Feminism as Critical International Relations Theory: Exploring the Transformative Politics of Resistance

Aracelis SanchezSenior Thesis

Dominican University4/13/2015

Sanchez 2

Feminist approaches have long been marginalized in the male-dominated

discipline of international relations. Women make huge contributes in the political

and economic realm yet their stories and contributions have largely been dismissed

or left out of the master narrative. As a subfield, feminist theories in international

relations have fallen short in making an impact on mainstream ideologies and

frameworks. Feminist theory provides a different perspective to international

relations that recognizes the patriarchal nature of the state and market and includes

gender as an important category of analysis (Youngs, 76). Feminist international

relations theory provides important insights that traditional theory may overlook.

In this paper, I aim to highlight the benefits of approaching the politics of resistance

within a theoretical feminist international relations framework, while using the

Arab Spring and the Zapatista Movement as relevant case studies. First, I will

distinguish between rationalist and reflectivist theories in international relations in

order to provide a foundational framework in understanding the importance of

critical theories. I will then discuss the main critiques of mainstream international

relations theory from a feminist perspective, along a feminist framework for

resistance. The paper will end with the analysis of the movements and suggestions

for further research.

Sense of Order vs. Sense of Justice

There are diverse sets of theories that exist within the discipline of

international relations. As the field has progressed, different schools of thought have

emerged and created new theories to explain phenomena in the international

sphere. In short, these sets of theories can be divided into two categories –

Sanchez 3

rationalist theories and reflectivist theories (Dunne, 23). Central differences

between these theories are epistemological and methodological, yet they are all

helpful in explaining something about the world that we live in. In order to

understand where feminist international relations theory falls within these two sets

of theories, I will explain the main differences between them.

Rationalist theories in international relations are positivist theories that aim

at explaining, rather than understanding, international relations. Rationalist

theories are more interested in describing phenomenon, rather than accounting for

the consequences of that phenomenon. Examples of these types of theory include

realism, liberalism, neoliberalism and structural realism. The term “rationalist”

derived from rational choice theory. Rational choice theory “is essentially a

methodology constructed from a commitment to a positive account of science

(Dunne, 23).” There is an underlying assumption that exists behind these sets of

theories that describe individuals (and their states) as utility maximizers and

nothing more. Along with this, this methodology is a deductive approach to

international relations, in which a set of theories is hypothesized and observations

either confirm of falsify the hypothesis. It follows a purely scientific approach to the

field that aims at generating universal laws and truths (Dunne, 21).

For these reasons, rationalistic theories have been associated with positivist

tradition in international relations. Positivist accounts of knowledge depend on

systematic observation and rely on solely what can be observed and useful. After

observations, the patterns within the data are normalized and, then, universal laws

and truths are concluded. The danger with the positivist approach exists within it’s

Sanchez 4

obsession with observation and it’s lack of analysis of concepts, paradigms, and

ideologies that are not tangible enough for their modes of observation. Reflectivist

theories developed in response to the limitations that rationalist theories possessed

(Dunne, 21).

Reflectivist theories come out of a post positivist framework and are

determined to understand the world around us, rather than simply explaining it.

Examples of these types of theories include Marxist, post-structuralist and feminist.

These theories are called reflectivist because of their rejection of positivism and

their emphasis on reflexivity (Dunne, 23). Mainstream international theorists are

wary of reflectivist theories because these theories critique the very epistemological

and methodological approaches on which they depend. However, these theories are

starting to become more prominent within the discipline of international relations.

With human rights and the security of the citizen gaining more importance in

international studies, these reflectivist theories bring a sense of social justice to

international relations theories, while classical theories focus solely on a sense of

order.

When I was learning about classical theories in international relations, I

could not help but think about what is being left out in just explaining these

relations rather than trying to understand the underlying mechanisms that cause

such behaviors. Within the past few years, there has been increased media coverage

on different resistance movements such as the Arab Spring and the Zapatistas in

Mexico. I have always wondered whose stories were being left out of the master

narrative. I began to wonder in what ways mainstream international relations

Sanchez 5

theories were failing marginalized actors in these resistance movements. Feminist

international relations theory provides a framework that I believe offers gendered

insights into resistance movements that are not visible in other theories.

Feminism as critical international relations theory

In order to make the claim that feminist international relations theory is

critical, I first want to discuss how the larger discipline of feminist studies qualifies

as critical theory, outside of the IR realm. Key feminist theorists in international

relations, Catherine Eschle and Nice Maiguashca, believe that feminism acts as a

critical theory for a number of reasons. Feminist works conceptualize knowledge as

“embodied, located and partial (Eschle, 287).” First and foremost, feminist theory

aims at critiquing traditional forms of knowledge, and includes factors of analysis

that have been excluded – namely, gender. Feminist theory understands that

knowledge is socially and historically produced, mediated by the intersection of

identities of that who possesses the knowledge. Furthermore, feminist theory seeks

to empower it’s subjects and aims at highlighting the subjects (otherwise invisible)

agency (Eschle, 287). Feminist theory is also known to be reflective, which is why its

international relations subfield falls under reflectivist approaches to international

relations along with similar reflectivist schools of thought such as post-

structuralism, Marxist and post-colonialism.

This reflectivist feminist international relations theory rejects positivism,

and critiques the masculinist framing of politics in the international sphere

(Weldon, 80). Along with bringing attention the lack of gender analysis in

international relations, feminist IR also critiques the state, the market, and

Sanchez 6

conceptualizations of economic and political agency. One of the first aspects that

separate feminist theory from other theories in international relations is its

placement of gender as a critical category of analysis (Young, 76). This gender

analysis applies to not just individuals, but to larger structures that operate in the

sphere of international relations. As mentioned before, the differences between

reflectivist theories and rationalist theories are epistemological and methodological.

Mainstream international relations theories “perpetuate a distorted and partial

world view that reflects the disproportionate power of control and influence that

men hold, rather than the full social reality of the lives of women, children and men

(Young, 76).” Feminist international relations theory challenges the very

assumptions that drive rationalist theories and challenge the methods used to

observe the world.

Feminist analysis of international relations theories has stressed the

masculinist nature of the state and market. There are a number of theories, both

rationalist and reflectivist, that possess this gendered nature in their analysis. I will

be using Liberalism and classical Marxist theory to illustrate the masculinist

undertones that feminist international relations directly is opposed to. Economic

liberalism has been the dominant approach in analyzing the western international

political economy and focuses on the “efficiency of the market in the allocation of

good and services and the division of labor as the best way of increasing

productivity and wealth (Tickner, 71).” Proponents of economic liberalism believe

that free trade will result in maximized wealth and global peace and cooperation

among actors.

Sanchez 7

Economic liberalism rests on a set of assumptions that are biased towards

the masculine experience. This theory rests on the belief that human beings are

innately “economic animals driven by rational self-interest (Tickner, 72).” Early

theorists in the field claimed that this nature only applied to man – but later

retracted that claim to include all human beings. This idea of the “rational economic

man” derives from this masculine bias in early theorization and corresponds

directly with characteristics from a hegemonic mold of masculinity. This hegemonic

mold includes high competitiveness, aggressiveness, apathy, and highly

individualistic. These qualities are desirable when working in a free market that

aims at solely maximization of wealth (Tickner, 73).

This type of theorization assumes the masculine experiences as the norm and

dismisses the experience of women and of other marginalized groups. Aside from

gender, the liberalist economic theories also seem to work for only strong capitalist

nations and ignore the existing inequalities across nations that hinder states from

growing economically. Marxist theory focuses on the class structures of the world

economy and critiques the class limitations of liberalism. However, Marxist theory

fails to include a substantive gender analysis, which further marginalizes women in

the international sphere (Tickner, 85).

Feminists are critical of classical Marxist theories for “ignoring women in

their reproductive and domestic roles and for assuming that class-based capitalist

oppression is synonymous with women’s oppression (Tickner, 85).” Marxist

approaches to the role of women in the political economy fail to analyze women’s

reproductive role, which, in turn, fails to include unpaid labor in the family setting in

Sanchez 8

their economic analysis. This unpaid labor is not respected and is a contributing

factor to women’s dependence on the man. These gendered ideologies about the

role of women contribute to discriminatory practices in the labor market, on local,

regional and international levels (Tickner, 86).

The main critique of Marxist theory comes from the assumption that class-

based oppression equates to women’s oppression. Women’s oppression stems from

capitalism, but it also stems from the larger structure of patriarchy. In studies that

focused on women’s labor roles in the Soviet Union,in the 1980s, it was found that

women made up about 51% of the workforce yet they still held a majority of

unskilled jobs and were concentrated in domestic realms (Tickner, 90). So even

without the capitalist structures at work, women still face difficulties that are not

analyzed by certain economic theories.

Another important critique of mainstream international relations theory

focuses on the construction of political and economic agency in male dominated

terms. High-level participation in the economic and political realm has been most

commonly associated with agency. The construction of agency was formulated on

male terms, especially since women had been legally void of economic and political

rights until their demand for it within the past century. Feminist construction of

political and economic agency focuses on women’s unique circumstances and the

ways in which they create their own agency on their own terms. Women have a

diverse set of leadership roles in grassroots movements and global movements.

Women take it upon themselves to engage in economic agency in unconventional

ways that may not be analyzed by market forces. This idea of negotiating one’s own

Sanchez 9

agency is a core feminist tool used to elevate women’s roles in the international

political economy (Youngs, 86).

Politics of Resistance

Resistance movements have been apart of world history since the beginning of

time, whether you want to call them revolutions, rebellions, protests, uprisings, revolts

or, even, terrorism. Scholarship surrounding the politics of resistance has been

increasing due to globalization and rising anti-globalization efforts among activists

around the world. It’s in the interest of international relations theorists to explore this

phenomena, as resistance within countries have an affect on foreign policy, trade

relations and overall global security. A feminist approach to examining the politics of

resistance focuses on the main questions of resistance: Who resists? Why do they

resist? What counts as resistance? However, the approach also asks the questions: What

are women’s roles in resistance movements? What are the limitations to theorizing

resistance without narratives, specifically women’s narratives? Conceptualizing

resistance within a feminist framework allows for a number of new insights into this

idea of a transformative politics of resistance.

In the article, Rethinking Globalised Resistance: Feminist Activism and Critical

Theorising in International Relations, Catherine Eschle and Bice Maiguascha provide

a feminist theoretical framework for resistance that I will be using when discussing

the Zapatista Movement and the Arab Spring. Their research theorizes the who,

what and why of resistance. As mentioned before, this type of analysis does not rely

on a positivist methodology commonly associated with rationalist theories of

international relations. This reflectivist account of resistance relies heavily on a

Sanchez 10

methodology of inclusion that aims at looking at marginalized narratives, critiquing

international structures, and analyzing socially constructed notions of knowledge.

The question on who resists and why they resist seems easy to answer, but

narrow conceptualizations on a collective sense of resistance raises certain

methodological limitations. Conceptualizing resistance as solely collective

movements around a shared identity ignores the fact that these movements consist

of individuals who are driven by emotional, psychological, spiritual, bodily and

cognitive forces that shape their political consciousness. When dealing with

resistance movements, rationalist approaches largely ignore unquantifiable factors

that play a role in resistance movements - namely, feelings of intimacy, love,

empathy and compassion. Those who resist may not solely resist based on material

need or interest, but based on those emotional attachments (Eschle, 293).

Modes of resistance have been studied deeply within social movement

theory, but they have not been substantively theorized in the international relations.

Acts of resistance have largely been limited to open, public acts of contention either

in the forms of protests, active military rebel groups, etc. Overt acts of expression of

discontent and opinion seem to be the only modes that are acceptable outside of this

feminist framework. There are many different ways in which resistance can be

expressed outside of this conceptualization. Practices that “seek to develop self-

esteem, raise consciousness and enhance emotional tranquility (Eschle, 296)” focus

on the mind and body of women that, in turn, allows them to be empowered to

create economic and political change. Women’s roles in resistance movements may

also be described as “behind the scene” where women’s contributions as nurses,

Sanchez 11

donation collectors, and other positions are largely dismissed. By exploring the

politics of resistance in the Zapatista Movement and the Arab Spring, I will illustrate

the application of this theorization, focusing primarily on the particularly modes of

resistance used in these movements.

The Zapatista Movement: Revolutionary Women’s Law

"Taking into account the situation of the woman worker in Mexico, the

[Zapatista] revolution incorporates their just demands of equality and justice in the

following Women's Revolutionary Law:

1. Women, regardless of their race, creed, colour or political affiliation, have a right to

participate in the revolutionary struggle in any way that their desire and capacity

determine.

2. Women have the right to work and receive a just salary.

3. Women have the right to decide the number of children they have and care for.

4. Women have the right to participate in the matters of the community and to take

charge if they are freely and democratically elected.

5. Women and their children have the right to primary attention in their health and

nutrition.

6. Women have the right to education.

7. Women have the right to choose their partner and are not obliged to enter into

marriage.

8. Women have the right to be free of violence from both relatives and strangers.

Rape and attempted rape will be severely punished.

9. Women will be able to occupy positions of leadership in the organization and hold

military ranks in the revolutionary armed forces.

10. Women will have all the rights and obligations which the revolutionary laws and

regulations give (Miscreant, 1994)."

The Zapatista Movement was recognized after the armed uprising of the

Zapatista Army of National Liberation on January 1, 1994. Since then, the Zapatistas

Sanchez 12

have grown into a huge social movement “creating autonomous structures of

government and society in the indigenous regions (Sholk, 269)” of Chiapas, Mexico.

Indigenous Mayan women who make up the Zapatistas in Chiapas have contributed

to the movement in ways that have not been highlighted in zapatismo scholarship.

Their modes of resistance have largely been overlooked as valid forms and their

contributions to autonomous structures within Zapatista communities have not

been highlighted.

The Zapatista’s Revolutionary Women’s Law serves as one of the modes of

resistance that does not get the attention that it deserves. As part of the Zapatista

movement, women organized together to develop this document that specifically

dealt with the right of women within the movement. This points to the importance

of a gender analysis when studying resistance politics. Within these collective

movements, there are still factors that differentiate the lived experiences of men and

women that forces women to act upon those inequalities in radical ways. Among

their demands in the revolutionary law are healthcare, reproductive rights, freedom

from sexual assault, and economic and political agency within their communities.

The roles of Zapatista women emerge from this Revolutionary Women’s Law

that they adopted. Zapatista Women are the main ones in control of community-

controlled institutions within their autonomous regions, specifically schools. As

education and leadership being central to the laws, they exercise this within their

roles as teachers in these institutions. Zapatista women also harvest the land that

they live on, and form collectives for economic gains (School for Chiapas, 2014). By

participating in autonomous institutions and creating their own agency, Zapatista

Sanchez 13

women expand the definition of acts of resistance to include resisting not only the

government structure of Mexico, but also constructions of female worth, ability and

agency.

Modes of resistance can also be represented symbolically. For Zapatista

women, the facemask, or bandana across their mouths, symbolize their commitment

to the Zapatista movement and display their loyalty to zapatismo culture. For

feminists, the personal is political, so the representation of their loyalty to the

Zapatista movement in every day life symbolizes the interconnectedness that exists

between their social and political roles (Schools for Chiapas, 2014). Critics of the

feminist approach to resistance may ask why international relations theorists

should focus on internal resistance movements, like the Zapatista movement. What

does this have to do with international relations as a whole, or the international

political economy? The Zapatista movement has grown into a transcultural and

transnational network that influence other resistance movements – even within

western countries where such movements are not heavily studied within the

international relations discipline.

Zapatismo ideology has created transnational advocacy networks where

ideas are shared and support is available to activist organizations around the world.

These movements also serve as merely inspiration for other movements around the

world who are trying to change the oppressive systems that they are subjugated to.

With the signing of The San Andrés Accords for Indigenous Rights and Culture in

1996, many activists around the world started to form networks that can serve as

platforms for larger debates on global economic and political issues. The anti-

Sanchez 14

globalization coordination known as the People’s Global Action surfaced after the

Zapatista’s held their first conference on the First Intercontinental Gathering for

Humanity and Against Neo-Liberalism. The conference resulted in a gathering of

over 3,000 people from 44 different countries. It is worth noting the effect of local or

regional resistance movements to transcend their boundaries and inspire those on a

global scale (Dellacioppa, 120). This phenomenon is illustrated in the contagious

nature of the Arab Spring as well.

The “Feminist” Arab Spring: Women’s Contributions

The number of uprisings and revolutions that erupted in the Middle East and

North Africa will always characterize the year 2011. With the Tunisian Revolution,

or also known as the “Tulip Revolution,” occurred in 2010 and sparked a number of

movements across the region. The domino effect, most commonly known as the

Arab Spring, further reinforced the need for studying resistance movements as

strong forces that could alter the political sphere.

The Arab Spring occurred in response to a number of issues including

authoritarian regimes, economic difficulties, and issues of political freedom.

Resistance movements sparked in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Algeria, Iraq,

Jordan, Morroco, Sudan and the list continues. Women played a strong role in the

Arab Spring, and analyses of these resistance movements require a gender lens to

understand its depth. The plethora of countries in the Arab Spring brings about

complex intersections since women have vastly different rights within differing

countries. Women in Syria had different participatory roles in the movement, than

did women in Tunisia. The complexity in participation highlights the importance of

Sanchez 15

encompassing a broad conceptualization of modes of resistance as women are

situated within different contexts.

The Arab Spring was memorable with large protests in public spaces within

these countries. However, protests are not the only way activists can express

opinions. Similar to the Zapatista Women, women who participated in the Arab

Spring had a multitude of roles and participatory strategies. Especially for those

countries where gender ideologies prevented women from taking up public space,

women found ways to contribute to the movement through providing first aid to

combatants, collecting donations, and organizing underground (DubiaDebates.com).

These types of contributions are dismissed in the analysis of resistance movements

because they are not seen as significant. During the protest that took place in Tahrir

Square, it was reported that President Mubarek withdrew police protection of every

single neighborhood in Cairo. In response to this, activists, prominently women,

organized “lagan shaabiyya” or popular committees that created community watch

patrols in order to ensure the safety of the citizens (Newsom, 2012).

With the great technological boom that globalization brought, the use of

online activism became an important part of the resistance movement. Internet

access in the region expanded by 40% between the years 2000 and 2010 with about

13% of the population having social media accounts (Radsch, 2012). Activist

bloggers were able to share information to the world with this increased access to

the Internet. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were common

tools of organization among activists as well (Moghadam, 4). Women’s use of social

platforms to aid social change was unique to the Arab spring, and gave Arab women

Sanchez 16

a chance to become politically engaged. This technological mode of resistance

occurs in a “liminal third space” where there are more opportunities due to the lack

of rules governing the cyber sphere (Newsom, 2012). The ways in which women

negotiate their economic and political agency in these two movements points to the

larger picture of a transformative politics of resistance that relies on a complex

intersection of identity, activism and power.

Back to the Debate: Mainstream vs. Critical

At the heart of this analysis, the importance of critical theory in international

relations is at the core. While explaining and describing international relations is

important, understanding and accounting for those descriptions have the power to

improve lives and possibly provide solutions for some of the world’s problems. With

the security of the individual citizen, not just the state, at the forefront of emerging

international relations discourse, social justice and development issues are proving

to be important realms of social and political life that need to be analyzed and

addressed. As rationalist theories tend to focus on the state as a unitary actor, and

with their analysis being state-centric, it is not a surprise that the individuals in the

state have been forgotten, especially women, children and other marginalized

groups. From the market to security, the focus tends to be on the state as a whole,

rather than individuals being variables.

Feminist international relations theory brings about a framework that

highlights the limitations of rationalist IR theories. By using gender a category of

analysis, underscoring the masculinist assumptions in the theorization of the state

and market, and re-conceptualizing agency, the feminist framework provides an

Sanchez 17

insightful analysis of the transformative politics of resistance that focuses on the

complexity of shared identities, diverse modes of participation, and women’s direct

contribution to resistance movements. As a triple major in International Relations,

Sociology and Women and Gender Studies, it was exciting for me to explore the

intersections of my fields of study. I hope to continue to see more academic work on

the deconstruction and reconstruction of mainstream international relations to

include a gendered perspective. As I mentioned before, both rationalist and

reflective approaches to international relations have yielded important knowledge,

yet one approach has gotten more attention to the other. It is time for critical

theories of international relations, especially feminist theory, to dominate the realm

in order for scholarship to develop and be taken seriously.

Sanchez 18

Bibliography

Dellacioppa, Kara Zugman. 2011. “The Bridge Called Zapatismo: Transcultural And Transnational Activist Networks in Los Angeles and Beyond.” Latin American Perspectives. 176(38): 120-137.

DubaiDebates.com. 2011. “’The role of women in the Arab Spring has been exaggerated,’ Dubai Debates, #DD4 (Arabic, English).” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J36oXl-SDs)

Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, Steve Smith. 2013. “International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity.” Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.

Eschle, Catherine, Bice Malguashca. 2007. “Rethinking Globalised Resistance: Feminist Activism and Critical Theorising in International Relations.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 9:284-301

Flood, Andrew. 2000. “Learning to Dream Reality.” (http://www.struggle.ws/pdfs/pamphlets/Encounter1.pdf)

Khamis, Sahar. 2011. “The Arab ‘Feminist’ Spring? Feminist Studies. 37(3):692-695

Miscreant, Matt. 1994. “The Zapatista Women’s Revolutionary Law.”(http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/mexico/sp000905.txt)

Moghadam, Valentine M. 2012. “Engendering Democracy after the Arab Spring.” Keynote Address from the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences.

Newsom, Victoria A. and Lengel, Lara (2012). Arab Women, Social Media, and the Arab Spring: Applying the framework of digital reflexivity to analyze gender and online activism. Journal of International Women's Studies, 13(5), 31-45.

Radsch, Courney. 2012. “Revolutionaries Unveild – Cyberactivism & Women’s Role in the Arab Uprisings.” (http://muftah.org/revolutionaries-unveiled-cyberactivism-womens-role-in-the-arab-uprisings/#.VTARDpTF_NU)

Schools for Chiapas. 2014. “Women in the Zapatista Movement.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkdUs2Dxv4s)

Sholk-Stahler, Richard. 2010. “The Zapatista Social Movement: Innovation and Sustainability.” Alternatives. 35:269-290

Tickner, J.Ann. 1992. “Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security” Columbia University Press, New York.

Sanchez 19

Weldon, Laurel S. 2006. “Inclusion and understanding: a collective methodology for feminist International Relations.” Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge University Press. (63-87)

Youngs, Gillian. 2004. “Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in.” International Affairs. 80(1): 75-87