1. Explain critically the similarities and differences between liberalism and feminism.
PowerPoint Presentation Liberalism, Peace & Cooperation What do International Relations Theories Try to Achieve? Explain laws which identifies probable associations between issues, events and actors (Waltz). Help to abstract, generalize and to connect (Hollis and Smith). Speculate about relations between states (Wright). Using observation to test hypotheses about the world (empirical theory). Represent the way the world ought to be (normative theory). Provide ideological critique of the present which opens up alternative future paths to change, freedom and human autonomy (critical theory). Reflections upon the process of theorizing, including questions of epistemology and ontology. Two Broad Types of Theories Explanatory Theories – that try to explain events, issues and the behaviour of actors in the global system. Constitutive Theories – which reflects upon the very process of theorizing; that is, these theories are concerned with the social and political purposes of knowledge, the cognitive interests and assumptions of the observer and the way in which the principal actors construct their images of the political world. What do Theories of International Relations Differ About? The first difference is the object of analysis and the scope of the inquiry – that is, the level of analysis debate. The second difference is the purpose of social and political inquiry – that is, what is the underlying reason behind the theoretical undertaking? A third difference is about the appropriate methodology for the study of IR. A fourth difference centres on whether each theory sees IR as being distinct from, or related to, other areas of intellectual endeavour. Theory and Reality Theory makes sense of reality. It also precedes and shapes reality. In other words, there is a real historical world in which things happen; and theory is made through reflection upon what has happened. ‘Theory’ and ‘reality’ are also not antonyms or binary opposites because theoreticians are active agents in research which is conditioned by their own historical experiences. These experiences cannot be artificially separated from their work because they are embedded in the theoretical worlds they construct. Classical Liberalism At the beginning of the 20th century, the question of how to prevent war was of paramount importance due the revolution in the nature of warfare brought about by the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the modern ‘nation-state’ and the massive destruction and human suffering caused by the First World War (1914-1919). After the First World War, Liberalism (also known as Idealism or Utopianism), became the dominant paradigm in IR and was led ardently by the charismatic American President Woodrow Wilson. For the Classical Liberals, the ‘condition of anarchy’ under which the international system operates together with the ‘culture of secret diplomacy and authoritarian governance’ in Europe were the root causes of World War I. The Classical Liberals argued that war was not a product of human nature, but the result of misunderstandings by politicians who had lost control of events leading up to hostilities in 1914. If ‘secret diplomacy’ could be replaced by ‘collective security’ and if autocratic rule could be replaced by democracy, then war would be seen as a senseless and destructive tool of international statecraft. Cont. Thus a new theory emerged on the question of war – that peace could only be preserved by a system of collective security, to be implemented specifically through international organizations, and by democratization of autocratic states. The distinctive character of Classical Liberalism, according to Hedley Bull, was its belief in the following: that the system of international relations that had given rise to WWI was capable of being transformed into a fundamentally more peaceful and just world order; that under the impact of the awakening of democracy, the growth of the ‘international mind’, and the development of the League of Nations would transform the world; and that it was the responsibility of enlightened men of peace, as students of international relations, to assist this march of progress to overcome the ignorance, the prejudices, the ill-will, and the sinister interests that stood in its way. The Liberal Security Order The Idealists’ solution to war: democratize Europe’s authoritarian states, and create international institutions based on ‘collective security’. It was assumed that democratization would help to prevent war in two ways: (i) eliminate secret diplomacy by making foreign policy more open and transparent and subject to public scrutiny; (ii) provide a democratic ‘peace dividend’. International institutions would help to prevent war by ameliorating the conditions of anarchy that underpins the international system, through the practice of ‘collective security’ – if one state breaks breaches international peace by attacking another state, then other states would collectively come to the defence of the attacked state. An international system based on international law, collective security and democracy would also help promote free trade and disarmament between peaceful states. It would also help end colonialism and promote national self-determination. League of Nations Classical Liberals therefore created the League of Nations after the end of WWI in order to institutionalize the principles of collective security. It was expected that the League of Nations would provide a forum for transparent diplomacy and the pacific settlement of inter-state disputes. The League, however, failed to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the Classical Liberalism paradigm in IR became largely discredited even though the successor to the League, the United Nations (UN), enjoyed a much greater degree of success in the practice of transparent diplomacy and collective security. Neo-Liberalism In the aftermath of the Second World War, international relations came to be dominated by Realism or Realist Theory. Classical Realists focused on human nature, state interests, and power politics in the context of an anarchical international system. The onset of the Cold War seemed to vindicate the position of Classical Realists. By the 1970s, however, it was quite clear that the prediction of the Classical Realists that states are constantly in a state of war/conflict was simply not true/accurate. There was steadily growing evidence that in spite of the possibility of war/conflict, states cooperated with each other and that peaceful interactions between states and between states and other actors were growing rapidly. Neo-liberalism attempted to explain the increasing amount of interaction between states, and between other actors in a globalizing world. This lead to a revival of liberal institutionalism theory (UN, ASEAN), regime theory (Human Rights), democratic peace theory (EU integration), free market/trade theory (GATT, WTO), and interdependence theory (Globalization theory). Liberalism, Peace & Cooperation What do International Relations Theories Try to Achieve? Two Broad Types of Theories What do Theories of International Relations Differ About? Theory and Reality Classical Liberalism Cont. The Liberal Security Order League of Nations Neo-Liberalism Feminism, Gender and International Relations Feminism, Gender and International Relations Dr Jane Hutchison • In theory and practice, International Relations is deeply gendered. • Consider the UN Security Council … • It excludes women through masculinity - ‘a way of ordering the world’ that upholds the principle of men’s superiority and power and authority over women. • ‘Though men in general gain the patriarchal dividend, specific groups of men gain very little of it’ (Connell). • Although feminists are always concerned with the position of women, their analytical focus is on gender as a form of power that links to sexual difference. Gender • Gender is a way of categorising people and activities to produce and legitimate the power and authority of men. • Gender does this by constructing sex difference in terms of binaries. • Binaries set up oppositions – in meaning and often in value. Sex and Gender • Sex is biology, gender is a social construction. • Gender is not a flow on from sex (male and female bodies). • Gender constructs a world of binary difference – male/female, civilisation/nature, strong/weak, rational/emotional, protector/protected –posited as natural/incontestable. • Sex binaries are not the basis of gender difference; gender constructs sex as (naturally) binary. • Masculinity positions men in the social order (as non-feminine). • Masculinity is not singular – ‘hegemonic masculinity’ promotes the subordination of women (Connell). Gender and the Military Gender and the Military 1) Men are natural warriors – stronger, braver, protectors? Feminists respond: - Men are not necessarily better suited to combat than women. - Men are not ready-made soldiers and can experience ‘post- traumatic stress disorder’. - There are women soldiers – the masculinism of the military ‘is most clearly captured by the very need to continually establish that women can also be combatants and should also be allowed to be’ (Kinsella 2005, 254). 2) Male bonding is important, so it is important not to mix the sexes. 3) A masculinist logic – the ostensibly natural facts about men ‘are themselves produced through discourses of gender which give sex and sex difference meaning’ in relation to suitability for combat (Kinella 2005, 253). Military training promotes a particular form of heightened masculinity that naturalises the exclusion of women – and fails to see the men’s resulting psychological and social breakdowns (PTSD). Combats and Citizens • The foundational texts of International Relations were not indifferent to relations between men and women. • Instead, they explicitly exclude women from the political arena – on the basis that their inclusion would disrupt the authority of men which is the foundation of the social order. • Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius Thomas Hobbes • As a liberal, Hobbes considered men and women are equal in ‘the state of nature’ (his thought exercise to justify the imposition of political authority, in an absolute form). • Life is the state of nature is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ (anarchy) • As mothers, women should have authority over their children, but for