Feminist IR Theory: Power, Knowledge, and Gender

Introduction and Central Question

How important is it that IR (International Relations) scholars reflect on the relationship between power and knowledge? From a feminist theory perspective, it is critical for IR scholars to highlight this relationship in order to uncover the gender dynamics of power and knowledge in an IR setting. Feminism is more than simply a theory about women — it also provides a framework for understanding gender and gender constructs, and how these constructs impact international relations.¹ In order for IR scholars to excel in their work and more fully understand the parameters of IR, they must be attentive to the socio-political implications of the political structures within which they work.

Key Terms and Theoretical Framework

Feminist IR theory proceeds from Critical theory, which is based on fundamentally disruptive theoretical traditions — such as Marxism — in order to understand the relationship between laborers and the owners of the means of production. Feminist IR theory focuses on the relationship between gender construction and expressions of power. As Hofstede showed in his model of cultural dimensions, every culture has its own dominant expressions of gender, which in turn impact power dynamics, power distance, and attitudes about work, life, and leadership.²

Critical theory is based on the idea that "to be critical, an inquiry must challenge directly underlying human interests and ideologies."³ The first critical theorists — particularly those of the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkheimer, et al.) — examined society and its constructs by unpacking the assumptions and behaviors that were commonplace and examining the underlying meaning and raison d'être for those constructs. In IR, critical theory refers to the critical examination of international relations from the standpoint of identifying the underlying power dynamics that facilitate the expression of those relations.

Reflection refers to one's personal perspective, history, and experiences. From an IR point of view, it refers to the need to critically reflect on the constructs that are passed from one generation to the next. Tickner describes the need for critical reflection in terms of "how the knowledge we teach our students has been constructed historically and how the research traditions to which we subscribe are formulated."⁴

Epistemic injustice refers to the injustice that stems from the ways in which knowledge is conceived, passed on, communicated, and understood. Freire defines epistemic injustice as a pedagogy of oppression.⁵ In order to free oneself from epistemic injustice, one must be willing to challenge the established epistemic order — and feminist IR theory enables IR scholars to do exactly that.

This paper uses Tickner and other feminist IR scholars — such as Cynthia Enloe, Carol Cohn, and Charlotte Hooper — to explore the manner in which feminism can enhance the study of IR, as opposed to more traditional IR frameworks such as Realism, Liberalism, Neo-realism (structural realism), and Neoliberalism. The paper then shows why and how their reformulations give voice — and thus power — to women. Finally, the paper examines how prevailing ideologies in IR maintain a rigid view of international order that ignores and thus disempowers the female perspective, and how this leads to mainstream "positivist" IR notions that reinforce limiting, conservative structures and the "epistemic injustice" that arises from failing to question the foundations and social consequences of prevailing knowledge. As the second wave of feminism made clear, the personal is political.

The Argument for Feminist IR Theory

What are the underlying assumptions in IR scholars' understanding of world order, and can their knowledge be truly objective? The assumptions are that masculine constructs are preferable to personal ones — and as such, knowledge built on those assumptions cannot be wholly objective, since the objective must necessarily account for the subjective. Feminist IR theory, as a form of Critical IR theory, posits that knowledge is always subjective and personal, and that to understand how power is constructed, the personal and the subjective must be explored. As Robert Cox notes, "Theory is always for someone and for some purpose. All theories have a perspective."⁶ Because the political and IR theories we study were created by men in a continuously male-dominated world, these theories tend to exclude the distinct perspective of women. To adequately assess the field of IR, scholars must examine how gender dynamics of power and knowledge are expressed and conveyed.

Carol Cohn, for instance, showed how men could conduct dispassionate discussions on the subject of nuclear war as though they were discussing dentistry: something about their male perspective and the masculine constructs within which they operated made them callous to the realities and horror of nuclear war.⁷ And as Enloe points out, "it has been feminist-informed investigations of international politics that have yielded the most valuable insights into the complex politics of masculinities."⁸ Indeed, feminist IR theory can shed light on these masculinities and reveal the extent to which masculine constructs shape and determine power dynamics, as Hooper explains.⁹

Feminism can thus be used to explain IR in terms of how power is used to promote certain groups and oppress others. Realism, Liberalism, Neo-realism (structural realism), and Neoliberalism all fail to explain this process adequately. Feminism reveals it in specifically gendered terms that show why and how women have been denied a voice, what men fear in granting women a voice (suffrage, for instance), and what they fear losing.

Conclusion

Feminist IR theory is an expression of the need to question the established order and system of thought that defines the communication of power. Hermeneutical injustice is ultimately a problem of knowledge: a lack of knowledge equates to a lack of power. When one is unable to understand or articulate a problem, one is ipso facto unable to solve it, which limits one's power. Gender issues do not receive sufficient attention or focus in the IR debate because mainstream IR really only acknowledges women in history through their absence — their lack of presence and lack of contribution to established knowledge.

Tickner points out how women in the U.S. are routinely kept out of leadership positions, especially in the military.¹¹ In short, Tickner understands the emotive and argumentative power of knowledge, and in particular the objectivity of facts, which she considers to be used all too frequently to strengthen the male perspective at the expense of women in IR. Feminist IR theory seeks to challenge this dynamic.

Bibliography

Cohn, Carol. "Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12, no. 4 (1987): 687–718.

Cox, Robert W. "Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory." Millennium 10, no. 2 (1981): 126–155.

Enloe, Cynthia. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. University of California Press, 2014.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2018.

Hofstede, Geert. "Cultural dimensions in management and planning." Asia Pacific Journal of Management 1, no. 2 (1984): 81–99.

Hooper, Charlotte. Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics. Columbia University Press, 2001.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Rousseau: The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Short, Edmund C., ed. Forms of Curriculum Inquiry. SUNY Press, 1991.

Sylvester, Christine. "The Contributions of Feminist Theory to International Relations." International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (1996): 254.

Tickner, J. Ann. "Hans Morgenthau's principles of political realism: A feminist reformulation." Millennium 17, no. 3 (1988): 429–440.

Tickner, J. Ann. "Retelling IR's foundational stories: some feminist and postcolonial perspectives." Global Change, Peace & Security 23, no. 1 (2011): 5–13.