Andrew Rotter claims that the history of the United States’ foreign relations is not widely thought to warrant a gendered perspective. However, as a number of historians are discovering, gender is fundamental to U.S. foreign policy, and is present in the full discourse of international relations, where masculinity symbolises dominance, power and capability, and femininity symbolises passivity, domesticity and naiveté. Such matters are strategized and filtered through gendered lenses, with the Masculine taking the role of protector of the Feminine, or those who need protecting. This essay will analyse the importance of gender when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, using Andrew Rotter’s case study of U.S.-India relations during the Cold War,
…show more content…
The U.S. inherited its perception of India as a ‘feminine’ country from the British, and in addition, as Hooper’s argument shows, a masculinisation of militarism in Anglo-America has occurred since the nineteenth century. The discourse of masculinity is comprised of historical, political and cultural components, and has remained largely undisputed due to the dominant nature of patriarchy. This discourse defines itself against its feminine “other”, or as in the case of the U.S., the perception of the “other”, based on a nation’s similarities and differences to the U.S. In 1833 Thomas Babington Macaulay described India as “ignorant, weak and effeminate”, inferring India needed the guidance and influence of Britain, whilst MacMunn claimed in 1933 that India did not have any martial or physical capability. India’s “passive, servile” behaviour led the U.S. to identify India as a feminine nation in need of protection, revealing how gender stereotypes affect international relations. As Edward Said claims, the Orient is depicted as the illogical and weak “other”, compared to the sensible, martial “self” of the West, creating a clear need for a …show more content…
India, according to Rotter, perceived Americans as immoral, arrogant and violent, and in turn considered their policy as merely being commanding language and powerful emotion. In turn, the U.S. saw India’s desire to remain neutral as cowardly and evasive. This gendered thinking by both the U.S. and India affects the policies that other nations consider when dealing them, as well as impacting on future relations; and this gendered thinking also impacts the U.S. Steve Benen argues how the popular rhetoric surrounding President Obama today expects him to act as an “alpha male” in America’s global dealings. Benen claims the U.S. associates masculinity with bombs and harsh military action in contrast to diplomacy. This expectation effects the actions of the President, and this conception of Masculinity limits possible non-military
The U.S. inherited its perception of India as a ‘feminine’ country from the British, and in addition, as Hooper’s argument shows, a masculinisation of militarism in Anglo-America has occurred since the nineteenth century. The discourse of masculinity is comprised of historical, political and cultural components, and has remained largely undisputed due to the dominant nature of patriarchy. This discourse defines itself against its feminine “other”, or as in the case of the U.S., the perception of the “other”, based on a nation’s similarities and differences to the U.S. In 1833 Thomas Babington Macaulay described India as “ignorant, weak and effeminate”, inferring India needed the guidance and influence of Britain, whilst MacMunn claimed in 1933 that India did not have any martial or physical capability. India’s “passive, servile” behaviour led the U.S. to identify India as a feminine nation in need of protection, revealing how gender stereotypes affect international relations. As Edward Said claims, the Orient is depicted as the illogical and weak “other”, compared to the sensible, martial “self” of the West, creating a clear need for a …show more content…
India, according to Rotter, perceived Americans as immoral, arrogant and violent, and in turn considered their policy as merely being commanding language and powerful emotion. In turn, the U.S. saw India’s desire to remain neutral as cowardly and evasive. This gendered thinking by both the U.S. and India affects the policies that other nations consider when dealing them, as well as impacting on future relations; and this gendered thinking also impacts the U.S. Steve Benen argues how the popular rhetoric surrounding President Obama today expects him to act as an “alpha male” in America’s global dealings. Benen claims the U.S. associates masculinity with bombs and harsh military action in contrast to diplomacy. This expectation effects the actions of the President, and this conception of Masculinity limits possible non-military