The discipline is highly political; however, it presents and studies questions in a depoliticized manner. The major subject of the discipline inquiry is also undergoing such a major transformation, such that it is almost impossible to reconcile the kind of world the disciple implies and the reality. One major figure in the study of international relations in the 20th century is Hans Joachim Morgenthau. One of his major contributions in this field is his Politics Among nations first published in 1948. Within the IR field, Hans J. Morgenthau is accepted as the father of the realist paradigm.
The hallmark of Morgenthaus intellectual development is his development from a conservative to a liberal view of IR. The shift is not a change in his point of view rather; it is a result of a consistent application of reading from the realism school of thought perspective. J. Ann Tickner is a professor of international relations and a distinguished scholar. She is a major critique of the major IR theories for their omission of gender. She favors a social bottom-up analysis of IR theories because it makes the role of women in the discipline visible. She is opposes the common top-down scientific methods that focus on masculine subjects, such as war, money, and men.
Comparative analysis of Morgenthaus and Tickners texts
International relation is a relative subject that helps us understand the important issues in a globalized world. Tickner is of the view that the international relation field is male dominated, especially because of the emphasis placed on strategic issues and nuclear weapons. She endeavors to offer a feminist critique of the international relation theory. She argues that international relation is a gendered discipline. The discipline is gendered male because of the type of questions it asks and the way it answers them. She argues that the questions a researcher asks in his or her research are never neutral; they depend on the researchers identity and location (Tickner 23). Most of the research in the past has been done by men; consequently, womens knowledge is absent in recorded history. As a feminist philosopher, Tickner argues that if the discipline were to build knowledge from both the male and female perspectives, the world would have a richer and more complex picture of reality.
The main challenge that Morgenthau text faces is its failure to develop into a recognizable theory. Morgenthau fails to distinguish international politics from other realms of influence, such as economics and national politics. Morgenthau focuses on man evil nature by insisting that all men are self-seeking and only weigh issues based on what they stand to gain. According to Morgenthau, the desire for power emerges from the state’s nature, which is in turn influenced by human nature. From Morgenthau context, power is never enough and is an end in its self. From this perspective, states regardless of their size or economic status strive to acquire maximum power (Morgenthau). These assertions are the main claims in Morgenthau text that Tickner insists have a masculine undertone. Tickner seeks to create a connection between IR and the everyday experiences of the common person by employing a bottom-up approach in her analysis of international relations.
Tickner insist in her main thesis that studying IR without using the gender lenses limits us from viewing the complete picture of global politics. The epistemological foundations of western knowledge are gendered because terms, such as objectivity, rationality, and public are associated with masculinity and are common in doing research. Despite the lack engagement, feminism has gained ground in IR because gender issues are a concern in the real world. Issues like human rights, trafficking, and sexual violence are part of most international organizations concerned with gender mainstreaming. The main difference facing Tickners view of IR is that she uses a feminist approach that operates in a social environment whereas Morgenthau uses the conventional approach of states and structures operating in an anarchic environment. This is challenging because Tickners incorporation of people and social relations in IR demand a bottom-up approach, which differs from the conventional top-down approach (Tickner 25).
IR has been primarily concerned with explaining the cause of war and the success of states. Realism prescribes accumulation of power as the only sure way of ensuring state survival in an anarchical world. The accumulation of power and military strength is essential in ensuring the continued protection of the orderly domestic space and the pursuit of national interest in the international arena. Feminist argue that the view limit the options because the knowledge available in the field ignore half of the human experience. Increasing the options available to policymakers is especially important because the world desperately needs to fix issues threatening the existing harmony. These issues include environmental degradation, inequality, and extremism (Tickner 19).
Conclusion
The major difference between Tickners and Morgenthaus approaches is that Tickner endeavors to make IR relevant to the general population. Because of the approach that Morgenthau uses and many others in the field, IR seems like an alienated product of distant uncontrollable forces. This leads many people to feel like passive victims of these global forces rather than active members as Tickner emphasizes in her critique of Morgenthau text. Scholars such as Morgenthau employ turgid prose in their discussion of theoretical approaches and use examples that have little relevance to the average individual. Tickners main concern is that IR becomes a force of disalienation by engaging the average person using gender lenses to access the available knowledge. Gender lenses will provide a more realistic picture of IR and enable the professionals in the field to address the real issues affecting the average person.
Works Cited
Morgenthau, Hans J. Politica Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Six Principles of Political Realism, 1978. Web. 26 February 2014.
Tickner, Ann J. A Critique of Morgenthaus Principles of Political Realism. Anarchy and its Consequences (2005): 17-27
No comments:
Post a Comment