India (Skjelsboek et al., 2001). The principle of realism believes in patriarchy, which further influence uncompromising ideas of womanhood (Steans et al., 2013). Chenoy and Vanaik believe that in order to transform the political environment there should be a new framework for international security, which should be rooted in the understanding that gender is a component of the political domain and is integral to state’s identity and the international community’s structure. Similarly, Samuel refers to the large number of complexities and inconsistencies that describe the participation of women in conflict resolution in Sri Lanka. Women’s status and roles in Sri Lanka have transformed because of the persistent conflict. The slaughter of men has brought about an increasing number of female-led households. Samuel thoroughly explained the numerous women’s efforts with regard to the arena of conflict resolution (Banerjee, 2008). Women’s associations have collaborated vigorously with human rights agencies. The organization ‘Women for Peace’ successfully mobilized an appeal asking for negotiations; this consequently resulted in the preliminary series of political discussions between the Tamil revolutionary leaders and government officials in 1984 (Banerjee, 2008). Samuel demonstrates the vital part that women and women’s organizations have fulfilled in conflict resolution operations, and emphasizing the value of having a greater number of women engaged in the process of decision-making. Slapsak, on the other hand, presents comprehensive cultural and historical information to understand how women responded to the Yugoslav war. She claims that throughout the war those involved, especially women’s organizations, used ancient stories of being a masculinity and femininity (Bahun-Radunovic & Rajan, 2008). Her study shows that historically, and even literarily, women are viewed as equally strong leaders as men. The idea that relationships among nations would be more diplomatic or nonviolent if women occupy powerful positions focuses mainly on the conventional belief that women are less antagonistic or aggressive and, on the contrary, more peace-loving and compassionate gender (Bahun-Radunovic & Rajan, 2008). By studying the attitude and behavior of high-ranking women in the public and private sector, it may be logical to assume that women who occupied powerful positions exhibited masculine features, making the idea that women in power are more conciliatory and are peacemakers inaccurate. Indeed, the aggressive policies of Indira Ghandi and Margaret Thatcher would disprove the theory of nonviolent female leaders. It is worth considering that even though men are removed from important and powerful positions, and hence the likelihood for believed masculine antagonistic, violent actions was eliminated, the major forces behind the conflict would stay (Banerjee, 2008). Religious differences, competition for scarce resources, and racial conflict are major roots of hostilities recently, and taking out male leaders would not solve such problems. Even though some would argue that women’s natural tendencies suggest that conflicts would be dealt with from a more conciliatory and collaborative perspective, and hence the likelihood of hostilities is lessened, it does not change the fact that the international order is absolutely rooted in survival and competition (Steans et al., 2013). Taking into consideration studies, such as those previously mentioned, there are proofs that demonstrate the peacemaking tendency of women. The formation of a popular movement by the women of Libya in an effort to put a stop to the civil war was mainly triumphant, and it may be argued that it is a perfect case in point of the more compliant and accommodating behavior that women display in the political arena (Cheldelin & Eliatamby, 2011). Moreover, this represents what is believed as the female side of leadership—an emphasis on dialogue and denunciation of dominance and the exercise of force. There are still problems in verifying these possibilities in the international arena because women have not occupied similar powerful positions as men. Perhaps, if women had actually ruled powerful positions, then the traits society views as integral to sustain power and, indeed, the core of leadership, would be very different. Feminists make a comparison between those nations which do not encourage female leadership and countries which suffered the most severe violence and conflict. This connection is substantiated by findings of a direct correlation between the most diplomatic, nonviolent countries in the world, and those which have great extents of gender equality. However, these findings also suggest that the connection between conflict and gender is highly complex (Banerjee, 2008). In the United States, it has been discovered that better education lessens women’s tendency toward aggressive actions, while surveys have shown that women are largely no less against violence than men, as long as there is a valid and genuine justification for the conflict (Cheldelin & Eliatamby, 2011). This departure from abstract to actual findings would indicate that the dissimilarities in response to conflict cannot be completely associated with gender, but rather is generally context-based. Nevertheless, according to the findings or evidence discussed, it is logical to assume that a more peaceful international system would be created not through removal of men from powerful positions and allowing women to dominate the political scene, but rather by gender equality. Some findings point to the fact that many militaristic countries generally manifest gender inequality and sexist values. Hence, more gender balance in terms of power is the best way to guarantee world peace. (2) What is the difference between a nation and nation state? What are the necessary and likely elements of a nation state? Give examples of different nations and nation states confronted with the problems of nationalism. Give recent examples of successful and unsuccessful attempts of political movements towards nationalism. One of the reasons for the confusion regarding the distinction between nation and nation-states stems from the different, at times almost similar, context-based definitions given to the idea of ‘nation’. In essence, ‘nation’ is generally defined in this way (Yack, 2012, 68): The nation is a community of people who feel they belong together in the double sense that they share deeply significant elements of a common heritage and that they have a common destiny for the future… The nation is today the largest community which, when the chips are down, effectively commands… loyalty, overriding the claims both of the lesser communities within it and those which cut across it or potentially enfold it within a still greater society… In this sense the nation can be called a ‘terminal community’ with the implication that it is for present purposes the effective end of the road for man as a social animal. A state is considered a ‘nation state’ when people relate to the territorial zone structured as a political unit, specifically, a nation, more intensely than with other existing political entities (e.g. ethnic groups, race, etc.) and they are largely loyal to the nation. An individual who relates to the nation above all, who is mainly loyal to the nation and identifies with it with stronger passion than any other group, is considered a ‘nationalist’ (Yack, 2012, 68-69). Based on these definitions, a nation-state can signify a political zone where various majority and minority countries officially having similar rights co-exist, and a type of political body within which a comparatively regulated or homogenized population occupy a sovereign state (Unger & Godfrey, 2004). During the course of modern history, numerous nations have strived to build nation-states. At times, such attempts were successful, like the Italy’s unification in the latter part of the 19th century; the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of the First World war into the separate nation-states of Yugoslavia, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria (Unger & Godfrey, 2004). Nevertheless, in certain instances, nations have been unsuccessful in their efforts to build a separate nation-state. Examples of nations that keep on demanding for a nation-state are the Kurds and the Palestinians. Various nations and nation-states have confronted problems of nationalism. Building a nation-state may require unification. For instance, neither the nations of Germany nor Italy was successfully unified into a nation-state until the end of the 19th century, when hostility and diplomatic manipulation were exercised to build autonomous entities out of numerous smaller states (Delanty & Kumar, 2006). Several European nations aspired to form their own states by detaching themselves from the bigger kingdoms that governed a large portion of Europe until the First World War. The mechanism through which nations broke away from bigger empires to establish their own states ended, after the First World War, with the disbanding of the major empires—Turkish Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire— including Imperial Germany (Delanty & Kumar, 2006; Yack, 2012). The aspiration of nations to break away from bigger empires and establish their own states was the overriding process demonstrating nationalism until the culmination of the Second World War. Nationalistic separatism has forcefully resurfaced over the recent decades as an important subject matter in international politics, as contemporary empires, such as the Soviet Union and ethnically diverse states, like Yugoslavia, have also collapsed (Yack, 2012). Other nations with nationalistic sentiments but lacking of states—the East Timorese, the Palestinians, the Kurds-- have had considerable impact on modern-day international politics (Herb & Kaplan, 2008). Likewise, there are recent successful and unsuccessful attempts of political movements toward nationalism. The Sri Lankan Independence Movement and the African Independence Movement are two examples of successful political movements. The Sri Lankan Independence Movement was a nonviolent political movement which aspired to achieve self-government and autonomy from the British Empire. This movement was headed by intellectuals and finally was triumphant when Ceylon achieved independence in February 1948 (General Books, LLC, 2010). The ‘Dominion’ position of Ceylon under the British Commonwealth was held for the succeeding two decades until it became a republic in May 1972. Similarly, the African Independence Movements occurred in the latter part of the 20th century, when a series of protests for independence in African lands occupied by Europeans arose (General Books, LLC, 2010). On the other hand, Canadian nationalism is a failed political movement toward nationalism. This movement claims that Canadians are a nation and encourages the solidarity of all people of Canada. This movement has been a powerful political campaign since the nineteenth century and has usually shown itself as attempting to strengthen the independence of Canada from the power of the U.S. and the UK (Herb & Kaplan, 2008). During the Quebec plebiscite on autonomy in 1995 that tried to ascertain whether Quebec would become sovereign or whether it would stay in Canada. Pro-independence advocates in Canada did not approve of the Quebec separating from Canada (Herb & Kaplan, 2008). In essence, a nation is a community made up of individuals who are connected by a same history, language, and culture. Nationhood at times goes beyond geographical borders. Several groups view themselves to be nations, although many people around the world do not view them to be. For instance, Kurds reside in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, but numerous Kurds consider themselves a Kurdish nation (Herb & Kaplan, 2008). Ultimately, establishing what makes up a nation is quite subjective. In essence, once an ethnic group begins to see itself as a nation, it comes to be a nation. On the other hand, the concept of nation-state is applied to contemporary countries. Basically, a nation-state is a ‘state’ that governs one ‘nation’ (Unger & Godfrey, 2004). For instance, Japan and France are nation-states, because their peoples largely share one culture, history, and language. Every government strives to create and strengthen a sense of nationalism among its peoples, and at times governments even cautiously build or create a national identity (Yack, 2012). Therefore, several scholars claim that the notions of ‘nation’ and ‘nation-state’ are basically about sentiments and impressions of identity. References Bahun-Radunovic, S. & Rajan, J. (2008). Violence and Gender in the Globalized World: The Intimate and the Extimate. England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Banerjee, P. (2008). Women in Peace Politics. London: SAGE. Cheldelin, S. & Eliatamby, M. (2011). Women Waging War and Peace: International Perspectives of Women’s Roles in Conflict and Post-Conflict Reconstruction. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Delanty, G. & Kumar, K. (2006). The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. General Books, LLC (2010). Nationalist Movements. New York: General Books LLC. Herb, G. & Kaplan, D. (2008). Nations and Nationalism: A Global Historical Overview: A Global Historical Overview. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Skjelsboek, I., Smith, D., & International Peace Research. (2001). Gender, Peace and Conflict. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Steans, J. et al. (2013). An Introduction to International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes. London: Routledge. Unger, F. & Godfrey, S. (2004). The Shifting Foundations of Modern Nation-States: Realignments of Belonging. Canada: University of Toronto Press. Yack, B. (2012). Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community. London: University of Chicago Press. Read More