Final Draft Senior Thesis
-
Upload
aracelis-marie-sanchez -
Category
Documents
-
view
238 -
download
1
Transcript of Final Draft Senior Thesis
Feminism as Critical International Relations Theory: Exploring the Transformative Politics of Resistance
Aracelis SanchezSenior Thesis
Dominican University4/13/2015
Sanchez 2
Feminist approaches have long been marginalized in the male-dominated
discipline of international relations. Women make huge contributes in the political
and economic realm yet their stories and contributions have largely been dismissed
or left out of the master narrative. As a subfield, feminist theories in international
relations have fallen short in making an impact on mainstream ideologies and
frameworks. Feminist theory provides a different perspective to international
relations that recognizes the patriarchal nature of the state and market and includes
gender as an important category of analysis (Youngs, 76). Feminist international
relations theory provides important insights that traditional theory may overlook.
In this paper, I aim to highlight the benefits of approaching the politics of resistance
within a theoretical feminist international relations framework, while using the
Arab Spring and the Zapatista Movement as relevant case studies. First, I will
distinguish between rationalist and reflectivist theories in international relations in
order to provide a foundational framework in understanding the importance of
critical theories. I will then discuss the main critiques of mainstream international
relations theory from a feminist perspective, along a feminist framework for
resistance. The paper will end with the analysis of the movements and suggestions
for further research.
Sense of Order vs. Sense of Justice
There are diverse sets of theories that exist within the discipline of
international relations. As the field has progressed, different schools of thought have
emerged and created new theories to explain phenomena in the international
sphere. In short, these sets of theories can be divided into two categories –
Sanchez 3
rationalist theories and reflectivist theories (Dunne, 23). Central differences
between these theories are epistemological and methodological, yet they are all
helpful in explaining something about the world that we live in. In order to
understand where feminist international relations theory falls within these two sets
of theories, I will explain the main differences between them.
Rationalist theories in international relations are positivist theories that aim
at explaining, rather than understanding, international relations. Rationalist
theories are more interested in describing phenomenon, rather than accounting for
the consequences of that phenomenon. Examples of these types of theory include
realism, liberalism, neoliberalism and structural realism. The term “rationalist”
derived from rational choice theory. Rational choice theory “is essentially a
methodology constructed from a commitment to a positive account of science
(Dunne, 23).” There is an underlying assumption that exists behind these sets of
theories that describe individuals (and their states) as utility maximizers and
nothing more. Along with this, this methodology is a deductive approach to
international relations, in which a set of theories is hypothesized and observations
either confirm of falsify the hypothesis. It follows a purely scientific approach to the
field that aims at generating universal laws and truths (Dunne, 21).
For these reasons, rationalistic theories have been associated with positivist
tradition in international relations. Positivist accounts of knowledge depend on
systematic observation and rely on solely what can be observed and useful. After
observations, the patterns within the data are normalized and, then, universal laws
and truths are concluded. The danger with the positivist approach exists within it’s
Sanchez 4
obsession with observation and it’s lack of analysis of concepts, paradigms, and
ideologies that are not tangible enough for their modes of observation. Reflectivist
theories developed in response to the limitations that rationalist theories possessed
(Dunne, 21).
Reflectivist theories come out of a post positivist framework and are
determined to understand the world around us, rather than simply explaining it.
Examples of these types of theories include Marxist, post-structuralist and feminist.
These theories are called reflectivist because of their rejection of positivism and
their emphasis on reflexivity (Dunne, 23). Mainstream international theorists are
wary of reflectivist theories because these theories critique the very epistemological
and methodological approaches on which they depend. However, these theories are
starting to become more prominent within the discipline of international relations.
With human rights and the security of the citizen gaining more importance in
international studies, these reflectivist theories bring a sense of social justice to
international relations theories, while classical theories focus solely on a sense of
order.
When I was learning about classical theories in international relations, I
could not help but think about what is being left out in just explaining these
relations rather than trying to understand the underlying mechanisms that cause
such behaviors. Within the past few years, there has been increased media coverage
on different resistance movements such as the Arab Spring and the Zapatistas in
Mexico. I have always wondered whose stories were being left out of the master
narrative. I began to wonder in what ways mainstream international relations
Sanchez 5
theories were failing marginalized actors in these resistance movements. Feminist
international relations theory provides a framework that I believe offers gendered
insights into resistance movements that are not visible in other theories.
Feminism as critical international relations theory
In order to make the claim that feminist international relations theory is
critical, I first want to discuss how the larger discipline of feminist studies qualifies
as critical theory, outside of the IR realm. Key feminist theorists in international
relations, Catherine Eschle and Nice Maiguashca, believe that feminism acts as a
critical theory for a number of reasons. Feminist works conceptualize knowledge as
“embodied, located and partial (Eschle, 287).” First and foremost, feminist theory
aims at critiquing traditional forms of knowledge, and includes factors of analysis
that have been excluded – namely, gender. Feminist theory understands that
knowledge is socially and historically produced, mediated by the intersection of
identities of that who possesses the knowledge. Furthermore, feminist theory seeks
to empower it’s subjects and aims at highlighting the subjects (otherwise invisible)
agency (Eschle, 287). Feminist theory is also known to be reflective, which is why its
international relations subfield falls under reflectivist approaches to international
relations along with similar reflectivist schools of thought such as post-
structuralism, Marxist and post-colonialism.
This reflectivist feminist international relations theory rejects positivism,
and critiques the masculinist framing of politics in the international sphere
(Weldon, 80). Along with bringing attention the lack of gender analysis in
international relations, feminist IR also critiques the state, the market, and
Sanchez 6
conceptualizations of economic and political agency. One of the first aspects that
separate feminist theory from other theories in international relations is its
placement of gender as a critical category of analysis (Young, 76). This gender
analysis applies to not just individuals, but to larger structures that operate in the
sphere of international relations. As mentioned before, the differences between
reflectivist theories and rationalist theories are epistemological and methodological.
Mainstream international relations theories “perpetuate a distorted and partial
world view that reflects the disproportionate power of control and influence that
men hold, rather than the full social reality of the lives of women, children and men
(Young, 76).” Feminist international relations theory challenges the very
assumptions that drive rationalist theories and challenge the methods used to
observe the world.
Feminist analysis of international relations theories has stressed the
masculinist nature of the state and market. There are a number of theories, both
rationalist and reflectivist, that possess this gendered nature in their analysis. I will
be using Liberalism and classical Marxist theory to illustrate the masculinist
undertones that feminist international relations directly is opposed to. Economic
liberalism has been the dominant approach in analyzing the western international
political economy and focuses on the “efficiency of the market in the allocation of
good and services and the division of labor as the best way of increasing
productivity and wealth (Tickner, 71).” Proponents of economic liberalism believe
that free trade will result in maximized wealth and global peace and cooperation
among actors.
Sanchez 7
Economic liberalism rests on a set of assumptions that are biased towards
the masculine experience. This theory rests on the belief that human beings are
innately “economic animals driven by rational self-interest (Tickner, 72).” Early
theorists in the field claimed that this nature only applied to man – but later
retracted that claim to include all human beings. This idea of the “rational economic
man” derives from this masculine bias in early theorization and corresponds
directly with characteristics from a hegemonic mold of masculinity. This hegemonic
mold includes high competitiveness, aggressiveness, apathy, and highly
individualistic. These qualities are desirable when working in a free market that
aims at solely maximization of wealth (Tickner, 73).
This type of theorization assumes the masculine experiences as the norm and
dismisses the experience of women and of other marginalized groups. Aside from
gender, the liberalist economic theories also seem to work for only strong capitalist
nations and ignore the existing inequalities across nations that hinder states from
growing economically. Marxist theory focuses on the class structures of the world
economy and critiques the class limitations of liberalism. However, Marxist theory
fails to include a substantive gender analysis, which further marginalizes women in
the international sphere (Tickner, 85).
Feminists are critical of classical Marxist theories for “ignoring women in
their reproductive and domestic roles and for assuming that class-based capitalist
oppression is synonymous with women’s oppression (Tickner, 85).” Marxist
approaches to the role of women in the political economy fail to analyze women’s
reproductive role, which, in turn, fails to include unpaid labor in the family setting in
Sanchez 8
their economic analysis. This unpaid labor is not respected and is a contributing
factor to women’s dependence on the man. These gendered ideologies about the
role of women contribute to discriminatory practices in the labor market, on local,
regional and international levels (Tickner, 86).
The main critique of Marxist theory comes from the assumption that class-
based oppression equates to women’s oppression. Women’s oppression stems from
capitalism, but it also stems from the larger structure of patriarchy. In studies that
focused on women’s labor roles in the Soviet Union,in the 1980s, it was found that
women made up about 51% of the workforce yet they still held a majority of
unskilled jobs and were concentrated in domestic realms (Tickner, 90). So even
without the capitalist structures at work, women still face difficulties that are not
analyzed by certain economic theories.
Another important critique of mainstream international relations theory
focuses on the construction of political and economic agency in male dominated
terms. High-level participation in the economic and political realm has been most
commonly associated with agency. The construction of agency was formulated on
male terms, especially since women had been legally void of economic and political
rights until their demand for it within the past century. Feminist construction of
political and economic agency focuses on women’s unique circumstances and the
ways in which they create their own agency on their own terms. Women have a
diverse set of leadership roles in grassroots movements and global movements.
Women take it upon themselves to engage in economic agency in unconventional
ways that may not be analyzed by market forces. This idea of negotiating one’s own
Sanchez 9
agency is a core feminist tool used to elevate women’s roles in the international
political economy (Youngs, 86).
Politics of Resistance
Resistance movements have been apart of world history since the beginning of
time, whether you want to call them revolutions, rebellions, protests, uprisings, revolts
or, even, terrorism. Scholarship surrounding the politics of resistance has been
increasing due to globalization and rising anti-globalization efforts among activists
around the world. It’s in the interest of international relations theorists to explore this
phenomena, as resistance within countries have an affect on foreign policy, trade
relations and overall global security. A feminist approach to examining the politics of
resistance focuses on the main questions of resistance: Who resists? Why do they
resist? What counts as resistance? However, the approach also asks the questions: What
are women’s roles in resistance movements? What are the limitations to theorizing
resistance without narratives, specifically women’s narratives? Conceptualizing
resistance within a feminist framework allows for a number of new insights into this
idea of a transformative politics of resistance.
In the article, Rethinking Globalised Resistance: Feminist Activism and Critical
Theorising in International Relations, Catherine Eschle and Bice Maiguascha provide
a feminist theoretical framework for resistance that I will be using when discussing
the Zapatista Movement and the Arab Spring. Their research theorizes the who,
what and why of resistance. As mentioned before, this type of analysis does not rely
on a positivist methodology commonly associated with rationalist theories of
international relations. This reflectivist account of resistance relies heavily on a
Sanchez 10
methodology of inclusion that aims at looking at marginalized narratives, critiquing
international structures, and analyzing socially constructed notions of knowledge.
The question on who resists and why they resist seems easy to answer, but
narrow conceptualizations on a collective sense of resistance raises certain
methodological limitations. Conceptualizing resistance as solely collective
movements around a shared identity ignores the fact that these movements consist
of individuals who are driven by emotional, psychological, spiritual, bodily and
cognitive forces that shape their political consciousness. When dealing with
resistance movements, rationalist approaches largely ignore unquantifiable factors
that play a role in resistance movements - namely, feelings of intimacy, love,
empathy and compassion. Those who resist may not solely resist based on material
need or interest, but based on those emotional attachments (Eschle, 293).
Modes of resistance have been studied deeply within social movement
theory, but they have not been substantively theorized in the international relations.
Acts of resistance have largely been limited to open, public acts of contention either
in the forms of protests, active military rebel groups, etc. Overt acts of expression of
discontent and opinion seem to be the only modes that are acceptable outside of this
feminist framework. There are many different ways in which resistance can be
expressed outside of this conceptualization. Practices that “seek to develop self-
esteem, raise consciousness and enhance emotional tranquility (Eschle, 296)” focus
on the mind and body of women that, in turn, allows them to be empowered to
create economic and political change. Women’s roles in resistance movements may
also be described as “behind the scene” where women’s contributions as nurses,
Sanchez 11
donation collectors, and other positions are largely dismissed. By exploring the
politics of resistance in the Zapatista Movement and the Arab Spring, I will illustrate
the application of this theorization, focusing primarily on the particularly modes of
resistance used in these movements.
The Zapatista Movement: Revolutionary Women’s Law
"Taking into account the situation of the woman worker in Mexico, the
[Zapatista] revolution incorporates their just demands of equality and justice in the
following Women's Revolutionary Law:
1. Women, regardless of their race, creed, colour or political affiliation, have a right to
participate in the revolutionary struggle in any way that their desire and capacity
determine.
2. Women have the right to work and receive a just salary.
3. Women have the right to decide the number of children they have and care for.
4. Women have the right to participate in the matters of the community and to take
charge if they are freely and democratically elected.
5. Women and their children have the right to primary attention in their health and
nutrition.
6. Women have the right to education.
7. Women have the right to choose their partner and are not obliged to enter into
marriage.
8. Women have the right to be free of violence from both relatives and strangers.
Rape and attempted rape will be severely punished.
9. Women will be able to occupy positions of leadership in the organization and hold
military ranks in the revolutionary armed forces.
10. Women will have all the rights and obligations which the revolutionary laws and
regulations give (Miscreant, 1994)."
The Zapatista Movement was recognized after the armed uprising of the
Zapatista Army of National Liberation on January 1, 1994. Since then, the Zapatistas
Sanchez 12
have grown into a huge social movement “creating autonomous structures of
government and society in the indigenous regions (Sholk, 269)” of Chiapas, Mexico.
Indigenous Mayan women who make up the Zapatistas in Chiapas have contributed
to the movement in ways that have not been highlighted in zapatismo scholarship.
Their modes of resistance have largely been overlooked as valid forms and their
contributions to autonomous structures within Zapatista communities have not
been highlighted.
The Zapatista’s Revolutionary Women’s Law serves as one of the modes of
resistance that does not get the attention that it deserves. As part of the Zapatista
movement, women organized together to develop this document that specifically
dealt with the right of women within the movement. This points to the importance
of a gender analysis when studying resistance politics. Within these collective
movements, there are still factors that differentiate the lived experiences of men and
women that forces women to act upon those inequalities in radical ways. Among
their demands in the revolutionary law are healthcare, reproductive rights, freedom
from sexual assault, and economic and political agency within their communities.
The roles of Zapatista women emerge from this Revolutionary Women’s Law
that they adopted. Zapatista Women are the main ones in control of community-
controlled institutions within their autonomous regions, specifically schools. As
education and leadership being central to the laws, they exercise this within their
roles as teachers in these institutions. Zapatista women also harvest the land that
they live on, and form collectives for economic gains (School for Chiapas, 2014). By
participating in autonomous institutions and creating their own agency, Zapatista
Sanchez 13
women expand the definition of acts of resistance to include resisting not only the
government structure of Mexico, but also constructions of female worth, ability and
agency.
Modes of resistance can also be represented symbolically. For Zapatista
women, the facemask, or bandana across their mouths, symbolize their commitment
to the Zapatista movement and display their loyalty to zapatismo culture. For
feminists, the personal is political, so the representation of their loyalty to the
Zapatista movement in every day life symbolizes the interconnectedness that exists
between their social and political roles (Schools for Chiapas, 2014). Critics of the
feminist approach to resistance may ask why international relations theorists
should focus on internal resistance movements, like the Zapatista movement. What
does this have to do with international relations as a whole, or the international
political economy? The Zapatista movement has grown into a transcultural and
transnational network that influence other resistance movements – even within
western countries where such movements are not heavily studied within the
international relations discipline.
Zapatismo ideology has created transnational advocacy networks where
ideas are shared and support is available to activist organizations around the world.
These movements also serve as merely inspiration for other movements around the
world who are trying to change the oppressive systems that they are subjugated to.
With the signing of The San Andrés Accords for Indigenous Rights and Culture in
1996, many activists around the world started to form networks that can serve as
platforms for larger debates on global economic and political issues. The anti-
Sanchez 14
globalization coordination known as the People’s Global Action surfaced after the
Zapatista’s held their first conference on the First Intercontinental Gathering for
Humanity and Against Neo-Liberalism. The conference resulted in a gathering of
over 3,000 people from 44 different countries. It is worth noting the effect of local or
regional resistance movements to transcend their boundaries and inspire those on a
global scale (Dellacioppa, 120). This phenomenon is illustrated in the contagious
nature of the Arab Spring as well.
The “Feminist” Arab Spring: Women’s Contributions
The number of uprisings and revolutions that erupted in the Middle East and
North Africa will always characterize the year 2011. With the Tunisian Revolution,
or also known as the “Tulip Revolution,” occurred in 2010 and sparked a number of
movements across the region. The domino effect, most commonly known as the
Arab Spring, further reinforced the need for studying resistance movements as
strong forces that could alter the political sphere.
The Arab Spring occurred in response to a number of issues including
authoritarian regimes, economic difficulties, and issues of political freedom.
Resistance movements sparked in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Algeria, Iraq,
Jordan, Morroco, Sudan and the list continues. Women played a strong role in the
Arab Spring, and analyses of these resistance movements require a gender lens to
understand its depth. The plethora of countries in the Arab Spring brings about
complex intersections since women have vastly different rights within differing
countries. Women in Syria had different participatory roles in the movement, than
did women in Tunisia. The complexity in participation highlights the importance of
Sanchez 15
encompassing a broad conceptualization of modes of resistance as women are
situated within different contexts.
The Arab Spring was memorable with large protests in public spaces within
these countries. However, protests are not the only way activists can express
opinions. Similar to the Zapatista Women, women who participated in the Arab
Spring had a multitude of roles and participatory strategies. Especially for those
countries where gender ideologies prevented women from taking up public space,
women found ways to contribute to the movement through providing first aid to
combatants, collecting donations, and organizing underground (DubiaDebates.com).
These types of contributions are dismissed in the analysis of resistance movements
because they are not seen as significant. During the protest that took place in Tahrir
Square, it was reported that President Mubarek withdrew police protection of every
single neighborhood in Cairo. In response to this, activists, prominently women,
organized “lagan shaabiyya” or popular committees that created community watch
patrols in order to ensure the safety of the citizens (Newsom, 2012).
With the great technological boom that globalization brought, the use of
online activism became an important part of the resistance movement. Internet
access in the region expanded by 40% between the years 2000 and 2010 with about
13% of the population having social media accounts (Radsch, 2012). Activist
bloggers were able to share information to the world with this increased access to
the Internet. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were common
tools of organization among activists as well (Moghadam, 4). Women’s use of social
platforms to aid social change was unique to the Arab spring, and gave Arab women
Sanchez 16
a chance to become politically engaged. This technological mode of resistance
occurs in a “liminal third space” where there are more opportunities due to the lack
of rules governing the cyber sphere (Newsom, 2012). The ways in which women
negotiate their economic and political agency in these two movements points to the
larger picture of a transformative politics of resistance that relies on a complex
intersection of identity, activism and power.
Back to the Debate: Mainstream vs. Critical
At the heart of this analysis, the importance of critical theory in international
relations is at the core. While explaining and describing international relations is
important, understanding and accounting for those descriptions have the power to
improve lives and possibly provide solutions for some of the world’s problems. With
the security of the individual citizen, not just the state, at the forefront of emerging
international relations discourse, social justice and development issues are proving
to be important realms of social and political life that need to be analyzed and
addressed. As rationalist theories tend to focus on the state as a unitary actor, and
with their analysis being state-centric, it is not a surprise that the individuals in the
state have been forgotten, especially women, children and other marginalized
groups. From the market to security, the focus tends to be on the state as a whole,
rather than individuals being variables.
Feminist international relations theory brings about a framework that
highlights the limitations of rationalist IR theories. By using gender a category of
analysis, underscoring the masculinist assumptions in the theorization of the state
and market, and re-conceptualizing agency, the feminist framework provides an
Sanchez 17
insightful analysis of the transformative politics of resistance that focuses on the
complexity of shared identities, diverse modes of participation, and women’s direct
contribution to resistance movements. As a triple major in International Relations,
Sociology and Women and Gender Studies, it was exciting for me to explore the
intersections of my fields of study. I hope to continue to see more academic work on
the deconstruction and reconstruction of mainstream international relations to
include a gendered perspective. As I mentioned before, both rationalist and
reflective approaches to international relations have yielded important knowledge,
yet one approach has gotten more attention to the other. It is time for critical
theories of international relations, especially feminist theory, to dominate the realm
in order for scholarship to develop and be taken seriously.
Sanchez 18
Bibliography
Dellacioppa, Kara Zugman. 2011. “The Bridge Called Zapatismo: Transcultural And Transnational Activist Networks in Los Angeles and Beyond.” Latin American Perspectives. 176(38): 120-137.
DubaiDebates.com. 2011. “’The role of women in the Arab Spring has been exaggerated,’ Dubai Debates, #DD4 (Arabic, English).” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J36oXl-SDs)
Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, Steve Smith. 2013. “International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity.” Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.
Eschle, Catherine, Bice Malguashca. 2007. “Rethinking Globalised Resistance: Feminist Activism and Critical Theorising in International Relations.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 9:284-301
Flood, Andrew. 2000. “Learning to Dream Reality.” (http://www.struggle.ws/pdfs/pamphlets/Encounter1.pdf)
Khamis, Sahar. 2011. “The Arab ‘Feminist’ Spring? Feminist Studies. 37(3):692-695
Miscreant, Matt. 1994. “The Zapatista Women’s Revolutionary Law.”(http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/mexico/sp000905.txt)
Moghadam, Valentine M. 2012. “Engendering Democracy after the Arab Spring.” Keynote Address from the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences.
Newsom, Victoria A. and Lengel, Lara (2012). Arab Women, Social Media, and the Arab Spring: Applying the framework of digital reflexivity to analyze gender and online activism. Journal of International Women's Studies, 13(5), 31-45.
Radsch, Courney. 2012. “Revolutionaries Unveild – Cyberactivism & Women’s Role in the Arab Uprisings.” (http://muftah.org/revolutionaries-unveiled-cyberactivism-womens-role-in-the-arab-uprisings/#.VTARDpTF_NU)
Schools for Chiapas. 2014. “Women in the Zapatista Movement.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkdUs2Dxv4s)
Sholk-Stahler, Richard. 2010. “The Zapatista Social Movement: Innovation and Sustainability.” Alternatives. 35:269-290
Tickner, J.Ann. 1992. “Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security” Columbia University Press, New York.
Sanchez 19
Weldon, Laurel S. 2006. “Inclusion and understanding: a collective methodology for feminist International Relations.” Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge University Press. (63-87)
Youngs, Gillian. 2004. “Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in.” International Affairs. 80(1): 75-87