By Christine SylvesterChristine Sylvester, Section Head, Feminist Theory and Gender Studies, Associate Professor of Political Science, Northern Arizona University
I wish to thank Marianne Marchand, Ann Tickner and Steve Wright for their helpful comments on this piece.
A new section of the ISA was launched at the 1990 meetings in Washington, D.C. to promote research and teaching at the nexus of international relations and feminist theory/gender studies. It hearalds the partial opening of professional IR to gender- and women-sensitive inquiry, despite the continuing resistances one can read in the pages of mainstreat journals. Indeed, J. Ann Tickner points out in her introduction to Gender in International Relations (forthcoming: typescript 18n) that “[w]hile a leading British International Relations journal Millennium devoted a special issue to women and international relations (Vol. 17, no. 3, Winter, 1988), no major American journal of international relations has yet published an article using gender as a category of analysis.”
Members of the feminist theory and gender studies section seek to rectify that oversight by exploring “how we think, or do not think, or avoid thinking about gender” (Flax, 1987: 622) when we think about IR. The many of us who are feminist focus on how “we” ignore the activities of people called women when we think about IR. Specialists in “our” field have avoided thinking of men and women qua embodied and socially constituted subject categories in three ways: by subsuming them in the “more relevant” categories of statemen, decision makers, soldiers, refugees, prisoners of war, earthquake victims, and publics; by too readily accepting into scientific analyses the common social assumption that women are located inside the separate sphere of domestic life, where they engage in activities that have nothing to do with the usual acitivies IR chronicles and theorizes — war, crisis decision making, regime formation, trade and so on; and by retreating to abstractions (the state) that mask a masculine identity (as competitive, rational, egoistic, power-seeking). Indeed, the theoretical diversity of “our” field seems to belie a common disinterest in the question of how the usual activities of some people come to be excluded from realist, neorealist, world systems, decision making, neoliberal institutionalist and other theoretical frameworks while other people’s idealized traits, if not their daily activities, seem to inspire the models, concepts, and processes.
Gender-minded analysts seek to move from suspicion of officially ungendered IR texts to their subversion and to replacement theories. this process, however, does not rely on a single and steady course. Feminist Irm in particular, like the broader field of feminist theory, features conversations and disagreements across epistemologies (Sylvester, 1990). Feminist empiricists, for instance, are comfortable using the standards of science to investigate masculine activities in officially gender-blind IR and unacknowledged women’s activities in various sectors of the field, e.g., in wars, on global assembly lines, in the peace movement (Stiehm, 1989; Schwartz-Shea and Burrington, 1990). Feminist standpointers argue that people in positions of social subordination — in this case women in IR — develop different and more acurate insights on how the world and its “rules” work and we should bring these perspectives to bear on a field (Hartsock, 1983; Mies, 1986). Feminist postmodernists suspect “men” and “women” are invented subject categories that function to maintain specific relations of inequality and to hide instances of unanticipated insurrections by people whose existences are straight-jacketed by labels, e.g., women volunteering for the war, and women peace campers refusing to feel protected and secure by medium-range nuclear missles in Europe (Elshtain, 1987; Sylvester, forthcoming b).
That there is no single way forward, around and through the morass of official international relations does not mean that the members of this section are obeisant to the status quo. There have been three recent streams of gender-attentive research into IR; critique and reappropriation of stories told about the proper scope of the field; revisions of war and peace narratives; and reevaluations of women and development in the internaional system and its parts.
Critiquing Ir’s Core
The first stream destabilizes the field’s core, often from a base of feminist standpoint thinking. Christine Di Stefano (1983) and Carol Pateman (1988), for instance, suggest ways to reevaluate Thomas Hobbes’ vision of the state of nature — the key metaphor for the international state system — vis a vis the “civilized” conditions associated with legitimately governed nation-states. Di Stefano (1983:639) depict the social contract as an agreement forged by male “orphans who have reared themselves, whose desires are situated within and reflect nothing but independtly generated movement.” Pateman (1988) speaks both of the state of nature and of the state of lawful domestic order as underwritten by a sexual contract: women were conquered in the wars of nature, owing to the handicap of having to defend themselves while also defending their children, and were turned into family-members-as-servants who, thereafter, have had a notoriously troubled relationship with public citizenship (also Jones, 1990). Nancy Hartsock (1983:283) suggests that orderly domestic politics have, in fact, been “defined in opposition to dangerous, disorderly, and irrational forces . . . consistently conceptualized as female,” and this is what limits our citizenship at home. The local disciplinings accomplished, the dangers represented by women ironically take up residence in women-denying IR via realist presentations of anarchic and unruly orders yet to be tamed by government.
In Public Man, Private Woman (1981), Jean Bethke Elshtain takes a more postmodernist route to reinterpret the philosophical core of the idea that women are mostly nonpublic creatures. Her journeys through Plato, Aristotle, the Christian philosophers, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and the contemporary women’s movement lead her to appreciate “[b]oundary shifts in our understanding of `the political’ and hence of what is public and what is private . . . throughout the history of Western life and thought” (p. 201).
There is also postmodernist interest in “how questions of gender, along with all other questions about political identity are resolved, in an historically specific way, by the seemingly solidly established principle of state sovereignty” (Walker, forthcoming, typescript 23; Elshtain, 1987 and forthcoming). V. Spike Peterson (reviewed in Runyan and Peterson, 1991) draws attention to the early foundations of sovereign politics in the Athenian polis, pointedly arguing that:
It was in the Athenian context that specifically Western constructions of the state, security, representation, sovereignty, and the “sovereign subject,” public and private, and “what constitutes the political” were established; these constructions — and the metaphysics they presuppose — profoundly shaped modern state formation, and they continue to “discipline” IR (p. 91)
Her discussion of the “sovereign subject” and of public/private distinctions of ancient times has implications for continuing fixations on sovereign authority today, whether the authority be the state or the leadership of men in the public activities of politics. As Robert Keohane (1989:245) puts it, the usual way sovereignty is discussed “seems to reflect traditionally male thinking, with its emphasis on control and its penchant for absolute and dichotomous categories.” Arguing that IR builds on an analogous distinction between domestic and international politics, R.B.J. Walker (forthcoming) suggests that the task at hand is not simply to add the historically excluded voices of domestic-sphere people to IR, but to challenge the gounds on which IR has been constructed as an instance of sovereign boundary-drawing authority. While the realm of international relations between sovereign entities is denied to women, he things there may be room in the more ambivalent concept of “world politics” for people and activities excluded from ancient and modern sovereign specifications (also Ashley, 1989).
Cynthia Enloe (1989) returns to a feminist standpoint interpretation to argue that women are always inside international relations through their work in the practice of its politics — as diplomats’ wives and secretaries, as assemblers of commodities for export, as tourists bringing foreign exchange to the nearly empty tills of third world countries and dirty laundry for poor handmaids to wash, as consolers of soldiers based far from home, and wearers of khaki (1983) — if we choose to see them there. She states the problem as learning “how the conduct of international politics has depended on men’s control of women . . .” (1989:4). Whether that dependence is a sign of the taming powers of public/private images or of specific sovereignities at work is less the issue for Enlow than the complex relationship between continuities in IR — “seemingly new trends are likely to be gendered, just as past international events were” (p. 200) — and her sense that every time a woman explains how her government is trying to control her fears, her hopes and her labor, a fresh, more realistic approach to international politics is being made (p. 201).
Related critiques of foundational IR thinking reveal gender biases in Hans J. Morgenthau’s realist principles (Tickner, 1988), discuss gender relations as the quintessential elements of human history, including the history of IR (Windsor, 1988), and proffer the view that “the proper object and purpose of the study of international relations is the identification and explanation of social stratification and of inequality as structured at the level of global relations” (Brown, 1988:461). There is also the assessment that an unacknowledged convention of “cooperative autonomy” keeps IR theory free of women-gendered activities while simultaneously subverting the prevalent identificaiton of IR with anarchy (Sylvester, forthcoming a and b). “Strange” subversions of and complicites with cooperative autonomy emanate from communities usually trivialized in IR, such as women’s peace camps and lobbying associations of diplomats’ wives (Enloe, 1989; Sylvester, forthcoming b).
John Ruggie (1989:32) tells us that “what we look for obviously has an effect on what we find” and “we,” understood as most members of the mainstreat community of IR scholars, have not looked for signs of gender within IR’s core premises, perhaps because “our” boundaries rely too heavily on “objective” readings of gendered foundational philosophies. When one reads with an awareness of gender, those texts tell of worlds differently constituted and maintained from the world recounted in official IR.
War And Peace
Of the many topics IR calls its own, few have elicited as much interest by gender-aware researchers as war and peace. From Lourdes Baneria’s and Rebecca Blank’s (1989) feminist empiricist discussion of “Women and the Economics of Military Spending” to Elshtain’s (1987) postmodernist explorations of gendered war narratives; from Judith Stiehm’s (1989) empirical research on women in the U.S. military to the ipistemologically varied essays that form Adrienne Harris’ and Ynestra King’s (1989) volume on how feminists think about peace and the parallel volume edited by Sharon MacDonald, Pat Holden, and Shirley Ardener (1988) on images of women in war and peace, we find a stream of efforts to consider who owns, is constituted by, accepts, challenges, and rejects IR’s wars and peaces.
One way into this topic entails considering differential gender receptivies to violence, warfare, and peace. Some argue that women’s biology and-or habitual social assignments as mothers and caretakers position women against the violence of war as a means of settling disputes (e.g. Brock-Utne, 1985; Ruddick, 1989), and help them to develop a politically viable standpoint on wars, peaces, insecurities, and militaristic tamings in our lives (Reardon, 1985; Enloe, 1983). Nancy Hartsock (1989) and Carol Cohn (1987) respectively, see links between masculinity and the appeal of war-making and war preparations by soldiers and defense intellectuals, while Zala Chandler (1989) and Barbara Omalade (1989) offer lessons on conflict-management taken from the experiences of black women who routinely survive the double violence of racism and sexism.
Feminist postmodernists think of the constitution of identifiable selves in relation to war-making, war-resisting, and war-supporting as less rigid than we may think; for example, some women seek out various battlefields to escape the stultifying peaces of protected lives (Elshtain, 1987). For this reason the postmodernists implicitly warn against “natural” feminist mergers with peace politics (Harris, 1990); Sylvester, 1989); and against ignoring the presence of women in third world revolutions and in historical warrior positions (Tetreault, forthcoming; MacDonald, 1988; Urdang, 1979). Some seek to bring econolical issues into the study of security (Runyan, forthcoming) and some would insecure gender in general as a way of questioning usual understandings of secure identities and places (Dinnerstein, 1989; Morgan, 1989; Mack, 1986; Elshtain, 1987).
Because the war/peace territory of IR is now well-marked with gender-aware signposts and warnings, it is increasingly apparent that mainstream ways of conceptualizing war and (nonspeaking of peace as) national security or international stability are partial and problematic. Projecting war as the dangerous bottom line of anarchic politics and peace as the hardnosed “world of ongoing equilibrium, harmony, and perfect order,” is something Elshtain (1988:447) encourages feminists to eschew and Cohn (1987:711) encourages us to surmount by “creating compelling alternative visions of possible futures.”
Women And Development
There is also considerable interest, inspired in part by world-systems theory, in the intersections of gender and development issues in IR. A capitalist order of hierarchically arranged economic zones, fueled by the circulation of commodities and enforced by statist military power, is also alive with racist and sexist logics (Smith, Collins, Hopkins, Humannad, 1988). Maria Mies (1986) employs a feminist empiricist cum standpoint approach to study how the capitalist system parallels and intersects a usually unacknowledged social system of patriarchy. The optimal labor force for capital, she writes, is the socially constructed consumer-housewife: In the West, she does unpaid work in order to lower the costs for the realization of capital (like brining her own grocery bags to some food stores), while women in the periphery do underpaid or “informal” work just to get by, both groups trapped by the social assumption that women are dependents of male wage earners and therefore have the luxury of not working outside the home. From this perspective women are already thoroughly integrated into the capitalist-patriarchal system and they need relief from its dynamics rather than strategies for further integration, which some women in development (WID) feminists have advocated (e.g., Boserup, 1970; see review by Jaquette, 1982).
There is debate, however, about whether development processes in particular countries inhibit women’s power through the ghettoization of “women’s projects” (Goetz, 1988) or provide within these projects some space for women to resist marginalization (Sylvester, 1991). There is also some skepticism that western researchers can adequately address this question and others like it (Sen and Grown, 1985). Gayatri Spivak (1988), an academic iconoclast par excellence, asks whether the subalterns of world capitalism can speak from anything other than homogeneous Western-Subject-centered otherness. She implies that the western subject is herself-himself a simultaneous invention of the modern West and an agent of Western subjectivity through whom, by implication, the world-system expands, lives on, and resists the resistances of “subalterns” by “interpreting” them. Aihwa Ong (1988) and Chandra Mohanty (1988; 1991) suggest that we deconstruct colonial categories and give up accustomed ways of looking at non-western women, owing to theneo-colonial preoccupations those ways harbor. whose standpoint, they implicitly ask, finds its way into feminist standpoint; whose tools of science reinforce Western-Subject-centered otherness; and whose deconstructions are required to displace it?
One can raise the additional question in this context of whether the field of IR, which corrals its research into discrete levels of analysis, can smudge its imposed knowledge boundaries to learn from the development experiences of domestically situated thrid world women. Marianne Marchand (1991) urges us to use the new literary genre consisting of testimonies by poor women, who offer standpoints about their personal and community experiences during times of severe repression, to broaden the parameters of debate on what constitutes national development. There are also lesons on international cooperation to learn from the experiences of women in cooperatives in Zimbabwe (Sylvester, forthcoming c), and perhaps empirical lessons on war and peace to consider in the gender practices of “tribal” and nonhuman societies (Goldstein, 1991). In all these cases, however, lesson learning requires that we examine the reasons why IR is so concerned with maintaining separate and nonconfounding levels of analysis and the costs in knowledge of continuing to do so.
Other Topics And Horizons
In addition to research related to these three topics, there are articles on feminist interpretations of human rights (Peterson, 1990), on feminist understandings of international political economy (Tickner, 1991), and a follow-up to the special Millennium issue on women and international relations by its coeditors (Grant and Newland, 1991). Peggy Galey and Charlotte Patton are collecting essays on Women and Politics in the UN; Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan are working on a feminist IR textbook; Francine D’Amico and Peter Beckman are assembling a collection of feminist readings on IR; and there are volumes on gender in IR (Tickner, forthcoming), gendered states (Peterson, forthcoming), and feminist theory in international relations (sylvester, forthcoming a) in progress. A special issue of Alternatives (Sylvester, ed., 1992) will feature feminist writing international relations, and a forthcoming collection of IR perspectives, orchestrated by James Rosenau into dialogues, showcases several feminist voices.
Major conferences on gender and international relations have been held at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1988, the University of Southern California in 1989 (Peterson, 1989) and Wellesley College in 1990. Section panels in preparation for the 1992 ISA indicate an expansion of the feminist agenda to include issues of gender, race and class in IR and the concrete experiences of women facing difficult system transitions in Eastern Europe and Palestine. If “representations of women and the sphere with which they have been hsitorically linked [has been] an absence that helps to make possible the much cherished `parsimony’ of the preferred model, or frandwork, or simulation, or analysis” (Elshtain, 1987: 90-91), the queries of gender-concerned students of IR indicate that those days are finally passing in “our” field.
References
Ashley, Richard(1989), “Living on Border Lines: Man, Post-Structuralism, and War,” in James Der Derian and Michael Shapiro, eds., International/Intertextual Relations: The Boundaries of Knowledge and Practice in World Politics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Beneria, Lourdes, and Rebecca Blank (1989), “Women and the Economics of Military Spending,” in Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King, eds., Rocking the Ship of State: Towards a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Boserup, Ester (1970), Women’s Role in Economic Development. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Brock-Utne, Birgit (1985), Educating for Peace: A Feminist Perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.
Brown, Sarah (1988), “Feminism, International Theory and International Relations of Gender Inequality,” Millennium, 17, 3.
Campbell, David (1990), “Global Inscription: How Foreign Policy Constitutes the United States,” Alternatives, 15, 3:263-286.
Chandler, Zala (1989), “Antiracism, Antisexism, and Peace (Sapphire’s Perspective),” in Adrienne Harris and Ynestera King, eds., Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Cohn, Carol (1987), “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, 12, 1987:687-718.
Dinnerstein, Dorothy (1989), “What Does Feminism Mean?” in Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King, eds., Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Di Stefano, Christine (1983), “Masculinity as Ideology in Political Theory: Hobbesian Man Considered,” Women’s Studies International Forum, 6, 6.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke (forthcoming), “Sovereignty, Identity, Sacrifice,” in V. Spike Peterson, ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of IR Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press.
– (1988), “The Problem with Peace,” Millennium, 17, 3:441-450.
– (1987), Women and War. New York: Basic Books.
– (1981), Public Man, Private Woman: Woman in Social and Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Enloe, Cynthia (1989), Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Relations. London: Pandora.
– (1983), Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives. London: Pandora.
Flax, Jane (1987), “Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory,” Signs, 12, 4:621-643.
Goetz, Anne Marie (1988), “Feminism and the Limits of the Claim to Know: Contradiction in the Feminist Approach to Women and Development,” Millennium, 17, 3:477-497.
Goldstein, Joshua (1991), “Feminist Perspectives on the Causes of War,” paper delivered at the International Studies Association meetings, Vancouver.
Grant, Revecca and Kathleen Newland, eds. (1991), Gender and International Relations. London: Open University Press.
Harding, Sandra (1986), The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harris, Adrienne and Ynestra King, eds. (1989), Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Harris, Adrienne (1989), “Bringing Artemis to Life: A Plea for Militance and Aggression in Feminist Peace Politics,” in Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King, eds., Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder CO: Westview.
– (1983), “The Barracks Community in Western Political Thought: Prologomena to a Feminist Critique of War and Politics,” in Judith Stiehm, ed., Women and Men’s Wars. London: Pergamon Press.
Jaquette, Jane (1982), “Women and Modernization: A Decade of Feminist Criticism,” World Politics, 34 (January).
Jones, Kathleen (1990), “Citizenship in a Woman-Friendly Polity,” Signs, 15, Summer: 781-812.
Keohane, Robert, (1989), “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint,” Millennium, 18, 2:245-253.
Mack, Phyllis (1986), “Feminine Behavior and Radical Action: Franciscans, Quakers, and the Followers of Gandhi,” Signs, 11, 3:457-477.
McDonald, Sharon (1988), “Boadicea: Warrior, Mother and Myth,” in Sharon McDonald, Pat Holden, Shirley Ardener, eds., Images of Women in Peace and War. Madison, WI: University of Michigan Press.
McDonald, Sharon, Pat Holden, Shirley Ardener, eds. (1988), Images of Women in Peace and War: Cross-Cultural and Historical Perspectives. Madison, WI: University of Michigan Press.
Marchand, Marianne (1991), “Latin American Women Speak on Development: Testimonies as Voices of Resistance,” paper delivered at the International Studies Association meetings, Vancouver.
Mies, Maria (1986), Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Press.
Mohanty, Chandra (1991), Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
– (1988), “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” Feminist Review, 30 (Autumn): 61-88.
Morgan, Robin (1989), The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism. London: Methuen.
Omalade, Barbara (1989), “We Speak for the Planet,” in Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King, eds., Rocking the Ship of State: Toward A Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Ong, Aihwa (1988), “Colonialism and Modernity: Feminist Representations of Women in Non-Western Societies,” Inscriptions, 3/4 (October): 79-93.
Pateman, Carole (1988), The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Peterson, V. Spike, ed. (forthcoming), Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of IR Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
– (1990), “Whose Rights”? A Critique of the “Givens” in Human Rights Discourse,” Alternatives, 15, 3:303-344.
– (1989), “Clarification and Contestation: A Conference Report on “Women, The State, and War: What Difference Does Gender Make?” Los Angeles: Center for International Studies, University of Southern California.
Reardon, Betty (1985), Sexism and the War System. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rosenau, James (forthcoming), IR Voices: Dialogues of a Discipline in Flux. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ruddick, Sarah (1989), Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace. London: The Women’s Press.
Ruggie, John (1989), “International Structure and International Transformation: Space, Time, and Method,” in Ernst-Otto Czempiel and James N. Rosenau, eds., Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics in the 1990s. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Runyan, Anne Sisson, “The `State’ of Nature: A Garden Unfit for Women and Other Living Things,” in V. Spike Peterson, ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of IR Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press.
– and V. Spike Peterson (1991), “The Radical Future of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory,” Alternatives, 16, 1:67-106.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, and Debra Burrington (1990), “Free Riding, Alternative Organization and Cultural Feminism: The Case of Seneca Women’s Peace Camp,” Women and Politics, 10, 3:1-37.
Sen, Gita and Caren Grown (1985), Development, Crisis, and Alternative Visions: Third World Women’s Perspectives. New Delhi: DAWN, Institute for Social Studies Trust.
Smith, Joan, J. Collins, T. Hopkins, and H. Muhammad, eds., (1988), Racism, Sexism, and the World-System. New York: Greenwood Press.
Spivak, Gayatri (1988), “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, eds., Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Stiehm, Judith (1989), Arms and the Enlisted Woman. Philidelphia: Temple University Press.
Sylvester, Christine (forthcoming a), Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
– (forthcoming b), “Feminists and Realists Look At Autonomy and Obligation in International Relations,” in V. Spike Peterson, ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of IR Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press.
– (forthcoming c), “Reginas Face Regimes: Gender Cooperations, Autonomies, and Theory Confoundings,” in Naeem Inayatullah, Stephen Rosow, Mark Rupert, and Ahmed Samatar, eds., The Global Economy as Political Space: Essays in Critical Theory and International Political Economy (forthcoming).
– (1991) “”Urban Women Cooperators,” “Progress,” and “African Feminism” in Zimbabwe,” Differences, 3, 1:31-62.
– (1990), “The Emperors’ Theories and Transformations: Looking at the Field Through Feminist Lenses,” in Dennis Pirages and Christine Sylvester, eds., Transformations in the Global Political Economy. London: Macmillan.
– (1989), “Patriarchy, Peace and Women Warriors,” in Linda Rennie Forcey, ed., Peace: Meanings, Politics, Strategies. New York: Praeger Press.
– (1987), “Some Dangers in Merging Feminist and Peace Projects,” Alternatives, 12, 4:493-509.
Tetreault, Marianne (forthcoming), Women and Revolution. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Tickner, J. Ann (forthcoming), Gender in International Relations. New York: Columbia University Press.
– (1991), “On the Fringes of the World Economy: A Feminist Perspective,” in Craig Murphy and Roger Tooxe, eds., The New International Political Economy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press.
– (1988), “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation,” Millennium, 17, 3:429-440.
Urdang, Stephanie (1979), Fighting Two Colonialisms: Women in Guinea Bissau. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Walker, R.B.J. (forthcoming), “On the Discourses of Sovereignty: Gender and Critique in the Theory of International Relations,” in V. Spike Peterson, eds., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)vision of IR Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press.
Windsor, Philip (1988), “Women and International Relations: What’s The Problem?” Millennium, 17, 3:451-460.
Reprinted from International Studies Notes, 16/17, 3/1:32-38 (Fall 1991/Winter 1992)
