Category: Pol Science

Feminist Critique of Realist Theory

• by IAS Score

Since the end of the Cold War and the increased interdependence resulting from the globalization process, the field of international relations has faced major challenges to its core theoretical structure. It no longer revolves solely around the realist issues of war and security, but rather, international relations has broadened to include traditionally liberal concerns, such as the international political economy, socioeconomic development, human rights, non-state actors, and civil society. Apart from the two main theories of realism and liberalism, the feminist theory brings new perspectives to the international relations table.

the processes of forming and learning theory is constructed around on automatically-accepted ideas of what is standard and normal, rather than first challenging the ‘norm’ and questioning if the ‘standard’ is objective enough. In this case, ‘theory’ lacks female perspective because it is not objectively sought at the onset of formulating ideas. Tickner argues that IR is gendered to “marginalize women’s voices,” and stresses “that women have knowledge, perspectives and experiences that should be brought to bear on the study of international relations.” For example, Tickner would argue that security, a main topic in IR, should not only be understood as “defending the state from attack,” but should also consider that security for women “might be different because women are more likely to be attacked by men they know, rather than strangers from other states.

In other words, in contrast to traditional IR views that view security as protecting the state from other states, feminists argue the topic of security should address acts of rape and violence, not only from foreign perpetrators, but from their own fellow citizens as well. Feminists would also add that occurrences of rape increase during times of war, and is even used as a method of ethnic cleansing among the rivalries within their state, yet would never enter into typical IR discussions that focus solely on state to-state interaction, simply because IR discussions traditionally remain focused on states as the key actors. Thus, the topic of security shows how gender consideration, excluded from the very beginning of the discussion, results in policymaking that would be subsequently exclusive of, and likely detrimental to, women. Prior to discussing any IR topic, standpoint feminist IR theory would first challenge those participating in the discussion, and those defining the key terms and issues, by critically asking them if the normative perspectives and working vocabulary are broad enough to effectively accommodate issues affecting women.

Realism centres its theoretical structure on how the state seeks power and defends its national interests against other competing states within a global anarchy, or where there is the lack of authority higher than the state. States seek security through a balance of power in the international arena, primarily through military means, and resorting to war, if necessary. Realists generally view the state as the key actor in international politics, and de-emphasize – or, as feminist theory argues, ignore — the role of the individual. Much feminist IR theory stems from a critique of realism, whose “socially constructed worldview continues to guide much thought about world politics.”

First, feminists argue that realists overvalue the role of the state in defining international relations, without questioning how the state itself is internally structured, politically and socially. Feminist theory would consider how the state includes, or excludes, the views of its individual citizens, and how, in turn, the state’s domestic views translate into foreign policies. In challenging the concepts of a state defending its national interests, feminists would ask: who is defining the national interests? If women were included in such discussions, would the national interest be interpreted differently, and if so, how? How would such an outlook change foreign policy? How would the definition of ‘security’ change? Would military and defence capabilities still be atop the agenda? Would women necessarily be less militaristic in their approach to IR issues?

Another feminist critique of realism concerns how realists define and emphasize power in IR discussions. Feminists would ask: who defines power, who has it, and how is it used? If power is defined by a patriarchal and realist society, which seeks global balances of power, then power is equated with military and economic strength. But how would this change if the discussion included women’s viewpoints? Would the indicators of power be measured differently? Would power be seen as leadership in peace agreements, or might it be measured in terms of the ability to achieve transnational cooperation? In relation to realism, feminist theory is clear: realism is the antithesis to achieving gender equality, both in discussion and practice, and even in its tools of war and security, patriarchy remains the central theme. States are the actors and the individual is of little importance. When the individual is deemphasized, there is even less acknowledgement of a female individual, which effectively excludes feminist discussion.

Functional Critiques of Realism

• by IAS Score

While realism was not initially the dominant perspective in International Relations, historically, it has been the dominant tradition in the discipline and perhaps it is for this reason that it has been subjected to so much criticism. Liberalism and structuralism can both be used to develop a critique of realism. In more recent years realism has been subjected to complicated critiques from Critical Theorists, postmodernists, feminists, social constructivists and Green theorists amongst others. Some of the major points of Criticisms against Realism are:

1. The fact that realism is simple and understandable is presented as a strength of the perspective. However, an opposing argument would suggest that realism is too simplistic, reducing the complex reality of international relations to a few general laws which are said to be applicable over time and space and which therefore omit much of interest and importance from our analyses.
2. Realism, in emphasising the principle of power politics and the enduring features of the international system, fails to allow for the possibility of real change. Realists accept that great powers rise and fall, and wars come and go, but insist that the basic rules of the game cannot be changed. In failing to embrace the idea of substantive changes, realism is inherently conservative and anti-innovative, meaning that it is highly attractive to, and politically malleable by, those who would have things continue as they are. Whether intentionally or not, realism may also serve to justify injustice on the grounds that nothing can be done to change things.
3. By considering states to be the only important type of actor in international relations and by only viewing the agency of non-state actors such as MNCs as part of state agency, realists have been criticised for not being able to fully account for a range of issues and processes in international relations.
4. While realism has a cyclical view of history (a repetition of patterns of behaviour) it has failed to successfully make any specific predictions. Most startlingly, realists failed to predict the end of the Cold War; given its pretensions to be, if not scientific, then at least useful, this is a very serious weakness.
5. Realism does not help us explain which decisions will be made by states’ representatives, but only why they will be made. Thus states people will make decisions rationally and on the basis of national interest. However, how do we know if it is the national interest of State A to attack State B? Perhaps it would serve the national interest better to delay an attack or to seek an alliance against State C. Is national interest a self-evident thing? After the event, when State A has attacked State B, the realist could say this was based on a rational calculation of the national interest, but the realist offers no way of deciding which option is actually in the national interest and simply tells us that this is the motivation.
6. If we accept the possibility that the assumptions of realism are relevant only in a particular context, there is possibly great danger in treating them as if they were universal truths: that is, applicable everywhere and at all times. Far from providing universal truths, realism may simply have seemed the most appropriate way of viewing a short historical phase; the idea of universal truth may have held back scholarship which would have been better directed at freeing us from realist despair.
7. In emphasising the centrality of the state and the national interest, realism encourages people to view the world from a very narrow, ethnocentric perspective.
8. The simplistic view of human nature as being inherently selfish and unchanging has been criticised, in particular by more progressive approaches such as Green Thought and liberalism. Here it is claimed that the nature of the society one lives in can change over time and can thus change human nature or at least allow humans to be less selfish.
9. Realism ignores or significantly downplays the degree to which states might have collective or mutual interests, and so underestimates the scope for cooperation and purposive change in international relations.
10. We should ask if foreign policy really is conducted rationally and indeed what is implied in the idea of rationality. Rationality seems unlikely to be the same for the leaders of states with strong ideological or religious bases as it is for leaders of liberal democracies. Furthermore, even within, for instance, liberal democracies, can we be sure that in the hurly-burly world of foreign policy, decisions will always be made rationally? The decision maker is likely to be bombarded with information, denied sleep and asked to make several choices at once; it seems plausible at least that rationality will be compromised, affected by mood, modified by spur-of-the-moment decisions and so on.

While, in its simplified form, realism can present an easy target for criticism, realism’s detractors, bent on exposing its shortcomings, have often found it a formidable task. Indeed after some 15 years (or more) of fending off criticisms on all fronts, realists might argue that the post-9/11 world is one in which realist propositions are clearly vindicated by current practice. For example, the euphoric atmosphere of the post-Cold War period might have opened up a space within International Relations to imagine other possibilities, including the pursuit of human security founded in respect for human rights. However, the security risk to US citizens, highlighted by the terror attacks on the twin towers, the subsequent ‘war on terror’ and the unwillingness of the USA to listen sympathetically or seriously to investigate allegations of human rights abuses in relation to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, can on the face of it be used to vindicate realist propositions.

Modifications of realism have been proposed by various authors and many differences exist within the broad category of realism. Moreover, realists acknowledge a changing world and are aware of ecological threats, gender issues and so on. However, and crucially, realists believe that their basic assumptions capture the real essence of international relations, and they argue that they are perfectly entitled to privilege some areas and issues in international relations, and, indeed, to marginalise or ignore others. However, it would be difficult to overcome the decades of dominance that realism has had in the discipline and therefore the tendency to regard it almost as a natural starting point for talking about IR, even for those eager to criticise it or offer a more adequate framework for analysis. Furthermore, while realism may be under attack from all sides in academic circles, it continues to find favour amongst policy makers and states people and accordingly is implicit in rationalisations of policy offered by foreign-policy decision makers.

WHY POLITICAL SCIENCE? ADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AS AN OPTIONAL IN UPSC

• by IAS Score

 

• It is very much GS-Friendly. In Preliminary Exam every year, 8-10 questions are asked from Indian freedom movement and 15 to 20 questions are asked from Indian polity and Governance section. Nowadays the level of difficulty of these questions is increasing per year, therefore a student with in-depth knowledge of Indian Constitution and Politics is much better equipped to successfully handle such questions and gain crucial marks. Besides 3 to 8 questions can be expected from International Affairs/International Institutions section. And to remind you, the questions from this section would be basically answerable and won’t be complicated. A Political Science student is mandated by his syllabus to master these sections anyway.

• Also it is quite helpful in tackling other sections sometimes for e.g. in CSAT 2014; the geography question regarding the location of Turkey was a sitter for students with
  Sci. optional as area in question was integral to the “Ukraine Crisis”. Similarly questions on Arab Spring, BRICS Summits, AGNI –IV and Region often in news (Chechnya, Darfur & Swat Valley) were directly from IR portion of Pol. Sci. (Paper 2).Consequently the student found these areas in prelims to his advantage.

YEAR	No. Of Questions From Polity
2010	5
2011	8
2012	18
2013	18
2014	15(Including IR And Defence)

 

• In other words, anyone who intends to clear prelims can never neglect Indian Polity section. Anyone who takes Political Science as optional would study Indian Polity and Governance along with International Relations anyway consequently saving time for other topics for the preliminary exam. In this way the preparation for Prelims and Mains would get integrated for a Political Science student.

“I made no distinction in study for Prelims and Mains till April 2010, and later only started paying more attention to factual details”– Karthik Iyer, All India Rank 7 in 2010 CSE with Political Science as one of the optional while referring to his preparation of Paper 1 – Section B of Political Science.

• In the newly revised General Studies Mains syllabus nearly 60 Percentage of Political Science Syllabus topics is covered. If one sees the questions from General Studies Paper 2 –Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, Indian Diaspora and International relations – and relate with Political Science Question Papers I and II, it could hardly make any difference between the two. For example in the year 2013, all questions from International Relations section in GS-II were directly from the topics covered in Paper 2 of Political Science and International Relations.

• In Essay paper [200 marks] almost every year there is one topic related to Indian Government and Politics and International relations.

• The subject being very dynamic because major area of focus under Political Science syllabus is on applied dimensions. [For instance-actual workingof principal organs of the Union Government and those of the state government (paper 1 topic no 4 (a) & (b)], you are constantly mandated to keep in touch with the newspaper. A Political Science student would feel that the entire newspaper every day is some way or the other related to his syllabus. Extracting useful information every day from newspapers and magazines is a cumbersome and time consuming task, therefore guidance from an expert faculty becomes indispensable in terms of which topics to focus on and which ones to avoid.

• The UPSC move of revision of syllabus of General Studies has generated golden opportunity to score high marks in the subject. In fact as of now, even those students who don’t have the background of political science have fared better in many respects. Since almost all the factual parts of the syllabus have been deleted in the new syllabus, the conceptual understanding in Political Science theory section would make a better presentation of the answers possible.

• Also, answer writing practice especially for the conceptual portions of the subject gives experience for answering questions in the general studies papers.

• There is general notion that Political Science syllabus is exhaustive and extensive, technically it’s not as

(a)-Repetition of Topics is there-Marxism, Marx, Gramsi, Marxist notion of state

(b)-Topics are interrelated –Thoughts of Mill, Bentham and Liberal notions of state, democracy, justice are complementary to each other

(c)-Ideas of Marxism, Liberalism, Feminism, new social movement and issues like environment, democracy, Human rights is in Paper-1 as well as in paper-2

• Lastly, in interview the subject comes to be extremely handy as a good knowledge of Governance, Polity and IR can result in very good marks and finally scale the gap between getting a recommendation and missing it by a few marks and investing one more year of your life in preparation.