You are on page 1of 24

BishopGuertin2010

Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

OkinawaAffGDS

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Epistemology/ChowImpact
TheirGlobalProjectisindebtedtoawesternepistemologywhichusesitsgrounding insupposedlyuniversalconceptsofreasontocastoutallwaysofknowingwhichit perceivesasthreateningtotheperpetuationofworldorderprovestheharmsare fantasiesconstructedtolegitimizeglobalimperialism. HughBartling,PublicPolicyStudiesDePaulUniversity,2003
OrganizingtheNewSouth:LocalEcologiesandAutonomousStrategiesforConfrontingGlobalization,TheMississippi Quarterly.Volume:57.Issue:1.

OneofthemostimportantcontributionsofEstevaandPrakashistheirpointed skepticismofwhattheytermthe"GlobalProject."Thisistheirtermforthemarketbased ideologyandaccompanyinginstitutionalreformspromotedbyWesterngovernments, corporations,andmajorinternationalinstitutions.TheyseetheGlobalProjectasbeing anaberrantformofdominationperpetratedbytheworld'ssocialminorities(meaningthose individualswhoembraceWesternepistemologies)overtheworld'ssocialmajorities.Usingtheterm"social


minorities"torefertoWesternersisanimportantpoliticalmoveforEstevaandPrakash.TotheWesterner'sear,"minority" isreservedforthe"other,"theforeigner,theimmigrant,thepersonofcolor.WhatEstevaandPrakashremindusisthatitis actuallytheWesternerwhoistheminorityintheglobalcontext.Thisminoritypositionisnotsimplyaproductofraceor ethnicity.TheWestisalsothe"minority"intermsoftheproportionoftheearth'sresourcestheyuseandthe

proportionoftheworld'swealththeycommandwhencomparedtotherestofthe earth'sinhabitants.TheWest'ssuperiorityinacquiringmaterialwealthandconsuming naturalandhumanresourceshasglobalramifications.PollutionintheGlobalSouth, sweatshopproductionfacilities,andauthoritariangovernmentsarethecoststhe"social majorities"havetoenduretosustainthewellbeingoftheWestern"minorities."The mainproblemsenduredbythesocialmajoritiesstemfromthesetofinstitutions, discourses,jurisprudentialstructures,andepistemologiesthatareintroducedfromthe contextofthesocialminoritybutwhicharepresentedasuniversal,rational,abstract, andunassailable.Theideologyofthesocialminoritieswhileoftenvariegatedinappearancehas asitsfundamentaloperatingmechanismthedenigrationofthecultures,institutions, andepistemologiesof"theother."Thegoalsofeducation,elections,andhumanrightsare perceivedinstrictlymonomaniacalways:educationrequirestheconstructionofschoolsandcurriculum
andprofessionaleducators;electionsrequirepolls,ballots,andcentralizedinstitutionsforprecisecounting;ensuring humanrightsrequiresanactivestateapparatus,codifiedjurisprudence,judges,andlawyers.Western

mechanismsofworldlyexistenceprefigureaunified,liberalsubjectwhoisthetarget oftheeducationsystem,theelectoralsystem,andthelegalsystem.Ratherthan acceptingthiscontingentunderstandingofthehumanconditionasunproblematicand universal,EstevaandPrakashassertalternativemodelsofknowingthatcanbethe baseOfapostcolonialpolitics.Thefirststepinthisprocessisrejectingtheunitary subjectofhomoeconomicusandmarginalizingthedominantdiscoursesof development.Forinspiration,EstevaandPrakashlooktowaysthesocialmajorities haveengagedintheirownautonomouspracticesforsustainingcommunities.Western waysofdevelopmentareveryindividualisticandabstractandmechanistic.The

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

practicesofthesocialmajorities,bycontrast,operatewithinparticularcontextsand asserttheimportanceofembodiedexperienceforthehumancondition.Modern Westerninstitutionsandbureaucracieslikethestateandtheschoolaredesigned, explicitly,tobeextrahuman.Whilehumansoccupypositionswithinbureaucracies, thefunctioningofthebureaucraticmachineistriumphantand,becauseofits generalizableandabstractnature,itcannotadequatelycultivatethecontingencies inherentintheparticularitiesofsocialinteraction.Thisisimportant,forallhumanlife andsocialinteractiontakeplaceattheleveloftheparticular.Nosocialscientifictheory orexplanationiseverabletobefullyexhaustive,fortherearealwaysexceptionsor,as positivistsocialscientistssay,"outliers."

B.theresultofthisdisinterestedinquiryisgenocidalviolencetheirattempttofill intheblindspotsinourmapofallhumaninteractionensuresthatwecanonlysee theindividualstheydebateaboutasthetargetsforUSbombs. Rey Chow, Humanities and Modern Culture & Media Studies at Brown University, 2006
(The Age of the World Target: Self-Referentiality in War, Theory, and Comparative Work, 40-1)
Oftenunderthemodestapparentlyinnocuousagendasoffactgatheringand

documentation,thescientificandobjectiveproductionofknowledgeduring peacetimeaboutthevariousspecialareasbecametheinstitutionalpracticethat substantiatedandelaboratedthemilitaristicconceptionoftheworldastarget.Inother words,despitetheclaimsabouttheapoliticalanddisinterestednatureofthepursuitof higherlearning,activitiesundertakenundertherubricofareastudies,suchaslanguage training.Historiography,anthropology,economics,politicalscience,andsoforth,arefullyinscribedinthe politicsandideologyofwar.Tothatextent,thedisciplining,research,and developmentofsocalledacademicinformationarepartandparcelofastrategiclogic. Andyet,iftheproductionofknowledge(withitsvocabularyofaimsandgoals,research,dataanalysis, experimentation,andverification)infactsharesthesamescientificandmilitarypremisesaswar
if,forinstance,theabilitytotranslateadifficultlanguagecanberegardedasequivalenttotheabilitytobreakmilitary codesisitasurprisethatitisdoomedtofailinitsavowedattemptstoknowtheother

cultures?Canknowledgethatisderivedfromthesamekindsofbasesaswarputan endtotheviolenceofwarfare,orissuchknowledgenotsimplywarfaresaccomplice, destinedtodestroyratherthanpreservetheformsoflivesatwhichitaimstofocus?As longasknowledgeisproducedinthisselfreferentialmanner,asacircuitoftargeting orgettingtheotherthatultimatelyconsolidatestheomnipotenceandomnipresenceof thesovereignself/eyetheIthatistheUnitedStates,theotherwillhavenochoice butremainjustthatatargetwhoseexistencejustifiesonlyonething,itsdestruction bythebomber.AslongasthefocusofourstudyofAsiaremainsbytheUnitedStates,and aslongasthisfocusisnotaccompaniedbyknowledgeofwhatishappeningelsewhere atothertimesaswellasthepresent,suchstudywillultimatelyconfirmonceagainthe selfreferentialfunctionofvirtualworldingthatwasunleashedbythedroppingofthe atomicbombs,withtheUnitedStatesalwaysoccupyingthepositionofthebomber,and

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

otherculturesalwaysviewedasthemilitaryandinformationtargetfields.Inthismanner, eventswhosehistoricitydoesnotfallintotheepistemicallyclosedorbitoftheatomic bombersuchastheChinesereactionstothewarfromaprimarilyantiJapanesepointofviewthatIalludedtoatthe beginningofthischapterwillneverreceivetheattentionthatisduetothem.Knowledge, howeverconscientiouslygatheredandhoweverlargeinvolume,willleadonlyto furthersilenceandtothesilencingofdiverseexperiences.Thisisonereasonwhy,as Harootunianremark,areastudieshavebeen,sinceitsinception,hauntedbytheabsenceofdefinable objectandbytheproblemofthevanishingobject.

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Tickner
Theaffsepistemologicalunderstandingofsecurityisbasedongenderedthreat constructionguaranteesextinction Tickner1 [Ann professor at the School of International Relations USC. B.A. in History, U London. M.A. in IR,
Yale. PhD in pol sci, Brandeis U Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era]

Newissuesandnewdefinitionsofsecurityhavebeenaccompaniedbycallsfornewwaysof understandingsecurity.Controversyaboutthemeaningofsecurityhasbeenpartofamore fundamentaldebateoverbroaderepistemologicalissuesthat,onthecriticalside,hasincluded questioningthestatecentricfoundationsandassumptionsofrealismaswellaschallengingits positivistrationalistmethodologies.Manyscholarsonthecriticalsideoftheseepistemological debatesclaimthattheseontologicalandepistemologicalissuesarehighlyinterrelated.The beginningofthedebateoverthemeaningofsecurityanditsexpandingagenda,aswellasover howtoexplainconflictandprescribeforitsamelioration,wascoincidentalwiththethirddebate inIR.Scholarsonthecriticalsidebegantoquestionrealismsexplanationsforstatessecurity behaviorbasedoneconomistic,rationalchoicemodelsornaturalscienceequilibriummodels associatedwiththebalanceofpower.Manyclaimedthatissuesofcultureandidentitymustbe includedinordertogainafullerunderstandingofstatessecurityinterestsandpolicies. Poststructuralistscholarsbegantoquestionthefoundationalmythsofrealistworldviewsupon whichrealistexplanationsofconflictdepend.Claimingthattheorycannotbedivorcedfrom politicalpractice,criticspointedtorealismscomplicityinshapingpolicymakers understandingsofandprescriptionsforU.S.securitybehaviorintheColdWarworld.Walts defenseofthesocialscientificfoundationsofsecuritystudies(mentionedearlier)andhis dismissalofotherapproacheshavedrawnsharpcriticismfromcriticalsecurityscholars.The ethnocentricismofhisreviewandhisdescriptionofafieldthatappearscloselyalliedwithU.S. securityinterestscallintoquestionhisclaimaboutthefieldsabilitytoriseabovethepolitical andraisestheissueofwhoseinterestsecurityisserving.EdwardKolodziejhasclaimedthat Waltsphilosophicallyrestrictivenotionofthesocialsciencesconfinesthesecurityscholarto testingpropositionslargelyspecifiedbypolicymakers;itistheywhodecidewhatisrealand relevant.33KolodziejgoesontosaythatWaltsdefinitionofsciencebarsanypossibilityofan ethicalormoraldiscourse;eventhenormativeconcernsofclassicalrealistsaredeemphasizedin ordertoputtherealistperspectiveonscientificfoundations.ChallengingWaltsviewofthe historyofthefieldasagradualevolutiontowardanobjective,scientificdisciplinethat ultimatelyyieldsaformofknowledgebeyondtimeandhistory,KeithKrauseandMichael WilliamshaveclaimedthatWalthascreatedanepistemichierarchythatallowsconventional securitystudiestosetitselfupastheauthoritativejudgeofalternativeclaims;34thisleadstoa dismissalofalternativeepistemologiesintermsoftheirnotbeingscientific.Criticsclaimthat issuestheyconsiderimportantforunderstandingsecuritycannotberaisedwithinapositivist rationalistepistemologyoranontologybasedoninstrumentallyrationalactorsinastatecentric world.Inadditiontoconstrainingwhatcanbesaidaboutsecurity,arealistrationalistapproach precludesconsiderationofanethicaloremancipatorypolitics.Forexample,Krauseand

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Williamscontestrealismsclaimthatstatesandanarchyareessentialandunproblematicfactsof worldpolitics.Theysuggestthatthisworldviewisgroundedinanunderstandingofhuman subjectsasselfcontainedasinstrumentallyrationalactorsconfrontinganobjectiveexternal reality.Thismethodologicallyindividualistpremiserendersquestionsaboutidentityand interestformationasunimportant.35Theseandothercriticsclaimthatissuesofidentityand interestdemandmoreinterpretivemodesofanalysis.Forthisreason,criticalscholarsseethe necessityofshiftingfromafocusonabstractindividualismtoastressoncultureandidentity andtherolesofnormsandideas.Suchcriticismsarebeingvoicedbyscholarsvariously identifiedasconstructivists,criticaltheorists,andpostmodernists.Whilenotallofthemreject realismsstatecentricframework,allchallengeitsassumptionsaboutstatesasunitaryactors whoseidentitiesareunimportantforunderstandingtheirsecuritybehavior.Althoughcertainof thesescholarsseeanincommensurabilitybetweenrationalistandinterpretiveepistemologies, othersareattemptingtobridgethisgapbystayingwithinrealismsstatecentricworldview whilequestioningitsrationalistepistemology.RonaldJepperson,AlexanderWendt,andPeter Katzensteinhavearguedforwhattheycallsociologicalinstitutionalismaviewthat advocatesanidentitybasedapproach,butonethatstayswithinthetraditionalsecurityagenda, afocusonstates,andexplanatorysocialscience.Wherethisapproachdiffersfromrationalism isinitsinvestigationofhownorms,institutions,andotherculturalfeaturesofdomesticand internationalenvironmentsaffectstatessecurityinterestsandpolicies.Conversely,whenstates enactaparticularidentity,theyhaveaprofoundeffectontheinternationalsystemtowhich theybelong.36AlexanderWendtsconstructivistapproachalsoattemptstobridgethe constructivist/rationalistdivide.Hisstrategyforbuildingthisbridgeistoargueagainstthe neorealistclaimthatselfhelpisgivenbyanarchicstructures.Ifweliveinaselfhelpworld,itis duetoprocessratherthanstructure;inotherwords,anarchyiswhatstatesmakeofit.37 Constructivistsocialtheorybelievesthatpeopleacttowardobjects,includingotheractors,on thebasisofthemeaningsthattheobjectshaveforthem.38Peopleandstatesactdifferently towardthosetheyperceiveasfriendsandthosetheyseeasenemies. Therefore,wecannotunderstandstatessecurityinterestsandbehaviorwithoutconsidering issuesofidentityplacedwithintheirsocialcontext.Claimingthatrealistontologyandits rationalistepistemologyareinterdependent,moreradicalversionsofcriticalsecuritystudies rejectthesebridgingattempts.Theircallsforbroadeningthesecurityagendaaremadewithin thecontextofbotharejectionofrationalismandasearchforemancipatorytheoriesthatcanget beyondrealismsskepticismaboutprogressivechangeandthepossibilityofanethical internationalpolitics.Poststructuralistsclaimthatwhenknowledgeaboutsecurityis constructedintermsofthebinarymetaphysicsofWesternculture,suchasinside/outside, us/them,andcommunity/anarchy,securitycanbeunderstoodonlywithintheconfinesof domesticcommunitywhoseidentityisconstructedinantithesistoexternalthreat.39Thisdenies thepossibilityoftalkingaboutaninternationalcommunityoranameliorationofthesecurity dilemmasinceitisonlywithinthespaceofpoliticalcommunitythatquestionsaboutethicscan beraised.Inotherwords,thebinarydistinctionsofnationalsecuritydiscourselimitwhatcan besaidandhowitcanbediscussed.Thus,criticalsecuritystudiesisnotonlyaboutbroadening theagendabecause,asmentionedearlier,thisispossiblewitharealistframework.According

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

toKenBooth,criticalsecurityisfundamentallydifferentfromrealismbecauseitsagenda derivesfromaradicallydifferentpoliticaltheoryandmethodologythatquestionbothrealisms constrainedviewofthepoliticalanditscommitmenttopositivism.Criticalsecuritystudies rejectsconventionalsecuritytheorysdefinitionofpoliticsbasedonthecentralityofthestate anditssovereignty.Arguingthatthestateisoftenpartoftheproblemofinsecurityratherthan thesolution,Boothclaimsthatweshouldexaminesecurityfromabottomupperspectivethat beginswithindividuals;however,criticalsecuritystudiesshouldnotignorethestateorthe militarydimensionsofworldpolitics:Whatisbeingchallengedisnotthematerial manifestationsoftheworldoftraditionalrealism,butitsmoralandpracticalstatus,including itsnaturalizationofhistoricallycreatedtheories,itsideologyofnecessityandlimited possibility,anditspropagandistcommonsenseaboutthisbeingthebestofallworlds.40When wetreatindividualsastheobjectsofsecurity,weopenupthepossibilityoftalkingabouta transcendenthumancommunitywithcommonglobalconcernsandallowengagementwiththe broadestglobalthreats.41Thethemeofemancipationisonethatrunsthroughmuchofthe criticalsecuritystudiesliterature.Emancipatorycriticalsecuritycanbedefinedasfreeingpeople asindividualsandgroupsfromthesocial,physical,economic,andpoliticalconstraintsthat preventthemfromcarryingoutwhattheywouldfreelychoosetodo.42Apostrealist, postpositivistemancipatorynotionofsecurityoffersthepromiseofmaximizingthesecurity andimprovingthelivesofthewholeofhumankind:itisasecuritystudiesofinclusionrather thanexclusion.43Yetimaginingsecuritydivestedofitsstatistconnotationsisproblematic;the institutionsofstatepowerarenotwitheringaway.AsR.B.J.Walkerhasclaimed,thestateisa politicalcategoryinawaythattheworldorhumanityisnot.44Thesecurityofstatesdominates ourunderstandingofwhatsecuritycanbebecauseotherformsofpoliticalcommunityhave beenrenderedunthinkable.Yet,asWalkergoesontosay,giventhedangersofnuclear weapons,wearenolongerabletosurviveinaworldpredicatedonanextremelogicofstate sovereignty,noronewherewarisanoptionforsystemchange.Therefore,wemustreviseour understandingoftherelationshipbetweenuniversalityandparticularityuponwhichastatist conceptofsecurityhasbeenconstructed.Securitymustbeanalyzedintermsofhow contemporaryinsecuritiesarebeingcreatedandbyasensitivitytothewayinwhichpeopleare respondingtoinsecuritiesbyreworkingtheirunderstandingofhowtheirownpredicamentfits intobroaderstructuresofviolenceandoppression.45Feministswiththeirbottomup approachtosecurity,anontologyofsocialrelations,andanemancipatoryagendaare beginningtoundertakesuchreanalyses.

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Patriarchy>Extinction
Extinction Nhanenge7 [Jytte Masters @ U South Africa, paper submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of master of arts in the subject Development Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT]

Technologycanbeusedtodominatesocietiesortoenhancethem.Thusbothscienceand technologycouldhavedevelopedinadifferentdirection.Butduetopatriarchalvalues infiltratedinsciencethetypeoftechnologydevelopedismeanttodominate,oppress,exploit andkill.Onereasonisthatpatriarchalsocietiesidentifymasculinitywithconquest.Thusany technicalinnovationwillcontinuetobeatoolformoreeffectiveoppressionandexploitation. Thehighestpriorityseemstobegiventotechnologythatdestroyslife.Modernsocietiesare dominatedbymasculineinstitutionsandpatriarchalideologies.Theirtechnologiesprevailedin Auschwitz,Dresden,Hiroshima,Nagasaki,Vietnam,Iran,Iraq,Afghanistanandinmanyother partsoftheworld.Patriarchalpowerhasbroughtusacidrain,globalwarming,militarystates, povertyandcountlesscasesofsuffering.Wehaveseenmenwhosepowerhascausedthemto loseallsenseofreality,decencyandimagination,andwemustfearsuchpower.Theultimate resultofuncheckedpatriarchywillbeecologicalcatastropheandnuclearholocaust.Such actionsaredenialofwisdom.Itisworkingagainstnaturalharmonyanddestroyingthebasisof existence.Butaslongasordinarypeopleleavequestionsoftechnologytothe"experts"wewill continuetheforwardstampede.Aslongaseconomicsfocusontechnologyandbotharethe focusofpolitics,wecanleavenoneofthemtoexperts.Ordinarypeopleareoftenmorecapable oftakingawiderandmorehumanisticviewthantheseexperts.(Kelly1990:112114;Eisler 1990:3233;Schumacher1993:20,126,128,130).

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Shepherd
Shepherd8 [Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of
Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, EBSCO]

Asdiscussedabove,ideasaboutmasculinityandfemininity,dignityandsacrificemaynotonly beviolentinthemselves,butarealsotheproduct/productiveofphysicalviolences.Withthisin mind,thefeministargumentthat'peacetime'isanalyticallymisleadingisavalidone.Of interestarethe'inbetweendays'andthewaysinwhichlabellingperiodsofwarorpeaceas suchcandivertattentionawayfromthemyriadviolencesthatinformandreinforcesocial behaviour.[W]arcansurelyneverbesaidtostartandendataclearlydefinedmoment.Rather, itseemspartofacontinuumofconflict,expressednowinarmedforce,nowineconomic sanctionsorpoliticalpressure.Atimeofsupposedpeacemaycomelatertobecalled'thepre warperiod'.Duringthefightingofawar,unseenbythefootsoldiersunderfire,peace processesareoftenalreadyatwork.Atimeofpostwarreconstruction,later,maybere designatedasaninterbellumamerepausebetweenwars(CockburnandZarkov,citedinEl Jack,2003,p.9). Feministsecuritystudiesinterrogatesthepausesbetweenwars,andthepoliticalprocesses andpracticesofpowerthatdemarcatetimesassuch.Indoingso,notonlyistheremitof recognisableviolence(violenceworthyofstudy)expanded,butsotooaretheparametersof whatcountsasIR.Everydayviolencesandactsofeverydayresistance('afashionshow,atour,a smalldisplayofchildren'sbooks'inEnloe,2007,pp.11720)arethestuffofrelations internationaland,thus,ofacomprehensiveunderstandingofsecurity.InthefollowingsectionI outlinethewaysinwhichtakingtheseclaimsseriouslyallowsustoengagecriticallywiththe representationsofinternationalrelationsthatinformourresearch,withpotentiallyprofound implications. Aswellasconceivingofgenderasasetofdiscourses,andviolenceasameansofreproducing andreinforcingtherelevantdiscursivelimits,itispossibletoseesecurityasasetofdiscourses, asIhavearguedmorefullyelsewhere(Shepherd,2007;2008;seealsoShepherdandWeldes, 2007).Ratherthanpursuingthestudyofsecurityasifitweresomethingthatcanbeachieved eitherinabsolute,partialorrelativeterms,engagingwithsecurityasdiscourseenablesthe analysisofhowthesediscoursesfunctiontoreproduce,throughvariousstrategies,thedomain oftheinternationalwithwhichIRisselfconsciouslyconcerned.Justasviolencesthatare genderingreproducegenderedsubjects,onthisviewstates,actingasauthoritativeentities, performviolences,butviolences,inthenameofsecurity,alsoperformstates.Theseprocesses occursimultaneously,andacrossthewholespectrumofsociallife:aninstanceofrapeinwaris atoncegenderingoftheindividualsinvolvedandofthesocialcollectivitiesstates, communities,regionstheyfeeltheyrepresent(seeBracewell,2000);buildingafenceinthe nameofsecuritythatseparatespeoplefromtheirlandandextendedfamiliesperforms particularkindsofviolence(atcheckpoints,duringpatrols)andperformsparticularsubject identities(ofthestateauthority,oftheindividualsaffected),allofwhicharegendered.

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Allofthetextsunderdiscussioninthisessayarguethatitisimperativetoexploreandexpose genderedpowerrelationsand,further,thatdoingsonotonlyenablesarigorouscritiqueof realisminIRbutalsoremindsusasscholarsoftheneedforsuchacritique.ThecritiquesofIR offeredbyfeministscholarsaregroundedinarejectionofneorealism/realismasadominant intellectualframeworkforacademicsinthedisciplineandpolicymakersalike.AsEnloe remindsus,'thegovernmentcentred,militarizedversionof nationalsecurity[derivedfromarealistframework]remainsthedominantmodeofpolicy thinking'(Enloe,2007,p.43).Situatinggenderasacentralcategoryofanalysisencouragesusto 'thinkoutsidethe"statesecuritybox"'(p.47)andtorememberthat'the"individuals"ofglobal politicsdonotworkalone,livealoneorpoliticalonetheydosoininterdependent relationshipswithothers'(SjobergandGentry,2008,p.200)thatareinherentlygendered.One ofthekeyanalyticalcontributionsofallthreetextsisthewayinwhichtheyallchallengewhatit meanstobe'doing'IR,byrecognisingvariousformsofviolence,interrogatingthe public/privatedivideanddemandingthatattentionispaidtothetemporalandphysicalspaces inbetweenwarandpeace. Feministsecuritystudiesshouldnotsimplybeseenas'womendoingsecurity',oras'adding womentoIR/securitystudies',importantasthesecontributionsare.Throughtheirtheorising, theauthorsdiscussedherereconfigurewhat'counts'asIR,challengingorthodoxnotionsofwho can'do'IRandwhat'doing'IRmeans.Thepracticesofpowerneededtomaintaindominant configurationsofinternationalrelationsareexposed,andcritiquingtheproductivepowerof realismasadiscourseisonewayinwhichtheauthorsdothis.SjobergandGentrypickupona recenttheoreticalshiftinAngloAmericanIR,fromsystemlevelanalysistoarecognitionthat individualsmatter.However,astheyrightlypointout,theindividualswhoareseentomatter arenotgenderedrelationalbeings,butratherreminiscentofHobbes'constructionofthe autonomousrationalactor.'[T]henarrownessofthegroupthat[suchanapproach]includes limitsitseffectivenessasaninterpretiveframeworkandreproducesthegender,classandrace biasesinsystemlevelinternationalrelationshipscholarship'(SjobergandGentry2008,p.200, emphasisadded).Withoutpayingadequateattentiontotheconstructionofindividualsas genderedbeings,ortothereproductionofwidelyheldideasaboutmasculineandfeminine behaviours,SjobergandGentryremindusthatwewillultimatelyfail'toseeanddeconstruct theincreasinglysubtle,complexanddisguisedwaysinwhichgenderpervadesinternational relationsandglobalpolitics'(2008,p.225). Inasimilarvein,Robertsnotesthat'humansecurityismarginalisedorrejectedasinauthentic [because]itisnotareflectionofrealism's(male)agendasandpriorities'(2008,p.169).The 'agendasandpriorities'identifiedbyRobertsandacknowledgedbySjobergandGentryas beingproductiveofparticularbiasesinscholarshiparenotsimply'academic'matters,inthe pejorativesenseoftheterm.AsRobertsargues,'Powerrelationshipsofinequalityhappen becausetheyarebuiltthatwaybyhumandeterminismofsecurityandwhatisrequiredto maintainsecurity(p.171).Realism,asacademicdiscourseandaspolicyguideline,hasmaterial effects.Althoughhisanalysisemploysanunconventionaldefinitionoftheterm'social construction'(seeminglyinterchangeablewith'humanagency')andrestsonanovel interpretationofthethreefoundationalassumptionsofrealism(Roberts,2008,pp.16977),the

10

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

centralpointthatRobertsseekstomakeinhisconclusionisvalid:'itisachallengetothosewho denyrelationshipsbetweengenderandsecurity;betweenhumanagency(socialconstruction) andlethaloutcome'(p.183). Insum,allthreetextsdrawtheirreaderstoaninescapable,andfortheconventionalstudyof IRadevastatingconclusion:thedominanceofneorealism/realismandthestatebasedstudy ofsecuritythatderivesfromthisispotentiallypathological,inthatitisinpartproductiveofthe violencesitseekstoameliorate.IsuggestthatcriticalengagementwithorthodoxIRtheoryis necessaryfortheintellectualgrowthofthediscipline,andconsiderableinsightcanbegainedby acknowledgingtherelevanceoffeministunderstandingsofgender,powerandtheory.The youngwomanbuyingaTshirtfromamultinationalclothingcorporationwithherfirstpay cheque,thegroupofyoungmenplanningastagweekendinAmsterdam,agroupofstudents attendingademonstrationagainstthebombingofAfghanistanstudyingthesesignificant actionscurrentlyfallsoutsidetheboundariesofdoingsecuritystudiesinmainstreamIRandI believetheseboundariesneedcontesting.AsMarysiaZalewskiargues: Internationalpoliticsiswhatwemakeittobe...Weneedtorethinkthedisciplineinwaysthat willdisturbtheexistingboundariesofboththatwhichweclaimtoberelevantininternational politicsandwhatweassumetobelegitimatewaysofconstructingknowledgeabouttheworld (Zalewski1996,p.352,emphasisinoriginal).

11

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

CriticisingMasculineKnowledge
Masculineformsofknowledgeproductioncherrypickjustificationsbasedona preconceivedandrocentricscript,whichmeansifwewintheaffembodiesthis epistemologicalschemaitsareasontobeskepticaloftheirimpactandsolvency claims Tickner1 [Ann professor at the School of International Relations USC. B.A. in History, U London. M.A. in IR,
Yale. PhD in pol sci, Brandeis U Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era]

Doesthefactthatstatesnationalsecuritypoliciesareoftenlegitimatedbyappealingto masculinecharacteristics,suchaspowerandselfhelp,meanthatcertaintypesofforeignpolicy behaviorsstandingtall,ratherthanwimpingoutareseenasmorelegitimatethanothers? Coulditbethatmenwho,intheroleofdefenseexperts,mustemploytoughmasculine languageandsuppressanyfeminizedthoughtswhenconstructingstrategicoptions,cometo regardmorecooperativechoicesasunthinkableandcooperativebehaviorasunlikely?58Carol Cohnclaimsthatthelanguageweuseshapesthewayweviewtheworldandthushowweact onit.HeranalysisofthelanguageofU.S.securityexperts,whoseideashavebeenimportantfor mainstreamsecuritystudies,suggeststhatthismasculinegendereddiscourseistheonly permissiblewayofspeakingaboutnationalsecurityifoneistobetakenseriouslybythe strategiccommunity.Thisrational,disembodiedlanguageprecludesdiscussionofthedeath anddestructionofwar,issuesthatcanbespokenofonlyinemotionaltermsstereotypically associatedwithwomen.Inotherwords,thelimitsonwhatcanbesaidwiththelanguageof strategicdiscourseconstrainsourabilitytothinkfullyandwellaboutnationalsecurity.Intheir analysisofU.S.policyonbombingIndochinaduringtheVietnamWar,JenniferMillikenand DavidSylvanexaminethediscourseofU.S.policymakers.Theyclaimitwasgendered.59When policymakersspokeorwroteaboutSouthVietnam,itwasportrayedasweakandfeminized,its populationashystericalandchildlike;theNorthVietnamese,ontheotherhand,were characterizedasbrutalfanaticsasmanifestingapervertedformofmasculinity.Theauthors claimthatbombingpolicy,respondingtothesegenderedportrayals,wasdifferentineachcase. Whilenotdenyingtherealityofwhatpolicymakersdo,MillikenandSylvan,likeCohn,claim thatwordshavepowerand,therefore,consequences;thewayinwhichpolicymakersand scholarsconstructrealityhasaneffectonhowtheyactuponandexplainthatreality.Gender differentiatedimagesareoftenusedinforeignpolicytolegitimatecertainoptionsanddiscredit others.Therefore,Waltsaspirationforseparatingthepoliticalfromthescientificis questionable.Inotherwords,theoriescannotbeseparatedfrompoliticalpractice.

And,interrogatingthegenderedassumptionsoftheiradvantageandsolvencyclaims solvetheaffitexposesandrocentricassumptionthatallowformulationofbetter actions PetersonandRunyan99 [V. Spike and Anne professor of political science at the University of Arizona and
professor of womens studies at Wright State University, Global Gender Issues, 2nd edition, p. 14-15]

12

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Genderissuessurfacenowbecausenewquestionshavebeenraisedthatcannotbeaddressed withintraditionalframeworks.Theamassingofglobaldatarevealstheextentandpatternof genderinequality:Womeneverywherehavelessaccesstopoliticalpowerandeconomic resourcesandlesscontroloverprocessesthatreproducethissystemicinequality.Moreover,our knowledgeoftheworldofmenandthepoliticstheycreateisbiasedandincompleteinthe absenceofknowledgeabouthowmen'sactivities,includingtheirpolitics,arerelatedto,even dependentupon,whatwomenaredoingandwhy.Additionally,recognizingthepowerof genderasalensforcesustoreevaluatetraditionalexplanations,toaskhowtheyarebiasedand hencerenderinadequateaccounts.Asinotherdisciplines,thestudyofworldpoliticsis enrichedbyacknowledgingandsystematicallyexamininghowgendershapescategoriesand frameworksthatwetakeforgranted.Thisisnecessaryforansweringthenewquestionsraised andforgeneratingfreshinsightsabouttheworldaswecurrently"know"itandhowitmight beotherwise.Finally,gendersensitivestudiesimproveourunderstandingofglobalcrises,their interactions,andthepossibilitiesofmovingbeyondthem.Theseincludecrisesofpolitical legitimacyandsecurityasstatesareincreasinglyunabletoprotecttheircitizensagainst economic,epidemic,nuclear,orecologicalthreats;crisesofmaldevelopmentasthedynamicsof ourglobaleconomicsystemenrichafewandimpoverishmost;andcrisesofenvironmental degradationastheexploitationofnaturalresourcescontinuesinunsustainablefashion.These globalcrisescannotbeunderstoodoraddressedwithoutacknowledgingthestructural inequalitiesofthecurrentworldsystem,inequalitiesthatextendwellbeyondgenderissues: Theyareembodiedininteractinghierarchiesofrace,class,ethnicity,nationality,sexual orientation,physicalability,age,andreligiousidentification.Inthistext,wefocusonhowthe structuralinequalitiesofgenderworkintheworld:howthehierarchicaldichotomyof masculinityfemininityisinstitutionalized,legitimated,andreproduced,andhowthese processesdifferentiallyaffectmen'sandwomen'slives.Wealsobegintoseehowgender hierarchyinteractswithotherstructuralinequalities.Thedichotomyofmasculinityand femininityisnotseparatefromracism,classism,ageism,nationalism,andsoon.Rather,gender bothstructuresandisstructuredbythesehierarchiestorendercomplexsocialidentities, locations,responsibilities,andsocialpractices.Gendershapes,andisshapedby,allofus.We dailyreproduceitsdynamicsandsufferitscostsinmultipleways.Bylearninghowgender works,welearnagreatdealaboutintersectingstructuresofinequalityandhowtheyare intentionallyandunintentionallyreproduced.Wecanthenusethisknowledgeinourstruggles totransformglobalgenderinequalitybyalsotransformingotheroppressivehierarchiesatwork intheworld.

13

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Framework

Considerationofgenderbinariesisaprerequisiteinthecontextofmilitarypolicy simplythealtsquestioningcreatesbetterpolicyalsothismeansthealtsolvesthe aff Cohnetal5 [Carol Cohn (Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security, and Human Rights), Felicity Hill
(Peace and Security Adviser to the United Nations Development Fund for Women), and Sara Ruddick (Professor of philosophy and women's studies at Eugene Lang College, The New School for Social Research), The Relevance of Gender for Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction, RCB]

Thisstoryisnotsimplyaboutoneindividual,hisfeelingsandactions;itillustratestheroleand meaningofgenderdiscourseinthedefencecommunity.Theimpactofgenderdiscourseinthat room(andcountlessotherslikeit)isthatsomethingsareexcludedandgetleftoutfrom professionaldeliberations.Certainideas,concerns,interests,information,feelingsand meaningsaremarkedinnationalsecuritydiscourseasfeminine,anddevalued.Theyare thereforeverydifficulttospeak,asexemplifiedbythephysicistwhoblurtedthemoutand wishedhehadnt.Andiftheymanagetobesaid,theyarealsoverydifficulttohear,totakein andworkwithseriously.Fortheothersintheroom,thewayinwhichthephysicistscomments weremarkedasfeminineanddevaluedservedtodelegitimatethem;italsomadeitvery unlikelythatanyofhiscolleagueswouldfindthecouragetoagreewithhim.Thisexample shouldnotbedismissedasjusttheproductoftheidiosyncraticpersonalcompositionofthat particularroom;itisreplicatedmanytimesandinmanyplaces.Women,inprofessionaland militarysettings,haverelatedexperiencesofrealisingthatsomethingterriblyimportantis beingleftoutbutfeelingconstrained,asifthereisalmostaphysicalbarrierpreventingthem frompushingtheirtransgressivetruthsoutintotheopen.Whatisitthatcannotbespoken? First,anyexpressionofanemotionalawarenessofthedesperatehumanrealitybehindthe sanitisedabstractionsofdeathanddestructioninstrategicdeliberations.Similarly,weapons effectsmayonlybespokenofinthemostclinicalandabstractterms,andusuallyonlybythose deemedtohavetheappropriateprofessionalqualificationsandexpertise.Whatgetsleftout, then,istheemotional,theconcrete,theparticular,humanbodiesandtheirvulnerability,human livesandtheirsubjectivityallofwhicharemarkedasfeminineinthebinarydichotomiesof genderdiscourse.Inotherwords,genderdiscourseinformsandshapesnuclearandnational securitydiscourse,andinsodoingcreatessilencesandabsences.Itkeepsthingsoutofthe room,unsaid,andkeepsthemignorediftheymanagetogetin.Assuch,itdegradesourability tothinkwellandfullyaboutnuclearweaponsandnationalsecurity,andsoshapesandlimits thepossibleoutcomesofourdeliberations.Withthisunderstanding,itbecomesobviousthat defenceintellectualsstandardsofwhatconstitutesgoodthinkingaboutweaponsand securityhavenotsimplyevolvedoutoftrialanderror;itisnotthatthehistoryofnuclear discoursehasbeenfilledwithexplorationofotherideas,concerns,interests,information, questions,feelings,meaningsandstanceswhichwerethenfoundtocreatedistortedorpoor thought.Onthecontrary,seriousconsiderationofawholerangeofideasandoptionshasbeen preemptedbytheirgendercoding,andbythefeelingsevokedbylivinguptoortransgressing normativegenderideals.Toborrowastrategiststerm,wecansaythatgendercodingservesas

14

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

apreemptivedeterrenttocertainkindsofthoughtabouttheeffectsandconsequencesof strategicplansandWMD.viIdeasaboutgendershape,limitanddistortthenationaland internationalpoliticalprocessesthroughwhichdecisionsaboutWMDaremadeTheimpactof ideasaboutgenderextendsbeyondtherealmoftheprofessionaldiscourseofweaponsexperts; ideasaboutgenderalsoaffectthenationalandinternationalprocessesthroughwhichdecisions aremadeabouttheacquisitionofweapons,themaintenanceofweaponsstockpiles,and disarmamentinitiatives.Toseethis,weneedtotreatseriouslyaphenomenonthatissotaken forgrantedthatitisusuallyunremarkedthatbothwarandweaponsarecurrentlyassociated withmasculinity.Whatdoesitmeantotakethisseriously?Whateffectsdoesthishave?One tellingexamplecomesfrom1990,afterSaddamHusseinhadinvadedKuwait,duringthebuild uptothefirstGulfWar.Duringaspeculativediscussionamongagroupofdefenceintellectuals andopinionformers,onedeclared,Look,thequestionis,DoesGeorge[H.W.]Bushhavethe stonesforwar?Thatis,doeshehavethemasculinestrengthandcourage,ishemanenough,to leadhiscountryintowar?viiLookatwhathappenswhenthequestionisframedthisway.Even thoughthemanwhoaskedthisquestionmightnotendorsethestatementwarisagood thing,heequatedawillingnesstogotowarwithhavingstonesaeuphemismforballs, generallyregardedasapositiveattribute(foraman).Hencegoingtowarisgiventhe positivevalencethatmasculinitybeingarealmanisunderstoodtopossess.Evenmore importantly,thisequationcarriesadeeperimplication:notonlydoesitgivetowagingwar someofthepositivevalueattachedtomasculinity;italsomakesitmuchmoredifficultnottogo towar.Byextension,theresearch,development,production,stockpilinganddeploymentof weaponsanddeliverysystemswithoutwhichgoingtowarisimpossiblearealsoequated withmanliness,usinggenderresonantlanguageabouttheimportanceofdemonstratingour strengthandresolve.Asaconsequence,itiseasiertodelegitimiseproponentsofcutting militaryspending.Whethertheirmotivationsaredisarmamentorgettingridofexpensive weaponsprogrammesthatmakenomilitaryorstrategicsense,opponentsofmilitaryspending areunderminedbyaccusationsofbeingweakondefence.Theyareportrayedasfeeble, wimpyorlackingballsthekissofdeathinAmericanpolitics.Anotherexample,fromUS publicdiscourseafter9/11,issomevariationonthetheme,Weshouldbomb`embacktothe StoneAge,andthenmaketherubblebounce.viiiFrequentlyexpressedontalkradioshowsor internetdiscussions,thiskindofrhetorichardlyrepresentsarationalstrategiccalculation; rather,itisaboutthesheerpleasureandthrillofhavingsomuchdestructivepower.While astoundinginitsamoralityandignorance,suchutterancesaremeanttoelicitadmirationforthe wrathfulmanlinessofthespeaker.Theeffectsofthiskindofspeecharepernicious.The implicationisthattoavoidrespondingtoapoliticalcrisisbygoingtowarshowsalackofballs. Nottobeready,willingandabletodemolishyouropponentsbybombing`embacktothe StoneAgeistobeweak.Insuchachargedandmasculinisedcontext,itbecomes extraordinarilydifficulttodevelopandadvocateotherformsofsecuritypolicy.

And,youarenotapolicymakerpretendingyouareabsolvesofindividual responsibilityensurestheaffsimpactsareinevitableandisanindependentreason

15

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

tovoteneg Kappeler95 (Susanne, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)


Wearethewardoesnotmeanthattheresponsibilityforawarissharedcollectivelyand diffuselybyanentiresocietywhichwouldbeequivalenttoexoneratingwarlordsand politiciansandprofiteersor,asUlrichBecksays,upholdingthenotionof`collective irresponsibility,wherepeoplearenolongerheldresponsiblefortheiractions,andwherethe conceptionofuniversalresponsibilitybecomestheequivalentofauniversalacquittal.Onthe contrary,theobjectispreciselytoanalysethespecificanddifferentialresponsibilityofeveryone intheirdiversesituations.Decisionstounleashawarareindeedtakenatparticularlevelsof powerbythoseinapositiontomakethemandtocommandsuchcollectiveaction.Weneedto holdthemclearlyresponsiblefortheirdecisionsandactionswithoutlesseningtheirsbyany collective`assumptionofresponsibility.Yetourhabitoffocusingonthestagewherethemajor dramasofpowertakeplacetendstoobscureoursightinrelationtoourownsphereof competence,ourownpowerandourownresponsibilityleadingtothewellknownillusionof ourapparent`powerlessnessanditsaccompanyingphenomenon,oursocalledpolitical disillusionment.Singlecitizensevenmoresothoseofothernationshavecometofeelsecurein theirobviousnonresponsibilityforsuchlargescalepoliticaleventsas,say,thewarsinCroatia andBosniaHercegovinaorSomaliasincethedecisionsforsucheventsarealwaysmade elsewhere.YetourinsightthatindeedwearenotresponsibleforthedecisionsofaSerbian generaloraCroatianpresidenttendstomisleadusintothinkingthatthereforewehaveno responsibilityatall,notevenforformingourownjudgement,andthusintounderratingthe responsibilitywedohavewithinourownsphereofaction.Inparticular,itseemstoabsolveus fromhavingtotrytoseeanyrelationbetweenourownactionsandthoseevents,ortorecognize theconnectionsbetweenthosepoliticaldecisionsandourownpersonaldecisions.Itnotonly showsthatweparticipateinwhatBeckcalls`organizedirresponsibility,upholdingthe apparentlackofconnectionbetweenbureaucratically,institutionally,nationallyandalso individuallyorganizedseparatecompetences.Italsoprovesthephenomenalandunquestioned allianceofourpersonalthinkingwiththethinkingofthemajorpowermongers:Forwetendto thinkthatwecannot`doanything,say,aboutawar,becausewedeemourselvestobeinthe wrongsituation;becausewearenotwherethemajordecisionsare made.Whichiswhymanyofthosenotyetentirelydisillusionedwithpoliticstendtoengagein aformofmental deputypolitics,inthestyleof`WhatwouldIdoifIwerethegeneral,theprimeminister,the president,theforeignministerortheministerofdefence?Sinceweseemtoregardtheirmega spheresofactionastheonlyworthwhileandtrulyeffective ones,andsinceourpoliticalanalysestendtodwelltherefirstofall,anyquestionofwhatI woulddoifIwereindeedmyselftendstopeteroutinthecomparativeinsignificanceofhaving whatisperceivedas`virtuallynopossibilities:whatIcoulddoseemspettyandfutile.Formy ownactionIobviouslydesiretherangeofactionofageneral,aprimeminister,oraGeneral SecretaryoftheUNfindingexpressioninevermoreprevalentformulationslike`Iwanttostop thiswar,`Iwantmilitaryintervention,`Iwanttostopthisbacklash,or`Iwantamoral

16

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

revolution.Wearethiswar,however,evenifwedonotcommandthetroopsorparticipatein socalledpeacetalks,namelyasDrakulicsays,inour`noncomprehension:ourwilledrefusal tofeelresponsibleforourownthinkingandforworkingoutourownunderstanding, preferringinnocentlytodriftalongtheideologicalcurrentofprefabricatedargumentsorless thaninnocentlytakingadvantageoftheadvantagestheseoffer.Andwe`arethewarinour `unconsciouscrueltytowardsyou,ourtoleranceofthe`factthatyouhaveayellowformfor refugeesandIdontourreadiness,inotherwords,tobuildidentities,oneforourselvesand oneforrefugees,oneofourownandoneforthe`others.Weshareintheresponsibilityforthis waranditsviolenceinthewayweletthemgrowinsideus,thatis,inthewayweshape`our feelings,ourrelationships,ourvaluesaccordingtothestructuresandthevaluesofwarand violence. destiningofrevealinginsofarasitpushesusinacertaindirection.Heideggerdoesnot regarddestiningasdetermination(hesaysitisnotafatewhichcompels),butratherasthe implicitprojectwithinthefieldofmodernpracticestosubjectallaspectsofrealitytothe principlesoforderandefficiency,andtopursuerealitydowntothefinestdetail.Thus,insofar asmoderntechnologyaimstoorderandrendercalculable,theobjectificationofrealitytendsto taketheformofanincreasingclassification,differentiation,andfragmentationofreality.The possibilitiesforhowthingsappearareincreasinglyreducedtothosethatenhancecalculative activities.Heideggerperceivestherealdangerinthemodernagetobethathumanbeingswill continuetoregardtechnologyasamereinstrumentandfailtoinquireintoitsessence.Hefears thatallrevealingwillbecomecalculativeandallrelationstechnical,thattheunthoughthorizon ofrevealing,namelytheconcealedbackgroundpracticesthatmaketechnologicalthinking possible,willbeforgotten.Heremarks:Thecomingtopresenceoftechnologythreatens revealing,threatensitwiththepossibilitythatallrevealingwillbeconsumedinorderingand thateverythingwillpresentitselfonlyintheunconcealednessofstandingreserve.(QT,33)10 Therefore,itisnottechnology,orscience,butrathertheessenceoftechnologyasawayof revealingthatconstitutesthedanger;fortheessenceoftechnologyisexistential,not technological.11Itisamatterofhowhumanbeingsarefundamentallyorientedtowardtheir worldvisavistheirpractices,skills,habits,customs,andsoforth.Humanismcontributesto thisdangerinsofarasitfosterstheillusionthattechnologyistheresultofacollectivehuman choiceandthereforesubjecttohumancontrol.12

17

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

A2:Realism
Realismisonlyinevitableinahypermasculineframework Peterson2k [V Spike, Associate Professor of Political Science @ Arizona, SAIS Review, 20.2, rereading public
and private: the dichotomy that is not one, project muse]

Inaddition,relegatingwomyntoaninvisibleprivatespherelendsauthorityandlegitimacyto excludingwomynfrompoliticalleadership,militaryactivities,andmacroeconomic management.Thecorollaryisthatwomynarenotonlydeniedaccesstomorevaluedand powerfulmasculineactivitiesbutarealsoassignedtospecificrolesandimagesrequiredto enable,support,andlegitimatethoseactivities.Hence,weareencouragedtobelievethatmen leadbecausewomynareapolitical,menworkbecausewomynaredependents,and[EndPage 20]menarestrongandgotowarbecausewomynareweakandneedprotection.Inspiteof livedexperienceandmaterialconditionsthatbeliethesesimplisticrenderings,theyhave rhetoricalforceandemotionalresonancethatshapehowweliveandhowsomeofusdie. Athirdeffectistheassumption,pervasiveinpoliticsandinternationalrelations,thatmale experienceandperspectiverepresentshumanexperienceandperspective.Modernpolitical theory,itsmodelsofhumannature,thefoundationalmythsofinternationalrelations(Hobbes stateofnature,Rousseausstaghunt),25andthecentralconstructsitemploys(thestate, rationalactor,nationalsecurity)areabstractionsfromexclusivelymale(andespeciallyelite male)experience.26Thepointisnotthattheseaccountsarefalseinthemselves(althoughthis alsowarrantsexamination)butthattheirclaimtouniversalitytorepresentthehuman conditionanditsmostpertinentproblematicsisempiricallyandconceptuallyerroneous. Theseandrocentricaccountsdistortourunderstandingofactualsocialrelationsbyexcludingall butelitemaleexperience,byoftenreifyingthatexperience,andbyfailingtoembedthat experienceinhistoricalcontext.Insofarasthesedistortionsoccurinthefoundationsof internationalrelations,thebiasestheyintroducepermeateandhaveconsequencesthroughout thediscipline. Ontheonehand,themaleexperienceandvantagepointpresupposedisitselfselective;itisnot everymanwhoproducespoliticaltheoryandparticipatesinpower.Becauseitiseliteand typicallyEuropeanmenwhodoso,feministsarenotaloneincriticizingthegeneralizationof thisexperiencetoallofhumankind.OthercriticalvoiceschallengethehegemonyofEurocentric accounts.27Ontheotherhand,thesecriticstypicallydonotaddressgenderasastructural featureofsocialhierarchiesthatiskeytothereproductionofeliteprerogatives.Fromafeminist perspective,androcentrismconstructsmodelsofhumannatureandsocialrelationsthatexclude womynsknowingandbeing,whichdiffersystematicallyfrommens(duetoinstitutionalized genderhierarchies).Insum,thebiasofandrocentrismisproblematicanalyticallyand politically:itnotonlyreproduceshierarchicalassumptionsconceptuallybutalso institutionalizeshierarchyinmaterialpractices.

Tryordieadheringtoinevitabilityofrealismmakeswarandviolenceinevitable Blanchard3 [Eric M. Blanchard, PhD Candidate in the School of International. Relations at the

18

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

University of Southern California, Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory, Signs, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Summer, 2003), pp. 1289-1312 Jstor]

Ticknersbookinparticularpresentsanearlyfeministcritiqueoftherealisttraditionandthe firststeptoevaluatingprevalentnotionsofsecurityfromagendersensitiveperspective.With itsmilitaryfocus,IRsecuritystudieshadbecome,accordingtoTickner,adysfunctional responsetothechallengesofhumanandenvironmentalsecurity.AsTicknerexplains,realism stressesrationality,strength,power,autonomy,andindependence,qualitiesasassociatedwith foreignpolicyandmilitaryaffairsastheyarewithmasculinity(1992,3).Sheproblematizesas welltheexogenietyofdomesticaffairsintherealistaccountandshowshowostensiblyobjective realistnationalsecuritystudiesattempttoexplainthecausesofwarthroughadiscoursethat privilegesaviewbasedonhegemonicmasculinity.Whilerealiststakepowerasthecoercive meansbywhichstatesobtainsecurityattheexpenseofotherstates,Ticknersuggestsinstead thatanethosofmutualenablementratherthandominationcouldunderlieapositivesum notionofsecurityinspiredbypeaceactivism(1992,65).LikeElshtain,Ticknerchallengesthe realistaversiontomoralityinIR,questioningtheadaptationofasetofpublic(andthus international)valuesasabasisforsecuritysowildlyatoddswiththevaluesweespouseat home(1992,138). Applyinggenderasacategoryofanalysistoshowthepossibilityofamorecomprehensive notionofsecurity,Ticknertracesthelinkagebetweenthesystemofinternationalrelations(and itstheorization)andmultileveled,genderedinsecurities.Againstrealismsassumptionof autonomousstatesanditsprescriptionofselfhelpinahostileanarchicalenvironment,Tickner arguesthatthethreatsofthenuclearage,crossborderenvironmentaldegradation,and evidenceofincreasinginternationalcooperationdemandthatinterdependencebetaken seriously(1992).ForTickner,theassumptionthatthereisorderwithinandanarchybeyondthe boundsofthecommunityeffectsadividebetweeninternationalanddomesticpoliticsthat mirrorsthepublicprivatesplitthatfeministtheoristsargueperpetuatesdomesticviolence. Ticknerrejectstheanalyticseparationofexplanationsforwarintodistinctlevelsandthe identificationofsecuritywithstateborders,arguingthatviolenceattheinternational,national, andfamilylevelsisinterrelated,ironicallytakingplaceindomesticandinternationalspaces beyondthereachesoflaw(1992,58,193).FeministsinIRfindthelevelsofanalysisapproach particularlyinappropriatetotheirconcernsbecausetheproblemofthesystemofpatriarchy cannotbeaddressedsolelybyreferencetoparticularactors,whethertheyaremenorstates (Brown1988,473). Recastingthestate LikeTickner,manyIRfeministsproblematizethestateandraisequestionsastoitsstatusas protectorofwomyn.Petersonarguesthat,inadditiontoitsrelegationofsexualviolenceandits threattotheprivatedomesticrealm,thestateisimplicatedinthewaysthatwomynbecome theobjectsofmasculinistsocialcontrolnotonlythroughdirectviolence(murder,rape, battering,incest),butalsothroughideologicalconstructs,suchaswomynsworkandthecult ofmotherhood,thatjustifystructuralviolenceinadequatehealthcare,sexualharassment,and sexsegregatedwages,rightsandresources(1992c,46).However,whilenotdenyingthe possibilityoflimitedprotectionofferedbythestate(Harrington1992),FSTconteststhenotion

19

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

of protectiontheexchangeofobedience/subordinationfor(promisesof)securityasa justificationforstatepower(Peterson1992c,50).Petersonlikensthestatesprovisionofsecurity forwomyntoaprotectionracket,implicatedinthereproductionofhierarchiesandinthe structuralviolenceagainstwhichtheyclaimtoofferprotection(1992c,51).Inaddition,Stiehm arguesthatthestatetypicallydenieswomyntheopportunitytobesocietalprotectors, assigningtothemtheroleofprotecteddespitethepredatorythreatoftenposedbytheir ostensibleguardians(1983a).Governmentalattemptstoachievetotalsecurityversusanexternal threatcanresultinpredictableoppression:Theproblemisthatthepotentialvictimisboth moreaccessibleandcompliantthanthemarauder.Becausetheprotectorisembarrassedand frustratedbyhisfailuretoprotect,herestrictshisprotecteeinstead(373).Bycircumscribing thepossibilitiesofthefemaledeploymentoflegitimateforce,themasculinestateeffectively deniesthedevelopmentofwhatStiehmcallsadefendersociety,onecomposedofcitizens equallyliabletoexperienceviolenceandequallyresponsibleforexercisingsocietysviolence (367). InGenderinInternationalRelations,TicknerintroducesanimportantthemeofFST:the recognitionofstructuralviolence,atermborrowedfrompeaceresearch(Galtung1971),which sheusestodesignatetheeconomicandenvironmentalinsecurityofindividualswhoselife expectancywasreduced,notbythedirectviolenceofwarbutbydomesticandinternational structuresofpoliticalandeconomicoppression(Tickner1992,69).Petersonclaimsthata feministrethinkingofsecuritymustfirstinquireintohowstructuralviolencecomestobe understoodasnaturalandunproblematicandthenworktopoliticizeandrevealthehistorically contingentnatureofsuchstructures(1992a,49).Whilewomynhavelongbeenperipheraltothe decisionmakingprocessesofglobalcapital,theinternationalpoliticaleconomycanrender womyninsecurethroughthegendereddivisionoflabor,thediscountingofworkinthehome, thedictatesofstructuraladjustmentprograms,theravagesofpoverty,andtheviolenceof sexualtourismandtraffickinginwomynallissuesthatgenerallydonotgettheattentionof orthodoxpractitionersofIR(seePettman1996).Likewise,althoughthecareoftheenvironment, atransnationalissuerequiringcollectiveaction,isnotapriorityofIRtheoriesthatprivilegethe powerandinstrumentalrationalityofnationstates,Ticknercontendsthatfeminist configurationsofsecuritymusttakenoteoftheneedforglobaleconomicrestructuringandurge ashiftfromtheexploitationofnaturetothereproductionofnature(1992).Suchaglobal restructuringmightstartwiththerecognitionthatenvironmentaldegradationisnotgender neutral;womynareaffecteddisproportionatelybyenvironmentalinsecurity,especiallyin developingcountrieswherethelinkbetweenpoverty,womynsstatus(orlackthereof), imposeddevelopmentpolicies,andenvironmentaldegradationisacomplexbutintenseone (Elliot1996,16). Insum,thefoundationofFSTcombinesarejectionofrealism,aninterrogationofthe abstractionsofstrategicdiscourse,anawarenessoftheconnectionbetweenwomynseveryday experienceandsecurity,acritiqueofthestate,andtherecognitionoftheeffectsofstructural violencewithastrongnormativeandtransformativevision,evidencedbyitsfocuson inequalityandemancipation.ForSarahBrown,thegoalofallIRtheoryshouldbethe

20

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

identificationandexplanationofsocialstratificationandofinequalityasstructuredatthelevel ofglobalrelations(1988,461).Ticknerclaimsthatsocialandgenderjusticemustbeattheheart ofanyenduringpeace;political,economic,andecologicalrelationshipscharacterizedby dominationandsubordinationcannotcoexistwithauthenticsecurity(1992,129).Shefurther proposesthatempathy,mediation,andsensitivity,alldevaluedasfeminineprinciples,could playanimportantroleinbuildingalternativemodalitiesofhumanbehavior.Accordingto Tickner,ashiftawayfromthecitizen/warrior/patriot,anexclusionarycivicidealpredicatedon certaintypesofwartimesacrifice,andaquestioningofthepremiumplacedonmilitarysuccess couldaidthedevelopmentofalessmilitarizedversionofnationalidentity,onemoreconducive torelationswithforeignothersandtotherecognitionofthevalidityofmaleandfemale experientialcontributions(1992,137). Reimaginingpeaceandwar Conceptually,FSTinvestigatesandproblematizestherelationshipsbetweenwomyn,security andpeace,andwar.Theunreflectiveconflationofpeacewithsecurityisadubiousmove, foritconstruesdifferenceasthreat(RunyanandPeterson1991,86).Peace,asElshtainhas observed,isanontologicallysuspiciousconceptasitisinconceivablewithoutwar,and binaryunderstandingsofwarandpeaceoftenrelyondegradednotionsofthefeminineand denythedisharmonyanddisorderofsocialandpoliticallife(1990).Althoughwarislargelya masculineinstitutionhistoricallymenhavebeenitsprimaryplannersandprosecutors feministscholarshavearguedthatthecomplexinterrelationshipbetweenmasculinitiesandwar needscarefulinvestigation.Feministsnotethat,thoughdrillsergeantsandmisogynisttraining areemployedintheattempttoturnmenintowarriors,thisconditioningdoesnotconvincethe majorityofmentofiretheirweaponsinbattle(Elshtain[1987]1995,207;Tickner2001,57).For sure,beliefsinthemasculinityofwarandtheinherentaggressivenessofmenareundermined bycontemporarywarfare,whichseemstorequire,asmuchasphysicalaggression,atolerance ofboredomortheabilitytooperateacomputerunderstress,characteristicsthatareneither distinctly`masculinenorheroic(Ruddick1989,15152). MaryBurguieresusefullyidentifiesthreepossiblefeministapproachestopeace:apositionthat acceptsstereotypesaboutmalebellicosityandthepacificfemalenatureandespousesthe potentialpeacefulbenefitsofmaternalthinking;onethatrejectsnotionsofgenderdifference andfemalenonviolenceasdisempoweringtowomynandemphasizeswomynsrighttoequal standingonissuesofwarandpeace;andastancethatattacksmilitarismbyrejectingboth stereotypes,arguingthatwarisrootedinpatriarchal,militarystructureswhicharesupported bythebehaviorofbothmenandwomyn(1990,9).SaraRuddickarguesthatfeministpoliticsis consonantwiththepracticeofpeacemakingandindeedcancatalyzealatentpeacefulnessin maternalpracticesfocusingontheprotectionandnurturingofchildren(1989).However, consideringBettyReardons(1985)suggestionthatfeministandpeaceresearchprojectsbe merged,Sylvester(1987)warnsthatsuchamergermayobscurethediversityofwomyns differentrelationshipswithpeaceseen,forexample,betweenthemotherandthewomyn warrior.

Itsnotinevitable

21

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

Grondin4 [David, master of pol sci and PHD of political studies @ U of Ottowa (Re)Writing the National
Security State: How and Why Realists (Re)Built the(ir) Cold War, http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/ieim/IMG/pdf/rewriting_national_security_state.pdf]

Inexplainingnationalsecurityconduct,realistdiscoursesservetheviolentpurposesofthe state,aswellaslegitimizingitsactionsandreinforcingitshegemony.Thisiswhywemust historicizethepracticeoftheanalystandquestiontheregimesoftruthconstructedbyrealist discourses.Whenstudyingagivendiscourse,onemustalsostudythesociohistorical conditionsinwhichitwasproduced.RealistanalystsarepartofthesubfieldofStrategicStudies associatedwiththeColdWarera.EventhoughitfacednumerouscriticismsaftertheColdWar, especiallysinceitprovedirrelevantinpredictingitsend,thissubfieldretainsasignificant influenceinInternationalRelationsasevidenced,forinstance,bythevitalityofthejournal InternationalSecurity.Theoreticallyspeaking,StrategicStudiesisthefieldparexcellenceof realistanalyses:itisawayofinterpretingtheworld,whichisinscribedinthelanguageof violence,organizedinstrategy,inmilitaryplanning,inamilitaryorder,andwhichseekto shapeandpreserveworldorder(Klein,1994:14).Sincetheyare interestedinissuesofinternationalorder,realistdiscoursesstudythebalancingand bandwagoningbehaviorofgreatpowers.Realistanalystsbelievetheycanseparateobjectfrom subject:onthisview,itwouldbepossibletoabstractoneselffromtheworldinwhichonelives andstudiesandtousevaluefreediscoursetoproduceanonnormativeanalysis.AsStephen BrooksandWilliamWohlforthassert,[s]ucharguments[aboutAmericanmoderationand internationalbenevolencethatstresstheconstraintsonAmericanpower]areunpersuasive, however,becausetheyfailtoacknowledgethetruenatureofthecurrentinternationalsystem (BrooksandWohlforth,2002:31).ThusitwouldseemthatBrooksandWohlforthhavethe abilitytoknowessentialtruths,astheyknowthetruenatureoftheinternational system.Fromthisvantagepointitwouldevenbepossibletosetasideonesownsubjective biasesandvaluesandtoconfronttheworldonitsownterms,withthehopeofgainingmastery ofthatworldthroughaclearunderstandingthattranscendsthelimitsofsuchpersonal determinantsasonesownvalues,class,gender,race,oremotions(Klein,1994:16).However, itisimpossibletospeakorwritefromaneutralortranscendentalground:thereareonly interpretationssomestrongerandsomeweaker,tobesurebasedonargumentandevidence, whichseemsfromthestandpointoftheinterpreterandhisorherinterlocutortoberightor accurateorusefulatthemomentofinterpretation(Medhurst,2000:10).Itisinsuchrealist discoursethatStrategicStudiesbecomeatechnocraticapproachdeterminingthefoundationsof securitypoliciesthataredisguisedasanacademicapproachaboveallcriticalreflection(Klein, 1994:2728). Committedtoanexplanatorylogic,realistanalystsarelessinterestedintheconstitutive processesofstatesandstatesystemsthanintheirfunctionalexistence,whichtheytakeasgiven. Theyaremoreattentivetoregulation,throughthemilitaryusesofforceandstrategicpractices thatestablishtheinternalandexternalboundariesofthestatessystem.Theirmainargumentis thatmattersofsecurityaretheimmutabledrivingforcesofglobalpolitics.Indeed,mostrealists seesomestrategiclessonsasbeingeternal,suchasbalanceofpowerpoliticsandthequestfor nationalsecurity.ForBrooksandWohlforth,balanceofpowerpolitics(whichwassynonymous

22

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

withColdWarpoliticsinrealistdiscourses)isthenorm:Theresultbalancingthatis rhetoricallygrandbutsubstantivelyweakispoliticsasusualinaunipolarworld(Brooks andWohlforth,2002:29).Nationalsecuritydiscoursesconstitutetheobservedrealitiesthat arethegristofneorealistandneoclassicalrealisttheories.ThesetheoriesrelyuponU.S.material power(theperceptionofU.S.relativematerialpowerforneoclassicalrealists),balanceof power,andtheglobaldistributionofpowertoexplainandlegitimateAmericannational securityconduct.Theirargumentiscircularsincetheydepictarealitythatisconstitutedby theirowndiscourse,inadditiontolegitimizingAmericanstrategicbehavior.Realistsoften disagreeabouttheuseofforceonmilitaryrestraintversusmilitaryintervention,forexample butthedifferencespertaintostrategiesofpower,thatis,meansasopposedtoends.Realist discourseswillnotchallengetheUnitedStatespositionasaprominentmilitarypower.As BarryPosenmaintains,[o]nepillarofU.S.hegemonyisthevastmilitarypoweroftheUnited States.[]Observersoftheactualcapabilitiesthatthiseffortproducescanfocusonafavorite aspectofU.S.superioritytomakethepointthattheUnitedStatessitscomfortablyatopthe militaryfoodchain,andislikelytoremainthere(Posen,2003:7). RealistanalystsobservethattheU.S.istheworldhegemonicpowerandthatnootherstate canbalancethatpower.Intheiranalyses,theyseektoexplainhowtheUnitedStateswasableto buildandleadcoalitionsinAfghanistanandIraqwithnootherpowercapableofoffering militaryresistance.BarryPosenneutrallyexplainsthisbyemphasizingtheUnitedStates permanentpreparationforwar: IarguethattheUnitedStatesenjoyscommandofthecommonscommandofthesea,space, andair.Idiscusshowcommandofthecommonssupportsahegemonicgrandstrategy.[] CommandmeansthattheUnitedStatesgetsvastlymoremilitaryuseoutofthesea,space,and airthandoothers;thatitcancrediblythreatentodenytheirusetoothers;andthatothers wouldloseamilitarycontestforthecommonsiftheyattemptedtodenythemtotheUnited States.CommandofthecommonsisthekeymilitaryenableroftheU.S.globalpowerposition. ItallowstheUnitedStatestoexploitmorefullyothersourcesofpower,includingitsown economicandmilitarymightaswellastheeconomicandmilitarymightofitsallies.Command ofthecommonshaspermittedtheUnitedStatestowagewaronshortnoticeevenwhereithas hadlittlepermanentmilitarypresence.Thiswastrueofthe1991PersianGulfWar,the1993 interventioninSomalia,andthe2001actioninAfghanistan(Posen,2003:79). Moreover,inrealisttheoreticaldiscourses,transnationalnonstateactorssuchasterrorist networksarenotyettakenintoaccount.AccordingtoBrooksandWohlforth,theyneednotbe: Todaythereisonepoleinasysteminwhichthepopulationhastrebledtonearly200(Brooks andWohlforth,2002:29).Intheirsystem,onlystatesarerelevant.AndwhatoftheAlQaida terroristnetwork?Atbest,realistdiscoursesaccommodateaninterstateframework,a realitydepictedintheirwritingsasanoversimplificationofthecomplexworldinwhichwe nowlive(Kratochwil,2000).7Intheirtheoreticalconstructs,theseanalystsdonotaddress nationalorstateidentityinanysubstantiveway.Moreover,theydonotpayattentiontothe securitycultureinwhichtheyasindividualsareembedded8.Theyrarelyifeveracknowledge theirsubjectivityasanalysts,andtheyproceedasiftheywereabletoseparatethemselvesfrom theirculturalenvironment.Fromapoststructuralistperspective,however,itisimpossibleto

23

BishopGuertin2010
Steckler

OkinawaAff
GDS

recognizeallthewaysinwhichwehavebeenshapedbythecultureandenvironmentinwhich wewereraised.Wecanonlythinkorexperiencetheworldthroughaculturalprism:itis impossibletoabstractoneselffromonesinterpretiveculturalcontextandexperienceand describetheworldasitis.Thereisalwaysaninterpretivedimensiontoknowledge,an inevitablemediationbetweentherealworldanditsrepresentation.ThisiswhyAmerican realistanalystshavetroublesheddingtheColdWarmentalityinwhichtheywereimmersed. Yetsomescholars,likeBrooksandWohlforth,consciouslywanttoperpetuateit:Todaythe costsanddangersoftheColdWarhavefadedintohistory,buttheyneedtobekeptinmindin ordertoassessunipolarityaccurately(BrooksandWohlforth,2002:30).

PassiveacceptanceofrealismdestroysVTLitsnotinevitableandweshould challengeit Ayotte&Husain5 [*Kevin J. Ayotte, Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication
at the California State University, Mary E. Husain, Lecturer in the Department of Communication at the California State University, Securing Afghan Womyn: Neocolonialism, Epistemic Violence, and the Rhetoric of the Veil, NWSA Journal 17.3 (2005) 112-133, Muse]

Theconceptof,andacertainrespectfor,irreducibledifferenceuponwhichdeconstructionand muchofpostcolonialtheoryisfoundedhaveoftenbeenaccusedoffosteringculturalrelativism (e.g.,Moghissi1999,523).Whilerespectfortheuniqueexperience,history,andtraditionsof otherculturesisasentimenttowhichfewwouldobject,culturalspecificityshouldnotbeused tojustifyunjustoroppressivepractices.Moghissiargues,however,that"thepostmodern relativistscolludewith[EndPage114]thefundamentalists'culturalistsolutionstocrisesof modernityandofmodernization"(8).Thesweepinggeneralizationsaboutpostmodernismas wellasfundamentalismremainproblematicinMoghissi'swork,yetherworryshouldresonate withanyfeministscholar.Notheoryshouldleaveuspassivelyacceptingbehaviorsthat threatenthebasicdignityofhumanbeings.Nonetheless,theattributionofrelativismtoall theoriescarryingthewhiffofpostmodernismneedstobegreetedwithskepticism.2The violationsofhumandignityinflicteduponwomyn(andmen)allovertheglobedo,however, requirethatsocalledpostmodernframeworksaccountforthematerialconditionsofdiscrete historicalculturalcontexts.Thecomplementaryapplicationofpoststructuralistandmaterialist criticismthusallowsforthemostcomprehensiveanalysisoftheepistemic,physical,and structuraleffectsthatfollowfromU.S.discoursesabouttheoppressionofwomynin Afghanistan.Theneedforsuchatheoreticalrapprochementisespeciallysignificantinthe feministstudyofinternationalrelations.ChristineSylvester,forexample,warnsoftheproblem facedbysomepoststructuralistversionsofCriticalSecurityStudiesthatavoidaccountingfor gendereitherasafactorinthematerialconditionsunderwhichwomynliveorasasymbolfor politicalorganizing(1994,182).Postcolonialismisespeciallyaptforengagingthistheoretical divideasitbringstotheforefronttheintimaterelationshipbetweendiscursiverepresentation andmaterialconditions.

24