Feminismos y género en los Estudios Internacionales

  1. Gabriela DE LIMA GRECCO 1
  1. 1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

Revista:
Relaciones internacionales

ISSN: 1699-3950

Año de publicación: 2020

Título del ejemplar: Número abierto

Número: 44

Páginas: 127-145

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.15366/RELACIONESINTERNACIONALES2020.44.007 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Relaciones internacionales

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

In the last decades, the specific role of women in international relations has received more attention and feminist theories have gained ground in the intellectual debate, which has contributed to a general sensitization towards the incorporation of the analysis of the gender category in the discipline of international relations. In fact, one of the characteristic features of the discipline of international relations had been the invisibility of gender structures that impact men and women differently. However, with the emergence of the so-called “third debate”, a new opportunity was opened to think about the international from more critical and inclusive perspectives. The impact of feminist studies took place in the late 1980s with a special publication on gender in Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Of great relevance at present are the theories produced outside of the hegemonic centers and that question both the classical theories and the Western gender system for covering up an ethnocentric project. Indeed, post-decolonial theorists aim to destabilize hegemonic discourses about a supposedly universal experience of women. In this sense, the main objective of this article is to carry out a bibliographic review on the main feminist schools, as well as to systematize the plurality of feminist theories and practices that have taken place in the course of international studies. In this way, after a brief introduction on the emergence of feminist approaches in the discipline, this study analyzes the contributions of the main feminist schools: liberal feminism, standpoint feminism, constructivist feminism, postmodernist feminism, postcolonial feminism, decolonial feminism, queer theory, and the focus on masculinities. Through the examination of these different feminist theoretical currents, their impact on the discipline of international relations will be analyzed, showing the epistemological, methodological and ontological changes present in the different schools. Feminist theories in international relations must therefore be approached in a multidimensional way, in the sense of recognizing the differences and common elements regarding the experiences of women, men and sexual dissidents from different latitudes. In this sense, the possibility of renewal in international relations occurred with the crisis of the realist paradigm after the end of the Cold War. In this context, there was the emergence of numerous studies that began to incorporate feminist lenses in their analyses. With the new critical perspectives - which focused their examinations on non-state and sub-state agents when criticizing state-centeredness in the discipline -, women were conceived as possible agents of transformation of their environment both locally and internationally. These criticisms implied a new dimension for incorporating issues of “low politics”, an area in which the majority of women would be placed. In this context, feminist theories were gaining more and more relevance in the intellectual debate of the discipline and some authors began to criticize more strongly the dominant theories, given their markedly sexist bias. In the late 1980s, Ann Tickner stated that “international politics is a man’s world” and, more forcefully, questioned, in light of feminist lenses, the six realist pillars of Hans Morgenthau. Morgenthau and other theorists sought to overturn the idea that “gender has nothing to do with international processes and events” (Zalewski, 1997, p. 342). Thus, realist theorists insisted on the defense of objectivity and neutrality in international relations, and in terms of gender argued that on the one hand, the topics covered equally affect men and women and, on the other hand, international relations refers to an autonomous sphere of reality. In recent years, we find few authors who support this vision, although the absence of studies with gender analysis in the discipline is salient. Of great relevance today are the theories produced outside the hegemonic centers and that question both the classical theories and the Western gender system for covering up an ethnocentric project that omits multiple hierarchies of power and that marginalizes and dismisses the agency of women who are outside the “center”. Indeed, post-decolonial theorists aim to destabilize hegemonic discourses, both in international relations and in feminist studies. The contributions of feminism are one of the most important innovations in international relations, although, admittedly, it was “one of the last bastions to succumb to feminist research” (Byron and Thorburn, 1998, p. 211). Feminist literature has denounced the supposed objectivity of the classical paradigms of the discipline, especially realism, as well as the androcentrism that emerges from traditional analyses. For realists, the State is conceived as “an orderly, peaceful sphere that acts rationally in function of the national interest, representing the whole of society”. However, some authors consider that this analysis is based on the “functions performed by men as the basis of political identity” (Rodríguez Manzano, 2001, p. 261) and, therefore, masculine characteristics “are projected onto the behavior of States” (Tickner, 1992, 6). The image of a State as a mirror of rational man is supported by the conceptual universe that surrounds it, such as the struggle for power, the search for peace, or sovereignty, which reinforces the idea that political activity is dominated by males. But this man is not just anybody, and the idea of the State is built in the image and likeness of the ideal archetype of a western white man. Hence follows another complaint made by many feminists: their ethnocentric bias. In the gender system, masculine identity rests on the necessary repression of the aspects considered feminine and, within this logic, colonized men are feminized: they are beings destitute of rationality, they need the tutelage of the white man for their “development”. The other, the foreigner, and the different are constructed as irrational, unpredictable, qualities considered feminine in the western gender system. On the other hand, white women assume that they are the ones who invite other women to participate in feminist politics. They are conceived as the pioneers in this emancipatory process. Women in the Global South have denounced these discourses by pointing out that differences between women lead to differences of privilege, exclusion and power. In this sense, a woman’s point of view does not guarantee a reciprocal relationship with the Other, but rather can exercise a hierarchical relationship by not considering the different female subjectivities. Therefore, they argue that feminist theory must include the experiences of all women through the intersection of gender, class, race, sexuality, political order, place of enunciation, etc. It is thus important to note that feminist theories are not monolithic and are characterized by their plurality. While some scholars have preferred to analyze international phenomena in a more traditional way, showing how women have played an important role in international politics -whether in “high politics” or in a subordinate position-, others have dedicated themselves to denaturalizing the concept of universal woman (that is, Euro-white women), pointing out other problems, such as race, class or sexuality from an intersectional vision. Many, however, start from an initial guiding question: where are women in international relations? Parallel to this question and the incorporation of women as a variable in the discipline - a variable that is especially important for liberal and radical feminists - the category of gender is consecrated as the most relevant contribution.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adlbi Sibal, S. (2016). La cárcel del feminismo: hacia un pensamiento islámico decolonial. Madrid: Akal.
  • Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in Feminist Theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13 (3), 405-436.
  • Birgit, L. (1998). Las relaciones internacionales desde la perspectiva de los sexos. Nueva sociedad, 158, 40-63.
  • Bleiker, R. (2001). The Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory. Millennium, 30 (3), 509–533. DOI: 10.1177/03058298010300031001
  • Butler, J. (2018). El género en disputa. Barcelona: Paidós.
  • Byron, J. y Thorburn, D. (1998). Gender and International Relations: A Global Perspective and Issues for the Caribbean. Feminist Review, 59 (211-232). DOI: 10.1080/014177898339532
  • Carneiro, S. (2005). A construção do outro como não-ser como fundamento do ser. Tese (Doutorado em educação). São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo.
  • Carpenter, C. (2013). Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Non-Feminist Standpoint? International Studies Review, 4 (3), 153–166.
  • Carpenter, C.; Zalewski, M.; Kinsella, H.; Carver, T. (2003). Gender and International Relations. International Studies Review, 5 (2), 287-302.
  • Cary, L. y Talpade Mohanty, C. (2015). Mapping Transnational Feminist Engagements: Neoliberalism and the Politics of Solidarity. En Baksh, R. y Harcourt, W. The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Feminist Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 82-115.
  • Castro-Gómez, S. y Grosfoguel, R. (ed.) (2007). El giro decolonial. Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores.
  • Connell, R y Pearse, R. (2014). Gender: In World Perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Connell, R. (2005). Masculinities. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  • Cunha, T. y Casimiro, I. (2019). Epistemologías del sur y alternativas feministas de vida. Las cenicientas de nuestro Mozambique quieren hablar. En: Alberdi, Jokin et al. Territorios en conflicto. Claves para la construcción de alternativas de vida. Gernika-Lumo: Asociación de Investigación por la Paz Gernika Gogoratuz, 71-118.
  • Curiel, O. (2013). La nación heterosexual. Análisis del discurso jurídico y el régimen heterosexual desde la antropología de la dominación. Bogotá: Brecha Lésbica y en la frontera.
  • Curiel, O. (2014). Construyendo metodologías feministas desde el feminismo decolonial. En Azkue, I. et al. (ed.) Otras formas de (re)conocer. Reflexiones, herramientas y aplicaciones desde la investigación feminista. Bilbao: Zubiria Etxea.
  • D’Amico, F. y Beckman, P. (eds.) (1995). Women in World Politics: An Introduction. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
  • Dessler, D. (1989). What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate? International Organization, 43, 441-473.
  • Días, J. y Arcangêlo, E. (2017). Feminismo decolonial e teoria queer: limites e possibilidades de diálogo nas Relações Internacionais. Monções: Revista de Relações Internacionais da UFGD, 6 (11), 121-151.
  • Enloe, C. (1989). Bananas, Beaches & Bases. Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Londres: Pandora Press.
  • Estévez, J., Mato, M., y Rubio Grundell, L. (coords.) (2014). Feminismos en las Relaciones Internacionales, 30 años después, Relaciones Internacionales. 27, 5-13.
  • Fanon, F (1974). Piel negra, máscaras blancas. Buenos Aires: Schapire Editor.
  • Galey, M. E. (1994). United Nations and Women’s Issues. En D’Amico, F y Beckman, P. (eds.) Women, Gender, and World Politics: Perspectives, Policies, and Prospects. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, 131-140.
  • Gargallo Celentani, F. (2014). Feminismos desde Abya Yala. Ideas y Proposiciones de las mujeres de 607 pueblos en Nuestra América. México: Editorial Corte y Confección.
  • Guzmán, A. y Paredes, J. (2013). El tejido de la rebeldía. ¿Qué es el feminismo comunitario? La Paz: Comunidad Mujeres Creando Comunidad.
  • Hernández, G. (2019). Hebras feministas. En la historia y la memoria de los pueblos originarios pampeano-patagónicos. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos.
  • Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. Nueva York: Routledge.
  • Isaksson, E. (1988). Women and the military system. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1988.
  • Landaluze, I. Z. y Espel, L. I. (2015). Los feminismos africanos. Las mujeres africanas en sus propios términos. Relaciones Internacionales, 27, 35-54.
  • Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33 (3), 235-254.
  • Locher, B. y Prügl, E. (2001). Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground? International Studies Quarterly, 45 (1), 111-129.
  • Lorde, A. (1984). Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Nueva York: The Crossing Press.
  • Lugones, M. (2010). Towards a decolonial feminist. Hypatia, 25(4), 742-759.
  • Lugones, M. (2014). Colonialidad y género. En Ochoa, K. et al. Tejiendo de otro modo: Feminismo, epistemología y apuestas descoloniales en Abya Yala. Popayán: Editorial Universidad del Cauca, 57-74.
  • Makuchi Nfah-Abbenyi, J. (2005). Gender, feminist theory, and post-colonial(women’s) writing. En Oyèrónké, O. (ed.). African gender studies a reader. Nueva York: Palgrave, 259-278.
  • Martini, A. (2018). Making Women Terrorists into Jihadi Brides. An Analysis of Media Narratives on Women joining ISIS. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 11 (3) 458-477. DOI: 10.1080/17539153.2018.1448204
  • Mcgill, J. (2014). SOGI... So What? Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Human Rights Discourse at the United Nations. So What. Canadian Journal of Human Rights, 3(1), 1-38.
  • Mignolo, W. (2002). The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference. South Atlantic Quarterly, 101 (1), 57-96.
  • Mishra,V . y Hodge, B. (1990).W hat is Post(-)Colonialism?. Textual Practice, 5 (3) 399-414. DOI: 10.1080/09502369108582124
  • Mohanty, C. (1988). Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse. Feminist Review, 30, 61–88.
  • Ochoa, K. (2014). El debate sobre las y los amerindios: entre el discurso de la bestialización, la feminización y la racialización. En Ochoa, K. et al. Tejiendo de otro modo: Feminismo, epistemología y apuestas descoloniales en Abya Yala. Popayán: Editorial Universidad del Cauca, 105-118.
  • Oliveira, J. M. (2019). “Queer”, Dicionário Alice. Recuperado de: http://alice.ces.uc.pt/dictionary/?id=23838&pag=23918&id_lingua=1&entry=24496. (29/04/2020).
  • Oyewùmí, O. (2005). Visualizing the Body: Western Theories and African Subjects. En
  • Oyèrónké, O. (ed.) African gender studies a reader. Nueva York: Palgrave, 3-22.
  • Peçanha, L. (2015). Deixei de ser objeto para ser ameaça. Geledés Instituto da Mulher Negra. Recuperado de: https://www.geledes.org.br/homem-trans-negro-leonardo-pecanha-diz-deixei-de-ser-objeto-para-ser-ameaca/ (29/04/2020).
  • Peñas Esteban, F.J. (2012). Camino de perfección: El imaginario social liberal de las Relaciones Internacionales. Relaciones internacionales, 20, 31-61.
  • Peterson, S. y Runyan, A. (1991). The Radical Future of Realism: Feminist Subversions of International Relations Theory. Alternatives, 16 (1), 67-106.
  • Peterson, S. y Runyan, A. (2010). Global gender issues in the new millennium. Colorado: Westview Press.
  • Piña Naraváez, Y. et al (2017). No existe sexo sin racialización. Madrid: Colectivo Ayllu Matadero Centro De Residencias Art.
  • Puar, J. (2013). Rethinking Homonationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 45 (2), 336–339.
  • Restrepo, E. y Rojas, A. (2010). Inflexión decolonial: fuentes, conceptos y cuestionamientos. Popayán: Universidad del Cauca.
  • Ribeiro, D. (2018). Breves reflexiones sobre Lugar de Enunciación, Relaciones Internacionales, 39, 13-18. (Traducción: Gabriela de Lima Grecco).
  • Rodríguez Manzano, I. (2001). Mujer, género y teoría feminista en las relaciones internacionales. Cursos de derecho internacional y relaciones internacionales de Vitoria-Gasteiz, 1, 239-292.
  • Rose, Richard (1984). Comparative Policy Analysis: The Programme Approach. Studies in Public Policy, 138, CSPP, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
  • Ruddick, S. (1980). Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Ruiz-Giménez Arrieta, I. (2000). El feminismo y los estudios internacionales. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 108, 325-360.
  • Ruiz-Giménez Arrieta, I. (2018). Luces y sombras del régimen internacional de los Derechos Humanos: Setenta años de luchas por expandir sus significados. Papeles de relaciones ecosociales y cambio global, 142, 43-53.
  • Scott, J. (1991). El género una categoría útil para el análisis histórico. En Nash, M. y Amelang, J. (ed.) Historia y Genero. Las mujeres en la Europa moderna y contemporánea. Valencia: Institució Alfons el Magnánim.
  • Sen, G. y Grown, C. (1987). Development, Crisis and Alternative Visions: Third World Women´s Perspective. Nueva York: Monthly Review Press.
  • Showalter, E. (ed.) (1989). Speaking of gender. Nueva York: Routledge.
  • Sisson, A. y Peterson, S. (2010). Global Gender Issues In The New Millennium. Colorado: Westviewpress, 2010.
  • Steans, J. (2013). Gender & International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Sterling-Folker, J. (ed.) (2006). Making Sense of International Relations Theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
  • Stienstra, D. (1994). Women’s Movements and International Organizations. Nueva York: MacMillan Press.
  • Strobel, M. y Chaudhuri, N. (1990). Western women and Imperialism. Women’s Studies International Forum, 13 (2), s/n.
  • Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  • Tickner, J. A. (2001). Gendering World Politics. Nueva York: Columbia University.
  • Urimar Villarroel Peña, Y. (2018). Feminismos descoloniales latinoamericanos: geopolítica, resistencia y Relaciones Internacionales. Relaciones Internacionales, 39, 103-120.
  • Viveros Vigoya, M. (2016). La interseccionalidad: una aproximación situada a la dominación. Debate Feminista, 52, 1-17.
  • Waites, Matthew. (2009). Critique of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in Human Rights discourse: Global queer politics beyond the Yogyakarta Principles. Contemporary Politics, 15, (1), 137-156.
  • Ware, V. (1992). Moments of Danger, Race, Gender and memories of Empire. History and Theory, 31 (4), 116-137.
  • Zalewski, M. (1995). Well, What is de Feminist Perspective on Bosnia? International Affairs, 71 (2), 339-356.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet