Pevenhouse 3.3-3.6 International Relations PDF

**Pevenhouse 3.3-3.6** **3.3 Social Theories** Social theories in International Relations (IR) rely on social interactions to explain the preferences of individuals and states, contrasting with realism (states seek power) and liberalism (states, interest groups, and individuals seek peace and pros...

**Pevenhouse 3.3-3.6** **3.3 Social Theories** Social theories in International Relations (IR) rely on social interactions to explain the preferences of individuals and states, contrasting with realism (states seek power) and liberalism (states, interest groups, and individuals seek peace and prosperity). Constructivism, a rapidly growing approach, examines how states form their interests through interactions. While not a theory per se, constructivism offers valuable insights into norms, identity, and social interactions, often using the identity principle to explain international behavior. **Constructivism**: A movement in IR theory that examines how changing international norms and actors\' identities help shape the content of state interests. **Identities and Ideas Matter** Constructivism in International Relations (IR) focuses on how actors define their national interests, threats, and relationships. Unlike realists and neoliberals who assume state interests are fixed, constructivism views these interests as shaped by social interactions. States make decisions based not only on material needs but social perceptions, like how shoppers choose products based on social acceptability (based on what they perceive will be \"popular\" with other states). However, constructivists also acknowledge the role of power in international relations. Constructivist research explores various aspects, one prominent line examines how states' interests and identities are interconnected and shaped by interactions with other states. For instance, the United States is concerned about North Korea's nuclear weapons but not Great Britain's, despite Great Britain's superior military power. Realists attribute this to Britain not being a threat to the U.S., but constructivists highlight the shared history, alliances, and norms between the U.S. and Great Britain, which reduce any perceived threat. Constructivists argue that the identity of a potential adversary is crucial, not just its military capabilities and interests. This challenges the realist view that states always seek more power and wealth. Constructivists believe state identities are complex, evolving through interactions and socialization with other states. They suggest that over time, states can develop relationships that prevent security dilemmas and arms races. Europe is an example-a continent that was the center of two military conflicts in the first half of the twentieth century that killed millions. By the end of that century, war had become unthinkable. European identities are now intertwined with the EU, not with the violent nationalism that led to two world wars. Constructivists attribute this change to institutions, norms, and identity shifts, rather than power politics and military force. Societal perceptions of threats change over time. Two hundred years ago, pirates were seen as dangerous nonstate actors who invaded ports, pillaged goods, committed murder, and flaunted international authority. Their actions could be likened to terrorism, despite lacking political motives. Many states, including the U.S., used their navies to combat piracy. Today, however, pirates are often celebrated in popular culture, serving as sports mascots, amusement ride themes, and movie characters. While one might argue that pirates are no longer a significant threat, piracy still occurs frequently on the high seas. Despite high-profile incidents like the Somali pirate hijackings in 2008-2009, the threat has persisted for years. However, society often downplays this threat by incorporating pirates into popular culture. Someone from two centuries ago would likely find this acceptance quite strange. Constructivists highlight that perceptions of danger are neither universal nor timeless. Social norms and conventions evolve, which can significantly impact foreign policy. For instance, it might seem odd to imagine future generations enjoying terrorist-themed amusement rides or movies, illustrating how societal views on threats can change dramatically over time. States may come to value and covet social concepts like status or reputation, which are not material but hold significant importance. For example, Switzerland highly values its role as a neutral, nonaligned state. This neutrality is reflected in its decision not to join the EU or NATO and its late entry into the UN in 2002. Switzerland's status as a neutral state grants it prestige and a unique form of power---normative power. This power allows Switzerland to intervene diplomatically in important international affairs, leveraging its reputation for impartiality and neutrality. Similarly, Canada's foreign policy is driven by identity-related imperatives, often focusing on peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. Canada's commitment to these roles enhances its international reputation as a promoter of peace and humanitarian values. In both cases, the value placed on status and reputation demonstrates how states can derive power and influence from social constructs, rather than purely material resources like money or military strength. This perspective aligns with constructivist views, which emphasize the role of social norms, identities, and interactions in international relations. Identity-based theories can also explain the behavior of great powers. In 1993, the UN Security Council established a war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Initially, its effectiveness was limited due to inadequate funding for essential resources like investigators, translators, and office space. The support from great powers varied, with the United States providing the most support (though still insufficient) and Great Britain contributing very little. Liberal theorists identify a collective goods problem in funding the tribunal. While the world community benefits from its work in deterring aggression and genocide, each state gains this benefit regardless of its contribution. Thus, Britain rationally chose to free-ride, relying on the United States and others to provide sufficient support to make the tribunal minimally effective. Realists might argue that Britain's lack of support for the tribunal was due to geopolitical interests. British leaders may have tacitly sided with Serbia, a traditional ally, which was not cooperating with the tribunal. The same geopolitical factors that historically aligned Britain with Serbia, Russia, and France against Croatia, Germany, Austria, and Turkey were still at play. From this perspective, war crimes are transient, but great power interests remain constant. Both theories have merit, but historical "experiments" can help clarify competing explanations. In 1997, Tony Blair's liberal government replaced John Major's conservative government. This change did not alter the collective goods problem or Britain's strategic interests in the Balkans. However, Blair's government dramatically shifted Bosnia policy, leading a raid to arrest war crimes suspects and funding a second courtroom for the tribunal. This change in political leadership suggests that identity-based explanations play a role, as Blair's vision of Britain's international role influenced the outcome. Constructivist research emphasizes the role of international norms in constraining state actions. While realists and neoliberals focus on the *logic of consequences* ("What will happen if I behave this way?"), constructivists highlight the *logic of appropriateness* ("How should I behave in this situation?"). For example, the U.S. intervention in Somalia in 1992, despite Somalia's minimal strategic and economic importance, can be explained by changing norms about who deserves protection. Historically, European powers intervened to protect Christian subjects but ignored non-Christians. Over time, as decolonization and human rights became valued, the scope of humanitarian intervention expanded. The U.S. acted based on appropriateness rather than cost-benefit calculations, reflecting these evolving norms. Similarly, in the developing world, constructivists argue that countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East often adopt or change policies to align with international norms, not necessarily for large benefits but because it is seen as appropriate. For example, many developing states create science bureaucracies and modernize their militaries to be perceived as "modern" by the international community. Ironically, these states may have few scientists or enemies, respectively. Constructivists emphasize that identities and norms are crucial to understanding this behavior. International norms are spread through various actors and mechanisms in an age of global communication and easy transportation. Constructivists highlight several key actors: - **Norm Entrepreneurs**: Individuals who travel, write, and meet with elites to change ideas and promote certain norms. - **Social Movements and NGOs**: Broad-based movements, like the anti-apartheid movement, and NGOs encourage the development of global norms, such as racial equality. - **International Organizations**: Entities like the UN and NATO diffuse norms of appropriate and inappropriate behavior. In all cases, new ideas and norms, rather than power and self-interest, drive state behavior. Recent constructivist research has grown rapidly, exploring various areas: - **EU's Role**: Examining how the EU socializes elites in new member states. - **UN's Legitimacy**: Investigating how the UN confers legitimacy on the use of force. - **International Organizations' Authority**: Studying how organizations like the IMF gain authority through expertise, sometimes making financial decisions against member states' desires. - **Identity and Symbolism**: Analyzing the importance of identity and symbolism in understanding terrorist movements and counterterrorism policy. This research highlights the expanding influence of constructivist perspectives in understanding international relations. Constructivism, like any IR theory, faces criticism. Realists argue that norms often mask state or personal interests, while liberals believe some constructivists overlook formal institutions and their politics. Both realists and liberals also note the challenge in distinguishing genuine identities from those adopted for strategic benefits, such as aid or trade. Despite these critiques, constructivism and its focus on identity will continue to shape IR research. **Postmodernism** Postmodernism is a broad scholarly approach, particularly influential in literature, that emphasizes the analysis of texts and discourses. In IR, postmodern critiques of realism focus on examining realists' texts and to discourses-how people talk and write about their subject. Postmodern critiques of realism thus center on analyzing realists\' words and arguments. A key idea in postmodernism is the rejection of a single, objective reality in favor of multiple experiences and perspectives. This complexity makes postmodernism difficult to categorize. In IR, postmodernism preceded and set the stage for constructivism, which has largely supplanted it. **Postmodernism**: An approach that denies the existence of a single fixed reality and pays special attention to texts and to discourses, that is, to how people talk and write about a subject. From a postmodern perspective, realism's claim that states are the central actors in IR and operate as unitary actors with coherent, objective interests is unjustifiable. Postmodern critics argue that state interests are neither objective nor universal, as no single set of values or interests applies to all states. Postmodernism fundamentally questions the notion of states as actors, viewing them as "fictions" constructed to make sense of the actions of large numbers of individuals. For postmodernists, stories about state actions and policies are just that---stories, filtered through an interpretive process that distorts actual experiences. Contrary to realism's claim of states as unitary actors, postmodernists see multiple realities and experiences beneath these fictional entities. For example, realists viewed the Soviet Union as a single actor with unified interests, but its dissolution into 15 republics revealed the diverse republics, ethnic groups, and individuals, challenging the realist perspective. Postmodernists aim to "deconstruct" concepts like states and the international system, as well as the stories and arguments used by realists to describe international relations. Deconstructing a text, a term from literary criticism, involves analyzing the words to uncover hidden meanings and identifying what might have been omitted or only implicitly included. These hidden meanings are often referred to as the subtext. **Subtext**: Meanings that are implicit or hidden in a text rather than explicitly addressed. See also postmodernism. Omissions are a key aspect of subtext in realist theories of IR. For example, realism often omits considerations of women and gender. By focusing on states, realism overlooks the roles of individuals, domestic politics, economic classes, multinational corporations (MNCs), and other nonstate actors. It also neglects the experiences of poor countries by concentrating on great powers. Additionally, realism's emphasis on military leverage ignores the importance of nonmilitary forms of leverage. Realism aims to simplify International Relations (IR) into a coherent model, claiming it to be objective, universal, and accurate. However, postmodernists argue that this model is biased and promotes the interests of powerful actors. They seek to dismantle this and other models, like neoliberalism, that attempt to categorize IR in simple, objective terms. Instead, postmodernists celebrate the diversity of experiences in IR without the need for simplification and categorization. **3.4 Marxism** Marxist approaches to International Relations (IR) emphasize that both IR and domestic politics stem from unequal relationships between economic classes. This perspective contrasts with the realist approach, which separates domestic and international politics. Marxist theories highlight how the domestic and economic attributes of societies influence their external relations with other states. These theories primarily focus on the global divisions between the North and South, arising from the history of imperialism. **economic classes**: A categorization of individuals based on economic status. Marxism, a branch of socialism, posits that powerful classes oppress and exploit less powerful classes by denying them a fair share of the economic surplus generated by their labor. The oppressed classes seek to gain power to claim more wealth for themselves. This dynamic, known as class struggle, provides a lens for understanding political relationships between richer and poorer individuals, as well as between wealthier and poorer regions globally. **Marxism**: A branch of socialism that emphasizes exploitation and class struggle and includes both communism and other approaches. Marxism encompasses communism and other approaches. In the mid-nineteenth century, Karl Marx highlighted labor as the source of economic surplus, noting the severe hardships faced by industrial workers during the Industrial Revolution. Marxists continue to advocate for workers to reclaim the surplus they create through political struggle. Today, Marxism holds significant influence in the global South, where capital is limited, and labor conditions are often poor. Contrary to Marx's expectations, peasants have played a crucial role in revolutions over the past century. While Marxists traditionally viewed peasants as ignorant and politically passive compared to the educated and class-conscious proletariat, successful revolutions in the global South have often been peasant-led. The largest of these was the Chinese revolution in the 1930s and 1940s, frequently led by Marxists who spoke of the proletariat. Marx's theories of class struggle were focused on domestic society in industrializing countries, not on poor countries or international relations. Traditional Marxists expected revolutions and socialism to emerge in advanced industrialized countries, growing out of capitalism. They believed that developing countries would need to progress through stages from feudalism to capitalism before moving to socialism. However, the opposite occurred: proletarian workers in industrialized countries experienced rising living standards and did not revolt, while oppressed workers and peasants in developing countries staged numerous revolutions, with varying degrees of success, despite not experiencing capitalism like developed countries. Revolutions occurred in developing rather than developed countries, which significantly influences perspectives on North-South relations today. Marxists, particularly following V. I. Lenin's arguments, noted that Russia, a relatively backward state at the time, was an unlikely candidate for revolution compared to more industrialized nations like Germany. This parallels the global South's conditions today, where revolutions have been more common despite initial Marxist expectations focusing on advanced industrialized countries. Lenin's theory of imperialism posited that European capitalists invested in colonies to earn substantial profits, which they then used to placate the working class at home. However, after the scramble for colonies in the 1890s, few areas remained to be colonized. This meant that imperialist expansion could only occur at the expense of other imperialist states, leading to competition and wars like World War I. Exploiting Russia's weakness during the war, Lenin led the first successful communist revolution in 1917. Lenin's theory continues to influence the understanding of North-South relations, suggesting that industrialized states exploit poor countries through formal and informal colonization. They use the profits from this exploitation to placate their own working classes. This global class relation leads to the concentration of surplus in wealthy regions, leaving poorer regions deprived. Consequently, revolutions are more likely to occur in these impoverished areas. Many revolutionaries in the global South aimed to free themselves from European colonization. After European colonization ended, the United States, with its wealth, investments in the global South, and global military presence, became the new target for revolutionaries opposing exploitation. In several countries, imperialists were expelled, sometimes violently, and revolutionary nationalists assumed power. One of the most significant revolutions occurred in China, where Mao Zedong's communists took power in 1949, adapting Leninist principles to a peasant-based movement. Mao proclaimed that China had freed itself from foreign domination and exploitation. Simultaneously, in India, Mahatma Gandhi led a nonviolent movement to achieve national independence from colonialism. Similar patterns occurred in other countries: Indonesia expelled the Dutch, Lebanon expelled the French, and Cuba expelled the Americans. This pattern of expelling imperialists and achieving national independence was repeated in numerous countries, each with its own variations. Revolutionaries in global South countries argue that exploitation by rich countries diverts their economic surplus, concentrating wealth in richer regions. By breaking free from this exploitation, developing states aim to retain their surplus and accumulate their own wealth, eventually creating self-sustaining cycles of growth to lift themselves out of poverty. However, this approach has not been very successful. Self-reliance policies do not promote growth, and within poor countries, there are trade-offs between concentrating and distributing wealth. The complexities of economic development for former colonies after independence will be further discussed. Not all Marxist approaches support self-reliance after a revolution. Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky believed that post-1917 Russia couldn't build socialism alone and should prioritize spreading revolution globally to form a worldwide alliance. His rival, Stalin, advocated for "socialism in one country" and ultimately prevailed, even having Trotsky killed. Most revolutions in the global South since then, including China's, have been strongly nationalist in nature. Marxist theories in International Relations (IR) became less visible after the collapse of the Soviet Union and China's shift toward capitalism in the 1980s, events that seemed to discredit these theories. However, in recent years, Marxists and former Marxists have gained power in several Latin American countries. Venezuela and Bolivia have become active allies of Cuba, forming an anti-American coalition, though the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations starting in 2015 could affect this coalition. In Nicaragua, the former communist leader opposed by U.S.-backed rebels in the 1980s was elected president in 2006. These developments, along with China's continued formal adherence to Marxism, indicate that Marxist theories of IR remain relevant in the post-Cold War era. **Positive peace** involves various approaches to social change, such as: - Alternative conflict resolution methods to replace war. - Popular pressure on governments through peace movements and political activism. - Strengthening norms against violence, including the philosophy of nonviolence. - Developing an international or global identity that transcends national, ethnic, and religious divisions. - Promoting egalitarian relations within societies in economic, social, and political realms, including changes in gender roles. The creation of a world government has long been debated by scholars and pursued by activists. Some scholars believe progress is being made (through the UN) toward the eventual emergence of a world government. Others think the idea is impractical or even undesirable (merely adding another layer of centralized control, when peace demands decentralization and freedom). **world government**: A centralized world governing body with strong enforcement powers. Scholars in peace studies explore how to achieve conditions for positive peace. They are generally skeptical that state leaders alone can achieve this and believe that change in international relations will come from pressures exerted by individuals and groups. The most studied method of applying such pressure is through peace movements, where people protest war and militarism. As U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower once remarked, "People want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it." **peace movements**: Movements against specific wars or against war and militarism in general, usually involving large numbers of people and forms of direct action such as street protests. The philosophy of nonviolence involves a commitment to avoid using violence in any form of bargaining. While no state currently follows this strategy, substate actors do. Mahatma Gandhi, who led India's independence movement against the British Empire before 1948, emphasized that nonviolence should actively prevent violence, resolve conflicts peacefully, and stand against violently enforced injustice. Gandhi organized Indians to resist British colonial rule without resorting to violence, even when faced with violent repression by British troops. Proponents of nonviolence highlight its practicality alongside its moral stance. Nonviolence is often the most cost-effective approach for the powerless to stand against injustices by the powerful, as violent resistance can be prohibitively costly. In the 1960s, the philosophy of nonviolence spread widely in the U.S. civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, Jr. During the Arab Spring in 2011, protesters followed Dr. King's example and strategies recommended by Gene Sharp. These nonviolent methods succeeded in Tunisia and Egypt but were overtaken by violent rebellion in Libya and led to wars in Syria and Yemen, resulting in significant loss of life. The dilemma of nonviolence is how to respond to violence. Gandhi's believed in a "third alternative," meaning that when faced with violence, one doesn't have to choose between doing nothing (passivity) or responding with violence. Instead, there is a nonviolent way to actively resist and address the situation. Nonviolence does not always succeed when faced with violence, but then neither does violent response. However, political leaders may believe they have done their duty if they respond violently without success, but not if they respond nonviolently without success. **3.5 Peace Studies** Peace studies challenge the core concepts of realism and neoliberalism by shifting the focus of International Relations (IR) from systemic analysis to social relations at individual and domestic levels. It connects war and peace with individual responsibility, economic inequality, gender relations, cross-cultural understanding, and other social aspects. Peace studies aim for societal transformation and the creation of transnational communities, rather than relying on state leaders' transactions. It also rejects the supposed objectivity of traditional approaches, advocating for knowledge gained through active participation. Critics argue that Peace Studies introduces normative bias, but peace studies scholars counter that realism also has its own normative biases and policy prescriptions. Conflict resolution is the developing and implementing of peaceful strategies to settle conflicts without violence. These methods are increasingly used and successful in international conflicts, often involving a third-party mediator between two conflicting parties. The United Nations (UN) is a key mediator globally, while regional conflicts may be mediated by regional organizations, states, or individuals. Most of today\'s international conflicts have one or more mediating parties working regularly to resolve conflict short of violence. There are no strict rules about which third parties mediate which conflicts, allowing for flexibility in the approach to conflict resolution. **conflict resolution**: The development and implementation of peaceful strategies for settling conflicts. **Mediation**: The use of a third party (or parties) in conflict resolution. The role of a mediator in conflict resolution can range from technical tasks, like facilitating communication between states without direct channels, to more active roles in changing perspectives on difficult issues. For example, Pakistan acted as a secret communication channel between China and the United States before their 1971 diplomatic breakthrough. Such a role is sometimes referred to as offering the mediator\'s good offices to a negotiating process. Mediators listen to each side's ideas, present them in an understandable way, and work to alter each side's view of contentious issues, acting like translators or therapists. Additionally, private individuals and groups can engage in *citizen diplomacy* to ease tensions and promote peace. Arbitration is a conflict resolution process where both sides agree in advance to abide by the mediator's solution. Each side presents their arguments to the arbitrator, who then decides on a fair solution. For instance, Serbian and Bosnian negotiators used arbitration to resolve the dispute over the city of Brcko during the 1995 Dayton Agreement. Arbitration often involves a panel of three people: one chosen by each side and a third agreed upon by both sides. Conflicting parties and mediators can use confidence-building measures to gradually increase trust. Alternatively, linkage involves combining diverse issues so that compromises on one can be traded off against another in a comprehensive agreement. An example of this is the 1945 Yalta negotiations between the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, where they aimed to resolve multiple issues simultaneously, including Germany's occupation, the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe, the strategy for defeating Japan, and the creation of the UN. Peace studies scholars argue that war is not merely a natural expression of power but is closely tied to militarism in some cultures. Militarism involves the glorification of war, military force, and violence through various media and societal structures, such as the military-industrial complex and national security dominance in domestic politics. This glorification can influence political leaders to use military force more readily. Historically, militarism has profoundly shaped societies, with war often seen as a noble endeavor (especially before World War I, which then changed that perspective) that brings out both evil and exemplary acts of humanity, such as sacrifice, honor, courage, altruism, and community bonding. **Militarism**: The glorification of war, military force, and violence. Examples of less militarized cultures demonstrate that the realist emphasis on military force is not universal or necessary. Costa Rica has maintained no army for 70 years, even during conflicts in neighboring Nicaragua and Panama in the 1980s. Similarly, Japanese culture since World War II has developed strong norms against war and violence, despite threats from China and North Korea. Anthropologists have explored the link between domestic characteristics of hunter-gatherer societies and their propensity for warfare. Evidence suggests that war is more common in societies with internal inequalities, harsh child-rearing practices, and absent fathers. Conversely, peaceful societies tend to have open decision-making, gender equality, and affectionate child-rearing. However, these attributes could be both causes and effects of war. Since all societies have the potential for warfare under certain conditions, distinctions like "warlike" are relative. Peace studies reconceptualize peace in a broader way, contrasting with realism's view of peace as merely the temporary absence of war (negative peace). Positive peace addresses the underlying causes of war, transforming relationships and resolving conflicts. It involves not only ceasing hostilities but also disarming, ending internal violence, and reversing economic exploitation and political oppression, which are seen as root causes of social conflicts leading to war. **positive peace**: A peace that resolves the underlying reasons for war; not just a cease-fire but a transformation of relationships, including elimination or reduction of economic exploitation and political oppression. Proponents of positive peace argue that broad social and economic issues, often deemed unimportant by realists, are crucial. They define poverty, hunger, and oppression as forms of structural violence, caused by the structure of social relations rather than direct actions. Structural violence harms and kills more people annually than war and direct political violence. Therefore, positive peace includes eliminating structural violence. Advocates of positive peace criticize militaristic culture, which supports the existence of war through various societal aspects, such as children's war toys, patriotic rituals in schools, gender roles, military training, taxes, and sports. The positive peace approach aims to change the entire system, not just individual components. **3.6 Gender Theories** Scholarship on gender is prevalent across academic disciplines, from literature to psychology to history. In recent years, it has made inroads in international relations, once considered one of the fields most resistant to gendered arguments. **Why Gender Matters** Gender scholarship in International Relations (IR) highlights the importance of gender in understanding global issues, particularly war and security. Feminist scholars aim to reveal hidden gender biases in traditional studies, often showing that what is considered universal is actually male-centric. Some feminist IR scholars argue that core realist concepts like anarchy and sovereignty reflect male perspectives, assuming male participants in discussions on foreign policy, state sovereignty, and military force. The critique highlights that while most heads of state, diplomats, and soldiers are male, scholars should explicitly recognize the gendered nature of their subjects rather than assuming all actors are male. Understanding male actors in International Relations (IR) can be enhanced by considering how their gender identity influences their views and decisions. Women also impact IR, often through nonstate channels, which realism tends to overlook. Women scholars are generally more interested in these gender roles and effects than their male counterparts, who often ignore gender topics. Notably, a list of "fifty key thinkers" in IR includes only four women, three of whom are gender scholars, and a 2014 survey of the 20 most influential IR scholars included only three women. Feminist scholars not only uncover hidden gender assumptions in scholarship but also challenge traditional gender concepts. In International Relations (IR), these concepts assume men are the primary actors in war and state affairs, while women are seen as irrelevant. These roles stem from broader societal constructions that associate masculinity with public and political spaces, and femininity with private and domestic spheres. Gender theorists, like realists, have a long tradition. Ancient Greek poet Sappho wrote love poems to women on the island of Lesbos, Christine de Pisan praised women's peace-making abilities (just before Machiavelli), Mary Wollstonecraft argued for women's equal rights (a century after Hobbes), and Susan B. Anthony advocated for pacifism, abolitionism, and suffrage. While there is a consensus that gender is important in International Relations (IR), there isn't a single "feminist approach." Instead, there are multiple strands of feminist scholarship and theory. These strands, though interconnected by their focus on gender and women's status, often diverge and sometimes conflict on core issues, leading to rich debates within feminism. **Difference feminism** focuses on valuing the unique contributions of women, emphasizing that women and men have different strengths. Difference feminists argue that women, due to their greater experience with nurturing and human relations, may be more effective in conflict resolution and group decision making. They believe that these differences are not solely the result of social constructions and cultural indoctrination, but also have a biological basis (a concept known as essentialism). However, most difference feminists think that women's differences are more culturally than biologically determined. They use these feminine perspectives to observe, analyze, and criticize traditional perspectives on International Relations (IR). **Liberal feminism**, in contrast, rejects the idea that there are essential differences between men and women. Liberal feminists argue that men and women are equal and that any perceived differences are trivial or nonexistent. They criticize the exclusion of women from positions of power in IR but do not believe that including women would fundamentally change the nature of the international system. Instead, they seek to include women more often as subjects of study, focusing on women state leaders, women soldiers, and other women operating outside traditional gender roles in IR. **Postmodern feminism** combines elements of feminism with postmodernism. It critiques the assumptions about gender made by both difference and liberal feminists. While difference feminists see gender differences as important and fixed, and liberal feminists view them as trivial, postmodern feminists consider these differences important but arbitrary and flexible. **difference feminism**: A strand of feminism that believes gender differences are not just socially constructed and that views women as inherently less warlike than men (on average). **liberal feminism**: A strand of feminism that emphasizes gender equality and views the \"essential\" differences in men\'s and women\'s abilities or perspectives as trivial or nonexistent **postmodern feminism**: An effort to combine feminist and postmodernist perspectives with the aim of uncovering the hidden influences of gender in IR and showing how arbitrary the construction of gender roles is. **The Masculinity of Realism** **Difference feminism** offers a perspective to reexamine the core assumptions of realism, particularly the concept of autonomy, which underpins key realist ideas like sovereignty and anarchy. Realists view the international system as composed of autonomous states that control their own territory and must not infringe on others' territories. Some difference feminists argue that realism emphasizes autonomy and separation because men find separation easier to manage than interconnection. This view is based on a psychological theory that boys and girls develop different perspectives on separateness and connection from a young age. Since a child's primary caretaker is usually female, girls form their gender identity around similarity with their caretaker and their environment, while boys perceive their difference from the caretaker. Consequently, boys develop social relations based on individual autonomy, whereas girls' relations are based on connection. As a result, women are considered more likely to fear abandonment, while men are more likely to fear intimacy. According to this theory, in moral reasoning, boys tend to focus on abstract rules and individual rights, while girls consider the concrete contexts and group responsibilities. In games, boys resolve disputes through rule-based arguments and continue playing, whereas girls may abandon the game to maintain social cohesion. In social relations, boys form and dissolve friendships more easily, while girls are more loyal to their friends. However, the empirical evidence for these gender differences in psychological research is mixed. Realism is based on the idea that states are separate, autonomous actors that freely make and break alliances while pursuing their own interests without interfering in each other's internal affairs. This concept of autonomy parallels the masculine psyche, so some feminist scholars argue that realism contains a hidden assumption of masculinity. Additionally, the distinction realists make between anarchic international politics and ordered domestic politics mirrors the gender roles of the public (masculine) and private (feminine) spheres, constructing International Relations (IR) as a man's world. An international system based on feminine principles would emphasize the interdependence of states over their autonomy, prioritizing the responsibility to care for each other regardless of borders. In conflicts between human rights and sovereignty, human rights would take precedence. Additionally, non-violent forms of leverage would be favored in resolving state conflicts. Realism focuses on the systemic level of analysis, treating the logic of war as autonomous and separate from other social relationships like economics, domestic politics, sexism, and racism. Difference feminism, however, highlights the connections between these phenomena and war, suggesting new ways to understand war at the domestic and individual levels, which realists often overlook. From a difference-feminist perspective, neoliberalism has regressed from traditional liberalism by adopting the realist view that separate, unitary states are the primary actors, thereby downplaying the role of substate and transnational actors, including women. Neoliberalism's idea of cooperation as rule-based interactions among autonomous actors also mirrors masculinist assumptions. **Gender in War and Peace** Realism emphasizes autonomy, anarchy, and military force as key elements in International Relations (IR). Many difference feminists see this focus as reflecting a hidden assumption of masculinity, viewing war as a quintessentially male occupation. They argue that men are inherently more warlike and women more peaceful. While realism may accurately depict the current importance of war and military force, this is seen because of male domination in the international sphere, rather than an unchangeable or eternal aspect of state relations. Difference feminists argue that war is a masculine pursuit, supported by anthropological evidence showing that males are the primary combatants in warfare across all known cultures. Despite cultural diversity, this pattern remains consistent. However, feminist scholars note that while voting and political leadership were also historically male-dominated, these activities are not considered inherently masculine. One proposed link between war and masculinity is testosterone, which some biologists associate with aggressive behavior in animals. However, testosterone does not cause aggression; instead, social interactions influence testosterone levels (winners' levels rise, losers' levels fall). Thus, testosterone is part of a complex system of relationships between the organism and the social environment. This means complex behaviors like aggression and war are not biologically driven or predetermined, as humans are highly flexible. Even feminist scholars who view gender differences as cultural, not biological, see war as a masculine construction. There is no firm biological or anthropological evidence linking women's caregiving roles (like pregnancy and nursing) to behaviors such as reconciliation or nonviolence, though women have been studied less than men. Women's roles vary significantly across societies. While they rarely engage in combat, women sometimes support male warriors logistically or incite them to war through dancing, shaming nonparticipants, and other activities. In other cultures, women restrain men from war or act as mediators to end conflicts. The idea of women as peacemakers has a long history. In ancient Athens, Aristophanes' play "Lysistrata" depicted women ending the Peloponnesian War by withholding sex from men until they made peace. Lysistrata was read in 1,000 locations in 56 countries on March 3, 2003, to protest the coming Iraq War. Women have formed peace organizations, such as the 1852 newsletter "Sisterly Voices" and the Women's Peace Party (now the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom) founded in 1915. Bertha von Suttner influenced the creation of the Nobel Peace Prize, which she won in 1905. Difference feminists believed that women would vote for peace and against war, changing the nature of foreign policy. However, women generally voted as their husbands did. Similarly, decades later, when women participated in liberation struggles against colonialism in the global South, some feminists thought this participation would change foreign policies in the newly independent countries. However, these changes often did not materialize, partly because women were often pushed aside from political power after the revolutions. Since the 1930s, U.S. public opinion on foreign policy issues has shown a gender gap, with women being about ten percentage points less supportive of military actions compared to men. This supports the views of difference feminists. However, this gap narrows when there is broad consensus on military action, such as the U.S. attacks on terrorist supporters in Afghanistan in late 2001. **gender gap**: Refers to polls showing women lower than men on average in their support for military actions, as well as for various other issues and candidates. In recent decades, feminists have continued to organize women's peace organizations. In the 1980s, Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND) opposed the nuclear arms buildup, and women camped for years at Britain's Greenham Common air base. In 1995, the UN-sponsored Beijing conference on women united women activists globally, deepening their engagement with issues like North-South inequality. In 2000, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1325, which called for greater inclusion of women and attention to gender in UN peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. However, in several locations, UN peacekeepers were involved in local prostitution, rape, and sex trafficking. In 2004, Secretary General Annan condemned the "shameful" behavior of UN troops from various countries in Democratic Congo, where investigators found hundreds of cases of sexual crimes committed by UN personnel. As a result of Resolution 1325, "gender advisers" now accompany international peacekeeping and relief operations to provide practical advice on gender relations within local cultures. For example, a group of Swedish men building a bridge in Sri Lanka initially focused only on vehicle use. When asked about women's use, they realized women would likely walk. This gender perspective led to redesigning the bridge to include a pedestrian walkway. Through various actions, difference feminists have started developing a feminist practice of international relations as an alternative to the masculine practice of realism. UNESCO's motto, "Since war begins in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the foundations for peace should be sought," resonates with difference feminists. They believe that while war begins in the minds of men, the foundations for peace would be better sought in the minds of women. **Women in IR** Liberal feminists are skeptical of difference-feminist critiques of realism. They believe that women, when allowed to participate in international relations (IR), perform similarly to men, adhering to principles like autonomy, sovereignty, anarchy, territory, and military force. Consequently, they reject the notion that realism is inherently masculine. However, many feminist scholars incorporate both difference-feminist and liberal-feminist perspectives in their work. Liberal feminism emphasizes integrating women into male-dominated fields like foreign policy and the military, where men typically make up at least 90% of the workforce. For example, in 2021, 88% of the heads of diplomatic delegations to the UN General Assembly were male, and only four out of 76 General Assembly sessions have been led by women. Despite having one of the highest proportions of women, the U.S. military is still 83% male. Liberal feminists argue that this gender imbalance wastes talent, as women have the same capabilities as men. Including women in these traditionally male roles would enhance national capabilities by expanding the pool of skilled diplomats, generals, soldiers, and politicians. Liberal feminists argue that women handle power similarly to men, citing numerous examples of women in leadership positions. These women do not exhibit distinctly feminine behaviors in office and are diverse in character and policy. Women in traditionally male roles may be selected based on their suitability, demonstrating that individuals cannot be judged solely by group characteristics. Women state leaders are not necessarily more peaceful or less committed to state sovereignty and territorial integrity than their male counterparts. Some suggest that women in power may even be more warlike to compensate for their gender in traditionally male roles. Overall, women leaders, like men, are capable of leading in both war and peace as circumstances require. In the U.S. Congress, comparing men's and women's voting records on foreign policy issues is challenging due to the historically low number of women. The U.S. Senate was predominantly male (98-99%) until 1992, but this decreased to 75% men by 2022, with 25 women senators in 2023. Women had not chaired key foreign policy committees in the Senate or House until 2011. However, Representative Nancy Pelosi served as the first woman Speaker of the House from 2007 to 2011 and again from 2019 to 2023. Globally, the number of women in legislatures is rising. A 2021 report from the Inter-Parliamentary Union showed that women made up over 26% of parliament members worldwide, up from 7% in 1995. By 2023, nine women were heads of state, and sixteen were heads of government. Some countries reserve seats for women in parliament, but women often win more seats than allocated. For instance, in Rwanda, women hold over 60% of the lower house seats, despite a legal requirement of only 30% women's representation. Liberal feminists argue that women soldiers possess skills and abilities comparable to men's, enhancing the overall quality of military forces. In the U.S. military, about 230,000 women serve (over 17% of the total), and nearly 2 million are veterans. Women excel in various military roles, including logistical and medical support, training, and command. In 2015, the first two women graduated from the U.S. Army's elite Ranger School. Women have also succeeded in other countries' militaries, where they are allowed or drafted. Despite their distinguished service, women have often been excluded from combat roles in military forces. In some countries, women are restricted to traditional roles like nurses and typists. Even when allowed to hold nontraditional positions such as mechanics and pilots, most women remain in traditional roles. However, this is changing. In 2013, the U.S. military lifted the ban on women serving in combat units. Women have historically served with distinction in combat, sometimes disguised as men. Joan of Arc, for example, rallied French soldiers to defeat England in the fifteenth century, turning the tide of the Hundred Years\' War. Women have also fought in guerrilla wars in Vietnam, Nicaragua, and other countries, as well as in terrorist or paramilitary units in places like Peru, Germany, Italy, and Palestine. In Eritrea, women in guerrilla forces joined the regular army after independence and served in frontline combat units during the Eritrea-Ethiopia war in the late 1990s. In recent years, U.S. women soldiers have increasingly found themselves in combat due to mobile tactics and fluid front lines. During the 1991 Gulf War, tens of thousands of U.S. women served, with 13 killed and 2 captured as prisoners of war. By the late 1990s, women began serving on some combat ships and airplanes, though not in ground combat units. In the 2003 Iraq War, women flew various aircraft, and one was among the first group of U.S. POWs captured. Throughout the Iraq War, U.S. women military police performed well in numerous firefights, demonstrating that women can hold their own in combat. Military forces often exclude women from combat due to concerns about their impact on male soldiers' discipline and loyalty, which are thought to rely on male bonding. Liberal feminists argue that group bonding does not depend on gender segregation, similar to past arguments for racial segregation in the U.S. military. The effect of war on noncombatant women has gained attention, with attacks on women in Algeria, Rwanda, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Democratic Congo, and Sudan suggesting a trend toward targeting women. Systematic rape was used as a terror tactic in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the Japanese army in World War II had a network of sex slaves known as "comfort women." While rape has long been seen as a regrettable by-product of war, recent instances have been declared war crimes. In summary, liberal feminists reject the notion that women bring unique feminine assets or liabilities to foreign and military affairs. They do not view realism as inherently masculine but criticize state practices that exclude women from participating in international politics and war. **Difference Feminism Versus Liberal Feminism?** **Difference feminists** argue that realism in international relations is inherently masculine, and that women's unique abilities should be used to transform the system. On the other hand, **liberal feminists** believe that women can be just as realist as men and that their participation in foreign policy and the military will enhance state capabilities. Essentially, difference feminists seek to change the system (feminize it), while liberal feminists aim to work within it. The evidence supporting both positions can be reconciled by recognizing that an individual's character and abilities are distinct from those of their group. Individual qualities follow a bell curve distribution, with most people falling in the middle range and fewer individuals exhibiting very high or low capabilities. Difference feminists argue that gender differences result in one bell curve being shifted from the other, though they still overlap significantly. For example, while some women are physically larger than most men and vice versa, on average, men are somewhat larger than women. Similarly, on various capabilities, the average positions of men and women may differ, but there is still considerable overlap between the two groups. **Liberal feminists** emphasize the overlap between the bell curves of men and women. They argue that most women fall within the male curve on relevant dimensions and can perform equally with men. Women in nontraditional roles may perform better than their male counterparts because they are likely near the high end of the female curve, while men are closer to the middle of the male curve. Similarly, women who become state leaders are likely more adept at foreign policy due to the selection process favoring those with a high affinity for realism. Difference feminists focus on the shift in the two bell curves rather than their overlap. They argue that, on average, women have a different perspective on international relations compared to men. While women selected for foreign policy and military roles may not differ from men, women as a group show distinct concerns in international relations, as evidenced by the gender gap in opinion polls and voting patterns. According to this perspective, significant changes in international relations (IR) and a move away from realism would only occur if many women held key foreign policy positions. A few women in politics or the military do not alter the masculine foundations of IR. Currently, women foreign policy makers are surrounded by men. However, if most politicians or soldiers were female, the rules of the game might change to reflect the perspectives of "average" women. These theories remain untested as women have never dominated foreign policy making in any country or the international system. **Postmodern Feminism** Postmodern feminism critiques realism by uncovering hidden gender influences in international relations (IR) and highlighting the arbitrary nature of gender roles. Feminist postmodernists agree with difference feminists that realism has hidden gender meanings but deny any fixed inherent meaning in male or female gender. They explore the interplay of gender and power in an open-ended way. Postmodern feminists criticize liberal feminists for merely integrating women into traditional structures and difference feminists for glorifying traditional feminine virtues. Postmodern feminists challenge the archetypes of the male "just warrior" and the female "beautiful soul" in war. They argue that women are active participants in warfare, not just passive bystanders or victims. Women serve as nurses and journalists at the front, and as mothers, wives, and girlfriends on the home front. These scholars believe that military stories should include the roles of prostitutes at military bases and that diplomatic stories should include the roles of diplomats' wives. Postmodern feminists reject realism and some alternative approaches that focus on protecting women and noncombatants. They find just-war doctrine too abstract, arguing it fails to capture the richness of each historical context and the varied roles of individual men and women within it. Postmodern feminists deconstruct the language of realism, highlighting gender and sex influences. They note that atomic bombs were given male names ("Fat Man" and "Little Boy"), and the first hydrogen bomb's success was announced with "It's a boy." The plane that dropped the Hiroshima bomb was named after the pilot's mother (Enola Gay), and French atom-bomb test sites had women's names. Pilots also pasted pinup photos of nude women on bombs. Postmodern feminists argue that the feminine gender of vehicles, targets, or decorations amplifies the masculinity of the weapons. Postmodern feminists find sex and gender throughout the subtext of realism. Terms like power and potency refer to both state capability and male virility. Military force relies on phallic objects, such as weapons designed to shoot, penetrate, and explode. This has persisted even as technology has evolved from spears to guns to missiles. Basic training chants and the sexualized language around nuclear weapons highlight their "potency." Female models are used to market weapons to male procurement officers, reinforcing the phallic nature of weapons from spears to missiles. All three strands of feminist theories offer explanations that differ from realist and liberal theories. Feminists highlight the importance of gender roles, such as state leaders needing to prove their manhood by confronting aggressors, which ties into the male role as protector of the domestic sphere. Since 2001, gender roles have become more visible in the "war on terror," with both women's societal positions and men's concepts of masculinity being contested between the West and armed Islamic groups. Ignoring these issues may reduce the explanatory power of traditional IR theories.