Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | J | Journal of International Women's Studies

How was it for you? The oligarchic structure of international relations and feminist theory.

Article Excerpt
Abstract

It is my purpose to show that radical humanist and feminist theorising have much to offer each other. Central to this article's thesis is the oligarchic structure of international relations; that is, a small, oligarchic clique of states exercising power in its own interests to the detriment of the overwhelming majority of the world's population. The core position and borders of radical humanist theorising are examined, along with an assessment of some of the major the theoretical divergences between radical humanist and feminist theorising. Areas for theoretical alliance are also located which indicate the necessity of an inter-disciplinary approach that takes into account Third World liberation and the Green movement. A review of world government literature is noted, along with a review of contemporary examples of mainstream International Relations publications--which continue to avoid the feminist standpoint, or relegate feminism to a subsidiary position--and the faulty theoretical positions of Anthony Giddens and the pro-polyarchy perspective. The conclusion considers the benefits of cross-theoretical dialogue between feminist theory and radical humanist theory.

Key Words: Oligarchy, Humanism, Feminism.

Introduction

You may find that you believe in the theory of feminism, but you do not see yourself fitting into the branches of feminism ... You can believe that women and men should be politically, economically and socially equal for your own reasons and hold your own ideas pertaining how you can make that happen. If that is the case, then generally you can consider yourself a feminist"--Feminism Theories Defined. (1) "Humanism believes in a far-reaching program that stands for the establishment throughout the world of democracy, peace, and a high standard of living on the foundations of a flourishing economic order, both national and international"--Humanism Defined. (2)

An emancipatory discourse on international politics, rather than a rationalising one, critically analyses the conservative stance of foundational International Relations (IR) theories such as realism (the politics of power) and international liberalism and in particular their lack of theoretical focus on the oligarchic structure of international relations. With regard to the global, anti-democratic nature of the prevailing system of international relations, emancipatory discourses such as feminism, Marxism and radical humanism differ, for example, on the fundamental global strategy of how to replace the present (oligarchic) structure with a more democratic system; they differ over the fundamental democratic units that are to be set in place.

The proclivity of the world system of politics to incline towards oligarchy rather than democracy remains of paramount importance in the radical humanist perspective. In practice this means that a clique of states--The West (Britain, France, and the USA) along with China and Russia--"lord it over", politically, the other 180 or so nation-states (recognised by the United Nations (UN)) which make up the formal world system of states.

However, realist texts strategically deploying the concepts of sovereignty (of the nation-state) and anarchy (epitomising the world system in which a world government is absent), on the contrary, argue from the point of view of the "inevitability" of the contemporary world system where a small grouping of states hold sway. Even a state's external security is safeguarded by the anarchic nature of the world system of politics, as the realist argument runs, for it leaves the state with the liberty to defend its security either through its own resources or by becoming a member of a strategic alliance. (3) This conservative and pro-status quo ideology of international relations runs counter to criticisms of the oligarchic structure of international relations which see a real potential for change; that is, for international democracy whereby all states and their populations are equal participants in a democratic world order.

The one-world liberal humanist call for the democratisation and empowerment of the UN--as a first step to toward democratisation (an emancipatory goal ultimately aiming for a federal, democratic world government)--lacks emancipatory potential if the unjust international world economic order is left largely in place. Such an international economic order leaves, for instance, one billion people living on less than 1$ US a day: the cruel disposition of an international political and economic order functioning in the interests of a minority of powerful states.

A more radical humanist discourse critically examines the predatory global economic strategies of a small and closed oligarchy of a handful of militarily and economically powerful states and proposes a twin track remedy: democratisation of international relations at both the political and economic levels.

However, the theoretical cut-and-thrust of the radical humanist perspective is positioned at the level of the political. Theoretically robust critiques of the international economic order on the other hand are located more in the field of radical (under)development studies. Radical humanism nevertheless calls for a global redistribution of wealth citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, which states that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of individuals and their families, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.

Feminist theory in IR studies share some theoretical borders with the radical humanist position; particularly on the entrenched distribution of power that excludes women and the working class from the public sphere. This feminist standpoint has a theoretical pedigree that can be traced to early modern proto-feminist theorising evident, for instance, in the writings of Mary Astell and especially in writings opposing the classical liberal position of Locke and Milton. (4) In other words the appeal of freedom from domination has been, and is both a feminist and radical humanist preoccupation. At other sites and locations of analysis, however, theoretical incongruence is in evidence. A most glaring example here is radical humanism's lack of attention to the gender system, which from the feminist standpoint always privileges the masculine over the feminine and which has the direct effect of enabling men always to occupy positions of social and political power (historically and cross-culturally)...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!