“THE GENDER DIMENSION IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS” – Article in the Quarterly Political and Economic Review
“THE GENDER DIMENSION IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS”
Article in the Quarterly Political and Economic Review
“International and European Politics,” issue 5, April 2007
Anna Karamanou
former MEP (Member of the European Parliament)
Gender does not pertain to biological differences, but to the interpretation of the behaviors of men and women, which are linked to culture and civilization (masculinity and femininity, Connel, 1995). Traditional international politics, with its emphasis on security, sovereignty, war, and survival, is the most male-dominated field. The examination of gender highlights the influence of “hegemonic masculinity” on the core of international relations, as well as on the theoretical framework (Goldstein, 2001).
Many scientific approaches argue that gender plays a significant role in understanding international politics and particularly war. These theories aim to change, in theory and practice, the “masculinity” in areas where it operates as an ideology justifying male dominance. The central question is why gender is so obscure in International Relations, since, as many assert, it is a central issue for understanding conflicts?
Maud Eduards (2003) states that “war is a story that talks about men, violence, and aggressive masculinity,” while Peterson (1997) discusses the crisis of “masculinity.” Francis Fukuyama is in a similar vein. With his article«WomenandtheEvolutionofWorldPolitics», (1998), he provoked a storm of comments and opposing opinions because he writes that, “the world as we know it was created by men” and argues that, “if women ruled, the world would be less violent and more conciliatory and cooperative than the one we know today.”
In response to the question of how power is distributed between the genders or who governs the planet today, the data is indisputable: Men make up 95% of heads of state, 96% of ministers, and 94% of senior governmental and intergovernmental positions. Conclusion: Power has a gender!
In the brief analysis that follows, I will support the following working hypothesis: The incorporation of the gender dimension in international politics and the balance of genders in the distribution of power can reduce the tensions created by male hegemony and lead to the resolution of crises through dialogue and the peaceful coexistence of people (Kantian peace).
security, defense, and masculine hegemony
Security and defense institutions play a central role in the field of international relations. Historically, these institutions have almost exclusively included men who produce norms and practices associated with “masculinity” and “hegemonic masculinity,” while simultaneously determining the agenda and the policy of these institutions. Hegemonic power has many facets – military, political, and economic. The military, of course, is the most significant domain for identifying hegemonic masculinity. According to our patriarchal culture, a man’s honor largely depends on his ability to use violence, which is why the word “bravery” is intertwined with heroism, courage in war, and the use of violence (Karamanu, 2003). The top echelons of defense and military institutions provide a fairly convincing sample of “hegemonic manliness,” which has been challenged very little by feminists or dissenting men (Connell, 1995).
In the history of most military institutions, male dominance is considered completely normal. As Connell (1995) argues, “hegemony can only be established if there is a correlation between culture and institutional power.” Nikos Tzifakis (2004) writes that “the traditional approach to security reproduces patriarchal power relations and legitimizes the creation of military organizations in which not only are the acceptable roles that women can play limited, but masculine behavior patterns also prevail, exposing women to the risk of abuse.”
The separation of genders is reproduced through two main mechanisms. One is the identification of human with man (in the French language, human and man are the same word – homme), while in Greek grammar, the masculine often includes the feminine as well! The second mechanism concerns the placement of men and women in two different spheres of activity. In ancient Greece, the man is identified with power and freedom. Aristotle made the distinction between free male citizens and the rest of the population – women, children, and slaves. The life of a man was associated with war against other men, or with intellect. Honor and glory go to him who is “brave, capable, and successful in war or peace.” Virtues for the man were courage, bravery, leadership ability, and intelligence. The only virtues recognized in women were beauty and their unique purpose was childbearing. The public space belonged to men (men are the city) and the private space to women.
Aristotle believed that all relationships are the result of negotiation and balance of power, and he considered it absolutely natural. It is known that competition and rivalry were a central element of Greek life. As Slater notes, “nothing made sense to the Greeks if it did not involve the defeat of someone else.” They competed for anything that could provoke a contest – from beauty, singing, physical strength, poetry, and drinking to the ability to stay awake. This desire for competition, for fame and glory, also extended to the relationships between city-states, and of course, the wars that broke out destroyed them. As is well known, Thucydides – the father of realism – has thoroughly captured both the value system and the strategic doctrine of the Ancient Greeks.
War as a release of male aggression and as a “test of masculinity” has become the subject of particular study. One only needs to read the correspondence of the author DosPassos to be convinced. When he was fighting in France, his letters were filled with passionate violence. He confesses to his friend ArthurMcComb that he had never been as happy as when in the heat of battle: “I constantly feel the need for the intoxication of a great bombardment… there I feel alive, like never before.” In other words, there I feel like a real man… (PeterG. Filene in “XY The Male Identity”, Batinder, 1992). And as PierreBourdieu aptly observes, to praise a man, it is enough to tell him that he is a «man».
From the above, the question arises: is masculinity a biological given or an ideological-social construct? The question confronts the supporters of biological determinism with constructivists, as well as two contemporary feminist trends, one that advocates for absolute dualism and the other that sees similarities and blurry boundaries between the genders. The first viewpoint saw a particular flourishing with the sociobiology founded by E.O. Wilson in 1975. Sociobiological theories argue that hereditary male aggression provides the biological basis for male dominance, hierarchy, competition, and war.
Constructivism denies the view that gender is something uniform, immutable, and based on biology, and opens the way for the idea of the multiplicity of models. If masculinity is learned and constructed, there is no doubt that it can also change. What has been built can be demolished and reconstructed from scratch. The two positions, biological determinism and constructivism, are diametrically opposed. However, the variety of behaviors refutes the supremacy of the biological factor while the diversity of models cannot hinder the common characteristics of the genders.
feminist analysis in international politics
The feminist approach aims at changing and transforming perceptions of global politics. It essentially seeks to understand power: who holds it, on what basis, how it operates, and with what results. It argues that politics and economics concern people, that power is not something abstract, but something that should be understood based on historically formed social relations, in time and place. Feminists were the first to proclaim that politics pertains to both the public and private spheres. Feminist politics, with an emphasis on the private, were the politics of “here and now,” that negotiated immediate changes in theory and practice and have contributed to changing perceptions and the very nature of politics. Recently, they argue that analyses of international relations should take into account patriarchal structures as dominant dynamic factors. Understanding patriarchy and how it affects global inequalities is one of the greatest modern challenges. (Youngs, 1999).
Feminist analysis focuses attention on the traditional notion of “masculinity” as a decisive factor in shaping foreign policy preferences. Feminists examine the pressures and social expectations created by the model of the “real man” and the impact it has on thought and behavior structures. Every official knows how dangerous it is for any public figure to give the image of being “soft,” or even worse, “feminine” (Enloe, 2000). The militaristic and “masculine” culture exerts significant pressure on politicians to appear tough and aggressive, particularly on security and defense issues. This political competition and pressure for “dynamism” result in a stifling limitation of the capabilities, for example, of American foreign policy to play a more constructive role in creating a truly secure international community. President Bush, in the way he manages foreign policy, is a «real man», aman’sman. He does not believe in alliances, diplomacy, and other soft forms of power (Deelstra, 2004). Ann Tickner argues that the war in Iraq is the result of a purely “masculine” approach. The emphasis on a strong military response excluded any other option. Thus, the war on terrorism – the good against the evil – reflects exactly this problematic dichotomous thinking, which excludes other intermediate solutions.
Feminist theory of international relations is the expression of a broader framework of feminist thought and approaches that began in the late 1980s. Feminists have sought to challenge the boundaries and theoretical constraints of the tradition of International Relations, noting that a theory based on the functioning of states, in a quasi-anarchic and state-centric system, leaves little room for feminist theory (Tickner, 1997). Feminists fought for the abolition of the dividing lines between national/international and public/private and opened the dialogue on women’s human rights. The codification of women’s rights in international conventions, such as CEDAW, inevitably called into question the boundaries and constraints of international politics (Steans, 2003).
HPeterson and Runyan emphasize that feminist theories of international relations do not concern exclusively women, nor do they originate solely from women. Feminist critique, as interpreted by non-feminist theorists of international relations, appears to come from a different world, where the “experiences of women” represent an important advantage that could enrich the knowledge of the world. Feminist theory, very briefly, has the following contribution:
•Reveals the androcentric nature of traditional international relations theory, particularly realism.
•Develops the theoretical framework of gender
•It obliges academics to acknowledge gender discrimination, despite their claims of objectivity.
•It provides empirical material that shows the importance of the gender dimension in international politics.
•It raises questions about the marginalization of women and the distinction between public/private.
•Promotes alternative models against patriarchy.
•It seeks to overturn the historically unequal distribution of power between the two genders and to transform the structures and relationships of power.
•believes that the world would be less competitive and violent if women and men shared political power.
•Promotes the model “Lysistrata” – women against the war.
feminists against realists
Feminist theories primarily oppose the realist school, which they believe operates to the detriment of women, as the definition of power is directly associated with the male gender and ignores women. They argue that realists do not take into account the “human” factor, but rather states as the protagonists of international relations. The perception of women regarding power is completely different from the prevailing view of realists. For women, power means energy, capability, and dynamism. Power is not secured only through violence but also through consent. Feminist theory challenges the prevailing state of affairs and poses questions such as: “Why this world and not another,” instead of merely describing “how this world works” (Tickner, 1997).
Feminist theories therefore encompass a wide range that extends from positivism to post-positivism and reveal how conventional theories of International Relations have ignored the role of women. Robert Keohane argues that “feminist theory critiques theories created by men to place themselves at the center of politics… Feminists critically examine international relations from the perspective of those who have been systematically excluded from positions of power.” Keohane explored the commonalities between international relations and feminist approaches and concludes that:
•The re-examination of the concept of power can help in redefining the concept of national sovereignty.
•Feminist theory can enhance the willingness of states to address the consequences of interdependence, rather than competing for who will control the other.
The Peterson and Runian emphasize that: “The conventional lenses of international relations show us the tip of the iceberg. The feminist lenses guide us beneath the surface of the sea, to see the deep inequalities that shape international hierarchies, which erupt in international conflicts when they come to the surface.” Cynthia Enloe argues that “masculinity” and “femininity” play a decisive role in the militarization and demilitarization of society and questions: “What are the gender relations upon which the Cold War relied for 45 years?” Feminists claim that the Cold War was the creation of “Realist” irrationality. Because peace was not a priority as a national security issue, the content of international relations during the Cold War was the preparation for war (Coates).
Undoubtedly, the transformation of sovereignty and power relations, under the influence of globalization, today opens political space for feminist approaches to international relations. As the sovereign state is no longer seen as the exclusive representative of the population on the international stage, women can gain greater representation in international law and also contribute to the creation of that law. The theory of democratic peace moves along similar lines, arguing that the likelihood of armed conflict between democratic states significantly decreases (Regan & Paraskeviciute, 2001).
However, the degree of democracy is also assessed by whether the equality of rights and obligations between the two genders is recognized.
Among modern democracies, the Scandinavian countries stand out for their recognition of the role of women, the equal distribution of political power between the genders, the strong social state, as well as for the peace-promoting role they play in international relations and the initiatives they undertake for peace. Therefore, it is reasonable to raise the question: does fair distribution and balance of power between the genders lead to both development and prosperity, as well as to a reduction in competition and violence in international politics? Certainly, when talking about Scandinavian countries, one cannot fail to emphasize the role that social democracy played in building the rule of law and equality.
conclusions
1. Deep changes are needed in the orientation of international relations (and in teaching) and alternative, non-military security solutions.
2. The dominance of “masculinity” and its identification with the strategy of power, under the current conditions of globalization and interdependence, constitutes an explosive mix for international relations, with a high cost for peace and prosperity.
3. We need a strategy for enriching traditional theories of international relations with the incorporation of gender, experiences, and perspectives of women, especially on security and defense issues.
4. According to the preceding analysis, it is highly likely that the working hypothesis is validated, that a balanced participation of genders in international negotiations and political decision-making can lead to the rejection of war and violence as means of resolving conflicts and to a new global order that will prioritize:
- In strengthening international cooperation and supranational institutions, with the aim of a democratic global governance.
- In the protection of life, dialogue, reconciliation, negotiation, the fair distribution of the Planet’s resources, understanding different perspectives, and resolving crises through peaceful means.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Batinder, E., 1992, XY- The Masculine Identity, ed. Katoptron
- Ceohane Robert O., 1998, “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist Theory”, International Studies Quarterly (1998) 42, 193-198
- Coates, Susan C., 1995, “Peace Feminism in International Relations”, www.du.edu./-suscoate/
- Connel, R., 1995, Masculinities, Cambridge, Polity Press
- Deelstra, J., 2004, “Gender Expectation is a Powerful Force in Politics”, Daily Trojan-Opinions, Issue:10.05.04
- Eduards, Maud, 2003, “With Women’s Bodies as a Battlefield”, Conference, “Gender and Power in the New Europe, the 5th European Feminist Research”, August 20-24, 2003, Lund University, Sweden
- Enloe, C., 2000, ”Masculinity as Foreign Policy issue”, in Foreign Policy – In Focus”, Vol.5, No 36, October 2000
- French, M., 1985, Beyond Power,” Chicago Tribune Book World
- Fukuyama Francis, 1998, “Women and the Evolution of World Politics”, Foreign Affairs, 77 No 5, 24-40 S/O ‘98
- Goldstein, S.J., 2001, “War and Gender:How Gender Shapes the War System & Vice Versa”, Cambridge University Press
- Kronsell, A., 2005, “Gendered Practices in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity”. Reflections from Feminist Standpoint Theory”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7:2 June 2005, 280-298
- Locher Birgit & Elizabeth Prugl, “Feminism and Constructivism:Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground?”, International Studies Quarterly (2001) 45, 111-129
- Michel, R., 2005, “Introduction to International Relations”, winter term 2005, University of Oregon
- Peterson V.S., 1997, “Whose Crisis:Early and Post-Modern Masculinism” in “Innovation and Transformation in I.R.” by Stephen Gill & James H. Mittelman
- Regan M.R. & Aida Paskeviciute, 2001, “Feminism, Social Constructions and the Democratic Peace: Women’s Access to Politics and Peaceful States”, Binghamton University, State University of New York
- Steans, J., 2003, “Engaging from the Margins: Feminist Encounters with the «Mainstream» of International Relations”, British Journal of Politics, Vol.5, No 3, August 2003, pp. 428-454
- Tickner Ann J., 2003, “The Growth and Future of Feminist Theories in International Relations”, An interview with Sarah Buchwalter, Jesse Finklestein and Luise Sherman, Providence, RI, 8.10.2003
- Tickner Ann J., 2005, “What is your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to I.R. Methodological Questions”, International Studies Quarterly, (2005) 49, 1-21
- Tickner, Ann J., 2004, “Feminist Responses to International Security Studies”, Peace Review, March 2004
- Youngs, G., 1999, “International Relations in a Global Age”, Cambridge: Polity Press p. 248
- Karamanou, A., 2003, article, “If Women Ruled the World,” newspaper “TA NEA,” p. 12, 12.08.2003
- Tzifakis, N., 2004, “The Construction of Security in International Relations,” in Market without Borders, volume 10, issue 2, Sept., Oct., Nov. 2004