Feminism International Relation Theory

Student’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course Name:
Date:
Feminism in International Relations
International relations form a significant part of the political discussions of nation states. The advent of nation-states sets the groundwork for foreign affairs as countries interacted. It was characterized by the relationships between states and diplomatic relations. However, after the two world wars, international relations evolved as it adopted a different approach aimed at preventing war. However, this basic understanding undermined the real character of international relations. Various theories such as realism, constructivism, and liberalism have been advanced to explain the nature of international relations character. A further weakness of these arguments has been identified by feminists who hold that the current theories of IR are too masculine and lack the input of a feminist perspective (Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, & Smith 206). Among the issues identified included the place of women in international relations, their role as actors in international relations and the apparent absences of a feminist perspective in IR theories. As such, feminists have added to the body of work that is already present in international relations.
Liberalism is one of the significant viewpoints of international relations. It propounds that international relations are a consequence of the intentions and desires of foreign actors (Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, & Smith 96-98). It further holds that the state and politics are not the only phenomenon in play in international relations but also includes none state international organizations and cooperation between these parties.

However, the feminist movement within the international ties disagrees with this point of view. The feminist position is epitomized by the works of Cynthia Enloe where she states that “liberalism is with a political analysis that is incomplete, even naive” (Buskie n.p)
Liberalism IR theory is according to liberal feminists incomplete in identifying international actors. In particular, libertarian feminist IR theory posits that the traditional liberal IR theory ignores the place of women in international relations. Supporters of the feminist movement hold that women play a crucial role in IR be it in war or peace. Women’s position in IR is both subtle and overt occupying positions such as diplomat’s wives, workers, and prostitutes for soldiers. Still, the part of women in these capacities has not been recognized or taken into considerations, yet women are integral in IR (Laura 5). Moreover, the perspective of war is masculine and ignores the female aspect. The female perspective narrows down on the impact of contemporary war on women and children who account for a significant number of causalities.
Liberalism rightly so points out that IR is more than politics and war. However, it does ignore another fundament aspect in the instruments, knowledge, and ideas in IR. Liberal’s feminists face the same problem. Only including a feminine perspective is not enough. Constructivism, in particular, adds an essential facet of IR. Moreover, it is somewhat difficult to identify the impact of feminist on international relations since it adopts a political angle.
Constructivist IR theory opines a different perspective to liberalism. It holds that the true nature of the IR is in the instruments of IR and their meaning and the ideas that are advanced. Therefore, it is not the actors of IR that determine its nature but rather a treaty. This interaction is, thus, the pedestal upon which all IR stands. The ideal advanced by the agreement after that giving the actors their character. For instance, the UN is the creature of the UN conventions, and the powers of any of its organized are derived from their respective authorities’, e.g., the role of the Security Council.
Constructivist Feminist IR theory similar to liberal IR theory identifies the absence of feminist perspective on the general Constructivist IR theory. The ideas and documents used in IR lack the female viewpoint in no small part in langue and idea. In particular the concept of gender in international matters in business, politics, and war. Feminists hold that gender roles are a social construct created by society and as such do not hold water as objective truths. Hence, in constructive it is essential that the idea of gender is adequately understood and added to the corpus of Constructivist Feminist IR.
Unlike in sciences in sociology the truth is subjective. Traditional IR theories are premised on a defined and definite facts. However, these are merely personal truths and not the gospel. As illustrated by realism, liberalism, and Constructivist the true nature of IR varies. Still, each version of the theory holds some truth like IR that the other does not. Therefore, there is a need identify these arguments for their weaknesses.
Postmodernism addresses the question of subjective truth. It holds that all theories present in IR are merely social construct similar to gender. They are not ultimate truths. Evidence of these is in the unique characters that each approach identifies. Consequently, the argument is skeptical of the axioms and beliefs that are posited already. It advances that we should review whatever we already know.
Postmodern feminist IR theory equally approaches IR in the same skeptical manner. Postmodern feminist departs from the liberal feminist distinction of based sex and gender. Sex is biological, but gender is a social construct. Postmodernists hold that the difference between male and female is the by-product of language. As such, postmodernists argue why we perceive sex (biological) as devoid of social construction. Postmodernists hold the view that the issues that the female gender struggles with do not have a single source such as the subordination. It is, therefore, wrong to presume that the gender roles are the sole reason for women’s lower standing in society and to an extent IR. Thus, there is no single solution to the issues that affect women. In IR theory, it is equally mistaken to believe that the place of women in society wrongly places for lack of a famine perspective on IR or the absence of an understanding of gender in IR through liberalism and Constructivist respectively.
The postmodern perception point of view feminism in IR theory is that whatever perception we currently have of feminism and women in the society need to review. The idea that of universal truth by any argument is wrong. Therefore, we have to challenge all facts that we hold. However, all feminist IR theories build on already existing IR theories. As such the fail for having the same weaknesses that the original IR theory holds. For instance, the subjective presumption that IR is only based on states, not international state parties and their interaction. Secondly, feminist positions do not necessarily add to the body of work in IR. In many cases, they merely add a female perspective. Still, postmodernism is vague and ambiguous. By its very nature, postmodernism requires that all knowledge we currently have is stripped down doubting structuralism. In general still, feminist theory has been criticised for being too academic. According to Gloria Steinem, feminist theory embarks on a fruitless path in academic circles that do not have any real value to educational endeavors (Denes n.p).
International relations by its nature are complex. They involve various interaction by nation states at multiple levels. Traditional perspective on the association of states and war dominates much of international relations. For instance, the place of preventive and humanitarian wars. However, above and beyond that IR also includes matters of international trade and economic that are beyond the traditional scope of IR. The evolution of the world with nation-states has further complicated the relationship of IR. Current theories of IR theory are elaborate, but none is sufficient. In many cases, they fall victim to the failures identified by postmodernism theories. In particular, the place of women in IR has been neglected no doubt following the historical- marginalization of women (Laura 108-110). The point of view that feminist version of IR theories brings to the table is invaluable. To merely set aside the feminist agenda as futile academic pursuits are intellectual dishonesty. The world is riddled with numerous cases of purely masculine practice and though. IR is no different. Indeed, in some cases the value of feminist approach in IR theory is mainly academic, does not dilute their value. The problem may be attributed the complex task of giving having a quantum of the worth of the feminist theory in IR theories bring (Tickner 616). Nonetheless, feminist perspective IR theories adopt the strength of postmodernism theory: all that we currently know is subjective truth and therefore we should strive for the objective fact.
Works Cited
Buskie, Alexandra. “How Significant Is Feminism’s Contribution To IR?” E-International Relations, 2013, http://www.e-ir.info/2013/03/17/how-significant-is-the-contribution-of-feminism-to-ir/>
Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. International Relations Theories. Oxford.Oxford University Press, 2013.
Denes, Melissa. “‘Feminism? It’s Hardly Begun’.” The Guardian, 2005, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/17/gender.melissadenes.
Tickner, J. “You just don’t understand: troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists.” International Studies Quarterly (1996): 611-632
Shepherd, Laura J. “Sex or gender? Bodies in world politics and why gender matters.” Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations. London: Routledge (2010): 3-16.