Gender Matters In International Relations By Laura J. Shephe ✓ Solved

Gender Matters in International Relations by Laura J. Shepherd

Imagine you’re in a restaurant. You’ve ordered your meal, but you’d like to wash your hands before you eat. You ask a member of staff the way to the bathrooms (or restrooms, toilets, cloakrooms – whatever is the culturally acceptable term) and you are directed through a single outer door, to be confronted by a pair of doors. On each door there is a sign, bearing an image rather than a word. Which door do you go through? Can you make sense of those signs?

If so, then you have a theory of gender. You have a theory, or an understanding, of what the signs signify and of their social importance, because in order to make sense of the signs you have to accept that there are two types of people and that each type of person is represented by one or the other figure in the sign. The chances are good that you know automatically which door you’d go through. But think for a moment about your silhouette today: do you most closely resemble the figure on the left or the figure on the right? We don’t go through whichever door we go through because we look like the figures on the signs, we go through the doors because we understand what the signs mean.

They may bear no relevance to the way we look, today or ever, but they order the way we behave in the world. This is not, however, an article about how to avoid embarrassment when dining out. So what has the issue of where you wash your hands got to do with International Relations (IR)? I would suggest that the political salience (that is, importance) of identity, particularly gender identity, should not be underestimated in the study and practice of international relations.

There is a range of ways to conceptualise ‘gender’ (to think about how our gendered bodies come to have meaning in socio-political situations) and to conceive of the relationship between sex and gender: essentialist accounts, constructivist accounts and poststructural accounts are perhaps the most commonly identified. Typically, feminist IR scholars working within any of these frameworks ask different questions about different aspects of gender and global politics and use different methods to go about answering the questions they pose.

This makes it difficult to provide an overview of gender and global politics in one short article. However, ideas about appropriate and inappropriate gendered behaviours are wide-ranging, influential and sometimes unconscious, but because they affect (and effect) how we behave in the world, they are of interest to the scholar of global politics, as global politics is practised and studied by gendered individuals.

Whether the issue at hand is security, global governance, nuclear proliferation, peacebuilding or international law, feminist scholars have written extensively about (how) gender matters in global politics and, further, argued that paying analytical attention to gender allows us insights that ‘gender-blind’ approaches do not access.

Most introductory IR texts include a chapter on gender and/or feminism and anyone seeking an overview of feminist IR would be well advised to read these. However, to conclude this short article, I will provide two examples of feminist insights to illustrate the claims made above.

First, feminists have critiqued the fact that the internal logic of a realist IR framework demands that security refers to the ‘national’, which is assumed to be congruent with the state. Nations – or rather, the people comprising the nations – do not tend to feature further in conventional theorizing of IR. International Relations as a discipline, narrowly conceived, is not concerned with activities that occur within the state, as is evidenced in the act of naming: IR is self-consciously concerned with relations inter (between) states.

Minimally, feminist IR seeks to correct this disciplinary myopia. While classical realism theorises the political actor, in order to construct the state as actor, the now dominant neo-realism abstracts the human subject from its disciplinary musings, leading to the infamous ‘black box’ model of the state. Feminist IR challenges this assumption, arguing that individuals, as human subjects in all their messy complexity, are an integral part of international relations and, further, that international relations are constituted by and constitutive of other types of relations: power relations and gender relations.

In studying the peace camps at Greenham Common, for example, feminist scholars challenged the notion that state negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States over the location of nuclear armaments were simply a matter of military security and diplomacy. The individuals at Greenham, who were exercising agency through the use of their bodies in protest against the fact that nuclear ‘security’ didn’t make them feel secure, ‘subverted the security-based strategic vision of international relations by showing … acts of everyday insecurity’. By cutting the fences, dancing on the missile silos, challenging charges of trespassing in court, the Greenham women managed to transform the very meaning of a base and of public security.

A military base easily penetrated by a group of non-violent women was no longer a military base. The very articulation of ‘acts of everyday insecurity’ challenges conventional logic as represented within the conceptualisation of ‘national security’, and demands that the relationship between individuals and the state be examined and problematised.

Politicising the everyday, or rather, demanding that the everyday be recognized as political, is a central priority of feminist IR, exemplified in the work of Cynthia Enloe. In the early 1980s, Enloe began asking the questions for which she has become rightly acknowledged as a key figure in feminist IR, including Does Khaki Become You? and ‘where are the women?’. The groundbreaking analysis of the gendered politics of militarism presented in Khaki laid the foundations for a generation of feminist scholarship engaged in unpicking the complex tangle of industrial development, economics, masculinism and mythology that characterises militarisation.

Inspired by her own curiosity about the roles played by women and the functions performed by gender in the militarisation of civilian life, Enloe explores prostitution, marriage, welfare and war-making with an eye to the representation (both political and symbolic) of women.

In Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, Enloe puts her ‘feminist curiosity’ to work, providing the reader with a series of vignettes that function to complicate easy readings of everyday situations, from the beaches central to tourist industry to the diplomatic wives stationed on military bases. All these activities, she argues, constitute international relations, and she concludes that ‘the personal is international’. This fundamental insight underpins much contemporary feminist IR scholarship, as it seeks to understand just how the presumed ‘personal’ realm of gendered bodies and the relationships between them is inextricably intertwined with the ‘international’ realm of high politics.

Paper For Above Instructions

In recent years, the study of international relations (IR) has evolved significantly, particularly through feminist perspectives that address the implications of gender in global politics. In many traditional frameworks of international relations, gender has often been overlooked, which has resulted in an incomplete understanding of the dynamics that shape international interactions. This paper will explore the innovations that feminist international relations (FIR) scholars have brought forth, examining how gender identity plays a pivotal role in global politics and challenging the established norms of IR theory.

Understanding Gender in International Relations

At the core of feminist theory in international relations lies the critique of the traditional state-centric, male-dominated narratives that have historically defined the discipline. Feminist scholars argue that conventional approaches, particularly realism and liberalism, often neglect the substantial influence of gendered experiences within states and international systems. Realism, for instance, tends to focus on national security and state power, often solidifying patriarchal structures without recognizing the gendered implications of such actions (Tickner, 2001).

Feminist Critiques of Security

One significant area of feminist critique focuses on security. Traditional security studies typically emphasize military prowess and state sovereignty, yet this overlooks the experiences of individuals—particularly women—who may feel insecure in their daily lives due to various forms of violence and oppression. The feminist perspective expands the definition of security to include human security, which recognizes economic, social, and physical security as critical components of individual safety (Cohn, 2004). By redefining security, feminist scholars situate gender at the center of international dialogues surrounding safety and defense.

The Importance of Gendered Perspectives in Global Governance

Feminist international relations scholars advocate for a broader understanding of governance that incorporates gender analysis. By analyzing global governance structures—from international organizations like the UN to regional bodies—it becomes evident that decisions often reflect male-dominated viewpoints that alienate female experiences and priorities. For example, women are frequently underrepresented in peace negotiations and decision-making processes, leading to a disparity in how policies are crafted and implemented (Rai, 2008).

Theories of Gender and Global Politics

Feminist IR theory offers several frameworks for understanding the intersection of gender and politics. Essentialist accounts focus on inherent differences between men and women, while constructivist frameworks investigate how gender categories are socially constructed (Shepherd, 2010). In contrast, post-structural feminist theories critique the rigidity of gender binaries, advocating for a more fluid understanding of identity. Each of these approaches enriches the discourse in international relations by challenging traditional narratives and allowing for more inclusive analysis.

Case Studies Illustrating Feminist Insights

Illustrating feminist insights in international relations through specific case studies reveals the real-world implications of these theories. The Greenham Common peace camps, where women protested against nuclear weapons in the 1980s, exemplify how feminist activism challenges conventional notions of security and agency in international relations (Enloe, 2000). By disrupting traditional security narratives, the women of Greenham Common highlighted how gendered experiences of insecurity can transform political discourse.

Another significant case is the role of women in post-conflict reconstruction. Research shows that when women are included in peace-building efforts, the resulting agreements are more sustainable and inclusive (Porter, 2005). This finding underscores the importance of integrating gender perspectives in all levels of international politics, as it fosters diverse approaches to resolving conflicts and constructing stable societies.

Moving Forward: The Need for Gendered Analysis in International Relations

As the field of international relations continues to evolve, incorporating gendered analysis is crucial for achieving a comprehensive understanding of global politics. Feminist scholars encourage the inclusion of gender perspectives in both research and policy-making, advocating for greater representation of women and marginalized groups within international institutions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, gender matters significantly in international relations as it shapes identities, influences security discourses, and informs governance structures. By embracing feminist insights, scholars and practitioners can address the complexities of global politics more effectively. The integration of gender analysis not only enriches academic discourse but also contributes to creating a more just and equitable world.

References

• Cohn, Carol. “A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” In Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction, edited by Sohail H. Hashmi, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
• Enloe, Cynthia. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. 2nd ed. University of California Press, 2000.
• Porter, Elisabeth. "Women, Political Decision-Making and Peace-Building." Global Change, Peace and Security 15, no. 3 (2003): 245-262.
• Rai, Shirin, ed. The Gender Politics of Development: Essays in Hope and Despair. Zed Books, 2008.
• Shepherd, Laura J. “Sex or Gender? Bodies in World Politics and Why Gender Matters.” In Gender Matters in Global Politics, edited by Laura J. Shepherd, Routledge, 2010.
• Tickner, J. Ann. Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era. Columbia University Press, 2001.
• Whitworth, Sandra. Men, Militarism and UN Peacekeeping. Lynne Rienner, 2004.
• Sjoberg, Laura, and Caron Gentry. Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics. Zed Books, 2007.
• Griffin, Penny. Gendering the World Bank: Neoliberalism and the Gendered Foundations of Global Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
• Afsar, H. et al. Development, Women and War: Feminist Perspectives. Oxfam GB, 2004.