Carol Cohn and J. Ann Tickner both offer a feminist critique of the field of international relations. Cohn focuses specifically on the language associated with nuclear weaponry while Ticker contextualizes Cohn’s work to more broadly analyze the field; however, they would both agree that the field of international relations is dominated by a male perspective that largely ignores the female voice. For this paper, I argue that Joe Nye’s conception of liberal institutionalism manages to be more inclusive of female perspectives than realism; however, liberal institutionalism is unable to fully escape the critiques of Carol and Cohn.
Cohn’s article explores the impact of the specific language used by defense intellectuals or what she coins as “technostrategic …show more content…
Tickner describes hegemonic mascolinity as, “a type of culturally dominant masculinity that he distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is a socially constructed cultural ideal that, while it does not correspond to the actual personality of the majority of men, sustains patriarchal authority and legitimizes a patriarchal political and social order” (Tickner 8). The crux of Tickner’s argument thus is that realism forces a strict male dominated worldview, that rejects outright the possibility of a peaceful international system and dismisses them as “idealist utopias”. This critique is directly transferable to liberal institutionalism due to realism’s outsized influence as the dominant school of thought in foreign relations. Liberal institutionalism which utilizes many of the same constructs and much of the same language is subject to the same feminist …show more content…
Liberal institutionalism argues that states interest vary drastically and cannot be accurately represented by simply attempting to calculate their interest in terms of power politics. Nye writes, “The factors of technology, education, and economic growth are becoming more significant in international power, while geography, population, and raw materials are becoming somewhat less important” (Nye 154). These elements that are becoming more significant are traditionally regarded as “soft-power”, whereas military strength is considered “hard-power”. Increasingly, outside organizations such as multi-national corporations or NGOs serve as link between nations leading to closer relations and even interdependence. As the influence of these outside players grow, Nye notes that the use of hard-power, the focus of male dominated realism, has grown costly to great powers in the modern era. For Nye, it is important that liberal institutionalism accurately measures the growing influence of soft-power and moves away from the male dominated hard-power worldview. Liberal institutionalism does not simply value material and military strength, but defines power in a broader sense. Nye writes that power is best defined in the modern era as, “the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other
Cohn’s article explores the impact of the specific language used by defense intellectuals or what she coins as “technostrategic …show more content…
Tickner describes hegemonic mascolinity as, “a type of culturally dominant masculinity that he distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is a socially constructed cultural ideal that, while it does not correspond to the actual personality of the majority of men, sustains patriarchal authority and legitimizes a patriarchal political and social order” (Tickner 8). The crux of Tickner’s argument thus is that realism forces a strict male dominated worldview, that rejects outright the possibility of a peaceful international system and dismisses them as “idealist utopias”. This critique is directly transferable to liberal institutionalism due to realism’s outsized influence as the dominant school of thought in foreign relations. Liberal institutionalism which utilizes many of the same constructs and much of the same language is subject to the same feminist …show more content…
Liberal institutionalism argues that states interest vary drastically and cannot be accurately represented by simply attempting to calculate their interest in terms of power politics. Nye writes, “The factors of technology, education, and economic growth are becoming more significant in international power, while geography, population, and raw materials are becoming somewhat less important” (Nye 154). These elements that are becoming more significant are traditionally regarded as “soft-power”, whereas military strength is considered “hard-power”. Increasingly, outside organizations such as multi-national corporations or NGOs serve as link between nations leading to closer relations and even interdependence. As the influence of these outside players grow, Nye notes that the use of hard-power, the focus of male dominated realism, has grown costly to great powers in the modern era. For Nye, it is important that liberal institutionalism accurately measures the growing influence of soft-power and moves away from the male dominated hard-power worldview. Liberal institutionalism does not simply value material and military strength, but defines power in a broader sense. Nye writes that power is best defined in the modern era as, “the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other