1. POLI10601Introduction to International Politics - lecture 6

2. Beyond the ‘mainstream’
 The varieties of realist and liberal thought constitute the
mainstream of IR theory – this is where the bulk of debate lies, or
lay until quite recently
 Neorealism and neoliberalism explicitly attempt to offer us a
better explanation of the behaviour of states and to describe and
explain the nature of international politics. They both are
presenting a theory of international politics
 We now turn towards the margins of the discipline where a
number of alternative approaches or perspectives have emerged
to question or challenge the mainstream.
 These theories, to greater or lesser degrees challenge
mainstream theories in three key respects:
Ontology: what exists. What is in the world. What
constitutes international political „reality‟?
 Epistemology: knowledge. What can be known about the
world, e.g. states, facts and/or values?
 Methodology: HOW we can gain knowledge of what
exists/is in the world.

3. „Critical‟ theories
 To be critical in the everyday sense means to disagree with or criticise a
point of view.
 In the social sciences, including IR, critical theory has a more formal
meaning.
 Critical theories take a different view of the nature and purpose of
theory. One of the most famous early expressions of this is found in
Marx:
‘Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the
point, however, is to change it’. (Karl Marx, Theses on
Feuerbach, 1845)
 What is at stake is the purpose of theory and the role of the theorist.
 Some newer theories confine themselves to criticising the mainstream
for not looking at certain things (some types of feminism and Marxism
for example).
 Others are more challenging to grasp because they raise questions
about theory itself. These see theory as not just explaining the world but
as constitutive of the world, helping to make and sustain a specific
world (Constructivists, some Marxists, some feminists).
 Some go further and question whether there are any secure
foundations at all from which we can judge a social or political theory to
be true or false (poststructuralism/postmodernism some feminism) i.e.
whether a theory of international politics is either possible or desirable?

4. Critical theories of IR
 Started to appear from 1981 onwards in response to Waltz‟s
neorealism and the subsequent neo-neo debate
 Most reject positivism (the belief in the possibility of
scientific knowledge of social and political phenomena)
 Many argue that all knowledge reflects the interests of the
researcher/student who cannot be detached from the
subject matter they are studying. We are part of the human
world that we study and our theorising is also part of that
world
 Many critical theories reject the distinction between facts
and judgements.
 Robert Cox: Theory is always for someone and for some
purpose.
 Put differently, theory is not innocent

5. So, What then is International Relations?
 Traditional/mainstream theories of IR concern themselves
with relations between states, conflict and cooperation.
 Critical theories are far less attached to this agenda. They
take their inspiration from many sources.
 Critical theories ask different questions. For example:
 Neorealism and neoliberalism accept the anarchy problem
and try to find ways to live in it or mitigate it.
 Critical theories conduct a meta-theoretical critique –in other
words they don‟t just join in with the theoretical debate they
also ask questions about the debate ( between the theory or
theories) itself.
Let‟s flesh the last point out a bit more …

6. Critical theories respond to traditional theories
in two ways:
 1. Some critical theories explore the way in which a theory serves
particular kinds of interests. (Who benefits? Who doesn’t?)
For example neorealism paints a certain picture of the world. Who
does well in this picture and who does not?
2. Critical theories explore which arguments are closed down or shut
out of a particular theoretical debate. (What questions aren’t being
asked? What is missing?)
 Neo realist: „Anarchy leads to conflict so its every state for themselves!‟
 Neo Liberal: „No, no. Anarchy leads to conflict so states will cooperate
to avoid it and institutions will help them do this.‟
 Critical Theorist: „Isn‟t there a different conversation we could be
having? Like, why is the world divided into states in the first place?
Why does politics become violent? Why are some people better off
than others?‟Do all states or their peoples view the word „out there‟ in
the same way? Should we factor such things as culture, gender and
the histories of peoples (as once subject to imperial rule, for example)?

7. Sources of inspiration
 Critical theorists take inspiration from a number of different
places. Some from the Marx-influenced thought of the
Frankfurt School of philosophers, feminist writers, the Italian
philosopher Gramsci (very influential in critical IPE), the
German philosopher Habermas, and French philosophers
from the last half century particularly Foucault and Derrida.
 Critical thinkers do not all have a lot in common – but they
do all agree that theory should challenge and unsettle
established categories and disconcert the reader.
 We shall now look at 2 examples of critical theories:
feminism and constructivism

8. Feminisms
 There is not one feminism but many feminisms - different
theoretical approaches to understanding the role of gender
in power relations.
 Feminism is not necessarily just about women.
 Feminism is about progressive social change.
 Without the appreciation of gender in the hierarchical
structure of all social and political relationships we only
have a partial view.
 Many varieties of feminism - emerged in IR in the 1980s.
They share a concern with the place of gender in
international politics and the subordination of women
globally.

9. Feminism in IR
 Most feminists define gender as different from sex. They see gender as
referring to socially and culturally constructed characteristics that vary
according to time and place. Gender is a system of social hierarchy
where masculinity is valued over femininity.
 Feminists show how much of literature in social and political
enquiry, especially IR, has tended to depict the two genders thus:
Male ~ rational, competitive and aggressive
Female ~ emotional, consensus oriented, submissive
 Many feminists see women as rendered invisible in most international
politics scholarship or reduced to very limited roles: home-
makers, mothers, in need of protection, victims. As such they are often
depicted as (or simply assumed to be) unsuited to a world marked by
conflict and war.
 But note that many feminists resist the notion that women are just victims
and some also argue that men are also victims of gender stereotypes
and roles.

10. Women in world politics?

11. Varieties of feminism …
Feminisms of equality:
 Liberal feminism : „add women and stir‟ – the most mainstream variety.
Emphasises discrimination and the absence of women in politics. Would having
more women in the upper echelons of politics and international politics alone
make a difference? Think of the Scandinavian states all famously „women-
friendly‟, with comparatively high numbers of women in parliament, government
and public administration.
 Standpoint feminism:goes beyond the empirical circumstances of feminism to
suggest that women offer a different way of seeing things – a viewpoint from
those excluded from power. Questions the category of power itself. A number of
varieties including socialist feminism and radical feminism. The latter
particularly noted for its emphasis on „patriarchy‟ - the rule of the male.
Feminism of difference
 Poststructural feminism:shares the critique of patriarchy but challenges
earlier feminisms‟ tendency to articulate a singular feminine identity
(„woman‟), favouring the articulation of a multiplicity of identities both male and
female which are constantly being made and remade through language and
text. Asks how international politics produces and reproduces particular
accounts of gender subjectivity.
 Two areas where feminism made an early and influential impact: international
development and security studies

12. Feminism(s) on war and the global
economy
War & security The global economy
 Challenging the myth of  A gendered global division of
protection labour: 3/5 of the world‟s poor
 War is gendered: e.g. war-fighting are women and girls; on average
and women don‟t mix; women are women earn 2/3 of men‟s
invisible in war; images of the earnings; globally, women are
enemy are often gendered; Gay disproportionately represented in
men and women are unsuited to low paid jobs, subsistence
war agriculture, and unpaid labour in
 Rape as a weapon of war the „private‟ sphere.
 The definition of security is  Contrary to standard gender
gendered stereotypes, in global terms it is
predominantly women who do
 Resolving conflict is gendered the hard labour as well as
 A matter of debate within maintain the household
feminism: should women fight?  Perceptions about the suitability
of women for certain jobs still
highly gendered

13. Constructivism
Emerged at the end of the Cold War as a response to neorealism‟s failure
to explain the end of the Cold War – „the embarrassment of changes‟
(Kratochwil):
 Changes as consequence of perestroika (reform) and glasnost
(openness) within USSR
 Change not due to redistribution of capabilities, but for domestic
reasons
 Changes occurred in unexpected way, i.e. without outbreak of
hegemonic war
 Changes were due to changes in practices – both USSR and US
decided to do things differently and see each other differently
Some Constructivists argue that International politics must be understood
as a game based on rules and norms. Others focus on the significance of
identity.
What they share is an emphasis on understanding international politics as
a means to identifying processes of change.

14. Constructivism: key claims
 Materiality is significant, but so are ideas
 Also important is the meaningactors (individuals or states)
give to things and actions.
 Meaning is shared intersubjectively.
 Reality is constructed rather than given. Many „facts‟ about
the world are „social facts‟ which are dependent upon
human agreement
 Ideas and norms shape the international structure, and the
structure shapes the identities, interests and foreign policies
of states. Thus, the international structure is made up of
both normative and material elements.
 „Anarchy is what states make of it‟ (Wendt), i.e. international
reality is socially constructed. What states do and what is
deemed acceptable to do is socially constructed and not just
materially determined.

15. Constructivism and change - norms
 Constructivism tries to understand how the world hangs
together. But the way it does it – emphasising the
intersubjective construction of much of our world and its
norms and practices – also highlights the possibility of
transformation (think of the idea of sovereignty here)
 There is no singular model or theory of change at the global
level. A number of processes at work leading to diffusion of
new practices, norms, strategies and so on.
Finnemore&Sikkink (1998) The Life cycle of norms:
 Norm emergence
 Norm cascade
 Norm internalisation
But there may be significant constraints on the process of
diffusion: material power, the politics of identity, culture and so
on.

16. Constructivism and change – Wendt on identity
 “Anarchy is what states make of it” - What international anarchy is
actually like is not given transhistorically. It depends on how states
interact.
 Identity is created in interaction - Two actors, Ego and Alter meet for the
first time. Ego starts with a gesture, e.g., of an advance, a retreat, a
brandishing of arms, a laying down of arms, or an attack. Alter then must
infer Ego's intentions and, given that this is anarchy, particularly about
whether ego is a threat. Alter may wrongly infer Ego's intent, but there is
no reason for it to assume before the gesture that ego is threatening. It
is only through signalling and interpreting that the costs and probabilities
of being wrong can be determined. Wendt concludes that social threats
are constructed, not natural.
 What kind of anarchy prevails depends on how identity is defined -
Definitions of identity will influence the anarchy or security environment
which prevails. If states consider each other enemies, there‟ll be a self-
help system of the worst kind. If, however, they treat each other as
„friends and partners‟, a security community might develop (think of the
UK and Germany within the EU and NATO today).