The limited lens of IR

Although I’ve been warned about the conservative, neoliberal and Western-centric curriculum in the International Relations department, as a prospective IR major, I was hoping these claims were exaggerations. Now that I’m taking Intro to IR, I understand why some of my friends and the cool folks behind the 2014 Tufts Disorientation Guide warn about the IR department’s “saviour complex and propensity to cheerlead for the global status quo.”

In Intro to IR, we’ve so far read 21 articles by 22 authors. Most of the articles are problematic for one reason or another. Some of the authors argue that countries must always ensure their security -- even if this means exponentially expanding their defense budget and shrinking budgets for education, healthcare, social security and other vital services. Other authors insist that the existence of nuclear weapons has prevented major wars over the past several decades and that investing in these inconceivably deadly (and expensive) weapons is good -- but that only the “Western” countries can be trusted with them. Or they praise the “obsolescence” of war among democracies, citing how in recent years wars have become less frequent between democratic countries -- while discounting bloody civil wars in the Middle East, the death toll in Iraq during the Iraq War and the more than 2,000 Gazans killed this past summer alone during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge.

The single (aka token) female author we’ve read, Margaret Mead, took a strikingly different view in her article, “Warfare Is Only An Invention -- Not a Biological Necessity.” Though the piece -- written in 1940 -- is dated at times, the basic premise remains relevant. War developed just like any other institution, she argues, and happens to have stuck around. Its persistence in no way suggests its inevitability, just as other institutions and practices like religion, marriage, slavery, torture and racism were constructed by people and are not necessary for the progress of human civilization.

Is it significant that the only female author we’ve read in the class is also the only one who rejects war for everyone living, not because it might hurt increasing “economic interdependence” between democratic countries, but because it is destructive, socially-constructed and stupid? Isn’t it also kind of screwed up that the field of international relations is so dominated by (mostly white) male elites that this is the only female perspective in the course?

I’m not sure I can answer these questions in a 600-word column post, but I will say this: International relations could seriously benefit from an ecofeminist analysis.

Here’s what that analysis might look like: An ecofeminist would note that in many of my IR readings, countries are referred to as “she,” and that this feminization of countries/land is not a new phenomenon -- think of the term “virgin land” used by colonists in reference to the New World. An ecofeminist would examine how rulers in a patriarchal society continue to exploit the Earth’s resources for economic gains and litter the globe with nuclear weapons and armed forces, in the process destroying the environment and any peoples in the way. An ecofeminist would then consider how patriarchy might explain not just the oppression of women, but the destruction of an Earth suitable for human life.

I’m not saying we should completely denounce the IR major; I’m certainly not ready to do that just yet. But I hope that IR has room for criticism, not just from an ecofeminist perspective but also from antiracist, anticolonial and other perspectives completely ignored in my IR readings. And for all you IR buffs, I encourage you to take some classes outside the major and to recognize that the field of IR doesn’t necessarily paint an unbiased -- or accurate -- picture of the world.