07 - Chapter 1

Chapter – I
Theories of International Relations: Brief

Introduction
The marginalization of women is a worldwide phenomenon.

Women’s rights to be treated at par with men and to preserve their human
dignity are some of the pertinent questions in the social science
discourses. In the past few centuries, this issue has captured the minds of
social scientists to such an extent that it has become an important
question across various ideologies. Since the present thesis is concerned
with feminist challenges to theories of International Relations, which is a
sub-section of Political Science, the discussion here would be limited to
the discipline of Political Science.
Feminist political theory sees women and their condition as crucial

to political analysis. It asks why is it that in almost all known societies
only men are visible and exercise power over women and what steps
should be taken to change their situation.
Looking back to the genesis of the emergence of feminist ideas,

one could find different opinions and arguments pertaining to their
periphery status in most of the societies.
In The City of Women (1404), Christine De Pisan discussed the

miserable condition of women. She enumerated that there was
Theories of International Relations : Brief Introduction
“scarcely… a volume, whoever its author, without… some chapters or

sections blaming us.”1
The sphere of international relations is no exception to it. In order

to understand feminist challenges to the theories of international relations,
it is necessary to first understand the emergence of international relations
as a discipline and its major theories. Hence, the present chapter aims at
discussing the historical development of the background of International
Relations’ emergence as an independent discipline, its major theories and
alternative approaches.
Let me begin with the emergence of International Relations as an

independent discipline. Though Political Science deals with relations
between the states, it could never discuss multidimensional aspects of
international relations. It is essential to realize the importance of co-
existence of states in the era of nuclear proliferation, and endangered
security. Since ancient days, there existed inter-tribal, inter-city state,
inter-kingdom relations and interaction among various pre-states and
civilizations, such as the Indus valley civilization, the Egyptian, the
Sumerian city-states like Kish, Karsa (2500 BC),2 the Greek city-states
and the Roman. They evolved a distinct pattern of Inter-state conduct and
a system of internal governance for the peaceful growth of their
societies.3 But in ancient days, inter-state relations were incidental and
very limited in nature. It evolved in a new form with the emergence of
Renaissance and Reformation movements; Treaty of Westphalia in 1648;
1
Here quoted from, Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and the International
Relations in a Post-Modern Era, New York, Cambridge University, 1994, p.2
2
See., V.K. Malhotra, International Relations, New Delhi, Anmol Publications Pvt.
Ltd., 1993, p.1
3
See., Aneek Chatterjee, International Relations Today, New Delhi, Pearson, 2010,
p.1
2
emergence of the concept of nation-state with territorial sovereignty.

Further, the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789; production of
sophisticated armaments; race among superpowers to acquire weapons;
the outbreak of two World Wars; rise of nationalist movements in
countries of Asia and Africa made people realize the need to develop new
theories in the area of IR for interaction among nation states; importance
of security and peace which led to the emergence of IR as an independent
discipline.
Growth of International Relations as a Subject
The earliest text on International Relations for the first time, was
written by the Greek historian Thucydides (c.430- 406 B.C), The
Peloponnesian War.4 Academically, the study of International Relations
was introduced with the establishment of the Woodrow Wilson chair of
International Relations in 1919 at the University College of Wales,
Aberystwyth, United Kingdom. Alfred Zimmern was the first holder of
this chair. C.K. Webster and E.H. Carr were among the early scholars of
this discipline. This subject was offered in European and American
Universities from the 1920s. Simultaneously at several other places,
chairs of International Relations were established such as in Hebrew
University, Jerusalem (1929), Oxford University (1930), the London
School of Economics (1936) and the University of Edinburgh (1948).5
The First World War had a deep impact on the development of this
new subject in social sciences. Before the First World War, according to
Alfred Zimmern, "There was no teaching of the subject as such, and very
4
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens and Steve Smith (ed.), The Globalization of
World Politics: An Introduction, New York, Oxford University Press,2008, p.96
5
See., A. Zimmern (ed.) University Teaching of International Relations, Paris,
International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, League of Nations,1939, P. ix
3
little conscious study.6 Grant, Hughes, Greenwood, Kerr and Urguhart

wrote the first textbook on International Relations entitled, An
Introduction to the Study of International Relations, (1916, Britain). A
few developments around the globe like establishment of a School of
Foreign Service at Georgetown University in 1919, U.S.A; Independent
School of International Relations at the University of Southern California
in 1924; the Institute of Advanced International Studies in Paris (1923);
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace at Washington, D.C
(1910); the Union of Democratic Control in England (1914); Foreign
Policy Association and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York
(1918); Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (1920) further
helped in the development of IR. Several institutes in Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, South Africa and Pakistan were affiliated with the above
institute. Further, with the establishment of some more institutes in
International Affairs such as New Commonwealth Institute in London
(1934), renamed as the London Institute of World Affairs; the Institute of
International Affairs in Paris in 1935;7 Indian Council of World Affairs in
India in 1943 also played a great role in the development of IR. Thus, in
the early 20th century, International Relations became a discrete academic
field (no. 5901 in the 4-digit UNESCO nomenclature) within Political
Science. In practice, International Relations was carried out as a separate
academic programme or as a subsection of Political Science. The courses
taught therein were highly interdisciplinary in nature.
This subject was developing day by day. In the contemporary period,

cordial relations and mutual understanding among states have greater
6
See., Peu Ghosh, International Relations, Delhi, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2014, pp.4-
5
7
See., V.K. Malhotra, op.cit., pp.3-4
4
significance for the progressive development of each nation. This resulted

in providing independent status to ‘International Relations.’ Before going
into the theoretical framework of IR, a cursory glance at the various
stages of development of the study of international relations was
essential.
Stages of development of International Relations
As a well defined academic discipline, International Relations

emerged in the first half of the twentieth century. Kenneth Thompson
illustrated a very comprehensive picture of different stages of
International Relations which could be enumerated as follows:8
The first stage can be termed as historical approach where more

emphasis was laid on historical analysis rather than on the political study
of international events. However, this historical approach could not
develop a theoretical core for the discipline.
The second stage can be labeled as contemporaneous stage when

more emphasis was laid on contemporary issues rather than on history. It
emerged after the end of First World War. This approach totally
neglected past, it was also partial.
The third stage began during the inter-war period when there
occurred a paradigm shift from the historical and contemporaneous to a
moralistic-legalistic approach. Scholars emphasized a war-free world
order and suggested creation of organizations like League of Nations.
8
See., Kenneth W Thompson, The Study of International Politics: A Survey of Trend
and Developments, in Review of Politics (Norte Dame), 14 Oct., 1952, pp. 433-467
5
However, this approach was too idealistic and ignored the hard realities
of international life.9
The fourth stage commenced after the end of the Second World
War in 1945.10 Now there was a shift from merely praising or
condemning different states’ behaviour but to discover the causes behind
such behaviour. The emphasis was now more on understanding. This
shift in international relations in the fourth stage was the outcome of
decolonization, emergence of new nation-states, rise of new universal
values, demographic change etc. This shift gave birth to the Realist
school which believed that power was a means, as well as end in itself.
International politics was nothing but a struggle for power. Morgenthau
became its chief proponent.11
The fifth stage started from the mid-sixties to the seventies when
international organization, trans-national institutions and multinational
corporations were added to the study of International Relations, which
resulted in the coming of Neo-liberal school of thought. Robert Keohane
and Joseph Nye emerged as its chief proponents who stressed upon
interdependence, security communities, transnational economic
cooperation and creation of an international regime.
Kenneth Thompson opined that the dependency theorists reacted to

many of the same international economic changes as neoliberals, but in a
9
10
The emphasis shifted to making a scientific analysis of the developments in
international politics. Scientific studies were undertaken on what causes war and how
to avert it.
11
However, there developed deterrence theory in this period – a fine example of
interdisciplinary collaboration which had a great impact on national policy
particularly in the area of arms control and nuclear strategy.
6
negative sense that was dependence not positive-interdependence.12

These changes resulted in increased intervention by the US in the affairs
of Third World13countries to fulfill her own economic interests.
This further widened the gap between the world’s rich and poor
countries leading to North-South conflict and thus generating new debate
on the global political agenda. Thus for the first time, in this stage, the
South demanded the establishment of a New International Economic
Order (NIEO)14 which became a subject of analysis in international
relations. Another development of this stage was the revival of peace
studies. The issues of global stability, world order and control of global
violence now got predominance in the international relations.15
The sixth stage may be counted from the late seventies to the first
half of eighties. In this period, the efficacy of detente16was questioned
and 'New cold war’ emerged which changed the whole scenario. On the
one hand, the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan, on the other, US
President Reagan threatened the world by talking of star war programme.
The whole world got worried about its effect on the environment and
ecology. Hence, ecological and environmental issues now became the
12
13
Third World – A notion that was first used in the late 1950s to define both the
underdeveloped world and the political and economic project that would help to
overcome underdevelopment.
14
NIEO is a Third world effort begun in the mid-1970s, mainly conducted in UN
forums, to advocate restructuring of the world economy so as to make North-South
economic transactions less unfavourable to the South.
15
See., Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics: Trend and
Transformation, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1981, p.22
Detente – A period of improved relations between the United States and the Soviet
16
Union during the cold war period.
7
dominant subjects of international relations. In the same period, Kenneth

Waltz formulated the neorealist theory and transformed the abstract
principles of classical realism with a more concrete theory of realism
making it more acceptable and much closer to a scientific study of
international relations. Miles Kahler argued that, “By the mid – 1980s not
only had neorealism claimed a central place in international security
theory, but also it had, in the form of hegemonic stability theory17,
claimed a central place in international political economy18, which had
been the primary source of alternative theoretical viewpoints within
international relations.”19 The neorealist theory argued for managing and
manipulating the new cold war in the 1980s.
With the emergence of the steady process of multi-polarization20,

the scholars of the United States especially showed interest in third world
countries. Area studies were undertaken by different universities in the
US and Britain. In many cases, for field data researchers were sent to the
third world countries. But the Western theories of international relations
were challenged by the scholars of the third world countries. They
questioned the relevance and suitability of these theories to the
17
Hegemonic stability theory is a realist based explanation for cooperation that argues
that a dominant state is required to ensure a liberal, free-trade, international political
economy.
18
International political economy is the study of politics of trade, monetary, and other
economic relations among nations, and their connection to other transnational forces.
19
For more detail see., Miles Kahler, ‘ Inventing International Relations: International
Relations Theory after 1945’ in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (ed.), New
Thinking in International Relations Theory, Colorado, Westview Press, 1997, p.35
20
Multi-polar system is an international system with typically five or six centres of
power that are not grouped into alliances.
8
underdeveloped countries which constitute the two-thirds majority of the

UN membership.
The seventh stage began in 1985 with Mikhail Gorbachev’s new

political thinking, which recognized "balance of interests" in place of the
balance of power, co-operation instead of confrontation, disarmament in
place of armament, internationalization instead of nationalization and
détente in place of cold war."21 With the advent of this ‘new political
thinking’, international relations entered into a new era putting emphasis
on peaceful coexistence and equal security for all. At first, the US is
suspicious about these new moves, but later on, it responded positively to
this ‘new political thinking’. During this period, since the realist and
liberalist debate disappeared, the postmodernists came to fill the vacuum.
Post-modernists or reflectivists argued that norms and regimes22 could
not be studied in a positivist framework based on objectivity, but has to
be analysed as an inter-subjective phenomenon. This new trend in the
1980s was known as post-positivism. It contained four major currents:
critical theory; post-modern Marxism; post-modernism and post-modern
feminism.23
21
Cold war is the period of hostile relations- punctuated by occasional periods of
improvement, or détente- between the two superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.,
from 1945 to 1990. For details see., Vinay Kumar Malhotra, Gorbachevian
Revolution in the Soviet Union –Collapse or Renewal of Socialism, New Delhi, 1991,
p.88
22
Regimes are sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-
making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of
international relations.
23
See.,V.K. Malhotra and Alexander A. Sergounin, Theories and Approaches to
International Relations, New Delhi, Anmol Publications, 1998, pp. 289-318
9
The eighth stage began with the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Republics of the USSR and Yugoslavia became independent states. The
supremacy of the US paved the way for the unipolar world as it remained
the only superpower. The third world countries and the countries of the
erstwhile disintegrated communist bloc started seeking economic aid
from the Western countries and especially from the US. The US started
pressurizing these countries to accept its terms and conditions for
economic aid.
Thus, through the description of the above eight-stages, Thompson

had aptly analysed how international relations developed from normative
theory to causal theory, from idealism to realism, from realism to
behaviouralism and scienticism, neoliberalism to radicalism (globalism),
neorealism to post-positivism and so on.
In the post-cold war period, there were several issues which gained
significance in the study of international relations. Some of these were:
importance of non-state actors, energy crisis, terrorism, globalization, the
fear of third world war, technological development, increasing role of
trans-national organizations, non-traditional security threats, the North-
South debate, environmental degradation, rise of world oligarchy and
world mass, nuclearization, expansion of weapons of mass destruction
(MAD) etc.24
However, in spite of the fact that the study of international

relations remained no more state-centric and added many new areas in its
scope, it had not yet given due consideration to the issue of gender.
Women had throughout been ignored in the realm of international
24
See., Anam Jaitly, International Politics: Major Contemporary Trends and Issues,
New Delhi, Sterling Publishers, 1984, p.14
10
politics, their voices had not been heard, their representation in various
decision-making and policy-making bodies had been minimal, yet these
issues had been totally overlooked in the study of international relations.
Thus, the main concern of the present work is to study the reasons
for such negligence and to highlight the voices of those feminist scholars
who challenged the traditional theories of international relations.
Theoretical Framework of International Relations: Major Debates
The feminist challenges to socio-political theories have greatly

affected IR. Many other events also had deep impact on the IR. The
horrifying experiences of the First World War proved the limitations of
conventional European diplomacy as a method of maintaining world
order. Scholars started seriously thinking about the alternative theories.
As a remedy, they came out with a liberal approach to international
relations which also came to be known as an idealist or utopian theory of
International Relations.25 It put stress upon "what ought to be done" to
avoid disasters and save the future generations from the consequences of
wars. The chief exponents of this theory were Alfred Zimmern (1879-
1957), Norman Angell (1872-1967), James T. Shotwell (1874-1965) and
Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924).
Wilson's "fourteen points" became the core of the above Idealist

school of thought. These points were adopted as the post-war peace
settlement initiatives. The birth of League of Nations was the ultimate
result final of Wilsonian principles. Initially, these principles paved the
25
Idealism holds that ideas have significant causal effect on happenings in world
politics and that ideas can change. It is criticized by realists as utopianism because it
overlooks the importance of power politics.
11
way for the emergence of International Relations as a discipline which

was slowly adopted by most of the American universities. As already
discussed, the first University Chair of International Relations was
established as the Woodrow Wilson chair. Wilson and other idealists
were quite confident that by promoting the study of International
Relations, it would be possible to establish peace. However, in spite of
their efforts, they were not able to understand the complex nature of
International Relations and its harsh realities. Therefore, Idealism
received a major setback with the commencement of the Second World
War in 1939.
Contrary to Wilson’s hopes, the authoritarian forces like Nazism

and Fascism emerged in the Central and Eastern Europe in place of
democracy. The League of Nations failed to counter these aggressive
forces because of the lack of active support of Japan, Germany, Russia,
Britain, France and USA. Further, the economic crisis of the 1930s
compelled the states to follow the rules of protectionism. Someone had
correctly commented that the situation was like, ‘each country trying as
best it could look after its own interests, if necessary, to the detriment of
others, the 'jungle' rather than the 'zoo'.26
The rise of authoritarian forces and economic crisis of the 1930s

resulted in the staunch critique of idealism in the international relations
and paved the way for the emergence of a new paradigm- Realism.
Political realists in total contrast to the idealist theory defined national
interest in terms of power devoid of any moral considerations. E.H. Carr,
26
See., Jackson and Sorensen, Introduction to International Relation – Theories and
Approaches, Oxford University Press, London, 1999, p. 38
12
George F. Kennan, Hans J. Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Henry

Kissinger and Kenneth W. Thompson were the chief exponents of this
new theory. This had been regarded as the period of the first 'Great
Debate' in International Relations in the post Second World War era. This
debate was between the Idealist and the Realist school. Against the
idealist approach, the realist approach assigned greater importance to
states and treated states as main actors who were guided by their own
interests.
However, soon this theory also got critiqued by a number of

scholars particularly about their tools, language and methods of studying
world politics during the 1960s and 1970s, which paved the way for the
emergence of the 'Second Great Debate’ in International Relations.
This new debate was influenced by the behavioural revolution in

social sciences in the 1960s and 1970s. Behaviouralist mainly
emphasized the application of scientific methods of study to the field of
IR.27 Some of the significant works of this period were: Quincy Wright, A
Study of War; Morton A. Kaplan, System and Processes in International
Politics; and Charles McClelland, Theory of the International System.
They tried to incorporate scientific methods in the study of international
relations.
This second debate had a long-lasting impact on the International

Relations scholars. It led to significant changes both in the theories of
27
See., Peu Ghosh, op. cit., pp.6-7
13
realism and liberalism28, emerging into a new form of neo-realism and

neo-liberalism in the 1970s, resulting in the third great debate of
International Relations.
This debate was known as ‘neo-neo’ debate.29 This major debate

sparked off between the Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Realism and the Neo-
Marxism on the other. In this debate, neo-liberals renewed the classical
liberal ideals of progress and change but avoided idealism. E Haas,
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye emerged as the chief advocates of the
neo-liberal approach. They challenged the realist approach and stressed
upon the plurality of actors30 in International Relations and refuted the
realist notion which considered states to be the only important actors in
the global politics. It recognized that a significant role was played by
non-state actors such as Multinational Corporations (MNCs),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. Similarly,
international non-governmental organizations, such as, the Red Cross,
Medicines sans Frontiers, Amnesty International and a host of other inter-
28
Liberalism here is being used as a synonym for further developments of idealist
school in IR. Idealist approach to IR was named as liberal here because Idealist seeks
to apply liberal thinking in domestic politics to international relations. Liberalism
emphasizes absolute over illative gains and, in practice, a commitment to free trade,
free capital flows, and an ‘open’ world economy.
29
Neo-neo debate was not a debate between two polar opposite worldviews. They
shared an epistemology, focused on similar questions and agreed on a number of
assumptions about world politics. This was an intra-paradigm debate. See., John
Baylis, Patricia Owens and Steve Smith (ed.), op.cit., pp. 133-135
30
Neo-liberals put a greater emphasis on the plurality of actors and their activities in
IR. They acknowledged that side by side the UN and other regional organizations like
EU, ASEAN, and African Union (AU) which remained state-based; there was an
increasing significance of non-state actors such as MNCs, IMF, and other non-state
actors.
14
governmental organizations (IGOs) were also playing a pivotal role. They

were working between the domestic and the international spheres, thereby
transcending the boundaries of states.
Another important concept ‘complex interdependence’ was also

introduced by neo-liberals. They opined that besides the political
relations, there were other forms of relations existing between various
countries such as transnational links between the business corporations,
cultural and social connections etc. Here, hard power (military force) was
not given much importance as to that of soft power (cultural and social
relations). Hence, neo-liberals came forward with a non-military
paradigm of International Relations for ensuring peaceful and cooperative
relationship among nations.
The neo-liberal31 arguments caught the attention of the neo-realists

and Kenneth Waltz, one of the prominent neo-realist thinkers brought
some changes in the light of their arguments and gave realist theory a
new form which was later known as the neo-realist theory. Waltz also
revived the debate between the realists and the liberals. In his 'Theory of
International Politics' (1979) Waltz focused on the ‘structure’ of the
international system and its impact upon it. According to neo-realists,
world politics became more than the outline of the foreign policies of the
states and the external balance of other states. Waltz, hence, underlined
the patterned relationships among states in an international system that is
anarchical. He argued that states behaved as security-seekers and power-
maximizers because the structure of the international system compelled
31
Neo-liberal approach stresses the importance of international institutions in
reducing the inherent conflicts that realists assume in an international system; the
reasoning is based on the core liberal idea that seeking long-term mutual gains is often
more rational than maximizing individual short-term gains.
15
them to do so. Thus, unlike the realist theory, the neo-realist theory
believed in the possibility of some form of cooperation between the states
as that of neo-liberals. But the point of divergence between the neo-
liberals and neo-realists was that neo-realists still believed that states, in
general, try to maximize their relative power and secure their autonomy.32
In the meantime, efforts had been made by various thinkers to

bring the above two theories closer. The prominent among them were:
Bary Buzan, Charles Jones and Richard Little. To this effect, they put
forward the concept of ‘deep structure’, which meant political structure
includes anarchy as well as hierarchy and it comprises not only power
and institutions but also rules and norms. They argued that anarchical
society produced states that were sovereign and it was a misconception
that anarchy was incompatible with cooperation. All of them further
argued that states, as well as non-state actors, exhibit both cooperation
and competitive behaviour in international politics. Thus, these scholars
acknowledged some of the contents of Waltz's neo-realism with certain
modifications. During the same period, under the above discussed Third
Great Debate in the International Relations, the neo-liberal and neo-realist
arguments soon caught the attention of the contemporary Marxists. In the
light of their arguments, now neo-Marxists were compelled to
reformulate the classical Marxism. Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel
Wallerstein emerged as the chief exponents of this new stream of thought.
Their major contributions were in providing deep insights into the origin
and development of an international system which they discovered was
roughly divided into the dominant North and the dependent South. They,
therefore, made a serious effort to understand the reasons for continuous
32
See., J.E. Dougherty et al., Contending Theories of International Relations – A
Comprehensive Survey, Longman, New York, 1997, pp. 80-82
16
under-development of the developing countries.33 As a result, two streams

of neo-Marxists theory emerged: the world system theory and
dependency theory. The later one bifurcates the countries of the world
into core and periphery; where the core symbolizes the rich countries and
the periphery the poor ones. They were inspired by the work of Lenin,
'Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism’. On the same line, the
world system theory was developed by Immanuel Wallerstein. He was an
American sociologist, who added the notion of 'semi-periphery' to the
previous dual structure model of world advocated by dependency
theorists in the 1970s. Most of the neo-Marxists believed that wealth and
resources were transferred from the periphery to the core countries. It
only reflected the relative economic strength of rich countries such as
America, Japan and many European countries, which formed the core
group. Similarly the poor countries such as Bhutan and Nepal etc. came
under the periphery group. The semi-periphery falls between the core and
periphery such as that of the former Soviet Union.34
However, the decades of the 1970s and 1980s were thoroughly

dominated by neo-liberal and neo-realist debate. But in the 1990s, after
the downfall of USSR and the end of cold war,35there was a change in the
way international relations was seen. In this new era, the dominance of
American scholars lessened, and this made space for voices of other
scholars of international relations who belonged to Europe and other parts
33
See,. Peu Ghosh, op.cit., p.9
34
See., Stephanie Lawson, International Relations, UK, Polity Press, 2004, pp.53-54
35
Cold war is that mode of latent conflict between communism and capitalism,
which was begun in 1947 and extended till 1989 with the disintegration of USSR.
17
of the world. This was recognized as "the English School" which

emphasized, "international society" or the society of states.36
Hedley Bull, E.H. Carr, C.A.W. Manning, F.S. Northedge, Martin

Wight, Adam Watson, R.J. Vincent and Robert Jackson emerged as the
main advocators of this new strand.37
They argued that in the situations of anarchy, states act within a system of
norms which was limited in nature most of the time. They stressed the
existence of a world of sovereign states where both power and law
resided together.38
However, after the end of the cold war, the major paradigms in
international relations seemed unable to analyze the existing
circumstances. Hence, new debates emerged in the area of international
relations. They now focused on methodological and substantial matters.
They were different from the mainstream liberal, realist and Marxist
schools of thought in international relations. They constituted the fourth
debate, which challenged the conventional theories in international
relations and suggested alternative approaches. These approaches were
considered as new voices in international relations and were recognized
as post-positivist approaches. Yosef Lapid regarded these approaches as
the beginning of a post-positivist era.39
36
See., Jackson and Sorensen, op. cit., p. 53
37
See., Chris Brown, Understanding International Relations, London, Macmillan
Press, 1997, pp. 52-53
38
See., Jackson and Sorensen, op.cit., pp. 53-55
39
See., Yosef Lapid, ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in
a Post-Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.33, No.3, 1989, pp. 235-
254
18
Taking into account the above theoretical perspectives of

international relations, Steve Smith had divided these theories into
40
following categories: (a) Explanatory Theories: An explanatory theory
was one which perceived the world as something external to our theories.
Realist, pluralist and structural neo-Marxist theories could be put under
this. In this endeavour, they attempt to find regularities in human
behaviour and thereby explain the social world in the same way a natural
scientist would do. (b) Constitutive Theories: A constitutive theory was
one which believed that our theories actually help to construct the world.
Most of the recent approaches ranging from critical theories to
postmodernist theories could be put under this category. The distinction
between the two was that whereas the former adopted a scientific
approach, the later adopted a non-scientific approach. However, most of
the theories developed in the recent past were constitutive, rather than
explanatory. The dominant liberal theory came under the constitutive
theory.
These theories could be further categorized under foundational and

non-foundational theories. Foundational theories were those, which
believed that all truth claims could be judged as true or false while anti-
foundational theories believed that truth claims could not be so judged
since there were no neutral grounds for doing so.
Most of the new approaches developed in the recent past were anti-
foundational in nature. To illustrate, postmodernism, post-colonialism
and feminist theories were more anti-foundational than being
40
Steve Smith, "Alternative Approaches to International Theory", in John Baylis,
Patricia Owens & Steve Smith (ed.), The Globalization of World Politics, London,
Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 176-178
19
foundational. These theories could also be categorized as rationalist and

reflectivist. The neo-liberal and neo-realist41theoretical positions could be
put under the rationalist; and feminist and constructivist theories under
the reflectivist. Smith yet refers to another position that of social
constructivism which tried to maintain a balance between the rationalist
and reflectivist positions.42 It would be relevant here to mention that
Steve Smith’s configuration in the late 1990s which presented all these
approaches in a comprehensive manner:43
Figure 1: Steve Smith’s configuration on IR Theories
Rationalism SocSial Constructivism

Social Constructivism Reflectivism
Neo- Neo- Post Modernism
Liberalism Realism Feminist Theory
Normative Theory
Critical Theory
Historical Sociology
Now a discussion of all the major theories of international relations

became imperative.
41
Neo-realist is the modified version of realist approach. It recognizes the importance
of economic resources with military capabilities for exercising influence.
42
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens & Steve Smith (ed.), op.cit., p. 178
43
See, Ibid., p.179
20
Majors Theories of International Relations
In international relations, attempts towards theory building

commenced with the first grand debate between Realists and Idealists.44
However, mainstream international relations was dominated by three
main theoretical approaches: liberalism, realism and neo-Marxism (world
system theory). Among them, realism appeared to have great influence in
comparison to others. But to maintain chronology, it would be better to
start with liberal theory.
Liberal Theory in IR
The evolution of liberal theory could be traced back to the

reformation movement in the 16th century which passed through different
phases and still holds a dominant position.45 It emerged as a challenge to
dogmatism, feudalism and irrationalism. It began with John Locke in the
seventeenth century who believed that the right to life, liberty and
property were the natural rights; and hence the best state was that which
rules the least and protects these rights. He treated ‘liberty’ as the core
value of any state. This spirit was carried forward by John Stuart Mill,
Kant and T.H. Green. This liberal theory had a deep impact on
international relations, which resulted in developing a liberal tradition in
international relations thinking.46 Early liberals in the realm of
44
See., James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr., Contending Theories of
International Relations: A Comprehensive Study, New York, Longman, 1997, pp. 14-
22
45
See., Aneek Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 10-11
46
Unlike realism which treated the ‘international’ as an anarchic realm, liberals as
means to protect values of order, liberty, justice and toleration. See., in Keith L.
Shimko, International Relations – Perspectives and Controversies, New York,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, pp.51-52
21
international relations were Norman Angell and Woodrow Wilson, who

were a witness to the horrors of the First World War and hence, believed
in creating a peaceful social order based on cooperation among nation-
states which, according to them, was possible only by giving prominence
to values like freedom, liberty and laissez-faire policy.47 But this
approach could not last for a long. After the rise of Nazi and Fascist
forces in the 1930s and failure of the League of Nations, there occurred a
change in both the realist and liberal theories, which were regarded as
neo-liberal and neo-realist theories.48 Neo-liberal theory believed that
nation-states were not the only actors in IR; individuals, groups and
societal organization were also very significant actors. Organizations like
UNO, WTO, NATO, and EU achieved great importance as they were
able to promote interdependence and co-operation among states and
ensure peace. It was the competitive market which could do away with
security fears of nation-states, as commercial interests in place of war,
became the primary concern of states.49
In other words, the neo-liberal theory emphasized the: (a) role of

MNCs and NGOs; ((b) minimal role of state in economic sector; (c)
rolling of welfare & protectionist state; (d) free trade as the best way to
maintain world peace; (e) democratic political system as the most suitable
option for a liberal state as was proved by the disintegration of Soviet
47
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens & Steve Smith (ed.), op.cit., pp. 110-113. See.,
also Charles W. Kegley & Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics – Trends and
Transformation, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1997, p. 20
48
See., Aneek Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 11
49
See., Robert O Keohane and Joseph S Nye, “Realism and Complex
Interdependence”, in Marc William (ed.) International Relations in the Twentieth
Century: A reader, London, Macmillan Education, 1989, pp. 243-254
22
Union;50 and (f) globalization as the strongest remedy for bringing

cooperation between states. C. B. Macpherson, Friedman, John Rawls,
Francis Fukuyama, K. Ohmae, David Mitrany, Ernest Hass, Robert
Keohane, and Joseph Nye emerged as the leading theorists of the neo-
liberal approach.51
However, neo-realists stressed more upon security concerns. They

were more concerned with mutual aid and considered that world was still
a place of contest and conflict but neo-liberals argued that states and other
organizations could be persuaded to work together if they were convinced
that all states would obey the laws and this would result in absolute
gains.52
In spite of its vast acceptability, the liberal theory was criticized by

several scholars. As the present work is centred on the feminist
challenges to the IR theories, hence, it would be relevant to give a brief
account of feminist critique of liberal theory.
Feminist Critique of Liberal Theory in IR
Feminist critics of the liberal theory accused it of eliticism and

capitalism. They argued that it incorrectly depoliticizes exchange
relationships and covers latent power structures.53 Challenging the notion
50
For further reference see., M. Doyle, 'Liberalism and World Politics', American
Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 4, 1986, pp. 1151-69
51
See., Aneek Chatterjee, op. cit., p.14
52
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens & Steve Smith (ed.), op.cit., p.135. See also.,
Paul R. Viotti and Mark K Kauppi (eds.), International Relations Theory: Realism,
Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond, London, Macmillan, 1990, p.215
53
See., J.Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations, op.cit., pp. 47-49
23
of “economic man”, Nancy Hartsock asserted that primarily, liberal

theory was dependent on economic exchange. Hence, any concept of
community in this theory was very weak and only of instrumental value.
She further questioned the liberal idea that it was possible to discuss the
conduct of people separately from society. It was impractical because
people have always been a part of a society.54 Similarly, Sandra Harding
asserted that the highly individualistic behaviour of a rational economic
man cannot essentially be presumed as a standard. If women’s
experiences are to be included within human conduct, its standard
assumption has to be changed. The reason behind it was that women
conceptualized self on the basis of the relationship with others in place of
being separate from others.55
Further, Esther Boserup argued that in several parts of the colonial

and postcolonial countries, the status of rural women, in fact, went down,
when they were incorporated into the world market economy.56 During
the early years of development aid, the notion of the male head of
household was included in the foreign aid programmes. According to the
liberal sexual division of labour, the male was considered as heads and
women were perceived as child bearers and homemakers. This notion
further marginalized women’s productive roles.
54
See., Nancy C.M. Hartsock, Money, Sex and Power: Toward a feminist Historical
Materialism, Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1983, p.47
55
See., Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism, New York, Cornell
University Press, 1986, p.171
56
See., Esther Boserup, Women’s Role in Economic Development, Aldershet,
England, Gower, 1986, ch.3
24
Moreover, the states those have accepted booming export-oriented

industrial strategies, for example, South Korea, Taiwan and Hongkong
have been dependent to a large extent upon unskilled women labourers.
Some countries have caught the attention of overseas companies by
offering a large number of younger women workers. Whenever these
young women tried to escape from these situations, such as by marrying
someone, raising their voices as members of trade unions, they were
either killed or brutally tortured by male members.57 In this context,
Cynthia Enloe argued that young women working in “export processing
sectors” were motivated to perceive themselves as daughters or future
wives entitled only for marginal payments. As a result, through this
perception their labour was undervalued and they had fewer chances to
proceed into more expert areas.58
Further, the structural adjustment policies enforced by the

International Monetary Fund on the Third World debtor countries had a
negative impact on women. Generally, they were being seen as providers
of basic needs for their families. But now due to foreign debt, their own
governments reduced subsidies and benefits provided to women in the
sectors of health, nutrition and housing. When government funds were no
longer available, women in their role as unpaid homemakers and
caregivers were compelled to take charge of the basic welfare needs. For
instance, severe economic crisis in the 1980s is a testimony of the fact
57
See., J.Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations, op.cit., p.50
58
See., Cynthia Enloe, Banana, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of
International Politics, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990, ch.7
25
that a large number of the Third World women went abroad as domestic
servants and were sending their incomes to their families.59
Realist Theory in IR
Realism has been the prevalent theory of IR since the beginning of

academic IR. Realist scholars were doubtful of the notion that universal
ethical values exist and, hence, warned state leaders against sacrificing
their own self-interests in order to stick to some undefined notion of
‘ethical’ behaviour.60 Hence, international relations theorists turned to the
realist language, where power became the central issue in IR.61 E.H. Carr,
Hans J Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, George Kennan and Arnold
Wolfers emerged as prominent realists.
Realists claimed to be the part of the ancient tradition of thought

that includes the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who lived two thousand
years ago.62 In his The Art of War, he suggested to the rulers, how to
protect their states from external invasion.63 Similarly, Thucydides
(c.460-406 B.C)64 in his book The Peloponnesian War depicted the nature
of city-states as conflicting and competition oriented.65 In modern times,
59
See., J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations, op.cit., pp. 49-50
60
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens & Steve Smith (ed.), op.cit., Ibid, p.92
61
See., Robert Jackson & Georg Sorenson, Introduction to International Relations:
Theories & Approaches, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2007, p.41
62
See., Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Translated by Samuel B. Griffith, New York,
Oxford University Press, 1963, p.22
63
See., Joshua S. Goldstein, International Relations, New Delhi, Pearson, 2006, p.81
64
See., Kelly-Kate S. Pease, International Organizations: Perspectives on
Governance in the Twenty First Century, Nj, Prentice-Hall, 2000, p.38
65
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens & Steve Smith (ed.), op.cit., p.92
26
realism found expression in the works of Niccolo Machiavelli (c.1469-

1527) who explained the concept of statesmanship and power at great
length.66 In the same way in England, Thomas Hobbes (c.1588-1679)
attached great importance to power and advocated the need of a all
powerful sovereign state to protect citizens from anarchy.67 Further, Jean-
Jacques Rousseau (c.1712-1778) in his The State of War claimed that the
anarchical system fosters fear, jealousy and insecurity.68
The core principles of realism were statism, survival and self-help.

According to realists, security issues dominate the international agenda.69
The unifying idea around which all realists thinking converge was that
states find themselves in the shadow of anarchy such that their own
security could not be taken for granted.70 In the modern era, realism
found its expression in the thought of British realist E.H. Carr in his book,
‘The Twenty Years’ Crisis’ (1939).71 However, the best expression of
realism is found in Hans J. Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations: The
66
See., Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli, London, Oxford University Press, 1981, pp.
25-29
67
See., Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, stable URL access: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct
/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html.
68
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens & Steve Smith (ed.), op.cit., p.96
69
See., Kelly-Kate S. Pease, op.cit., pp.6-7
70
See., Scott Burchill, “Realism and Neo-Realism”, in Scott Burchill, Richard
Devetak et al., Theories of International Relations, New York, Palgrave, 2001, p.92
71
See., E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919-1939, Bangalore, Macmillan Press,
1981, p.80. See., E.H Carr, International Relations Between the Two World Wars,
1919-1939, London, Macmillan Press. 1988
27
Struggle for Power and Peace (1948). He based his theory of political
realism on human nature which he found as power seeker.72
Realists believed that: (a) world politics was determined by a

continuous struggle for power which has its root in human nature; (b) the
decisive ability of the state leader was to agree with, and adjust to, the
changing power configurations in international politics; (c) values were
subordinated to policies and justice, law, and society have either no place
or were constrained by the pressures of the real world politics; (d) the
tools we applied to understand world politics was through the notion of
interests, defined in terms of power.73
However, to compensate the lacunae of realist theory, neo-realism

emerged in the 1970s.74 Neo-realists believed that: (a) in the
contemporary world, the 'threat' of war was more fearsome than actual
war; (b) the structure of the system and its relative distribution of power
need serious attention; (c) states and other actors interact in an anarchical
world order; (d) states were self-interest oriented and a world of cut-
throat competition compelled them in favour of self-help rather than
cooperative actions; (f) states were rational players and chose strategies to
maximize profit and reduce losses; (g) states perceived all other states as
possible rivals and threats to their national security; (h) mistrust and
anxiety put them in a security dilemma which prompted them to choose
72
For further reference see., Hans J Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The
Struggle for Power and Peace, Calcutta, Scientific Book Agency, 1969, pp. 4-11. See
for details, chapter 3.
73
See., John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia Owens (ed.), op. cit, p. 93
74
See., in Radharaman Chakrabarti and Gautam Kumar Basu (eds.), Theories of
International Relations: Search for Alternatives, New Delhi, Sterling Publishers,
1992, p. 91
28
between different strategies for security of the state.75 Kenneth Waltz,

Thomas Schelling,76 S. Krasner, Robert Gilpin and John Mearsheimer
emerged as the leading theorists of the neo-realist approach.77
In spite of its practical approach, realism was subjected to vigorous

criticism.78
Feminist Critique of Realist Theory in IR
Feminists criticized realist theory for being a partial theory. They

argued that it was a one-dimensional study of the notion of power
neglecting the other aspects of the state, for instance, cooperation,
freedom of people, nature of government, and moral values of the people.
Explaining the strictures imposed by realists, feminists argued that
realists had negligible contribution in preventing conflict; they used such
abstractions (the state) that it masked the masculine identity (as
aggressive, competitive, rational, egoistic, and power-seeking) hidden in
their theory.79
75
Neo-realists were also known as structural realists. Further, structural realists were
divided into two camps: those who argued that states were security maximizers
(defensive realism) and those who argued that states were power maximizers
(offensive realism).
76
Thomas Schelling modified realism and propounded strategic realism which gives
preponderance to the art of diplomacy and strategies for the success of a particular
foreign policy.
77
See., John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia Owens (ed.), op. cit, pp. 127-131
78
Realist theory is criticized in details in chapter three.
79
See., Gerise Herndon, 'Feminists Redefine International Relations: Beyond
Militarization and the State', in the Conference Proceedings of the International
Workshop on 'Contemporary Discourses in Social Theory', 16 August-10 Sept. 2012,
organized by Faculty of Social Sciences, BHU, Varanasi, p.n.f
29
Further, feminist scholars observed that the prioritizing of security

matters by the realist school may further escalate the production of
conflict-oriented and power-maximizing conducts.80
Marxist Theory in IR
Marxist Theory had a significant contribution in comprehending

International Relations as it helped in understanding the correlation
between politics, economy, social forces and structures of order. The
writings of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels constituted the core ideas of
this theory. Further, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and
other scholars developed this theory. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx
argued that capitalism divided people on the basis of control over the
means of production.81 Hence, a clash was inevitable between the
capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and workers (the proletariat); from that class
struggle would emerge a new social order which, in turn, would bring
about substantial changes in the structure of states resulting into an
altogether different world order.82
According to Marxists, the hierarchical structure of the world

system was the result of an expansion of world capitalism which
benefitted only a few states and organizations and relegated many others
to the background. Conventional Marxists like Lenin and Bukharin
adhered to this view only and perceived imperialism as the highest stage
80
See., J. Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics : Issues and Approaches in the Post
Cold War Era, op.cit., p.4
81
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens & Steve Smith (ed.) op.cit., p. 146
82
See., M.P. Karns and K.A. Mingst, International Organisations, Boulder, London,
2004, p. 53
30
of capitalism.83 In this stage, new mercantilist states would emerge who

would use coercive forces to achieve their economic and political ends,
they believed. Further, it would bring acute disappointment in the
proletariat class. These factors would jeopardize the ideal of peace and
cooperation among states. Thus, the Marxist theory challenged the liberal
theory of state promoting capitalism and protectionism.84
However, Marxism suffered a setback after the disintegration of

the Soviet Union. It paved the way for the emergence of neo-Marxists.
This new school included all dissident theories that did not rigidly follow
the conventional Marxist theory. Neo-Marxists called for a revision of
some of the elements of Marxism while retaining the core of it: class
struggle as the motor behind history.85 Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch,
Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno emerged as
prominent neo-Marxists. One of the leading neo-Marxists, Antonio
Gramsci (1891-1937) underscored the concept of hegemony for
dominance.86
Neo-Marxists perceived: (a) international law and organizations as

by-products of a dominant group of states which ensured the interests of
the capitalists; (b) capitalist structure and mode of production as
83
See., V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, New Delhi, Left
Word, 2000, pp. 113-123
84
85
See., http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-similarities-and-differences-between-
Marxism-and-Neo-Marxism/
86
Gramsci shifted the focus of Marxist analysis more towards super-structural
phenomena. In particular, he explored the processes by which consent for a particular
social and political system was produced and reproduced and through the operation of
hegemony. Hegemony allows the ideas and ideologies of the ruling stratum to become
widely dispersed and widely accepted, throughout society.
31
exploitative; and (c) the importance of major structural changes in

international politics for addressing inequalities.87
Further, a variant of neo-Marxism, under the title ‘Dependency

Theory’ emerged with great fervour in the 20th century extending its
domain from northern states to southern states. Dependency theorists
such as Raul Prebisch, Euzo Faletto, Fernando Henrique Cardosa and
Andre Gunder Frank tried to explain why rich northern countries were
benefitted from the development process.88 They suggested that there was
a need for major changes in international economic relations among states
so that the unequal distribution of power and resources could be
rectified.89
Similarly, the world system theory90was another significant variant

of the Marxist theory, propounded by Immanuel Wallenstein. He
elucidated three classes of states- core, periphery and semi-periphery.
87
However, at present time, communist parties are in power only in few countries like
China, Vietnam and Cuba. Therefore there is no serious challenge to global
capitalism. Rather these parties have endorsed some of the basic ideas of the capitalist
market economy for their own survival. See., John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia
Owens (ed.), op. cit, p. 144
88
They observed that the underdeveloped states were lagging behind due to the vested
economic interests of the dominating capitalist ‘core’ states. Hence, the
underdeveloped states should isolate themselves from the global capitalist economy
so that they could pursue indigenous economic growth and development model.
89
The same dependency theory was equally applicable to the present globalized
economy. It primarily represented the interests of the capitalist ‘core’ countries.
Forces of globalization have not brought equal development for all kind of the states.
It was also unable to counter the exploitative practices of core states over periphery
states.
90
Capitalist economy exploited the Third World countries for their vested interest. It
was the predisposition of this theory. See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens and Steve
Smith (ed.), op.cit., pp. 147
32
Core represents the advanced developed countries, while periphery

symbolizes developing countries with cheap and unskilled labour, from
where raw materials were extracted by core countries. In between core
and periphery, there exist the semi-periphery states representing the
newly industrialized countries with cheap skilled and semi-skilled
labour.91 The world system theory was further developed by Andre
Gunder Frank, Samir Amin and Giovanni Arrighi. They pointed out that
World Wars were the result of clashes between the core states for
domination and exploitation of the periphery countries.92
Though Marxist theory emerged as the voice of the people at the

margin, it was also critiqued by several scholars. Here, it would be
relevant to discuss feminist critique.
Feminist Critique of Marxist Theory in IR
Feminists argued that Marxist theory requires substantial revision

if it has to represent diverse interests of women. They criticised Marxist
theory for overlooking women in their reproductive and domestic roles.
Marxist theory wrongly presumed that class-based capitalist oppression
was the only factor responsible for women’s exploitation. It was the
support given to stereotyped division of labour where women were
primarily responsible for the caring of children, and men were for earning
of wages. The later was always given priority over the former and hence
91
This theory focused on postcolonial international order. Core dominated periphery
states by means of economic strength. See., Karns and Mingst, op. cit., p. 55
92
33
the women in the family, remarked Engels, became the proletariat and
men the bourgeois.93
Maria Mies, a prominent feminist scholar asserted that in the 19th

century Europe, the processes of imperialism and “housewifization”94
were causally interrelated. The housewifization created the Victorian icon
of the superior woman withdrawn from combat, politics and money-
making. Whereas, the Third World women’s labour became a natural
reserve that was without restraint available outside the salary-based
economy. Mies attached all these historical practices to the workings of
the contemporary exploitative world economy. In this economy, earlier
colonies were still manufacturing consumer items for the First World
countries. These manufacturing works were frequently carried out by
inadequately remunerated women. What was most degrading for women
was the fact that their low payments were validated as additional returns
for future mothers and wives.95
Further, critics argued that economic development to a certain

extent resulted in the relative deterioration of the rate of women’s
continued existence. It was a naked reality that women did not share the
benefits of progress in medical and social sectors evenly. Calling it as one
of the “most important and ignored problems facing the world today”,
93
See., Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Totowa, N.J., Rowman
and Allanheld, 1983, p. 75
94
Housewifization is the termed used for the emphasis on the Victorian image of the
good woman for whom war, politics and earning money are remote fields. As a
consequence of this notion, women’s labour became a natural resource that was freely
available outside the wage economy at home in form of care-giving services.
95
See., Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the
International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books, 1986, pp. 100-110
34
Amartya Sen claimed that seeing the extent of this crisis, it was shocking
that this matter has obtained a little notice.96
Another criticism against the Marxist theory by feminists was that

conventional Marxism perceived women’s access to labour force as a
freedom. But women in the former Soviet Union have perceived it not as
freedom but as an extra load besides performing household duties which
had never been recognized as a contribution in this state-centric, male-
centric industrial age.97
Hence, feminists argued that the freedom of women would only be

possible when women are treated equally with men in both the public and
private realm.98
Constructivist Theory in IR
Quite different in substance from the three main theories of

international relations, there emerged yet another stream of thought:
Constructivist theory.99 Alexander Wendt, N. Onuf, P. Katzenstein and F.
96
See., Amartya Sen, “More Than 100 Million Women are Missing” New York
Review of Books, Vol. 37, No. 20, 1991, pp. 61-66
97
Moscow women’s interviews suggest that these women preferred the traditional
role of housewife to the double burden of working outside the home as well as taking
care of family.
98
See., J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations, op.cit., p. 55
99
Its origin could be traced in the 18th century, but it was considered as a new theory
in the post-cold war period due to the renewed attention of some Western scholars.
Theorists of this strand were concerned with human consciousness; treated ideas as
structural factors; considered the dynamic relationship between ideas and material
forces as a consequence of how actors interpreted their material reality; and were
interested in how agents produce structures and how structures produce agents
35
Kratochwil emerged as chief exponents of this theory. They visualized

international relations on the broader canvas of social relations.100
Constructivists believed that101: (a) history and social world were

shaped by human thoughts and notions; (b) society and human relations
were formed by human thoughts, dreams and faith systems; (c)
international relations was the outcome of cognizant human efforts as
they were administered by the rules made by the people; (d) social
structures surfaced through human thoughts; (e) collaboration or clashes
were the symptoms of accord or incongruity of human mentalities; and (f)
ideas precede matter in international relations.102
Similarly, how the social world had a massive impact in shaping an

individual's life was analyzed by them.103 They discarded the perception
that state interests exist independently and not within the context of
interaction among states.104 They claimed that complex cultures shape
and re-shape the behaviour of the states especially on the issues of
stabilizing security and use of military forces.105 For instance, if a small
See., J.T. Checkel, “The Constructivist turn in International Relations Theory”,

100
World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1998, pp. 324-348

101
Constructivists focused on ideational view of international relations. They
examined how people use language to make the social world.
102
See., Aneek Chatterjee, op.cit., pp. 49-50
103
See., N Onuf, Constructivism - Auser's Manual, in Kusalkova et al., International
Relations in a constructed world, New York, Armonk,1998, pp. 58-78
104
See., A. Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it : The social construction of
power politics”, International Organisation, Vol. 46, No. 2, 1992, pp. 391-426
105
Constructivists argued that rules (legal and non-legal) made the bridges between
people and society which in turn boost up the two-way process of construction. Rules
were conceptualized as "speech acts" which influenced the people and provided them
with the guidelines of specific behaviour which was desirable in a certain situation.
36
state had been assigned the duty of mediator for resolving the conflicts
between two larger states, then this new role might develop a new
confidence in that small state and thereby create a new sense of identity
in that small state. It could visualize itself as a peacemaker and may
actively participate in this type of role in the near future.
Further, constructivists argued that norms106had a great impact on

the interests of a state and especially on their behaviour in concern with
other states.107 For example, the humanitarian interventionist role to
protect the people of another country could be a difficult notion for realist
or liberal theorists, but for the constructivists, it was not as it was the
influence of norms which regulate the state.108 According to the norms,
states act and justify their activities, it asserts.109
Moreover, while 'anarchy' was conceptualized by a neo-realist as

the reality of the world politics, but constructivist discovered the roots of
'anarchy' in the human mind.110
106
Constructivists emphasized the value of norms in international relations. Norms
not only help the states in achieving their interests but also influence on the ways in
which states conceive their interests and identities. States try to achieve it in a
mutually profitable way. Further, constructivists are not in agreement with the point
of view that states are greedy for accumulating power and wealth.
107
108
Constructivists countered the realist stand of visualizing state interests in a simple
way. Complex culture and linguistic models had a great influence on the interests of a
state and its formulation. Further, cooperation took place between the states because
states were eager to achieve it.
109
See., J. S. Goldstein, International Relations, New Delhi, Pearson, 2006, pp. 152-
153
110
See., Aneek Chatterjee, op. cit., pp. 49-50
37
One could also find, in the contemporary period, a major debate in

international relations about nature of social structures and normative
issues – backed by constructivists on the one hand and material forces,
and its impact on the international politics emphasized by rationalists on
the other.111
Emergence of Alternative Approaches
The end of the cold war reduced the immense reliability on

mainstream approaches especially neo-realism because neo-realists have
considered bipolarity as a pertinent feature of the world politics.112
Further, several other changes took place in the world politics due to the
impact of liberalization and globalization.113 These new forces prepared
the ground for the development of new approaches.114 Hence, alternative
approaches emerged in the late 1980s. They shared some common points
among them, such as, rejection of the basic tenets of rationalist-
mainstream theories.115Hence, it is essential to discuss them briefly. Let
the following discussion begin with historical sociology as an alternative
approach.
111
As stated above, constructivist considered ideas precede matter which was totally
different from the stand of positivists, who conceptualized that matter precedes ideas.
112
Moreover, there are new shifts taking place in the several other branches of social
sciences, especially in the philosophy of social sciences, which put questions on the
matter of adoption of the methodology and challenged the realist-positivist position.
113
It was felt that new issues such as the role of non-state actors, identity politics,
transnational movements and impact of Information communication technology (ICT)
could not be analyzed with the conventional approaches.
114
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens and Steve Smith (ed.), op. cit., pp.174-175
115
Ibid., p.176
38
Historical Sociology in IR
Historical sociology had a long history. Its central focus was to

understand the process of historical development of the societies. It
analysed the way of analysis of the relationship between states, classes,
capitalism and war. One of the chief exponents of this approach, Charles
Tilly argued that the capability of a nation-state to fight wars become the
decisive factor of its status.116 Another leading theorist Michael Mann
developed a model based on the sources of the state power. The concerns
of the historical sociologists were compatible with a number of the other
approaches. Hence, it was possible to be a historical sociologist, a realist
and a feminist at the same time, concerned with how gender and
patriarchy have shaped the states and societies.117
Post-Modernism in IR
It emerged as an approach in the international relations discourse

during the 1980s. Although as a social theory, it was very old and came
out as a challenge to the existentialism prevalent in France. One of the
chief exponents of this thought, Jean-Francois Lyotard explained post-
modernism as a rejection against meta-narratives.118 Another prominent
thinker Michel Foucault emphasized the correlation between power and
knowledge.119 He regarded both of them as mutually dependent and
questioned how could we consider history has a truth when at the same
time truth has its own history. In the same vein, Jacques Derrida regarded
116
Historical sociology was a method and focus of research. Ibid., p. 179
117
See., John Baylis, Patricia Owens and Steve Smith (ed.), op. cit., pp.180-181
118
Meta-narrative means any theory that asserts it has clear foundations for making
knowledge claims and involves a foundational epistemology.
119
39
world just as a text which has to be interpreted. He emphasized the need

for understanding the process of construction of the text and provided us
with two mechanisms: Deconstruction and Double Reading.120
Derrida suggested that these two methods would help in

understanding the existing oppositions of language.
Postmodernists questioned the liberal, realist and neo-realist stand

in the international relations and claimed that these theories were based
on the personal prejudices of their exponents. However, this over-critical
approach of post-modernists made their theories contentious. If all
theories were the result of personal preferences of their exponents, the
same rule was equally applicable to the postmodern theory.121
Nevertheless, despite its limitations, postmodernism provided us with the
critical perspective for analyzing grand theories.
Post-Colonialism122in IR
This theory was neglected for a long period because it challenged
the Eurocentric theories, state-centric notions and dominant influence of
120
Deconstruction was an apparatus to contest conventional objective truth and
thoughts. Double reading was a method of depicting how apparently objective and
natural oppositions (such as public/private, male/female) were operated by subjecting
the text to two reading. The first was a recurrence of the prevalent interpretation to
illustrate how it attained its consistency. The second reading was to figure out the
inner contradictions within a text that resulted from the use of outwardly natural
stabilizations. The objective was not to a ‘correct’ or ‘one’ reading of a text, but to
portrait how there was repeatedly more than one reading. Ibid., p. 186
121
See., John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia Owens (ed.), op. cit., p. 187
122
Colonialism is the political hegemony, physical occupation and supremacy of
people over another people and their territory for the objectives of extraction and
settlement to advantage the occupiers. On the other hand, post-colonialism is
intimately connected to the structure and processes of world-politics- the transnational
flows of peoples and identity constructions, issues of nation and nationalism and how
culture makes imperialism possible.
40
positivism. It highlighted the continuation of the colonial forms of power

in the present era, especially in the global politics. It explained the
relation between power and subordination through the construction of
racial, gendered, class, regional and religious differences. Edward Said,
Franz Fanon and Gayatri Spivak emerged as leading post-colonial
thinkers.123 Post-colonialists argued that racism was still in practice in
many parts of the world either in its manifest or latent forms.
Post-colonialists believed that the new version of imperialism was

present in the form of neo-colonialism.124 They further pointed out the
dominance of Western culture in the realm of knowledge to the exclusion
of Third world’s worldviews and cultural heritage. Moreover, post-
colonialists not only critiqued the colonizing ideologies but also offered
strategies for empowerment. In this way, it provided us with positive
tools for resisting the imperial and other forms of powers existing in the
world politics on the one hand and acknowledging the native knowledge
at the other.125
Feminist Theory126
Feminist viewpoints on international relations have flourished in

the recent years. Hitherto, they continued to be insignificant in the
123
124
Neo-colonialism is the continuation, in a former colony, of colonial exploitation
without formal political control. See., Joshua S. Goldstein, International Relations,
New Delhi, Pearson, 2005, p. 501
125
126
Feminism is the idea that women should have rights equal to men’s in political,
social, sexual, intellectual and economic spheres. It comprises a diverse collection of
social theories, political movements and moral philosophies, largely motivated by the
experience of women.
41
discipline as a whole and there had been little engagement between

feminists and IR scholars.127 Cynthia Enloe, J Ann Tickner, Jean Bethke
Elshtain, Christine Sylvester, V. S. Peterson and A.S. Runyan emerged as
prominent feminist thinkers in International Relations. Feminist scholars
argued that the state was itself gendered.128 They claimed that
international relations had been throughout shaped by patriarchal
ideologies, hegemonic masculinity and objectivity.129
Leading feminist J Ann Tickner positioned feminist theory in the

context of the Third debate between positivism and post-positivism.130
Her dialogue with Keohane and critique of Morgenthau’s political
realism brought out the methodological rupture between conventional IR
and feminist IR.131
Similarly, another feminist scholar Christine Sylvester stated that

women and their connection with the private domain of domesticity,
morality, subjectivity and obsession were not represented in the realm of
127
See., J Ann Tickner, “Why Women Can’t Run the World: International Politics
According to Francis Fukuyama”, International Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1999,
p.3
128
See for details chapter two where feminist theory has been discussed and analyzed
at greater length.
129
Primarily, international world was men's world, made by men and for serving a
patriarchal nation state. The portrayal of IR as ‘high politics’, was implicitly
gendered.
130
The Third debate in IR is discussed in previous pages.
131
For details see., J. Ann Tickner, “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled
Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists”, International Studies Quarterly,
Vol.41, No.4, 1997, pp. 612-630
42
International Politics. International politics had always been seen as a

sphere of male power, and conflict with an emphasis on war.132
Hence, the objectives of feminist scholars were two-fold: (a) To

acknowledge gender in IR; (b) To move beyond gendered approaches and
facilitate working of male and female together to arrive at truth.
In this way, feminist intervention in the theory and practice of IR

challenged the fundamentals of the discipline.
Further, IR feminists have argued for delinking the relation of

women with peace because linking women with peace, romanticism and
senselessness keeps them disempowered and kept them in secondary
position, which was beyond the ‘real world’ of international relations.133
Moreover, inherent structural violence in international relations had also
negative consequences for women. Feminists, therefore, were determined
for a healthier understanding of asymmetrical social hierarchies with
gender hierarchies, which became reasons for conflict, discrimination and
coercion. In addition, studies revealed that war was more probable in
societies with larger gender disparities.134
Moreover, feminist argue that a nation-state generally correlates

itself with the hardcore interpretation of politics governed by male-centric
theories. But the need of the present times IR is that nation states should
132
The discipline had utterly given inadequate attention to the significance and
relevance of gender in international relations. See., J Ann Tickner, Gendering World
Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era, New York, Columbia
University Press, 2001, pp. 2-3
133
See., J Ann Tickner, “Why Women Can’t Run the World: International Politics
According to Francis Fukuyama”, op.cit., p.8
134
Ibid., p.11
43
adopt soft power based interpretation of politics focusing on social and

cultural aspects. Then only, gender-oriented research would be possible
in international relations and society could move beyond fixed gendered
ideas. More and more involvement of women in IR is required. For
example when the women would negotiate with other states in the
resolution of conflicts then only lasting peace could be achieved.
Women’s involvement thus becomes essential for the positive future of
international relations.
The above survey has presented us with a clear picture of the

development of major theories and concepts in international relations. It
is now essential to locate the feminist approach at great length in major
approaches to international relations, which will be the concern of the
next chapter.
*****
44

07 - Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 - Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter – I

Theories of International Relations: Brief

The marginalization of women is a worldwide phenomenon.

Feminist political theory sees women and their condition as crucial

Looking back to the genesis of the emergence of feminist ideas,

In The City of Women (1404), Christine De Pisan discussed the

“scarcely… a volume, whoever its author, without… some chapters or

The sphere of international relations is no exception to it. In order

Let me begin with the emergence of International Relations as an

emergence of the concept of nation-state with territorial sovereignty.

Growth of International Relations as a Subject

little conscious study.6 Grant, Hughes, Greenwood, Kerr and Urguhart

This subject was developing day by day. In the contemporary period,

significance for the progressive development of each nation. This resulted

Stages of development of International Relations

As a well defined academic discipline, International Relations

The first stage can be termed as historical approach where more

The second stage can be labeled as contemporaneous stage when

Kenneth Thompson opined that the dependency theorists reacted to

negative sense that was dependence not positive-interdependence.12

Union during the cold war period.

dominant subjects of international relations. In the same period, Kenneth

With the emergence of the steady process of multi-polarization20,

underdeveloped countries which constitute the two-thirds majority of the

The seventh stage began in 1985 with Mikhail Gorbachev’s new

Thus, through the description of the above eight-stages, Thompson

However, in spite of the fact that the study of international

Theoretical Framework of International Relations: Major Debates

The feminist challenges to socio-political theories have greatly

Wilson's "fourteen points" became the core of the above Idealist

way for the emergence of International Relations as a discipline which

Contrary to Wilson’s hopes, the authoritarian forces like Nazism

The rise of authoritarian forces and economic crisis of the 1930s

George F. Kennan, Hans J. Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Henry

However, soon this theory also got critiqued by a number of

This new debate was influenced by the behavioural revolution in

This second debate had a long-lasting impact on the International

realism and liberalism28, emerging into a new form of neo-realism and

This debate was known as ‘neo-neo’ debate.29 This major debate

governmental organizations (IGOs) were also playing a pivotal role. They

Another important concept ‘complex interdependence’ was also

The neo-liberal31 arguments caught the attention of the neo-realists

In the meantime, efforts had been made by various thinkers to

under-development of the developing countries.33 As a result, two streams

However, the decades of the 1970s and 1980s were thoroughly

of the world. This was recognized as "the English School" which

Hedley Bull, E.H. Carr, C.A.W. Manning, F.S. Northedge, Martin

Taking into account the above theoretical perspectives of

These theories could be further categorized under foundational and

foundational. These theories could also be categorized as rationalist and

Figure 1: Steve Smith’s configuration on IR Theories

Rationalism SocSial Constructivism

Neo- Neo- Post Modernism

Liberalism Realism Feminist Theory

Now a discussion of all the major theories of international relations

Majors Theories of International Relations

In international relations, attempts towards theory building

The evolution of liberal theory could be traced back to the

international relations were Norman Angell and Woodrow Wilson, who

In other words, the neo-liberal theory emphasized the: (a) role of

Union;50 and (f) globalization as the strongest remedy for bringing

However, neo-realists stressed more upon security concerns. They

In spite of its vast acceptability, the liberal theory was criticized by