Control + 1 – Block Headings

Geopolitical mapping is a method of domesticating political space to dominate the external environment

J. Ann Tickner, Prof of IR at USC, M.A. Yale and Ph.D Brandeis, ’92, “Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving International Security,” 109-10

The mechanistic attitude toward nature that began in seventeenth-century Europe and was subsequently globalized through imperialism led to a fundamental shift in the conceptualization of geographical space. Merchant notes that in the case of early America a breakdown of the Native American way of life began with the mapping of their homeland onto geometric space by European explorers and mapmakers. As space was reorganized, fixed boundaries between wild and civilized appeared, boundaries unknown to Native American cultures. The mapping of the world by European explorers led to similar processes of reconceptualizing and organizing geographical space on a global scale, a process that has lent itself to projects of management, control, and domination of the environment. The history of spatial changes is also the history of power changes.29 The interrelation between geographical space and power politics noted by Hans Morgenthau and other contemporary international relations scholars was developed more comprehensively by the Western geopolitical tradition of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although it fell from favor in Western international relations scholarship in the post-World War II period, owing to its association with Nazism, geopolitical thinking had considerable influence on United States containment policies of the Cold War era.30 In his study of Western geopolitical thought, Geoffrey Parker defines geopolitics as the study of international relations from a spatial viewpoint; geopolitics views the world as an interlocking mechanism, an assumption that links it to the Enlightenment view of nature as a machine.31 While looking at the globe as a totality, geopolitics sees a world divided into bounded political entities competing for control over their environment. Citing Friedrich Ratzel's description of the state as an organism engaged in a competitive struggle of evolution and decay, Parker notes the Darwinian influence on nineteenth-century geopolitical thinking.32 The German school of Geopolitik, of which Ratzel was a member, was founded on environmental determinism: the power that any state could command depended on its geographical circumstances. In geopolitical terms, spaces are contested areas populated by colonists, soldiers, navies, and traders. As geopolitical thinkers along with mapmakers were effecting this transformation in our perception of the global environment, the native inhabitants of these spaces were being marginalized, just as women were increasingly being confined to the private space of the family. By the end of the nineteenth century, the expansion of the European state system had brought the entire world into an integrated space upon which the geopolitical tradition imposed the hierarchical notion of order and power that has been fundamental to traditional international relations theory and practice. While geopolitics made explicit the domination that states have attempted to impose on their natural environment, modern science's mechanistic view of nature provided the framing assumptions basic to the Western tradition of international relations theory. Hobbes's Leviathan, his solution to the dangers inherent in this system, is a mechanistic model of society in which order can be guaranteed only by an absolute sovereign operating the machine from outside.33 The lack of such a sovereign in the state of nature leads to disorder, which results from unbridled competition for scarce resources. As discussed in a previous chapter, this condition of "anarchy" has been used by realists as a metaphor to portray the international system; the wildness of nature beyond the boundaries of an orderly "domesticated" political space demands that states try to control and dominate this external environment through the accumulation of national power that can protect their attempts to appropriate necessary natural resources.
Borders and boundaries makes it easier to ignore women’s subordination

J. Ann Tickner (professor of international relations at USC) 2001, Gendering World Politics. Pp. 132.

For these reasons, IR feminists, like those feminists at the women's-rights conference, are uncomfortable with statist boundaries and North/South divides; most feminist work is either implicitly or explicitly questioning the very constitution of a field constructed around rigid boundaries such as domestic/international, public/private, and state/society. Drawing geographical boundaries between degrees of patriarchy in terms of an unproblematic North/South axis serves to reinforce ideas, prevalent in the West, that women’s subordination tends to "take place over there but not here."

Links – Hegemony/Power Projection
The military and state defense organizations are institutions of hegemonic masculinity; when these institutions open up to “others” change is possible

Kronsell 6, Feminist Methodologies or International Relations, Annica Kronsell: Assisnt Professor of Political Science at the University of Lund, edited by Brooke A. Ackerly and Jacqui True: Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Studies at the Univeristy of Auskland, New Zealand, 2006, Cambridge University Press p. 108-

Institutions such as the military and state defense organization are central to the field of international relations. Simultaneously, they represent and reify specific gender relations. This chapter centers on methodological issues for feminist researchers interested in these institutions. They are institutions of hegemonic masculinity because male bodies dominate in them, and have done so historically, and a particular form of masculinity has become the norm (Connell 1995: 77). Although many institutions of importance to international relations can be categorized as institutions of hegemonic masculinity, the defense and mili- tary organizations have a particularly strong standing. The basis for my methodological reflections is a research puzzle aimed at mapping out and making sense of the gendered practices of the Swedish military and defense organization. Examples are given throughout from the study of military and defense institutions in Sweden. My approach starts from post-structural, feminism and gives weight to structural components of gender relations, reproduced when individuals perform within institutions. It follows that I see institutions in general as important for understanding gender relations, but I have a particular interest in institutions of hegemonic masculinity. Apart from feminist IR work I have found much help in organizational studies dealing with gender and sexuality (Hearn and Parkin 2001; Wahl et al. 2001; Alvesson and Billing 1997; Hearn et al. 1989). Here I suggest that gender dynamics of these institutions be studied through analysis of documents, places and narratives. One way, then, is through the deconstruction of the texts and discourses emerging from these institutions, sometimes "reading" what is not written, or what is "between the lines," or what is expressed as symbols and in procedures. Institutions both organize and materialize gender discourses in historically dynamic ways, while simultaneously enabling and restricting the individual involved in institutional activities. Institutions have a part in forming subjects. At the same time, institutions are actively reproduced as well as changed through practice. Hence, change is not a simple or straightforward process. However, I argue that when institutions of hegemonic masculinity open up to “others" and, for example, no longer rely on strict gender segregation, there is a particular potential for institutional change and development, and hence also of changing gender relations. A method suggested here is listening to the stories of women engaged in such institutions. Through their experience they generate important knowledge that can help ex- plore institutional silences on gender. Interviewing is an obvious method, yet not problem-free as Stern, D’Costa, and jacoby (in this volume) also point out. I suggest a method for how to work around the problems interviews pose, by also considering narratives formulated in other contexts (such as "internal" newsletters).
The affirmative’s assumption that the capacity for force determines worth reinforces a gendered view of international relations

J. Ann Tickner, Prof of IR at USC, M.A. Yale and Ph.D Brandeis, ’92, “Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving International Security,” 6-7

Masculinity and politics have a long and close association. Characteristics associated with "manliness," such as toughness, courage, power, independence, and even physical strength, have, throughout history, been those most valued in the conduct of politics, particularly international politics. Frequently, manliness has also been associated with violence and the use of force, a type of behavior that, when conducted in the international arena, has been valorized and applauded in the name of defending one's country. This celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior, produces more of a gender dichotomy than exists in reality for, as R. W. Connell points out, this stereotypical image of masculinity does not fit most men. Connell suggests that what he calls "hegemonic masculinity," 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. 6 Hegemonic masculinity is sustained through its opposition to various subordinated and devalued masculinities, such as homosexuality, and, more important, through its relation to various devalued femininities. Socially constructed gender differences are based on socially sanctioned, unequal relationships between men and women that reinforce compliance with men's stated superiority. Nowhere in the public realm are these stereotypical gender images more apparent than in the realm of international politics, where the characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity are projected onto the behavior of states whose success as international actors is measured in terms of their power capabilities and capacity for self-help and autonomy.
Links – Hegemony/Power Projection
Idolising hegemonic masculinity supports male and female subordination

J. Ann Tickner (professor of international relations at USC) 2001, Gendering World Politics. Pp. 15-16.

As Sandra Harding has suggested, gendered social life is produced through three distinct processes: assigning dualistic gender metaphors to various perceived dichotomies; appealing to these gender dualisms to organize social activity; and dividing necessary social activities between different groups of humans. She refers to these three aspects of gender as gender symbolism, gender structure, and individual gender.17 Feminists define gender as a set of variable but socially and culturally constructed characteristics: those such as power, autonomy, rationality, activity, and public are stereotypically associated with masculinity; their opposites-weakness, dependence/connection, emotionality, passivity, and private-are associated with femininity, there is evidence to suggest that both women and men assign a more positive value to these masculine characteristics that denote a kind of "hegemonic masculinity" -an ideal type of masculinity, embedded in the characteristics defined as masculine but to which few men actually conform. They do, however, define what men ought to be. Characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity vary across time and culture and are subject to change according to the requirements of power. They serve to support male power and female subordination and they also reinforce the power of dominant groups, since minorities have frequently been characterized as lacking in these characteristics. Indeed, there is a hierarchy of masculinities in which gender interacts with class and race, Importantly, definitions of masculinity and femininity are relational and depend on each other for their meaning; masculinities do not exist except in contrast with femininities. It is also important to note that there can be no such thing as hegemonic femininity, because masculinity defines the norm.
Language used in military context is symbolic of “male-gendered dominance.” Feminist discourse must be included to put the language into perspective.

Karen J. Warren, Duane L. Cady, Professors at Macalester and Hamline, Spring 1994, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810167?cookieSet=1

There are other examples of how sexist-naturist language in military contexts is both self-deceptive and symbolic of male-gendered dominance. Ronald Reagan dubbed the MX missile "the Peacekeeper." "Clean bombs" are those which announce that "radioactivity is the only 'dirty' part of killing people" (Cohn 1989, 132). Human deaths are only "collateral damage" (since bombs are targeted at buildings, not people). While a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Senator Gary Hart recalled that during military lobbying efforts under the Carter administration, the central image was that of a "size race" which became "a macho issue." The American decision to drop the first atomic bomb into the centers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instead of rural areas, was based on the military's designation of those cities as "virgin targets," not to be subjected to conventional bombing (Spretnak 1989, 55). As the Tailhook scandal reminded many, traditional military training reinforces sexist-naturist language and behaviors, with the attendant values of considering women a foul and lowly class (Cook and Woollacott; Ruddick 1993). Recruits and soldiers who fail to perform are addressed as faggot, girl, sissy, cunt, prissy, lays. The ultimate insult of being woman-like has been used throughout history against the vanquished (Spretnak 1989, 57). Even references to stereotypically female-gender-identified traits of childbearing and mothering are not free from patriarchal co-opting. In December 1942, Ernest Lawrence's telegram to the physicists at Chicago concerning the new "baby," the atom bomb, read, "Congratulations to the new parents. Can hardly wait to see the new arrival" (Cohn 1989, 140). As Carol Cohn shows, the idea of male birth with its accompanying belittling of maternity, gets incorporated into the nuclear mentality. The "motherhood role" becomes that of "telemetry, tracking, and control" (Cohn 1989, 141). Once the sexism of the co-opted imagery is revealed, the naming of the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki-"Little Boy" and "Fat Man"-seems only logical (even ifperverse). As Carol Cohn claims, "These ultimate destroyers were . . . not just any progeny but male progeny. In early tests, before they were certain that the bombs would work, the scientists expressed their concern by saying that they hoped the baby was a boy, not a girl-that is, not a dud" (Cohn 1989, 141). Cohn concludes: "The entire history of the bomb project, in fact, seems permeated with imagery that confounds man's overwhelming technological power to destroy nature with the power to create-imagery that inverts men's destruction and asserts in its place the power to create new life and a new world. It converts men's destruction into their rebirth" (Cohn 1989, 142).
Links – Hegemony/Power Projection
Hegemony discourse inherently masculine

J. Ann Tickner (professor of international relations at USC) 2001, Gendering World Politics. Pp. 49.

Claiming that the security-seeking behavior of states is described in gendered terms, feminists have pointed to the masculinity of strategic discourse and how this may impact on understanding of and prescriptions for security; it may also help to explain why women's voices have so often been seen as inauthentic in matters of national security. Feminists have examined how states legitimate their security-seeking behavior through appeals to types of "hegemonic" masculinity. They are also investigating the extent to which state and national identities, which can lead to conflict, are based on gendered constructions. The valorization of war through its identification with a heroic kind of masculinity depends on a feminized, devalued notion of peace seen as unattainable and unrealistic. Since feminists believe that gender is a variable social construction, they claim that there is nothing inevitable about these gendered distinctions; thus, their analyses often include the emancipatory goal of postulating a different definition of security less dependent on binary and unequal gender hierarchies.
The military is an institution for hegemonic masculinity and maintain a norm of masculinity

Annica Kronsell, PhD, Lund University, Sweden, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, at Lund University, she teaches international relations, 2006 [“Feminist Methodologies for International Relations” edited by Brooke A. Ackerly: Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, Maria Stern: Lecturer and Researcher at the Department of Peace and Development Research, Goteborg University, and Jacqui True: Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Auskland, New Zealand, 2006, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg. 108-9 EmiW]

Institutions such as the military and state defense organization are central to the field of international relations. Simultaneously, they rep­resent and reify specific gender relations. This chapter centers on meth­odological issues for feminist researchers interested in these institutions. They are institutions of hegemonic masculinity because male bodies dominate in them, and have done so historically, and a particular form of masculinity has become the norm (Connell 1995: 77). Although many institutions of importance to international relations can be cat­egorized as institutions of hegemonic masculinity, the defense and mili­tary organizations have a particularly strong standing. The basis for my methodological reflections is a research puzzle aimed at mapping out and making sense of the gendered practices of the Swedish military and defense organization. Examples are given throughout from the study of military and defense institutions in Sweden. My approach starts from post-structural feminism and gives weight to structural components of gender relations, reproduced when individuals perform within insti­tutions. It follows that I see institutions in general as important for understanding gender relations, but I have a particular interest in insti­tutions of hegemonic masculinity. Apart from feminist IR work I have found much help in organizational studies dealing with gender and sexuality (Hearn and Parkin 2001; Wahl et al. 2001; Alvesson and Billing 1997; Hearn et al. 1989). Here I suggest that gender dynamics of these institutions be studied through analysis of documents, places and narratives. One way, then, is through the deconstruction of the texts and discourses emerging from these institutions, sometimes “reading” what is not written, or what is “between the lines,” or what is expressed as symbols and in procedures. Institutions both organize and materialize gender discourses in historically dynamic ways, while simultaneously enabling and restricting the individual involved in institutional activities. Institutions have a part in forming subjects. At the same time, insti­tutions are actively reproduced as well as changed through practice. Hence, change is not a simple or straightforward process. However, I argue that when institutions of hegemonic masculinity open up to “others” and, for example, no longer rely on strict gender segregation, there is a particular potential for institutional change and development, and hence also of changing gender relations. A method suggested here is listening to the stories of women engaged in such institutions. Through their experience they generate important knowledge that can help ex­plore institutional silences on gender. Interviewing is an obvious method, yet not problem-free as Stern, D'Costa, and Jacoby (in this volume) also point out. I suggest a method for how to work around the problems interviews pose, by also considering narratives formulated in other contexts (such as “internal” newsletters).
Links – Hegemony/Power Projection
Military institutions uphold hegemonic masculinity that reify gender stereotypes and encourage the exclusion of women – these links are the core of realism and IR

Annica Kronsell, PhD, Lund University, Sweden, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, at Lund University, she teaches international relations, 2006 [“Feminist Methodologies for International Relations” edited by Brooke A. Ackerly: Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, Maria Stern: Lecturer and Researcher at the Department of Peace and Development Research, Goteborg University, and Jacqui True: Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Auskland, New Zealand, 2006, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg. 110-12 EmiW]

Since the early 1990s, feminist IR researchers have used deconstruction to highlight how mainstream IR literature is laced with gender dichoto­mies, stereotypes, and practices, while, at the same time, it is completely oblivious to gender. Ann Tickner is one of the first to deconstruct IR theory, with a reformulation of Morgenthau's principles (1988). She continues along this path in her 1992 book on Gender in International Relations by “bringing to light” what she believes are “the masculine underpinnings of the field” (Tickner 1992: xi). Deconstruction makes gender relations visible by overturning the oppositional logic that mysti­fies categories like woman/man, domestic/international and peace/war. It requires a form of double reading that exposes historically derived norms underlying concepts. Jean Bethke Elshtain's well-known work Women and War, from 1987, uses deconstruction as a method to locate the binary gendered categories upon which discourses of war and peace are based (see also Molloy 1995; Elshtain 1988). Christine Sylvester (1994a) deconstructed three IR debates and seriously questioned the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of IR theories that have left “women” and “gender” outside or, at best, in the very margins of the discipline. The activities associated with men and masculinity constitute IR's main story (Peterson and True 1998: 20). Yet, until feminist IR arrived, men, women, and gender were not topics for the discipline. I became inspired by this deconstruction of IR theory that made visible the academic discipline's gendered norms. There are, however, differences between the academic institutions of IR on the one hand, and military and defense institutions on the other. Yet the connections between them are highly relevant. Craig Murphy (1998: 94) argues that it is the link between the military and men, and the exclusion of women from military activity and combat, that are at the very core of IR. Realism, for example, is a form of embodiment of hegemonic masculinity wherein “the perspective of elite white men and the ideal of the glorified male warrior has been projected onto the behavior of states” (Hooper 1998: 42). Quite obviously also, IR's practice - the diplomatic corps, the defense security, and military organizations - are institutions of hegemonic masculinity where gender has been silenced; and this is where we turn next. Military, defense, and security related institutions have historically been “owned” by men and occupied by men's bodies. This has influenced these institutions' agendas, politics, and policies. In using the concept “institutions of hegemonic masculinity,” we denote a particular interest in the norms associated with the institutions. However, there appears to be a strong material dimension to such norms, since, it is argued, they are often associated with male bodies. Robert Connell (1998: 5) says: “Men's bodies do not determine the patterns of masculinity, but they are still of great importance in masculinity.” Hegemonic masculinity cannot, therefore, be completely disentangled from male bodies. In some in­stances the hegemonic masculinity of these institutions directly corres­ponds to male bodies, as women are completely excluded through legislative acts from the military and defense institutions in a majority of countries.² As we shall discuss in some depth later on, women's bodies present a very tangible challenge to institutions of hegemonic masculinity, against this normality of male bodies. The continuity of the domination of hegemonic masculinity, I argue, depends on the maintenance of separate spaces for men's bodies, and hence, women are a clear threat to this order.³ The hegemonic masculinity associated with military and defense institutions does not necessarily mean that it should reflect the most common form of masculinity in society (Cnnell 1998: 5). As a matter of fact, Joshua Goldstein's research (2001) shows that in comparison to other institutions in society, defense and military institutions have been associated with specific gender stereotypes, con­sistent across both cultures and time, which do not always correspond with norms of masculinity expressed in society at large.⁴ Furthermore, hegemonic masculinity does not preclude the fact that diverse masculin­ities can be expressed. On the contrary, some studies point to the necessity of diverse masculinities for the hierarchical structure of the institution to function (Miller 2001; Hearn and Parkin 2001). Although I am interested in exploring this in future research, here I shall not differentiate between possible masculinities.