Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I could try to explain... 

Fem IR - critiques dominant, security based modes of International Relations. It draws a parallel between how the United States views potential security threats and how men treat women. It reinforces the same kind of hierarchy 

Ecofem - draws a parallel between how men dominate nature and how they dominate women. The alternative here is to embrace an ecofeminist pedagogy (usually) that re-prioritizes dominant modes of thought into ones that accomodate women and nature. 


Not sure what other "fems" you're referencing 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sjoberg in 2011. [Laura, founder of feminist security studies in IR]. Feminism and International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present and Future (Critical Concepts in International Relations). Chapter 1: Introduction. p8-12.
So what does looking for women and gender in global politics tell us about how  the world works? While we realize that an adequate answer to this question cannot be contained in one book, much less in its introduction, we will offer a few observations on some of the different ways that looking for sex and gender can help us to see global politics in new ways. We recognize that there are many feminist approaches to thinking about local and global politics and that some feminist thinkers have understood these  feminisms as fundamentally in tension. Instead, we are drawn to John Hoffman’s view that these differences should be seen “as one river with numerous currents rather than as 
a series of rivers flowing in different and even contradictory directions” (2001, 48). This  view maintains a critical understanding of feminist theory and practice while remaining  committed to an inclusive ethic of scholarship. In this spirit, we now provide a short introduction to various feminisms in IR. 
While IR feminists share an interest in gender emancipation, as noted above, they often approach the journey towards emancipation differently. Liberal feminists believe that women’s equality can be achieved by removing legal and other obstacles that have denied them the same rights as men; their primary interest is in integrating women into global politics at all levels. Liberal feminists in IR often use gender (and usually they mean “sex”) as an explanatory variable in security and foreign policy analysis, arguing that including women would be net beneficial to achieve policy goals (e.g., Caprioli and Boyer 2001)****. While the approach of integrating women into the governance and 
economic structures of the existing order is useful, some feminists see it as limited. 
Many other IR feminisms question an approach that tries to provide women equal opportunities within the political, social, economic, educational, and professional structures created by men for men; they claim that it is not only inadequate to the task of ending gender subordination, but that it is misguided because it reifies masculine models of citizenship and political processes. These feminist theorists note that gender inequalities continue to exist, even in societies that have long since been committed to giving women the same opportunities as men; they also see deeper problems in the gendered structures and functions of global politics. Constructivist feminists focus on the 
ways that ideas about gender shape and are shaped by global politics, seeing gender subordination as the dynamic result of social processes and suggests that, therefore, changing norms about masculinity and femininity is essential to redressing it (e.g., Prugl 1999; Locher and Prugl 2001). Critical feminism explores the ideational and material manifestations of gendered identities and gendered power with an interest in changing the gendered (im)balance of global politics (e.g., Steans 1998). Poststructuralist feminism is particularly concerned with performative and linguistic constructions and manifestations of genders, asking how and why gender-based dichotomized linguistic constructions, such as strong/weak, rational/emotional, and public/private, serve to empower masculinities and devalorize femininities (e.g., Hooper 2001; Shepherd 2008). Postmodern feminisms critically interrogate the naturalness of the categories of “woman”  and “gender,” and correspondingly, the ways that they map onto global politics, looking for creative and critical ways to deconstruct gender hierarchies (e.g., Sylvester 1994). Postcolonial feminists are particularly interested in critically interrogating the nature of relations of domination and subordination under imperialism, and imperialistic moves that can plague the relationship between western feminists and non-western women (e.g., Chowdhry and Nair 2002; Mohanty 2003). Postcolonial feminists look to understand and redress gender subordinations in particular cultural and sociopolitical contexts, rather than relying on some universal understanding of women’s needs.6
There are other axes of difference that cut across these various feminist approaches to understanding global politics. One is the often-rehearsed debate in the field of IR between “positivists” and “postpositivists.” Positivist scholars believe in the existence of objective knowledge independent of the experiences of the knower; they generally rely on some version of the scientific method of hypothesis testing and data analysis to arrive at this objective knowledge. Postpositivist scholars reject the possibility that knowledge can be legitimate without recognizing the relationship between the knower and the known; they pursue reflexive research that acknowledges both its perspectival nature and its political content. 
Most, though not all, IR feminists are post-positivists who see traditional IR theorizing as privileging knowledge of the select few (usually privileged men) and share a political commitment to understanding the world from the perspectives of those who are marginalized and/or feminized in global social and political life. A related, though not identical, tension is the question of “quantitative” versus “qualitative” research. While some scholars in IR generally and feminist IR specifically associate quantitative (mostly statistical) research with positivism, and qualitative research with post-positivism, that map does not provide a perfect guide to the field. Some scholars employ statistical and 
even mathematical methods with a political, emancipatory, reflexive, and even radical purpose; others use case studies and other qualitative methods towards positivist ends. Still, regardless of the ends to which statistical methods are used, some feminist scholars question the inherent countability of sex, gender, and sexuality, while others insist that these factors must be counted, lest they be rendered invisible. 
In addition to these “first order” debates, IR feminist theorists deal with differences between feminisms in a variety of ways. Some search for unity, some look to value and maintain diversity, and some express an interest in solidarity. Each of these approaches to what “feminisms” are influences scholars’ research trajectories and scholarly self-identifications. Still, in feminist IR, many researchers have come to see feminist methodology an intellectual process guiding feminist that flexible in terms of its tools but in (broad) agreement about the intellectual and political goals of feminist theorizing (Ackerly, Stern, and True 2006, 4)
This is how this book and its authors view feminisms: inclusive, yet critically oriented. The authors in this book employ many different methodological strategies (including but not limited to theoretical analysis, discourse analysis, process tracing, structured interviews, unstructured interviews, and models), and approach theorizing gender from a number of the different feminist perspectives outlined above, sometimes combining them. The diversity of the scholarship in this book is not meant to silence these debates or differences. Rather, it is meant to include them as a regular part of conversations between and among (feminist) scholars of global politics. 




I have a copy of the book if anyone wants to read; PM me. 


****Note from me: my thesis was a poststructuralist, positivist kritik of Caprioli and Boyer as synecdochical for liberal feminism. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most, though not all, IR feminists are post-positivists who see traditional IR theorizing as privileging knowledge of the select few (usually privileged men) and share a political commitment to understanding the world from the perspectives of those who are marginalized and/or feminized in global social and political life.


Can you explain a bit more on this?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...