Araceli Yal Noriega Curtis University of Salford @00329380

FEMINISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Feminism is a term difficult to define, as there are many individual interpretations, but it generally refers to the social movement that seeks to establish equality between men and women, as well as the theories that explain this inequality. Feminists understand equality as the belief that both men and women are human beings and should not be discriminated against only on the basis of their sex. It is common now to talk about feminisms, in plural, because there are different trends within the movement, both intelectually and between activists; I will talk briefly about them on this paper. However, the different feminisms share a common ground: they seek the end to all forms of discrimination against women, the end of sexism and the construction of justice for women. They differ on the methods to achieve this and some even argue for a complete transformation of the social systems we live in. Feminists of all kinds also share the concept of gender; indeed, it is central to the very idea of feminism. Gender refers to the social roles and relationships that are associated with a specific sex. Both sex and gender have become conflated in our minds: we believe men and women should act in specific ways simply by virtue of the sex they were born with. Feminists argue that these actions are not inherent to either men or women, but rather, they are learned and socially reinforced (Peterson, 1992). Over the past few decades, feminists have made great contributions to many aspects of life: they have promoted equal pay for equal work, access to contraception and abortion, education for girls, laws against violence against women, a more realistic portrayal of women in the media, and many other issues that affect women have been brought up into public consciousness. However, the discipline of International Relations has been virtually untouched by feminism. This does not mean that feminists have not contributed to the International Relations debate, but rather that mainstream International Relations continues to

be androcentric. Throughout this paper I will examine some of the contributions that feminist theorists have made to International Relations and why we should take them much more seriously when studying any issue pertaining to interactions in the international sphere. I will also examine a few of the major trends in feminism that could also inform and supplement current International Relations theories. Using a gender perspective to examine International Relations means we being by asking questions such as where are the women, both in academia and in decision-making levels? How do international politics affect women worldwide? And what about the very structure of world politics? How are women reflected (or not) in the different theories of International Relations? At the most basic level, feminists have looked at the absence of women in all levels of representation: How many women have lead countries, armies, parliaments, political parties or interest groups? Who are the women writing about international relations and all related issues? Why do we not study female theorists? Are there any female theorists? One of the answers to these questions is related to key International Relations concepts : these concepts are based on political theory, which is itself extremely male-centric. In fact, feminists argue that women were explicitely left out of politics by early theorists, from Plato and Aristotle to Hobbes and Rousseau (Grant, 1991). Here is where we find the first problem. These theorists made a clear distinction between private and public matters. Women, associated with nature, we considered to be too emotional and irrational to be able to decide in matters of general concern; they were ascribed to the home, the domestic sphere. Men, on the other hand, were concerned with control of nature; they were assumed to be rational, cold and quick decision-makers. Thus, they belonged to the public or political sphere. (Peterson, 1992; Steans, 2006.) This basic distinction is still seen today at the international level: in International Relations, intra-state issues are considered "domestic" in nature. States are believed to be stable, static, unchanging, just like a home. This, of course, ignores all problems that appear inside: who makes up a state; what is the primary identity of all those people, if any; who makes the decisions. This is

particularly important, not just because the division between public and domestic keeps women out of politics in general, but because International Relations simply ignores the problems of identity (Steans, 2006), as well as women's contributions towards the state: Women labor, especially as it relates to care-taking and other daily activities, is used on a daily basis to maintain it and it is not recognized (Enloe, 1989). Questions of identity, unrecognized labor and decision-making are all considered to be part of a state's internal dynamics. International Relations theorists take the concept of state for granted and have not questioned them. Neorealists, for example, consider that the world and its dynamics are external to them, that is, that the person studying these dynamics cannot influence them. Feminists criticise this position because they believe that it is our theories, our relationships and our ideologies that build the world (Steans, 2006). In other words, we have to understand also the context that surrounds a specific issue, as this will help us look into the impact that state interactions have on certain groups. Feminists also look at the ways in which gender is embedded in everyday practices. Since consider gender is relational, our actions will reflect what we believe men and women should do. For example, if we believe that women belong inside the home, we will strive to keep them there, through lower wages, social pressure to get married, making it difficult for working mothers to juggle everything. Indeed, feminists argue that the state is instrumental in maintaining these institutions. By making rules about labor, wages or marriage, it succeeds in making the personal political, thus effectively eliminating the distinction between public and private. I have mentioned above that States depend on women's unpaid labor. This is not only an everyday practice we should be looking at, but it also has consequences when we take into account global processes. Trade agreements, security alliances, or immigration are all issues that have a different impact on women than they do on men. The maquiladoras in Mexico offer a good example: they hired young, single women because they were cheaper. But once North America signed NAFTA and the cost of labor rose, they dismantled the factories

and moved to East Asia. This had a very clearly affected the women who worked there, as well as the families who depended on their income, and left them powerless to confront the waves of organized crime that took advantage of their vulnerability. However, none of these issues are taken into account by International Relations theorists, despite the fact that they happen all over the world and actually shape it. Although some may consider that feminism is not a theory as such, I believe that using a feminist perspective means that we have a different way of looking at the world, trying to find women and their experiences at all levels: local, national and international. It goes deeper than just looking at the women and understanding how the different processes around them shape their lives: it means questioning the very concepts that we use to describe the world. What do International Relations theories take into account? Are they really as objective and scientific as they claim? It also means recognizing that gender inequality has several dimensions: certainly one can argue that all women are oppressed, but the oppression is different according to whether one is a middle- or high-class white woman living in the West, an indigenous woman living in an isolated community or an educated woman in a developing country. And that is not all, for even oppression may take different meanings in different settings, not all women believe they are oppressed and they certainly are not all or only victims. But looking at women is not the only focus for feminist theorists. They also look at masculinities, that is, the actions and beliefs that are expected of men. As socially constructed beings, men both shape and are shaped by institutions, and therefore, affect and are affected by international relations (Steans, 2006). Indeed, as we have seen, the international sphere is considered to be autonomous and aggressive, and we need rationality to understand and control it. In short, these are all characteristics usually associated with men. Throughout history, men have been believed to be inherently violent, autonomous and desiring control, but they have also been pressured to act in those ways ("boys will be boys", "boys don't cry", etc.) We can see that International Relations as a discipline has been gendered from the very start. Feminists do not take for granted concepts such as hegemony or war, but question them, just as they question whether these ideas

of what men should be are not damaging to those men who do not want to or cannot conform to them. Finally, feminists, especially non-Western feminists, look at the ways women are not a single, monolithic category. Women differ both between States and within them; their experiences and outlooks on life are varied. It is harmful to encompass them in only one concept, as it renders invisible these differences and the very interactions women have between themselves, with men, and at all levels. This leads me to mention the main approaches of feminist theorists to International Relations, as mentioned in Steans, 2006. First we find the liberal feminists, who are concerned mainly with finding the women who apprently are not part of international relations. Second, standpoint feminists seek to include the experiences of women and bring them to the center of analyses, taking into account how men and women are socialized differently. Critical feminits see gender as an unequal power relation, and look at how social institutions and context maintain this inequality. Poststructuralist feminists question the concepts that we use when analysing International Relations, as they believe that our theories shape the world just as much as the world shapes our theories. They believe there is no objective stand and that the category "women" is misleading, as it ignores the differences between us. Postcolonial feminists look at the ways colonialism, and now neo-colonialism, have shaped relations not only between men and women of both colonising and colonised societies, but between the women of both. They reject all notions of a single feminist theory or practice and criticise development and aid policies coming from developed nations, as they reinforce cultural and racial stereotypes while reinfocing power inequalities. I belive gender is a useful tool for looking at the world from a different angle. In International Relations, particularly, it is important to consider variables that have been ignored throughout the history of the discipline. Gender is one such variable and including it in IR theories brings to light previously invisible issues, some of which have been mentioned above. Even Robert Keohane has stated that feminism can make great contributions to International Relations theories, particularly those branches of feminism that go beyond pointing out the

obvious absence of women theorists and practitioners (in Grant, 1991). In this respect, I believe feminism should be taken into account as a variable when studying and developing theories of International Relations, as it could broaden their scope and point to particular ways in which the world behaves. If the focus of a particular theory is to provide a path towards change, feminism could show ways in which this could be achieved. Feminism is a way of life that informs both thoughts and actions at every turn. If we were willing to look at the experiences of those people who are not like us, rather than universalize our own worldview, we could arrive at a much richer understanding of the world we live in. REFERENCES Bryon, Valerie. 1992. Feminist Political Theory: An Introduction. Palgrave MacMillan. Enloe, Cynthia. (1989). Bananas, Beaches and Bases. University of California Press. Grant, Rebecaa and Newland, Kathleen (Ed.) 1991. Gender and International Relations. Open University Press. hooks, bell. 2000. Feminist Theory: from Margin to Center. Pluto Press. Peterson, Spike (Ed.) 1992. Gendered States. Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Pettman, Jan Jindy. 1996. Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics. London: Routledge. Steans, Jill. 2006. Gender and International Relations. Polity Press.