Introduction
The field of international relations is and has always been challenging to many people. It does not have a generally accepted definition. There may be a consensus on whether such theoretical approach as Feminism is a proper framework when it comes to research on international relations (Burchill, 2001). It is an open topic and one can argue out his or her point concerning the proper definition of international relations.
Generally, it may be viewed that feminism attacks men for oppressing women and see to it that the women gain in politics at the expense of the men. It is evident that no feminist has attempted to carry out research on the rights of both sexes to determine whether there is actual equality and equity. The fight for women’s rights and autonomy, therefore, appears to only be a means of having dominion over men.
Feminist challenge to mainstream international relations theory
International relations (IR) theory is the study that offers a comprehensive understanding of the challenges that feminist. It main purpose is to give their studies a conceptual framework that upon which the study can be analyzed.(Burchill, 2001). International relations theories can be classified into post-positivist theories that deal with security issues that range from gender to class (Dunne, 2010). They can also be classified as positivist and mainly concentrate on issues within the level of the state.
Feminism constitutes a number of movements that aim at defending equal opportunities for the women in the various fields of politics, social rights and other aspects in the society. Approaches of feminism to international relations became rampant in the late twentieth century and these approaches demanded that the experiences that women had were to be ignored from studies to do with international relations theory.
Feminists who study international relations argued that gender issues apply in international relations. This was based on influence of the spouses of diplomats in the promotion of sex trafficking. Feminist international relations approaches in the past used to be part of the major debate that ensued between the post-positivists and their counterparts, the positivists (Burchill, 2001).
Four major varieties of feminism exist. They include: Marxist, liberal, radical and socialist (Burchill, 2001). Other categories may include black feminism and functionalist feminism. Liberal feminism occurs when prejudgment revolves around ignorance of individuals.
Education is said to be the key to the fight against discrimination brought about by ignorance. Marxist feminism is a form of a class relationship that is the major cause of women’s oppression and discrimination. This occurs when men transfer the exploitative relationships at work to their wives at home hence become a burden to them.
In Marxist feminism, the issue of social class is said to be more of value than that of patriarchy because patriarchy is only an ideology that comes about because of class exploitation. Women are not considered to be a sex class since the only similarity is their sex. Socialist feminism has to do with the women and their social status. They are both greatly marginalized by the double roles they have in the current society.
This duality appears in their roles as child-bearers and employees. Employers tend to exploit this state by paying the women lower wages and this gives the men the opportunity to receive higher wages due to the services rendered at home. The main reason women have a lower status in this aspect is that they generally depend on the man for economic needs. Male dominion is brought about by the idea that the women are naturally passive and are only involved in such activities as housekeeping and childbearing (Dunne, 2010).
Tickner (1993) identified and used a number of contemporary feminist situations to the issue of international relations in her book, Gender in international relations: Feminist Perspective on Achieving Global security (p. 15). This perception suggested viable criticism to the Marxist, liberal and realist theories. She also points out the gender differences that came about during the construction of state identities and the roles that the citizens played in the state.
Tickner looked at the environmental and the economic issues and she was wondering why there was a difference when gender relations were introduced into question. She clearly demonstrated how the perspective of a feminist on international relations had an impact on the global system. The author introduced the aspect of feminism on international relations and compared it with recent arguments against realism. She argues that it is not sufficient to explain today’s international politics.
Tickner also examined the way in which the global economy has paid off the men and women differently and critically looked at the implications of gender on the dominion of man over nature. The gender differences that occur in politics, military and the economic world provide an aspect of the insecurities that men and women face in political ventures. Tickners version of feminist security has led to the recent efforts to come up with proper arrangements on comprehensive security in international relations.
For a long time, the academic venture of international relations has involved positivism in a large extent. Positivism has combined various disciplines of sciences and has specifically used methods incorporated from the natural sciences to give the meaning of the social world (Smith, 1996).
This discipline has generally accepted a number of assumptions that have managed to eliminate the debates on how one view and explains the world. This, however, does not apply for the individuals who worked for what was termed as the English schools or in the disciplines that were in between politics and international relations. This is because the writers were not for the idea of positivist assumptions that was the main topic of the discipline. The subject of positivism has led to debates in international relations.
Pluralism, realism and globalism were all functional under the positivist assumptions. This aided in bringing an understanding of the apparent versions of the universe rather than alternative forms of international relations. The influence of positivism can be felt in the way it has affected the world of research such that those involved in the field of international relations may reject the scientific approach due to the subsequent acceptance of the positivist model.
In this context, there are two points that can be noted. Firstly, as much as the positivist model of science is accepted even by the critics, it is evident that the positivism nature that underlies the discipline is immature. Secondly, within the field of science, positivism was eliminated as a valid practice in science.
The damage to positivism might have been avoided earlier if the discipline had been previously been prepared to undertake the social science venture and finally, that of science. This, however, does not mean that all research undertaken under positivism is not valid.
Common to all social sciences, International Relations has been divided on a number of occasions through time. Throughout its history, various debates have ensued concerning the issue. The first one occurred during the period before and a little after Second World War. It was between the idealists and the realists.
This was mainly because of the alleged functions of the international institutions during that period and the possibilities that the reason for the war was due to influence by superior states. The second debate occurred in the mid twentieth century. This was between the traditionalists and the modernizers. As compared to the modernizers, the traditionalist preferred to use methods that are more humane in nature.
International relation is one of the fields in science that was the last to accept feminism. This has greatly contributed to its use in almost all fields of research. When compared to other disciplines, the feminist aspect in international relations came in a lot later. A comprehensive study in international relations and a book on the same only surfaced in the late 1980s. The various books that were written in this period had different approaches but were similar in the way they sort to redefine the parameters of international relations.
International relations could take some elements of feminism into serious consideration. In addition, its critical to have in mind that the practices put forward from feminist originate from the lives and experiences of women. As such, it is difficult to distinguish between the theory and practice that is put forward.
For feminists, the experiences of the women in their day-to-day lives form the basis of redefining their values. Apart from other factors that prevent feminist research, it has been determined that in many parts of the world, the accessibility of institutions that provide knowledge, continue to be restricted to various portion of the male population which is less likely to deliver awareness of feminism.
Apart from the content of the knowledge, it is also necessary to be aware of the person who disseminates it and how the practices affect the structures. Despite these obstacles, feminist international relations scholars have used other methods to gain more knowledge.
Another method that the feminists have adopted is to use ideas from other disciplines. Wibben (2004) used literary theory as one of the alternative discipline (p. 32). The narrative approach is important as it critical in the preservation of tension. As a result, information can be conveyed easily.
Conclusion
Feminists are aware that for them to produce true change, it is empirical to challenge both the content of the specific narrative and its structure equally. This means that it is not enough to only increase the number of women or to increase the visibility of the methods of molding international relations through gender but it is also important to change the way international relations produces, redirects and develop knowledge.
Feminist international relations challenges the subject to produce dynamic approaches that can be changed whenever need arises and those that can easily adapt to changing events and situations. This is in a way disadvantageous in that it does not allow for cumulative learning and hence requires one to constantly and continuously revise the assumptions they made on their own. In a way, the scholar will always be in the state of curiosity.
References
Burchill, S. (2001) Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.
Dunne, T. (2010) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. London: Sage
Smith, S. (1996) International theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tickner, A. (1993) Gender in international relations: Feminist Perspective on Achieving Global security. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
Wibben, A. (2004) Feminist International Relations: Old Debates and New Directions. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 5 (2), p. 21-30.