Realism, Feminism and the Referent Object of Security.pdf

Gordana Subotic The University of Melbourne Ph.D. Candidate

Realism, feminism and the referent object of security

This essay critically analyses the ongoing debate on constructions of a referent object of security in individual and collective concepts of security in two International Relations theories (hereafter IR) – the realist and the feminist approaches. Specifically, the ontological tension is in what they define as the object of research. From there, the problem is developing into an epistemological debate on the foundation of knowledge that constitutes the understanding of a world that is seen through completely different lenses. Feminist theory contests realist masculine constructions of the world and of security that do not take into account the experiences of half of the world population. In realist theories on security, nation states are both a referent object of security and providers of security. In feminist theories, women are the main referent object of security, while the state should be a provider of security. For realists, the world is a dangerous place where the strongest nations win. Whereas, feminists claim that “if women's experiences were to be included, a radical redefinition of the field would have to take place” (Tickner, 1992:8). This essay bridges these two contested theories by arguing that on the one hand, feminist theory contests realist masculine construction of the world while on the other hand, keeps the state as an analytical unit and securitizing actor. I argue that this debate can contribute to further development of security theories and lead to, as Rob Walker (1997) puts it, (what criticizers of the nation state still lack) an identifiable alternative provider of security other than the state. Many academic scholars have tried to define and classify a universal definition and concept of security. However, the only conclusion that they could agree to is that security is a “highly contested concept” (Gallie, 1955; Görne, 2012). According to David Baldwin (1997, p. 5) the problem of defining what security is deeply ontological. Many scholars in trying to find an answer on what security is give high priority to issues such as human rights, economics, the environment, drug trafficking, epidemics, crime, or social injustice in addition to the traditional concerns with security from external military threats. Empirical arguments at the heart of discussions how to define security consist of the nature and magnitude of threats to values of normative arguments. This translates to which values of which people should be taken into consideration and be 1


protected. Baldwin claims that relatively little attention is devoted to conceptual issues as such. The definition of what security and insecurity constitutes, should suggest the direction of the actions that will be undertaken in order to keep main referent objects of security safe. National security, for example, indicates that the policy will be designed to promote demands which are ascribed to the nation, rather than to individuals, sub-national groups or mankind (Wolfers, 1952, p. 481). On the other end of conceptual difficulties deriving from thinking on ‘what security is’ there is the problem of defining who is a main referent object of security. A clear definition of what a referent object of security is or might be e.g. the state, the nation within the state, individuals, women, minorities, eco system, or wild life, contributes to clearer conceptual understanding of what security is for those objects. Therefore, the policies designated to maintain referent objects safe will, in a way, reflect demands for security ascribed to the referent object of security. Lists of definitions of what security is by numerous authors can be found in a book by Berry Buzan (2008, pp. 16–17). The primary understanding for the concept of security in this essay will be as an ‘absence of threat’ (Robinson, 2008, p. 1) to the referent object of security. Realist theory on how the world works bases its core assumptions on the works of Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. Realists base their analysis on the nature of the world in which the only actors are - states and men. The motivational triad explains the nature of

these actors as,

according to Jack Donelly (2000, p. 43) fear, honor and interest. In his explanation of the nature of these actors, one of the leading realists Kenneth Waltz sees man as the root of all evil, and thus he is himself the root of the specific evil, war (Waltz, 2001, p. 3). Kenneth Waltz (1979, p. 117) claims that the state interests provide the basis of action. States are in a state of competition and therefore there is a necessity of policy to best serve the interests of the state. Successful policy is the best test of it, and it should always be defined as preserving and strengthening the state. Bringing religion into the picture of how the world works, St. Augustine's as the “first great realist in Western history” Reinhold Niebuhr (1953:120) focuses Christian realism claims on the experiences of men, fathers, nations, memory and history. For Niebuhr, memory is thus that aspect of human freedom which is most determinative in the construction of historical reality (Niebuhr, 2


1949, p. 20). According to realist constructions, security is the ‘absence of threat’ for nation states as collectivities, which makes them the main referent of security. Experiences that are taken into account by realists are the experiences of men and fathers, while the history and memory that is shaping the world is solely male constructed. After determining a clear definition of the referent objects of security, realists dedicated their analysis to understanding the behavior of the referent objects in an international system that is led by men. Hedley Bull (1977, p. 25) theorized that the system of states is anarchical, therefore in IR systems there is no higher level of authority over states. Every state has ultimate sovereignty over its citizens within its borders. For structural realists, the balance of power (bipolar, multipolar, hegemony) and anarchic IR are what matters. States are constrained in their actions by the structure of the system. International systems are a balance that provide a framework for international policy, while domestic politics and individual leaders account for foreign policy (Kaufman & Williams, 2007, p. 13). According to realist theory, in the international system governed by states, policies designated to protect the referent object of security are governed by human nature. Hans Morgentau (1954, pp. 4–10) claims that politics are governed by objective laws that have their root in human nature, a concept defined in terms of power as the main signpost for realists to find their way in international relations. For Morgentau, universal moral principles cannot be applied to the action of states. Morgentau (1946:145) bases his theory on claims that every “man is born a slave, but everywhere he wants to be a master”. The interest of every state is to invest in its military power in order to keep itself secure and master international relations for its own benefit. Thus, the thirst of men and states to obtain and retain power is based on inborn, natural longing for domination over other men and states. John Mearsheimer (1994, pp. 9–10) claims that states possess military capability in order to possibly hurt and destroy one another. No state can ever be sure that the other state will not use their military to attack, the most basic motive is survival, demonstrating that states are instrumentally rational. In terms of security, this means that no man or state is safe in the world order led by “fear, honor and interest” (Donelly, 2000:43). Robert Keohane (1986b, pp. 164–165) defines states as the “most important actors in world politics”. As such, they seek power and they

3


calculate their interests in the terms of power. Therefore, the only way to maintain the referent object of security’s safety is militarization of society and investing in military power. Widening the realist concept of security in his essay, Robert Gilpin (1996, p. 7) used a synonym for nation states by naming them ‘conflict groups’. He situates the primary motivation of these groups as national interests that might be either economic, ethnic or territorial. National interests are determined by dominant political elites of states. The equalization between the elite, nation and national interests in his work is central to his theory. In his work, Gilpin reconfirms realists’ hostile theory of the world order, but he also goes a step further in recognizing individuals within the states - the elites. In terms of security, which values of which people should be protected by the state Gilpin’s addition to realist theories appoints elites as the ones that are defining what a referent object of security is in a non-changed realist anarchical nation state system. Feminist critiques of the realist approach to security were based on different arguments that further directed the feminist analysis and approach to IR. Realism has been criticized for circumscribing the space for different experiences of how the world works. The primary feminist argument was that the ontology, epistemology and methodology used to research and define what exists in IR, what we know and how to reach that knowledge is constructed by men, based on experiences of men, and tailored for the world of men. The starting point for the feminist critique of realism was drawn from the perspectives of women. Realism tried to normalize the view of the world seen through the lenses of men, fathers and nation states. In addition to that, realism did not take into account gendered realities that should be at the heart of every discussion on security and defining the referent object of security. Before feminist theories of IR, none of the security and IR theories, including peace theories did not address women as analytical entities (Buzan & Hansen, 2009, p. 138) or referent objects of security. Feminist theory was the first that addressed flaws in realism that completely ignore experiences of half the world population and normalizes oppression by taking it as a natural state of being. Answers from the feminist standpoint to realist theories depended on what different feminists saw as the main cause of oppression and subordination of women in the world. The center of the interplay in feminist theory, depending of the ‘wave’ of feminism, is the source of 4


subordination of women in the world i.e. patriarchy, society, class, race, ethnicity or geographical location from the stand point of different women. The starting point of feminist theories was a critique of the absence of women and women’s experiences from the construction of the world. The feminist starting point was appointing women as ones whose values and wellbeing should be protected by the state. There, feminists found that masculine state practices are selective and are often endangering women’s security. Ann Tickner (1992, p. 22-23) claims that national security is exclusively a male domain. She focused her critique primarily on the works of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz. The main argument of her critique of the realist view is its masculinity. The way in which realists describe the individual, the state, and the international system are profoundly gendered; and according to Tickner, a world view that is based on experiences of only one kind of men. If we would include women in this calculation, and see that militarism, hierarchy, sexism, and violence are highly gendered and interrelated in all levels of the society, this would change our view of security. It is interesting to note that in Kenneth Waltz’s (1959, p. 46) book Man, the State and War there was only one entry for ‘women’ in its index lists and that entry references the work of a psychologist J. Cohen that “believes that the cause of peace might be promoted if women were substituted for men in governing of nations”. Empirically, it is hard to prove Cohen’s assumption due to the lack of a body of research. The only country in the world that included fifty percent women in governing the nation is Canada and only recently. According to Brooke Ackerly, Maria Stern and Jacqui True (2006:7) feminist ontologies contributed to the expansion of our notions of world politics to include the personal and previously invisible spheres, and they start from the perspective that subjects are relational (rather than autonomous) and that the world is constantly changing (rather than static), demand self-reflective methodologies as well as innovative methods and post-positivist epistemologies. Unpacking the gendered nature of militarism, hierarchy, sexism, and violence, feminist theories offered different views to what security is and who should be a referent object of security. Cynthia Enloe (1983, p. 12-15) contests justification of male superiority in the social order by claiming that the military plays a special role in the ideological structure of the state and the patriarchy. Militarism equals

5


manhood. To be masculine means not to be feminine. To be a man means not to be a woman. This makes the military a ‘bastion of male identity’. Therefore, women are allowed to be a part of it only if they remain within predefined feminine roles that militarism assigned to them, roles of the ‘camp followers’. In the world of nation states, women will be offered participation in the military, to defend their states from the hostile world, only if they do not question pre-defined roles that state militarism gave them. But this does not mean that states will not continue to address insecurities of women differently than they address questions of ‘national’ interest. Lack of prosecution for cases of rape and sexual harassment within the U. S. military, widespread impunity for sexual slavery and sexual violence against women during conflict and militarization of prostitution in countries of the third world are the best examples of how state practices of security fail to protect women in the same way they protect men (Enloe, 2000; 2014; 1983). Building on the feminist theory of security, feminist theorists started to deconstruct and divide what is understood as the individual, the state, and the international system. To prove the gendered nature of the definition of the world, feminist theorists continued working on the effect of masculinities and femininities and introduced the public and private sphere as the location of the stand-point of the referent objects, men and women. Hegels’s definition of ‘beautiful souls’ as” the appearance of purity by cultivating innocence about historical course of the world” was used by Jean Bethke Elshtain (1987:4) to describe the position of women in realist imagery. Elshtain used gender representations of ‘just warriors’ and ‘beautiful souls’ to better explain public and private distinctions in locating the position of men and women in the world. When it comes to security, by default, women are described as feminine, and thus they are located in the private sphere. Realist constructions of the world did not take into consideration private spheres of human existence in that sense. It built knowledge on nation states, leaders and the nature of men, one kind of men, the elite men. Feminist theory claims that women and men are constructed through political history, and that men’s role of protector of public sphere, state and the nation is highly deliberate. Lene Hansen claims that the constructions of femininity and masculinity only deepened public/private distinction, when it comes to IR (Hansen, 2014, p. 20).

6


In constructing of a referent object of security, and defining security, realist theories prescribe threat of use of force as a leading source of security to a referent object, the state. In order to keep themselves secure, states have to represent a source of insecurity to other states. In constructing the referent object of security, and defining security, feminist theories call for incorporating experiences of different women into the definition of security. Both theories share the state as the securitizing actor and main provider of security to referent objects. The state remains to be a main analytical entity in IR, even for those who criticize its privileged status (Hansen, 2014, p. 15). Hansen claims that the ontological contestation between the realist approach avoids the question as to whether and to what extent should the state (driven by their own interests and power politics) be seen as an actor in IR and conflict and war as inevitable. The ontological contestation between the feminist approach avoids moving beyond rationalist feminism that accepts the state as “the central actor that defines international relations” (Hansen, 2014, p. 16) to providing an alternative securitizing actor that will reflect the needs of the individual and collective in its polity. In this sense, feminist post-modernism introduces fractured identities that are caused by modern life. From this perspective, feminist claims are more plausible and less distorted if grounded in solidarity between fractured identities and the politics they create (Harding, 1986, p. 28). As presented in this essay, the feminist critique of the realist approach to security in IR is based on the analysis of a different object of security and absence of women’s experiences from it. The debate on construction of the referent object of security is individual and a collective concept of security and IR theory is still ongoing. Whether we are talking about the traditional IR theories of realism, liberalism, constructivism, or alternative IR theories such as feminism, there is no unified voice on who the securitizing actor, other than the state, might be. The realist focus on nation states, both as referent objects of security and securitizing actors, is still being contested by other IR. Feminist contestation widened the level for analysis of the realist framework. Researching on women’s experiences and views of the world does not undermine understanding of ‘what security is’ but contributes to the broadening of the theoretical framework. Feminists identified a gendered difference in how men and women are affected and what problems are considered ‘proper’ security problems by the states. According to feminist theory, in the world of nation states, women are threatened in other ways than men and their insecurities are validated differently within state7


centric security discourses. Women and men are not, in other words, equal referent objects before the state (Buzan & Hansen, 2009, p. 141). Unlike realists, that have a history of practice of nation states as a body of research, feminist theories alone, at this point, cannot offer an alternative securitizing actor from the perspective of women as half of the world’s population. The reason for this is the absence of women in governing bodies of nation states. Evolution of security studies and building on different experiences of referent objects of security, can contribute to both, increase of women governing in of the nations and identifying alternative providers of security in the future.

8


Bibliography Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23(1), 5–26. http://doi.org/null Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Buzan, B. (2008). People, States, and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (2nd edition). Colchester, UK: European Consortium for Political Research Press. Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies (1 edition). Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and International Relations. Cambridge University Press. Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. University of California Press. Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, Beaches and Bases : Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Enloe, C. H. (1983). Does khaki become you?: the militarisation of women’s lives. South End Press. Frankel, B. (1996). Realism: Restatements and Renewal. Psychology Press. Gallie, W. B. (1955). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198. Görne, N. (2012). Why is security an “essentially contested concept” and what ways are there to overcome this? GRIN Verlag. 9


Harding, S. G. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press. Kaufman, J. P., & Williams, K. P. (2007). Women, the State, and War: A Comparative Perspective on Citizenship and Nationalism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Keohane, R. O. (1986b). Neorealism and Its Critics. Columbia University Press. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49. Morgenthau, H. J. (1946). Scientific Man Vs. Power Politics. University of Chicago Press. Niebuhr, R. (1949). Faith and History: A Comparison of Christian and Modern Views of History. Macmillan. Niebuhr, R. (1953). Christian Realism and Political Problems. Scribner. Robinson, P. (2008). Dictionary of International Security. Polity. Shepherd, L. J. (Ed.). (2014). Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations (2 edition). London ; New York: Routledge. Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in international relations: feminist perspectiveson achieving global security. New York: Columbia University Press. Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Waltz, K. N. (2001). Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (Revised edition). New York: Columbia University Press. Wolfers, A. (1952). “National Security” as an Ambiguous Symbol. Political Science Quarterly, 67(4), 481–502. http://doi.org/10.2307/2145138

10


11

Realism, Feminism and the Referent Object of Security.pdf

Recommend Documents