En 
Es 
Fr 
This academic article discusses how Cynthia Enloe’s feminist approach challenges traditional notions in International Relations.
Introduction
Acknowledging that writing this academic article required the author to challenge some of the notions he grew up with would be an accurate overall personal assessment. This essay supports Cynthia Enloe’s argument that by allocating gender at the center where national and international political affairs orbit, International Relations Theory is entirely reconstructed by a novel, comprehensive, and real significance.
The following article addresses the above claim through four main sections. First, it discusses some essential a priori concepts within the feminist scholarship, a brief history of its movement, and arguments from the feminist framework in IR Theory. Second, it engages with fragments of the publication “Bananas, Beaches, and Bases” by Cynthia H. Enloe, and most particularly, with its first chapter “Gender makes the world go round”, along with other academic research. Finally, because feminist IR engages with the concept of gender as a whole, this assignment looks into general aspects of the study of masculinities in IR, using a brief analysis of Winston Churchill, former British Prime Minister, as a case of study.
Gender & Feminism: concept, history and IR
As argued by Daddow (2017, p. 185), one of the novelties put forward by feminist IR theorists was the inclusion of gender as an approach to address cornerstone principles of International Studies (e.g. anarchy and war). Thus, it is fundamental to conceptualize what should be understood by gender and feminism, however, it is improbable —if not impossible— to include all main considerations that need to be present in a definition for it to work adequately (Zalewski, 2015, p. 6).
Regarding gender, it is of the utmost importance to understand that sex and gender —though commonly used as synonyms— are not the same. Failing to acknowledge the difference between these two terms could equivocally lead us to regard socially constructed gender disparities as biologically natural, and that anyone who does not fit the expected behavior of their sex and gender is an anomaly (Steans, 2013, p. 7). Traditionally —that is arbitrary—, attributes like reason, power, and protection are linked to masculinity, while emotion, fragility, and protection are characteristics commonly associated with femininity (Tickner and Sjoberg 2016, quoted in Daddow, 2017, p. 186), and even though this social construction of gender could be traced as far back as the ancient Greeks (Narain, 2014, p. 182), it is also argued that the development of capitalism exacerbated the inequalities between genders with the institutionalization of the “patriarchal family” (Engels, 2000, pp. 65-69, 88-89).
On the other hand, feminism has been described as “the idea that women should have rights equal to men’s in political, social, sexual, intellectual, and economic spheres” (Narain, 2014, p. 180). This conception of equality, however, is contested due to its alleged Western-centric values. As a counterargument, distinct groups of non-western feminists relate more with the principle of “gender complementarity”, which builds on the argument that differences between genders “are necessary to the well-being and smooth functioning of society” (Steans, 2013, p. 13). Though it is important to reflect on the origins of this critic, this idea will be challenged throughout the analysis of Cynthia Enloe’s work.
While addressing feminist IR theory, it is important to briefly mention the three historical “waves” in which feminism has been divided. The first one —the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries— is characterized by the women’s fight for basic political rights, namely the right to vote. The second wave —1960s and late 1980s— relates to the fight for equality. The third one —1990s to ¿?[1]— refers to the fight for a more plural conception of femininity: one that takes into account socioeconomic, ethnic, and national —among many other— differences between women (Narain, 2014, p. 181). This succinct history report is especially relevant for context purposes since it was between the second half of the 1980s and the early 1990s that feminist scholars began to enrich the International Relations Theory field with their work (Ackerly and True, 2008, p. 165).
Feminist IR has been described as a “dialectical process” because it is interested in “understanding the subjective meaning (women) attach to their lived experiences”. It strives to “deconstruct” the main concepts of the field (Narain, 2014, pp. 187-188). Moreover, feminists argue that international politics function through “a patriarchal system that works for men at the expense of women” (Daddow, 2017, p.186). By challenging the supposed neutrality of positivist science and recognizing the subjectivities at play in the construction of knowledge (Tickner 1992, quoted in Narain, 2014, p. 192), the feminist approach(es) appears to side with Robert Cox’s principle that “theory is always for someone and for some purpose” (1996, p. 87).
There are many categories under which it would be possible to approach feminist IR. Some of the most relevant are empiricism, standpoint, and post-modernism (Harding, 1986, p. 24); Marxist, socialist, and radical feminism (Sylvester, 1996, p. 256); and liberal, post-structural, constructivist, post-colonial, and critical feminism (Tickner and Sjoberg 2016, quoted in Daddow, 2017, pp. 188-193). However, this essay will focus especially on Enloe’s empiricist method and theoretic postulates.
Enloe’s Feminist Sense of International Politics
According to Cynthia H. Enloe, to make “useful sense” of international politics, it is necessary to pay attention to the experiences of women within realms that are usually disregarded as “domestic” (2014, p. 27). Following the lives and daily actions of diplomatic spouses, secretaries, and domestic workers, there is the potential —if looked at with a feminist approach— to acknowledge where the power lies and for what purpose (Enloe, 2014, pp. 31-32). This can’t be considered to be a complement because complementarity would imply an equal hierarchical position in order for differences to complete each other; and this has certainly not been the case. Some —few— women have been used, and the great majority have been exploited by men to make the prevailing international system work.
For Enloe, when a woman achieves the privilege of occupying high office it is usually because that particular woman does not pose a threat to the men-dominated status quo, as she has addressed as “boy’s talk” (Enloe, 2000, pp. 4-7). In a statistical logic, focusing on “outliers” like Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher distracts attention from good evidence practices (Sylvester, 1996, p. 255). At the end of the day, an outlier is a case that is “at the very high or very low end of a (normal) distribution (of data)” (Whittier, Wildhagen, and Gold, 2020, pp. 175-176).
Applying “feminist curiosity” to the study of International Relations does not mean setting aside the traditional topics and actors of the subject, but rather recognizing that these are not complete without analyzing women and the gendered constructed nature of the discipline (Enloe, 2000, p. 11). It means to acknowledge that the “personal is political”, as daily interactions are affected by unequal forms of power. It also means that “political is personal”, because from powerful positions, men can shape the construction of gendered norms that confine women to places where they will not be able to challenge the status quo effectively. By the same token, “personal is international”, as allegedly private actions are in fact supporting the present form of the international system; and “international is personal” because the foreign affairs of States rely on believed personal relationships to be sustained (Enloe, 2014, pp. 327-330). This theoretical and methodological empiricism —the one exercised by Enloe— has meant, at least for some scholars, the reshaping of IR Theory’s obsession with the scientific—positivist— standards popularized by the academic works of Kenneth Waltz (Neal, 2012, pp. 119-120).
Within the Social Sciences realm, especially in the United States, women scholars that embraced positivism have been, in general, more accepted and recognized by their colleagues in the field (Ackerly and True, 2008, p. 164). Consequently, it is not uncommon to encounter efforts to analyze gender “as a variable” that needs to be tested through statistical models to achieve an understanding of the world “as it is”. This approach, however, has the unfortunate disadvantage of disregarding the sociological factors involved in the construction of those categories in the first place (Steans, 2013, pp. 17-20).
Once it is studied how mainstream International Relations Theories are very much a product of a patriarchal system, hence the term “malestream” (Youngs, 2004, pp. 75-76), it becomes problematic to accept the objectiveness and explanations these models offer. Without first understanding how the data was constructed, the results derived from those models remain incomplete.
Following this logic, recognizing Enloe’s empiricism as one that does not imply positivism, but rather one that relinquishes its explanatory intentions; one that seeks to collect non-numerical data (e.g. discourses, practices, etc.) by looking into relevant sources —as are daily experiences of everyday women— to then provide a comprehensive description (Neal, 2012, pp. 119-121), is what makes her work more representative of diverse realities.
Leaving methodology aside, Enloe —like other feminist IR scholars in general— takes especial interest in the study of masculinities. The current world system, she asserts, is supported by “feminizing women”, but it is also dependent on “artificial notions of masculinity” (Enloe, 2014, p. 56), hence the effort to control women to exercise a stronger domination over non-elite men. Therefore, another way of making a “feminist sense” of IR is to address how these masculinities work in the international realm (Enloe, 2014, p. 335).
Masculinities in IR
It is important to stress the plural form of the term “masculinity”, as this implies that it is not a fixed term and that it is affected by time and culture (Enloe, 2014, p. 51). Nevertheless, to focus —to some extent— on their negative influence within International Relations, it would be interesting to focus on two specific forms: “hegemonic masculinity”, which is associated with the traditional embodiment of dominant masculinity, superior to others due to class, race or sexual orientation (Youngs, 2004, p. 85); and “hypermasculinity”, characterized for its violent backlash reaction when the hegemonic masculinity is perceived under threat (Agathangelou and Ling, 2004, p. 519).
These specific forms of masculinities are the lead architects of the patriarchal society, that is to say, a society that is based on gender inequalities under which women are subordinated to men (Enloe, 2014, p. 52). The institutionalization of this type of society can be traced back to the Roman Republic, where the authority and domain over women —recognized by law— belonged exclusively to the paterfamilias, in other words, the leader of the household (Feldman and Miller, 2008, para. 22-23).
Concerning IR, one relevant feature to notice from hegemonic and hypermasculinities is their tendency to impose hierarchical structures within their relations (Young, 2004, pp. 79-80). Among other potential phobias, the constant distinction inside the English School’s international society between the “dominant Western powers” and those who are bound to accept —and even absorb— their cultural values (Bull, 2012, p. 37), could find part of its roots in these pernicious forms of masculinities.
The Patriarchal system is present too in International Relations Theory, as Cynthia Weber argues in her response to Robert Keohane’s critique of feminist scholarship in the field. By attempting to “discipline” the work of feminist scholars, i.e., to change it so it can take an acceptable place within the boundaries that mainstream (malestream) IR Theory regards as “good science”, Keohane critique, Weber argues, suffers from “male paranoia”. In other words, a backlash response from patriarchy beneficiaries is afraid of being deprived of their endemic privileged position in the academy (Weber, 1994, pp. 337-338, 346-347). Instead of focusing on efforts to discipline feminists by applying the very same science that they are critiquing in the first place; Carver, Cochran, and Squires -while addressing Adam Jones’ critique- suggest that men should direct their work to scrutinize the negative consequences of patriarchy in men (1998, p. 293, 297).
Briefly applying Enloe’s postulation that “the conduct of international politics has depended on men’s control of women” (Enloe, 2000, p. 4) in a practical example, the author of this article has chosen to take a rapid glance at the life of Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Churchill, as a private individual, was enabled by the accompaniment of three women: his nurse, Mrs. Everest, who taught him to read and write; his mother, Lady Randolph Churchill, whose social connections made possible his candidacy for parliament; and his wife, Clementine Hozier, a liberal woman who sacrificed her physical and mental health by putting the needs of his husband before hers (Addison, 2017, pp. 93-102).
In the matter of his public life, Churchill relied on an army of female secretaries who had to endure his bad temperament and always offered their loyalty and discretion, both in work and personal-related issues (Addison, 2017, pp. 93-102).
Concerning “the women question” as a public matter, though it is possible to conclude that Churchill began to personally accept some of the first-wave feminist claims, it would also be safe to assert that he did not believe —at least publicly— in the legitimacy of such demands (Addison, 2017, pp. 93-102), as he never appeared to internalize them, that is to say, he kept doing “cost-benefit calculations” regarding when, why and how he was going to support the feminist fight for political rights (Hurd 2007, quoted in Hehir, 2013, p. 150).
This brief mention of the main —but often ignored— the role of everyday women in the life of Winston Churchill has the purpose of, first, supporting Enloe’s and feminist IR scholars' claims, and second, reflecting on what could have happened in the world’s history without the support of women in the life of this leader, and in fact, many others.
Conclusion
By focusing on a micro-level empiric analysis, and studying how socially constructed gender norms influence and sustain the current —patriarchal— system of international politics, which affects both women and men from theory to praxis, and by reflecting on how gender makes the world go round, Enloe and her colleague feminist scholars have set the path from which older and newer generations of academics of every possible background can work together and bottom-up to give IR Theory a more plural, comprehensive and attached-to-reality significance.
Bibliography
Ackerly, B. and True, J. (2008) ‘An Intersectional Analysis of International Relations: Recasting the Discipline’, Politics & Gender, 4(1), pp.156–173. DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X08000081
Addison, P. (2017). ‘Churchill and Women’, in Toye, R. (ed.) Winston Churchill: Politics, Strategy, and Statecraft. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 93–104.
Agathangelou, A.M. and Ling, L.H.M. (2004) ‘Power, Border, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11’, International Studies Quarterly, 48(3), pp. 517-538. DOI: 10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00313.x
Bull, H. (2012) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 4th ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Carver, T., Cochran, M. and Squires, J. (1998) ‘Gendering Jones: feminisms, IRs, masculinities’, Review of international studies, 24(2), pp.283–297. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210598002836
Cox, R.W. (1996) ‘Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory (1981)’, in Cox, R.W. and Sinclair, T.J. Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85-123.
Daddow, O. (2017) International Relations Theory. 3rd ed. London: SAGE LTD.
Engels, F. (2000) Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. London: ElecBook.
Enloe, C.H. (2000) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Rev. ed. Berkeley: the University of California Press.
Enloe, C.H. (2014) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Feldman, S. and Miller, P. (2008) ‘Patriarchy’, in Smith, B.G. (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia Women in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harding, S.G. (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hehir, A. (2013) ‘The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect’, International Security, 38(1), pp. 137-159. DOI: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00125
Narain, S. (2014) ‘Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives of J. Ann Tickner’, Indian Journal of gender studies, 21(2), pp. 179–197. DOI: 10.1177/0971521514525085
Neal, A. W. (2012) ‘Empiricism without Positivism: King Lear and Critical Security Studies’, in Salter, M.B. and Mutlu, C.E. (eds) Research Methods in Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 118-125.
Steans, J. (2013) Gender and International Relations Theory, Practice, Policy. 3rd rev. ed. Oxford: Wiley.
Sylvester, C. (1996) ‘The contributions of feminist theory to international relations’, in Smith, S., Booth, K., and Zalewski, M. (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 254–278.
Weber, C. (1994) ‘Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane's Critique of Feminist International Relations’, Millennium, 23(2), pp. 337–349. DOI: 10.1177/03058298940230021401
Whittier, N., Wildhagen, T. and Gold, H.J. (2020) Statistics for Social Understanding: With Stata and SPSS. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Youngs, G. (2004) ‘Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World 'We' Live in’, International affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 80(1), pp. 75–87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2004.00367.x
Zalewski, M. (2015) ‘Feminist International Relations: Making Sense’, in Shepherd, L.J. (ed.) Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist introduction to International Relations. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 3-13.
[1] The author of this text acknowledges the works of several scholars around the “fourth wave” of feminism, but as this is not the main topic of the essay, the author has decided not to elaborate further.
