1. Unit Five: Contemporary Approaches - Feminism and Constructivism
Dr. Russell Williams

2. Class Discussion Reading:
Required Reading:
Cohn, Ch. 5.
Class Discussion Reading:
Penny Griffin, “Refashioning IPE: What and how gender analysis teaches international (global) political economy,” Review of International Political Economy, Oct2007, Vol. 14 Issue 4, pp
Rawi Abdelal, Mark Blyth, and Craig Parsons, “The Case for a Constructivist International Political Economy,” in Constructivist Political Economy
Outline:
Constructivism and IPE
Constructivism in Practice
Feminism and IPE
Gender in Practice
Textbook is on reserve

3. 1) Constructivism and IPE
“Constructivism”: A “social theory” that stresses the importance of collectively held ideas in international politics.
Ideas and identities are socially constructed but are no less determinant then “material facts”
Difference between “social facts” and “material facts”?
E.g. Gold is a metal, or Gold is a precious metal
E.g. GDP
Ideas, identities and “intersubjective” norms and values impact the behavior of IPE actors
Very different from materialist and rationalist traditions in IPE which assume “predictable rationalities”
Constructivism: A “social theory” that stresses the importance of collectively held ideas in international politics.
Ideas and identities are social constructed but are no less determinant then “material facts”
Difference between “social facts” and “material facts”?
E.g. Gold is a metal, or Gold is a precious metal
E.g. GDP (Cohn’s example, also from Abdelal, Blyth and Parsons– seems like a fact – measures the material economy, but it could be argued that it constructs the material economy. Eg. It doesn’t include some considerations that are than not “economic”
Household work
Reproduction
The cost of environmental degradation
Ideas, identities and “intersubjective” norms and values impact the behavior of IPE actors

4. Actors do not act rationally in a narrow sense . . .
Implications?
Actors do not act rationally in a narrow sense . . .
Hard for IPE economics is obsessed with the study of people’s self interested and rational responses to “material facts”
Can we predict behavior if actors do not have interests separate from their beliefs?
Makes study harder – we need to know about actors beliefs, we cannot assume them
Implications:
Actors do not act rationally in a narrow sense . . .
they act in ways that are constructed and conditioned by beliefs and vales
Hard for IPE economics is obsessed with the study of people’s self interested and rational responses to “material facts”
Examples ? Aboriginal land deals – Can you do this if you don’t have the social facts of private property rights
Can we predict behavior if actors do not have interests separate from their beliefs
Makes study harder – we need to know about actors beliefs, we cannot assume them
Empirical challenge and a theoretical challenge, because it would undermine the basis of scientific neo-classical economics

5. 2) Constructivism in Practice
Not widely applied in IPE . . .
a) “Epistemic Communities”: A network of professionals or experts with a recognized claim to policy relevant expertise in a particular sector
Help states define state interests on issues in IPE
E.g. Breton Woods (Cohn)
E.g. Financial industry regulators
a) “Epistemic Communities”: A network of professionals or experts with a recognized claim to policy relevant expertise in a particular sector
Help states define their interests on issues in IPE
E.g. Breton Woods (Cohn)
E.g. Financial industry regulators
Problem with the theory as a constructivist one – these are not ideologues – they know the facts and help societies adapt to new realities

6. E.g. The “social facts” of unemployment rates
b) The “immateriality” of economic policy: Key claim about economy is that actors’ economic ideas are ambiguous - everything is “ideological” . . .
E.g. The “social facts” of unemployment rates
1970s increased unemployment is bad = material fact interpreted through Keynesianism
1990s increased unemployment is a good sign (workers are returning to the labour force/economy is improving) = material fact interpreted through neo-liberalism
Both facts were probably correct at their time, but only make sense in a particular context = “social facts”
E.g. we have changed the way we measure unemployment, the way we provide employment insurance and the way we see unemployment
“Social facts” guide behavior of governments and economic agents
How should a government respond to increasing unemployment?
How should an unemployed worker?

7. 3) Feminism and IPE: a) Intro: Small, but growing approach in IR & IPE
Concerns are topical, but . . .
Gender often ignored
Feminism is “pluralistic” and “marginalized” . . .
b) Fundamental concept:
“Gender”  culturally constructed notions of masculinity and femininity
However, “constructions” privilege men
Small, but growing approach in IR & IPE
Concerns are topical, but . . .
I.e. Impacts of economic development, neoliberalism and condition of women are some of the most exiting areas of research in IPE
However, Gender perspectives often ignored Despite considerable insight on shortcomings of major approaches:
Not included in survey courses
Not included in textbooks
Implications of “gender analysis” simply have not been incorporated into the field by many academics
Why?????????? Something to think about
a) Key unit of analysis - “Gender” - Reject traditional assumptions that gender is a set of biologically-derived traits
Biology not deterministic of the social world
Difference between sex and gender
“Gender” is culturally-constructed
Based on cultural notions of masculinity and femininity
Problematically, despite rejecting biological determinism most Feminists note that constructions of gender across cultures tend to privilege the power and position of men
-However, “constructions” privilege men -Produce unjustified inequality and power relations

8. b) Gender in International Politics:
IR/IPE a “backward” discipline = gender analyses has made least headway - Why?
 IR/IPE practice is a “masculine” environment
Men in positions of power and authority
 Disjuncture with other social science theories
IR theory is “masculinized” - Modern interstate system of politics derived from “gendered” concepts
Realists – Hobbes’ “state of nature”
Liberals - “prisoners’ dilemma”
Economics and gender constructions (E.g. Griffin)
c) Feminist approaches “deconstructive”
Masculinity is “hegemonic” or “discursive”
E.g. Language of colonialism, globalization, development etc. etc.
d) Gender theory is both normative and analytical:
Theory should be driven by actual experiences of people and of women
Theory connected to practice – “Transnational Feminist Networks”
b) Gender in International Politics:
IR/IPE a “backward” discipline = gender analysis has made least headway
I would say it is also least scientific, therefore theoretical constructions of the old men of the discipline have held more sway
Easier to exclude new theories
Most however say - because the field itself is least “gender neutral”
IR/IPE practice is a “masculine” environment
Men in positions of power and authority - Military, MNC’s, International Organizations, Diplomatic services, even academic positions (20-1)
Disjuncture with other fields
IR theory is “masculinized” - Modern interstate system of politics derived from “gendered” concepts
how we think about states and the international system - It is therefore logical that the lenses we use for understanding system are also focused on masculine gender constructions
Realists - Hobbes “state of nature”
Liberal - “prisoners’ dilemma”
Privilege “male” concerns
Economics and gender constructions (E.g. Griffin) Rests on patriarchal distinctions of the public private
c) Feminist approaches “deconstructive”
Masculinity is “hegemonic” or “discursive” (we “can’t” see it ?)
E.g. “Masculinity” projected onto states’ behavior Realist and Institutionalist conceptions of the unitary rational state as an individual
Seek to expose these concepts and the challenges they create for a more “enlightened” international politics
E.g. Language of IPE is pretty much male . . .
d) Gender theory in both normative and analytical:
Theory should be driven by actual experiences of people and of women
Bottom up process
These experiences have been made invisible by traditions of the discipline which cannot incorporate them

9. Feminist Theories: Various approaches - shared “commitments,” different methods
1) Liberal Feminism: Equal rights & access to the “public sphere”=Advocacy of international human rights
2) Radical Feminism: “Patriarchy” seen as source of oppression
Legalistic liberal feminism ignores sociological origins of those legal systems and rights
3) Socialist Feminism: Women’s oppression driven by both:
Relations of Production (Marxism)
Relations of Reproduction (Radical Feminism)
=Synthesis of patriarchy and capitalism as the source of inequality
4) Postmodern Feminism: See modernist constructions themselves as a source of power and oppression – need for relativism
E.g. Universal rights of women may be problematic
Feminist Theories:
All share:
i) Commitment to redressing gender exclusions in IR practice and theory
ii) Commitment to foregrounding issues relegated to “domestic politics” by other theories = Common cause with some liberal and historical structuralist analysis ?
iii) Commitment to reducing economic injustice
Various approaches - shared “commitments,” different methods
1) Liberal Feminism: Focus on removing legal and political manifestations of gendered constructs
I.e. Equal rights & access to the “public sphere”
=Advocacy of international human rights Remnants of “old orders” impeding liberal expansion of individual rights to women
Optimistic about liberalism’s focus on individuals for correcting gendered inequalities
Out of date – feminists have moved far beyond this narrow set of battles.
Evidence of backward discipline – Liberal feminism still just making inroads in this discipline
2) Radical Feminism: “Patriarchy” seen as source of oppression
Supported by legal, political and cultural practices Legalistic liberal feminism ignores sociological origins of those legal systems and rights
Gendered constructions seen as particular problem - Women’s attributes constructed as “of little value”
Supersedes Marxist concerns about capitalism - Capitalism simply latest phase of patriarchy
3) Socialist Feminism (Maria Meiss)
Women’s oppression driven by both:
Relations of Production (Marxism)
Relations of Reproduction (Radical Feminism) Synthesis of patriarchy and capitalism as the source of inequality
See a “hierarchy of oppressions” Methodologically committed to the real world observations of the oppressed
4) Postmodern Feminism (Cynthia Enloe) See modernist constructions themselves as a source of power and oppression
I.e. “justice” or “women” as universal concepts
Reject other feminists’ use of modernism’s concepts to justify their agendas
Suspicion these ideas will not be “emancipatory” = Relativism - Fears that feminism ran a risk of carrying with it a westernized cultural imperialism
i.e. Those who insisted on universal rights of women
In practice, very influential internal critique of IR Feminism in the 1990s

10. 4) Gender in Practice: 1) Impact of economic development on women
Critiques of neo-liberalism
Critics of development programs that exploit women
E.g. Microfinance
Globalisation/Post Fordism impact on women -“vulnerable workers”
2) Critiques of lack of gendered economic justice in international institutions
IMF structural adjustment
The UN system
3) Insights on shortcomings of other theories
Key Areas of Inquiry:
1) Impact of economic development on women (As Cohn says – it’s a central focus for feminist IPE)
E.g. Critics of neo-liberalism
Critics of development programs that exploit women (domestic work)
Globalisation/Post Fordism impact on women -“vulnerable workers”
2) Critics of lack of gendered economic justice in intn’l institutions
E.g. IMF structural adjustment
E.g. The UN system
3) Insights on shortcomings of other theories

11. Further Reading: Feminism/Gender Theory and IPE:
V. Spike Peterson, “How (the Meaning of) Gender Matters in Political Economy”, New Political Economy, Vol. 10, No. 4 (December 2005), pp
Sandra Witworth, “Theory and Exclusion: Gender, Masculinity, and International Political Economy,” in Stubbs and Underhill, pp
IPE and the “Constructivist Challenge”:
Amanda Dickins, “The Evolution of International Political Economy,” International Affairs, Vol 82, Issue 3, (2006), pp

12. Conclusions: Strengths? Weaknesses?
Constructivism and Feminism highlight the importance of ideas in IPE
IPE does seem very ideological
A useful corrective to “materialist rationalism”?
Weaknesses?
The problem of economics – they are both “marginalized” in IPE by their focus on beliefs
Constructivism – the problem of change
Feminism – Marginalization - the problem of gender in “social facts”

13. For Next Time: Reading Break: Classes Cancelled (February 18 & 20)
MID TERM EXAM (February 25)
Essay Proposal (February 25)