Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:19:14.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘brutal fecundity of violence’: Feminist methodologies of International Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2020

Helen M. Kinsella Open the ORCID record for Helen M. Kinsella [Opens in a new window]  and
Laura J. Shepherd Open the ORCID record for Laura J. Shepherd [Opens in a new window]
Helen M. Kinsella
Affiliation:
Political Science and Law, Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, and the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, US
Laura J. Shepherd*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: laura.shepherd@sydney.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article highlights Marysia Zalewski's scholarship as reflective and generative of the multifarious sources and contributions of feminist IR and its ‘scavenger methodologies’, which seek to centre subjects, processes, and practices historically excluded, ignored, and minimised. The productive depth of her scholarship is evident in the uniqueness of each article in this collection, all of which distinctly document the uses to which Zalewski's writings can be uniquely put. Each of the articles performs a ‘turning operation’ of sorts on the elementals of feminist IR (gender/women/power/difference) and brings further elaborations of masculinities, sexualities, silences as well as screams, that shift and change what is taken to be feminist research/method – at each point disordering our sensibilities and our assumptions as to what we do when we do feminist work.

Keywords

FeministMethodologyZalewskiGenderPower
Type
Forum Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 299 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, in particular, and in addition to prolific collaborative work: Zalewski, Marysia, ‘The debauching of feminist theory/the penetration of the postmodern’, Politics, 11:1 (1991), pp. 30–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Well, what is the feminist perspective on Bosnia?’, International Affairs, 71:2 (1995), pp. 339–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, ‘“All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up: Theory, theorists, theorising’, in Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken, and Zalewski, Marysia (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 340–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Where is woman in International Relations? “To return as a woman and be heard”’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27:4 (1998), pp. 847–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, Feminism After Postmodernism: Theorising Through Practice (London: Routledge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, ‘“Women's troubles” again in IR’, International Studies Review, 5:2 (2003), pp. 291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Do we understand each other yet? Troubling feminist encounters with(in) International Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9:2 (2007), pp. 302–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, ‘“I don't even know what gender is”: A discussion of the connections between gender, gender mainstreaming and feminist theory’, Review of International Studies, 36:1 (2010), pp. 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, Feminist International Relations: Exquisite Corpse (London: Routledge, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Zalewski, Marysia, Feminist International Relations: Exquisite Corpse (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Zalewski, Marysia et al. , ‘Celebrating twenty years of British gender and IR’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11:3 (2009), pp. 305–33 (p. 306).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 See also Sabaratnam, Meera, ‘IR in dialogue … but can we change the subjects? A typology of decolonising strategies for the study of world politics’, Millennium, 39:3 (2011), pp. 781–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Shepherd, Laura J., ‘Research as gendered intervention: Feminist research ethics and the self in the research encounter’, Crítica Contemporánea: Revista de Teoría Política, 6 (2016), p. 7Google Scholar.

6 Soreanu, Raluca and Hudson, David, ‘Feminist scholarship in International Relations and the politics of disciplinary emotion’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37:1 (2008), pp. 123–51 (p. 124)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See also Anievas, Alexander, Manchanda, Nivi, and Shilliam, Robbie (eds), Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line (London: Routledge, 2015)Google Scholar.

8 Citing Trinh T. Minh-ha; Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy, ‘Feminist research: Exploring, interrogating, and transforming the interconnections of epistemology, methodology, and method’, in Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy (ed.), Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis (London: SAGE, 2012), pp. 2–26 (p. 3)Google Scholar; see also de Jong, Sara, Icaza, Rosalba, and Rutazibwa, Olivia U. (eds), Decolonization and Feminisms in Global Teaching and Learning, Teaching with Gender (London: Routledge, 2019)Google Scholar.

9 Carver, Terrell, Gender is not a Synonym for Women (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1996), p. 18Google Scholar; Helen M. Kinsella, ‘For a careful reading: The conservatism of gender constructivism’, in Carver, Terrell (ed.), ‘Forum on Gender and International Relations’, International Studies Review, 5:2 (2003), pp. 287–302 (pp. 294–7)Google Scholar; see more recently, Richter-Montpetit, Melanie, ‘Beyond the erotics of Orientalism: Lawfare, torture and the racial-sexual grammars of legitimate suffering’, Security Dialogue, 45:1 (2014), pp. 43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weber, Cynthia ‘Why is there no Queer International Theory?’, European Journal of International Relations, 21:1 (2014), pp. 27–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 For a classic articulation, see Enloe, Cynthia, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (2nd edn, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

11 For a brief overview, see Kinsella, Helen M., ‘Feminism’, in Baylis, John, Smith, Steve, and Owens, Patricia (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019 [orig. pub. 2016]), pp. 189–203Google Scholar.

12 For a classic articulation, see Steans, Jill, ‘Engaging from the margins: Feminist encounters with the “mainstream” of International Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5:3 (2003), pp. 428–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See Weber, Cynthia, ‘Good girls, little girls, and bad girls: Male paranoia in Robert Keohane's critique of feminist International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23:3 (1994), pp. 337–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Kamola, Isaac A., Making the World Global: U.S. Universities and the Production of the Global Imaginary (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2019)Google Scholar

15 Christine Sylvester, ‘The contributions of feminist theory to International Relations’, in Smith, Booth, and Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, pp. 254–78.

16 Peterson, V. Spike, ‘Political identities/nationalism as heterosexism’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1:1 (1999), pp. 34–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 This comparison belongs to Cynthia Enloe. See Cynthia Enloe, ‘Margins, silences and bottom rungs: How to overcome the underestimation of power in the study of International Relations’, in Smith, Booth, and Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, pp. 186–22; Zalewski, Feminist International Relations, p. 127.

18 Zalewski, ‘All these theories’, p. 352, emphasis in original.

19 Halberstam, J., Female Masculinity (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998), p. 13Google Scholar.