Power in International Relations- Feminism and Postmodernism

POL 8041
January 16, 2012
Word count: 2,075

Newcastle University
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology
Power in International Relations- Feminism and Postmodernism

Power is a complicated thing. It can be different to each individual and furthermore there is no set definition of what power is. Steven Lukes (2005), in his book “Power: A Radical View” mentions three different types of power. The one-dimensional view, which is essentially that A has the power of B to make B do something that B, would not do otherwise (Lukes, 2005: 16). The two-dimensional view is when powerful people use force, manipulation, and coercion over others. It is when A establishes values, institutions and agendas and B and others follow along (Lukes, 2005: 21). Then there is the three-dimensional view which sees power as more than the one and two-dimensional views, which it views as “too individualistic and allows for consideration of the many ways in which potential issues are kept out of politics, whether through the operation of social forces and institutional practices or through individuals’ decisions” (Lukes, 2005: 28). The three-dimensional view sees power as more than just pure force and coercion and as something deeper and more complicated. Each of these views of power has theories dealing with international relations and how states relate and interact with each other. Power in international relations (IR) is a contestable topic. For what is power, who holds the power, and what can power bring? Almost every international relations theory has unique views on power in international relations. Two different theories are the theories of feminism and the theories of postmodernism. They both have different views on what power is but in some ways are still interconnected. Feminism is the international relations theory that is synonymous with women. Most feminists believe that “international politics is a man’s world. It is a world inhabited by diplomats, soldiers, and international civil servants most of whom are men” (Tickner, 1992: 1). Throughout history this has been the case ever since the Ancient Greeks. It was in Ancient Greece that women were relegated to the private sphere while men became elevated to political responsibilities, for “women had no role in conflict and therefore had no role in the ‘international’ relations between the Greek city states” (Grant, 1991: 14). This separation of these duties created a split in public/private sphere, a division that to feminists still exists. Feminism is known for it’s slogan that the “personal is political” which creates a bond between power relations and personal experience, but also tries to bridge the split in spheres of public/private lives (Connell, 1990: 507). To feminists women have long been oppressed by the political world of men. Tickner (1992: 15) states that one of the goals of feminism is to “describe and explain the sources of gender inequality, and hence women’s oppression, and to seek strategies to end them”. This oppression is based on class, culture, gender, gender roles, race, capitalism (according to Marxist feminists), and patriarchy (Tickner, 1992: 15). To feminists this oppression lies within socially constructed values of gender and what gender is and what it means to be either a man or a woman. Women are characterized as being dependent, weak, emotional, passive and private. Masculinity has long been characterized with autonomy, public, rational, active, and power (Tickner, 2002: 536). The association with men and power in the public sphere is the reason for much of the oppression that women face in international relations. Feminists understand that much of international politics, and our knowledge of it, is socially constructed- it is based in our place, time and social context. Gender and the idea of what feminism is in itself a social construction. In fact, had our history been different maybe at one point feminism would have been associated with power and masculinity associated with weakness and other feminine characteristics. Since the social construction is for men to be in charge of politics, “knowledge about the international system comes to us from accounts written by those in a position of power who use their knowledge for purposes of control and furthering their own interests” (Tickner, 1992: 21). Since men are the ones that have this power the knowledge and language of it has been constructed by men and for their own interests and to keep their control. Historically women have not wielded the access to the resources that let them gain this influence in the political realm (Enloe, 1990:16). That is what feminists view power as, the ability to gain influence in the political realm and in international relations to help women’s issues, especially in international relations, which has often been viewed from a masculine perspective. Tickner (1988: 430-431) argues that international relations theories are “primarily men who are describing these issues and constructing theories to explain the workings of the international system” and that the main theory of international relations historically has been realism which traditionally views the world from a masculine viewpoint, where power is seen as the control of man over another man. There is no one set definition of what power is to feminists. At first glance it seems that feminism sees power as a man’s object. An object that women have been oppressed with, such as in Luke’s one-dimensional view, men are A and women are B. To feminists international politics has always depended on women being controlled by men (Enloe, 1990: 4). Men are the ones who hold the power and for women to gain power they have to become more men like. To feminists, the women that gain power are not just random women; they are women that have learned what masculinized political behavior is and learned not to threaten man’s political power “(Enloe, 1990: 6-7). But there is more to the feminist idea of power in international relations, “for feminists, power is a complex phenomenon of creative social forces which shape our personal gendered identities as men, women and national citizens rather than just the deployment of brute force” (True, 2009: 251). Robert O. Keohane (1991) argues that in feminism power in international relations is the cooperation between actors, these actors may be individuals, states, and other non-governmental actors. Nancy Hartsock stresses that power to feminists is not based as domination but that it stresses potential, capacity, and energy (Tickner, 1988: 434). Psychologist, David McClelland view of feminism is that power is not assertive but shared (Tickner, 1988: 434). The view of feminists of power varies between different groups of feminists. Feminism also tends to view power from a normative perspective, which is also one of the criticisms of feminism. Feminism tends to view things as what should happen, not what is always practical. Feminism is also more of a care perspective than a justice perspective. It focuses on the relationships and connections of people (especially women) and reducing harm and meeting needs of people (especially marginalized people). Power to them should be something that is meant to help women all over the world and should focus more on women’s issues. To feminists power is putting women’s issues, concerns, and voices on the global agenda. These issues include: feminization of poverty, gender persecution, rape as a weapon of war, and sex trade, among others. Postmodernism agrees with many feminists- especially postmodernists feminists- that much of politics is constructed- including power. Postmodernists challenge the basic assumptions of what power is. Michel Foucault (as quoted by Edkins in Edkins, 1999: 41), one of the main postmodernist explains power as “not as something that can be ‘possessed’ by some subjects but as something that, as ‘relations of power’, is productive of subjects themselves”. Power is more than a possession held by a sovereign or a group; it is a product of social constructs and discourses.
To postmodernists power is implied with knowledge, though they are both socially constructed. Knowledge is a product of power, “there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” (Foucault as quoted by Edkins in Edkins, 1999: 53). To understand power and knowledge according to postmodernists one must use genealogies which is the “focus on the process by which we have constructed origins and given meaning to particular representations of the past, representations that continuously guide our daily lives and set clear limits to political and social options” (Bleiker, 2000: 25). It is through these genealogies that post-modernists claim that there is not just one single history, but that many histories exist which are interwoven in power and knowledge (Devetak, 2009: 186). Through these genealogies history can be represented in many different ways and the way that history has been chosen to be represented can have significantly different effects. This is seen as the way that September 11, 2001 has been represented as “an act of terrorism, a criminal act, an act of evil, an act of war, or an act of revenge” (Devetak, 2009: 187). This one moment in history can be looked at in countless different ways depending on the social context of the person looking at the event. Often this context is directly correlated to what a person of power says of the event. September 11 was an event that both Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush wanted people to remember, but for different reasons, “bin Laden wants the world to remember the humbling of a hyperpower, Bush wants the world to remember the loss of innocent life” (Devetak, 2009: 189). There are many ways of depicting and representing an event (or a now) and part of what power is based on the textuality and mode of representation (Devetak,
2009: 190). Power is just one of an infinite possibility of nows. It is a now that is constructed based on the dominant now of the time. Postmodernists focus on power as discourses- discourses of knowledge, language, and writing among others. Power is knowledge, it is a function/process, it is a battle of ideas, and it is a knowledge construction. Knowledge is also created. It is created by beliefs and what people believe to be true and what they believe to be false. Power is something that might have been something completely different for power is a socially constructed now and like Shapiro (1992: 12) states: ‘What we are now’ is not meant as a simple description of the current state of things. Rather, it is an attempt to show that the ‘now’ is an unstable victory won at the expense of other possible nows.

Power lies in what that now is. This now is contingent on many factors- history, genealogy, space, environment, identity, and cultural settings. Postmodernism like feminism has it’s criticisms. Some international relations scholars have criticised postmodernists for not identifying actors and holding those actors accountable as do constructivists. Part of the point of postmodernism is that they do want to “ever stop investigating how power is used to stabilize identities that makes their work politics and make some constructivist work politically vacuous in contrast” (Weber, 2001: 78). Postmodernism has also been criticised and seen as just being a deconstruction of reality without contributing substituting judgments (Brown, 1994). Feminism and postmodernism both view power in international relations in very distinct manners. Feminism tends to focus on how men have that power. They also view power from more of a care perspective and see power as cooperation between actors and they tend to “focus on non-state actors, marginalized peoples and alternative conceptualizations of power and relationships (True, 2009: 237). Postmodernism tends to focus on how power is connected with knowledge and other discourses such as language and writing. Postmodernists also see power as a constructed now that came about because of social factors- a now that can be understood through genealogies and deconstruction.
Both feminism and postmodernism see power in international relations as more than A’s power over B, and as more than just A coercing B, both theories tend to reject the IR theory of realism and that political power is based off war and how war and conflict are inevitable and the use of force and just getting someone to do what you want them to do by force. They see it as more of the three-dimensional view, which power is something constructed through social actors, time, space, and many other factors. Power is more than something that is held onto or possessed; it is not centralized but is exercised in many different ways (Edkins, 1999: 53). It is in these points that feminism and postmodernist’s views on power diverge.

Bibliography

Berenskoetter, Felix (2007). “Thinking about Power” in Felix Berenskoetter and M.J. Williams (eds.) Power in World Politics. London and New York: Routledge.

Bleiker, Roland (2000). Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Richard H. (1994). “Rhetoric, textuality, and the postmodern turn in sociological theory” in Steven Seidmen (ed.) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 229- 241

Butler, Judith (1990). Gender Trouble Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York and London: Routledge.

Campbell, David (1998). National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Connell, R.W. (1990). “The State, Gender, and Sexual Politics”, Theory and Society 19(5):507-544.

Devetak, Richard (2009). “Post-structuralism” in Theories of International Relations Fourth Edition. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 183-211.

Edkins, Jenny (1999). Poststructuralism and International Relations Bringing The Political Back In. Boulder, Colorado and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

Enloe, Cynthia (1990). Bananas Beaches & Bases Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley, Los Angeles, California and London: University of California Press.

Foucault, Michel (1977). Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth.

Grant, Rebecca (1991). “The Sources of Gender Bias in International Relations Theory” in Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations. Suffolk, Great Britain: Open University Press: 8-26.

Halliday, Fred (1988). “Hidden From International Relations: Women and the International Arena”, Millennium- Journal of International Studies 17(3): 419-428.

Keohane, Robert O. (1991). “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint” in Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations. Suffolk, Great Britain: Open University Press: 41-50.

Lukes, Steven (2005). Power: A Radical View, Second Edition. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan: 14-59.

Shapiro, Michael J. (1992). Reading the Postmodern Polity. Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States: University of Minnesota Press

Tickner, J. Ann (1988). “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation”, Millennium- Journal of International Studies 17(3): 429-440.

Tickner, J. Ann (1992). Gender in International Relations Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York and Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.

Tickner, J. Ann (2002). “Feminist Perspectives on 9/11”, International Studies Perspectives 3:333-350.

True, Jacqui (2009). “Feminism” in Theories of International Relations Fourth Edition. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 237-259.

Weber, Cynthia (2001). International Relations Theory A Critical Introduction Second Edition. London and New York: Routledge.

Bibliography: Berenskoetter, Felix (2007). “Thinking about Power” in Felix Berenskoetter and M.J. Williams (eds.) Power in World Politics. London and New York: Routledge. Bleiker, Roland (2000). Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Richard H. (1994). “Rhetoric, textuality, and the postmodern turn in sociological theory” in Steven Seidmen (ed.) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 229- 241 Butler, Judith (1990) Campbell, David (1998). National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Connell, R.W. (1990). “The State, Gender, and Sexual Politics”, Theory and Society 19(5):507-544. Devetak, Richard (2009). “Post-structuralism” in Theories of International Relations Fourth Edition. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 183-211. Edkins, Jenny (1999). Poststructuralism and International Relations Bringing The Political Back In. Boulder, Colorado and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. Enloe, Cynthia (1990). Bananas Beaches & Bases Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley, Los Angeles, California and London: University of California Press. Foucault, Michel (1977). Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth. Grant, Rebecca (1991). “The Sources of Gender Bias in International Relations Theory” in Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations. Suffolk, Great Britain: Open University Press: 8-26. Halliday, Fred (1988). “Hidden From International Relations: Women and the International Arena”, Millennium- Journal of International Studies 17(3): 419-428. Keohane, Robert O. (1991). “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint” in Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations. Suffolk, Great Britain: Open University Press: 41-50. Lukes, Steven (2005). Power: A Radical View, Second Edition. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan: 14-59. Shapiro, Michael J Tickner, J. Ann (1988). “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation”, Millennium- Journal of International Studies 17(3): 429-440. Tickner, J. Ann (1992). Gender in International Relations Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York and Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press. Tickner, J. Ann (2002). “Feminist Perspectives on 9/11”, International Studies Perspectives 3:333-350. True, Jacqui (2009). “Feminism” in Theories of International Relations Fourth Edition. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 237-259. Weber, Cynthia (2001). International Relations Theory A Critical Introduction Second Edition. London and New York: Routledge.