See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333668170

Feminist International Relations (IR) Theory

Chapter · January 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_207-1

CITATIONS READS

0 9,028

1 author:

Ayelet Harel-Shalev
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
72 PUBLICATIONS   221 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Activist Women In war and Peace View project

Drawing (on) Women's Military Experiences and Narratives – Israeli Women Soldiers’ Challenges in the Military View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayelet Harel-Shalev on 09 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

F

Feminist International Feminist IR vs. “Mainstream IR”

Relations (IR) Theory
Whereas security is traditionally understood to be
Ayelet Harel-Shalev at the top of the state’s list of priorities, and secu-
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, ritization is perceived as the domain of extraordi-
Israel nary measures defined by perceived threats to the
state, critical, gendered, and feminist analyses
Keywords focus on alternative meanings of security. One of
Security studies · International relations · their leading questions is, “Who is being
Gender · Feminist theories · Critical security secured”? (Harel-Shalev 2017). A major goal of
studies · Feminist security studies feminist IR (Cohn 2013; Eager, 2014; Tickner
1997) is to understand and redress gender inequal-
ities that often remain hidden or ignored in tradi-
Introduction tional and male-centric international theory.
Feminist IR theories note that one of the real
Feminist theorists have contributed to interna- challenges in conceptualizing war, insecurity,
tional relations (IR) studies by re-assessing the and conflict lies in analyzing these phenomena
roles that gender and women play in the interna- as a subset of the social relations of experience
tional arena. They have explicitly noted gender and exposing the power relations within patriar-
biases in IR. By using various methodologies, chal structures (Enloe 2000; Kronsell 2012).
including nontraditional avenues of inquiry, fem- Moreover, scholars in the field of feminist IR
inist IR re-defines the concepts of power, sover- hold that war, security, and conflicts cannot be
eignty, hegemony, and security. Feminist IR also fully comprehended unless they are studied
helps unravel the means by which hegemonic through the prism of how people have experi-
masculinity has become embedded in IR politics. enced them in a myriad of ways, not solely by
This short essay explores the ways feminist con- what are considered to be mainstream IR theories
cepts and methodologies allow us to view IR not and methods (Enloe 2000; Sjoberg 2013;
only from an abstract philosophical and historical Sylvester 2012; Tickner 2006).
point of view but also from the point of view of Feminist IR embraces a range of approaches,
those who experience IR politics but are usually which explore gender as a site of power and social
missing from its mainstream body of knowledge. interactions. The intellectual origins of feminist

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

S. Romaniuk et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_207-1
2 Feminist International Relations (IR) Theory

IR are rooted in distinctive traditions of feminist also rely on the gendered role of women.
theory. Furthermore, “looking through gendered According to Enloe, feminist insights into these
lenses at any given phenomenon in global politics so-called private affairs reveal the powers that
does not just tell us one thing. Instead, substan- keep women in these roles. While Enloe focuses
tively and methodologically, it has wide gaze with on highlighting the power relations of the interna-
many explorations and observations” (Sjoberg tional politics that shape women’s lives, feminist
2013, p. 285). Indeed, Feminist IR Theory has IR also challenges basic notions of how we should
various strands, with some commonalities, and view IR. Its approach is not merely about women,
most strands of feminist scholarship draw from but a different perspective on analyzing global
critical work on gender identities and sexualities. politics.
While this short piece cannot encompass the Feminist IR demands that when we think of the
breadth of work in feminist IR since the 1990s, international realm, we need to go beyond the
but it will present a few main directions that are state level and examine the individual level, the
prevalent in feminist studies and IR theory and its community level, and the people who are affect-
commonalities. ing and are affected by issues that are within the
In her groundbreaking book, Bananas, IR discipline such as security and diplomacy. In
Beaches and Bases, Cynthia Enloe (2014) asks particular, we must investigate how women, who
where are the women in international politics? are generally ignored by IR, are impacted by these
Enloe challenges us to look at women in the issues. Despite its designation, feminism does
international arena and identify where are they more than focus on women, or what are consid-
and how they got there. What are the political ered women’s issues. In highlighting both
powers that determine the location of women inequality and relations of power, feminism
within the international political arena? Enloe’s reveals gendered power and what it does in global
work explores military bases, diplomacy, and politics.
global corporations, searching for the roles and Feminist IR further criticizes the realist para-
the stories of women in these realms. For exam- digm, which is the dominant approach to IR.
ple, she investigates how the location of military Realists view the international realm as an anar-
bases and their operation affect the women asso- chic state. In this state, with the absence of a
ciated with them. There are women who live on central authority, each nation decides when and
the base, work on the base and around the base. where to use force. Thus, conflict can break at any
After locating them, Enloe analyzes their roles, moment (Waltz 1979). In this anarchic structure,
especially their gendered roles within and outside the state is the main actor, which relies on itself
these bases. Regardless of whether they are and its resources to function and survive. Realism
women soldiers, military wives, prostitutes, or is based on the understanding of human nature as
entertainment workers, they all affect and are motivated by its desire for power, glory, and self-
affected by the base’s location and the policies interests. Feminist IR seeks to broaden these per-
within and outside the base. ceptions of the international realm, move away
By looking at locations not generally associ- from its masculine association with war and con-
ated with women, Enloe stresses that issues that flict, and offer a feminine alternative to the way
are regarded as private matters such as the rela- we formulate IR.
tionship between an officer and his wife, sexual Ann Tickner is one of the prominent scholars
harassment within the bases, and the policing of who challenge the realist approach (Tickner 1992,
civilian women by soldiers are all infected with 1997). Tickner argues that one of the reasons IR
power relations that are a part of international regards the world as a man’s world is the realist
politics, which we must understand as more than approach. Examining Hans Morgenthau’s princi-
national security interests. “The international is ples of political realism, Tickner (1988) claims that
personal” (Enloe 2014, p. 351), argues Enloe, Morgenthau’s point of view is incomplete because
which means that governments’ foreign affairs of its underlying assumptions that human nature is
Feminist International Relations (IR) Theory 3

amoral and beast-like. Morgenthau’s adaptation of In her response to accusations that feminist IR
human nature in a Hobbesian state of nature, lacks theory and deals only with observations or
which, according to feminist critics, is socially critiques, Tickner (1997) argues that from an epis-
constructed, is partial because it ignores women. temological point of view, traditional IR aligns
Tickner argues that in a world in which nuclear with positivism that seeks a unity of methods
weapons exist, realist depictions of the interna- and precise observations of what can we consider
tional realm such as that of Morgenthau could be as facts. This approach is rooted in the belief that
fatal. She maintains that the feminist perspective social science is like natural science, implying the
could offer an alternative to this view of the world need for empiricist methods. In contrast, feminist
that might ultimately save humanity. IR is largely identified as a postpositivist approach
Tickner offers an alternative definition of the that is based on historical hermeneutic or philo-
realists’ perceptions of power and security. She sophical traditions, which allows it to seek
claims that by understanding these terms from a answers that traditional IR methodologies cannot
feminist point of view, we can consider a different provide. Thus, criticism, for example, is one of the
course of action rather than the zero-sum result core elements of feminist IR because it exposes
offered by realists. Instead of understanding gender biases in IR.
power as the control of A over B, which is usually Feminist scholars have highlighted the gender
associated with masculinity, we can also under- biases that Tickner notes in a variety of IR related
stand it from another perspective (Tickner 1988). issues and especially in the field of security stud-
Tickner adopts Hannah Arendt’s definition of ies, which are associated with masculinity. War,
power, which is the ability to act in concert for example, is one issue where women are
(Arendt 1969, p. 44). Thus, by expanding our ignored or portrayed as those who need protec-
understanding of power not just with regard to tion. Jean Bethke Elshtain (1985) argues that long
control but also as a way of acting together to standing traditions depict men as violent and
achieve a mutual goal, we can add another dimen- women as nonviolent. These socially constructed
sion to international relations other than conflict images of men and women during wartime are not
(Tickner 1988). “real” and aim to portray women as noncombat-
Tickner also redefines the notion of security or ants and men as warriors. Elshtain claims that
national security (Tickner 1988, 1997). While these conceptions have become the basis for dif-
national security is often understood in terms of ferent feminist observations about war, the way
the military strength needed to protect the state, we experience it and who takes part in it.
Tickner suggests that we need to look at security Christine Sylvester (2012) challenges the IR
beyond the terms of weapons and war, because point of view of war, asking us to regard it not
this definition is too narrow for the post-Cold War from a conventional security point of view, but
era. She maintains that we can also understand rather from the viewpoint of those who experience
security in terms of having basic material needs, war. She argues that IR ignores a fundamental part
which are more associated with women. Environ- of war, which is “injuring human bodies and
mental threats are also an issue of national security destroying normal patterns of social relations”
as well as an issue of concern to many women’s (p. 484). To understand war comprehensively,
movements. We can thus define security in much claims Sylvester, we must take into consideration
broader terms, and approach solutions to these the experiences of those who are affected by it.
insecurities and threats from a cooperative rather Going back to Tickner’s argument about the epis-
than a conflictual point of view. Such an approach temology of feminist IR, Sylvester also asserts
provides an alternative to violent resolutions. As that in order to conduct research into war as an
Tickner notes, the feminist perspective does not experience, we need appropriate methods, includ-
reject IR ontologies of security or power, but ing interviews and discourse analysis, which is
rather expands them. However, different ontol- sometimes combined with other methods. To
ogies also demand different epistemologies. understand war and be able to help those affected
4 Feminist International Relations (IR) Theory

by it, we must move beyond the theoretical and in reality, and none of these extreme categories is
philosophical investigation of it and consider an ideal point of view for analyzing IR politics.
more complex security issues resulting from the In response to Keohane, Annick Wibben
experiences of war (Sylvester 2012). (2004) argues that Keohane does not fully under-
Sylvester’s notion of the experience of war stand the value of the observation “on the object
leads feminist IR scholarship to investigate war of study itself” (p. 101) and the context in which
beyond traditional warzones. Her perspectives different parameters of IR are being studied.
have been adopted and implemented in various Wibben claims that scholars, such as Keohane,
studies. For example, by exploring minority who denounce relativism and the methods that
women’s experiences in conflict situations, allow studying IR through a feminist lens “treat
Harel-Shalev (2017) demonstrates how women [s] Feminist IR as a subject to be studied, not a
are not considered a side in the conflict, and their way to explore IR” (p. 103). Women and gender
interests are not taken into account. This study are not something that we need to “add to IR and
also presents how a gendered analysis would stir,” but an approach that constantly challenges
lead us to a different conclusion about the estima- the way we understand IR. Therefore, multiple
tion of what conflict has been solved by a war, methodologies are necessary for studying security
how and for whom. Harel-Shalev and Daphna- and insecurity in global politics (Stern 2005).
Tekoah (2016) claim that the narratives of Gender norms and assumptions usually define
women soldiers serving in combat and combat- a particular form of masculinity as the norm. Fem-
support roles in the military may challenge both inist IR theories further challenge this approach
the conventional definitions of war and the binary and seek to avoid a binary framing of events.
conceptualization of warfare as a gendered act in Feminist IR theory attempts to decompose the
which soldiers (usually men) actively protect polarities between good and bad, active and pas-
allegedly passive women (usually civilians). sive, warriors and victims, and even between vic-
Moreover, the narrative of women soldiers can timhood and agency. Feminist theories in IR
teach us much more than about the important create definitions related to women, gender, and
(and often ignored) experiences of women. It war, while taking into account hegemonic
can also shape and reshape gendered assumptions masculinities. As Tickner and Sjoberg (2013)
about power, protection, and hegemony. state, feminist theorists in IR are also committed
IR scholars have criticized the feminist meth- to determining how gender is manifested in global
odologies that Tickner, Sylvester and others politics. Feminist IR studies claim that assump-
adopted. Robert Keohane (1989), for example, tions about gender shape events in global politics.
welcomes the feminist perspective of concepts Therefore, gender-blind analyses of global poli-
such as power or sovereignty. However, he argues tics and security may be misleading and false.
that in order to assess the questions and hypothe- Gendered processes may vary across intersections
ses raised by feminist scholars, these theories of race, nationality, and other signifiers of identity
must also use positivist methodologies that will and social location. Therefore, feminist perspec-
allow researchers to evaluate them and create tives combine these factors in their analyses. Such
measurable questions. Keohane (1998) also analyses have shed light on important, overlooked
argues that the view of feminist scholars such as links between citizenship, rights, security, and
Ann Tickner of traditional IR versus feminist IR gender. In doing so, feminist IR has reintroduced
methodologies is limited by dichotomous points these silenced and marginalized voices.
of view: “International relations theory is One of the leading scholars of feminist IR,
portrayed as problem-solving, positivist, and aso- Cynthia Enloe, asks academics to look for what
cial; feminist theory as critical, post-positivist, she terms “silences” in international relations
and sociological” (Keohane 1998, p. 194). These (Enloe 2014). She advises scholars to seek ques-
dichotomies, according to Keohane, are not found tions that are thus far unidentified and unasked in
international relations and to investigate issues
Feminist International Relations (IR) Theory 5

that conventional commentators typically leave Keohane, R. O. (1998). Beyond dichotomy: Conversations
unexplored. These spaces of query often remain between international relations and feminist theory.
International Studies Quarterly, 42(1), 193–197.
unexplored because they are not considered inter- Kronsell, A. (2012). Gender, sex and the post national
esting or sufficiently important. In these silences, defense: Militarism and peacekeeping. Oxford: Oxford
she notes, you will often find politics. This is, University Press.
indeed, one of the starting points of feminist IR Sjoberg, L. (2013). Gendering global conflict: Toward a
feminist theory of war. NY: Columbia University Press.
theories (Harel-Shalev and Daphna-Tekoah, Stern, M. (2005). Naming security – constructing identity.
2019). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sylvester, C. (2012). War experiences/war practices/war
theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
40(3), 483–503.
Cross-References Tickner, J. A. (1988). Hans Morgenthau’s principles of
political realism: A feminist reformulation. Millennium
– Journal of International Studies, 17(3), 429–440.
▶ Gender Equality and Inequality Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in international relations
▶ Human Security feminist perspectives on achieving global security.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Tickner, J. A. (1997). You just don’t understand: Troubled
engagements between feminists and IR theorists. Inter-
References national Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 611–632.
Tickner, J. A., & Sjoberg, L. (Eds.). (2013). Feminism and
international relations: Conversations about the past,
Arendt, H. (1969). On violence. New York: Harcourt Brace
present and future. New York: Routledge.
Jovanovich Publishers.
Tickner, J. A. (2006). On The Frontlines or Sidelines of
Cohn, C. (Ed.). (2013). Women and wars: Contested his-
Knowledge and Power? Feminist Practices of Respon-
tories, uncertain futures. UK: Polity Press.
sible Scholarship. International Studies Review, 8(3),
Eager, P. W. (2014). Waging gendered wars: US military
383–395.
women in Afghanistan and Iraq. Farnham: Ashgate
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston:
Publishing.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Elshtain, J. B. (1985). Reflections on war and political
Wibben, A. T. R. (2004). Feminist international relations:
discourse: Realism, just war, and feminism in a nuclear
Old debates and new directions. Brown Journal of
age. Political Theory, 13(1), 39–57.
World Affairs, 10(2), 97–114.
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of
militarizing women’s lives. Univ of California Press.
Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making
feminist sense of international politics (2nd ed.). Berke-
Further Reading
Cohn, C. (2013). Women and wars. Cambridge, UK: Polity
ley: University of California Press.
Press.
Harel-Shalev, A. (2017). Gendering ethnic conflicts:
Elshtain, J. B. (1985). Reflections on war and political
Minority women in divided societies–the case of Mus-
discourse: Realism, just war, and feminism in a nuclear
lim women in India. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(12),
age. Political Theory, 13(1), 39–57.
2115–2134.
Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making
Harel-Shalev, A., & Daphna-Tekoah, S. (2016). The dou-
feminist sense of International politics. Berkeley: Uni-
ble battle – women combatants and embodied experi-
versity of California Press.
ences in warzones. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 9(2),
Steans, J. (2013). Gender and international relations: The-
312–333.
ory, practice, policy (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Harel-Shalev, A., & Daphna-Tekoah, S. (2019). Breaking
Sylvester, C. (1992). Feminist theory and international
the Binaries in Security Studies: A Gendered Analysis
relations in a postmodern era. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
of Women in Combat. NY: Oxford University press.
bridge University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1989). International relations theory: Con-
Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in international relations
tributions of a feminist standpoint. Millennium – Jour-
feminist perspectives on achieving global security.
nal of International Studies, 18(2), 245–253.
New York: Columbia University Press.

View publication stats