Sample literature review

Presence of Masculinity in International Relations literature Review

Introduction
In recent years, there has been an increased focus on gender in international relations. The introduction of feminism has led to attention on the marginalization of feminist and gender concerns. The lack of recognition of women in international politics provides evidence of men being the central concern in global relations by default
. Various feminist scholars have looked at the gendered nature of international studies, each arguing that masculinity plays various levels of importance in the study. This literature review addresses various works involving masculinity in international relations, arguing that masculinity has become an inherent default in global politics, and this needs to be understood in order to properly bring women and feminine concerns to the forefront. The presence of masculinity in international relations is first addressed, followed by the legitimization of it and the presence of privilege in understanding masculinity. Finally, proposed changes to the current structure of IR in order to make women more important will be analyzed.
Places of masculinity in international relations
The presence of masculinity in international relations can be seen in both the masculine characteristics of theories, as well as the focus on mainly masculine actors. According to Kimberly Hutchings (2008), a key reason for the ongoing invisibility of women and gender in the theoretical frames through which post-cold war international politics is looked at is that masculinity operates as a resource for thought in theorizing international politics. Characteristics that are considered masculine are being aggressive, dominant, and power driven, which can be seen in theories of international relations. For example, realism looks at states as actors and argues that states focus on power. This characterizes states as masculine. Liberalism also embodies certain masculine traits, as it looks at democracy and cooperation, which are Western ideals. Western ideals fall under ‘hegemonic masculinity,’ as it is generally the Western perception of ‘what it means to be a man’ that is generally accepted.
Masculinity can be seen in international relations due to a lack of recognition of women, which is largely why the feminist theory began to unfold in the first place. As a contemporary field of study, international relations looks at stereotypically masculine subjects, such as conflicts, wars, and diplomacy, and thus the actors studied are overpoweringly male (Carver, 2014). The most popular theory of international relations is realism, which focuses on the state as an actor, looking at issues of power in terms of military. By looking at global relations through military, the theories are placing importance on men, as they constitute the majority of the military.  Joshua Goldstein (2004) found that there is a cross cultural consistency of gender roles in society during times of war, regardless of gender inconsistency in everyday life. During times of war, women are expected to hold domestic and supportive roles while men are the warriors that “protect. This is seen regardless of gender fluidity in a society when there is no war going on. This gendered dynamic entails a lack of focus on women in international relations, as civilians are not considered in the mainstream theories of international relations, and civilians are mainly constituted of women and children.
Legitimization of masculinity
Masculinity has become the pretense used for studying international relations due to the legitimization of the concept. Masculinity operates in a kind of commonsense, implicit, and often unconscious manner, as it is always valued. This value is associated with the denigration and exclusion of the female (Hutchings, 2008). International relations legitimizes masculinity by privileging characteristics that are considered to be ‘masculine,’ such as power in terms of military and war, which incorporates a hierarchical logic of exclusion of women and the feminine. Masculinity being the default in means of looking at issues of international relations has become inherent in part due to privilege placed on certain groups over others, and ideas of Western powers being considered the norm in literature. Hutchings (2008) discusses the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity,’ which is a type of culturally dominant masculinity distinguished from other subordinated masculinities. This idea of hegemonic masculinity determines which theories of international relations are known worldwide, as the ones (such as realism) which have the characteristics of the hegemonic masculinity, such as power and aggressiveness, are the most dominant theories.
Part of the legitimization of masculinity has to do with privilege. Kevin Dunn (2008) discusses how privilege is linked to gender and race in the study of international relations in the second chapter of Rethinking the man question: sex, gender and violence in international relations. Privileges are unearned invisible assets that certain groups of people have. Men, specifically white males, tend to have the most privilege in society, as they enjoy certain opportunities due to the patriarchal systems of power in international studies. Thus, masculinity has become systemized into theories of international relations due to privileges that men have.
Proposed changes
In order to address the gendered nature of international politics, various scholars have placed importance on various actions. Hutchings (2008) believes that in order to minimize the prominence of masculinity within global relations, we must begin by first appreciating how much intellectual work is accomplished by masculinity’s logical structure. While this is a logical first step, Hutchings does not go further in explanation about what measures to take after recognition of masculinity in society. Romaniuk & Wasylciw (2010) take this idea of appreciation of masculinity even further by arguing that feminist scholars need to bring in more perspectives of male participants in their discourse, and to further emphasize male insecurities as well as female insecurities. “Feminism advocates a multi-dimensional and multi-level redefinition of security, which involves solutions that inadvertently risk reifying gender as innate rather than an artificial construct. As a result, feminist scholars addressing the security paradigm have yet to achieve their desired ends” (Romaniuk & Wasylciw, 2010). This proposed change to feminist discourse is actually quite contradictory to the current perspective in feminism theory, which argues that only the needs of men are addressed in international relations, and thus, a larger focus on women and the feminine is needed in order to bring women to the forefront.
Maya Eichler (2014) states that militarized masculinities are prevalent in international relations. This entails men being associated with militaries and militarism, while women are associated with pacifism. Eichler argues that we need “to consider ways to not only reconstruct but to demilitarize masculinities.” (Eichler, 2014). However, her proposed solutions are vague, and would not help de-masculinize international relations as they are too simplistic and do not seem realistic.
Conclusion
It can clearly be seen that feminist scholars place different amounts of importance on masculinity in the study of international relations. While the various authors proposed interesting arguments about masculinity when looking at international relations, all discuss that it is important to realize that masculinity is present and we should work to make the study of international relations more equal. This recognition is the first step in then finding ways to bring women to the forefront of international relations.


References
Carver, T. (2014). Men and masculinities in international relations research. The Brown Journal of World Affairs,21(1), 113.
Eichler, M. (2014). Militarized masculinities in international relations. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 21(1), 81.
Goldstein, Joshua S. (2004) War and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Parpart, J. L., & Zalewski, M. (2008). Rethinking the man question: sex, gender and violence in international relations. Zed Books. Chapters 1 & 2
ROMANIUK, S. N., & WASYLCIW, J. K. (2010). 'gender' includes men too! recognizing masculinity in security studies and international relations. Perspectives, 18(1), 23-39.
Goldstein, Joshua S. (2004) War and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press