Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 3: IR in Close Up
3.2 International Studies Association (ISA)
3.2.3 Gender and IR
3.2.3.1 The Gender Dilemma in the leadership of ISA
Firstly the universities or institutions, which are linked to the IR scholars, who have served (in the period 1959- to 2010), on the executive board of ISA as presidents, or occupants of other portfolios on the executive, are predominantly American(s) and male. They are closely followed by those, in the UK. So faced with such a social reality, IR could not escape from being an Anglo-American and simultaneously patriachically (sexist because it is male driven) based discourse. This has been such a growing concern, that the American Political Science Association (APSA), posted a study, by Ishiyama and Breuning’s titled How International Are Undergraduate Political Science Programs at Liberal Arts and Sciences Colleges and Universities in the Midwest?. Since this article provides some detailed data, within the context of Midwestern America, in support of the growing concern about IR manifesting parochial views, the author of this study read it, as a mini version of what the TRIP surveys were addressing, on a much detailed and larger scale. This is judging from the amount of various representatives, of different countries involved, as responders to their consecutively ongoing bi-annual research.
138
Thanks to the following scholars, an all American hegemony, of past presidents of ISA was interrupted -Nils Petter Gleditsch (International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, PRIO-Norway), Susan Strange (University of Warwick-UK), Steve Smith (University of Exerter-UK) and Helga Haftendorm (Free University of Berlin- Germany). In the event fellow scholars, have actually been counting, yes indeed, up until the end of the 2010 ISA’s presidential tenure, only four non- American scholars (from the total of 49 overall past presidents) from non-American Universities, have been, at the helm of ISA.
Note that the above scholars, emanating from Norway, UK and Germany, still consolidate the parochial Eurocentric form of participation. A question mark over the meaning, of international scholarly organisation, may justifiably, be raised here. This above notice, once again, may be taken to serve, as another form of concrete example, consistent with the findings of the TRIP Survey (2009). The unspoken special privilege attached, to being affiliated to an American University, becoming some form of silent criteria, used as being a serious contributor, in as far as assisting IR scholars, to eventually make the influential IR scholar list, is notably observed. This certainly stresses the concern of IR becoming (that is if it has not yet already become) an overly American orientated discourse.
Secondly notice of the worrisome gender profile, has been noted. How is it possible, that since ISA’s inception in 1959, out of the total of 49 past presidents, only 5 (yes, only just 5- authors emphasis) have been female? If the outgoing ISA president is included (2011-2012), then the tally moves up to six. That makes it a case, of same difference. Maliniak et al (2008:122) record that “Women now receive political science degrees in record numbers…female representation, still lags behind that of many other disciplines, in the Social Sciences. Only 26% of 13,000 political science professors in the United States today are women” (Sedowski and Brintall, 2007174).
139
The uncomfortably strong presence of elements of patriarchy, in the discipline of IR seemingly, does not need to be stripped open, especially judging from the data as provided, in the TRIP Survey (2009). If such a status quo, as observed in the grid in question, is anything to go by, in what is supposedly, meant to be a leading international organisation, then the crude existence, of the male hegemony, is there for all to see.
Against such a patriachical backdrop in IR, as provided, in the discussion thus far, the concerned IR scholars ( note, that the researcher of this study, intentionally did not refer to them as female IR scholars but simply maintained, the standard term of IR scholars. This is based on the avoidance, to make such scholars, seem as though their different or dismissed as belonging in the category of the other, when compared to their male counterparts, in the IR profession) via their long lasting participation, have thus successfully ensured, that Feminist views, within the context of IR theory are featured.
One reason provided, seeking to explain the lack of recognition paid towards these particular IR scholars, is that “Women may be underrepresented in the profession and trail their male colleagues because they see the World differently; they may see the world differently because of their minority status within the discipline; or the causal arrow may run in both directions”
(Maliniak et al, 2008:122).
With regards to the previous paragraph, connotative and not denotative definitions, in as far as reference to gender equality, comes across as key, in as far as the author of this study, is concerned. From a social perspective, the preferred terminology of scholars, usually contributes positively or negatively, to current and future scholars, leading to the perpetuation or renewal, of gender stereotypes. Given the society of patriarchy, wherein most scholars, find themselves in, to date, various verbal abuse, via the male emphasised vocabulary, observed in IR (and even beyond the Social Sciences realm), remains rife (see commentary on Feminist IR theorist such as J.A Tickner). Usually than not this may take place, without much realization, by IR or political
140
science scholars at large. This is specifically directed, to these scholars, as they are the main user(s) of texts, of the discipline, in question.
Although women may not necessarily be exempted, from the society of patriarchy, which they are forcefully subjected to, “Female political scientists adopt methods and choose topics that are not considered to be the best or most rigorous, types of research by the editors of leading journals” (Maliniak et al,2008:122). This may indicate that Female IR scholars, given a choice, may opt not to employ, the lingua franca, preferred by their male dominated counterparts, in the discourse of IR (and for as long as they may help it, even beyond 175). It is unfortunate that as a result “Womens publishing opportunities may be restricted, or ghettoized, to specific and gendered domains” (Mathews and Anderson, 2001).
Closer attention towards the works of Susan Strange (who was recorded at number 22 of the Top 25 Most Influential IR scholars) and J.Anne Tickner’s Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation (1988), may have provided ample reason, to support the above observation. It is however in Tickner’s other work below, wherein focus on her thoughts, pertaining to gender bias/sexism as a feminist IR scholar, should ideally be paid.
The theme of gender/sexism, for the author of this study, may not be doubted, for coming across as central, to Feminist IR scholars, Tickner’s article titled You just don’t understand: troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists (1997), serves as an excellent example, illustrating such a view. In this particular article, Tickner addresses leading male IR scholars, such as Robert Keohane, (in a separate article, she does the same with Francis Fukuyama 176, about how male IR scholars need, not just be aware, but also to further acknowledge that IR, is really a masculine dominated discipline. More than anything else, precisely based on gender related dynamics 177. From the particular text, mentioned above, Tickner alerts Keohane and his fellow IR brethren (author’s emphasis) as follows:
141
about how they need to be aware that the discipline of IR, is really a masculine dominated discipline, which is mainly filled with white masculine based thought, hardly providing much room to sensitivities towards females within the discipline, who may not share the same views on issues, as their male counterparts- predominantly because of gender related dynamics (Tickner,1997).
The researcher of this study (in subscribing to Afrocentricity and also classified as male, in as far as the gender category may be determined), couldn’t help but agree, with what has been expressed, in the quote above. For the author of this study Tickner (1997) has hit the nail, right on its head, in the above remark. For the author of study, even though a male, believes that the dominance of the male perspective in IR (such views only serve patriachically driven agenda), runs the risk of IR manifesting (or in the current juncture, continuing very robustly and somehow intentionally yet ignorantly) to adhere and uphold, a patriarchic stance.
In the case of IR, such parochial practice, chiefly stems from IR’s historically self made, white male scholarly societal perspective. So the theme of ‘race’ is inevitably also emphasized. So IR scholars, may not be far from the truth, when they may have assumed that IR’s historical content, may have been spearheaded, by the earlier noted existent ageing, white male dominance (author’s emphasis). What is even more disturbing, concerning the above data is that it predominantly makes reference, to the leading practioners of IR. For the record
Of course, IR Feminists are concerned with issues of war and peace. But rather than debating whether men are aggressive and women peaceful, they are asking new questions about conflict, as well as trying to expand, conventional agendas. Feminist agendas include human rights issues, such as rape in war, military prostitution, refugees (the majority of whom are women and children), and more generally, issues about civilian casualties (Tickner, 1999:8178).
The above quote should be read, as a response, to the relevance of Feminist IR. For the author of this study, more than just raising issues, it is how those issues are raised within the context of IR, hence the relevance, of Feminist IR theorists. In being the discipline’s main scholars, male figures, such as those addressed by J.A.Tickner and her Feminist IR theory colleagues, are worryingly comfortably based, at the helm of IR. Without voices, such as those from the
142
Feminist IR theorist camp, the male dominated views, may continue to mislead, the majority of the scholars, of IR, promoting a parochial Worldview. This applies to all scholars, who may not share, in the male bias, which consequently may lead, to distorted male perspectives, in the reading of global phenomena.
Observations as those made above, appear to still be predominately, laced across IR literature.
Notable examples of other IR scholars, who are recommended to be read, on the dilemma of gender in IR, range from Jane Parpart and Branwyn Gruffyd Jones amongst others. Another Tickner, (this time emanating from Colombia)-Arlene Tickner179 from amongst the prominent IR scholars, notably belonging to the Feminist IR theory category, may also be worth viewing. This is in support of the Feminist views, as already expressed, related to IR and views, as expressed by its male IR scholars, thus far.
With the above clarity, having been stipulated at such length, it is the author of this study’s view, that it will be recommendable, to actually go as far as naming, the pioneering women, who have also been at the helm of ISA- Dina Zinnes (University of Illinois-1980-81), Helga Haftendorn (Free University of Berlin-1990-91), Susan Strange (University of Warwick-1995-96), Margaret G. Herman (Ohio State University- 1998-99) and lastly J. Ann Tickner (University of Southern California-2006-07). Of all these female presidents, mention should be made, that only J.A.Tickner is taken to have formally declared herself, as unapologetically, belonging to the Feminist IR theorist camp. They must be acknowledged and perhaps, even celebrated (caution of absence of black Female scholars should be kept in mind), when taking into account, the historical dominance of the predominantly white male hegemony, as observed in the field of IR.
This proposed celebration, of these scholars, should take place, with the understanding, that IR scholars in question, were actually successfully responsible, for intervening, in what has otherwise become, an all male hegemony, in the ISA presidency.
By having successfully served their respective presidential tenure (s), the abovementioned IR scholars, may be regarded as insignificant, when compared to their male counterparts, who may
143
also have done the same, in the same capacity. It is the view of the author of this study, that given the scarcity of recognised IR scholars, categorized as female, the appearance of these women as having been at the helm, of such a prestigious scholarly body of IR, should never be erroneously read, as insignificant.
If one of the core points, in as far as the theme of gender, is concerned is the argument raised, regarding the subscription and emphasis to equality, then the participation of these respective IR scholars, in question represents (beyond mythological symbolism) that female scholars, can also hold their own, when similar opportunities, are availed to them, as similar to their male IR scholar (s) counterparts.
Acknowledgement of the above point, should be read, as even more critically significant, when the biased, white male ageing IR scholar syndrome, is taken, into consideration. The respective tenures of IR scholars mentioned above, should be read as speaking directly, to the pursued equality of capability and insight, that women (although it is unfortunately, only just white women here, the point refers to women of all races), are just as capable, in accomplishing respective tasks, handed out to them similar (if not better) at some tasks, than their male counterparts.
In all fairness to females, the above expectation should be expected provided the tasks set, are within their respective, fields of expertise as assigned to them. Unlike in the case, of their male counterparts, wherein the sweeping generalization of simply being male, the global society (which is continuously fuelled by patriarchy), enmasse assumes that delivery, presumably based on male gender status, will almost always be imminent. Unless conclusive evidence is forwarded, to support such blind claim(s), the dire need to correct such misleading social constructs remains.
144
3.2.3.2 The Broader Gender Question in IR: Registering Feminist Views as led by J.Anne