2011
“What does this have to do with understanding and solving real-world problems like Iraq and Afghanistan wars, international terrorism or nuclear proliferation?” is a probable reaction from a scholar who is interested in international relations (IR) in its own conventional boundaries to another scholar who is interested in international relations in a feminist perspective. It is obvious that feminism and IR have different study areas as former is concerned briefly about inequality in social relations and latter is concerned about a different topic which can be briefly understood in state-centric or structural grounds.
However, there are some number of feminist international theorists who are encouraged to integrate feminist approach to IR. Although several and mostly understandable criticisms are directed to these scholars, they are insisting that conventional methods of IR, like dominant masculine perspective or consequences of gender inequalities in IR issues, should be revised in favor of a more insightful and micro perspective understanding related to gender inequality. In this paper, you will find a general observation and criticism of feminism approach to IR study through the article “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists” written by J. Ann Tickner.
It would be not fair and scientifically correct to summarize studies of international relations in a couple of sentences but to understand the reasons of misunderstanding and miscommunication between the mentioned two approaches we need to draw at least a brief picture. IR studies have a never-ending evolution process in itself due to the nature of topics it focuses on. In general, IR is an area that is intended to understand power relations between political actors in global and regional scales mostly in state-centric and structural grounds. The topics that are covered by IR are not very related to social relations of societies which can be seen as a micro sphere compared to IR’s macro level of study.
On the other hand, feminist approach, although there are several different ways of feminist perspectives, generally concentrates upon the inequalities in gender relations which are believed to be socially constructed. What feminist approach tries to achieve is the recognition and elimination of unequal gender relations and its social consequences. This way of understanding forms a progressive attitude in feminist perspective and it is sometimes resulted in a tendency towards normative rather than empirical approach which seems to be a different way compared to IR theorists’ efforts. Here two questions rise: What exactly are the IR feminists aiming for and for what reasons are their efforts disapproved by conventional IR scholars?
It is not difficult to guess that feminist IR scholars are not very much engaged with the conventional subjects of most IR scholars and that leads to misunderstandings and blocks the way of a healthy argumentation between the two sides. One of the issues feminist IR scholars concentrate is the masculine language and ways of behaving that is used in IR studies. They argue that socially constructed gender differences are parts of not only private life but also public life which is also an aspect of IR. According to them, masculine dominance in politics became an unquestionable characteristic and it practically and necessarily shows itself in women politicians’ way of masculine acting such as Margaret Thatcher and her “iron lady” label.
Feminist IR approaches seem to be useful in questioning fundamental masculine approaches in IR which can be seen in their criticism against Kant’s ethical understandings. Kant is dreaming of a rational and peaceful international community whereas there are no room for women to act as active participants. Despite the fact that today’s world is much more sensitive to gender issues compared to previous centuries, in my opinion it should be admitted that observing IR without being interested in gender related concerns is very much established until now. Even though questioning underlying facts of masculine thinking seems to be a sensible effort, it leads to a misunderstanding as if this sensitivity can ever be useful to expand the IR study.
In addition to questions above, there is also a difference in research methods between the two approaches. Due to the nature of power relations and ongoing soft or hard relations between states, conventional IR theorists use empirical methods such as causality, rationality and structural reasoning in universal and natural grounds. To show the difference Tickner writes: “While many feminists do see structural regularities, such as gender and patriarchy, they define them as socially constructed and variable across time, place and cultures rather than as universal and natural.” This way of thinking make conventional IR scholars argue that feminist IR theorists would not be suitable to engage with methods of observation that are used in IR study.
To show the differences between the two approaches, Tickner deepens her study in the subject of “security”. In contrast to conventional IR theorists’ perspectives on security in the basis of survival of states and international system, feminist approaches are focused on the individual and community level. They argue that the survival and rights of women in wars and security related issues are often overlooked and this issue should be questioned. As feminist IR theorists argue that militaries are seen as a guard against threats to the state and although it is an established thought that women and children should be protected by men of military, they make women dependent on men for the sake of security. “When analyzing political/military dimensions of security, feminists tend to focus on the consequences of what happens during wars rather than on their causes” Tickner underlines. It is obvious that there is a big fundamental difference in the way these two sides study.
Feminist IR theorists insist that gender analyses should be studied to better understand the IR as you can understand the system in a different way than before which is to observe lives of individuals that are effected by the global level interactions. Here my standing point is similar to conventional IR theorists’ way of thinking in the basis of irrelevance of these perspectives. I firmly believe that there are two points of evidence to show the ineffective confrontation of two sides. First one is that changing the conventional way of IR study in favor of a more sensitive gender related understanding cannot have a direct contribution to better observe power relations of international actors. Apart from the difficulties of changing the regular epistemology and ontology of conventional IR studies, a social relations sensitivity would not make an impact in today’s IR issues compared to the efforts to understand the behaviors of actors like states and organizations against each other in the large scale. Second, IR is generally a pragmatic and practical study which directly goes for defining, observing and questioning the practical issues which are the subjects of large scale events. I argue that feminist approach can better fit in an other social science as it cannot directly influence the large scale theories of international power relations.
To summarize, it is a fact that, as Tickner emphasizes through her article, feminist IR theorists and conventional IR scholars do no seem to be on the same pages concerning their works on the IR issues. While conventional IR scholars concentrate on the power relations on a large scale of states, systems and structures, feminist IR scholars study on a micro level of understanding which are mainly about masculine dominance in IR issues as a result of unequal gender relations that are socially constructed. This division leads to an unhealthy argumentation and misunderstandings between the two sides. In addition, a feminist scholar’s normative type of research and an IR scholar’s empirical type of research enlarges the gap. For the above mentioned reasons, I believe that feminist approach has a very difficult task to be integrated into conventional and very well established IR understanding which is aimed to discover not the social relations between individuals but a more pragmatic and practical way of thinking.
“What does this have to do with understanding and solving real-world problems like Iraq and Afghanistan wars, international terrorism or nuclear proliferation?” is a probable reaction from a scholar who is interested in international relations (IR) in its own conventional boundaries to another scholar who is interested in international relations in a feminist perspective. It is obvious that feminism and IR have different study areas as former is concerned briefly about inequality in social relations and latter is concerned about a different topic which can be briefly understood in state-centric or structural grounds.
However, there are some number of feminist international theorists who are encouraged to integrate feminist approach to IR. Although several and mostly understandable criticisms are directed to these scholars, they are insisting that conventional methods of IR, like dominant masculine perspective or consequences of gender inequalities in IR issues, should be revised in favor of a more insightful and micro perspective understanding related to gender inequality. In this paper, you will find a general observation and criticism of feminism approach to IR study through the article “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists” written by J. Ann Tickner.
It would be not fair and scientifically correct to summarize studies of international relations in a couple of sentences but to understand the reasons of misunderstanding and miscommunication between the mentioned two approaches we need to draw at least a brief picture. IR studies have a never-ending evolution process in itself due to the nature of topics it focuses on. In general, IR is an area that is intended to understand power relations between political actors in global and regional scales mostly in state-centric and structural grounds. The topics that are covered by IR are not very related to social relations of societies which can be seen as a micro sphere compared to IR’s macro level of study.
On the other hand, feminist approach, although there are several different ways of feminist perspectives, generally concentrates upon the inequalities in gender relations which are believed to be socially constructed. What feminist approach tries to achieve is the recognition and elimination of unequal gender relations and its social consequences. This way of understanding forms a progressive attitude in feminist perspective and it is sometimes resulted in a tendency towards normative rather than empirical approach which seems to be a different way compared to IR theorists’ efforts. Here two questions rise: What exactly are the IR feminists aiming for and for what reasons are their efforts disapproved by conventional IR scholars?
It is not difficult to guess that feminist IR scholars are not very much engaged with the conventional subjects of most IR scholars and that leads to misunderstandings and blocks the way of a healthy argumentation between the two sides. One of the issues feminist IR scholars concentrate is the masculine language and ways of behaving that is used in IR studies. They argue that socially constructed gender differences are parts of not only private life but also public life which is also an aspect of IR. According to them, masculine dominance in politics became an unquestionable characteristic and it practically and necessarily shows itself in women politicians’ way of masculine acting such as Margaret Thatcher and her “iron lady” label.
Feminist IR approaches seem to be useful in questioning fundamental masculine approaches in IR which can be seen in their criticism against Kant’s ethical understandings. Kant is dreaming of a rational and peaceful international community whereas there are no room for women to act as active participants. Despite the fact that today’s world is much more sensitive to gender issues compared to previous centuries, in my opinion it should be admitted that observing IR without being interested in gender related concerns is very much established until now. Even though questioning underlying facts of masculine thinking seems to be a sensible effort, it leads to a misunderstanding as if this sensitivity can ever be useful to expand the IR study.
In addition to questions above, there is also a difference in research methods between the two approaches. Due to the nature of power relations and ongoing soft or hard relations between states, conventional IR theorists use empirical methods such as causality, rationality and structural reasoning in universal and natural grounds. To show the difference Tickner writes: “While many feminists do see structural regularities, such as gender and patriarchy, they define them as socially constructed and variable across time, place and cultures rather than as universal and natural.” This way of thinking make conventional IR scholars argue that feminist IR theorists would not be suitable to engage with methods of observation that are used in IR study.
To show the differences between the two approaches, Tickner deepens her study in the subject of “security”. In contrast to conventional IR theorists’ perspectives on security in the basis of survival of states and international system, feminist approaches are focused on the individual and community level. They argue that the survival and rights of women in wars and security related issues are often overlooked and this issue should be questioned. As feminist IR theorists argue that militaries are seen as a guard against threats to the state and although it is an established thought that women and children should be protected by men of military, they make women dependent on men for the sake of security. “When analyzing political/military dimensions of security, feminists tend to focus on the consequences of what happens during wars rather than on their causes” Tickner underlines. It is obvious that there is a big fundamental difference in the way these two sides study.
Feminist IR theorists insist that gender analyses should be studied to better understand the IR as you can understand the system in a different way than before which is to observe lives of individuals that are effected by the global level interactions. Here my standing point is similar to conventional IR theorists’ way of thinking in the basis of irrelevance of these perspectives. I firmly believe that there are two points of evidence to show the ineffective confrontation of two sides. First one is that changing the conventional way of IR study in favor of a more sensitive gender related understanding cannot have a direct contribution to better observe power relations of international actors. Apart from the difficulties of changing the regular epistemology and ontology of conventional IR studies, a social relations sensitivity would not make an impact in today’s IR issues compared to the efforts to understand the behaviors of actors like states and organizations against each other in the large scale. Second, IR is generally a pragmatic and practical study which directly goes for defining, observing and questioning the practical issues which are the subjects of large scale events. I argue that feminist approach can better fit in an other social science as it cannot directly influence the large scale theories of international power relations.
To summarize, it is a fact that, as Tickner emphasizes through her article, feminist IR theorists and conventional IR scholars do no seem to be on the same pages concerning their works on the IR issues. While conventional IR scholars concentrate on the power relations on a large scale of states, systems and structures, feminist IR scholars study on a micro level of understanding which are mainly about masculine dominance in IR issues as a result of unequal gender relations that are socially constructed. This division leads to an unhealthy argumentation and misunderstandings between the two sides. In addition, a feminist scholar’s normative type of research and an IR scholar’s empirical type of research enlarges the gap. For the above mentioned reasons, I believe that feminist approach has a very difficult task to be integrated into conventional and very well established IR understanding which is aimed to discover not the social relations between individuals but a more pragmatic and practical way of thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment