F. Class 5

Prof. Andreas Bieler and Prof. Adam D. Morton

Good Girls, Little Girls, Bad Girls: Feminist international relations

‘Keohane’s text, having performed a textual mutilation of the feminist body, is in a sense “criminal”. It stands as evidence of its author’s attempted murder of the feminist body’.

- Cynthia Weber, 'Good Girls, Little Girls and Bad Girls', Millennium: Journal of International Studies.

In the last Class on constructivist IR theory, we moved from positivist to post-positivist approaches. Steve Smith’s (2004) argument in ‘Singing our world into existence’ was clearly aware of the influence of our own position as researchers on the kind of international relations we study. A clear separation between subject and object is not possible, nor is identifying causal regularities in empirical reality. In this lecture on feminist IR theory, we will move further into post-positivist territory. To be clear, not all feminist IR theory is post-positivist. Some empirical feminists add gender as an analytical category to be integrated into empirical research programmes with testable hypotheses. Nonetheless, feminist IR as a whole clearly ‘troubles’ and unsettles the established positivist wisdom of mainstream approaches such as neo-realism and liberalism. In this Class, we will uncover why this is the case. 

The Class is divided into four parts. First, we identify gender as a social relation. Then we focus more closely on various sub-strands of feminist IR theory, before introducing a couple of key examples. The conclusion addresses more closely the subject of feminists ‘troubling’ IR theory through a discussion of the engagement between Robert O. Keohane and Cynthia Weber on feminist IR theory.

1. Gender as a social relation

Feminism is not a contemporary development. There is a rich and varied history of women’s struggles and theorising. Equally important, there is no one feminism, but a plurality of discourses and practices making up the overall ‘feminist body’.

Importantly, when engaging with gender as the key foundation, on the basis of which to analyse international relations, the emphasis is on the social construction of gender: femininity and masculinity are not the result of different biological sexes, but are historically contingent and socially constructed. In the words of Jacqui True, ‘gender refers to the asymmetrical social constructs of masculinity and femininity as opposed to ostensibly “biological” male-female differences ...; the hegemonic western brand of masculinity is associated with autonomy, sovereignty, the capacity for reason and objectivity, universalism and men, whereas the dominant notion of femininity is associated with the absence or lack of these characteristics’ (True 2001: 236). In other words, gender is understood as a social relation, not as a personal property of individuals.

2. Feminism and International Relations: where are the women?

Feminism is a fundamental critique of male-dominated International Relations or conditions of patriarchy. Feminists point to the exclusion of women as political actors in order to expose misogynist tendencies, comparing mainstream IR theory with malestream IR theory. Women are not marginal to international politics, it is argued, but it is the concepts used for analysis which ensure women’s invisibility in International Relations. Outside the gaze of neo-realism, liberalism and equally constructivism, women perform 60 percent of the labour, they are the majority of refugees, illiterate and poor persons. Moreover, they are frequently at the forefront of critical social movements and, of course, they are central to social reproduction. As Maria Mies has argued along with social reproduction feminists, unpaid domestic labour is a pillar of capitalist accumulation forming a unique nexus of capitalist-patriarchy. As a result, 

'women and colonial people were defined as property, as nature, not as free subjects, who could enter a contract. Both had to be subordinated by force and direct violence' (Mies 1986/2014: 170). 

Three sub-varieties of feminist IR scholarship can be identified: liberal feminism, standpoint feminism and post-structural/post-modern feminism.

a) Liberal feminism/gender as variable:

Liberal feminism is not a radical break with the positivism of mainstream IR theory. They criticise the latter for excluding women’s lives and experiences from their field of enquiry, an omission they attempt to overcome through adding gender as a variable, i.e. as one factor next to a number of other factors, when explaining international relations. Hence, they focus on women’s place in International Relations, including the role of women in development as well as the role of flexible female labour in states’ strategy to remain competitive in the global economy. Another example is the extension of liberal capitalism towards Central and Eastern Europe after the end of the Cold War. This has intensified employment discrimination against women and also included the spread of forced prostitution through processes of commodification. Equally important, they attempt to uncover women’s work and role in history through tracing back dominant male approaches to their origins. The question is which feminist approaches were pushed aside when and why. In sum, while not dismissing mainstream IR theory as such, liberal feminists enlarge significantly the remit of the discipline of International Relations through their focus on women’s role in international relations.  ‘Bringing women’s lives into view through gender-sensitive research has policy-relevant and material effects. Indeed, feminists argue that only when women are recognised as fundamental players in economic and political processes will they share an equal role in societal decision making’ (True 2001: 247).

b) Feminist standpoint theory/gender as constitutive:

Feminist standpoint theory celebrates ‘femaleness’ not in order to complement existing mainstream theorising, but in order to provide alternatives. Thus, the foundation of knowledge is exposed as stemming from the gendered standpoint of men, not from objective, value-free and universal criteria as male academics seem to believe, when discussing their positivist meta-theoretical positions. In order to pursue a feminist standpoint, key IR concepts are related back to a male standpoint and then redefined with the help of a feminist standpoint. In other words, the emphasis is on re-defining the key concepts of the discipline from a feminist perspective in order to look at international relations afresh from a new viewpoint.

c) Postmodern feminism/gender as transformative:

Postmodern feminism goes yet one step further. They do not only criticize mainstream IR theories for their masculine key concepts, they criticize positivist epistemologies as such for being based on a male-masculine understanding. Gender, these scholars argue, is about the politics of knowledge and the related power dimension. The very existence of the category ‘gender’ has marginalised females through putting women into a subordinate group. Hence, rather than re-defining key concepts from a feminist standpoint, the task should be to attempt to deconstruct and historicise gender as a social relation, considered to have strengthened masculine dominance through its dichotomy between masculinity and femininity. Feminists should, therefore, not use gender as a category, as it would continue to deepen the divide between femininity and masculinity and, thereby, affirm the secondary role of the former. The very divisions based on gender need to be overcome.

THINK POINT:

To what extent is feminist IR theory able to grasp the sphere of reproduction as a source of value-creating and exploitation? 

3. Breaking down boundaries: examples of feminist IR theory.

Standpoint feminists point to binary dualisms in the discipline of IR including masculinity/femininity, strong/weak, rational/emotional; personal/political; public/private. The whole conceptual framework of IR is gendered, it is argued. The concepts of power, sovereignty, autonomy, and anarchy, for example, are inseparable from patriarchy (male power). These concepts are gender-biased ensuring the exclusion of women in the analysis of international relations.

J. Ann Tickner (1988) in her article deconstructs Hans Morganthau’s key IR concepts in order to render visible the presence of female agents in international structures and the power of gender as a structuring principle shaping key concepts about global politics. Importantly, this also includes breaking down boundaries between the realms of domestic politics and international politics. In more detail, Tickner produces a feminist reformulation of the principles of realism. Objectivity, so much treasured by realists, and objective laws of human nature are in her eyes simply based on masculinity. Realism as a whole is associated with a male model of rational calculating self-interest, a masculine model of agency derived from a context that has no social or historical grounding. A reformulation from a feminist standpoint, by contrast, will provide precisely that.

We present here two examples from Tickner’s argument. First, the concept of ‘man’. In realism, man as main agent is understood as competitive, rational, individualistic and violent, which leads to the conceptualisation of a war of all against all within international anarchy. Assumed as an objective assessment, this is purely based on a masculine understanding, Tickner argues. Feminism, by contrast, needs to develop an alternative understanding to include production and reproduction and the importance of human relationships. Second, the concept of ‘state’. Unlike in the idealised vision of Western manhood, the state is anything but a coherent actor. This definition of unitary actor relates back to the separation between private and public in the Athenian state form. Both the private as well as the international realm are characterised by anarchy, which needs to be brought under control by this unitary state. Nevertheless, the assumption that the state is an internal order masks the subjection and control of women by men. Hence, from a feminist perspective it is essential to challenge the constructed boundaries between the domestic and international and the private and public spheres that distinguish legitimate from illegitimate force. Silvia Federici’s work is path-breaking in recognizing unpaid labour and the function it performs for capital in reproducing labour power, physically, emotionally, sexually, for the factories, schools, offices, mines and universities (Federici 2012, 2014).

Cynthia Enloe’s book Bananas, Beaches and Bases (1989) is another important example of path-breaking feminist IR scholarship. In response to the question of ‘where are the women?’, she uncovers them as acting as sexual stereotypes for products (Bananas), as sexual objects for tourism (Beaches) or as servicing military bases (Bases). The growing tourist industry and its sub-category of sex tourism is in particular a significant area of feminist IR theory. Notions of femininity are portrayed in a way so that there is ‘a racial and gendered division of labour to maximise profits while constructing a notion of leisure’ (Enloe 1989: 33). Or, in the words of Jill Krause (1995: 135), ‘the growing integration of the tourist industry which links countries, hotel chains and package holiday firms is a crucial factor which allows spare capacity in airline seats and hotel beds to be matched with the demand for esoteric sexual services.’ Nationalism too is perceived from a masculine viewpoint. Thus, women are commonly seen as the symbols, possessions, nurturers and vehicles for transmitting the supposed values of the ‘nation’. ‘Marines, diplomats, corporate managers and military dictators may mostly be male, but they need the feminine “other” to maintain self-assurance’ (Enloe, 1989: 133). Interestingly, Enloe combines here both an empirical feminism uncovering the hidden roles of women as well as a standpoint feminism critically deconstructing masculine definitions of key IR theory concepts. The various feminist sub-strands of IR theory should definitely not be understood as mutually exclusive perspectives, but being part of a coherent overall feminist project. We will return to this point in the conclusion.

THINK POINT:

What alternative ways of seeing and doing does a 'feminist viewpoint' promote in relation to analysing 'the international'? 

Conclusion: Feminism and the troubling of IR theory

Reviewing the body of feminist IR theory, Robert O. Keohane makes a threefold distinction. First, he praises feminist standpoint theories for their conceptual contributions to the discipline. ‘Having re-examined key concepts of international relations, work from a feminist standpoint would facilitate deeper feminist empirical analysis of world politics’ (Keohane 1989: 246). Second, empirical feminists are also considered to make a useful contribution to International Relations in that they emphasise how the discipline has overlooked the role of women. Keohane is, however, critical of the lack of conceptualization of this research and it is, therefore, best used together with feminist standpoint theory. ‘Feminist empiricism, guided by feminist reconceptualisation, could go beyond the question of “the role of women in international relations” to a critical analysis of the extent to which contemporary international relations theory helps us to understand what is happening in world politics today’ (Keohane 1989: 249). Finally, Keohane identifies postmodern feminism. Because this particular strand opposes positivist social science, it is rejected, very similar to the way Keohane (1988) rejects ‘reflective approaches’ in general for being unable to generate empirical research programmes with testable hypotheses (see Class 1). ‘It seems to me’, Keohane concludes, ‘that this postmodernist project is a dead-end in the study of international relations – and that it would be disastrous for feminist international relations theory to pursue this path’ (Keohane 1989: 249).

Cynthia Weber (1994), in a forceful reply, rejects Keohane’s judgement on the usefulness and appropriateness of different feminist IR theory strands. She accuses him of dividing feminist scholarship into good girls, i.e. feminist standpoint theory, little girls, i.e. empirical feminism, and bad girls, i.e. postmodern feminism, to assert his male authority in policing the boundaries of IR theory and deciding on which approach can make a contribution or not. ‘What concerns me is how Keohane’s text constructs two bodies – the feminist body of literature which is the text’s object of analysis and Keohane’s authorial body which views, writes about, and disciplines its object of analysis from an empowered subject position’ (Weber 1994: 337). Rather than looking at feminist literature, she demands that we should look through feminist lenses to recognize the feminist body of IR theory as a complex and multifaceted whole, which cannot be carved up into different parts. In short, Keohane’s engagement with feminist IR theory is a reflection of male dominance in the discipline, which carefully ensures that International Relations remains within a positivist framework. Unsurprisingly, writing again on feminist IR theory nine years later, Keohane has still not understood the key points of disagreement in the debate. ‘We will only “understand” each other if IR scholars are open to the important questions that feminist theories raise, and if feminists are willing to formulate their hypotheses in ways that are testable – and falsifiable – with evidence’ (Keohane 1998: 197). He continues to assert a positivist epistemology.

Nevertheless, despite Keohane’s authorial voice, feminist and other post-positivist IR theories have increasingly pushed the boundaries of International Relations into new dimensions. Feminist IR theory is clearly at the forefront in this respect, ‘troubling’ mainstream IR theory in a number of different ways. First, feminist IR theory challenges the rather narrow range of topics covered in mainstream IR, thereby asserting the role of women in international relations. Second, feminist scholars deconstruct the masculine concepts of mainstream IR theory, offering their alternative conceptualisations, which in turn results in a different international relations to be analysed. This post-positivist dimension of standpoint feminism was overlooked and misunderstood by Keohane when he attempted to co-opt standpoint feminism into the mainstream. Feminists attempt to replace masculine concepts, they do not intend to complement the existing list of concepts with additional feminist definitions. Finally, feminism ‘troubles’ mainstream IR as a whole through rejecting its positivist meth-theoretical basis. Thus, ‘feminist scholarship with(in) IR materialises as something very much like a “fault-line”, constantly threatening to generate fissures and fractures to upset the status quo by rendering apparent the illusion of secure foundations’ (Zalewski 2007: 303).

It is this ‘troubling’, to which Keohane responds in his attempt to preserve the existing boundaries of the discipline. It is this ‘troubling’, which ultimately makes feminist IR theory such a successful and important set of approaches. After all, what is the value of social science, if it does not question, unsettle and ‘trouble’ received wisdom and common sense understandings?

References

Enloe, Cynthia (1989) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, Updated Edition with a New Preface. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Federici, Silvia (2004) Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.

Federici, Silvia (2012) Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction and Feminist Struggle. Oakland, CA: PM Press.

Keohane, Robert O. (1988) ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.32/4: 379-91.

Keohane, Robert O. (1989) ‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.18/2: 245-53.

Keohane, Robert O. (1998) “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist Theory”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.42: 193-198.

Krause, Jill (1995) ‘The International Dimension of Gender Inequality and Feminist Politics’, in John MacMillan and Andrew Linklater (eds) Boundaries in Question: New Directions in International Relations. London: Pinter Publishers.

Mies, Maria (1986/2014) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.

Smith, Steve (2004) ‘Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.48/3: 499-515.

Tickner, J. Ann (1988) ‘Hans Morganthau’s Political Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.17/3: 429-40.

Weber, Cynthia (1994) ‘Good Girls, Little Girls and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.23/2: 337-49.

Zalewski, Marysia (2007) ‘Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters With(in) International Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol.9/2: 302-12. 

Textbook chapters

Finke, Barbara (2014) ‘Feminist Approaches’, in Manuela Spindler and Siegfried Schieder (eds.) Theories of International Relations. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Chapter 18.

Tickner, J. Ann and Laura Sjoberg (2016) ‘Feminism’, in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (fourth edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 10.

True, Jacqui (2013) ‘Feminism’, in Scott Burchill et al (eds.) Theories of International Relations (fifth edition). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Chapter 10.