Feminist Theories in International Relations represent a crucial and transformative lens through which to understand global politics. Prior to the late 1980s, the field of International Relations (IR) largely ignored the roles of gender and women. Feminist IR theories emerged to challenge this oversight, prompting a critical analysis of the discipline's fundamental concepts, like states and power, which were often defined from a male-centric perspective.
These theories are both deconstructive (critiquing existing structures) and reconstructive (introducing new methods and understandings). They emphasize that "gender" is not merely a synonym for "women" but encompasses both men and women, examining how gender shapes power dynamics and global interactions. Essentially, feminist IR theories conceptualize the state as a gendered organization of power, profoundly influencing how we study and interpret international politics.
Understanding Gender and Power in International Relations
How gender and power in International Relations are defined and understood is central to feminist theories. Scholars identify at least three distinct ways gender is used, each with implications for how power is perceived:
- Gender as an Empirical Variable (Liberal Feminist IR): Here, gender is seen as the biological (sex) difference between men and women, explaining social, political, and economic inequalities. Power is understood as resting in these social, political, and economic hierarchies.
- Gender as a Social Construct (Critical Feminist IR): This approach views gender as a social interpretation of biological (sex) differences, existing in social practices, identities, and institutions. Power resides in how these practices, identities, and institutions interpret and solidify those differences.
- Gender as an Effect of Discourses of Power (Poststructural Feminist IR): In this reading, gender is neither biological difference nor merely a social interpretation; it is itself constitutive of that difference. Gender becomes an analytical category, a "code" for the operation of power, not necessarily tied to male and female bodies. It's a useful analytic even when male and female bodies are absent.
These varied interpretations necessitate diverse methodological approaches, examining institutions, agents, discourses, and symbols in the production and reproduction of gender in international politics. While we discuss four main types of feminist IR theories, they are analytically separated for clarity and often conceptually overlap and evolve.
The Four Pillars of Feminist International Relations Theory
Feminist IR theories have distinct historical origins and developments, continuously evolving while offering different insights into power dynamics. They are best understood in conversation with each other, often critiquing or building upon one another.
1. Liberal Feminist International Relations
Liberal feminist International Relations challenges the content of IR without questioning its core epistemological assumptions. Liberal feminists advocate extending rights and representation, conventionally granted to men, to women. They focus on institutional change, aiming to increase women's representation in positions of power within national and international governance and to change laws that impede women's participation. Initiatives like Gqual (founded in 2015) exemplify this, advocating for gender parity in international tribunals and monitoring bodies due to its serious consequences for justice and democracy.
According to liberal feminist IR theorists, gender inequality is a significant barrier to human development and increases the likelihood of war and violence. Scholars like Hudson et al. (2012) and Mary Caprioli (2004) argue that systemic gender inequality and discrimination against women are root causes of violence, asserting that "the fate of nations is tied to the status of women." These studies, often using quantitative data, are well-received by policymakers. Critics, however, question the precise mechanism by which gender inequality increases violence, suggesting a more comprehensive approach that investigates the genesis, justification, and use of gender differences, rather than assuming prior knowledge of them.
2. Critical Feminist International Relations
Critical feminist International Relations critiques liberal feminism for its reliance on neutral methods and its view of power as a positive good that can be redistributed without fundamental social change. These feminists highlight broader social, economic, and political relationships that structure relational power, often drawing from Marxist theories to prioritize the role of the economy and criticize capitalism.
Critical feminist scholars like Iris Young (1990) identify gender and class oppressions as interdependent, arguing that women's oppression stems from both male domination (patriarchy) and class relations. Scholars such as Sandra Whitworth (1994) and Elisabeth Prügl (1999, 2017) demonstrate how international institutions (e.g., ILO, World Bank) produce and reproduce gender through the institutionalization of 'paid' and 'unpaid' labor divisions. V. Spike Peterson's "triad analytics" further broadens this, analyzing globalization through the intersection of reproductive, productive, and virtual economics, highlighting the devaluation of women's work, the double burden women disproportionately carry, and the worldwide feminization and racialization of poverty.
Like postcolonial feminism, critical feminism is wary of gender essentialism, criticizing the normalization of white, affluent women's experiences as universal. They emphasize the dynamic and intersectional nature of identity, recognizing that marginalized, exploited, and colonized individuals offer crucial insights into the violent practices of global politics. Critical and postcolonial feminists strongly criticized the "embedded feminism" used by the Bush administration to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, arguing it falsely claimed a monolithic feminism to "save" Muslim women while obscuring the continued violence they faced.
3. Postcolonial Feminist International Relations
Postcolonial feminist International Relations links everyday life and local gendered contexts to larger, transnational political and economic structures and ideologies of capitalism (Mohanty 2003). It confronts the universalizing tendencies in much feminist theorizing by focusing on the particular situations, experiences, and histories that materialize colonialism. This approach highlights the centrality of gender conceptions to colonial regimes and their ongoing effects.
Postcolonial feminism emphasizes how colonialism structured complex household arrangements, using rules governing sex and sexuality to maintain difference between colonizer and colonized. It critiques how the "feminism of the Global North" is rooted in Western-defined discourses of rights and equality, which can become a tool of "cultural imperialism" (Kishwar 1990). Scholars like Rey Chow (2006) describe this as a Eurocentric "hierarchizing frame of comparison." They underscore that while colonialism may be formally past, its effects, such as "cultural and psychic dismemberment" (Alarcón 1996), persist and are rejuvenated in contexts like the "war on terror," where Muslim and Arab individuals face increased scrutiny.
Postcolonial feminists also resist the imposition of women's rights framed as "paternal relations of protection and benign salvation," pointing out how it can justify violence (e.g., US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan) and obscure indigenous women's agency. They argue for collective and relational rights over individualistic definitions. Furthermore, they highlight climate change and environmental exploitation as legacies of imperialism, noting their disproportionate impact on the Global South, the global poor, and specifically women and girls, while cautioning against constructing women as solely responsible for conservation without increased agency.
4. Poststructural Feminist International Relations
Poststructural feminist International Relations draws heavily from the work of Judith Butler, who famously argued that sex itself is constructed by gender, rather than gender being merely the social construction of sex. This challenges the idea of a stable, biological sex as a fixed referent for "women." Butler introduces gender performativity, meaning gender is not what we are, but what we do. This performativity occurs within highly regulated contexts, including normative heterosexuality, where individuals are socially compelled to identify with femininity and desire masculinity.
As Sarah Salih (2002) explains, gender is a "corporeal style," an act with cultural survival as its end, as those who do not "do" their gender correctly face societal punishment. Cynthia Weber (2015) and others extend this, analyzing how homo/heterosexualities are regulated and constituted in world politics. Poststructural feminism also illuminates the constitutive role of language in creating gendered knowledge. For example, Laura Shepherd (2008) shows how UN Security Council Resolution 1325, despite emancipatory intent, often portrays women as passive victims. Charlotte Hooper (2001) examines the masculinization of states through economic texts, demonstrating how gender is created through international politics, revealing overlooked power relations.
The Gendered Nature of States and Security
Feminist IR scholars' deconstructive and reconstructive work includes a profound analysis of the concept and practice of the state. Women's historical absence and underrepresentation in state and global governance institutions led scholars to ask why and how this occurred. This inquiry revealed that the state, as theorized by figures like Hobbes and Machiavelli, fundamentally excluded women from full participation.
Feminist political theorists argue that Western political thought is constructed through the exclusion of women and what is associated with femininity. Carol Pateman (2007) highlights how the subordination of women through heterosexual marriage was a necessary step in establishing civil society and the state, making the state a "main organizer of the power relations of gender" (Peterson 1992). This gendering of the state is evident in beliefs about soldiering and the military, where masculinity is intertwined with the image of the soldier and militaries are institutionalized as masculine, often by excluding women from combat. This construction reaffirms male prowess and punishes men who deviate from the "band of brothers" image (MacKenzie 2015, Belkin 2012).
The regulation of social and political relations (like marriage and the military) that ground and structure the state are fundamentally relations of power, with women and gender central to their operation. This analysis urges IR scholars to deconstruct facile notions of protector/protected as natural, recognizing them as legislated constructions with specific, often violent, effects that intersect with race and other identities.
How Feminist Theories in IR Influenced Practice
The United Nations Decade for Women (1975–85) was pivotal in legitimizing research and action on women's experiences and status globally. This period sparked an outpouring of information, leading to the founding of UN Women and INSTRAW, and the entry into force of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). It made clear that women's issues were valid and important, challenging the previous silence of the IR discipline.
Feminist movements and lobbying efforts also led to the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda, originating from UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000). The WPS agenda mandates the equal and full involvement of women in all peace and security processes, recognizing gender as a crucial axis of difference in understanding and resolving conflict. Organizations like the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom (WILPF) have been instrumental in this, evolving to become critics of militarism, racism, sexism, and unfettered capitalism.
Despite progress, significant gaps remain between aspirations and implementation, often due to a lack of political will and economic commitment by member states. Efforts have also been made to weaken the WPS agenda, such as the omission of explicit references to women's rights to sexual and reproductive health in SC 2467 (2019).
Feminist foreign policy, championed by figures like Hillary Clinton and Margot Wallström, aims to place gender equality at the crux of foreign policy decisions. While proponents argue it makes a difference in state actions (e.g., Sweden's insistence on women delegates in peace talks, US integration of gender into foreign policy goals), critics contend it often merely legitimizes conventional policy goals, serving national interests rather than achieving gender equality for its own sake.
Conclusion: The Ongoing Evolution of Feminist IR Theories
Feminist International Relations theories have profoundly transformed the study of international politics by consistently prioritizing the study of women and engaging in debates over the meaning of gender. They draw on a rich history of feminist thought and activism to critique core IR concepts like security, economy, and war, and employ diverse methodological approaches. At their core, feminist IR theories examine how gender functions as a relationship of power, affecting individuals, institutions, and interactions globally.
Looking ahead, the field continues to evolve, striving to include and amplify the voices of feminist IR theorists who are people of color, disabled, Indigenous, and from the Global South, as well as those whose first language may not be English or another Western European language (Weerawardhana 2018). This ongoing commitment ensures a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of world politics.
Frequently Asked Questions about Feminist Theories in International Relations
What are the main characteristics of feminist IR theories?
Feminist IR theories are characterized by their deconstructive and reconstructive approach to international politics, critically analyzing existing theories and concepts through a gender lens. They prioritize the study of women and gender, conceptualize the state as a gendered organization of power, and aim to understand how power relations are shaped by gender across all levels of global interaction.
Why is the UN Decade for Women significant for feminist IR?
The UN Decade for Women (1975-1985) was significant because it legitimized and spurred global research and action on women's experiences, roles, and status. It exposed the previous lack of attention to women in international relations, highlighted women's crucial contributions, and led to the creation of international bodies and conventions focused on women's rights and equality, forming a crucial empirical basis for emerging feminist IR theories.
How do liberal and critical feminist IR theories differ on power?
Liberal feminist IR theories tend to view power as resting in social, political, and economic hierarchies, believing that gender inequality can be corrected by redistributing power, such as increasing women's representation in institutions. Critical feminist IR theories, conversely, question this view, highlighting broader social, economic, and political relationships that structure relational power and criticize the dominance of capitalism. They see gender and class oppressions as intertwined, arguing that fundamental social change is needed beyond mere redistribution of power.
What is "gender performativity" in poststructural feminism?
In poststructural feminism, particularly influenced by Judith Butler, "gender performativity" means that gender is not an inherent attribute but rather what we do. It is a series of acts, a "corporeal style," performed within highly regulated social contexts. This concept challenges the idea that gender is simply the social construction of a biological sex, suggesting instead that sex itself is constructed by these gendered performances and discourses of power.