No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Beyond Being Marginal: Gender and International Relations in Britain
Abstract
In this introduction, we situate ‘gender and international relations in Britain’. We discuss our understandings of gender, I/international R/relations and GIR. In the second section we discuss the relationship of feminist to gendered IR, arguing that while intimately related, they are nonetheless not synonymous. We turn in the third section to a critical discussion of feminist IR's tendency to see itself as marginal to mainstream IR, a move that contributes to the marginalisation it laments. In the fourth section we compare the development of GIR with gender in Politics, which has been less concerned from the outset with issues of marginality. In the final section we argue that GIR has come into its own, introducing the articles in this issue as instances of self-assured gendered analyses of ‘things international’.
... However, the desire to dispel feminist critiques on citation by genuflecting to the usual suspects before moving on, much like the routine final "women's week" on IR courses, is also an indication that the current situation is not the result of simple ignorance regarding feminist work. Rather, the pattern increasingly appears to indicate that mainstream IR has consistently refused to engage with feminist scholarship, while continuing to demand that feminist scholars generously cite authors who would never afford them the same level of serious consideration (Squires and Weldes 2007). This pernicious equilibrium has resulted in a situation where malestream IR has been able to ghettoize feminist contributions while demanding that we perform the necessary observances to IR convention (read: cite them), without ever being required to account for the critiques that are leveled at their gender unawareness through those citations. ...
... I suspect that there are alternatives to pandering to the "center" to signal disciplinary membership (Squires and Weldes 2007). I see this in the feminist scholars stretching the boundaries of IR by exploring questions of culture, emotion, queer theory, embodiment, postcolonialism, or narrative (Wibben 2010;Sylvester 2013;Parashar 2014;Wilcox 2015;Hagen 2016;Weber 2016). ...
... This process of exchange, in turn, allows gender and politics researchers to deploy methodologies more flexibly but also, centrally, not to define themselves, or be defined by others, as marginal to the discipline of Politics. Gender and politics research therefore appears to avoid the rather unhelpful preoccupation with its 'marginal' status that has become so dominant a feature of feminist IR scholarship (Squires and Weldes, 2007). ...
... Some elements of the argument presented in this paper were jointly developed with Mona Lena Krook and Jutta Weldes, and published in Krook and Squires (2006) and Squires and Weldes (2007). We would like to acknowledge their contribution. ...
This article engages with recent methodological debates in political theory concerning the role of political theory and in particular the criticism that ideal normative theorising is too abstracted from the real-world circumstances that it hopes to change. These debates raise questions concerning the proper relationship between normative political theory and empirical inquiry. We suggest that feminist research has an important contribution to make to these questions, which has tended to be under-recognised within mainstream debates. Specifically, feminist critical theory points to important limitations within both ideal political theory and orthodox empirical social science. Rather than trying to combine these two approaches, feminist critical theory offers an alternative approach to standard political research methods. The central concerns of critical feminists with the social conditions of inclusion and democratic participation, the forms of power that can invade theory and practice in politics, and the need to create an ‘undistorted space’ in which the voice of those subjected to injustice can be heard, predispose it towards an applied approach to normative theory, while at the same time remaining highly attuned to the possible conservative implications of such a move. This dual focus has led many feminist critical theorists to endorse a dialogical approach. In this article, we detail this approach and recommend it as a resource to mainstream political theorists.
... The primary factor behind the absence of women in high-level negotiations is the inherent structure of the peace process, which has been predominantly led by elites and operates in a closed manner, maintaining entrenched "gendered relations of power" (Kirby and Shepherd 2021;Squires and Weldes 2007;Reiter 2015). For a long time, it was not clear who exactly was involved in the negotiation team at the highest level (Interview (30) public sector/IO/CSO, Yerevan. ...
Since 2020, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh has intensified, culminating in a 44-day war in 2020 and an Azerbaijani military offensive in September 2023 when Azerbaijan reclaimed control over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory. This has ushered in a new phase of the Karabakh peace process amidst a transformed security landscape in the Caucasus. Against the background of a more general reconceptualization of Armenia’s role in the region, shifting away from its traditional alliance with Russia towards closer ties with the West, the article examines the role of women in Armenia in this peace process and their postwar opportunities for agency. The analysis reveals that women’s substantive inclusion in Armenia’s peace process remains limited due to (1) elite-dominated hard power negotiation structures and militarized discourses, (2) societal and economic factors, and (3) “self-exclusion” of women and the need for empowerment. Despite these challenges, the article identifies opportunities for women to assert agency in Armenia’s new security environment, contributing to a more effective, sustainable, and inclusive peace process.
... Notwithstanding recent editorial commitments (Editorial, 2022), gender studies appears to have been a peripheral part of the journal. Special issues in 2004 and 2007 (Randall and Lovenduski (2004) on 'Gender in British Politics'; Squires and Weldes (2007) on 'Gender and International Relations', respectively) explain the small spikes in Diagram 1 (above) but did not generate additional subsequent sub-field representation. The reasons for this are complex and contested. ...
This article reflects on the past, present and future of the BJPIR through a content analysis of all 999 articles that have been published in the journal between its launch in April 1999 and the latest issue in May 2024. By charting ‘core’, ‘secondary’ and ‘peripheral’ pools of scholarship, this reveals a politics of journal content which, in turn, can be used to raise critical questions concerning shifting intellectual boundaries and a changing socio-political context. More specifically, the results of the content analysis focus attention on the twin-themes of flexibility and reflexivity in journal publishing. The central argument emerging from this analysis is that if the BJPIR is to continue along its highly successful trajectory, then it may well need to embrace greater flexibility in terms of reaching beyond political science and international relations, while engaging with greater reflexivity as to societal linkage and relevance.
... En el caso de la política exterior, la atención se centra en cuestiones fuera de las fronteras de un estado-nación y se dirige a entidades fuera de la jurisdicción política del estado en su búsqueda de autoayuda, supervivencia, seguridad y su maximización de los intereses nacionales definidos en términos de poder (Aggestam et al., 2019). La política exterior implica actores estatales y relaciones interestatales que aún tienen lugar dentro de la ausencia de un gobierno formal (Squires y Welders, 2007). Kantola (2007) destaca que el Estado es visto como soberano y como un solo actor sin problemas que se esfuerza por asegurar su propia existencia en el mundo anárquico. ...
América del Norte es, sin duda, el área económica más importante del mundo, principalmente
por el papel que juegan los Estados Unidos a nivel mundial en todos los
ámbitos. No obstante, Canadá es también un jugador relevante en la arena internacional
y está catalogado como una de las principales economías del mundo. Quizás,
México es el integrante del bloque que se pensaría no tiene un rol sobresaliente
e influyente a nivel mundial. Sin embrago, es la 15° economía del mundo, con el
mayor número de tratados comerciales y quizás más importante, es el principal socio
comercial de Estados Unidos, lo que le ha permitido fortalecer cadenas productivas
en sectores como el automotriz, aeroespacial y agroindustrial.
... En el caso de la política exterior, la atención se centra en cuestiones fuera de las fronteras de un estado-nación y se dirige a entidades fuera de la jurisdicción política del estado en su búsqueda de autoayuda, supervivencia, seguridad y su maximización de los intereses nacionales definidos en términos de poder (Aggestam et al., 2019). La política exterior implica actores estatales y relaciones interestatales que aún tienen lugar dentro de la ausencia de un gobierno formal (Squires y Welders, 2007). Kantola (2007) destaca que el Estado es visto como soberano y como un solo actor sin problemas que se esfuerza por asegurar su propia existencia en el mundo anárquico. ...
La integración regional de América del Norte ha encontrado en los últimos 30 años un camino propio de crecimiento y desarrollo, no sin grandes retos y dificultades, como ninguna otra región en el hemisferio. Canadá, Estados Unidos y México han intensificado sus relaciones comerciales a partir de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN). Norteamérica constituye un espacio natural para la integración, lleno de amplias interacciones en diferentes dimensiones y niveles. El nuevo Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá (TMEC), tras una compleja renegociación entre los tres países, profundiza y consolida una nueva era de las relaciones económicas, políticas, sociales y comerciales, con una mayor interdependencia y compromiso. Esta obra explora, a través de diferentes capítulos temáticos de autores de distintas disciplinas, la importancia para el futuro y las prospectivas del proceso de integración de la región en el siglo XXI.
... Gender studies and feminist inquiry do, however, remain marginal even within the broader social sciences and are more likely to feature in special issues or dedicated gender-focused journals than to form a routine part of mainstream publications and outlets. This suggests that gender is still seen as peripheral to core issues in subjects ranging from international relations to management (Squires and Weldes, 2007;Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011). However, the work of researchers in these and other fields over the last 40 years has led to the establishment of diverse and well-developed theoretical frameworks and an array of studies that show that gender is not just a variable in research but a fundamental aspect of social practice, something that is continually "done" and performed through social interaction, with profound consequences for all of us (Butler, 2004;Sang, 2016;Ahmed, 2017). ...
Purpose
To introduce critical gender theory to events studies and set an agenda for research in this area. This paper focuses on various contexts, approaches and applications for “doing gender” in critical event studies. It draws upon interdisciplinary frameworks to develop robust theoretical ways of interrogating issues related to power and structural inequalities in events contexts.
Design/methodology/approach
A conceptual discussion of “doing gender” and critical gender theory and review of relevant research in this area within event studies. Adopting feminist and intersectional perspectives and applying them to events environments has potential to inform current theoretical developments and wider sector practices, and, ultimately, change the dominant heteronormative patriarchal paradigm of the experiential landscape.
Findings
Event studies has been slow to engage with gender theory and gender-aware research, to the detriment of theoretical and practical development within the field.
Research limitations/implications
A call for more gender-aware research within event studies. The goal of this paper is to galvanise gender-aware events research to centralise the marginalised and amplify feminist voices in critical event studies. Feminist and gender-aware frameworks encourage researchers to be critical and to question the underlying power structures and discourses that shape practices, behaviours and interactions. This creates new pathways to find ways to overcome inequalities, which can improve overall events praxis.
Originality/value
The paper introduces critical gender theory as a fruitful framework for future events research. It is an under-researched area of study, representing a significant gap in ways of theorising and representing different aspects of events. We argue it is imperative that researchers take up the challenge of incorporating feminist and/or gender-aware frameworks within their research as a matter of routine.
... Feminist critics of the Frankfurt school approach advocated by Hoffman (1988) had already argued that seeking a synoptic 'Critical' next stage in the collective disciplinary conversation invariably meant that someone and some purpose would be rendered supplementary (Whitworth, 1989). Critical scholars often express the belief that they are more nuanced about international issues than their 'mainstream' peers, but the practical result of bringing 'critical' IR theories into nuancing dialogue with other IR theories has most often been to reinforce settled problematisations and methods of interrogation (Steans, 2003;Squires and Weldes, 2007). Effective critique is targeted at structural elements of other theories (Healy, 2017), so the injunction to 'be more nuanced' must sometimes work in the opposite direction to critique. ...
This article argues that ‘Critical International Relations’, often counterpoised to ‘mainstream IR’, has come to function as a major theoretical category in its own right. It argues that critique involves ‘minor theorising’, defined as the practice of disturbing settled theoretical assumptions in the discipline. The article examines the role and significance of ‘minor theories’ in the context of ongoing debates about Critical IR. It argues that critique is defined by context, and is politically and ethically ambiguous. The article concludes that the scope for critique could be advanced if the terms ‘Critical IR’ and ‘Critical IR Scholar’ are dropped from scholarly parlance.
... The framing of paradigm as a "committed" choice in the TRIP study itself reflects an epistemological view of theory as a paradigmatic commitment, rather than theory as dynamically generating hypotheses and being informed by scholarship. Judith Squires and Jutta Weldes (2007) argue that the British gender and international relations subfield characterizes itself neither as a subfield nor as marginal from the mainstream of IR, because gendered analysis increasingly takes place as part of the field. The implication is that feminism as an IR approach may not be separated out from other approaches, such as constructivism, Marxism, liberalism, or even realism, as it is in the TRIP survey. ...
In this essay we use a basic feminist analytical tool, intersectionality, to understand why we do not see more women across the spectrum and at all levels in the international relations field in the United States. Our intersectional analysis reveals that to understand why women are underrepresented in IR, we should not look harder at women in IR but rather at IR as a discipline.
... See also the "Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics" sections published in Politics & Gender, on women's political representation and "critical mass" (2006), state feminism (2007), and gender quotas (2005, 2006). 19 Squires and Weldes 2007, 188.20 Squires and Weldes suggest that, in international relations in the UK and the US, there is an identifiable center, both in terms of subject (a focus on "co-operation and conflict among states under anarchy") and of persons; see their discussion of academic audits of feminist IR, gendered IR and mainstream IR;Squires and Weldes 2007, 194. See also Zalewski 2007. ...
What do we mean by a comparative politics of gender? How would a comparative politics of gender advance our understanding of politics generally? What would it take to develop a gendered comparative political analysis? In the essays that follow, Teri Caraway, Louise Chappell, Leslie Schwindt-Bayer, and Aili Mari Tripp elaborate their understandings of a comparative politics of gender. Five additional essays focus specifically on issues of democratization (Lisa Baldez, Georgina Waylen), political institutions and representation (Mili Caul Kittilson, Mona Lena Krook), and comparative sex equality policies (Mala Htun and Laurel Weldon). In this introductory essay, I discuss what I mean by "gender" in the context of comparative politics. Briefly enumerating the advantages of comparative politics as a subfield for a gendered analysis of political phenomena, I discuss how a comparative politics of gender can serve to advance our understanding of politics generally, and I provide an example of subfield research-the study of political violence-where gender as a metaconcept may be particularly useful. I conclude by considering what it would mean to our study of gender and of comparative politics to place gender as a central concept in comparative political research and to move to a comparative politics of gender.
The Plymouth shooting in August 2021 attracted worldwide attention after media outlets reported on it as ‘incel violence’. By examining misogynist incels’ discussions of the shooting, the perpetrator’s YouTube videos, and media reportage by five UK newspapers, this article takes a critical look at newspapers’ representations of the shooting. While the perpetrator did not unambiguously self-describe to the incel identity, and misogynist incels were divided on the perpetrator’s incel status, the newspapers saw the attack as the spread of ‘incel culture’. This indicates that the media plays a role in the public imagination of misogynist incels. The article argues that the concept of incel violence risks overshadowing other forms of misogynistic violence in society through how the misogynist incel is imagined in public discourse which, consequently, impacts our understanding of misogyny. This article contributes to our understanding of how public discourse forms representations of gender-based violence in Britain.
With the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, security perception in the South Caucasus has been impacted considerably and this has highlighted the need for the international community to pay increased attention to unresolved, “frozen” conflicts. Against this background and the call for an effective and inclusive peace process in Georgia, the article focuses in particular on the inclusion of women in the Georgian peace process. By conducting document analysis and triangulating the findings with original interview data from thirty-one semi-structured interviews conducted in Tbilisi in spring 2023, the article argues that women's substantive inclusion in Georgia's peace processes continues to be limited and that the influence of women remains mostly on track II and III channels. It finds that the following reasons explain this continued exclusion: (1) elite-dominated hard power negotiation structures, (2) cultural factors, (3) the need for empowerment and linking the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) and Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) agendas, and (4) insufficient implementation of commitments made to include women under the existing policy and legal framework. Aiming to spell out the multiple reasons underpinning the exclusion, this article speaks to the importance of ensuring more effective, sustainable, and inclusive peace processes in Georgia and beyond.
The Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda is a global peace and security architecture conventionally understood as emerging from a suite of UN Security Council resolutions and accompanying member state action plans over the last twenty years. The agenda serves as a major international gender equality initiative in its own right and as a prominent example of the broadening of security practices in global politics. In this paper, we present the first truly systematic analysis of the agenda, drawing on a novel dataset of 213 WPS policy documents from across the UN system, national government initiatives, and regional and international organizations published between 2000 and 2018. We argue that the degree of variation in the WPS agenda is frequently underestimated in conventional models of norm diffusion and policy transfer, and instead propose an account of the agenda as a dynamic ecosystem shaped by reproduction and contestation. Our empirical mapping runs counter to established narratives about the development of the agenda, producing insights into the pace and location of the growth of WPS; the hierarchy of its key “pillars”; the emergence of new issues; the development of rival versions of the agenda; and the role of domestic institutions in shaping WPS policy. We find support for the claim that the WPS agenda is pluralizing in significant ways and provide illustrations of points of fracture within the agenda at large. Our argument has significant implications for the WPS research agenda and for scholarship on security norms and policy more broadly.
Women’s political status and the political relationships between the sexes were transformed between the two world wars. Not only did women become British citizens with the vote if they were over 30 in 1918 and on equal terms with men in 1928, but the politically motivated among them seized every opportunity for women to exercise influence in international affairs and through international bodies. Much hope was invested in women to heal a world profoundly wounded by a war of annihilation, to reform the culture of international relations, to democratize diplomacy, to educate the next generation to abhor war, and to remake the world in their own feminine image and as an alternative to male aggression. The tone was set during the war. In April 1915 radical women from 12 countries, belligerent and neutral, met at The Hague for a congress that is widely regarded as the inauguration of feminist pacifist internationalism. Its British Committee held its first congress in London that October at which it ratified its manifesto. The document articulated the maternalist anti-militarist principles that were to underpin women’s aspirations in international politics post-war: “Since women are in a special sense the custodians of life, we are determined that we will no longer consent to political social conditions involving the reckless destruction of life either in peace or in war.”
The study of the roles of men and women during violent conflicts and postconflict situations has traditionally restricted the experiences of women to those of victims, and those of men to violent perpetrators. This paper adopts a feminist constructivist approach to explore how traditional gender discourses have sustained the victimisation of women and the association of violence with men in the roles of aggressors and protectors. Throughout the case study of the Rwandan genocide, this research illustrates gender stereotypes tend to ignore on the one hand the role of women as violent perpetrators, and on the other hand, the victim status of men during conflicts. This study attempts to show experiences of Rwandan women were not limited to those of victims, but they planned and participated in genocidal violence and abuses. Additionally, and also contrary to traditional gender discourses, Rwandan men compromised the first targets of violence during the conflict. This thesis concludes that a broader and deeper understanding of conflict studies and ultimately world politics can be acquired by challenging traditional gender discourses, and investigating and recognizing the multifaceted experiences of women and men in conflict and post-conflict situations.Keywords: victimisation, violence, masculinity, femininity, “beautiful souls”, “just warriors”, passivity, agency.Resumen. El estudio de los roles de hombres y mujeres durante situaciones de conflictos y de los escenarios post-conflicto, tradicionalmente ha restringido las experiencias de las mujeres a las de las víctimas, y las de los hombres a los perpetradores de violencia. Este documento adopta un enfoque constructivista feminista para explorar cómo los discursos tradicionales de género han sostenido por un lado, la victimización de las mujeres, y por otro lado, la asociación de la violencia con los hombres bien sea en su papel de agresores y/o protectores. A lo largo del estudio de caso del genocidio de Ruanda, esta investigación ilustra que en situaciones de conflicto los estereotipos de género tienden a ignorar, por una parte, el papel de las mujeres como perpetradoras violentas y, por otra parte, el estatus de víctima de los hombres. Este estudio intenta mostrar que las experiencias de las mujeres ruandesas no se limitaron únicamente a las de las víctimas, sino que planificaron y participaron de manera active en la violencia y abusos genocidas. Además, y también en contra de los discursos de género tradicionales, los hombres de Ruanda conformaron los primeros objetivos y víctimas de la violencia durante el conflicto. Esta tesis concluye que se puede adquirir una comprensión más amplia y profunda de los estudios de conflicto y, en última instancia, de la política mundial, desafiando los discursos tradicionales de género e investigando y reconociendo las experiencias multifacéticas de mujeres y hombres en situaciones de conflicto y posconflicto.Palabras clave: victimización, violencia, masculinidad, femininidad, “almas hermosas”, “guerreros justos”, pasividad, agencia.
Resumen. El arte, en este caso la pintura, constituye una fuente histórica que permite el estudio de la situación de las mujeres en determinados contextos históricos. Ninguna obra es creada de forma inocente, sino que está condicionada por la mirada de la persona que la produce. La pintura, en su dimensión vitalista, comprende una respuesta estética a una realidad en la que infieren de forma consciente o inconsciente la identidad del artista, así como el espacio político, social y económico en el que se desarrolla. De la misma forma ocurre con la repetición de temáticas y modelos de representación, no aluden a simples modas, ya que se generan en una sociedad determinada. Por tanto, a través del análisis de obras protagonizadas por mujeres se pretende mostrar los modelos femeninos que prevalecen en España en la década de 1920, época significativa respecto a la cuestión femenina. Así como la importancia de la mirada de el/la artista a la hora de representar figuras femeninas. Mientras que los artistas varones siguen situando a las mujeres como objetos de representación, las mujeres usan el arte como medio reivindicativo, situándose como sujetos creadores.Palabras clave: arte, mujeres, iconografía, España, años veinte.Abstract. Art, in this case paint, is a historical source that allows the study of the situation of women in certain historical contexts. No piece of art is created innocently; moreover, the perspective of the person who creates it conditions it. Painting, in its vitality dimension, comprises an aesthetic response to a reality in which consciously or unconsciously the identity of the artist, political, social and economic space infer. Something similar happens with the repetition of topics and models of representation, which do not refer to mere fashions, mostly because they are generated in a given society. Therefore, through the analysis of works that feature women, the objective is to show female models prevailing in Spain in the 1920s, as well as the importance of the perspective of the artist, both male and female, when representing female figures. While male artists continue using women as objects of representation, women use art as a means of protest, portraying themselves as creative subjects.Keywords: art, women, iconography, Spain, 1920s.
This chapter reviews the core conceptual metaphors in some of the major paradigms in the study of IR. It explores how efforts in Realist theory to rely on social science methods often ignore conceptual metaphors that are intrinsic to its approach. The chapter also investigates the role of domestic interests as a metaphorical concept in Liberal theory and the metaphors of norms and taboos in the Constructivist paradigm. The relative lack of metaphors in Feminist theory is examined in terms of the paradigm’s emphasis on ontologies and epistemologies that are broader than those encountered in other major schools of thought. The chapter also reflects on how metaphors delineate a division between theories of IR and foreign policy analysis.
Neoliberal institutionalism represents the fourth phase in the development of the liberal institutionalism theory. Unlike the previous ones, at this stage of development, theorists focus on international institutions as independent actors in international relations, which are not only the means for the states to realize their national interests, but also influence internal policy in the countries. Ultimately, this leads to seeing the international relations outside the realistic ?self-help principle? as ones defining the behavior of states. The ambiguity in the further positioning of neoliberal institutionalism is regarding the phenomenon of global governance. The global governance is becoming reality. Because of this, states are often forced to act beyond their particular interests, giving priority to solving problems through international institutions. However, this largely does not happen due to state decisions, but thanks to the activities of non-state actors. Although the international politics stay state-centered, nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations have more influence in overcoming anarchy through global governance and the establishment of rules of the game in certain areas of life. For neoliberal institutionalism, this presents somewhat a challenge. The development of the fourth phase of the liberal institutionalism will depend on future explanations regarding the relation to global governance.
The paper analyses the general features of the ongoing debate within the feminist approach to the International Relations studies with the aim to discover whether its proponents continue to tear down the traditional norms of this academic discipline at the beginning of the 21st century, to give innovative insights, and to illuminate the power structure hidden in the so-called ?mainstream? IR theories. The paper discusses the most important feminist research questions and topics of the day, the basic feminist argumentation and its genesis, and stresses internal disagreements and criticism towards some theoretical standpoints within the feminist branch of the International Relations discipline. The analysis focuses on research articles and books published in the period 2001-2016 and primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom - the countries where feminist academia is fairly developed in the discipline of International Relations. The author concludes that despite the influence strengthened by the increased number of published research papers, books, and collections of papers in the early 21st century, the proponents of feminist IR theories continue to struggle for their ?place under the Sun? within the mainstream of the International Relations academic community. The epistemological contribution of feminist theories to the International Relations discipline is best seen in regard to their dissident innovations, which ?soften? the traditionally rigid framework of mainstream theory by expanding the list of legitimate research topics and introducing postpositive methodological approaches and techniques.
This book offers an accessible and timely analysis of the 'War on Terror', based on an innovative approach to a broad range of theoretical and empirical research. It uses 'gendered orientalism' as a lens through which to read the relationship between the George W. Bush administration, gendered and racialized military intervention, and global politics. Khalid argues that legitimacy, power, and authority in global politics, and the 'War on Terror' specifically, are discursively constructed through representations that are gendered and racialized, and often orientalist. Looking at the ways in which 'official' US 'War on Terror' discourse enabled military intervention into Afghanistan and Iraq, the book takes a postcolonial feminist approach to broaden the scope of critical analyses of the 'War on Terror' and reflect on the gendered and racial underpinnings of key relations of power within contemporary global politics. This book is a unique, innovative and significant analysis of the operation of race, orientalism, and gender in global politics, and the 'War on Terror' specifically. It will be of great interest to scholars and graduates interested in gender politics, development, humanitarian intervention, international (global) relations, Middle East politics, security, and US foreign policy.
Contributor to Marysia Zalewski, et al., “Roundtable Discussion: Reflections on the Past, Prospects for the Future in Gender and International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37.1 (2008): 153–179.
This paper argues that, despite significant increases in the number of women professors and the growth of feminist political science, transformative change hasn't occurred in how conventional political scientists think about politics. “
Transformative
change” requires the successful mainstreaming of gender-focused knowledge and the use of “gender” as a category of analysis in studies of politics. The article first explores the insights of leading feminist political scientists in the five Anglo-American democracies, about why gender mainstreaming has not succeeded to date. It establishes the extent of the failure and explores its causes, including the discipline's fragmented structure, polarized culture and a number of theoretical and methodological incompatibilities between mainstream and feminist political science. Finally, several promising strategies for achieving transformative change are explored.
This book offers a contemporary intervention in the field of feminism/international relations. Partly inspired by Surrealism, the book is written in a series of vignettes and draws on a variety of approaches inviting readers in to inhabit the text. It is a politically engaged book, though one which does not direct readers in conventional ways, visiting global politics, the classroom, poetry, institutional violence, cartoons, feminist violence, films, violent white men, angry black women, blood and ‘English’ puddings. Working imaginatively with epistemology and methodology, and embedding theory throughout the text, the book can be considered part of the current genre of scholarship which attends to complexity, uncertainty, disruption, affect and the creative possibilities of randomness.
This book combines the sociological exploration of human being in society with an examination of human knowing processes and their justification in the social fabric. It connects this to discussions around race/ethnicity, gender, and class issues. The book brings together these areas of inquiry and explores options for enhancing social research on new racism. Besides offering an in-depth comparison of different definitions of new racism, the book examines a range of research styles that have been used to approach the field, and offers suggestions as to how these can be extended. With careful reference to examples, the book spells out how researchers can take into consideration the potential social impacts of their inquiry approaches. This book provides readers with an overview of debates on new racism, and helps them reconsider methodological and epistemological debates in the social sciences and their implications for social and political practice.
Drawing on feminist research methodologies and theory, this article recentres critical security studies to focus on a migrant seeking an alternative form of security after his application for asylum was denied by the state. The two main objectives of this article are; first, to resituate a failed asylum seeker, Qasim, as an agent of international security as understood through his practice of seeking and obtaining security; and, second, to demonstrate a revised performative conceptualization of security through understanding the failed asylum seeker as practicing an embodied theorization of security. The encounter with Qasim shows alternative means of seeking security, which illustrates agency on the part of the migrant that exists actively outside of the state. This contests the positioning of migrants as passive victims and recognizes a way of being in the world that by necessity cannot rely on a state-based identity. Ethnographic methods, including participant observation and a narrative interview with Qasim, elucidate his practice of security and allow for the development of a theoretical conceptualization of security that remains true to a failed asylum seeker's practice in the UK.
In 2007, the
British Journal of Politics and International Relations
(
BJPIR
) devoted an issue to gendering International Relations. It opens with Cynthia Enloe addressing the ‘politics of casual forgetting’. I investigate this notion of casual forgetting using a framework informed by postcolonial and feminist scholarship. Working with ideas drawn from critiques of Orientalism and neoliberalism, I examine knowledge practices that centre binaries as forms of objectivity that disembed phenomena from context, and as forms of over-simplification that flatten the appearance of complexity. Together, these practices have a depoliticising effect; they obscure contestation, situate hierarchy as natural, and separate analysis from its embeddedness in historical and political conditions, even in work guided by critical agendas. I trace these depoliticising practices in a conversation in the 2007 Special Issue of
BJPIR
and show that Enloe's comments present a push for critical analysis that was overlooked by the Special Issue's editors in their attempt to more clearly delineate the subdiscipline of Gender and International Relations (IR) as distinct from feminist IR. This article suggests that Enloe's plea is effectively one for ‘active remembering’ as a way to render visible the insidious forms of power that give a stable appearance to categories of social phenomena.
Rape is a weapon of war. This now common claim reveals wartime sexual violence as a social act marked by gendered power. But this consensus also obscures important, and frequently unacknowledged, differences in ways of understanding and explaining it. This article opens these differences to analysis. It interprets feminist accounts of wartime sexual violence in terms of modes of critical explanation and differentiates three modes - of instrumentality, unreason and mythology - which implicitly structure different understandings of how rape might be a weapon of war. These modes shape political and ethical projects and so impact not only on questions of scholarly content but also on the ways in which we attempt to mitigate and abolish war rape. Exposing these disagreements opens up new possibilities for the analysis of war rape.
The history of foreign policy and especially the Munich Crisis of 1938–1939 have been viewed from various angles but never from the points of view of gender and feminism. This has been a significant oversight in the scholarship, especially as there were many prominent women politicians who were heavily invested in the appeasement debate, and because the majority of feminist organisations became increasingly preoccupied with foreign affairs and the specific effect of dictatorship on women. This article explores how British feminists responded to the policy and the fallout of appeasement in the late 1930s; how the British branch of the most prominent transnational feminist pacifist organisation, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) made the transition from peace, to Crisis, to war; before focusing on two intertwined biographical case studies of Kathleen Courtney and Maude Royden. There were various responses and dramatic fluctuations in positioning in the years leading to the world war, with many feminists struggling to come to terms with the intellectual, emotional and psychological shift from feminist-informed internationalism and pacifism to a rejection of appeasement and support for the war effort. Both Courtney and Royden had spent the two preceding decades in the forefront of the feminist pacifist movement, and the rise of Nazi Germany, the international crisis and then the Second World War itself forced each to resituate herself and make psychologically and ideologically wrenching decisions.
After 9/11, images of the Middle Eastern or Muslim ‘Other’ have been highly visible in the Western world. Although published 30 years ago, Edward Said's Orientalism provides a useful critical lens through which to examine how these images function in War on Terror discourses. Feminist IR scholars have also highlighted the role gendered representations play in War on Terror discourse, and ‘orientalism’ as a tool of critical analysis must account for this. Using a concept of ‘gendered orientalism’ and applying it to three particularly prominent images from the War on Terror, I illustrate how gendered and orientalist logics in official and unofficial War on Terror discourses construct masculinities and femininities according to race, manipulating and deploying representations of the ‘Other’ to justify military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In this article we critically consider the idea that feminism has performatively failed within the discipline of International Relations. One aspect of this failure relates to the production of sexgender through feminism which we suggest is partly responsible for a weariness inflecting feminist scholarship, in particular as a critical theoretical resource. We reflect on this weariness in the context of the study and practice of international politics – arenas still reaping the potent benefits of the virile political energies reverberating since 9/11. To illustrate our arguments we re-count a familiar feminist fable of militarisation – a story which we use to exemplify how the production of feminist IR is ‘set’ up to ‘fail’. In so doing we clarify our depiction of feminism as seemingly haunted by its inherent paradoxes as well as explaining why it matters to discuss feminism within the locale of the academic study of international politics. We conclude with a consideration of the grammar of temporality that delimits representations of feminism and move to recast feminist failure as aporetic and concomitantly implicated in the process of intervening politically.
What accounts for the glaring inattention to work on gender within mainstream political science? Part of the problem lies in the substance of scholarship itself. The concepts, central questions, and key variables that predominate in the mainstream literature on comparative democratization and in the literature on gender and democratization have contributed to the gulf between them. But a more fundamental explanation lies in the starting assumptions of scholars in the two camps. Mainstream scholars rarely question whether gender is relevant to politics, and gender scholars rarely question whether gender isn't relevant to politics. I illustrate some ways in which gender could be incorporated into mainstream work, and discuss how gender research could be made more broadly comparative.
I ask whether comparative politics of gender (CPG) can maintain its normative roots in concerns related to social justice as it moves increasingly away from its interdisciplinary moorings in gender/women's studies and gravitates toward disciplinary concerns. I call for a broad framework for CPG, examining 1) the range and relevance of the questions we ask, the utility of interdisciplinarity, and the range of methods employed; 2) the research collaborations we develop, especially outside of the US–Europe nexus; 3) the way our work is disseminated; and 4) how it engages the policy and practitioner community.
I am convinced at every turn that the international is personal, and the personal is international too.†
Feminist International Relations (IR) scholarship has a small, but significant, presence in the Australian IR discipline. This presence, now over two decades old, has made important contributions to the re-thinking of the agenda, methodology and ambitions of Australian IR. This article offers a guide to tracing the impact of feminist scholarship in the Australian IR discipline. It begins with an overview of feminist IR generally, and then moves to identify the work of Australian scholars in this field. It demonstrates the pioneering breadth and scope of this work and pays tribute to the scholars who broke down the traditional barriers of the discipline to reveal the identities, issues, and ways of thinking about world politics that had been previously unexplored. It doing so, it analyses feminist impact on the core of the discipline as well as its work on expanding the boundaries of IR. It will argue that, in Australia, feminist IR scholarship is often (though not exclusively) located within the pockets of scholarship committed to exploring critical approaches. However, this article also recognises that the discipline of International Relations in Australia has not always been welcoming of feminist insights and contributions. With this in mind, this article turns to the challenges and debates that face feminist IR both within the discipline and without, with a focus particularly on the dialogue between “critical feminism” and “mainstream International Relations”.
Ever since feminist voices started to be heard in the field of International Relations (IR) more than two decades ago, the discipline has undergone important changes. These changes unfold at the level of the disciplinary imaginary, which means that our accounts of the legitimate units in the organization of knowledge are unsettled and the center–periphery topography of the discipline is reconfigured. By reflecting on the case of feminist knowledge production in IR, I propose a rethinking of the encounter orthodoxy-meets-heterodoxy, which allows us to conceive of heterodoxy as an active part, one that does and is not only being done. Ultimately, this contributes to the understanding of the creation of novelty in contemporary intellectual fields, and it recovers feminists in IR as reflexive artisans devising local modes of subversive action.
This article considers contrasts and continuities in feminist IR scholarship over the past twenty years. It traces various shifts in the substantive and methodological concerns of feminist IR in the decade between 1988 and 1998. It concludes with some reflections on the extent to which the agenda for feminist IR scholars in 2008 remains continuous with the last twenty years and the extent to which it has changed or is likely to change.
This book provides a major review of the state of international theory. It is focused around the issue of whether the positivist phase of international theory is now over, or whether the subject remains mainly positivistic. Leading scholars analyse the traditional theoretical approaches in the discipline, then examine the issues and groups which are marginalised by mainstream theory, before turning to four important new developments in international theory (historical sociology, post-structuralism, feminism, and critical theory). The book concludes with five chapters which look at the future of the subject and the practice of international relations. This survey brings together key figures who have made leading contributions to the development of mainstream and alternative theory, and will be a valuable text for both students and scholars of international relations.
A distinct subfield of international relations, IPE, has emerged over the last thirty years, largely in the pages of International Organization . IPE began with the study of international political economy, but over time its boundaries have been set more by a series of theoretical debates than by subject matter. These debates have been organized around points of contestation between specific research programs, reflecting fundamental differences among the generic theoretical orientations in which these research programs are embedded. The fate of specific research programs has depended on their ability to specify cause and effect relationships and to operationalize relevant variables. Scholarship in IPE has become more sophisticated both methodologically and theoretically, and many of its insights have been incorporated into policy discussions. Past points of contestation, including those between realism and its liberal challengers and between various conceptions of domestic structure and international relations, help us to understand recent debates between rationalism and constructivism.
This book provides a major review of the state of international theory. It is focused around the issue of whether the positivist phase of international theory is now over, or whether the subject remains mainly positivistic. Leading scholars analyse the traditional theoretical approaches in the discipline, then examine the issues and groups which are marginalised by mainstream theory, before turning to four important new developments in international theory (historical sociology, post-structuralism, feminism, and critical theory). The book concludes with five chapters which look at the future of the subject and the practice of international relations. This survey brings together key figures who have made leading contributions to the development of mainstream and alternative theory, and will be a valuable text for both students and scholars of international relations.
This book examines the place of women within ethnic and national communities in nine different societies, and the ways in which the state intervenes in their lives. Contributions from a group of scholars examine the situations in their religious, economic and historical context.
Recent years have seen the naming of men as men. Men have become the subject of growing political, academic and policy debates; in some respects this is not new; there have been previous periods of debate on men, and then, in a different sense, much of politics, research and policy has always been about men, often overwhelmingly so. What is new, however, is that these debates are now more explicit, more gendered, more varied and sometimes more critical. At their base is the assumption that men, like women, are not ‘just naturally like this’ or ‘just bound to be that way’, but rather are the result of historical, political, economic, social and cultural forces.
Listening to the language of defense intellectuals reveals the emotional currents in this emphatically male discourse. But learning the language shows how thinking can become abstract, focusing on the survival of weapons rather than the survival of human beings.
This work touches on nearly twenty years of men's responses to the challenges of feminism. Men have responded in very different ways, partly depending upon class, race, and ethnic background. Heterosexual men have had to respond to the phenomenon of gay liberation, so learning about the power men share both in relation to other men and to women: this has often produced fear and guilt, as many reacted defensively, unable to listen or to hear. The response to feminism has been a slow and difficult process, in which many men have sought to identify with feminism rather than to change themselves. In the 1970s it was easier to think that men getting together to share their experience in the context of consciousness-raising had to be a consolidation of men's power in relation to women. It was easier to learn to say the right things, than to explore the contradictions of our experience as men.
It was not long after the election of a record number of women to the House of Commons in 1997 that the backlash began. The criticism was all-encompassing: they wore the wrong clothes, they voted the wrong way and they were concerned with the wrong issues. Above all, they were accused of failing to make difference, to have failed women, and were dismissed by some as 'Blair's Babes'. Drawing on in-depth interviews with more than half of the new Labour women MPs, Sarah Childs reveals how these women actually experienced being MPs, and explores whether they acted for and like women - in their constituencies, in parliament and in government. She presents important insights into theories of women's political representation, showing that the relationship between women's descriptive and substantive representation is complicated, that party and gender identities are crucial, that women's differences must be acknowledged and that it might not always be possible for women representatives to act for women even if they want to. Including a key section on women's selection for parliament; whether women MPs act as role models; why it is important that women should be present in politics; as well as exploring in depth the subject of women's substantive representation, New Labour's Women MPs is essential reading for all those interested in women and politics, legislative studies, political behaviour and representation.
Moving beyond a narrow definition of economics, this pioneering book advances our knowledge of global political economy and how we might critically respond to it. V. Spike Peterson clearly shows how two key features of the global economy increasingly determine everyday lives worldwide. The first is explosive growth in financial markets that shape business decision-making and public policy-making, and the second is dramatic growth in informal and flexible work arrangements that shape income-generation and family wellbeing. These developments, though widely recognized, are rarely analyzed as inextricable and interacting dimensions of globalization. Using a new theoretical model, Peterson demonstrates the interdependence of reproductive, productive and virtual economies and analyzes inequalities of race, gender, class and nation as structural features of neoliberal globalization. Presenting a methodologically plural, cross-disciplinary and well-documented account of globalization, the author integrates marginalized and disparate features of globalization to provide an accessible narrative from a postcolonial feminist vantage point.
Those seeking social change confront the centrality of power on a daily basis. What precisely is power and how does it manifest itself? And how are radical and progressive strategies shaped by the ways in which we conceptualize it?
Drawing on feminist, poststructuralist, and Marxist theory, Davina Cooper develops an innovative framework for understanding power relations in forms as diverse as reproductive technology, queer activism, municipal politics, and the regulation of lesbian reproduction. Power in Struggle explores the relationship between power, sexuality, and the state and ultimately provides a radical re-thinking of these concepts and their interactions. Sexual politics, Cooper posits, must recognize the sexualization of everyday life and should not be exclusively the concern of a young, educated elite, nor should sex be shuttered as a private affair.
* List of Tables and Illustrations * Acknowledgments to the Second Edition * Acknowledgments to the First Edition * List of Acronyms * 1. Introduction: The Gender of World Politics * How Lenses Work * Why Global? * Why Gender? * Why Issues? * The Immediacy and Import of Global Gender Issues * Notes About This Text * Mapping the Book * 2. Gender as a Lens on World Politics * Denaturalizing Gender * The Social Construction of Gender and Gender Hierarchy * The Gendered Who, What, and How of World Politics * Gendered Divisions of World Politics * Conclusion * 3. Gendered Divisions of Power * Women as State Actors * How and Why Are These Women Rendered Invisible? * Why So Few? * How Do Women Get to the Top? * What Are the Gender Consequences of Women in Power? * What Makes Actors/Agents Powerful? Who Gets Attention? For What? * Locating Power: Nationally and Internationally * Conclusion * 4. Gendered Divisions of Violence, Labor, and Resources * Violence: War and Security Issues * Labor: Economic Issues * Resources: Equity and Ecology Issues * Conclusion * 5. The Politics of Resistance: Women as Nonstate, Antistate, and Transstate Actors * Women's Movements * Practical and Strategic Gender Interests * Antiwar and Peace Movements * Nationalist and Antinationalist Movements * Economic Movements * Ecology Movements * Conclusion * 6. Ungendering World Politics * Ungendering Power and Politics * Ungendering Violence * Ungendering Labor * Ungendering Resources * Conclusion * Discussion Questions * Notes * Suggested Readings * Websites * Glossary * Index
This article examines the evolution of security studies, focusing on recent developments in the field. It provides a survey of the field, a guide to the current research agenda, and some practical lessons for managing the field in the years ahead. Security studies remains an interdisciplinary enterprise, but its earlier preoccupation with nuclear issues has broadened to include topics such as grand strategy, conventional warfare, and the domestic sources of international conflict, among others. Work in the field is increasingly rigorous and theoretically inclined, which reflects the marriage between security studies and social science and its improved standing within the academic world. Because national security will remain a problem for states and because an independent scholarly community contributes to effective public policy in this area, the renaissance of security studies is an important positive development for the field of international relations.
The demise of the empiricist-positivist promise for a cumulative behavioral science recently has forced scholars from nearly all the social disciplines to reexamine the ontological, epistemological, and axiological foundations of their scientific endeavors. The "third debate" in the field of international relations parallels this intellectual ferment and constitutes a still maturing disciplinary effort to reconsider theoretical options in a "post-positivist" era. This essay explores the etiology of this debate and critically assesses its implications for current and future theoretical practices. Although the debate has triggered many different responses, the analysis focuses on only one of them-the optimistic response-which both affirms and celebrates the unparalleled theoretical potentialities presumably created by the present intellectual transition. While acknowledging the considerable promise of the third debate, the essay notes that post-positivism offers nearly as many dead ends as it opens promising paths for future research. The essay issues some warnings concerning hazards of misplaced or extravagant theoretical hopes, and it singles out enhanced reflexivity in the scholarly community of international relations as the notable contribution to date of the current theoretical restructuring.
To some degree, biology is destiny. The feminist school of international relations has a point: a truly matriarchal world would be less prone to conflict and more cooperative than the one we now inhabit. And world politics has been gradually feminizing over the past century. But the broader scene will still be populated by states led by men like Mobutu, Milošević, or Saddam. If tomorrow's troublemakers are armed with nuclear weapons, we might be better off being led by women like Margaret Thatcher than, say, Gro Harlem Brundtland. Masculine policies will still be essential even in a feminized world.
To understand international cooperation and discord, it is necessary to develop a knowledge of how international institutions work, and how they change. The assumption of substantive rationality has proved a valuable tool in pursuing such knowledge. Recently, the intellectual predominance of the rationalistic approach has been challenged by a "reflective" approach, which stresses the impact of human subjectivity and the embeddedness of contemporary international institutions in pre-existing practices. Confronting these approaches with one another helps to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of each. Advocates of the reflective approach make telling points about rationalistic theory, but have so far failed to develop a coherent research program of their own. A critical comparison of rationalistic and reflective views suggests hypotheses and directions for the development of better-formulated rationalist and reflective research programs, which could form the basis for historically and theoretically grounded empirical research, and perhaps even for an eventual synthesis of the two perspectives.
A distinct subfield of international relations, IPE, has emerged over the last thirty years, largely in the pages of International Organization. IPE began with the study of international political economy, but over time its boundaries have been set more by a series of theoretical debates than by subject matter. These debates have been organized around points of contestation between specific research programs, reflecting fundamental differences among the generic theoretical orientations in which these research programs are embedded. The fate of specific research programs has depended on their ability to specify cause and effect relationships and to operationalize relevant variables. Scholarship in IPE has become more sophisticated both methodologically and theoretically, and many of its insights have been incorporated into policy discussions. Past points of contestation, including those between realism and its liberal challengers and between various conceptions of domestic structure and international relations, help us to understand recent debates between rationalism and constructivism.
Over the last two decades, women have organized against the almost routine violence that shapes their lives. Drawing from the strength of shared experience, women have recognized that the political demands of millions speak more powerfully than the pleas of a few isolated voices. This politicization in turn has transformed the way we understand violence against women. For example, battering and rape, once seen as private (family matters) and aberrational (errant sexual aggression), are now largely recognized as part of a broad-scale system of domination that affects women as a class. This process of recognizing as social and systemic what was formerly perceived as isolated and individual has also characterized the identity politics of people of color and gays and lesbians, among others. For all these groups, identity-based politics has been a source of strength, community, and intellectual development. The embrace of identity politics, however, has been in tension with dominant conceptions of social justice. Race, gender, and other identity categories are most often treated in mainstream liberal discourse as vestiges of bias or domination-that is, as intrinsically negative frameworks in which social power works to exclude or marginalize those who are different. According to this understanding, our liberatory objective should be to empty such categories of any social significance. Yet implicit in certain strands of feminist and racial liberation movements, for example, is the view that the social power in delineating difference need not be the power of domination; it can instead be the source of political empowerment and social reconstruction. The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite- that it frequently conflates or ignores intra group differences. In the context of violence against women, this elision of difference is problematic, fundamentally because the violence that many women experience is often shaped by other dimensions of their identities, such as race and class. Moreover, ignoring differences within groups frequently contributes to tension among groups, another problem of identity politics that frustrates efforts to politicize violence against women. Feminist efforts to politicize experiences of women and antiracist efforts to politicize experiences of people of color' have frequently proceeded as though the issues and experiences they each detail occur on mutually exclusive terrains. Al-though racism and sexism readily intersect in the lives of real people, they seldom do in feminist and antiracist practices. And so, when the practices expound identity as "woman" or "person of color" as an either/or proposition, they relegate the identity of women of color to a location that resists telling. My objective here is to advance the telling of that location by exploring the race and gender dimensions of violence against women of color. Contemporary feminist and antiracist discourses have failed to consider the intersections of racism and patriarchy. Focusing on two dimensions of male violence against women-battering and rape-I consider how the experiences of women of color are frequently the product of intersecting patterns of racism and sexism, and how these experiences tend not to be represented within the discourse of either feminism or antiracism... Language: en
Haraway's discussions of how scientists have perceived the sexual nature of female primates opens a new chapter in feminist theory, raising unsettling questions about models of the family and of heterosexuality in primate research.
In recent years, a great deal has been written about a `constructivist' approach in International Relations, which argues that international reality is socially constructed by cognitive structures that give meaning to the material world. Nevertheless, most of the epistemological, theoretical, empirical and methodological foundations of constructivism remain unclear. Nor are its potential contributions to a better understanding of International Relations widely appreciated. The present article seeks to fill some of these gaps. Constructivism occupies the middle ground between rationalist approaches (whether realist or liberal) and interpretive approaches (mainly postmodernist, poststructuralist and critical), and creates new areas for theoretical and empirical investigation. The bulk of the article lays out the social-epistemological basis of the constructivist approach; juxtaposes constructivism to rationalism and poststructuralism and explains its advantages; presents the concept of cognitive evolution as a way of explaining the social construction of reality; and suggests ways of expanding constructivist research agendas.
International politics is a man’s world, a world of power and conflict in which warfare is a privileged activity. Traditionally, diplomacy, military service, and the science of international politics have been largely male domains. In the past, women have rarely been included in the ranks of professional diplomats or the military: of the relatively few women who specialize in the academic discipline of international relations, few are security specialists. Women political scientists who do international relations tend to focus on areas such as international political economy, North-South relations and matters of distributive justice.
