Essays

These are some of the various essays I have written during my undergraduate (BA International Relations) career in reverse chronological order. They are more academic than my normal posts but I thought they'd give an insight into my take on the theory side of things. I can obviously only publish these once they have been graded and moderated. Please contact me if you wish you use any of this material as there maybe plagiarism/copyright issues. 

Spring 2013: To what extent is International Relations dominated by socially constructed Gender Relations?

This was one of the first essays I ever wrote on gender in International Relations so excuse any oversights/blunders! 

It is no secret that the field of International Relations is a male dominated arena, the statistics demonstrate women’s exclusion from both the practise and theoretical exploration of the discipline. Why is this the case? In order to answer this question we must turn to gender: Gender is the social or cultural identities attached to the shape of a person’s body. These gender identities are socially constructed by history, location, discourse and power and then played out in all areas of society. Nevertheless, they are no more prominent than in the field of International Relations and this is the thesis of Poststructuralist feminists who believe that in order to bring International Relations closer to an accurate study of the human experience we can no longer look through these gendered lenses. In order to properly understand International Relations theory we must acknowledge that it has been primarily formulated by men, for men. (Ticker, 2011: 267) This piece begins by elaborating on the paradigms of poststructuralist feminism and outlining what this alternative critique entails. It then extends this to several ways in which poststructuralist feminism explains how and why International Relations is structured by socially constructed gender relations through the gaze of the relationship between knowledge, meaning and power, discourse and oppositional dichotomies. Moving forward, I then highlight how, because humans are inherently gendered, International Relations theory is also and later how categorisation of gender is essentially a highly problematic tool of understanding. Finally, I will conclude that International Relations is highly gendered as a discipline and must emancipate itself from these socially constructed gender norms that legitimise inequality in order to focus on the individual and thus a more accurate study of all factions of the international system.

Poststructuralist feminism is the main critical tool used to answer the proposed question. Poststructuralist feminism is a feminist movement that has been evolving since the late twentieth century: it encourages a move away from previous feminist ideas of the male versus female struggle and instead, focuses on the gendered way in which the world is constructed. Rather than blaming women’s oppression on women’s exclusion, like liberal feminists or men and the patriarchy, like standpoint feminists, poststructuralists place the blame on the ‘gendered world itself.’ (Ferguson 1993, 3 as cited in Squires 1999: 4.)   Poststructuralists advocate that everything we know is codified and reproduced by representation and power relations. (Hall: 1997, 13) Therefore, they argue that there are no substantial differences between men and women, besides biological ones. Rather, differences are socially constructed by cultural location and representations and then played out by socially constructed gender identities.

Feminist poststructuralists pay particular attention to the entwined triad of meaning, knowledge and power. Ticker (2011, 267) said that ‘those who construct meaning and create knowledge gain a great deal of power’ and in this way International Relations is irrefutably dominated by those who create knowledge because they gain power. De Beauvoir (as cited in Ticker 1993) once wrote that ‘the world is defined without reference to her,’ and that ‘representation…is the work of men…from their point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth.’ On the contrary, poststructuralists would argue that the representation of men, created by men is merely another depiction used to propagate stereotypes. Correspondingly, International Relations has been dominated by this construction of ‘masculinity.’ This is exemplified by the Realist concepts of sovereign state and security that are protected by the man in the military and at home. When we consider traditional actors in the practise of International Relations we turn to Heads of State, Diplomats and Soldiers, all of which are conceived as male roles because they require strength, rationality and a desire to be the protector. These are all characteristics assigned to the male identity because they are formulated by men for male domination. Realists also depict an idea of ‘human nature’ which is rational and self-interested, yet these are based on socially constructed male norms and therefore inherently gendered. (Shepherd: 2009, 6) International Relations is intrinsically gendered because gender is surrounded by power. There is a power disparity between sexes in International Relations because men conceived a lot of the theory due to historical constraints. Nevertheless, in the modern day this power should be androgynous and hence redistributed without gender bias.

Furthermore, poststructuralists emphasise the significance of language in acting as a mechanism for production and exchange of meaning and thus knowledge and power. (Hall: 1997, 13) This discourse theory allows for a self-awareness of how the words we use to communicate perpetuate gender stereotypes. Language is almost always loaded with hidden meaning. For instance, addressing a woman as a lady or a girl propagates gendered characteristics of modesty and femininity whereas adult men are rarely referred to as their title’s counterparts: boy or gentlemen, particularly in the public sphere. These ideas summarise how poststructuralists oppose the accepted norms of International Relations and want to do away with ‘gendered lenses’ that allow for frameworks of inequality and oppression. There is a notion that this unique post-positivist epistemological position destabilises the intellectual footing of International Relations as it challenges it’s very foundations, nevertheless it is a branch of theory that cannot be ignored in order to explain the gendered way International Relations is conceptualised.

Poststructuralist feminists also contend that these socially constructed gender relations in International Relations are organised within the framework of oppositional dichotomies. More generally, poststructuralists recognise that International Relations itself is structured by these dichotomies, and ‘by particular categories of inclusion and exclusion.’ (Walker: 1992, 181) Gender is no exception to this rule; in fact the masculine and feminine binary demonstrates how International Relations is fundamentally gendered by dichotomies such as strong versus weak or rational versus emotional. (Shepherd, 2009) However, these binaries are also fundamentally hierarchal in that, for the functioning of world politics, the first is the preferred ‘masculine’ trait and the second an undesired ‘feminine’ one. (Scott: 1986 cited in Ticker: 1992) In the same way that traditional theorists would arbitrate the secure state as inside and the threatening anarchy outside, they also create a masculine right and a feminine wrong. International Relations is built upon a foundation of opposites and gender must comply. These ‘dichotomised linguistic constructions’ (Ticker: 2010, 201) only stand to reinforce socially constructed gender relations. Shepherd (2009, 7) encourages scholars to ‘think outside the discursive limits that impose rather crude sex binaries on our conceptual framework’ and in doing so to concentrate on the individual rather than the culturally generated stereotype. This is another significant aim of poststructuralist feminism and another way in which the discipline is dominated by misperceived gender norms.

This need for International Relations scholars to categorise everything against each other is emphasised again by Judith Butler’s (1990) ideas of dimorphism as a matrix of intelligibility. Dimorphism is the biological term for differences between male and female, however, it is also the way in which we separate the sexes and therefore produce differences between men and women. (Shepherd 2009) This is because it enables us to understand how the world works by separating or categorising organisms by their shape. Nevertheless, it is problematic in global politics because it genders the way in which we understand International Relations. If, like Shepherd (2009, 6) we consider gender as a verb and as a way of conceptualising experiences and events taking place around the individual then International Relations is absolutely structured by socially constructed gender relations. Before a foetus is even born it is gendered and therefore limited within the realms of its gender thus humanity is profoundly gendered. Humans are the controllers or pawn of the international system and therefore the international system is gendered because ‘global politics is studied and practised by gendered bodies.’ (Shepherd: 2009, 4)

International Relations is shaped by gender by discourse, power disparity and antagonistic binaries as detailed above. Nevertheless, in the same way that International Relations is shaped by gender, gender is shaped by International Relations. This is because these social constructs that we attach to the discourse of man and woman are so institutionalised that the ‘performances of gender legitimise and are legitimised’ by the practice of International Relations. (Shepherd: 2009, 12) For example because a large percentage of actors in International Relations are male, the traits ‘required’ to practise International Relations such as rationality and strength are therefore entrenched as inherently masculine. This is the foundation of the thesis of Poststructuralism in that both these social constructions are built upon history and politics but history and politics serve to continually re-establish them. They are mutually detrimental to each other and this vicious must be broken.

International Relations is overwhelmingly dominated and structured by socially constructed gender relations that have inhibited the impact of both Poststructuralism and Feminism on the discipline. In the same way that Orientalism looks to go beyond Western International Relations theory, poststructuralist feminism looks to go beyond social constructions of masculine ideals in International Relations such as state and security. This poses large epistemological threats to the discipline however amidst globalisation and liberal hegemony critical theorists including poststructuralist feminists recognise that we can no longer centre International Relations theory on Realism. Instead the field must not shy away from the complexity and diversity of individual experiences and in doing it can no longer ignore these socially constructs of gender. These discourses and dichotomies that continue to validate inequality and dogmatise International Relations to ‘masculine’ must be eradicated in order to develop a more ‘mutually enabling’ and holistic approach to International Relations. (Jones, 1996: 405) Eventually, androgynous International Relations would be ‘an arena that values the lived experiences of us all.’ (Ticker: 1993, 4)

Bibliography

Walker, R. B. J (1992) Gender and Critique in the theory of International Relations in Peterson, V Spikes (ed.) (1992) Gendered States: Feminist (re)visions of International Relations Theory. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.

Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices, Sage, London.

Ticker, J. Ann (2011) Gender in World Politics pp. 262-276 in Baylis, J et Al (2011) The Globalisation of World Politics Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ticker, J. Ann and Laura Sjoberg, (2010), Feminism pp.185-202 in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds.) 2007, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ticker, J. Ann (1993) Gender in International Relations, Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security J. Ann Ticker. Political Science Quarterly 108.2 (1993): 347.

Shepherd, Laura J. (2009) Sex or Gender? Bodies in World Politics and Why Gender Matters, in Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations. Routledge, London.

Sylvester, C (1994) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, New York.

Jones, A (1996) Does ‘gender’ Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations. Review of International Studies 22.04 (1996): 405

J, Squires (1999) Gender in Political Theory, 1st Edition, Cambridge: Polity Press