What's the Hold Up?: Feminist Theories in IR

After reading the articles from Week 3’s “Engaging from the Margins”, what struck me, despite the importance of it, is the “marginal effects” of (cite Tickner) feminist theory in international relations (IR). Throughout Tickner’s article, for example, she talks about the obstacles, and common and derogatory questions asked of feminist theorists in the field, which is an understandable hindrance to advancement. However, when reading Keohane’s article and the impact of his credibility (having a very high appeal to his audience’s pathos), I realize just how deep the gendered nature of the field really is. Not only are the most popular theories in the field gendered, at it’s core due to historical circumstances as Tickner discussed, but it seems that the future of advancing feminist theory is too.

In his article, “International Relations Theory: Contributions of A Feminist Standpoint”, Keohane discusses different theories of power. One that stood out to me is Baldwin’s definition, which sees power as the “ability of one actor to influence another actor with respect to certain outcomes” (Keohane, 246). This is particularly important as, similar to most fields, the majority of scholars in power within the IR field are men. This credibility and power, much like Keohane, comes with time and attention from the masses. In today’s society, the words “feminism” and “patriarchy”, or most words utilized in feminist theory, are difficult to digest and, as seen in the articles, garner a negative response, making it difficult for feminist theorists to gain power. And with this definition, power is required for these theorists to influence individuals in order to sway opinion and redirect the study of IR. As a result, the future of feminist theory may depend on acknowledgement from well-known mainstream IR theorists beyond Keohane and his article. In addition, one crucial aspect of Keohane’s article is his application of feminist theory and the benefits that it has on IR, creating a compelling argument.

The concept of “male paranoia” that Cynthia Weber discusses in “Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations” is also extremely present in the other three articles, particularly in J. Ann Tickner’s “You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists”. It’s present in the awkward silences when she’s presenting her studies and in the ignorant questions, as stated in the article. Subconsciously, IR associates mainstream theory and studies to patriarchy, and the discomfort stems from the threat or potential of having to rewire perspectives and mindsets that seem to be foundational. At the root of male paranoia is a fear of change and adjustment. When Weber discusses Cox, we see that he believes that there are two types of theories: problem solving theories, which is the core of IR, and critical theories, in which feminist theory falls under. The latter doesn’t attempt to smooth out frameworks that they believe are permanent and natural as the former does, but questions the framework entirely. Perhaps this is why there’s such a resistance in accepting critical theories such as those that consider gender, because it is more difficult and requires the field to fix the foundations rather than just an aspect of it. As a result, the acceptance of critical theory, and thus the advancement of feminist theory, en masse in IR may have to come from a failure of problem solving theory on a global scale that requires those in the field to question their foundations, much like the failures of competing theories and realism following WWII, the OPEC crisis, and the abrupt end of the Cold War.

Marianne Marchand alludes to these changes in “Different Communities/Different Realities/Different Encounters: A Reply to J. Ann Tickner”. She states that there are certain IR communities that may serve as a compliment to feminist theory, or at least a better fit than the IR perspective in the United States, which is an assumption she highlights Tickner makes. However, she only briefly mentions what these differences are, when they could be the key to advancing feminist theory on a global scale, or at least expanding it from outside the margins as it currently is. As a result, feminist theorists may benefit by applying their concepts within different IR communities to find how they interact with one another, offering the potential for development, as many believe that there is a messy and overwhelming conflict between feminist theory and mainstream IR theory that seems impossible to navigate past.