Macroeconomic Interventions and the Politics of Postwar Justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Daniela Lai
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Feminist Critique ◽  
Physical Security ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
Critical Perspectives

This essay connects feminist political economy and critical/feminist transitional justice through the analysis of macroeconomic interventions in postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina. Previous contributions to Critical Perspectives have argued for the need to establish a dialogue and bring down divides between feminist security studies and political economy in feminist International Relations (Elias 2015; Chisolm and Stachowitsch 2017) and to look at the spaces where security and political economy intersect as a productive line of research (Sjoberg 2015). To build these connections, feminist scholars have stressed the importance of multidimensional concepts and questioned their unidimensional use whenever relevant. Security is certainly one of the concepts benefiting from a feminist critique that has opened up its meaning, with reference to its referent objects as well as its multiple dimensions (e.g., to include women's economic security alongside physical security; see Chisolm and Stachowitsch 2017; True 2015). Another concept that has been productively reframed as multidimensional by feminist scholars is violence (Bergeron, Cohn, and Duncanson 2017; Elias and Rai 2015; True 2012).

From the Colonial to Feminist IR: Feminist IR Studies, the Wider FSS/GPE Research Agenda, and the Questions of Value, Valuation, Security, and Violence

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 739-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna M. Agathangelou
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Global Political Economy ◽  
Personal Lives ◽  
Ir Studies ◽  
The World ◽  
Forms Of Violence

International relations (IR) feminists have significantly impacted the way we analyze the world and power. However, as Cynthia Enloe points out, “there are now signs—worrisome signs—that feminist analysts of international politics might be forgetting what they have shared” and are “making bricks to construct new intellectual barriers. That is not progress” (2015, 436). I agree. The project/process that has led to the separation/specialization of feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist global political economy (FGPE) does not constitute progress but instead ends up embodying forms of violence that erase the materialist bases of our intellectual labor's divisions (Agathangelou 1997), the historical and social constitution of our formations as intellectuals and subjects. This amnesiac approach evades our personal lives and colludes with those forces that allow for the violence that comes with abstraction. These “worrisome signs” should be explained if we are to move FSS and FGPE beyond a “merger” (Allison 2015) that speaks only to some issues and some humans in the global theater.

From Unity to Divergence and Back Again: Security and Economy in Feminist International Relations

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (02) ◽  
pp. 408-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Violence ◽  
International Security ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Peace Studies ◽  
Ecological Security ◽  
Global Security ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Feminist Perspectives

InGender and International Security: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, J. Ann Tickner (1992) identified three main dimensions to “achieving global security”—national security, economic security, and ecological security: conflict, economics, and the environment. Much of the work in feminist peace studies that inspired early feminist International Relations (IR) work (e.g., Brock-Utne 1989; Reardon 1985) and many of Tickner's contemporaries (e.g., Enloe 1989; Peterson and Runyan 1991; Pettman 1996) also saw political economy and a feminist conception of security as intrinsically interlinked. Yet, as feminist IR research evolved in the early 21st century, more scholars were thinking either about political economy or about war and political violence, but not both.

Feminist Global Political Economy and Feminist Security Studies? The Politics of Delineating Subfields

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 727-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Stern
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Feminist Research ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Global Political Economy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Critical Perspectives

When considering possible conversations, synergies, overlaps, similarities, conflicts, and distinctions between two subfields or “camps” (Sylvester 2010), the question of limits looms large. Where, why, and how are the limits of feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist global political economy (FGPE) currently being drawn, and to what effect? Building upon previous conversations about the relationship between FSS and FGPE, particularly as they were discussed in the Critical Perspectives section in Politics & Gender (June 2015), as well as those about FSS and FGPE more generally, I briefly touch on a few central points regarding the politics of boundary drawing and the practices of feminist research.

Continuing the Conversation … Some Reflections

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 747-751
Author(s):  
Juanita Elias
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Feminist Perspective ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Security Governance ◽  
Women's Lives ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
The Relationship

The diverse collection of short reflections included in this Critical Perspectives section looks to continue a conversation—a conversation that played out in the pages of this journal (Elias 2015) regarding the relationship between two strands of feminist international relations scholarship: feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist international political economy (IPE). In this forum, the contributors return to some of the same ground, but in doing so, they bring in new concerns and agendas. New empirical sites of thinking through the nexus between security and political economy from a feminist perspective are explored: war, women's lives in postconflict societies, and international security governance institutions and practices.

Beyond the “Helpless Nepali Woman” versus the “Fierce Maoist Fighter”: Challenging the Artificial Security/Economy Divide

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 733-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahel Kunz
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Life Stories ◽  
Life Experiences ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Global Political Economy ◽  
Holistic Analysis ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Nepali Women

Recent discussions over similarities and differences between feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist global political economy (FGPE) approaches invite us to reflect on the underlying assumptions about knowledge production within feminist international relations (IR) more broadly (Allison 2015; Enloe 2015; see also the introduction to this forum). I use Nepali women ex-combatants’ life stories to make two specific points relating to these discussions. First, I illustrate how the separation of security and political economy issues cannot fully account for their life experiences. Second, and by way of overcoming this separation, I show how by beginning with life stories, we can develop a holistic analysis that challenges the broader Eurocentric politics of feminist IR knowledge production.

Mind the gap: IR and the challenge of international politics

2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-101
Author(s):  
Sonia Lucarelli ◽  
Francesco N. Moro ◽  
Daniela Sicurelli ◽  
Carla Monteleone ◽  
Eugenia Baroncelli
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Selection Of

The discipline of International Relations (IR) for a long time of its history has developed in the form of Great Debates that involved competing paradigms and schools. More recently, it has been described as a cacophony of voices unable to communicate among themselves, but also incapable to provide keys to understand an ever more complex reality. This collection aims at evaluating the heuristic value of a selection of traditional paradigms (realism and liberalism), schools (constructivism), and subdisciplines (security studies and international political economy) so as to assess the challenges before IR theory today and the ability of the discipline to provide tools to make the changed world still intelligible.

Feminist Security Studies and Feminist International Political Economy: Considering Feminist Stories

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (02) ◽  
pp. 430-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Allison
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Gender Violence ◽  
Political Economies ◽  
Global And Local

In reflecting upon the divergence of Feminist Political Economy (FPE) and Feminist Security Studies (FSS) one feels puzzled and perhaps even a little embarrassed. How could such a schism occur and be sustained for seemingly so long? This divergence certainly did not appear to characterize the founding of feminist International Relations (IR) when scholars such as Cynthia Enloe (1983, 1989) and Ann Tickner (1992) were attentive to both dimensions and carefully connected issues of gender to the global economy and to understandings of security and militarism. Moreover, to my mind, there is no immediate epistemological or ontological schism between FSS and FPE of the sort that has characterized other feminist divides. The security studies/International Political Economy (IPE) split seems to be more one of empirical focus that does not require a painstaking and perhaps ultimately futile attempt to suture the feminist IR body back together. Indeed, recent and highly illuminating work on the connections between gender violence and global and local political economies (Meger 2014; True 2012a) would suggest no reason why we should not simply press ahead with the task of reconnection and driving feminist IR forward to new and insightful places.

scholarly journals The Political Science of Peter J. Katzenstein

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (04) ◽  
pp. 893-899
Author(s):  
Peter A. Gourevitch ◽  
Robert O. Keohane ◽  
Stephen D. Krasner ◽  
David Laitin ◽  
T.J. Pempel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
The Political ◽  
German Studies ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Japanese Studies

Peter Katzenstein is a prodigiously productive scholar. As a comparativist, a student of international relations, an historian, and one who has successfully bridged the qualitative and quantitative divide in our discipline, he has made signal contributions to general international relations, political economy, security studies, European and German studies, Asian and Japanese studies, and political science in general. In this brief résumé, seven of his friends and collaborators highlight his major contributions.

scholarly journals (Re)integrating Feminist Security Studies and Feminist Global Political Economy: Continuing the Conversation

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 710-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Chisholm ◽  
Saskia Stachowitsch
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Global South ◽  
Comprehensive Approach ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Global Political Economy ◽  
Global North ◽  
Critical Perspectives

Considerations to integrate feminist security studies (FSS) and global political economy (GPE) were first systematically reflected in the Critical Perspectives section of the June 2015 issue of this journal. That collection presented engaging essays on how the divide between the two fields has evolved and ways we can seek to overcome it—or, indeed, whether we should attempt to bridge the divide. This debate has gained momentum in workshops and conference panels attempting to build bridges between the two feminist subfields. Given the richness of scholarship associated with the two fields, we aim to continue this productive conversation by bringing new voices and ideas into the debate and by engaging in further possibilities for theoretical, methodological, and empirical advancement that allow for a more comprehensive approach to global gendered inequalities and hierarchies—one that is not disciplined by academic boundaries. With this, we hope to challenge the constructed and sometimes violently sustained borders between public and private, domestic and international, political and economic, Global North and Global South, as well as disciplinary “camp structures” (Parashar 2013) that too often shape academic, and also feminist, knowledge production.

scholarly journals Where Are The Women? A Contemporary Feminist IR Critique Of Security In World Politics

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-41
Author(s):  
Saima Siddiqui
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Feminist Critique ◽  
Women And Gender ◽  
Realist Theory ◽  
Feminine Gender ◽  
Gender Hierarchies ◽  
Gender Perspectives ◽  
And Gender

The international relations (IR) discourse has been a subject of feminist critique for over two decades. One of the key concerns for this assessment is marginalisation women and gender perspectives in security studies. Many feminists have argued that world politics remain a masculine domain where fewer women are visible at the decision making positions. The association of masculinity and security has allowed feminist scholars to identify possible impediments for this inadequacy. This article explores the “gendered” nature of international relations from a contemporary feminist perspective by means of critiquing the realist theory in international relations. For this purpose, the article is going to examine hegemonic masculinity and how it links with theoretical ideology and practice of realism to socially construct the dominant masculine and weak feminine gender hierarchies in world politics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document