Femminism in International Studies

Femminism in International Studies

International Relations has been one of the last fields to open up to feminisms, which offer unique contributions to any field of research. Indeed, compared with other disciplines, the arrival feminist perspectives in IR occurred relatively late. While they are all different in their approach, they are united by seeking to rethink IR's basic parameters.

Lately engagements have become more promising, including debates in official journals of the profession. It continued in 1997 with a debate led by J. Ann Tickner in the International Studies Association's International Studies Quarterly, where she suggested three types of misunderstandings are to blame for the lack of conversation between feminists and IR scholars. They are (1) misunderstandings about the meanings of gender; (2) different ontologies; and (3) epistemological divides. It remains to be seen whether 'misunderstandings' is the best term to use since differences in ontology and epistemology have also occurred in the debate between (non-feminist) critics and mainstream IR scholars without leading to a total silencing thereof.

Laura, (2004) treatment evaluates feminisms according to the parameters of a privileged approach (her version of social science) to which its insights might be added [3]. Another engagement, probably the most disconcerting since it exhibits the tendency of not reading feminist work before daring to assess it, is Francis Fukuyama's "Women and the Evolution of World Politics" published by Foreign Affairs in 1998. Most problematic about Fukuyama's article is her adoption of a simple binary distinction between men as aggressive and women as peaceful. She supports her view with biology, which leads him to fault feminists for trying to change human nature. Doing so, she simply ignores a fundamental feminist insight: that gender roles are influenced by a variety of factors and vary cross-culturally and historically.

The most recent engagement is a symposium on war and gender in Perspectives on Politics, the newest journal of the American Political Science Association. This review section continues the debate begun by Naomi, (2001), a detailed study of the role of gender in war [4]. Her book has attracted a great deal of interest, including a special panel at the 2003 International Studies Association conference in Portland, Oregon. I will now establish some links between Tickner's early intervention and this latest review section to illustrate a main theme that shapes the debate-"What kind of knowledge?" In other words, what has been characterized as the (post) positivism debate. [1]

In 1989, Tickner welcomed feminist standpoint theorists as useful contributors to IR, drawing on the distinction between feminist empiricists, feminist stand-pointers, and feminist postmodernism made by Brie, (2002) [6]. Accordingly, feminist empiricists believe that science is gender biased, but can offer valuable insights if research is conducted in the 'right' way. They advocate moving away from considering the masculine condition as the defining human condition and toward incorporating a feminist awareness into the project [6]. So-called standpoint feminists maintain that perception depends on where you stand and differs depending on gender, culture, race, and class among other ...