Feminist International Relations and Epistemic Blank Spots Entrenching Hegemony

Feminist International Relations and Epistemic

Blank Spots Entrenching Hegemony

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Feminist International Relations (IR) theory and literature focuses on

critiquing the traditional theoretical foundations of international politics, policy,

and academia. Feminist scholars argue that using a feminist approach provides a

deeper, more complex analysis, which highlights previously unseen issues and

consequences. Viewing the world as a dynamic set of socioeconomic systems and

structures, feminists look at the foundations of these institutions and how they

interact to impact the most marginalized groups. Although, given that some of the

most prominent feminist International Relations scholars share similar

socioeconomic roots as their counterparts within mainstream IR, these feminist

scholars may have their own sociocultural epistemological issues. This study will

analyze if—and how—the background of feminist IR scholars affects their

discourse, particularly as it relates to their discussion of women outside of the

“western” world. First, however, to grasp the importance of a feminist perspective

to International Relations, it is necessary to give a brief background of the

development of feminist IR literature and where it is situated in IR theory and

mainstream international relations discourse.

The Foundations of International Relations Theory

International Relations is a sub-field of Political Science which focuses on

the interactions and relationships between global political entities, including states,

multi-lateral institutions, and non-state actors. The development of International

Relations theory is characterized by three dominant schools of thought: realism,

liberalism, and constructivism. Realism is perhaps, the single most significant

theoretical paradigm in IR, as it has shaped how a majority of scholars and

policymakers in the west have viewed international politics since 1945 (Tickner,

2014, p. 7; Haar, 2009, p. 8). In addition, realism is the foundation and/or reference

point for the latter two paradigms. Realism posits that the international system is

comprised of sovereign actors (states) under an anarchical structure, which puts

these actors in an ever-present struggle for power. Liberalism accepts the realist

tenet of anarchy, but rejects the assumption that the structure of the international

system must end with a constant power struggle; and, anarchy can be mitigated

with cooperation and transparency (such as operating through the use of

intergovernmental organizations, treaties, and agreements) (Haar, 2009).

Constructivism, however, challenges realism altogether. Based upon Critical

Theory, constructivism argues that the international system and relations between

states is the result of “constructed” behavior— rather than containing inherent

characteristics. The behavior of states is (re)produced, not an objective, static truth.

Essentially, states are in a struggle for power because that is the view that has been

projected upon international politics; however, this does not need to be the case.

The international system is imbued with the characteristics given to it by its actors;

this system can be about power and war, but it can also be about collaboration and

peace.

Feminism and IR Theory: The Gendered State

Feminist International Relations developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s

(Tickner & Sjoberg, 2011), during this third great debate within political science

research. As critical theorists set out to challenge the epistemological and

ontological underpinnings of realism, feminists began taking a gendered analysis to

IR with this new theoretical approach. Feminist IR scholars sought to spark debate

about “finding the women” and “where are the women?” in the mainstream field of

traditional IR research (Tickner, 2014; Enloe, 2014). It should be noted that gender

and the impact of women had been introduced in development studies about a

decade earlier in the 1970s. However, since development studies is often grounded

in economic theory, it can be separate from IR, which is based in political theory.

In fact, at the first Women and International Relations Conference held in 1988 at

the London School of Economics, feminist IR scholar J. Ann Tickner noted that

due to many of the guest speakers talking about women’s role in development,

“there was little material that we would call IR in the disciplinary sense” (2014,

p. xvi). The feminist IR work that developed around a decade later, however, took

on hegemonic masculinity in international politics and challenged the notions of

the state as an objective actor.

Since men have (and continue) to dominate the institutions of traditional

politics, their points of view are what determines both intra- and inter-state actions.

Feminist IR asserts that states are gendered because men and masculinity have

shaped state behavior, and subsequently, the international system (Peterson, 1992;

Enloe, 2014; Tickner, 2014). Additionally, this feminist approach also challenged

the notion of “high politics” and its focus on security issues, as well as, IR

approaching the state as an abstract, monolithic, sovereign actor. Feminists argue

that what is happening below the state-level impacts state behavior, such as internal

conflicts between domestic groups or actors. For example, the competing

ideologies between conservative and liberal political parties within the United

States Senate has meant that the U.S. has not ratifiedcertain global treaties, such as

United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women (CEDAW). As only one of six countries that have not ratified

CEDAW and given its place in the international system, the U.S. is not in the

company of other countries one would expect. Instead, other countries which have

not ratified CEDAW are Iran, Somalia and Sudan. In other words, states are not as

autonomous or objective as IR theory assumes (Peterson, 1992, p. 3). Feminist IR

scholars sought to use this view of the state and international politics as a way to

highlight the absence of women in all areas of international relations, including

politics and academia. Furthermore, these scholars wanted to bring awareness that

including women and making gendered analysis an integrated part of IR theory

would produce more substantive work designed to tackle some of the links between

international affairs and economics, such as the persistence of poverty and the

creation of better social policies.

Appreciation without Inclusion: The Marginalization of Feminist IR

International Relations has implicitly ignored women under the assumption

that its theories were agendered and applicable to all people, equally. In the past 30

years, feminist IR scholars have actively sought to engender IR and resist

marginalization of their research. The introduction of gender as a means of analysis

to International Relations was, overall, widely accepted as a useful tool; however,

feminist IR scholars have pointed out that this did not lead to mainstream research

understanding the importance and impact of gender to IR theory and incorporating

it into the field. Conducting a feminist or gendered analysis does not simply mean

creating a “gender variable” and adding it into current research methodologies.

Scholars must delve deeper into the construction of masculinities and femininities

and how these are being enacted in the international political system. In her famous

1997 essay, “You Just Don’t Understand,” Tickner laments this very notion,

arguing other disciplines have already begun to critically think about the social

constructs of the state, global actors, and gender. It is the field of IR that would

most benefit from looking through a gendered lens. In a later essay Tickner again

advocates for a less rigid approach to the discipline: “We must chart new courses

rather than try to fit women's encounters with international relations into existing

frameworks” (1999 p. 48). Ten years after “You Just Don’t Understand,” Feminist

IR theorist Marysia Zalewski noted the continued marginalization of gender in IR

work in “Do We Understand Each Other Yet,” arguing the lack of change was

because “the ‘doing’ of feminism is simultaneously the ‘undoing’ of the discipline

of IR” (2007, p. 303). A feminist analysis is troubling—if not threatening—to

mainstream theorists because it would require a deconstruction of the three

traditional paradigms. IR scholar, R.B.J. Walker takes the argument further noting

that the slow progress isn’t simply a matter of the misunderstanding of feminist

analysis, but a matter of the discipline’s resistance to any major shifts in theoretical

analysis as a whole:

“It is a matter of knowing how it is that questions about gender, or

indeed about class, culture, philosophy, or human identity, have been

so easily marginalized, subverted, and co-opted in and by this

particular discipline. In short, attempts to juxtapose feminism and

international relations quickly run up against a much broader and

more insidious politics of forgetting, against a discourse that has

made all forms of critique more or less impossible within this

specific discipline—and possible only within sharply

circumscribed horizons in modern social and political life in

general” (1992, p. 192).

In the post-Cold War era with the rise of diverse international actors Murphy

(1996) suggests that there is a “new audience for international relations” and

thus, previous approaches and methodologies may need to be reassessed in

terms of their utility. Multiple IR theorists have lamented this very same

issue, which will be discussed in further detail in the literature review.

In attempting to critique IR research through a gendered lens, feminist

scholars must continually be mindful of another epistemological issue that occurs

not only within mainstream IR literature, but also within the feminist paradigm: the

prevalence of “western” scholars and how this impacts research and discourse. The

dominance of western scholars creates the potential for the world to be viewed

through their sociocultural frame, leading to troublesome “epistemic blank spots.”

As the current geopolitical and academic climates exist within a “First World/Third

World” (or Developed/Developing) dichotomy—a dichotomy created by

asymmetric dominance of the west—it is often the case that the research and

literature of scholars in the First World creates the narratives of those in the Third

World (Bilgin 2010 ; Dingli 2015; Mohanty 1988). Since International Relations

literature and research is concentrated in the “western” world—and even some

European scholars have complained of a dominance by their U.S. counterparts—

this is the research that is published and widely cited; therefore, creating the

discourse (Maliniak, Oakes, Peterson, & Tierney, 2011; Strange, 1995). This thesis

seeks to analyze feminist IR scholarship in terms of the discourse that is being

used. How is the scholarship discussing women in the “developing” world? Is a

“western hegemonic discourse” being created? And if so, how is this discourse

being (re)produced?

Furthermore, the research will link this discourse to development policy and

determine if/how the language that scholars use impacts the literature and proposed

policy solutions to problems women face in the Global South. The proposed

research is intended to be more explanatory than prescriptive and attempts to

spotlight an epistemological concern in feminist IR literature. This paper uses a

more reflexive approach to explore any existing epistemological challenges of

prominent feminist scholars within the field to determine if and/or how the popular

texts in feminist IR may create and perpetuate a problematic discourse. By

analyzing the use of language in feminist IR, this study will highlight the

importance and/or necessity of reflexivity in feminist international relations

literature.

LITERATURE REVIEW

At the nexus of feminist theory and International Relations, feminist IR

scholarship draws its strengths and weaknesses from both disciplines. Scholars

have criticized their respective fields due to the exclusion of voices from those in

the Global South or “Third World” (Ackerly, 2000; Enloe, 2000; Mohanty, 2003;

Sholock, 2012; Woodhull, 2003). International Relations scholars have argued that

not only is IR centered in the west, but mainly in the United States. In her

Presidential Address to the International Studies Association quarterly journal,

Susan Strange bluntly stated: “American scholars may not be aware that they need

a hearing-aid. Non-Americans have no doubt of it” (1995, p. 293). Again, Walker

sums up the issue of stagnation—and perhaps, resistance—to both feminist theory

and broader global perspectives within mainstream International Relations,

candidly stating:

“The attempt to develop feminist perspectives on world politics cannot

be restricted to the critique of theories of international relations alone.

It is not by accident that feminist critiques have only established a

minimal presence in this specific discipline. The extent to which this

specific discipline has remained impervious to almost any form of

philosophical or political critique gives some indication of its role in

generating and legitimating what is taken to be crucial and

incontrovertible about political life within the sovereign state.” (1992,

p. 180)

Yet, in the 20 years that have passed since Walker’s critique, IR has repeated the

same shortcomings and scholars have continued their critiques, arguing that IR is

ethnocentric. Despite competing theoretical frameworks and significant intellectual

differences between different schools of thought within mainstream International

Relations, IR theory remains grounded in

“western experiences and intellectual history” (Rother, 2012, p. 59). This leaves

many scholars calling into question the accuracy and adequacy of IR research and

theoretical frameworks (Rother, 2012; Dingli, 2015; Bilgin, 2010). Some

academics have even attempted to develop a

“non-western” IR theory (Acharya & Buzan, 2007; Bilgin, 2008; Smith K. , 2009);

however, the previously developed mainstream theories remain the focus of IR

theory, as the hub of production is in the western world, and the United States in

particular.

Furthermore, while critiques of hegemonic thought are problematic for both

disciplines, it is troubling for feminists (of any academic discipline), as feminism is

both a theory and social movement that seeks to give voice to historically

marginalized groups and individuals that have been silenced. Feminist scholar

Nelly Stromquist, who focuses on gender and international development education,

notes this “dual nature” of the paradigm, which is different from many theoretical

paradigms: “At its core, feminism…is a theory of power relations…and it is a

movement seeking social justice” (2000, p. 419). Recent surveys of feminist and

gender scholars further support this concept of feminism’s dual nature. The

Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations (TRIP) at the

College of William & Mary conducts surveys analyzing the relationships between

research, teaching, and policy and politics. The most recent TRIP results showed

that feminists see their work as having real-world policy implications and

prescriptions at a greater percentage than those in other sub-fields (Maliniak,

Oakes, Peterson, & Tierney, 2011). Despite these views, the link between academia

and policy can be weak in terms of a global perspective. Thus, western feminists

must also be conscious of their own positions of power, relative to the women

existing outside of these bounds. Feminists have incorporated the term “reflexivity”

into their research, which refers to a researcher remaining conscious of his or her

relationship to the field of study, and the ways in which one’s sociocultural

practices and privilege will always influence the lens in which s/he sees the world.

In other words, there is a certain extent to which research cannot be truly objective.

Such reflexivity is important as the current discourse and conversations in

feminism focus on deconstructing hegemony.

Third Wave Feminism: Decolonizing Discourse and Global “Feminisms”

From its earliest roots, feminism and feminist theory set out to analyze and

question the patriarchal and engendered structures of daily life. The current “Third

Wave” of feminism began in the late 1980s and early 1990s and is marked by

discussions of inclusivity of social identities that were largely absent in the first and

second waves. Critiquing the prior feminist movements is not only what

distinguishes third wave feminism, but it has been argued that third wave feminists

specifically position themselves “against” the previous discourse, as opposed to

building on it (Mann & Huffman, 2005, p. 57). Contemporary scholars and activists

have highlighted the importance that feminist analysis should not be about

“woman,” but “women.” Third Wave feminists stress the importance of the

multiple facets to one’s identity, which include race, culture, class, sexual

orientation, and so forth. Without considering the intersections of these various

social identities, a feminist analysis is void of substantive understanding of the

inequalities women face, producing superficial progress towards gender equality

and social justice. While third wave feminists have their differences, their discourse

contains common threads or theoretical concepts, two of which are intersectionality

and post-colonialism. As these concepts are rooted in decentering hegemonic

thought, they have been integrated into the development of multiple “feminisms” or

strands of feminism around the world

The theory of “intersectionality” is a groundbreaking concept that has shaped

feminism for the past two decades. Officially coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a

leading feminist scholar of critical race theory, intersectionality argues that various

systems of oppression have different and often harsher impacts on individuals with

multiple (or intersecting) social identities. Furthermore, intersectionality studies

demonstrate how these systems interact and mutually reinforce each other to

produce compounding effects of oppression and discrimination (Collins, 2000;

Crenshaw). Rooted in Black Feminist thought, intersectionality has highlighted the

distinct experiences of women of color. Furthermore, the development of Black

Feminism emphasized how white, middle-class women were often presented as the

faces of feminist theories and movements especially within liberal and second wave

feminisms, and therefore, (problematically) were its main subjects of focus. The

issue lay not simply in the active exclusion of women of color, but in passive

universalism. Thus, feminists must be careful not to assume homogeneity in

experiences and perceptions. A feminist analysis is meant to give insight into the

multiple power dynamics that can be created by patriarchy and society and culture

and, subsequently, works to undo this creation. It is important that patriarchy and

sexism are not implicitly treated as the “ultimate oppression,” which can lead to the

false notion that all women experience this oppression in the same way, and not in

varying degrees under the hierarchies of racism, classism, nationalism, and other

socio-cultural structures (Thompson, 2002, p. 337).

However, because a majority of feminist scholarship has been developed in

“western” academia, various assumptions have been made that implicitly support a

“First World” neo-colonial, hegemonic discourse that can passively silence the

variation in women’s lived experiences.

In “Under Western Eyes,” post-colonial and transnational theorist Chandra

Mohanty critiques the assumptions and politics that have been created through

“western feminism.” Mohanty argues that feminism has been dominated by the

perspectives of “white, middle class” women and has implicitly led to a

“suppression of heterogeneity” of women of color around the world (1988, p. 333).

This type of discourse used towards women in the “Third World” leads to the

assumptions that they all have the same wants and needs (Ackerly, 2000; Mohanty,

2003; Verschuur, Guérin, & Guétat-Bernard, 2014). Likewise, Vrushali Patil

asserts that a “traditional feminist” concept of patriarchy that strictly focuses on

women and men (without thought to which women and which men) has played “an

indispensable part of an emerging problematization of simplistic, monolithic

accounts of gender oppression in general” (Patil, 2013, p. 847). Feminists must be

careful in assuming which values—if any—transcend cultures. Ethel Tungohan,

whose scholarly work looks at gender and social movements, argues that “women's

rights, though a persuasive, powerful, and valuable catalyzing trope, assumes a

common agenda for all women” and “fails to consider the effects of class, culture,

and geographical positioning, which consequently negates serious analysis of the

implications of gender alongside issues of cultural rights, indigenous land claims,

and socio-economic issues” (Tungohan, 2010). Contemporary debates around

global feminist theory and embracing difference involve Islamic feminism and

discussions concerning the veil (Moghadam, 2002; Haddad, 2011; Mernissi, 1987);

Chicana feminism (Anzaldúa, 1997); Native American feminism (Smith A. , 2005);

and, numerous transnational feminist theories and global movements.

While Post-colonial, transnational, and global feminisms have similarities,

they also have their differences. Post-colonial feminism, much like its name

implies, is focused on bringing to the fore the voices of marginalized women

around the world (Mishra, 2013). Transnational feminist theory is concerned with

the effects of globalization, particularly with an intersectional focus (Gupta, 2006;

Patil, 2013). Global feminism, as its name implies, is primarily concerned with the

notion of a “global sisterhood” and enacting feminism on a broader, global scale

(Singh, 2012). The common thread in these three strands of feminist theory,

however, is the aim to build coalitions through the celebration of differences. The

acknowledgement and appreciation of these various identities and lived experiences

is central to strengthening solidarity.

Post-colonial and transnational theories continue to heavily influence various

global feminisms. The task of decolonizing discourse and creating an inclusive

dialogue has developed out of the need for women of color around the world to

work against what they see as “western feminism” which is often presented simply

as “feminism” (Chowdury, 2009; Gupta, 2006; Haddad, 2011; Mohanty, 1988;

Mohanty, 2003; Tungohan, 2010). These global feminisms work to present counter

narratives through lived experiences and different sociocultural ideals.

Working to move beyond the necessities of “talking” and “talking back” (DeVault,

1996; hooks, 1989; Smith S.1993) to one another is central to the task of coalition

building between western feminism and global feminisms. Building and working

across differences is the ultimate task of feminism as a broad movement in order to

challenge and deconstruct the various institutions of patriarchal oppression.

However, western feminist discourses can often take a paternalistic—and at times,

imperialistic—approach, which works against these efforts.

The Questions of Coalitions and Solidarity

Transnational feminist scholar Elora Chowdury, critiques Western feminists

as having often taken the “benevolent first world feminist position” and argues that

global feminism has recreated the imperial and colonialist hegemony entrenching

“a narrative justification of western liberal notions of democracy and used in the

service of reconstructing/reconsolidating its civilizing mission” (2009, p. 52). She

further argues that “global feminism using a universal human rights paradigm

constructs for itself the role of the heroic savior of women in nonwestern societies”

(53). Transnational feminist scholar Winnie Woodhull offers the same critique,

arguing that “if anything can be said with certainty about third wave feminism, it is

that it is mainly a first world phenomenon generated by women who, like their

second wave counterparts, have limited interest in women’s struggles elsewhere on

the planet” (2003, p. 76). She goes on to claim that Third Wave feminists

“mistakenly assume that their sincere appeal to feminist action, self-help, and

solidarity really addresses a worldwide audience…paying lip service to the

importance of third world feminist struggles without bothering to investigate the

ways in which those struggles are linked with their own” (p. 77). Building off these

sentiments, Tungohan not only takes western Third Wave/global feminisms to task

for often ignoring intersectionality and creating a global picture of women without

inclusivity, but also addresses the problem of creating a global sisterhood.

Tungohan claims the concept is too broad in scope to effectively address issues of

women around the world (2010). In moving global and transnational feminism

forward, she argues that “the challenge now is to see how feminism can promote

the interests of diverse individuals and groups of women in a way that is cognizant

of power dynamics” (2010, p. 112), and, to examine how these dynamics play out

or function differently in the geopolitical arena and multilateral institutions. This

concept is central to enacting transnational feminist approaches.

Transnational feminist Jyotsna Gupta, whose work focuses on gender and

diversity, noted that in the past two decades, “The category ‘woman’ has been

deconstructed to take cognizance of the differences among women” (2006). Unlike

Chowdury’s critique of both global and transnational feminisms, Gupta sees

transnational feminism as different in that it “envisages the desirability and

possibility of a political solidarity of feminists across the globe transcending race,

class, sexuality and national boundaries, based on the concrete experiences of

transnational organizing of women” (2006, p. 25). That being said, when it comes

to the potential for feminist solidarity there are common grounds such as violence

against women, global trafficking of women and children, gender justice, and other

egregious violations of human security. However, other matters, such as “services

to the global South, or religious fundamentalist prescriptions regarding dress

codes…and reproductive rights” often sees women on opposing sides (p. 26). A

good example of this is Muslim women and discussions around the veil. It seems

that western feminists—and the western world in general—make a far bigger deal

out of the veil and the notion of oppression than Muslim women themselves

(Chowdury, 2009; Haddad, 2011; Mernissi, 1987).

All of this literature highlights the fact that various strands of feminist theory

should be taking an international (and intra-national) approach, but they are not.

Gender and political science scholar Aili Tripp, who specializes in women’s

movements and transnational feminism, quotes a leading US advocate for women’s

rights and human rights in the United Nations and other international policy circles,

as stating “not enough of the theory [feminism] is being related to feminist

practice . . . the way that I see theory being discussed in the university often seems

to ignore the concrete struggles . . . of most women in the world” (2010, p. 195).

Marginalized individuals and groups are often presented with limited or singular

narratives of their identities and lived experiences. It is in this vein that my research

is focused on a discursive analysis of western feminist International Relations

scholarship and examines how the literature of western feminist IR scholars

potentially creates and/or frames the narratives of women in the developing world.

Feminist Theory in International Relations

Feminist International Relations literature has primarily focused on

mainstreaming gendered IR work within the field (Tickner, 2014), calling for new

methodologies and broader inclusion of gendered subject matter into the discipline

(Grant & Newland, 1991; Shepherd, 2015; Tickner, 1999; Youngs, 2004; Zalewski,

2007). Prominent feminist IR scholar Ann Tickner sees feminist IR scholarship as:

a) challenging the foundations of the discipline, b) critiquing its foundational

myths; and c) reconstructing some of the core concepts of the field (1999, p. 44).

This is doubly important as some have pointed out the inadequacy of IR theory as a

whole: “The categories of international relations theory…reify the ethnocentric

hubris of particular cultures” (Walker, 1992, p. 183). A feminist gendered analysis

works to rewrite women's experiences from within these new conceptual

frameworks. Though feminist scholars seek to show the benefits of viewing global

politics through a gendered lens, it is also important to consider the producers of

knowledge and research in terms of culture. This reflexivity is the unification of

feminism and international relations. Woodhull importantly argues, “In the

increasingly globalized world that we have inhabited at least since the 1990s, it is

essential that feminism be conceived and enacted in global terms” (2003, p. 78).

Feminist scholars acknowledging their own positions of privilege lays the ground

for “effective coalition-building across racial and geopolitical inequities” (Sholock,

2012, p. 3). Leading feminist IR scholars J. Ann Tickner and Cynthia Enloe, along

with Craig Murphy, echo such sentiments and have argued that we need to “recast”

international relations literature to include the perspectives of different women

(Enloe, 2004; Murphy, 1996; Tickner, 2005). Enloe argues the importance of

recognizing multiple structures of hegemony: “Conducting a feminist gender

analysis requires investigating power: what forms does power take? Who wields it?

How are some gendered wieldings of power camouflaged so they do not look like

power?” (2014, p. 9). However, feminist IR literature has not been studied in terms

of a detailed discourse analysis, despite some of the existing epistemological

concerns.

Some IR scholars have made it a point to emphasize the stories of women in

the developing world and acknowledge their significance to the overall discourse

(Ackerly, 2000; Enloe, 2000; Enloe, 2014; Jabri & O'Gorman, 1999); there has

been less emphasis, though, on identifying, synthesizing, and analyzing a discourse

that arises from the socio-cultural disparities present in the field of feminist IR

theory. Murphy argues that “the knowledge needed…must come from the critique

of existing ways in which the experience of women has been included within a

field, a critique that points out how such studies may have obscured issues of race,

class, and other forms of difference” (pp. 534-535). Mohanty also argues for this

examination of privilege: “western feminist writing on women in the third world

must be considered in the context of the global hegemony of western scholarship -

i.e., the production, publication, distribution and consumption of information and

ideas” (1988, p. 64). While beneficial from a scholarly and intellectual standpoint,

Murphy questions the feasibility of such an inclusive approach. As traditional

International Relations research is focused on theory-building, this requires

abstraction and simplification. There is the continual issue of wanting to reduce the

world—and thus, its people—into smaller, easy-to-analyze, parts. This approach

creates a need for a certain level of homogenization. Perhaps, however, mainstream

IR has fallen into the habits of traditional research methods and interests.

As feminist IR theorist Abigail Ruane notes, “even good faith efforts to

pursue more inclusive interests can be limited…not because of bad faith, but

because of lack of imagination or an inability to relate” (2011, pp. 52-53). She

further argues that even when attempts at inclusiveness are made, certain (“often

elite”) interests still retain prioritization. Tickner repeats these thoughts, postulating

that even as the field notes the absence of women, it will only add a famous few

scholars to the curriculum: “While these additions provide role models for women,

they do nothing to change the discipline in ways that acknowledge that anything

can be learned from women's experiences” (1992, p. 143). Where many have left

the question of feasibility open (Murphy, 1996; Tungohan, 2010), Ruane suggests a

model based upon “inclusive borders and inclusive roots” (2011), where decreasing

hegemony can be seen as a two-step process: “pursuing interests with more

inclusive borders” and then using this “as a foundation to redefine interests more

substantively” (p. 49). Again, Tickner echoes the same sentiments noting that after

the “famous few” have been mainstreamed, eventually this will make way for a

variety of women’s voices and experiences to be added to the literature (1992, p.

144). Thus, Feminist IR literature has (at minimum) two obstacles to overcome: (1)

continuing to push for acceptance among mainstream international relations

scholarship; and, (2) diversifying the representation of women and perspectives

represented within the literature.

While this paper doesn’t address feasibility or how to ensure the inclusion of

different voices, multiple perspectives are inarguably necessary. Lack of inclusion

(whether intentional or not) contributes to creating a hegemonic discourse; and, in

turn, influences the policy literature that may be developed from this discourse. The

best solution for ensuring that differences are represented in the literature is

continually being aware of who is producing the literature and the language being

used. If the field of feminist IR theory is repeating the epistemic power of western

scholars, it is implicitly supporting and (re)producing a hegemonic discourse that

already silences marginalized voices.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This thesis has two objectives: 1) to identify if there is a “western hegemonic

discourse” within feminist International Relations literature; and, 2) identify how

this discourse impacts women’s development policy literature. As such, the most

appropriate research method would be a qualitative critical discourse analysis

(CDA). Rooted in post-positivism, discourse analyses study how language is used

and how it (re)produces the world. The discursive study will serve as a form of

critical theorizing of the knowledge/power nexus in feminist IR (Milliken, 1999, p.

241). It should be noted, however, that the research will not simply analyze the

presence of a western hegemonic discourse, but also identify language actively

working against hegemony. In order to increase validity, it is equally as important

that the study seek out language that cautions against universality, acknowledges

intersectionality, opposes the creations of “otherness,” and advocates for

sociocultural inclusivity.

What is Discourse Analysis?

In its most basic definition, discourse analysis is the study of language in

use; or, the study of “talk and text.” This definition, however, does not get to the

“why.” Why is discourse an important tool? What can be learned from such an

analysis? Researching discourse provides insight into how language gives meaning

and constructs social realties. Language is not simply a tool that we have been

given to use; it is a dynamic set of tools that produce and reproduce the world in

which we live. Whether used passively or actively, language gives meaning; creates

meaning; entrenches, and changes meaning in sociocultural contexts.

Using discourse as a method of analysis is grounded in the work of Michel

Foucault, who was interested in the mutually reinforcing connection between

knowledge and power.

“In any society there are manifold relations of power which permeate,

characterise and constitute the social body, and these relations of

power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor

implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation and

functioning of a discourse. There can be no possible exercise of power

without a certain economy of discourses of truth which operates

through and on the basis of this association” (1980, p. 93).

While Foucault was more concerned with rules, systems, and institutions, discourse

analysis has branched off into studying all aspects of society. Unlike a statistical

analysis, a discourse analysis is not meant to “predict or control” or even to

“capture the truth of reality” as there are no objective truths but, instead to “offer an

interpretation or version which is inevitably partial” (Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates,

2001, pp. 11-12). Additionally, various types of discourse analyses and methods

have been developed.

A critical discourse analysis is particularly concerned with studying

dominance in social and political context (Weiss & Wodak, 2003, p. 2) and sees

language-in-use as “always part and parcel of, and partially constitutive of, specific

social practices…that always have implications for inherently political things like

status, solidarity…and power” (Gee, 2011, p. 68). In order to analyze the potential

creation and perpetuation of a “western” hegemonic discourse, the genealogical

method of CDA will be the most applicable. This method will allow for an

evolutionary discursive analysis and track the development of discourse throughout

feminist IR and women’s development policy. Additionally, the study is analyzing

if/how the selected groundbreaking feminist IR texts have influenced the overall

feminist IR discourse, as well as discourse in women’s development policy. Taking

this into account the research is not only genealogical, but can also be described as

longitudinal; not only analyzing the discursive literature within two different fields,

but also between them. This will in turn create the potential for further study into

the questions of how these two fields are linked/delinked and why this is occurring.

Conceptualization and Operationalization

First, it is necessary to define what is meant by “western” when we say

“western hegemonic discourse” or “western scholars” or “western ideologies.”

Western is polymorphous and often depends on the context in which it is being

used. For example, economically speaking, certain countries fall on a “western

axis” per se, such as Japan or Singapore, but culturally are not considered western.

Additionally, despite its geographic implication, western does not mean there is a

specific line in which we can draw and identify which countries encompass the

west. This research is only concerned with western culture (which will also be

further broken down). Western culture is taken to mean countries whose

populations are primarily composed of those with white, European ancestry whose

societies are similarly derived from European culture, norms, and ideals—or,

Eurocentric.

Secondand a very important point—“western” does not necessarily encompass

all people within the borders of these countries at all times, in all contexts. As with

the idea of Eurocentric, “western” refers to the white individuals in these countries.

Two things support this notion: women of color feminisms that have been created

within western countries; and, antiwestern scholarship and literature. “Black

Feminism” and “Chicana Feminism” are movements that developed in the United

States (a western country), but are concentrated in sociocultural groups that exist

outside the dominant, Eurocentric culture, and thus, outside the dominant

discourse. In fact, the discourse from this literature often challenges the very same

aspects of hegemony criticized in non-western scholarship (Chowdury, 2009;

Collins, 2000; Crenshaw). When women in the “Third World” and non-western

countries refer to western feminists, they often specifically mention or depict white

women (Bilgin, 2010; Haddad, 2011; Mohanty, 1988; Mohanty, 2003; Chowdury,

2009). This indicates a specific image of what “western” means and looks like to

those outside the west. Now, this is not to say that these individuals do not

recognize or disregard the sociocultural heterogeneity of those in western countries.

However, when it comes to the dissemination of dominant feminist discourses,

white women were the faces of the movement (Chowdury, 2009; Crenshaw;

Sholock, 2012). Thus, in its simplest definition and for the sake of this research,

“western” denotes sociocultural norms, ideals, values, and terms rooted in a white,

Eurocentric society. This now moves the research to two important questions

before detailing the methodology: (1) what are these “western” norms, ideals and

values (i.e. how are they defined)? And, (2) how can these be deduced and

categorized?

Western normative ideals have not necessarily been defined by the west, but

by those outside of it. This is because western society has often assumed its values

were universal to humanity; however, many non-western individuals have stated

differently. Furthermore, in nonwestern, post-colonial discourse scholars have

argued that the west often sees the world through its own gaze. These notions of

“universalism” and “framing” are what will guide the categorization of the data. A

simpler way of thinking about this is that the analysis is looking for both the

presence of and the absence of particular language. Does the literature make

mention of and acknowledge the heterogeneity of societies? How often is this

mentioned? How are individuals in these societies being discussed? Is the need for

inclusivity acknowledged? There are particular concepts to take into consideration:

Reflexive/Reflexivity

Intersectional/ity o Race/Ethnicity

o Class/Social status

o Sexual Orientation

Post-Colonial/Decolonization

Inclusive/Inclusivity

Dichotomies o First World/Third World o Global North/Global South

These categories serve as a thematic “coding framework” which involves the use of

“theory, definitions and inductive injunction to catalogue all the categories” (Allan,

2016, p. 39) that create a relationship to the idea of “western" discourse. That being

said, as the texts are read and re-read various categorizations will develop and

categories may also change. Critical discourse analysis is in the hermeneutic

tradition, not meant to be static, but also informed by the texts.

Due to this method, there is no clear demarcation between data collection and

analysis (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). Furthermore, while gathering "count" will be

more straightforward, answering the "how" is the true inductive challenge that will

be the heart of the analysis. This step is the part that reveals meanings and use,

moving the research from "categories to discursive formation" (Allan, 2016, p. 39).

For this purpose, a framework developed by Literacy Studies scholar James Paul

Gee will be used.

The “how” portion of the research is guided by the interaction between five

discursive concepts, or what Gee calls “tools of inquiry” (2011). First,

intertextuality, which argues that texts can “unconsciously or implicitly invoke

other texts due to the dominance of certain discourses, texts, and language norms

that may be pervasive, if subtly so” (Ackerly & True, Doing Feminist Research in

Political and Social Science, 2010, p. 210). Second, there are conversations or

“debates in society or within specific social groups over focused issues” in which

there is a consensus over the multiple “sides to take.” Third, the notion of situated

meanings, which are the “meanings words and phrases take on in actual contexts of

use.” Fourth, the use of social languages or “any variety or style of speaking or

writing associated with a socially situated identity of any sort.” Finally, there is the

concept of figured worlds which are theories, stories, models, or images of “a

simplified world which captures what is taken to be typical or normal about people,

practices (activities), things, or interactions.” These five concepts are necessary to

give a whole picture of a discourse analysis. Furthermore, Gee argues that any

discourse analytic should ideally seek to fulfill seven specific “tasks.” Revolving

around the five discursive analytic concepts, these tasks will serve as “building

blocks” to guide the analysis:

(1) Significance: How are they (the concepts) used to build relevance or

significance for things and people in context?

(2) Practices (Activities): How are they being used to enact practice/s or

activity/ies in context?

(3) Identities: How are they being used to enact and depict identities?

(4) Relationships: How are they being used to build and sustain (or change and

destroy) social relationships?

(5) Politics: How are they being used to create, distribute, or withhold social

goods or to construe particular distributions of social goods as “good” or

“acceptable” or not?

(6) Connections: How are they being used to make things and people connected

or relevant to each or irrelevant or disconnected from each other?

(7) Sign Systems and Knowledge: How are they being used to privilege or

disprivilege different sign systems (language, social language, other sorts of

symbol systems) and ways of knowing? (Gee, 2011, pp. 121-122)

While the research will not be able to answer in full detail how each of the five

discursive concepts impact each building task for the texts—which amount to

35 questions for each of the seven texts—the critical discourse analysis will

attempt to address these concepts in some way. This will at least give some

consideration to the use of these objects of discourse, if only as background, to

create a whole picture.

Lastly, keeping in line with feminist ethics in research and reflexivity

(Ackerly & True, 2010), the situated identity of the researcher (myself) should be

mentioned. This is particularly important in the efforts to identify elements of a

“western” discourse because I am citizen of the United States. Naturally, there may

be some norms, attitudes, ideals, and values that I may not identify as western, but

could be categorized as such. Thus, there is the potential to have my own

sociocultural “epistemic blank spots.”

Methodology

The cornerstone of the research will be joint qualitative discourse analyses

on (a) feminist International Relations literature and (b) global development policy

literature on women. The first part of the analysis will identify if there is language

that helps to create a “western hegemonic discourse” within feminist International

Relations literature. Using these findings, the second analysis will look at United

Nations (UN) gender and development policy documents and identify if similar

language appears in this work. The qualitative study will require human coding,

which I will perform as the researcher because machine coding and software does

not work as well for identifying context and meaning.

Discourse analysis is an “iterative” and “inductive” process that involves

reading and rereading the text and their building upon the knowledge to identify the

interrelationships between them. It is a dynamic process of “interpretation and

reinterpretation” (Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001, p. 39). The coding will involve

pulling out “extracts” from the texts and using these to identify themes, categories,

and objects of the discourse (Carabine, 2001). Then, comparing and cross-

referencing these extracts to locate a potential “western hegemonic” discourse (or

language working against this creation). The extracts can be a phrase, single

sentence, or small paragraph to identify the nature and context of the language

used. The extracts serve as a form of categorizing, which will be coded using the

“coding framework.” Additionally, the extracts are the units of analysis which are

taken from the books and reports detailed in a later section.

What is a feminist IR theorist?

Prior to detailing the selection of texts that will serve as data, it is important

to briefly make note of who is a “feminist IR theorist.” Certain scholars identify as

feminist IR theorists, those whose work is grounded in IR theory and use feminism

to disrupt, challenge, and question the main tenets of its theories, concepts,

research, methodologies, and practices. Then, however, there are theorists who

work on topics in and/or adjacent to international relations, but this work is more so

grounded in various theories and these scholars do not identify as feminist IR

theorists (Tickner, 2014). While all of this may seem like semantics, it is important

to make the distinction for two reasons. First, feminist IR is highly

interdisciplinary; however, not all of the literature is concerned with IR theory on

the whole. While specific IR subject matter may be researched, such as gender and

state/citizenship/political identity, and so forth, it is not aimed at

discussing/critiquing IR theory itself. Second, the distinction is important for the

sake of brevity. Noting this difference will limit the amount of texts necessary to

the research. As this work is concerned with feminist IR theory and the works of

feminist IR theorists, the texts chosen will be limited to those written by scholars

who identify as feminist IR theorists.

Data

Feminist International Relations literature is a marginalized sub-field within

IR discourse (Zalewski, 2007; Youngs, 2004; Tickner, 2014). However, there are

still enough academic scholars and scholarly works that it still requires narrowing

down the specific texts to research. Also, unlike mainstream International Relations

(which has sub-fields such as security studies, political economy, comparative

politics, etc.), the field of feminist IR can encompass any research that takes a

gendered analysis to IR. Thus, it was necessary the data exclude texts that

attempted to only address feminism in a narrower context. The exceptions to this

rule are Bananas, Beaches, and Bases by Cynthia Enloe and Gender in

International Relations by J. Ann Tickner, since these are inarguably seminal

works in feminist IR. The methodology for selecting the texts to be used in the

discourse analysis is: 1) finding the most prominent feminist IR scholars; and, 2)

using these scholars to narrow down the most contributive works (i.e. most cited)

through Google Scholar. Furthermore, it was important to ensure the literature

came from a variety of scholars, otherwise the results would have been invalid--if

not, self-fulfilling; meaning that, using multiple examples of an individual’s work

would identify their discourse, but not necessarily that of the field. It should also be

noted that the sample of literature is from western, white feminist IR scholars (lest

this research implicitly exclude non-western and/or white feminist IR scholars

under the assumption they are not producing research). Finally, to ensure that there

was a large enough time frame to allow for any discursive shift, the texts were

selected over a lengthy period of time, 1992-2014. The following texts were

selected (listed chronologically):

(1) Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in International Relations:

Feminist

Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. Columbia

University Press.

Cited by 640

(2) Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist Theory and International

Relations in a

Postmodern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited by

561

(3) Pettman, J. J. (1996). Worlding Women: A Feminist

International

Politics London: Routledge. Cited by 533

(4) Hooper, C. (2001). Manly States: Masculinities, International

Relations, and Gender Politics. Columbia University Press.

Cited by 362

(5) Steans, J. (2006). Gender and International Relations. Malden:

Polity

Press. Cited by 406

(6) Runyan, A.S., Peterson, V.S. (2009). Global Gender Issues in the

New

Millennium (3rd ed). Westview Press. Cited by 570

(7) Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist

Sense of International Politics (2 ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of

California

Press. Cited by 3182

The policy literature used for the discourse analysis comes from UN Women

(The United Nations Entity on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment) and

its predecessor UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women). UN

Women works with a variety of global scholars, civil society organizations, NGOs,

think tanks, and other global organizations. Thus, their work serves as a prominent

hub for policy work on gender in development. Furthermore, UN Women—and by

extension the UN is one of the largest and most influential voices on a variety of

gender and development issues due to institutional capacity. However, it is

important to note that the selected texts are a small sample of both women’s

development literature and development policy literature as a whole. As the

genealogical method will again be used for this analysis, development documents

were selected from within a large enough time frame (20 years) to allow for

potential shifts in the discourse. Additionally, in order to aid the longitudinal

comparison, the time span of the texts range from 1995-2015. The following

documents are to be used for the discourse analysis (listed chronologically):

(1) UNDP, Gender and Human Development 1995

(2) UNIFEM, Progress of the World's Women 2000

(3) UNIFEM, Progress of World’s Women 2005

(4) UNIFEM, Progress of the World’s Women 2008/2009: Who Answers

to Women?

(5) UN Women, Progress of the World’s Women 2015 - 2016:

Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS OF FEMINIST IR LITERATURE

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS PART I

The first part of this genealogical discourse analysis studies seven seminal

texts from feminist international relations theorists over the course of 22 years

(Figure 1). The research is particularly concerned with how “non-western” women

are discussed and how the “western” hegemony of IR has framed these discussions.

While feminist IR scholars have done well at acknowledging and recognizing the

plurality of identities among women (and men) around the world, the pitfalls of

language developed in a “western” context often presents itself, particularly in the

use of hierarchical dichotomies.

The chapter will be split into two larger analytic sections: Discursive

Themes, which will then be divided into small sub-sections based around these

themes; and then, the Conclusion.

The thematic sections will identify strands of “oppositional discourse” and

focuses on language directed towards decentering hegemonic norms, attitudes, and

contexts. Conversely, these sections will also isolate “hegemonic discourse” and

highlight the strand(s) of the discourse framed in language based around western

norms, ideals, and attitudes. Each of these themed subsections will analyze the

language in terms of the “tools of inquiry” and how these are used to (re)produce

hegemonic or oppositional discourse. Finally, the Conclusion section will use the

thematic sub-sections, the building tasks, and tools of inquiry to understand how

these texts discussed and framed women outside of the western world. This section

will also delve deeper into the genealogical aspect of the analysis, focusing on any

shifts in discourse, and summarize the findings.

DISCURSIVE THEMES AND CATEGORIES

Thematic Category 1: Sociocultural Underpinnings of IR

Keeping in line with one of the overall themes of feminist IR, each of the

texts not only pointed out the sociocultural foundations of international relations,

but this was also the first task in each piece of literature. This is particularly

important as each author was attempting to frame the knowledge/power nexus of IR

within a particular idea of man/masculinity. This can be seen in all of the authors’

continual and repeated use of the words: western, Anglo-American, or

Eurocentric. In both theory and practice, international relations is situated in a

western frame. Despite being presented as competing theoretical debates, feminist

IR theorists point out that the three IR paradigms (realism/neorealism,

liberalism/neoliberalism, constructivism), in general, share (or inherit) some

assumptions rooted in the logic of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John

Locke, and Hans Morgenthau. While these authors’ works are most closely

associated with the realist paradigm, aspects of their philosophies were taken so

much as objective truths, that they managed to be thread and woven into the other

two, leading IR to be passively gendered. In challenging these particular authors,

philosophers, and theorists, feminist IR is challenging the “canon” of the discipline.

Extract 1:

“An examination of the literature that attempts to trace the

history of hegemonic masculinity in the West reveals at least

four ideal types…of dominant masculinities. These are inherited

from different periods of European cultural history” (Hooper,

2001, p. 64).

Extract 2:

“Discourses on freedom and emancipation have, therefore,

merely served to consign to the realm of the ‘inhumane’,

‘uncivilized’ and ‘backward’ whole societies and peoples who do

not share the cultural characteristics of (western) ‘Enlightenment

Man’” (Steans 17).

Extract 3:

“…the ideal form of masculinity performed by men with the

most power attributes, who not incidentally populate most global

power positions—typically white, Western, upper class, straight

men who have conferred on them the complete range of gender,

race, class, national, and sexuality privileges” (Runyan &

Peterson, 2010, p. 7).

Extract 4:

“At core, the modernist, Eurocentric ideology of limitless growth

presupposes a belief in (white, Western) “man’s” dominion over

nature (promoted, for example, in Christian and capitalist belief

systems) and the desirability of (white, Western) “man’s”

exploiting nature to further his own ends. Conquering nature,

digging out “her” treasure and secrets, proving (white, Western)

man’s superiority through control over and manipulation of

nature—these are familiar and currently deadly refrains”

(Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p. 98).

A particularly striking phrase was used by Pettman:

Extract 5:

“This heritage informs IR’s construction of states and

international politics”

(Pettman, 1996, p. 8).

The use of the word “heritage” was poignant and succinct. With one word Pettman

asserts that the foundation and development of IR cannot be divorced from its

sociocultural roots. The continual use of the terms Western, Anglo-American, and

European/Eurocentric, throughout each of the texts indicates the authors’ attempts

to continually recognize the frame of international relations; a frame through which

all peoples’ identities have been situated and constructed.

As feminist IR is aimed at challenging the foundations of international

relations, the most obvious discursive tool at work is conversations. Feminist IR

theorists set themselves in opposition to mainstream IR by not only positing that IR

is constructed through a “western lens,” but also challenging the notion of its

supposed gender neutral assumptions. In this debate, Feminist IR literature is

interesting in that it disrupts or deconstructs the figured worlds or theories, models,

and images of international relations before attempting to construct their own.

While the literature attempts to move away from generalizations and homogenizing

concepts, feminist IR does start with a simplified “global model,” which asserts that

in the vast majority of societies in the world, women are not equal to men, whether

it be economically, socially, or politically.

Thematic Category 2: Masculinities and Femininities

Pointing out IR in a western frame, the literature was also consistent in

identifying that the discipline and its resulting politics and policies does not

privilege all men. The use of the phrase “hegemonic masculinity” or

“masculinities” in the previous extracts recognizes the multiple identities of men in

the international system. All cultures have their own expectations and views on

gender, masculinity, and femininity. This is important for two reasons. First, if not

all men are privileged as privilege is salient based upon intersectional identities (to

be discussed later)—then it is possible for some women to be privileged above

certain men. Second, the literature highlighted that this hegemonic masculinity set

the standard of femininity based upon a particular image of a white, western

women.

Extract 6:

“Although all femininities are subordinated to all masculinities, it

is also the case that some femininities are subordinated more

than or differently from others. The idealized image of Western

femininity remains associated with Victorian notions of

womanhood that celebrated the gentility, passivity,

decorativeness, and asexuality that was imposed on white,

middle- to upper-class women who were the only ones who

could enact such standards. Working-class women, women of

color, and/or lesbians are either denied the (dubious) status of

feminine because they cannot meet these standards, or are

feminized (that is, devalorized) in other ways through

processes of racialization and/or sexualization” (Runyan &

Peterson, 2010, pp. 7-8).

In decentering hegemonic frames, each text also made sure to mention that all

gender identities

(masculinities and femininities) have their own societal, cultural, and historical

backgrounds.

Extract 7:

“…what it means to be a man or a woman varies across cultures

and history”

(Tickner, 1992, p. 7).

Extract 8:

“The realization of multiplicity means that we can be skeptical of

the assignment ‘women’ while searching for treasures that lie in

women’s rooms (or spaces of life) … Each space gives us a

different location of subjectivity, a different element of identity,

such that to have meaningful identities and to query them too

situates us as appreciators of the ways we stand in one space and

regard another space with an empathetic-critical gaze that defies

ready colonization” (Sylvester, 1994, p. 13).

Extract 9:

“Beyond gender relations as power relations between men and

women, ‘worlding women’ means exploring differences among

and between women, too” (Pettman,

1996, p. xi).

Extract 10:

“It is by and large associated with universalizing, ahistorical

theories and vague generalizations. As a number of feminists

have argued, gender relations are insufficiently coherent to

warrant the term patriarchy in general” (Hooper, 2001, p. 41).

[Emphasis in original]

Extract 11:

“If one fails to pay close attention to women—all sorts of women

—one will miss who wields power and for what ends” (Enloe,

2014, p. 9).

The deconstruction of masculinities and femininities is another way in which

feminist IR disrupted figured worlds. However, in this instance there was no

attempt to create any new singular image or central model of masculinity or

femininity as that would be antithetical to feminist theory itself.

Thematic Category 3: Feminist Theory, Feminisms, and Intersectionality

In challenging the theories of the discipline, feminist IR authors have also

challenged the methods for analyzing and viewing the world. The literature argued

that identifying these problems and new methods was essential because current

methodologies not only obscure issues of gender difference, but also other aspects

of peoples’ lived experience such as race, class, nationality, sexual orientation, and

other facets of identity.

Extract 12:

“Were it to be realized, such a ‘re-vision’ would have a profound

impact on the discipline of international relations, which is

noteworthy for its exclusionary perspectives both with respect to

women as well as non-Western cultures. As this analysis has

suggested, a discipline that includes us all would require a radical

redrawing of the boundaries of its subject matter” (Tickner, 1992,

p. 144).

Extract 13:

“We must take on the gendered anarchies and reciprocities of a

field, freeing prisoners from manipulated dilemmas and refusing

divisive levels of analysis that third world cooperatives and first

world peace camps can teach us. I have attempted to provide the

outlines of a process of empathetic cooperation as postmodern

feminist method” (Sylvester, 1994, pp. 225-226).

Extract 14:

“By transcending the levels-of-analysis problem and

transgressing the private/public/international divides, not to

mention introducing voices from outside the Anglo-American

world, empirical research on this subject might severely disrupt

the all-male, largely Anglo-American space of IR, and thereby

interfere with the

production of hegemonic masculinities therein” (Hooper, 2001,

pp. 228-229).

Extract 15:

“Women cannot simply be added in, for ‘IR’ has been

constructed on the exclusion of women from ‘high politics’.

Peopling IR is especially difficult, for traditionally IR takes

states as its central unit” (Pettman, 1996, p. viii).

Furthermore, because theory requires abstraction, and abstraction requires

homogeneity, the literature challenges abstract theory and research methods, and

even the language derived from such thinking.

Each author explicitly attempted to resist the use of homogenized language;

and, where such language needed to be used, different methods were employed to

navigate and mediate its use. For example, Christine Sylvester continually put

women or woman in quotations (“women” / “woman”) throughout her book. This

was to symbolize that when referencing this group of individuals that a prior false

homogeneity was attributed to them; yet, there is no other popularly used and

“accepted” word to refer to said group.

Extract 16:

“Now a third feminist wave is finally comfortable with

postmodernity. It affirms difference (women has triumphed over

woman) and is also skeptical about whether women exist as a

meaningful identity and type of person or whether ‘women’ is a

set of socially assigned characteristics and evocations” (Sylvester, 1994, p. 23).

Quotes were also used in other texts to denote “western-originating” terms that

were attributed to countries and societies outside this frame (i.e. “non-western”).

These include terms such as: third world, developing, modernization, and other

words that represent a hierarchical dichotomous relationship (however, there were

still issues on this matter, which will be further explored at the end of this chapter).

Additionally, keeping in line with highlighting the “western” frame of IR, the texts

also put certain concepts in quotations, such as masculine, feminine, nationality,

state, sovereignty, and citizen. In critical theory, this technique is called

“citationality.” Developed by French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, “citationality”

is the notion that a concept can be simultaneously authentic and inauthentic. The

meaning of a word is established through its continued use, such as citing and

reiterating (and furthermore, this is a core function of language) (Nakassis). Thus, a

term may not necessarily be “universal” with one inherent meaning, but rather a

constructed meaning. When the feminist IR scholars put quotations around certain

words, it is to challenge and/or deconstruct the universality of such terms. This use

of citationality was a disruption of figured worlds, situated meanings, and social

languages constructed in western discourse.

Mainstream IR scholars who have been comfortable (and insist) on the

notion of objective truths resist the ontological and epistemological subjective

positions of feminist IR theorists.

Extract 17:

“Mainstream IR scholars have expressed frustration with feminist

IR broadly conceived, but most especially its poststructuralist

guise, because of the reluctance

of feminist scholars to offer up a singular, coherent perspective on

IR” (Steans 135).

Extract 18:

“For this model to flourish in IR would require that we not only

alter our lense but also make profound changes in our individual

and collective practices” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p. 253).

Extract 19:

“Every time the conversation slips into abstractions, one of the

women pulls it back to women’s complex everyday realities.

This is what making feminist sense of international politics

sounds like” (Enloe, 2014, p. 359).

Thus, not only do these feminist IR scholars acknowledge difference, but in

essence, they “double down” on the importance of difference by resisting current

methodologies. This represents a commitment to decentering the reproduction of

hegemonic masculinity in terms of knowledge and power.

However, as one progresses through the readings, there were some notable

differences in the presence of feminist theory, and the conversations and debates

being had in feminist academia, particularly concerning intersectionality and

feminisms. This, in turn, led to a substantive development in feminist IR discourse.

While the ideas underpinning intersectionality were alluded to in earlier readings

(extracts 6-11), in later texts there is a more concrete and substantive

conceptualization of this term. This can most likely be attributed to the prominence

of multiple feminisms that emerged in feminist theory during this span of time.

Extract 20:

“…these feminists claim that all types of violence are embedded

in the gender hierarchies of dominance and subordination…”

(Tickner, 1992, p. 30)

Extract 21:

“It has become increasingly difficult to theorize gender identity in

isolation from other identities, and the intersections of gender,

class, race, and sexuality have

become preoccupations of both feminism and cultural studies”

(Hooper, 2001, p. 7).

Tickner’s use of the words “claim” and argue indicates that the subject is still being

debated and/or relatively new. The same can be said for Hooper’s statement that

theorizing outside of considering intersectionality has become increasingly

difficult. The incorporation of feminist theory is also a non-linear development.

Sylvester (1994) and Pettman (1996) incorporated the concept of pluralities into

their work, using language that does not imply any sort of contestation.

Extract 22:

“Alongside and often overlapping with older-identified

distinctions between liberal, socialist, radical and cultural

feminisms, for example, are variously named black, third-world

and ethnic-minority feminisms, themselves far from

homogenous. They have prompted increasing feminist attention

to difference as an issue between

women, as well as between men and women” (Pettman, 1996, pp.

ix-x).

Still, however, in the later texts intersectionality and multiple oppressions are

elaborated upon and discussed at length.

Extract 23:

“It was imperative for activists to reflect upon the limitations of

white, western feminism that had privileged a primarily liberal

political agenda, and to address the concerns of women around

the world in ‘historicized particularity of their relationship to

multiple patriarchies as well as intersectional economic

hegemonies’ and to focus on ‘multiple, overlapping and discrete

oppressions rather than construct

a theory of hegemonic oppression under a unified category of

gender’” (Steans 126).

In 2010, Runyan and Peterson go further in their discussion of intersectional

analysis in IR (even devoting 3 ¾ pages to the subject), including a definition and

how such an analysis adds to more comprehensive research.

Extract 24:

The premises of intersectional analysis mean several things.

First, women and men have multiple identities simultaneously,

describing themselves or being described not only by gender but

also by race, class, sexual, and national markers, such as black,

American, working-class, gay male. Second these identity

markers, however, are not just additive, merely descriptive, or

politically or socially neutral…some parts of our identities carry

privilege and others do not… Third, different parts of our

identities become politically salient at different times… the

fourth meaning of intersectional analysis—namely, the kind of

masculinity or femininity one is assumed to have rests on the

meanings given one’s race, class, sexuality, and nationality”

(Runyan & Peterson, 2010, pp. 25-26).

Extract 25:

“Contemporary feminist scholars engage in intersectional

analysis to avoid the practice of ‘essentialism’… Only by

recognizing [intersectionality] can we advance a more

comprehensive notion of gender equality that sees it as

indivisible from racial, class, and sexual equality and equality

among nations” (Runyan & Peterson,

2010, pp. 26-27).

The incorporation of different feminisms and feminist theories can obviously be

attributed to which scholars were being cited. While reading, it is clear which

scholars were heavily incorporating different feminisms into their work. This

includes citing feminist theorists such as such as, Nira Yuval-Davis (gender and

ethnicity), Chandra Mohanty (post-colonial feminism), Gayatri Spivak (post-

colonial feminism), Judith Butler (Queer feminism), Gloria Anzaldúa (Chicana

feminism), Patricia Hill Collins (Black feminism), and bell hooks (Black

feminism). Below is a brief example of which feminist IR theorists included the

works of these aforementioned feminist theorists.

Feminist Theorists Cited in Sampled Feminist IR Texts

Feminist IR Author: Feminist theorist (# of works cited in the bibliography of

feminist IR text)

Sylvester: Collins (1), Spivak (1), Mohanty (1), hooks (1), Butler (1),

Anzaldúa (3)

Pettman: Yuval-Davis (4), Spivak (3), Mohanty (3), hooks (3), Butler (1),

Anzaldúa (1)

Hooper: Mohanty (1), Butler (3)

Steans: Mohanty (1), hooks, Spivak, Yuval-Davis, Butler

Peterson & Runyan: Yuval-Davis (2), Spivak (4), Mohanty (1), Collins (1),

Anzaldúa (1)

From the list, it is clear that Tickner and Enloe were the outliers in terms of

exploring feminisms and feminist theory. In terms of Enloe’s lack of theorist

citations, her book was not theory focused overall. However, on Tickner’s end, her

book was theory-focused and this lack of plurality was later critiqued by her peers:

Extract 26:

“However, in spite of these nuances in the detail, her books’

overall structure and main thrust…tends to oppose a monolithic

and one might say essentialized masculinity…in IR theory

against an equally monolithic opponent known as either ‘feminist

theories,’ ‘feminist approaches,’ or ‘feminist perspectives’ The

overall effect is one of theoretical confusion and an

undifferentiated eclecticism in

deploying incompatible feminist approaches” (Hooper, 2001, p.

58).

Steans criticizes Tickner and notes her use of standpoint theory:

Extract 27:

“In her book on Gender in International Relations, J. Ann

Tickner drew upon standpoint feminism to both critique

mainstream IR and to suggest how the field might be

(re-)visioned.”

“However, clearly attempts to theorize from the position of

‘women’s lived experiences’ are problematic. One of the main

objections to standpoint is that there is no ‘authentic’ women’s

experience that can serve as a basis for knowledge claims”

(Steans 14).

However, it is unclear if Steans is criticizing Tickner’s use of standpoint theory; or,

Steans could be arguing against standpoint theory in general since it hinders the

parsimonious theory building of traditional IR. Situated in postmodernism,

standpoint theory argues that there actually is value in individuals’ varying

perspectives from their lived experiences. This theory was influential in the

development of Black feminism and intersectional feminist theories. The correct

use of standpoint feminism would work against hegemonic discourse, and

decentering mainstream IR and the masculinities that uphold it is the starting point

for all of feminist international relations literature. The use of standpoint theory and

feminisms derived from this theory would be to contest traditional IR’s theories of

the world and to call into question all of the politics and policies that have risen out

of these models, norms, and previously unopposed ways of thinking.

Thematic Category 4: Problematizing Development

In acknowledging the sociocultural roots of IR, many of the authors

highlighted how this frame extended to the ideas of international economic

development, modernization and globalization. This is particularly important as

development and human rights tends to be one of the larger areas in which

“universalism” takes place. In speaking of development and the western ideals of

man’s dominance over nature, Tickner calls development a “project” that is

“imposed” on non-western countries. The use of these two words is a claim that

“development” is being done to countries and people (rather than with them).

Extract 28:

“Rooted in Western cultural traditions, [development] has been

imposed on other

cultures as part of the Western project of domination” (Tickner,

1992, p. 123).

Extract 29:

“Whether it is ‘development’ that needs problematizing and

challenging. This latter is especially so for those who critique

development within patterns of global domination and

subordination.” (Pettman, 1996, p. 176).

Extract 30:

“In the twentieth century [development] was overlaid by the

mantra of modernization—a bourgeois-rational practice that has

replaced religious conversion as the key Westernizing tool”

(Hooper, 2001, p. 97).

The use of the word “project” also implies that not only is there a desired outcome,

but presumably, that one would know what said outcome looks like. Preconceived

ideas have created measures of development that are based upon western values

and a western image of what makes a country “developed.” These concepts can be

seen in many current debates, such as what is considered a developed political

system (i.e. democracy); what is considered appropriate political values (ex.

secularism); what is considered a developed economic system (ex. Capitalism, free

markets). Progressing through the literature, the texts continue to echo these

sentiments.

Extract 31:

“Ideas about what constitutes development, and policies

ostensibly [emphasis added] designed to achieve modernization,

are conditions by dominant ideologies that assume that the

western experience provides the model for the ‘developing’

world. The production of knowledge about ‘development’ is

itself a historical process that is conditioned by the socio-

political, economic and cultural contest in which it takes place.

Historically, ‘development’ has been driven by dominant western

perceptions of the needs and circumstances of people in

‘underdeveloped’ countries” (Steans 88).

Extract 32:

“…the global North continues to exploit the global South through

less direct and different manipulated forms of ‘neocolonial’ or

‘neoimperial’ rule. Most recently,

‘neoliberal governmentality,’ or the marketization of all life, has

been put forward

as the current form of neoimperalism” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010,

p. 34).

Aggregating the language from Tickner, Hooper, and Runyan and

Peterson,

the use of the words “project” and “tool” denote that development is being used

with a particular aim, and furthermore, this aim may be ambiguous and malevolent,

rather than the benign, simple goal of “bettering” human lives.

These feminist IR texts are attempting to “problematize” development using

conversations, figured worlds, and situated meanings. Feminist IR scholars are

bringing to the forefront the “subaltern” or “oppositional” discourse on how

development has been practiced. In this practice, “development” has—at various

times also meant “westernization.” Some feminist scholars, theorists, and activists

claim that the oppression of women has been co-opted into ideas of development

and have been used to create images that are a mis-representation of non-western

women. It is in the objectives of development and liberation that we often find the

characterization of Mohanty’s “third world woman.”

In the literature, the authors subverted images of the “Third World woman”

by attempting to disrupt those of women in the “First World,” showing that

development and progress in western countries was not universal and that not all

women or communities have been included.

Extract 33:

“Just as many African Americans are ghettoized in urban slums

in the United States, other marginalized peoples are subject to

arbitrary boundaries that wall off areas of environmental stress.

Native Americans have been placed on some of the worst rural

land in the United States, just as South African blacks have been

relegated to overcrowded, resource-scarce townships” (Tickner,

1992, p. 116).

Extract 34:

“These struggles make many faces, stand on many borderlands of

eagles and serpents, and homestead each other with many

strategies. Some simultaneous struggles are relatively easy to

see, as in South Africa, where efforts to homestead the acrid

terrain of apartheid move in cross-cutting directions; there are

similar struggles, it seems in Peru, erstwhile Yugoslavia, Liberia,

Canada, Angola” (Sylvester, 1994, p. 183).

Extract 35:

“There is an unstable hierarchy of difference, as, for example, ex-

East Germans occupy an ethnicities category as different and

inferior to their West German cocitizens. So Irish people in the

UK also experience racialization for certain purpose, in

stereotypical difference and at tie danger through association

with ‘terrorism.’ But they do not routinely experience the ‘at-

sight’ racism that black and other ‘visible’ minorities do just

walking down the street” (Pettman, 1996, p. 73).

Extract 36:

“Significantly European feminists also cited the problems of

racism in Europe, noting that women of colour in the region were

particular affected by global restructuring processes and made a

massive contribution to unwaged and low-waged work” (Steans

131).

Extract 37:

“Religious beliefs interact with and may reinforce other cultural

sources of gender stereotyping. This is generally the case in

regard to identifying the home/family as women’s sphere and the

public/politics as man’s sphere. It can also be quite explicit, as in

the seclusion of women practiced in many Islamic countries or in

Western ones where neoconservative politics (sometimes

inspired by Christian fundamentalism) seek to return women to

the home and reconstructed patriarchal and heteronormative

families” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p. 118).

In light of these critiques, a necessary distinction should be made. Development

and globalization are not interchangeable terms or concepts. Neither are the various

models of development that have different meanings, such as industrialization,

modernization, urbanization, human development, sustainable development (some

of which are now considered passé). Development literature has gone through its

own evolution in discourse and methodologies. While feminist IR critiques many

of these practices as having been born out of “western” sociopolitical and economic

thought, development literature has increasingly attempted to stray away from “top-

down,” ethnocentric approaches. This research will only look at a small sample of

development policy texts, but it should be noted that both academic and

development policy experts exercise caution on issues that may be linked to

universalism.

Thematic Category 5: Civil Society, Women’s Movements and Lived Experiences

Due to international relations being concerned with “high politics,” there was

also a focus on women’s lived experiences and day-to-day lives. The influences of

women were found in women’s movements at local levels, and if these had a high-

level of mobilization, were part of the civil society that informed multilateral policy

at institutions such as the United Nations. This is particularly important because a)

it speaks to women’s agency in “non-western” countries; and b) it indicates that

these women were not waiting to be rescued or saved. It was a matter of their

stories not being told.

Extract 38:

“When women have been politically effective, it has generally

been at the local level. Increasingly, women around the world are

taking leadership roles in small-scale development projects…”

(Tickner, 1992, p. 142)

Extract 39:

“It [the book] seeks ways to look at the world that can

incorporate women’s experiences and make visible the gender

politics of its construction and reproduction. It disrupts IR by

telling other stories, stories inscribed upon the bodies of real

women, across borders and time, which speak also of resistance,

action, and inevitably, change” (Pettman, 1996, p. 214).

Extract 40:

“The Indian Forum against the Oppression of Women called a

national meeting on rape in Bombay in 1990” (Pettman, 1996, p.

210).

“The international network Women Living Under Muslim Laws

(WLUML) was

formed in response to several events in 1984” (Pettman, 1996,

p. 81).

Extract 41:

“Women Living Under Muslim Laws, which now is a board

transnational network of feminists in countries as diverse as

Egypt, Sudan, Bosnia, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Malaysia, has been

sharply critical of any nationalist discourse used to deny

women’s rights or to limit women’s public organizing” (Enloe,

2014, p. 94).

Recounting these movements served as creating figured worlds for non-western

women whose stories had been made invisible. The incorporation of women’s

experiences in Enloe’s book was an example of social languages. Her entire book

was a retelling of international relations through the eyes of women in their day-to-

day lives. The language of the book was closer to “storytelling” as opposed to

“traditional,” academic, theoretical language. Enloe used her situated position of

power in academia to tell these stories. The book recounted and recovered stories

of women’s activism and influence on global, local, and personal levels. This is

further evidenced by her introduction and continual use of the phrase “feminist

investigation.” “Investigate” does not simply mean research or analysis, but

indicates there is something of importance that is

“hidden” and needs to be uncovered/discovered.

Extract 42:

“But a feminist-informed investigation makes it clear that there are

far more women engaged in international politics than the

conventional headlines imply.” (Enloe,

2014, p. 5).

Incorporating discourse on women’s movements, one must also talk about

solidarity and coalition-building across different cultures and societies. While all of

the literature repeatedly acknowledged the importance of difference, as years

progressed, and with the introduction of intersectionality, the notion of difference

was expanded upon. The inclusion of multiple oppressions as it relates to power led

to questions of methods and approaches to bridging these differences. In other

words, it is one thing to acknowledge difference, it is another to realize the

magnitude of that difference. Discussing challenges of the

academic/theoretical/political/daily issues of solidarity and coalition-building

showed an evolution in discourse and understanding of the positions of power

between women.

Extract 43:

“Discussions of the meaning of security revealed divisions

between Western middleclass women’s concerns with nuclear

war…and Third World women who defined insecurity more

broadly in terms of the structural violence associated with

imperialism, militarism, racism, and sexism. Yet all agreed that

security meant

nothing if it was built on others’ insecurity” (Tickner, 1992, pp.

54-55).

Extract 44:

“The divisions among women at international conferences are

reminders that by no means are all women’s politics feminist; and

that feminists from different locations in terms of both global

power and political beliefs struggle to assert their own

understandings and goals” (Pettman, 1996, p. 183)

Extract 45:

“The recognition that earlier feminist theory was middle-class,

heterosexist, and Eurocentric has forced the issue of differences

between women to the center of feminist debates” (Hooper, 2001,

p. 36).

Extract 46:

“The feminist and/or women’s movement must resist the notion

that political strategies entailed the mobilization of a

homogenous group with a common interest in realizing common

goals. Since gender relations were embedded in a wider power

relations, the objectives and strategies of feminism were

intertwined with very different cultural and socio-political

conditions” (Steans 103).

Extract 47:

“Solidarity is then seen as flowing ‘naturally’ from shared

experiences and interest rather than something that needs to be

developed through political dialogue and action. As a result,

more-privileged women end up speaking for less-privileged ones

not only as if women’s perspective were interchangeable, but

also under the even more insidious assumption that Western

women, in particular, are more ‘liberated’ than others and thus

should lead—rather than listen—and for ‘the’ path for ‘other’

sisters” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p. 235).

Extract 48:

“At the same time, there is worry that transnational feminism risk being

reduced to

‘the romanticization of Third World activism in the global arena’

and limits ‘transnational solidarity to Third World women works

across the First/Third World divide,’ there ‘becoming the ‘other’

to western white feminism” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p. 238).

The understanding of intersectionality was further served by an awareness that

one can be both an “insider” and an “outsider” simultaneously. Breaking away

from the dichotomous thought of either/or identities gives a more complex,

nuanced (and more accurate) view of positions of power.

In further recognizing the plurality of women (and people in general),

intersectionality also means there are no clear demarcations within or between

different societies, cultures, and individuals. As the literature progressed there

was a development in the presentation and understanding of insider/outsider

identities of women around the world, particularly those of women in feminist

movements.

Extract 49:

“There, too, nationality, class and race came through in complex

configurations. The very large US contingent included a number

of African-Americans, whose claims to share more with their

African than their white US sisters were often rebuffed by

African women, while socialist feminist exiles from Iran, for

example, had little in common with the Iranian state-sponsored

women’s delegation” (Pettman, 1996, p.

183).

Extract 50:

“A woman who becomes politicized through nationalism is more

likely to see a man from her community as sharing a common

destiny than she is to see women from another community as

having a shared future, especially if those women, no matter

what their politics, come from a community that has treated her

own with derision”

(Enloe, 2014, p. 119).

Extract 51:

“In her ‘Reflections on US Women of Colour’ at the [Beijing]

conference, Mallika Dutt recorded how all US women of colour

were regarded as ‘American’ by women form the South and how

‘Americans’ were, in turn, perceived to be ‘arrogant, insensitive

and imperialist’. Whereas women of colour generally saw

themselves as ‘oppositional forces’ in the US, they were now

compelled to confront the role of the

US as ‘aggressor and violator of women’s human rights’… and

increasing levels of poverty among women in developing countries”

(Steans 129).

The insider/outsider identity also extends itself to the idea of complicity and

nuanced power, particularly when talking about women and elites.

The discussion of complicity was important in many of the texts,

particularly those that expanded upon intersectionality. Varying positions of

power mean that some people, even women, can benefit from an engendered,

socioeconomic system; and, because of these benefits, they may prop up a

problematic system, passively and actively.

Extract 52:

“Socialist feminist can also help us to identify cases of western

feminist participation in ‘foreign’ oppression” (Sylvester, 1994, p.

64).

Extract 53:

“…while elites and knowledge producers are heavily implicated

in the production of hegemonic masculinity, masculinism is not a

conspiracy of elites. Rather, it is endemic at all levels of society

as different groups and interests jockey for position in

micronetworks of power relations” (Hooper, 2001, p. 57).

Extract 54:

“Though, even recognizing that one is not part of any elite,

acknowledging oneself as an international actor can be unnerving.

One discovers that one is often complicit

in creating the very world that one finds so dismaying” (Enloe,

2014, p. 35).

Extract 55:

“…feminist ‘outsiders’ have questioned to whom femocrats are

really accountable (typically governments rather than women’s

movements), how they can effectively represent diverse women

(as they are largely elite women), and what women’s issues they

tend to advocate” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p. 127).

Extract 56:

“Recognizing that we are never ‘outside’ of the system we

critique means that no perspective can avoid complicity or claim

innocence. The choice is not about whether we participate in the

institutional practices constituting our life worlds but only how,

in what ways, with what effects? Do we take paths of least

resistance that inexorably reproduce world-politics-as-usual, or

attempt to be critically aware of structural violence and wary of

too-easy analyses and quick fixes? What have we learned that

might help us construct, however, provisionally, forms of

antiimperialist feminism that avoid appropriations and

impositions?” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p. 246)

The concept of complicity also links to the notion and discussion of reflexivity,

particular in terms of scholarly research. As outlined in the literature review,

reflexivity is an incredibly important concept in feminist theory. It posits that one

should always be attentive to the complexities of their identity and where it is

situated in systems of power. Furthermore, in keeping true to feminist

methodology and research practices, some of the authors acknowledged their own

positions of power.

Extract 57:

“Privileged individuals are not to blame for (inherited)

institutional hierarchies; but the privileged in every hierarchy

have greater power and therefore greater responsibility for

transforming those and related hierarchies… Our objective here

is to increase awareness of these opaque issues and promote less

unintentional participation in reproducing inequalities and

structural oppressions, that is, taking paths of least resistance,

when these are actually part of the problem” (Runyan &

Peterson, 2010, p. 59).

Extract 58:

“These debates inform this attempt at worlding women—moving

beyond white western power centres and their dominant

knowledges, while recognizing that I, as a white settler-state

woman, need to attend to differences between women, too”

(Pettman, 1996, p. x).

Sylvester refers to her life experiences and situated identity as a “dynamic

objectivity” (p. 18).

Extract 59:

“It is important to provide a context for one’s work in the often-

denied politics of the personal; because, in a postmodern era, we

simply cannot take refuge in our previous certainties of objective

vision” (Sylvester, 1994, p. 17).

The last three themes on identity (insider/outsider, reflexivity, and complicity),

intertwine with each other. They are different ways to recognize the complex

structures of power in an engendered international system. Locating one’s identity

within this system is a key step in mediating and navigating one’s own position of

power; which, in turn, helps to fight against (re)producing hegemony.

Hegemonic discourse, however, was continually present in the use of

westernoriginating, dichotomous language. The language is relational,

hierarchical, and by its use/definition privileges the western world. The authors

attempted to navigate this language— some more successfully than others—but it

becomes evident that the current language is insufficient.

Thematic Category 6: Hierarchical Dualisms and Flat Earth Language

Perhaps the greatest shift (and pitfall) in language was the use of

dichotomies developed within “western” IR. The discipline developed descriptive

language that “cut” the world in two based upon “masculine” and “feminine”

characteristics imposed upon each dualism rooted in the sociocultural logic at the

foundations of IR (Figure 2). There is a feminization of the “other” and those

characteristics associated with masculinity are considered to be best.

“Dichotomized thinking is both habitual and political: Its structure

constitutes…not simply a different category (A and B)…but a

relationship of hierarchical opposition (A and not-A); it thus reproduces

either-or thinking and privileges some qualities and interest over others.

Much is at stake, and it takes a great deal of power to maintain

categorical boundaries…” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p. 69).

Hierarchal Dichotomies of Mainstream International Relations

MASCULINIZED FEMINIZED

First World Third World

Developed Developing

Over-developed Under-developed

(Global) North (Global) South

West(ern) Non-west(ern)

West East

Occident/al(ism) Orient/al(ism)

Looking at the use and navigation of these dichotomies was of particular

interest because it is incredibly pervasive. Even as some of the scholars

acknowledged the issues of dichotomous language, such language would still be in

use throughout their texts. It was the most egregious example of figured worlds

and situated meanings in (re)producing of mainstream IR knowledge.

Extract 60:

“Like women, foreigners are frequently portrayed as ‘the other’:

nonwhites and tropical countries are often depicted as irrational,

emotional, and unstable, characters that are also attributed to

women. The construction of this discourse and the way in which

we are taught to think about international politics closely parallel

the way in which we are socialized into understanding gender

differences” (Tickner, 1992, p. 9).

Extract 61:

“The militarization of the South, with weapons sold or given by

the North..” (Tickner, 1992, p. 20).

“…by the year 2000, 80 percent of the world’s population will

live in the south, we in the West…” (Tickner, 1992, p. 20).

“…and Third World women who defined insecurity more

broadly…” (Tickner,

1992, p. 54).

Furthermore, Pettman acknowledges issues of the masculine/feminine dichotomy

and the need for heterogeneity:

Extract 62:

“…our understanding of gender signifies relations of power… In

Western culture, these concepts take the form of fixed binary

oppositions that categorically assert the meaning of masculine

and feminine and hence legitimize a set of unequal social

relations” (Pettman, 1996, p. 8).

Extract 63:

“Neither are all third-world women poor… Nor are all women in

the first world middle class or white. This cautions us against

any easy reproduction of firstworld/third-world difference, and

especially against reproducing ‘third-world woman’ as passive

victim” (Pettman, 1996, p. 183).

“Through international networks and conferences, ‘third-world

women’ have become visible, and claimed a voice, or rather,

many voices” (Pettman, 1996, p.

183).

Yet, we also see the usage of this dichotomous (and homogenizing) language:

Extract 64:

“this group includes significant numbers of third-world

women…” (Pettman, 1996, p. 114).

“Many third-world women pursue a wider agenda…” (Pettman,

1996, p. 114).

“Early UN women’s conferences…were marked by

first-world/third-world rifts” (Pettman, 1996, p. 183).

Steans also pays attention to hegemonic language and the knowledge/power nexus:

Extract 65:

“Within the academy, certain forms of knowledge are

institutionalized and valorized… Academic disciplines develop

theoretical and analytical frameworks, generate concepts,

construct categories and develop theories about the world and

how it works” (Steans 134).

Yet, again, dichotomous language (which is a result of hegemonic discourse) is

used throughout

Steans’ text:

Extract 66:

“Through the developing word… (Steans 89)”

“Many Third World states…” (Steans 88)

“…the UN could not avoid becoming embroiled in the East-West and

North-South conflicts” (Steans 96).

“…since gender issues now received low priority among Third World

elites…”

(Steans 97).

Some scholars used this language while applying quotations (much like in the use

of “women”), as an attempt to mediate the issues with dichotomous, hierarchical

language. In the section,

“Mapping the Book,” Peterson and Runyan use conceptualization as a tool to

subvert dichotomies and hegemonic language.

67:

“We instead use, where possible, the terms ‘global South’ and

‘global North’ to denote social locations of subjugation and

privilege respectively. At times we invoke the global North or

North or the global South or South to refer to the geographic

locations associated with First and Third worlds, but at other

times, we mean to include nonprivileged groups in both the

geographical south and North when we refer to the global South.

We also remind readers that there are elites in the South

who share the privileges of the global North” (Runyan &

Peterson, 2010, p. 34).

The authors were very careful in their use of language and use of terms heavily

rooted in specific cultural contexts.

Extract 68:

“We most often use ‘sexual minorities’ to signify individuals and

groups who contest or do not conform to heteronormativity.

Although ‘LGBTQ’ can capture an array of sexual minority

identifications, we note here that … these Westernoriginating

terms are less widely circulated elsewhere…” (Runyan &

Peterson,

2010, p. 33).

Hooper is also interesting in that her usage of the term “developing” is limited and

used only when she begins her content analysis on The Economist magazine.

Extract 69:

“There is a dilemma here for feminists, of whether to try and

avoid masculinist language but risk not being taken seriously…or

whether to make strategic use of it to gain credibility for feminist

arguments (or otherwise subvert it for feminist ends), and

perhaps risk compromising one’s own feminist message…While

a playful approach to academic language could be seen as

subversive, unfortunately this too can have masculinist

connotations. Thus my own use of language can at times mirror

the ironic, journalistic tone characteristic of The Economist,

which I criticize.”

(Hooper, 2001, p. 10)

Another way the authors navigated and mediated the use of dichotomous

language was to repeatedly recall the structural inequalities of the international

system, particularly when using the terms “Third World,” “developing,” or

“underdeveloped.” This is an attempt to point out that the supposed peoples and

countries represented in these terms are not the bottom part of the hierarchy by

coincidence.

Extract 70:

“…the growth and wealth of the former directly dependent on and

generated by the underdevelopment of the latter. No part of the

world is unaffected by the growth of the world market” (Pettman,

1996, p. 164).

Extract 71:

“Consider, for example, that through a more significant embrace

of quotas, women in the global South are gaining greater access

to position of formal power than in some of the most ‘developed’

states. At the same time, even the most privileged Western

women are subject to (economically motivated) cultural beauty

stands and to achieve these involves bodily harm. And these

women are just as subject to

domestic violence as women elsewhere” (Runyan & Peterson,

2010, p. 236).

Extract 72:

“…this exercise would reveal the disproportionate and, to a large

extent, irresponsible consumption of resources on the part of the

global minority/North that

so exacerbates resource depletion” (Runyan & Peterson, 2010, p.

97).

These sorts of comparisons and juxtapositions show the full relationship of the

hierarchy with two distinctions. First, as masculinity is always in flux and defines

itself by the feminine (and vice versa), so goes the same for these dualisms. There

would be no First World without the Third World; there is no Global North

without the Global South. These are not objective models or “truths” about the

world. These ways of thought are promulgated by the asymmetric

knowledge/power nexus in international relations and global politics. Second, the

particular use of “global minority/North” shows another distinct issue with these

dichotomies and dualisms: the issue of being equally halved. This is a complete

distortion and shows the politics of language and how it can be used to redistribute

or withhold social goods. The vast majority of the world’s population lives in the

developing world and non-western societies. Thus, a minority part of society is

responsible for promulgating norms and language through an international system

created by them. Furthermore, taking into account the specific use by Runyan and

Peterson, it becomes disturbingly problematic that a minority population is

responsible for the control and use of global resources. Non-western scholars have

actually proposed terms that disrupt this discourse such as “one third world/two

thirds world” (Mohanty, 2003; Esteva & Prakash, 1998), which directly challenges

the misrepresentation in this “halved” relationship.

The use of these dualisms was the largest and most concerning; yet, it is the issue

(arguably) the least culpability. “It is very difficult to transcend dichotomous

thinking altogether since we are limited to some extent by the structures of the

language we have inherited”

(Hooper, 2001, p. 52). And, as Peterson and Runyan argued: dichotomized

thinking is habitual. Consequently, this presents the paradox of (simultaneously)

challenging and entrenching hegemonic language. As stated earlier, the periodic

use of quotations was a method to navigate and mitigate these issues, but it does

not decenter this discourse. Enloe’s avoidance of these dualisms could also be

attributed to the story-telling nature and purpose of her book; whereas, the rest of

the texts were theoretical and/or attempting to give an overview and introduction

of feminism, gender, and IR. The nature of this latter purpose requires a certain

level of generalization or abstraction, which leads to homogenization. The irony

lies in the fact that in these same texts, the scholars also warned against the nature

of theory building because it potentially leads to “dangerous” levels of abstraction

and homogenization. So, this could be seen as a double-bind that may be inherent

to academic discourse.

CONCLUSION

How do these themes/categories and tools of inquiry work together to depict

the images of marginalized women and women in the developing world? Putting

these together with the seven building tasks, we can gather how feminist

International Relations literature has constructed and deconstructed the idea of the

“third world women” and disrupted stereotypes and preconceived images of

women around the world.

The basic task of dismantling and decentering the current theoretical

paradigms of mainstream IR by challenging its “western” origins served as the

foundation to call into question the supposed objectivity of knowledge developed

within the boundaries of this discipline (Sign Systems, and Knowledge). This

ultimately leads to deconstruction of the masculinities, and consequently, the

femininities derived from mainstream IR, which challenges the universalism of its

principles. These principles are the basis under which knowledge is disseminated

within the field and they dominate the ways in which we think about the world.

Thus, to deconstruct and challenge these principles then “problematizes” all of the

concepts and practices derived from them. When considering how feminist IR

challenged and problematized development, this served as the basis for the

building tasks of practices and politics. While international relations and the

international system advocate for development as benevolent, in practice, this

concept has been enacted (at times) with various self-interested outcomes by those

in positions of power.

Tickner pointedly referred to development as a “western project” and other

theorists critiqued the western frame of development models and practices.

Furthermore, if one thinks about the politics of development, this concept is

complexly used to withhold social goods such as foreign aid or development

assistance.

The buildings tasks of relationships, identities, and connections are closely

intertwined and dependent upon each other, especially in feminist IR. The

literature also challenged, developed, and weaved together the various aspects of

identity of women around the world. Challenging the views of women in the

developing world also involved challenging how women in the developed world

view their own status and position. Take, for example, the concepts of complicity

and insider/outsider identities. The feminist IR literature strongly asserted that

through actions such as underpaid household labor or unfair labor practices used to

produce globally-shipped goods (e.g. buying items produced in sweatshops)

women have participated in aspects of patriarchy that disadvantage others. Another

example is “femocrats” or women in power who condone—or even advocate—

certain policies that are steeped in hegemonic masculinity, such as war. These are

women that have upheld certain aspects of patriarchy because it is beneficial to

maintaining their own power. Thus, it forces women in the developed world to

think about their relationship and connection to their counterparts in developing

countries, particularly in ways that do not create them as abstract figures. If these

women are oppressed, if they are “third world”; if they are disadvantaged, then,

those in the “first world” are not disconnected from their position. This oppression

did not—and does not—happen by coincidence. Women in the First

World/developed countries/Global North bear some responsibility, whether

implicitly or explicitly, in maintaining the disadvantaged social status of those

outside the west.

Furthermore, an interesting aspect of this analysis of feminist IR literature

was not in how these pieces talked about women in developing countries or the

“Third World,” but in how these women weren’t spoken about. Not in terms of

making them invisible, but in not attempting to describe them; not attempting to

speak for them, but straying away from one-dimensional or homogenized views of

their lives. It seemed that the goal was simply to “trouble” the existing images and

ways in which we think about these women and their lives. The task was not

necessarily to describe, but instead, to deconstruct. Perhaps, this was a method to

counter existing, problematic narratives, but without co-opting the stories of

marginalized women for scholarly purposes.

The previously identified themes and categories will be carried forward to

the second part of the discourse analysis on policy literature. The purpose of the

next chapter is to see if any of these objects in feminist IR literature have

influenced and/or appear in the discourse of international women’s development

policy.

Summary

When looking at the overall discourse of feminist IR literature, the not only

stresses the idea of adding women to IR, but which women are added and whose

voices are heard. This is disruptive to the discipline because of its agendered

assumptions. The texts repeatedly and purposefully situate gender and international

relations within a western context, to serve as a reminder that the international

system has a specific sociocultural frame. This creates situated identities within

this frame that may have been imposed upon individuals, particularly women in the

“Third World”/ “Developing” world/ “Global South.” By giving examples of

women’s agency, particularly in reference to women’s movements and civil

society, it serves to uncover and build an image of these women separate from

“western” created concepts. Often, images of marginalized individuals are depicted

in relation to those in power, highlighting the (hierarchical) differences. Telling a

plurality of stories decenters the singular frame in which one can see the world.

Despite these attempts at disruption, the use of dichotomies shows the power

of language and that one can only exist so far “outside the system” (even when

aware of its pitfalls). This “discursive slippage” is a result of unconscious, habitual,

and inherited language (Hooper, 2001; Runyan & Peterson, 2010). The continued

use of western-imposed, hierarchical dichotomies means that uncovering new ways

to view international relations requires new language to speak about international

relations. Otherwise, feminist IR will disrupt discourse in one context, while

entrenching it in another.

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF POLICY LITERATUE

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS PART II

The second part of this discourse analysis incorporates women’s

development policy literature, looking for the ways in which the identities of

women in the developing world are discussed and constructed in these works, and,

how this compares to the feminist IR literature in terms of its discourse on

marginalized women. To aid the comparison of discourse, the policy literature was

selected from a 20-year timeframe, 1995-2015, approximately corresponding with

the time period of the feminist IR literature.

While the majority of this chapter will be spent comparing the discourse

between policy and academic literature (as that is the ultimate goal of the study),

the first section will briefly review the policy literature itself. The following

sections focus on the longitudinal analysis and will be organized into thematic

sections detailing the emerging themes and categories. Again,

Gee’s tools of inquiry will be used to analyze how language is used to create the

different images of women around the world. The previously identified themes and

categories from Chapter 2 will be used in this analysis (although not necessarily in

the same order):

1. Sociocultural Underpinnings of IR

2. Masculinities and Femininities

3. Feminist Theory, Feminisms, Intersectionality

4. Problematizing Development

5. Civil Society, Women’s Movements and Lived Experiences

6. Hierarchical Dualisms and Flat Earth Language

Additionally, the analysis will also look for any themes and categories unique to

the policy literature itself. Finally, the chapter will conclude with a summary of the

findings and, again, apply the seven building tasks.

WOMEN’S DEVELOPMENT POLICY LITERATURE: AN OVERVIEW

Unlike the various authors covered in the feminist IR literature, the policy

pieces were selected from United Nations development agencies. This is an

important distinction for two reasons. First, as the research is concerned with the

possibility of “epistemic blank spots” the nature of the authors is of great

significance. The United Nations is a global community of experts who research

and write on international politics and development. So, one would expect that

epistemic blank spots in relation to western norms would be minimal. Second, the

nature and purpose—and even audience—of UN research and reports remains

relatively constant.

Therefore, any discursive shift is minimal, but some does exist.

For this study, one of the most interesting, and very direct, changes in

discourse was when the policy literature on gender switched from being authored

by a general development agency (UNDP 1995) to UNIFEM (2000) agency which

specialized in women’s development.

While the UNDP does have a gender component to its research, UNIFEM (now

UN Women) is considered to be the main gender-based development agency of the

United Nations.

Extract 73:

“Women still constitute 70% of the world's poor and two thirds

of the world's illiterates.” – UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg.iii

This figure was repeated again on page 36 of the 1995 Human Development

Report. Apparently, however, this figure is inaccurate and/or unfounded.

According to the 2000 UNIFEM Progress of the World’s Women Report:

Extract 74:

“None of the indicators commonly used to track the incidence

and severity of income poverty are gender-sensitive. Raw data is

available in household surveys that could be used to calculate

how many women are below the poverty line, as compared to the

number of men (‘gender poverty ratios’). It should be a priority

to make these calculations, since the widely quoted estimate that

70 per cent of the poor are women

has no firm foundation [emphasis added].” – UNIFEM Progress

Report (2000) pg.12

For emphasis, this claim is repeated again later in the report:

Extract 75:

“Without a gender-sensitive income-poverty indicator there is no

way of estimating the extent of feminization of poverty —

leading to the use of global “guesstimates” such as the much-

repeated claim that 70 per cent of the world’s poor are women.

No one can identify the empirical evidence on which this claim is

based, and demographic analysis has shown that it is not

credible. [emphasis added].” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000)

pg.95

Upon conducting a second review of the 1995 Human Development Report, the

inability to quantify the “feminization of poverty” called into question some of the

language in their report. Some of the discourse appeared to portray a more destitute

image of women, particularly those in the developing world, considering some of

the discourse was directly linked to the 70 percent estimate.

Extract 76:

“Poverty has a woman's face—of 1.3 billion people in poverty,

70% are women.” – UNDP Human Development Report (1995)

pg.4

Extract 77:

“And the threat of violence stalks their lives from cradle to

grave.” – UNDP Human Development Report (1995) pg.iii

Extract 78:

“The most painful devaluation of women is the physical and

psychological violence that stalks them from cradle to grave. For

too many women, life is shadowed by a

threat of violence.” – UNDP Human Development Report (1995)

pg.7

Extract 79:

“Life choices are expanding as women are progressively

liberated from the burden of frequent child-bearing and from the

risk of dying in childbirth [emphasis added].” – UNDP Human

Development Report (1995) pg.3

Extract 80:

“Of the estimated 1.3 billion people living in poverty, more than

70% are female. This feminization of poverty is the tragic

consequence of women's unequal access to economic

opportunities. And it is getting worse. The number of rural

women living in absolute poverty rose by nearly 50% over the

past two decades. Increasingly, poverty has a woman's face.” –

UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg.36

Extract 81:

“Women's special health needs suffer considerable neglect…

Nearly half a million maternal deaths occur each year in

developing countries. Too often, the miracle of life becomes a

nightmare of death [emphasis added].” – UNDP Human

Development Report (1995) pg.46

It is not to say that UNIFEM reports were absent of such extreme language, but it

was reserved for especially violent situations, such as the use of rape in conflict:

Extract 82:

“Many of these trends, including environmental degradation,

armed conflict and widespread violence and increasing inequality

between and within nations — have the potential to undermine

human rights and dignity, turning people into bodies to be

violated, vessels to be used to preserve one or another ideology.

[emphasis added].” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.16

Of the UNIFEM/UN Women literature studied, no extreme language appears again

after the 1995 report. Many of the phrases are striking not only due to their

language, but emphasis is placed on them due to the standardized structure of UN

reports. After the Foreword, there is an Overview/Summary section which pulls

out the highlights of each chapter. Thus, the strongest phrases and statistics are

given at least twice (if they are not repeated again in the Conclusion chapter).

Meaning, this extreme language could potentially make a greater impact through

repetition. While it could also be argued that the language may be extreme to call

attention to deplorable situations—and even shame the international community

into action—given that women in the developing world already have to deal with

the singular narrative of living destitute lives, this extreme language entrenches

this solemn narrative.

This is not to say that the Human Development Report does not show

examples of women’s agency. On the contrary it has many examples of women’s

involvement in civil society, the formation of women’s movements, and

participation in politics.

Extract 83:

“Japanese women, far from the stereotypical image, are a social

force in many areas.” – UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg.44

In a textbox excerpt titled “Women and Girls are Kenya’s Breadwinners” the

report states:

Extract 84:

“But girls, not boys, are the ‘breadwinners’ for the family-

spending 10 times the hours of boys in work outside the

household.” – UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg.44

Or, another textbox example on women’s political participation in Cuba, titled

“Revolution within a Revolution,” shows the long history of activism by Cuban

woman:

Extract 85:

“Since the 1959 revolution, gender equality has been among

Cuba's highest priorities… The Federation of Cuban Women

created in 1960 to organize, educate and mobilize women from

all parts of Cuban society-has grown from 400,000 members in

1962 to 3.2 million in 1990.” – UNDP Human Development

Report

(1995) pg.44

However, when looking at the reports by UNIFEM, which later becomes UN

Women in 2010, it is clear that there is an emphasis on trying to accurately

represent the inequality of women but also their capacity, agency, and

resourcefulness. For example, contrast the following example from the 2005

UNIFEM report with the 1995 Human Development Report phrase “poverty has

the face of a woman”:

Extract 86:

“The working poor are both men and women. However, the

further down the chain of quality and security, the more women

you find. Yet it is their work…that holds

families and communities together.” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2005) pg.6

The language presents the gender disparity while also highlighting the resiliency

and importance of women in their communities. Even the discourse surrounding

the “feminization of poverty” is

slightly different:

Extract 87:

“A parallel observation is that the burden of poverty borne by

women, especially in developing countries, is different from that

of men, a phenomenon often referred to as the feminization of

poverty. During the UN Decade for Women (1975- 1985)

researchers and advocates drew attention to the disadvantaged

position of women economically and socially, especially those in

female-headed households, and called for a gender perspective in

the whole field of poverty research.” – Progress (2005) pg.37

The social language of policy literature also has one important caveat; these

reports are akin to a “sales pitch.” The reports are repeated at the UN General

Assembly, at meetings with country officials, in civil society, and other high-level

events. The tone and statistics used in these reports help to determine funding for

the agencies and/or any individual development programs either from the UN,

individual countries, or commitment from the private sector. Furthermore, the

countries may use the reports to help update or develop domestic programs and

policies to further gender equality. Thus, the reports have to strike a balance

between showing the resilience and capabilities of women, while also showing the

disadvantages and consequences of persistent gender inequality. The feminist IR

literature also sought to strike this balance, however, not to the same degree. Given

that the feminist IR literature was not solely focused on development and

development policies, there was a greater ability to look at subject matter that did

not require discussing variations in socioeconomic status.

Finally, and perhaps one of the most important distinctions to be made is the

use of social language in policy papers and reports versus academic literature. The

language tends to be less theoretical and more straightforward. Less theory also

means less abstraction and homogenization. Throughout each of the texts are

numerous examples of action by civil society and women’s movements. These

examples are either in-text or highlighted text boxes, which bring special attention

to the specific example in focus. While these examples serve the same purpose as

those in the feminist IR literature (i.e. showing the agency and action of women in

developing countries), the sheer multitude of examples flesh out a deeper sense of

agency by these women. This will be further explored in a later section of this

chapter.

Furthermore, the language that could be categorized into the themes that

were present in feminist IR literature is different, but in many ways still invokes

the same meaning. Either certain subject matter is not discussed, or, the discourse

used is entirely different than that of the feminist IR literature. For example, a large

part of the discourse in the IR literature focused on masculinities/femininities and

the western frame of International Relations and global politics.

The policy literature focused on this in subtler ways—and ultimately—less

theoretical ways.

Extract 88:

“Neither public speaking, nor the ability to represent the opinions

of the electorate, nor the art of winning public confidence

requires exclusively masculine traits. But politics remains an

obstacle course for women.” – UNDP Human Development

Report (1995) pg.83

Extract 89:

“A complementary transformation of the domestic sector is

needed, so that men take on a larger share of the pains and

pleasures of unpaid care work, and construct new masculine

identities around the values of giving care and paying attention to

the personal needs of others.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000)

pg.49

“Recent studies in some more urbanized countries suggest that

cultural factors — such as prevalent cultural ideas of masculinity

— are encouraging boys to drop out at greater rates.” p.67

Extract 90:

“Stereotypes that define caregiving as quintessentially female

(and maternal) seem to be much harder to dislodge than those

around breadwinning, previously seen as a male domain.

Increasing numbers of women are adopting what are widely seen

as masculine lifestyles and patterns of work by engaging more

intensively in the labour market.” – UN Women Progress Report

(2015) pg.50

These excerpts discuss issues surrounding gender and stereotyping, however, in

much less theoretical ways (in comparison to the feminist IR texts). Gender theory

and deconstructing masculinities and femininities is important because it is

responsible for breaking down onedimensional images; however, such discussions

also get heavily bogged down in theory and the complex language associated with

it. Policy literature and discourse is meant to be more practical and accessible, and

these texts follow suit.

Along these same lines, the western frame and sociocultural roots of

International Relations is also approached differently. Instead of critiquing the

structure of the international system itself, policy approaches are often the focus of

analysis.

Extract 91:

“The starting point for this report is that all human beings, in

seeking to form and express their ideas and to preserve or to

change their current ways of living, find their lives shaped by

larger economic, social, political and cultural trends.” – UNIFEM

Progress Report (2000) pg.16

Extract 92:

“Development planners need to look at poverty from the

perspective of the working poor – especially women... Finally,

mainstream economists and others who advise policy makers

need to revisit their assumptions regarding how labour markets

are structured.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2005) pg.71

Extract 93:

“There is growing demand from gender equality advocates –

including those from national, bilateral and multilateral

institutions – for greater investments in gender equality at the

national level, but they are sorely in need of concentrated support

from powerful advocates in donor countries who focus on

accountability in development assistance policy and budgets.” –

UNIFEM Progress Report (2008) pg.97

Extract 94:

“Historical legacies also influence the scope for legal equality.

Countries that experienced communist rule often have gender-

equal family laws due to communist governments promoting

changes in women’s roles in order to encourage full employment

and to marginalize religion and traditional cultures. The legacy of

British colonialism, by contrast, has been to stymie reform by

creating multiple family laws on the basis of cultural identities of

the communities lumped together in post-colonial states. The

existence of plural legal systems based on cultural or religious

identity can pose particular challenges to women seeking

justice.” – UN Women Progress Report (2015) pg.31

Thus, thematic categories 1 and 2 (sociocultural roots of IR; masculinities and

femininities, respectively) from part one of the discourse analysis are rather muted

in policy literature. Aside from the straying of theory in favor of practicality, there

are potentially two additional reasons for this departure in discourse in regards to

theme 1, both concerning conflicts of interest.

First, one can assume that since the multilateral institutions and agencies that

dominate global politics and development are born out of western, sociocultural

roots, this is the reason they ultimately call less attention to the issue. While these

institutions have taken thoughtful consideration into diversity and inclusivity—and

make these concepts an important part of their missions—the largest organizations

were created in response to western interests and actions. The United Nations

(originally the League of Nations), the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade

Organization (previously the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) were all

started in response to the end of World War II. Given these beginnings and that

certain aspects of hegemony can be “habitual,” these multilateral institutions still

face some critiques of “ethnocentrism” and “universalism” in their policies and

discourse. Perhaps they do not wish to call attention to the “heritage of IR” and the

international system more than necessary because— at their core—these critiques

problematize the institutions’ very existence.

Second, a large part of the budgets of these agencies comes from donor

countries. Thus, wording and indictment of certain practices is not as strong as it is

in the feminist IR literature. Take, for example, the way in which the policy

literature discussed development. As discussed in the previous chapter, the

feminist IR literature offered some pointed critiques in describing development as

a “western project.” Such discourse is ultimately a problem for agencies whose

very purpose is development. So, how did the policy literature problematize

development? How did the literature, in essence, critique its own prior practices?

And, in what specific ways did this language differ from the discourse in the

feminist IR literature?

DISCURSIVE THEMES AND CATEGORIES

Thematic Category 3: Problematizing Development

What is “development?” Which problems should development policies

target? How should progress be measured? These are some of the questions that

have been—and continue to be—asked by academics, policy practitioners and

officials when addressing issues in development, including why it has been uneven

and slow. Since the Women in Development (WID) literature emerged in the

1970s (followed by the WID conferences), the development community has

reached consensus that solely focusing on economic development and fiscal

policies has proven insufficient in lifting communities out of poverty

(conversations). Since this time the development community has continually

sought to overcome its deficiencies in addressing and ameliorating the needs of the

most vulnerable and marginalized peoples, including women. Human

Development bridged these gaps.

The concept of “human development” was introduced in the early 1990s. It

is a multidimensional approach to development which centers people and considers

not only economic, but social and cultural progress when taking into account

development policies and measures. It is human development that also serves as a

foundation for the intersection of economic development and gender equality.

Beginning with the 1995 Human Development Report by the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), which specifically focused on gender, human

development policy literature has brought into focus how development policies

have or, more importantly have not benefited half of society. Human development

served as a method to integrate gender while adopting “gender neutral” language,

which highlights gender equality as a benefit for everyone, particularly

economically. While the notion that “gender equality benefits us all” is present in

feminist IR literature, it is not the focus the way it is in the women’s development

policy literature. Again, given the nature and purpose of policy literature, the

universal benefits of gender equality can be considered a “selling point” of their

reports and policy recommendations.

Extract 95:

“Human development is a process of enlarging the choices for all

people, not just for one part of society. Such a process becomes

unjust and discriminatory if most women are excluded from its

benefits. And the continuing exclusion of women from many

economic and political opportunities is a continuing indictment

of modern progress.” - UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg. 1

Extract 96:

“[Human development] eliminates the prevailing disparities

between men and women and creates an enabling environment

for the full flowering of the productive and creative potential of

both sexes.” - UNDP Human Development Report (1995) pg. 1

The report lists four links between human development and gender, noting:

Extract 97:

Fourth, empowering people-particularly women-is a sure way to

link growth and human development. If people can exercise their

choices in the political, social and economic spheres, there is a

good prospect that growth will be strong, democratic,

participatory and durable.” - UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg. 123

In the preface to the 2000 Progress Report, the Director of UNIFEM strongly

asserted in less gender-neutral terms that:

Extract 98:

“If globalization is to be pro-women and pro-poor [emphasis

added], it must be steered and shaped in accord with international

human rights conventions and the development consensus and

targets reached at various UN conferences.” – UNIFEM Progress

Report (2000) pg.5

Even when ending the preface, the Director manages to state that gender equality is

beneficial to all, but couches this sentiment in language that almost shames the

international community into action.

Extract 99:

“The stakes for women are high. Women want a world in which

inequality based on gender, class, caste and ethnicity is absent

from every country and from the relationships among countries.

Women want a world where fulfillment of basic needs becomes

basic rights and where poverty and all forms of violence are

eliminated. Where women’s unpaid work of nurturing, caring

and weaving the fabric of community will be valued and shared

equally by men. Where each person will have the opportunity to

develop her or his full potential and creativity. Where progress

for women is recognized as progress for all.” – UNIFEM

Progress Report

(2000) pg.6

These words go further in arguing that not only is human development good for

everyone, but that development should not be considered progress until it is

beneficial to everyone.

Furthermore, the concept of gender equality and human development also

served to highlight the sociocultural position of women in “developed” countries.

Gender equality has not been achieved in any country whether economically,

politically, socially, or culturally. Exposing and/or reiterating this truth disrupts the

figured worlds that have been constructed between women in developed and

developing countries.

Extract 100:

“In no society do women enjoy the same opportunities as men.” -UNDP

Human Development Report (1995) pg. 2 (Repeated again as a pull quote

on pg 29) 8

Extract 101:

“These achievements should be celebrated. But they should be

taken as a signal not that nothing more needs to be done in these

countries but that they are in a position

to adopt more demanding targets.” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2000) pg.80

Extract 102:

“Gender inequality in employment has multiple dimensions.

First, women are concentrated in more precarious forms of

employment in which earnings are low. In developed countries,

women comprise the majority of part-time and temporary

workers.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2005) pg.9

Extract 103:

“In seeking to understand why progress in women’s enjoyment

of their rights has been slow and uneven, this Report shares

experiences from women’s rights advocates and movements

around the world. Their struggles underline how persistent and

pervasive discriminatory social norms, stereotypes, stigma and

violence remain, holding back women and girls everywhere from

realizing their full potential.” – UN Women Progress Report

(2015) pg.9

Extract 104:

“Particularly in developed countries, there has been retrogression

in social and economic rights. Industries where men were

strongly represented— such as construction and finance—were

most severely affected by the crisis. As a result, the gender gap in

unemployment narrowed in the immediate aftermath of the crisis

through a process of levelling down: more men lost jobs than

women. However, where economic recovery is taking place—

for example in the United States of America (United States)—

men’s employment is recovering faster than women’s.” –

UN Women Progress Report (2015) pg.26

Extract 105:

“Gender gaps remain everywhere.” – UN Women Progress

Report (2015) pg.77

8 A pull quote is “a brief, attention-catching quotation, typically in a distinctive

typeface, taken from the main text of an article and used as a subheading or

graphic feature.”

The purpose of these excerpts is to show that women and development is not

simply a concept for the Global South/Third World/Developing world.

Consequently, this also problematizes these dualisms and hierarchal dichotomies

(situated meanings). The importance of development not stopping at GDP is

emphasized in a pull quote from the 1995 Human Development Report:

Extract 106:

“Growth is not the end of development—but the absence of

growth is.” -UNDP Human Development Report (1995)

Extract 107:

[Human development] analyses all issues in society-whether

economic growth, trade, employment, political freedom or

cultural values-from the perspective of people. It thus focuses on

enlarging human choices-and it applies equally to developing

and industrial countries [emphasis added]. Human development

also encompasses elements that constitute the critical issues of

gender and development.

– UNDP Human Development Report (1995) pg. 12

In addition to this language, the focus on human development means

focusing on different communities at all levels within a society. For both

developed and developing countries, the aggregation of data can mask the

inequality and social injustices occurring within them, particularly in countries

with high levels of inequality. Additionally, the feminist IR and policy literature

did align on the notion that numbers do not tell the full picture of development.

This concept is incredibly important when taking into account “developed”

countries and the marginalized communities that exist within these states. Such

images not only disrupt what is considered “developed,” but also, who needs

development (situated meanings, figured worlds). Not all women occupy the same

socioeconomic status with men or with each other in any country. Inequality

occurs on socioeconomic lines between and within countries around the world.

Extract 108:

“Indebtedness has continued to rise in many developing

countries, while unemployment persists in many developed

countries. Economic inequality has deepened both between and

within countries.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.17

Extract 109:

“Governments agreed that poverty is a problem in both the North

and the South.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.53

Extract 110:

“This suggests that inequality is likely to be growing among

women, with highly educated women enjoying rising incomes

and good conditions of employment while women with less

educational qualifications have stagnant or falling incomes.” –

UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.93

From this analysis it can be concluded that challenging and problematizing

development is central to both feminist IR literature and policy literature

(intertextuality). However, each body of sampled literature does so in different

ways and to different depths. First, and most obvious, the policy literature is from

institutions whose very raison d'être is global development policy. This inherently

limits how much the concept of development will be critiqued in literature from

these very institutions. However, like feminist IR, the policy literature did

challenge single-focus economic development policies and the global restructuring

polices of the International

Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

Extract 111:

“These twin enabling processes have put businesses of all kinds

in a position to treat the whole world as their field of operations

and to redeploy their capital and move

the location of their production at will.” – UNIFEM Progress

Report (2000) pg.29

Extract 112:

“The realization of women’s rights cannot be separated from

broader questions of economic and social justice. Militarism and

violent conflicts, the global financial and economic crises,

volatile food and energy prices, food insecurity and climate

change have intensified inequalities and vulnerability, with

specific impacts on women and girls. Dominant patterns of

development (emphasis added) have led to

increasingly precarious livelihoods.” – UN Women Progress

Report (2015) pg.26

So, feminist IR and the policy literature do share criticisms in hegemonic or

“dominant” patterns and policies of development. However, along the lines of

language, it needs to be reiterated that there are various models of development

and evolutions in methods. Development literature has recognized that some terms

are loaded, particularly in relation to sociocultural norms (such as

“modernization”). While the selected Feminist IR texts make note of the differing

definition, after further readings, it appeared that critiquing all of these various

development models under the umbrella of western roots had the effect of blurring

their distinctions—even when it comes to passé language. The development policy

texts studied did not use some of these terms at all, except to critique the prior

erroneous preoccupation with certain policy approaches.

Extract 113:

“During the 1950s and 1960s, women's concerns were often

subsumed in a development paradigm obsessed with

modernization and industrialization, with economic growth the

central issue.” -UNDP Human Development Report (1995) p.

101

Although the policy literature texts did not use this language in relation to the

development process itself, some of the terms were used as descriptors, such as

“industrialized countries” or “urbanized countries” (1995 UNDP and 2000

UNIFEM reports). The 2008 UNIFEM report used the term modernization

(below), but it is just as plausible that the word was used in the general sense of

“updating” infrastructure.

Extract 114:

“The Ministry of Justice has been playing a leading role in the

implementation of the Family Code through the modernization of

the justice system and often in partnership with women’s

networks of crisis centers for women survivors of violence.” –

UNIFEM Progress Report (2008) pg. 74

However, all variations of terms in relation to modernization, industrialization, and

urbanization were out of use as of the 2015 UN Women Progress Report. Thus,

while the feminist IR discourse in this analysis lagged behind the policy literature

on this topic, the true length of this lag is unknown (although, this research would

signify a delay of at least a decade). Given that this is a broader study, perhaps

feminist development literature or feminist political economy literature highlights

the distinction and/or evolution of the aforementioned terms.

Furthermore, when thinking about the language of one—if not the most—

popular dualism, “develop-ed vs develop-ing,” the former is past tense, meaning

the action has already happened and concluded. However, development implies a

process; one would not apply a process to the object with a name that explicitly

states said process is complete. The process would apply to the object in a state of

on-going (or yet-to-be-started) action. The use of this dualism explicitly links the

notion of development to developing countries, thus carrying the assumption that

development is only for these nations. This further marginalizes the people within

these countries. When dissecting this language and this dualism, it seems unlikely

that one can stray too far away from Mohanty’s concept of the “third world

woman.” The situated meanings of this discourse and connection between these

terms implies there are nations whose economies, politics, and societies need

development—at the very least, more so than others.

However, inequality does exists. Is this a double-bind for both academia and

policy-makers? How should the discourse accurately reflect inequalities without

having societies be defined by them?

The frustrations with this singular narrative can be found in both academic

literature (as evidenced by post-colonial discourse in the literature review) and

society at large. People do feel marginalized and narrowly defined by dominant

discourse and development language, and social media has given further credence

to these sentiments. For example, as recently as 2015, Twitter was used to counter

negative portrayals of Africa—sub-Saharan Africa in particular—in popular media

and discourse. The hashtag “#TheAfricaTheMediaNeverShowsYou” was used to

push back and express this frustration “because the thing you see is hunger, poor

people, war, it's just like, this is the only face of Africa that is known. But believe

me, the Africa I know, my Africa, is more than this. My Africa is all about

amazing people, all about amazing places and landscapes,” lamented a

photographer in Senegal (Leatherby, 2015). Therefore, despite attempts to update

discourse in both academic and policy literature, certain stereotypes remain in the

conscious of the general public, especially those in culturally dominant societies.

However, the policy texts did seem to disrupt the hierarchical dualisms and

dichotomies that are present in mainstream IR and in the feminist IR literature by

using descriptors outside of binary language.

Thematic Category 4: Hierarchical Dualisms and Flat Earth Language

To problematize development is also to problematize the hierarchal

dichotomies and dualisms that have originated from classifying different levels of

development (situated meanings, figured worlds). Unlike the feminist IR literature,

the terms “First World/Third World” never appeared in the policy literature.

Although, the dualisms of “developed/developing” and “Global North/South” were

often present in the discourse.

Extract 115:

“In so doing [the report] responds to the growing concerns of

women in both the

North and the South.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.17

“Governments agreed that poverty is a problem in both the North

and the South.

-UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg. 53

Extract 116:

“Women have entered the labour force in larger numbers in both

developed and developing countries.” – UNIFEM Progress

Report (2005) pg.26

Extract 117:

“That is, women as a group voting differently from men,

especially in developed countries.” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2008) pg.18

“Gender equality and women’s rights groups in the North have

lobbied to increase aid for gender equality, but stronger

partnerships are needed between women in the North and the

South.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2008) pg.97

Extract 118:

“As of 2009, female gross enrolment ratios (GER) in tertiary

education were higher than male GER in Eastern Europe and

Central Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, Latin

America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North

Africa and Developed Regions.” – UN Women Progress Report

(2015) pg.80

“In developed countries, a clear positive relationship between

education and labour

force participation generally exists.” – UN Women Progress

Report (2015) pg.80

These excerpts show that the hierarchical dichotomies are consistent between

feminist IR and the development policy literature. However, since development

policy also draws from economic literature, which has attempted to create a more

stratified classification in levels of development, the women’s development

literature also repeated the terms associated with these systems (intertextuality).

Extract 119:

“Among the countries with sharply lower GDI ranks are four

industrial countries.”

– UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.2

“Invite creditor countries, private banks and multilateral financial

institutions to address the commercial debt problems of the least

developed countries and of low and middle-income developing

countries.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.57

“While recent studies in some more urbanized countries.” –

UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.67

“Finds that for open semi-industrialized economies (1975-1995),

economic growth was higher...” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2000) pg.147

Extract 120:

“The world’s population is ageing. The more developed regions

have led this process, as fertility is still relatively high in the less

developed regions… However,

among the least developed countries” – UNIFEM Progress

Report (2005) pg.26

Extract 121:

“As a result, the gap between boys’ and girls’ primary school

completion rates in

low-income countries dropped.” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2008) pg.37

Extract 122:

“In many low-income countries these benefits will have to be

implemented gradually.” – UN Women Progress Report (2015)

pg.15

“In most low- and middle-income countries, informal

employment continues to be

the norm, especially for women.” – UN Women Progress Report

(2015) pg.72

Are these classifications any better? If they disrupt the dichotomies, do they

disrupt the homogenization of people as a result of these dichotomies? Again, part

of the answer to this question has to do with audience. Within the spheres of

academics and policy experts, terms can, and often, do change. However, in terms

of the general populace, such language may take longer to shift. The discourse of

academic and policy literatures has already made an impact on general speech. The

language most used outside of “rich/poor” is “developed/developing” and “First

World/Third World.” This means that the homogenization that results from this

language is still being (re)produced by a large percentage of the population—at

least in developed countries. Again, the previously mentioned Twitter example

serves as an indication. The following chapter will go further in depth on what this

lag in discursive shift means for the images and stereotypes of the people and

marginalized communities within “developing” countries.

Thematic Category 5: Feminist Theory, Feminisms, Intersectionality

The second thematic area from the feminist IR literature is feminist theory,

feminisms, and intersectionality. Many of the foundational concepts of feminist

international relations theory were found in the policy literature, which argues: a)

the international system is inherently gendered; b) however, the gender variable of

analysis is more than just “add women and stir”; and, c) intersectionality is key to

gender analysis. Additionally, the varying strands of feminism found within

feminist theory were not explicitly present in these particular women’s

development policy texts (conversations) (intertextuality). However, the wide and

various accounts of women’s movements and global activism do serve to showcase

the different ways that women enact feminism around the world. Feminist theory

uses a few tools that are not found in policy work, mainly the theoretical concept

of reflexivity. The policy literature studied does not acknowledge the social status

and positions of the researcher/s and how this could potentially impact their results

(or use of language).

Conceptualizing agency is another area in which the development policy

literature sought to redefine the idea of development. Agency is rights plus

empowerment. It is not only the defined legal ability to make a choice, but also the

ability to make that choice free from social norms, constraints, and stigmas.

Agency was also defined as women participating in development instead of

thinking of it as a process done on/to them.

Extract 123:

“Empowerment of people so that they participate in—and benefit

from—

development processes.” – UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg.1

Extract 124:

“[The report] emphasizes women as active, achieving, purposeful

human beings.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.17

Another example is the language defining women as “agents of change”:

Extract 125:

“Women must be regarded as agents and beneficiaries of change.

Investing in women's capabilities and empowering them to

exercise their choices is not only valuable in itself but is also the

surest way to contribute to economic growth and

overall development.” – UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg.2

These excerpts are examples of calls for inclusivity, which pushes back against the

trope of the

“Third World woman” waiting for change. Instead, this language is an

acknowledgement that the participation of women in developing nations is

necessary, as opposed to a benevolent gesture. As explained in the literature

review, certain strands of feminism can be patronizing or paternalistic when

discussing marginalized women and inclusivity. On this same note, the

UNIFEM 2000 text continually mentioned the report serving as “dialogue.”

Extract 126:

“In addition, the process of achieving targets should be

participatory. In particular, there should be active social dialogue

with poor people’s and women’s groups, and the effective

organization of such groups should be promoted… There is a

danger that targets will be used in a top down, mechanistic way

without sufficient voice for the people that they are supposed to

help. It is important to focus not just on the ends but on the

means used to promote the ends.” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2000) pg.6

The use of the word “dialogue” and its aim to help the report serve as a

bidirectional conversation is important for two reasons. One, it has been asserted

that research and analysis follows a certain pattern: the “developed” world

researches and reports, while the “developing” world serves as the data/object. A

dialogue disrupts this research axis (conversations, social languages, practices,

figured worlds). Two, this particular report was published after the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by the United Nations in 2000. The MDGs,

in fact, were later critiqued for being too “top-down” in their approach. This

emphasis on agency through visibility and voice is repeated through policy

literature.

Extract 127:

“However, reorienting policies, planning, and practices towards

creating more and better employment will not be possible unless

two preconditions are met. First, the visibility of workers –

especially working poor women and men – in labour force

statistics and other data used in formulating policies needs to be

increased. Second, the representative voice of workers –

especially informal workers, both women and men – in the

processes and institutions that determine economic policies and

formulate the ‘rules of the (economic) game’ needs to be

increased. This requires pursuing an inclusive development

policy process that promotes the participation of the poor, both

men and women, as workers: that is, a worker-centered policy

process.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2005) pg.104

Extract 128:

“What is called for here is an approach that focuses on the needs

and constraints of the working poor, especially women, as

workers, not only as citizens, as members of a vulnerable group

or as members of poor households.” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2005) pg.12

Extract 129:

“Women’s efforts to remedy their situation when their rights are

denied have ranged from ‘voice’-based approaches that

emphasize collective action, representation of interests, and the

ability to demand change, to ‘choice’-based approaches that

promote changes in the supply of responsive public service or

fair market practices.”

– UNIFEM Progress Report (2008) pg.4

Extract 130:

“The lasting transformation of social structures and institutions is

possible when changes along these three dimensions—of

resources, respect and agency—intersect

and work in concert.” – UN Women Progress Report (2015)

pg.44

Along these lines, a powerful statement came from the 1995 Human Development

Report:

Extract 131:

“Upholding the equality of rights is not an act of benevolence by

those in power.” – UNDP Human Development Report (1995)

pg.99

This language not only discredits the concepts of “liberation” and the “savior

complex,” but it also brings into question the notion of complicity. Much like the

criticism of “femocrats” from the feminist IR texts, the policy literature critiqued

those in positions of power for their inability to address—or even listen to—the

concerns of marginalized groups.

Extract 132

“A critical shortfall of development in the past few decades has

been the persistent neglect of the creativity and productivity of

half of humanity. The same is true of human development

debates and dialogues. In most cases, they have touched gender

issues-but not really focused on them.” – UNDP Human

Development Report (1995) pg.23

Extract 133:

“Better-off women with well-paid jobs are employing poorer

women to work in the home, caring for their children or elderly

relatives, cooking and cleaning for the household. But poorer

women have to cope with a double burden of paid work and

unpaid care work.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.88

Extract 134:

“Just as women workers are often invisible, so too are their

organizations. This is particularly true of organizations created

by informal women workers. Most international and national

forums, conferences and seminars tend not to invite them

directly, and not much has been written about them. This is partly

due to the fact that some organizations choose to operate ‘under

the radar’ in order to protect members. But it is largely owing to

the fact that the working poor, even if they are organized, remain

invisible in mainstream development circles, leading to the

assumption that organizations of informal women workers do not

exist.” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2005) pg.77

Extract 135:

“The inability of gender specialists and units to call their own

multilateral organisations to account – even to implement the

policies and strategies that have been agreed – is a systemic

problem. The positioning, authority and resources of gender units

in the United Nations and other multilateral organisations need to

change so these units have voice and leverage to call for

accountability to implement agreed gender equality policies, as

well as to monitor allocations and expenditures.”

– UNIFEM Progress Report (2008) pg.105

Extract 136:

“The actions or omissions of transnational corporations,

international and regional financial institutions, multilateral

development banks, credit rating agencies and private

foundations can limit the policy space for States to meet their

human rights obligations. In addition, global inequalities mean

that actions and omissions by the more powerful States will have

adverse repercussions on the capacities of smaller and less

powerful States to meet their human rights obligations.” – UN

Women Progress Report (2015) pg.40

However, elites also failed marginalized individuals and women by not

understanding gender analysis. Echoing feminist IR’s assessment of mainstream

methodology, the policy literature was also critical of the “gender variable” or the

“add women and stir” approach. Including gender in analysis does not simply

involve adding women to already existing theories and policies. The policy

literature echoed these same sentiments.

Extract 137:

“Human development, if not engendered, is endangered. That is

the simple but farreaching message of this

Report” – UNDP Human Development Report (1995) pg.1

Extract 138:

“There is a tendency to add women on to inherently male-biased

economic analyses and policies” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2000) pg.60

Part of this critique is based on the concept of intersectionality—or the notion that

various marginalized identities can compound so one experiences multiple

oppressions. Both the feminist IR and policy literatures continually stress the

importance of intersectionality, and much like the feminist IR literature, the policy

texts strengthened its use and understanding of this concept over time.

Intersectionality was strongly present in the 2005 UNIFEM report, in which the

word was directly used or the concept was alluded to strongly.

Extract 139

“To assess how economic policies affect the working poor, it is

important to analyse how class, gender and other biases intersect

in labour markets.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2005) pg.11

“Used in conjunction with gender-responsive budget analysis,

informal economy budget analysis can also shed light on the

intersection of gender and other sources of disadvantage (by

class, ethnicity or geography) in the realm of work. .” – UNIFEM

Progress Report (2005) pg.11

“The final section again uses case studies to consider the

intersection of gender and other sources of disadvantage (class,

race, ethnicity, religion and geography) in the realm of work, and

traces out the links between occupational mobility and recent

trends in women’s migration between developed and developing

countries.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2005) pg.21

“However, understanding the links between women’s

employment and their poverty status requires integrating an

analysis of gender with that of other relationships. Class,

religion, race/ethnicity and space intersect with gender to

position many women in precarious forms of work. Wealth is

frequently distributed along ethnic and racial lines. In many Latin

American countries, for instance, indigenous communities and

communities of African descent have the lowest levels of

education, are concentrated in precarious and poorly remunerated

work and are the most impoverished. Women in these

communities are doubly disadvantaged by reason of their gender

and of their wider social identity. In India, on the other hand,

religion, caste and ethnic identity all play a role in what work

people do.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2005) pg.33

“The multiple disadvantages women face by reason of their

gender, race, religion, caste and class.” – UNIFEM Progress

Report (2005) pg.82

“Ideally, such an analysis should look at the intersection of

different biases: those that favour the rich over the poor, some

ethnic groups over others, the formal over the informal economy

and men over women.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2005) pg.91

Extract 140:

“Gender, class and urban biases shape public services.” –

UNIFEM Progress Report

(2008) pg.51

Interestingly, this time period was also when intersectionality became more

solidified in the feminist IR texts, beginning with the 2006 literature by Jill Steans

and continuing into the 2010 book by Peterson and Runyan (Chapter 2, extracts).

However, the concept did not reappear in the policy texts until 2015.

Extract 141:

“However, to build inclusive and effective movements, women

have to confront tenacious hurdles stemming from gender-biased

governance structures as well as the many cleavages that divide

them—whether based on ethnicity, race, class or sexual

orientation.” – UN Women Progress Report (2015) pg.54

Extract 142:

“Addressing these challenges calls for diverse, context-specific

strategies. Alongside gender differences, class, caste, race, ethnic

and nationality divisions have to be skillfully negotiated and

incorporated into strategies built around shared

identities and goals.” – UN Women Progress Report (2015)

pg.119

As with the feminist IR literature, the importance of intersectionality centers on the

acknowledgement of the cleavage in differences and women’s lived experiences,

which can affect solidarity and coalition-building, particularly when it comes to

activism. Furthermore, given that marginalized women have often felt that their

lived experiences and agency have been passively silenced in the larger “western”

feminist movements’ push for gender equality— particularly when these calls fall

under the umbrella of development—recounting stories and examples of their

activism also served as an acknowledgement of the continual need for their

inclusion in achieving gender justice.

Thematic Category 6: Civil Society, Women’s Movements and Lived Experiences

As mentioned earlier in relation to agency, women are not simply “objects”

of development. The discourse surrounding development can be interpreted as

something being done to/for women (and those in developing countries, in

general), as opposed to being done with them. However, women have not only

participated in development and gender equality, but their work has been the

catalyst for change in multiple instances.

Extract 143

“In many countries, women's traditional public invisibility

allowed them to become political actors in peace movements at

times-as during the military dictatorships in Latin America

during the 1970—when it was extremely dangerous to be vocal.

The roots of the present Chilean women's movement can be

traced to women's advocacy of human rights and peace in the

late1970s.” – UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg.101

Extract 144:

“The emergence of a vocal women's movement has made a

difference. In many countries, women have pressed for social

recognition of public and private rights, particularly reproductive

rights and equal rights in divorce, inheritance and wages. In all

societies, women have been alert to threats to their resource base

and have often been the first to respond. The Chipko movement

against the deforestation of mountain tracts in northern India

began in the mid-1970s to prevent the destruction of forests by

timber contractors.” – UNDP Human Development Report

(1995) pg.100

Extract 145:

“In preparation for the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights

in Vienna, a coalition of hundreds of groups and individuals

worldwide, including UNIFEM, mounted a Global Campaign for

Women’s Human Rights.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000)

pg.49

Extract 146:

“Many of the intergovernmental commitments at the Beijing and

Copenhagen conferences to women’s progress in the economy

came about as a result of NGO demands for attention to

distressing economic conditions in both the North and the

South.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.59

Extract 147:

“In addition, the process of achieving targets should be

participatory. In particular, there should be active social dialogue

with poor people’s and women’s groups, and the effective

organization of such groups should be promoted.” – UNIFEM

Progress Report (2000) pg.58

Extract 148:

Women are developing strategies through their organizations to

ensure their participation in policy-making and rule-setting

bodies at the different levels. This is a slow process, with gains

and setbacks along the way, but women continue to build

alliances, coalitions and networks backed up by research and

technical assistance to

jointly advocate and/or negotiate.” – UNIFEM Progress Report

(2005) pg.84

Extract 149:

“Gender equality and women’s rights groups in the North have

lobbied to increase aid for gender equality, but stronger

partnerships are needed between women in the North and the

South to have an impact on strategic development assistance in

this area. A positive example is the work of Women Thrive, a

U.S.-based NGO that advocates for a strong focus in US

development assistance policy to bring women out of poverty.

Women Thrive is supporting development of an unprecedented

piece of legislation in the PROGRESS OF THE WORLD’S

WOMEN 2008/2009 U.S. Congress, the International Violence

Against Women Act, which will make helping women in poverty

and preventing violence against women a priority in the United

States government.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2008) pg.97-

Extract 150:

“Significant advances in women’s formal rights have been

achieved particularly where women’s movements have been

present, organized and broad-based.” – UN Women Progress

Report (2015) pg.54

This focus on women’s movements and solidarity was found in the policy

documents and feminist IR literature. Both sets of texts were concerned with the

hindrance and formation of alliances and how to build solidarity (conversations).

The policy literature seemed to focus slightly more on this topic. This can possibly

be attributed to the agencies wanting to demonstrate their capabilities and

capacities in this arena, given that one of their functions is to support civil society.

Furthermore, this can be attributed to the overall nature of practicality in policy

work. A quote from the 1995 report encapsulates this perception:

Extract 151:

“Thus Agarwal (1996) has drawn attention to the formation of a

‘strategic sisterhood’ to confront a global crisis of economy and

polity.” – UNDP Human Development Report (1995) pg.100

This concept of “strategic sisterhood” is interesting in that it prioritizes purpose

over authenticity. The 2000 UNIFEM Report echoed the same sentiments:

Extract 152:

“But in order to take effective action in partnership with others, it

is necessary to make strategic simplifications in a complex

world.” – UNIFEM Progress Report (2000) pg.288

Forming solidarities and coalitions for the explicit purpose of advancing gender

policies is an interesting suggestion for bridging the gaps in the cleavages among

vastly different communities of women. Perhaps, a deeper relationship or genuine

sense of understanding can be secondary to pursuing social justice and gender

equality; or—at the very least—you cannot have the latter without the former.

CONCLUSION

Now that both sets of literature have been analyzed, a full picture can be

created of how women in the developing world are discussed can be created. How

did the tools of inquiry in the policy texts compare to their use in the feminist IR

literature? What does this say about the link between feminist international

relations literature and policy literature on women in the developing world? Again,

using the objects of discourse in combination with the seven building tasks, the

following analysis will attempt to answer these questions.

The policy literature heavily emphasized on the agency of women in the

developing world and their history of activism and feminist movements. Disrupting

the figured worlds of these women as in need of “liberation” or “saving” created

significance for their agency and how they enacted feminism. As the dominant

discourse within feminism often led to the portrayal of white women as the face of

the movement, the activism of non-western women was lost in popular discourse.

Highlighting women’s movements at different time periods in all regions of the

world deconstructed the identities of non-western women by recovering—or

uncovering their stories.

The identity of “third world women” was also disrupted by challenging the

status of women in the “developed” world. Each text made it a point to assert—

with words and data—that in no country do women currently hold equality with

their male counterparts. In all areas, economically, politically, and socially women

remain at disadvantage. Thus, this challenges the relationships between women in

the developed and developing worlds by problematizing the existence of a

hierarchy between them. The intersection of development and gender equality is

not just a concept that is needed in lower income countries. Equality and gender

justice is an economic, social, and political necessity in all countries around the

world, even those considered to be more “highly developed.” This also leads into

the idea of building solidarity for advancing women’s rights, even if these

coalitions are simply “strategic sisterhoods.” Calling for and creating these

connections between women around the world are central to both the feminist IR

literature and the women’s development policy literature.

Problematizing development closely tied together the building tasks of

practices, politics, and sign systems and knowledge. The incorporation of human

development, which challenges what constitutes development and how we think of

progress (i.e. not just economic growth), disprivileges prior ways of knowing. This

new approach is used to enact new development activities in practice, particularly

the integration of gender equality and social justice. The politics of this new

development approach highlights how previous conceptualizations of development

and their unequal distribution of social goods was unacceptable.

Unlike the feminist IR texts, however, the policy literature taking on the task

of problematizing development implicitly deconstructed hegemonic discourse and

the images of women in the developing world. Feminist IR was strongly skeptical

of globalization and development—including various models of development, such

as modernization theory and neoliberalism, due to their sociocultural roots in

western hegemony. The selected UN policy texts questioned development methods

and policies, but not to the same degree. Given that the policy texts were produced

by agencies that specialize in development, there was a special interest (or conflict

of interest) in not disrupting the international system. The policy literature

certainly criticized certain methodologies, programs, and policies; however,

stopped short of challenging the very purpose of development. To do is, in essence,

to question the existence of such agencies and multilateral institutions themselves.

In the policy literature, development is, by default, a necessary and benevolent

goal, even if certain approaches are/were problematic.

Summary

When looking at the discourse between feminist IR literature and women’s

development policy literature it is clear that there are both overlaps and departures

in language. The focus on gender equality and feminism naturally gave way to a

certain degree of intertextuality. The intertexuality between the literatures was

strong in some areas and weak in others. The policy literature seemed to invoke

certain concepts (i.e. the sociocultural roots of IR and masculinities and

femininities) albeit to varying degrees. In addition, the hegemonic and oppositional

discourse of the policy literature could be categorized into the same thematic areas

as the feminist IR literature. Both sets of texts attempted to deconstruct the images

of women in the developing world by troubling existing stereotypes in the

highlighted thematic categories. However, what is surprising about this

intertextuality is how strong this connection was given the degrees of separation.

The policy literature did not cite any of these particular feminists as references.

Thus, there are common threads or means of challenging and deconstructing

discourse that may be inherent in feminist and gender analyses.

Much like the feminist IR literature, the women’s development policy texts

did not focus as much on creating a single image of women in the developing

world, but rather, deconstructing preconceived notions and stereotypical images of

non-western women. Gee’s tools of inquiry— or objects of discourse—were used

to disrupt the dominant dissemination of knowledge within the international

system. However, there was still a presence of hierarchical dualisms and

dichotomies. Even when attempting to use the income/development classifications

of economics literature, hierarchies were still present (i.e. highly developed, less

developed, least developed/ high income, middle income low income). In terms of

discourse, this leads to a more significant question: Is there a way to speak about

the world without dualisms or hierarchies, while still accurately portraying the

inequalities that exist? The following conclusion chapter will discuss this question,

and the overall research of this thesis, its limitations, and potential prospects for

future study.

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION

SUMMARIZING THE RESEARCH AND FINDINGS

This research set out to look at the concept of “epistemic blank spots” in

feminist International Relations literature. Meaning, how does the identity and

background of the author or researcher affect their knowledge and impact how they

discuss the world? This was specifically applied in reference to Chandra

Mohanty’s trope of the “Third World woman,” a caricature based upon the

depiction of non-western women in “western” literature, in which Mohanty argues

that these women are homogenized as one-dimensional, impoverished, and

oppressed individuals waiting to be liberated. Gee’s tools of inquiry (or objects of

discourse) were applied to analyze the use of language and how it constructed and

deconstructed images of non-western women. This provided a methodology that

highlighted the emerging themes and categories in the texts, which then allowed

for the isolation and identification of hegemonic discourse and strands of

oppositional language. The discourse analysis also had a genealogical component,

looking for any shifts in the use of language over a given time period.

Feminist International Relations Literature

The seven texts selected for the feminist international relations literature are

considered seminal texts in the development of the discipline. These pieces were

chosen not only because of what they added to the field, but also because they

were authored by scholars at the forefront of feminist IR. The texts were also

selected in consideration with the genealogical aspect of study. A 22-year time

frame, 1992-2014, allowed for a reasonable analysis of discursive shifts and

changes. Given that feminist IR is widely considered to begin in the late 1980s,

this selection can roughly be considered from the origins of the sub-field to present

day. The study found that feminist IR both decentered and disrupted the western,

hegemonic discourse of mainstream IR in certain aspects, while entrenching it in

others. Some of this language had both direct and indirect impacts in the way in

which “non-western” women in the developing world are depicted.

Most importantly, and perhaps most obviously, feminist IR set the

foundations for decentering hegemonic discourse by deconstructing the

sociocultural underpinnings of International Relations itself. Each text in the

selected body of literature began by challenging formative IR texts and authors

such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Morgenthau. Pointing out the “western

gaze” and epistemological issues with their logic led to a challenge of the

hegemonic masculinities and femininities embedded within this knowledge

framework. To decenter views on dominant masculinities and femininities is to

create space for various sociocultural conceptions and practices on enacting

gender.

These objections also mean that feminist IR literature rejected and strayed

away from the traditional methodologies and theoretical leanings of mainstream

IR. The authors argued that the parsimonious necessities of theory-building are

what have led to problematic oversimplifications. This can be seen in the final text

of the first discourse analysis Bananas, Beaches, and Bases by Cynthia Enloe.

She completely does away with the idea of traditional International Relations

theory and research. Enloe instead calls for a “feminist investigation” in which she

details and recounts the various stories of women shaping international politics.

These lived experiences, both in subject matter and methodology, are in direct

contrast to the quantitative, data-driven mainstream IR study. This obviously leads

to questions of feasibility for conducting research, however, these will be discussed

in the following section on possibilities for further study. Given that mainstream

International Relations theory has dominated the international system and its

construction, to challenge its foundations is to challenge and deconstruct what is

known of global politics.

A major area in which oversimplification of theory has impacted discourse is

the dualisms and dichotomies that have been constructed by mainstream IR. They

are hierarchical and created in a way that privileges one group over the other. For

example, there is no First World without the Third World, and, no “developed”

countries without “developing” countries. The language is such that one is

presumed to be “better” than its counterparts. If the language is not hierarchical, it

is simplified to the point of being inaccurate. The flat-earth language used in terms

of North/South and Occidental/Oriental divides the world into binaries based upon

geopolitics, economics, and sociocultural history. However, even these are fluid.

For example, Japan, while part of the Global North in terms of economics, is

geographically and socially Eastern. Or, looking at the various strands of

feminism, such as Black Feminism, while its origins are located in the west, it

highly separates itself from what it sees as the dominance of western, Eurocentric

feminism. These examples show that these dualisms, while deemed important, are

also arbitrary. Furthermore, the inaccuracy of these dichotomies is greatly on

display when considering that the world’s population is not divided into equal

halves in the “developed” and “developing” countries. Those in the Global North

are, by far, a minority of the world population.

Simplification of the world is a suppression of the heterogeneity of peoples’

lives. So, not only have the differences between men and women been overlooked,

but the differences between women have been overlooked. While feminism already

acknowledges how this oversimplification has impacted its theoretical

development, the feminist IR literature sought to highlight how mainstream

international relations has rendered women invisible—whether explicitly or

implicitly. The texts recounted women’s movements and their lived experiences,

showcasing how globalization and international relations has not only shaped their

lives, but how their activism has also been responsible for shaping globalization. It

was important to show these women as activists and agents, pushing back against

the notion of women and citizens of developing nations overall—as simply

subjects of development.

Acknowledging the differences among women is to call into question the

prospects of solidarity and coalition-building for the future of women’s movements

and activism. Is a global sisterhood possible? This is a particularly interesting

question given that the feminist IR literature also recounted the complicity of

“western” women in upholding the aspects of the international system which

benefit them. For example, the femocrats who will challenge the system only when

it aligns with their self-interests, or, the wealthy women who take advantage of

their less privileged counterparts and hire them to help with childcare and

housework while paying non-livable wages. Women’s numerous lived experiences

have an impact on their identities, particularly in relation to their socioeconomic

status and positions of privileges among each other, which makes it a necessity for

feminists to understand intersectionality. However, the feminist IR literature had a

discursive shift in terms of introducing this concept and its importance in enriching

international relations research.

In the early literature, the feminist IR authors did acknowledge the necessity

of including different experiences of various women. However, it was later in the

literature, particularly in the Steans (2006) and Peterson and Runyan (2010) texts

that detailed how intersectional analyses would enrich IR theory and research.

Furthermore, these texts particularly described how intersectional identities work.

It is not simply that different people experience different oppression based upon

the various aspects of their identity, but that different aspects of identity are salient

in that all people are privileged and disprivileged in different ways and in different

situations dependent upon their identities. While it is important to understand the

inequalities present among individuals, those in non-western societies have taken

issue with how their narratives are defined by these disparities. The entrenching of

these singular narratives is partly due to the way western discourse has created

over-simplified descriptions of the world.

Despite the critiques of hierarchical dualisms and dichotomies, reading the

feminist IR texts revealed that they are pervasive and “habitually” used, even in

literature whose goal is to counter hegemony. However, there was a discursive

shift in terms of which dichotomies were used and how often. The First

World/Third World dichotomy only fell out of use as of the 2010 Peterson and

Runyan text, 18 years after the first feminist IR text in the study. Furthermore,

there were a few instances of authors particularly using the phrase “Third World

women,” which directly entrenches that exact trope derided by non-western and

post-colonial feminists. Linking these women with the term “Third World” is not

just a geographical reference. It also associates these women with the preconceived

notions of what it means to be “Third World” in all aspects, socio-culturally,

politically, and economically.

Women's Development Policy Literature

The policy literature was selected from the United Nations documents, given

the organization’s wide focus on development (as opposed to the economic focus

on growth of the World Bank or IMF). One text was authored by the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the rest by UN Women (and

UNIFEM, its predecessor). The discourse and language of the policy texts was

different than that of the feminist IR literature, given the policy documents’ overall

purpose and goals. The language, while theory-driven, is not complex and abstract

the way academic literature tends to be. It is more straightforward, intended to be

practical and accessible. Policy texts aim for solution-based and results-oriented

language because they are speaking to practitioners, government officials, and

politicians. For better or worse, less attention is paid to the paradigmatic

foundations of the research. Also, given that development policy is also closely

tied to economics, the texts contained more quantitative research and data than the

feminist IR literature. However, qualitative data still played an important role.

Examples of women’s movements and lived experiences were heavily present

throughout all of the texts to enrich the data and give it deeper meaning.

Furthermore, like the feminist IR literature, these examples also show the various

ways women were “agents of change” around the world. Showcasing agency

helped to fight against what Mohanty and other non-western feminist scholars call

the “savior complex,” in which western feminists (and westerners, in general) tend

to think of women in developing nations as perpetually in need of liberation.

When switching from the initial UNDP text to the UNIFEM/UN Women

texts, discursive shifts and changes were most noticeable in two ways. First, the

way in which the UNDP text talked about the status of women was different. There

was repetition of the statistic that “70% of the world’s poor were women,” which

contributed to repeating the phrase “poverty 1has the face of a woman.” UNIFEM

later pointed out this percentage was unfounded and no data was available that

supported this number; it was simply a “guesstimate.” Furthermore, the UNDP

report also depicted a more “downtrodden” image of women in the developing

world. While the report did discuss women and agency, such discourse was also

dampened by more extreme language, such as, “And the threat of violence stalks

their lives from cradle to grave;” or, when discussing reproductive healthcare, the

use of the phrase “Too often the miracle of life becomes the nightmare of death.”

While UNIFEM/UN Women reports still attempted to accurately reflect some of

the dangers women around the world faced, the organization was much more

attentive to women’s agency and images it depicted of women in the developing

world.

Summary and Comparison of the Discourse

In terms of the genealogical longitudinal analysis, these sets of sampled

literature aligned on the inclusion of intersectionality over time. From 2006 and

onward, intersectionality remained a major factor in the discourse and each of the

texts after this year made continual note of the differences in women’s lived

experiences which can be particularly affected by multiple marginalized identities.

However, this is where much of the parallel development in their discourse ends.

The feminist IR texts in this study used language that was well out of practice in

the development literature, specifically in the use of terms such as Third World and

modernization. Furthermore, when drawing on development literature, the feminist

IR texts sampled were not as well-versed in the evolution of development literature

and the various models of development. While not covered in-depth in this study, it

is important to acknowledge that development literature has been aware of

critiques on its “western-focus” for decades. Both academics and development

experts have continually updated their scholarship to reflect such criticism.

Additionally, it should also be noted that the women’s development policy texts

sampled did not cite any feminist IR theory academic texts (neither the ones

sampled in this study or in general). Thus, it is possible that the lack of parallel

development in discourse between the sampled texts is due to the fields being

siloed off from each other. Still, despite this lack of a genealogical alignment of

language, the discourse of women’s development policy was connected and

disconnected from the feminist IR literature in various ways and to varying

degrees.

First, the feminist IR literature was pointed in its critiques of the “western”

sociocultural foundations of the international system in a way that the selected

policy literature was not. The source of the policy literature on global development

was a multilateral institution (i.e. the United Nations) that gained its power and

leverage within the current international system. Thus, to critique the system is not

only to critique such institutions, but perhaps to call into question their overall

purpose. Perhaps straying from strong critiques of the heritage within the

international system is a method of self-preservation, especially when considering

a large portion of budget comes from western donor countries.

Second, the use of hierarchal dualisms and dichotomies was also a point of

departure between the feminist IR and policy literatures. While both sets of texts

used the dichotomies of “developed/developing” and “Global North/South,” the

other dualisms were non-existent in the policy literature. There were no uses of

“First World/Third World” or “East/West.” Instead, the policy literature, in many

cases, opted for regional descriptors or the more stratified language of economists,

such as “highly developed/more developed/less developed/least developed.” While

the discourse within feminist IR lessened the use of dichotomies over time, it does

seem that it is reasonably disconnected from policy literature and language in this

instance. Despite these two noticeable discursive differences, there was visible

intertextuality between the two sets of text, especially in discussing marginalized

societies. When going through these comparisons and use of language, the overall

question is: How did each discourse entrench and challenge the concept of the

“third world woman?”

The literature problematized development in their respective ways. Both sets

of texts used examples of women’s oppression and overall lower socioeconomic

status relative to men from developed and developing countries to deconstruct and

challenge preconceived notions about women and development. For women in

developed countries, these examples were used to challenge the notion that no

development is needed; the inaccurate notion that development should only and

explicitly be linked to countries and people in developing nations. Conversely, for

women in developing countries, such examples were used to disrupt the idea that

women in developed countries have no gender-based issues. These examples show

that feminism and gender-based policies that may be constructed by a western-

dominated theories and international system are also capable of recognizing their

own issues. While feminist IR literature challenged the theoretical foundations of

development, strongly critiquing it as a “western project,” the policy literature also

called into question some of the previous policies and models of neoliberal

economics put forth by development experts.

Both sets of literature not only challenged development, but also challenged

feminism. They made a point of not only highlighting women’s movements around

the world, but also showed that such activism has been occurring for decades.

While the terms “feminist” and “feminism” may have originated in the west, its

foundations have global roots. These examples also directly challenged the idea

that women in the developing world have no agency and are waiting to be liberated

by their counterparts in the “western” world. Women—in all parts of the world—

have been responsible for creating movements and influencing socioeconomic

polices in their respective societies.

Most importantly and to the overall research question—in relation to the

discourse in the policy literature, is feminist IR entrenching western hegemony? If

so, how? Conversely, if not, how is it challenging western hegemonic discourse?

The research found both sets of texts invoked each other in various ways, directly

and indirectly. Multiple strands of oppositional discourse were found throughout

each of the twelve texts. Feminist IR, while attempting to challenge the western

hegemony and the images of women in the developing world, could not escape the

use of hierarchical dichotomies. These construct and (re)produce the world in ways

that inherently disprivilege one half of the dualism. The perpetual use of these

dualisms implicitly entrenches the overall way in which people in

developing/Third World/Global South societies are viewed, including women.

IMPORTANCE AND LIMITATIONS

What does this mean? What does this research add to the field? What are the

opportunities for similar research in the future? In Foucauldian terms, the

knowledge/power nexus that exists in discourse and the use of language is

deployed both implicitly and explicitly to (re)produce the world. The research

found that the discourse in feminist international relations literature and women’s

development policy literature is aligned in some ways and disconnected in others.

In terms of importance and relevance to the field of feminist IR—and, perhaps,

mainstream international relations—this research contains the following three key

takeaways.

The hegemony of western discourse has led to inherently biased ways of

describing the world.

The language and discourse that is used to describe the world and its peoples

is inherently biased. It is constructed in a way that, at best, presupposes hierarchy,

and at worst, implies a good/bad relationship. The use of dualisms and hierarchical

dichotomies is all but natural in academic texts (even this study), given that in

terms of western discourse, there exists no other way to describe the world. Even if

one takes into account the more stratified and complex description in policy

literature, there is still order and ranking. The existence of language which does not

ascribe value/s to regions and people around the world either needs to be created

and/or centered and made visible.

Feminism has been in practice around the world.

Another takeaway form this research is that feminism has been in practice

around the world. Feminism may have been “branded” in the “western” world, but

that does not mean that it was not enacted elsewhere, even if under a different

name. While this is not necessarily a new development in terms of research, it does

mean that there is much work to do in terms of uncovering and recovering the

histories of women everywhere. Furthermore, this research could also mean that

feminism itself was responsible for creating some of this invisibility. Perhaps

feminism’s task is not to be more inclusive, but to be more accurate. Inclusivity is

an inherent byproduct of recounting stories of women’s movements and lived

experiences around the world. Allowing the space for all women to tell their stories

is not a benevolent act of inclusion, but a matter of correcting the record.

Development is for everybody.

Black feminist author bell hooks has a popular book, Feminism is for

Everybody, in which she discusses the purpose of feminism and how it could help

all genders, not just women. I am reminded of this text and its title when thinking

of how the feminist IR and policy literature sought to problematize and create new

ways of thinking about development. When looking at the discourse, it was clear

that a common thread of purpose was to imply

development is for everybody. The concept of human development and

gender emerged in the policy literature to create a more complex picture of the

socioeconomic status of women in the world. Each of the reports highlighted that

in no society do women enjoy the same rights as men. Adding this to the feminist

IR literature, which described the many ways in which feminism has succeeded

and failed in “developing” countries, and that when taking into account

intersectionality, not even all women are equal within a given society. This creates

a more complex view of gender development, importantly noting that the need for

equality and justice exists everywhere. While each of these takeaways is important,

it is equally important to be cautious of overstating these conclusions. Necessary

considerations must be given to the limitations of my research and what that means

for the prospects of future studies.

The most obvious constraints of this research were brevity and resources.

Given that there was limited time and only a single researcher (myself), there was

a considerable threshold on the amount of documents that could be researched.

Expanding the amount of texts to be researched allows for: greater variety in the

types of documents (reports, speeches, interviews, etc.); and/or, different mediums

(print, digital); and/or, a larger timeframe to sample. Each of these options lend

themselves to a more conclusive study. While it is always important to stray from

broad generalizations and sweeping statements, larger data sets do increase

accuracy and confidence in the results.

Furthermore, one researcher also means there was no inter-coder reliability

while conducting the discourse analysis. Part of this research includes a level of

subjectivity and interpretation, which can obviously change from person to person.

Using a group of researchers could provide differing opinions and viewpoints on

the extracts. In addition, there could be language in both sets of texts that I

overlooked that could have stood out to someone else. This also takes into account

the sociological concept of reflexivity. As the researcher, looking for hegemonic

and oppositional discourse in relation to “western” culture and norms means that I

may have my own “epistemic blank spots.” As someone who grew up in the

United States, it is an almost certainty that I missed and/or interpreted some of the

text differently than someone who would consider themselves “non-western.”

However, it should be noted that both of these concepts are designed to

provide the research with a degree of objectivity. Given that this is a qualitative

analysis rooted in postmodern theory, the notion of objectivity is, to a certain

extent, irrelevant (or, at the very least, impossible). The research design and

methodology is such that the concept of reflexivity can only be mitigated, but not

fully negated. The background and experiences of the individual— any individual

—would have to shape their view of the world. So, while multiple researchers and

more texts would enrich the research and provide deeper meaning, there would not

necessarily be “right” and “wrong” conclusions.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Given the research limitations and that feminist IR literature is still relatively

marginalized within the field of mainstream international relations scholarship, this

leaves various avenues for further research. One could narrow down their research

to focus on a specific area of feminist IR, such as security studies, feminist

political economy, or feminist development studies, given that there was a

departure in discourse conceptualizing development. There is also the potential to

delve into research based upon the various subgenres of women, gender, and

sexuality theories, such as the newly emerging Queer IR theory. Similarly, the

analysis of policy literature has many avenues.

As noted, this research was conducted using documents from two United

Nations development agencies, with four out of five documents from one agency

and its successor. With more time and resources, policy texts from different

multilateral institutions could be used, such as the World Bank or International

Monetary Fund. Given the criticisms of development and neoliberal economic

policies by both feminist IR and the UN texts, analyzing the discourse of these two

financial institutions would be incredibly interesting. If the discourse has changed,

how so? Have policies changed? Is there a disconnection between their gender

development policies and feminist economists’ critiques?

Also, the UN texts were chosen because multilateral institutions have a wide

range of scholars and experts from various countries around the world working on

reports. Thus, the assumption underlying this choice is that certain “epistemic

blank spots” would be negated and/or mitigated. However, given that these

institutions were born out of—and still answer to— an international system that

continues to be western-dominated, a more in-depth analysis of this discourse

could be done to see if this is, in fact, an accurate assumption. Perhaps, instead of

comparing this discourse to western literature, the policy literature could be

compared to the field of non-western IR. As outlined in the literature review, this

sub-field of International Relations does exist and there are scholars that—like

feminist and gender theorists—are calling for the decentering of western

hegemonic discourse in mainstream IR. Given that these are nonwestern scholars,

it would be both interesting and important to see how their discourse compares to

that of multilateral institutions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Given the breadth and depth of international relations and international

policy, the opportunities for discursive comparisons seem endless. Despite

limitations, this research sought to highlight the discourse of feminist International

Relations and how it has developed since its inception in the late 1980s. The study

concluded that while feminist IR discourse has kept focus on decentering western

hegemonic masculinity, the pervasiveness of western hegemonic language has led

to some pitfalls, most notably, the unconscious and inescapable use of hierarchical

dichotomies and dualisms. However, the research also found that feminist IR

scholars were increasingly aware of the “western-origins” of this language and

employed discursive techniques to mitigate its use. Moving forward, this study has

highlighted the overall need for international relations as a whole to integrate

language that describes and constructs the world in different terms. This is a

version of the world which could (although not necessarily) acknowledge the

various economic, geopolitical, and sociocultural positions of individuals, but does

not create/define them in hierarchical relations to each other. This thesis concluded

that not even western feminist IR scholars, whose focus is to be critical of

hegemony, were able to escape such use. However, these were scholars educated in

western institutions, in a western-focused discipline. Thus, given that the western-

gaze of IR has continually led to the (re)production of such dualisms, perhaps the

answer lies with scholars outside the west to determine such language, and indeed

some already have. Perhaps, even within feminist IR, this still shows the urgent

need for listening and creating the necessary space for such inclusion. Otherwise,

in the popular words of Black feminist scholar Audre Lorde, “The master's tools

will never dismantle the master's house.”

Students also viewed