Introduction
There has been a noticeable change in the state of the world’s politics ever since the conclusion of the Cold War. Unfortunately, the conceptual approaches that ought to assist us in comprehending this new environment have not evolved much since then, which is unfortunate since these frameworks were supposed to aid us. During the time of the Cold War, the theory of Realism was considered to be “king of all theories,” including the military-based notion known as “balance of power,” which was applied to the relationships that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union. All of the studies assumed that the state played a crucial role since, during this era, it was regarded as of the highest significance to place a primary emphasis on the threats, uses, and controls of military force. According to the findings of this research, the safety of the state might and ought to be ensured through the use of armed conflict as the main concern.
An approach to safety that is premised on an eagerness to relocate away from the constrictions of security as it was analyzed and practiced throughout the Cold War, and moreover make that transition by particular tends to mean forms of criticism, one of the highrise stones in so-called major security research is the conversation of reversal in the dimension of international relations. It might also be understood as an umbrella title for numerous critical responses to state-centric ideas, and it is here that one could discover Feminism, which presents a more gender-oriented perspective. The below discussion will be dedicated to the exploration of the mentioned theoretical frameworks – Realism and Feminism – within the scope of international relations. It will be argued that the former can be considered rather as a top-bottom approach, while the latter – is the bottom-up one.
Realism
Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz might be considered, with a touch of irony, the spiritual fathers of contemporary Realism. World War I’s destruction marked the beginning of contemporary Realism from a historical perspective. International relations started out as a field primarily concerned with ending the apparently inevitable cycle of international conflict (Baylis, 2020). The conclusion of World War II, which was accompanied by even more destruction, was the defining moment for a number of experts to adopt a more ‘realistic’ approach to world affairs. Also, arguing that ‘conflict was inevitable,’ the only way for governments to ensure their safety is to prepare for war.
Another approach to explaining the ‘realistic’ school of thinking is provided by Tickner. He states that realists adopt as their fundamental premise a perilous world bereft of an overriding power to protect the peace (Baylis, 2020). In an ‘anarchical’ world, realists advocate for the amassing of authority and military might in order to ensure the survival of nations, the defense of a conventionally “domestic” zone, and the prosecution of a legitimate country’s interests outside one’s geographical limits.
Even while a great deal has been published about Realism and the facts that it has had an influence on the level of international politics, this does not imply that attempting to define Realism is in any way a straightforward or easy undertaking. The realist framework of international relations is one that has evolved gradually as a result of the work of a number of analysts who have positioned themselves within a pretty standard but still varied style or tradition of analysis. Realists view international relations from a more objective and less idealistic perspective (Grieco, 2018). There are a number of writers who have contributed to the field of Realism and global relations; nevertheless, since Morgenthau is considered to be one of the forefathers of the field, the exposition of his primary concepts is important.
The ideology known as political Realism upholds the view that politics, much like society as a whole, is ruled by objective rules, the origins of which may be traced back to human nature. The idea of interest construed in terms of power is the primary waypoint that the political realist approach uses to navigate the terrain of international politics. This signpost is essential to the political realist approach. Power and interest fluctuate in relation to the subject matter over both place and time.
Moreover, the realist perspective holds that it is impossible to apply universal moral rules to the behavior of nations. The theory of political Realism rejects the idea that the moral ideals of a single country may be equated with the overarching moral principles that govern the cosmos. Therefore, the distinction between political Realism and alternative thought traditions is one that is not only genuine but also quite significant. Political Realism defends the uncontaminated independence of the political realm from an intellectual standpoint.
Since it is fair to claim that Hans Morgenthau is one of the most influential realists of the modern era and since the preceding section outlined the principles of political Realism that he outlined in Politics Among Nations, it is essential to formulate his contributions and to find theoretical pillars (Baylis, 2020). First, anarchy gives rise to separate politics among nations and their administrations, which in turn creates a sphere of instability in international politics.
Second, the primary factors that determine the objectives and relationships of nations in terms of security are the demands and restrictions imposed by the international system. Third, because sovereignty and the national community are prioritized, the international and transnational communities are constrained, which hinders both collaboration and the effective administration of security. Fourth, states are intrinsically insecure actors because they are unitary and self-interested, and they compete for power as the path to achieving security. This competitiveness results in precarious security situations. Fifth, the allocation of power among the world’s top powers is the basis of the architecture of the international system. Sixth, the states strive to build and maintain appropriate distributions of power for the purpose of preserving security, despite the fact that they differ over what constitutes an appropriate allocation and how much power is required by each country (Baylis, 2020).
The realism perspective has had a significant effect on global relationships and has always seen world politics as separate due to anarchy or the lack of any ultimate force or authority over nations. There are few rules in international politics. Realists contend that the lack of rules greatly differentiates authority, sovereignty, the global political structure, and its architecture from internal politics, with anarchy rendering international security interactions especially system-driven. The structure of this system and its tensions and restrictions are the primary determinants of security objectives and interactions and, in a sense, the national government’s security agendas. In this regard, they are more significant than their domestic nature, the quality of their rulers and governmental institutions, their ideological obsessions, and their decision-making mechanisms. Hence, foreign policy is mostly a rational reaction to external requirements.
This implies that a state stands somewhat separate from society, with its own identity and political objective. Consequently, it is possible to characterize the state as a unified, self-interested actor adhering to a strategy for interacting with other countries. Despite the reality that individuals and governments change throughout time, realists see consistency in a government’s foreign affairs and fundamental goals, such as the idea of security. Since before, the nation had its own identity and stood above society in some sense, the concept of foreign policy would stay relatively consistent. Also, security is provided by the state’s continual mobility.
In order to increase comprehension, there are also the notions of the security dilemma and balance of power. The former might be characterized by the premise that when one country grows its authority to feel secure, it leads to a rise in the worries of other nations, hence increasing competition. Therefore, the security conundrum, as a result of increased military capability for defense, may also improve one’s ability to attack, and a government’s efforts to become more secure may result in increased insecurity (Baylis, 2020). The issue at hand is that the rivalry for military strength may, on the one hand, lead to both improved security and instability. By increasing its military might, a nation becomes safer against external threats. On the other hand, others view a state as a greater danger, which increases the state’s vulnerability and the insecurity of others on the world stage.
The idea of “power balance” is highly contested and criticized. In his work, Morgenthau interprets the notion of ‘balance of power’ in four distinct ways: as a policy directed towards a given state of things, as the current state of affairs, as a roughly equal allocation of power, and as any disposition of power. The concept is that a number of nations are vying for power in a fight to retain or overturn the current order (Lamont, 2021). This results in a setup known as the balance of power and strategies designed to maintain it. This is a common occurrence as a consequence of the rivalry between states. They compete, and as a consequence, a rough balance of power evolves among rivals over time, restricting all participants. Regarding Realism, one may thus also debate the influence of the ‘security issue’ on the ‘balance of power.’
Feminism
In the same manner as Realism, the outline and explanation of Feminism would be drawn from international affairs writers in order to “fit” with the thesis’s aim. Feminism as a methodological tool may, at times, be seen as part of the larger notion of analytical studies and not as something that requires its own definition. Nonetheless, the purpose of this subsection is to clarify Feminism within the scope of international issues.
The world is far from ideal, despite the fact that the majority of “Western” nations claim to give fundamental rights and freedom to women. The vast majority of females do not live under such conditions and consequently lack fundamental human rights and lawful safeguards. As a result of abandoning a “one-size-fits-all” attitude in favor of a more context-dependent approach, it is now widely acknowledged that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution (Grieco, 2018). With the assumption that such adaptability would render feminist thought unrestricted by the categories previously employed to categorize it, a new Feminism is proposed. There is a hint of Feminism in a few schools since there is talk about expanding the foreign affairs curriculum to cover more levels. When reading about Feminism, it becomes immediately apparent that even Feminism may be divided into “extremes.” In regards to the link between females, males, and security, feminist researchers and gender analysts have differing opinions.
Liberal feminists want total opportunity equality between males and females. They desire an end to the exclusion of women from public life, are eager to establish equal participation of women in top state posts, and fight for the right of women to engage in war (Lamont, 2021). Radical feminists want a change in the mechanics of the state’s security system. This consists of a rejection of male principles and a desire to feminize structures and conflict. Some radical feminists see peace as the ultimate goal of altering institutions and mentalities.
Marxist feminists focus on economic and gender issues. Their work illuminates not just the subjugation of women in the workplace but also the disproportionate global representation of women in the lowest socioeconomic classes. They highlight the connections between economic hardship, vulnerability, and security (Grieco, 2018). Feminist ideas are formed from the experiences of women in their endless and diverse situations, experiences that have been largely ignored by the majority of prior intellectual fields.
It is said that the bulk of modern feminist perspectives identify themselves in light of a reaction against conventional liberal Feminism, which has placed its primary emphasis on removing legal barriers preventing women from fully participating in the public arena. Therefore, the exclusion of females in sectors such as the financial, cultural, and overall societal structures would not disappear merely due to the elimination of legal limits since the origins of discrimination against females extend far deeper than legal restrictions (Grieco, 2018). The objective of feminists has been to define and explain the causes of gender inequality and to provide measures to eliminate it.
According to radical feminists, women have been oppressed by the patriarchal system that has persisted under almost all types of production. In this context, patriarchy is institutionalized via legal, economic, as well as social, and cultural entities. Some radical feminists argue that assigning a low value to feminine features in and of themselves has a significant influence on females’ oppression and contributes to it.
Feminist philosophy must be applied to the world stage in order to examine Feminism in the context of international relations. According to the feminist viewpoint, international politics is a male domain. As a theoretical viewpoint based on a larger variety of human experiences is equally vital for males and females, it is necessary to incorporate new concepts when analyzing our modern challenges. From a feminist standpoint, some important notions in international relationships theory and practice, such as power, safety, and sovereignty, have been connected with masculinity (Lamont, 2021). Incorporating feminist theory into the examination and criticism of such key international relations principles may serve as a means of limiting the present state of insecurity.
Realism vs. Feminism
Regarding international relations, it is feasible to compare various theoretical frameworks, particularly if you study Tickner and others of a similar kind. After the Cold War, a shift in the worldwide environment resulted in a new global climate; nevertheless, structures and systems did not adapt to this new international climate. The old ideas were stagnant, and the need for fresh frameworks was evident. On the one hand, Realism is one school of thought within the traditional state-centric argument, and it plays an essential role in emphasizing historically significant risks to the state. Justice and Feminism, on the other hand, are inextricably tied to liberal interventionism in that they prioritize the protection and well-being of people, groups, and societies above state and state interests.
Since humanitarian initiatives do not ostensibly involve the state, there is less interest in their Realism of them. That is, Realism disregards a range of challenges that might undermine the nation and its constraint of sovereignty, and its ultimate goal for the protection of the population is unclear. Consequently, it is simple to query where Realism sits, not rejecting its significance but rather challenging its position in conflicts involving other people (Baylis, 2020). The primary objective of current researchers was to challenge the state as the sole viable solution to international problems. Due to the fact that militarized states pose a substantial risk to the safety of their own citizens due to economic inequality, poverty, etc., as well as the fact that pollution and overconsumption of natural resources know no state boundaries, there is an urgent need for international cooperation.
The realists generally characterize frameworks of national security as simply centered on military defense and with a significant link with aggression as physical violence. Consequently, security risks have generally been characterized as challenges to national borders. For realists, safety is tied to the military security of the country due to their perception of the following: pessimistic presumptions about the likely behavior of states in an “anarchic” international context, and most realists are skeptical about the likelihood of states ever accomplishing perfect security.
Thus, security is interpreted in terms of the state’s coverage of its residents, the state’s interests above those of its inhabitants, and safeguarding the state implicitly, ensuring the safety of its citizens. When the primary unit is the country and its sovereignty, threats are those that threaten the state’s capacity to defend itself. Thus what is required is to safeguard the sovereignty, economy, and military concerns. Scholars say that these beliefs have been formed via a male-centric paradigm. A conventional method may be regarded as having a top-down viewpoint, with a focus on structural issues such as those outlined above, such as sovereignty, while the feminist model is more bottom-up.
To create a concept of how Feminism defines security and to demonstrate how Feminism is primarily a bottom-up philosophy. The primary contrast between Realism and Feminism when determining security is that security in Feminism is meaningless if it is based on the insecurity of others, but this is the essence of Realism’s notion of security. Regarding national security, the feminist viewpoint brings us beyond the statist interpretations of Realism; consequently, there may be more to global defense than state security.
Feminists’ notion of security is multifaceted and multidimensional, characterized as such – the elimination of violence whether it be militaristic, political, or sexual.” Thus, what is required is a large divide between males in the military sense and women who historically have not served in the army and are thus not recognized in that way; also, according to the theoretical dimension, biology and the ongoing demands of the government on females and their childbearing constituents. Females have been used on the basis of their physiology to further particular security objectives (Baylis, 2020). Feminism attempts to integrate female involvement on a military level, therefore restricting the traditional framework and leading us to the premise that gender and security must go hand in hand.
The primary distinction between Realism and Feminism is the concept of the corresponding object of security. Realism views the state as the object to be protected by the use of armed force, meaning that the government is the main object to be secured, or in other words, the state is the core aspect of security. Initially, while addressing Feminism, this object would be women inside the state, but also persons within the state in general, with the understanding that gender impacts security. There is a necessity here to stress that it is not to argue that Feminism considers women as more essential it is rather a question of addressing them at all, which Realism, for instance, has disregarded.
Conclusion
To conclude, the above discussion explored the essentials of Realism and Feminism in the framework of international relations, as well as highlighting their differences. Through the pivotal aspect of global relationships – security – the mentioned theories’ distinctions were identified. It was found that the crucial difference between these two is that Realism has a rather top-down perspective, while Feminism – is the bottom-up one.
References
Baylis, J. (2020). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Grieco, J. M. (2018). The schools of thought problem in international relations. International Studies Review, 21(3), 424–446.
Lamont, C. (2021). Research methods in international relations (2nd ed.). Sage.