Advanced International Relations Theory - 1 st Review Assignment

Name : Andhyta Firselly UtamiDepartment /NPM : International Relations / 0906550373Resource : Tickner, J. Ann, “Reflection, Evaluation, Integration. On The Frontlines or

Sidelines of Knowledge and Power? Feminist Practices of Responsible Scholarship” in International Studies Review (2006) 8, pp. 383-395

The Role of Feminist Practices in International Relations Theory: How Scholar-Activists Set A Rear Line for Knowledge and Policy Making Process

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change

it.” This credo of Karl Marx (1845) bluntly challenges the orthodox notion of scholarship and primarily directs it

from abstract thoughts toward real actions.1 More than a century later, Edward Said (2004) also expresses his

affirmation on the role of intellectual which, according to him, is ‘to say truth to power’ and ‘to address the

central authority in every society without hypocrisy’.2 Emitting similar spirit with these premises, J. Ann

Tickner raises a question whether international relations scholars should engage directly in the policy making

process or remain at a critical distance from it. Using the metaphor of frontlines and sidelines, her essay presents

some feminist reformulations that are claimed to contribute to more inclusionary theory and practice. This

article is going to argue that, in the end, international relations scholars should also play as activists who

maintain and develop the study as the key guide to policy making process. In other words: a rear line.

There are mainly six broad points of feminist view that J. Ann Tickner highlights in her writing: (1)

the so-called erosion of academic freedom and a silencing of dissent on critical policy issues, (2) the genuine

objective of feminism, (3) the difference-based knowledge by the Cartesian and feminists’ efforts to

‘deconstruct’ it, (4) how warrior masculinity reemerged through the War on Terror issue, (5) feminist beliefs

that religions are generally bad for women, as well as (6) the direct relation between gender inequality and

growing gap between the rich and the poor.

First, Tickner discusses Morgenthau’s idea on proper relationship of international relations scholars to

the policy, which is ‘to look over the shoulder’ of the statesman as a ‘disinterested observer’ who understands

his thoughts better than he himself does. Just like critical theorists, feminists claim that a theory must be neutral.

They do not accept any power relationship as granted and always call them into question. Therefore, feminists

push and redefine the boundaries of knowledge in new ways by also emphasizing the importance of listening to

new voices.3 Second, feminism aims to mobilize the political commitment which is necessary to end women’s

subordination. This is the ultimate goal to which all scholarship engagements should be dedicated toward

reaching this goal (Boxer, 1998). We can see, however, that in recent development, feminists have broadened

their field of work and cover general problems that involve marginalized groups.

1 Sigmund Neumann, “Engels and Marx: Military Concepts of the Social Revolutionaries” in To The First World War, (2 Tickner, J. Ann, “Reflection, Ecaluation, Integration. On The Frontlines or Sidelines of Knowledge and Power? Feminist Practices of Responsible

Scholarship” in International Studies Review (2006) 8, page 3833 Ibid., page 386

Third, Tickner (just as all feminists in general) scrutinizes Cartesian divisions between ‘subjects and

objects, the West and the rest, men and women, white and non-white’ that were used in the construction of

Eurocentric imperial knowledge.4 Acts of power, she says, can be seen through the process of cataloguing,

analyzing, and putting the world on display. Feminists are poststructuralists who feel motivated by linguistic and

empirical efforts to deconstruct these divisions and look beyond them. Forth, Tickner criticizes the civilizational

divisions that inhere in the War on Terror and background knowledge that they presuppose. This, according to

her, raises the reemergence of warrior masculinity. The old concept in which power, strength, protection,

rationality, and warrior are typically associated with masculinity is held back. Their opposites such as weakness,

protectedness, emotionality, and passivity are again associated with femininity. With empirical cases, Tickner

shows that this is not true because in fact many men become peacemakers and some women are warriors.5

Fifth, most feminists believe that all conservative religions, including Christianity and Islam, are bad

for women. Interpretations of the Quran, the Bible, and other religious texts have long been monopolized by

male scholars who enforce strict codes of behavior on women. However, the latest development shows positive

efforts from moderate theologians who try to show that Islam (and Christianity) is also progressive for women.

Sixth and last, the phenomenon of gendering international political economy where there is a growing gap

between the rich and the poor. Kimberly Chang and LHM Ling (2000) highlight the process of both men-

populated global economy as well as class-based menial service by women as the cause to this condition.

According to them, low wages and poor working conditions for the latter have been unfairly justified on the

grounds that home-based work is not “real” work because it is not located in a public sphere of production.

Therefore, rationalists’ economic analysis alone cannot explain this gendered division of labor without

sociologically based interpretive understandings of gender role expectations.

Finally, Tickner concludes that “Feminist scholars in international relations have taken responsibility

for offering us some glimpses into the lives of those who have not been the subjects of history and whose

agency gets ignored when we decide what counts as knowledge about global politics." 6 This should be

considered as a valid argument, considering how the essay has proven that feminists are ‘scholar-activists’ who

not only try to implement legislation, but also redefine the meaning of human rights. However, she fails to

distinctively suggest that feminists should have direct engagement with the ‘frontline’ policy world or remain on

the sidelines and engaging in critical skepticism.

Keohane in “International Relations Theory: Contributions of A Feminist Standpoint”, proposes

another approach in explaining the role of feminists in international relations scholarship. He suggests that

concerns coming from feminists appear to be different according to their ways of looking at society.7 To this

extent, Keohane categorizes them into three clusters: feminist empiricism, standpoint, and postmodernism.

4 Ibid., page 3905 Ibid.6 Ibid., page 3937 Robert Keohane, “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint” in Millennium Journal of International Studies, Vol.18; No.2 (1989), page 245

Feminist empiricism implies that states and interstate system have been fundamentally gendered

structures of domination and interaction.8 They ask whether it is accurate to focus on states and worldwide

capitalist processes and not also examine the social attitudes and structures which impart a gender to

international relations. Feminist standpoint consecutively states that women’s experiences at the margins of

political life have given them perspectives on social issues that provide sound insights into world politics. Their

critiques come from the standpoint conception as a person who’s been systematically excluded from power. To

finish, feminist postmodernism emphasizes a resistance to the conception of one true story to a falsely

universalizing perspective such as that of white men. They also seek to improve understanding of existing

international relations practice by examining how core concepts of international relations are affected by the

gendered structure of international society.

Further, Keohane covers what was lacking in Tickner’s elaboration. Morgenthau’s crude conception of

power as ‘man’s control over the minds and actions of other men’, for instance, was challenged by Hannah

Arendt as ‘the human ability not just to act but to act in concert’. This redefinition leads to further consequences

on the perception of sovereignty and reciprocity. The investigation of how gender affects the modern interstate

system with emphasizing that women have been victims of patriarchal states is present in both Tickner and

Keohane’s works. According to Keohane, postmodernism in feminists’ point of view is an alliance between two

complementary critiques of neorealism: neoliberal institutionalism and feminist-standpoint theory of

international relations. State behavior is understood as far as possible through analysis of nature of international

system that is very much influenced by the connected set of formal and informal rules. Simultaneously,

connectedness should be given priority to begin with rather than separateness. Critiques on international

relations theories reinforce an emerging trend away from fragmentation.

Cynthia Weber brings these arguments a step advance by creating her own metaphor for Keohane’s

grand idea in trying to explain what is beyond it. She uses ‘good girl’ to represent feminist standpoint as the one

who reexamine key concepts of international relations without necessarily retracting from disciplinary goals.

‘Good girls’ play as a supplement to the core of international relations theory and is disciplined into the core

itself.9 On the other side, there are ‘little girls’ who investigate how institutionalization of sex differences affects

the modern interstate system. The second cluster of feminism has the tendency to merely ‘describe’ rather than

theorize and find solutions to tackle the issues. Thenceforth, it appears to have a less mature vision of

international relations and often undervalued. In order to really contribute to the study, Weber suggests the ‘little

girls’ to ally itself with the ‘good girls’ as the big sister. Keohane’s last part, feminist postmodernism,

demonstrates the dead end of feminist literatures. Weber labels it ‘bad girls’ sicne postmodernism with its

elusive qualities in feminist thoughts would make it dangerously difficult to define. It should be disposed in

order to make ‘the whole body’ really contribute to international relations study.

8 Ibid., page 2499 Cynthia Weber, “Good Girls, Little Girls and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations” in Millennium Journal of International Studies Vol.23; No.2 (1994), page 340

Scholars who are not aware of their own role in the study or how they can contribute to empirical cases

would never really take a part in anything. J. Ann Tickner has critically underlined this fact yet did not manage

to give a satisfactory answer in the end of her paragraphs. Keohane’s arguments and Weber’s complementary

assessment, although were not directly aimed to answer Tickner’s riddle, show the inclination to point feminists

as ‘scholars’ who should carefully reexamine the meaning of ‘power, sovereignty, and reciprocity’ without

being involved in it in order to keep the objectivity. Affirming Morgenthau, the writer believes that joining the

holder of power may disorientate a scholar’s point of view that is supposedly neutral and unbiased. This

supports the orthodox social scientific accounts which say that knowledge ought to be immune from the

influence of power.10

Now the question and situation that we have to deal with is on how feminist scholars can present

feminism as one complete body as well as its position in policy making process. Both Keohane and Weber seem

to intentionally create a division within the study, something that Tickner negates and identifies as the

‘Cartesian tradition of categorizing’. Although different explanations from different scholars appear to be

discursive and not converged, the writer believes that these scholars basically set their objective to make

advancements and not regress for the international relations theories. Seeing how feminist scholars refer to

previous feminist writings, we can comprehend that they commit themselves to not going back and instead

develop the study. Thenceforth, while Tickner argues whether feminist scholarship should be on either the

frontline or sideline, the writer proposes that their main task is to set a rear line over which novel feminist

scholars should not trespass. In the end, the major normative agenda of feminists should be a pursuit to global

transformations toward the greater equality of women.

10 Richard Devetak, “Postmodernism” in Scott Burchill, Theories of International Relations, 2nd Ed., (2001: New York, Palgrave), page 204