Gender and Feminism in International Relations Theory

International Relations in Perspective

Gendered issues in the realm of international relations have not been widely discussed, questioned, or researched until recently, according to author Jill Steans. The reason for this lack of investigation into gender and international relations, Steans explains, is not necessarily based on bias against women or chauvinism to any degree. Historically, the study of international relations has been focused on the relationships between sovereign states, and since the "processes" and "structures" of relations between states were not understood on the basis of gender, there seemed no link in that regard (Steans, 1998, p. 1).

However, feminist scholars in the field of international relations have in recent years pointed to the fact that, while "frequently ignored," gender issues are indeed "deeply embedded" in what is generally regarded as the "mainstream" concerns of international relations (Steans, p. 1). Scholars in the field early on believed that the realistic purpose of the discipline was to understand why wars are fought and to search for strategies and principles that could build and sustain "an enduring peace" (Steans, p. 33). Steans calls this the "first phase" of political idealism — the initial foray into international relations (p. 33).

When World War II ended, scholars could largely agree that the first phase had been a failure — an unrealistic approach to international relations — and so the next phase was ushered in, a phase dominated by "realism," as Steans writes (p. 33). This phase addressed the "realities" of states' power in the world and sought a better grasp of the problems and social issues that states faced in seeking solutions. By the 1960s, social scientists, political scientists, and scholars abandoned the narrow "reality" approach and instead developed a "range of theories" on international relations (Steans, p. 33). They borrowed theoretical approaches from other aspects of the social sciences, hoping to find better insights into why elite states make certain decisions about war and peace. In the 1970s, many scholars zeroed in on the "qualitative changes" brought about by advances in states' technology (Steans, p. 33). Also during that decade, a Marxist perspective was employed by some scholars to attempt to understand the "enduring structural inequalities which existed" on the planet at the time.

On page 34, Steans describes the debates that have raged over the last thirty years as to the best approach to studying international relations. The consensus among those scholars was that theories are ideological and represent only the "political values of the theorist." In other words, theory cannot stop genocide in Africa, aggression in Afghanistan, or terrorist attacks in India. Meanwhile, the feminist approach to gender and identity in international relations helps to "critique the received wisdom" that the nation-state is the sole significant source of "political identification and allegiance in the world" (Steans, p. 63). That said, the feminist view of international relations goes well beyond "critique," Steans continues. The feminist perspective is an attempt to bring to the fore the "complex ways in which gender and identity are relevant to understanding the world" (Steans, p. 63).

In addition, the feminist critique of international relations serves to expose the "ideological exclusivity of the orthodoxy in international relations," Steans writes (p. 64). Within that context, the feminist critique attempts to highlight what is "lost, marginalized and excluded in the construction of the nation-state as an actor." Steans' work offers readers the clear impression that this is not merely a demand from feminists to be admitted to the men's club of nation-states. Rather, the feminist approach within the international relations milieu is in large part designed to show that gender identities are "central" to the building of political identities, and the feminist approach also raises questions about how identities are "formed and transformed" (Steans, p. 64). In the larger picture, raising questions about how identities are formed in a gender-driven study also raises issues about how power is achieved in the "construction and ascription of identity" (Steans, p. 64).

Understanding Feminist Perspectives: Liberal to Radical

Before coming to terms with feminism's link to international relations, it is essential to understand where feminists are coming from. Anyone who believes there is one homogenous feminist viewpoint regarding women and international relations is ill-informed. Such a view is tantamount to believing all African Americans share the same cultural and social outlook, or that every Muslim holds bin Laden's worldview. Steans offers several approaches to feminism, beginning with "liberal feminism," which is concerned mainly with equal rights and is "content to advocate reformist measures" to address bias against women (pp. 16–17). "Marxist feminism" posits that women are oppressed not because of bias or ignorance, but because women's oppression is a byproduct of the "political, social and economic structures" aligned with the capitalist system (Steans, p. 18). In other words, it is the "class system" in society — the fitting in with society's need for a "reserve army" of labor to be exploited — that keeps women at the back of the proverbial bus, according to Steans' explanation of Marxist feminism (pp. 18–19).

Steans explains that the "radical feminism" perspective sees women's oppression as "the root of all systems of oppression" and is "critical of liberal and Marxist feminism" because radical feminists view both as providing a model of women's liberation "which is based on male values" (p. 20). Some radical feminists believe that all male structures should be challenged and that the best values from women's society should be employed to create a counter-culture that cherishes "female-identified roles and values" (Steans, p. 20). "Socialist feminism" is concerned with overcoming "both class and gender oppression," according to Steans on page 21. On page 24, Steans addresses "postmodern feminism," arriving at this summation: "Postmodern feminists value the diversity in feminist thought" and they see the existence of many "feminisms" as proof that women's experiences take many social and political forms. They also espouse the notion that gender is to be viewed "not so much in terms of identity, or social structures, but rather in terms of discourse" (Steans, p. 27).

Labels, Challenges, and the Backlash Against Feminism

V. Spike Peterson and Jacqui True (Peterson et al., 1998, p. 15) strike directly at the heart of attempts to identify a woman and label her with a particular brand of feminism. They quote Catherine Stimpson: "Every woman is more than a woman. She belongs, as well, to a class, a race, a nation, a family, a tribe, a time, a place" (Peterson, p. 15).

The diversity that women reflect poses substantial challenges to the "feminist praxis," Peterson explains. That praxis is pointed toward finding a way out of gender oppressions, and because there is no "one feminism," Peterson continues, labels and identities can complicate the movement toward fairness and participation in international relations for women.

Labels can be misleading and even cruel. Calling a woman a "feminist" can elicit negative responses from conservatives and others frightened or confused by feminine challenges to the male status quo. Consider an analogy with surfing: a man and woman walk along the beach and see a male on a surfboard riding the waves. "There's a surfer," says the man. His wife adds, "I think surfers are pretty cool." The man on the surfboard is actually an attorney who surfs for his morning recreation — but he is branded a "surfer," with all the cultural assumptions that label carries. Similarly, a housewife who joins a group of women demonstrating outside an Iranian Embassy, protesting policies that require women to wear what they consider oppressive clothing in public, will find herself labeled a "feminist" — a label that draws frowns from some and smiles from others — simply by association.

There are respected academics who growl at the notion that women should participate more fully in international relations. Christopher Coker is certainly in that group. An essay by Steve Smith points out how Coker launched "a diatribe" against a newly offered course on gender and international relations (Smith, 1998, p. 57). Coker's article, published in a conservative British magazine, "reflected unease among some of his colleagues" about the new course. Moreover, Coker disputes the existence of a female alternative to male behavior and insists that "Whether they love or hate humanity, feminists seem unable to look it in the face" (Smith quoting Coker, p. 58).

If feminists are right that the female nature is more peaceful and "less aggressive" than men, Coker continued, then women pose a "far greater danger than men" to the world and to international relations. It was a less aggressive attitude toward international relations that "prevented us from deterring Hitler," Coker argued, referencing — without naming — Neville Chamberlain, England's Prime Minister who reportedly appeased Hitler rather than take a firm stand against the Third Reich.

On page 58, Steve Smith explains that when feminine concerns are expressed in the public arena, people like Coker either feel "rather humble and embarrassed or feel attacked personally." If, like Professor Coker, they feel their patriarchal position has been threatened, they "react aggressively" (Smith, p. 58). An additional problem is that "feminist work simply does not relate to the professional agenda of IR," Smith asserts (p. 58). International relations is "so tightly determined" by the "tyranny" of first-year texts and the locked-in formats of leading journals that any innovation by feminists is "difficult and threatening" (p. 58). On page 59, Smith posits that many of the concerns feminists have are "simply irrelevant" to many IR scholars. Those scholars may accept that women are exploited, but they struggle to see what "most feminist work has to do with 'the real world of international relations'" (p. 59) — a world that has been shaped by the male gender around issues of the state.

Not every international relations scholar is as hard-headedly anti-feminist as Coker, but breaking into the field has nonetheless been a struggle. Writing in the Australian Journal of Politics and History, Katrina Lee-Koo restates what others have emphasized: gaining entry to the international relations field has been anything but smooth for feminists. Globally, the relationship between mainstream IR actors and feminists has been "uneasy" at best.

In Australia the relationship was not established until well after American and European feminists began making noise in the field. The problem has not been radical or assertive feminists but, rather, the resistance of mainstream IR scholars, according to Lee-Koo (p. 424). The result of this recalcitrance has been a kind of "subfield" — a level of scholarship beneath the mainstream — and the feminist impact on the field has been at best "limited" and at worst "non-existent," Lee-Koo explains (p. 424). Lee-Koo quotes Terrell Carver, professor of political theory at Bristol University, who asks a highly pertinent question: are scholarly feminists and mainstream IR scholars "even in the same world?" (p. 424). Lee-Koo goes on to suggest that because feminist interventions into international relations are seen as threatening the male establishment, there have been "deeply discriminatory" — even misogynist — responses to the women who have offered scholarship in the field.

Conclusion

The field of international relations has been gender-dominated for so many years that it comes as no surprise that the feminist viewpoint is not universally embraced by the old guard. The attitudes of men like Christopher Coker and others reveal institutional bias and even hostility toward feminist viewpoints. However, it is unlikely that feminists will — or should — back down on their assertions that their ideas and theories are as valid as what the world has seen over the past hundred years or more. Will the world be a more peaceful place when feminist views are given a fair hearing and honest, constructive consideration in international relations? There is no guarantee. But given the violence and upheaval that exists between states and cultures today, feminist approaches to international relations are urgently needed.