Textbooks

2003-4 Ocean Policy Topic Guide

Printer Friendly Version

This free online textbook is available to all. No log-in is required to view any of the chapters and sections.

Within the essays there are links to other sections of our site such as blocks [bl], the evidence database [db], the CX Guide [cx], and lectures [l]. Subscription access is required to access those links.

Over the next few months the textbook will grow in size and we will be adding additional features for our Gold, Platinum, and Master multi

One specific perspective that can be accessed to kritik foreign policy is a feminist kritik that attacks a particular understanding of international relations as having a male point of view. Feminist international relations scholars argue the contemporary international political system, and the theory that analyzes (or constructs - see below), it ignores the role women play in the world (Sylverster, 1991/2). Sylvester's article does offer an excellent overview on some of the various ideas in feminist international relations theory and it's on the web, so you have no excuse not to read it!

One thing you need to keep in mind when debating arguments based on "feminist" international relations theory, is that feminism, and particularly its application to international relations theory, is far from a single idea. There are many strands of "feminist" philosophy and many different ways that it may be used to argue for accommodating women's interests in international politics. Different feminist Kritiks of international relations theory are likely to draw on different strands of the international relations theory already discussed. For example, post-modern feminist scholars may argue the constitution of the categories of "women" and "men" are merely socially constructed categories. Others may argue that women are more "peaceful" and thus more likely to avoid the self-help ontology of realist states.

Many feminist international relations Kritiks are constituted simply strung-together cards from a number of authors from a variety of perspectives. For example, after reading evidence from "post-modern" feminist scholars (the female (and male) identity is a social construct), many debaters will impact their kritik with a piece of evidence that says women are more peaceful than men (Brock-Utne, 1985; Reardon, 1985; Ruddick, 1989). Yet, this is exactly the essentializing notions ("all/most" women are peaceful) of women that these same post-modern feminists would reject (Harris, 1990; Sylverster, 1987; Sylvester, 1989). Other feminists international relations scholars simply reject the claim that women are more peaceful outright (Tickner, 1999).

When answering a feminist international relations kritik, you can also internal link turn claims that women are more peaceful. Francis Fukyama (1998) concedes the "women are more peaceful" argument and then uses it against them, arguing that if women are promoted to positions of international power they will be taken advantage of by men, undermining state security.

Moreover, you can kritik the kritik itself, arguing that notions of difference between men and women really just exist to suppress reinscribe arbitrary gender differences and reinforce existing policies (Elshtain, 1992).

Feminist International Relations Kritik Shell

A. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES AND IDEAS IGNORE THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE WORLD

Christine Sylvester, IR Professor, 1991/92 (INTERNATIONAL STUDIES NOTES, Fall/Winter, p. http://csf.colorado.edu/isa/sections/ftgs/femir.html)

Members of the feminist theory and gender studies section seek to rectify that oversight by exploring "how we think, or do not think, or avoid thinking about gender" (Flax, 1987: 622) when we think about IR. The many of us who are feminist focus on how "we" ignore the activities of people called women when we think about IR. Specialists in "our" field have avoided thinking of men and women qua embodied and socially constituted subject categories in three ways: by subsuming them in the "more relevant" categories of statesmen, decision makers, soldiers, refugees, prisoners of war, earthquake victims, and publics; by too readily accepting into scientific analyses the common social assumption that women are located inside the separate sphere of domestic life, where they engage in activities that have nothing to do with the usual activities IR chronicles and theorizes war, crisis decision making, regime formation, trade and so on; and by retreating to abstractions (the state) that mask a masculine identity (as competitive, rational, egoistic, power-seeking). Indeed, the theoretical diversity of "our" field seems to belie a common disinterest in the question of how the usual activities of some people come to be excluded from realist, neorealist, world systems, decision making, neoliberal institutionalist and other theoretical frameworks while other people's idealized traits, if not their daily activities, seem to inspire the models, concepts, and processes.

B. FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE PERSPECTIVE OF WOMEN WILL PREVENT SOLVENCY FOR ALL GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SECURITY CONCERNS

Ballantyne, Women's International League for Peace, 1993 (WOMEN AND WAR, pp. vii-viii)

It is clear that the end of the Cold War has in no way lessened the dangers of militarism but has rendered conflict, including nuclear confrontation, more likely and more uncontrollable. Security is not only a question of defense: the economic, social and environmental security of all is of vital importance if the threat of war is to be avoided. Economic espionage and trade wars at the macro level are only too likely to feed future upheavals and to lead to violence, as are hunger and deprivation at the micro level. The author looks at many present - day wars and conflicts and their increasingly violent impact upon civilians, as well as at defense policies and the arms trade, the prospects for conversion from military to civilian production, and attempts by the United Nations to "turn swords into ploughshares" through international peacekeeping and peacemaking. The relationships between disarmament and development, and between peace and human rights, are also brought into focus. It is of the utmost importance to women and men alike, and certainly to their children, that women play a greater role in the peaceful resolution of disputes in order that the 21ST century may dawn in the light of new freedoms - freedom from insecurity; freedom from fear, freedom to fulfill the promise of a full and productive existence. Efforts to reduce militarism must go hand in hand with development and the creation of a more just and equitable world. In all of these areas the contribution of women can make all the difference.

C. PREEMPT: ANY PERMUTATION WILL FAIL. IR THEORY MUST BE REJECTED OUTRIGHT FOR EXCLUDING WOMEN

Christine Sylvester, IR Professor, 1991/92 (INTERNATIONAL STUDIES NOTES, Fall/Winter, p. http://csf.colorado.edu/isa/sections/ftgs/femir.html)

Arguing that IR builds on an analogous distinction between domestic and international politics, R.B.J. Walker (forthcoming) suggests that the task at hand is not simply to add the historically excluded voices of domestic-sphere people to IR, but to challenge the grounds on which IR has been constructed as an instance of sovereign boundary-drawing authority. While the realm of international relations between sovereign entities is denied to women, he thinks there may be room in the more ambivalent concept of "world politics" for people and activities excluded from ancient and modern sovereign specifications (also Ashley, 1989).

Video Lectures