Future trajectories of feminism in international relations

¶ … care of one planet is nothing special, nothing sacred, nothing holy.

It's something like taking care of our own house."

Dalai Lama (Tickner, 1992, p. 97)

In scouting out potential future trajectories of the feminism movement it is germane to look into the recent past -- especially when it comes to the global environment. The litany of abuses that Planet Earth has been subjected to in recent times is frightening, dangerous and ongoing. In large part this maltreatment can be pinned on the modern state system, according to author J. Ann Tickner. She takes that stand because since its beginnings in 17th Century Europe, the modern state system has had "an uneasy relationship with its natural environment" simply because "natural resources and geographical spaces have been viewed as resources for increasing state power and wealth" (Tickner, 1992, p. 98).

Indeed, it is the well-researched opinion of Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, that there is a link between "…the oppression of women and the domination of nature." That link, not surprisingly, is based on "patriarchy" in the field of international relations, according to Tickner and other feminist scholars.

In her essay critiquing Tickner's book, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, Kathleen R. McNamara writes that Tickner's chapter on the politics of the global environment is "perhaps the most provocative, because ecology has only recently become the subject of study in international relations" (McNamara, 1993, p. 551). Moreover, McNamara succinctly paraphrases Tickner's main feminist theme: "Previous neglect of environmental issues and the limited role of women and traditionally feminine concerns in international relations may not be mere coincidence" (McNamara, p. 551).

As an issue that is truly international in scope and "…defies national boundaries," caring for the environment "does not fit in with the power-seeking, instrumental behavior of states described by mainstream, gender-biased theorists" (McNamara, p. 551). That having been said, some social feminists, Tickner continues, are "suspicious of ecology and ecofeminism because they regard the age-old connection between women and nature, which both have espoused, as a basis of women's oppression" (Tickner, p. 98). Tickner understands that men and women have been socialized to view "nurturing" as strictly a "feminine trait" and the "dominance of nature as masculine" -- and that the scientific tradition views nature as "something to be conquered and subjugated" (McNamara, p. 552).

Moreover, Tickner believes that care for the global environment must be seen as a "common human value" that men and women can and should respect; also, she asserts that environmental security goals cannot possibly be reached "as long as scholars and policy makers continue to divide the world according to gender stereotypes…" (McNamara, p. 552). In Mary Mellor's book, Feminism & Ecology, the author believes that it is essential for ecofeminists to critique "patriarchy" because women have "disproportionally born the brunt of environmental destruction" (Urbanik, 2001, p. 116). Still, "…getting the relations between humans right will not resolve the ecological imbalance because the source of much of the conflict between humans is the unacknowledged problem of immanence" (Mellor, 1997, p. 183).