Realist Foundations

In existing international relations scholarship, men and masculinity assume center stage. This paper examines the inherent masculinity of the realist tradition through an investigation into the language Kenneth N. Waltz utilized in his book, Man the State and War, and that Hans J. Morgenthau used in Politics Among Nations. These texts are foundational to realist theory: Waltz establishes the anarchical nature of the international system, while Morgenthau centers power dynamics and state-centric analysis. The investigation reveals that the paradigm’s tendency to minimize contributions from those outside its male-dominated framework results in biased references to women. Furthermore, this minimization shapes the underlying assumptions regarding femininity found throughout these texts. By utilizing J. Ann Tickner’s critiques in, “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists” and Gender in International Relations, this paper problematizes this gendered language usage and explores pathways for greater inclusivity under the realist paradigm.

 

Before delving into the dynamics at play between realist perceptions of masculinity and femininity, it should be noted that the realist approach to international politics is heavily rooted in the gender binary. Neither Waltz nor Morgenthau dedicates any discussion in their respective works to the experiences of individuals and concepts that exist outside of the assumed binary. As such, realist language does not contain the tools necessary to describe anyone or anything not explicitly masculine or feminine. The contributions made by, and experiences of, individuals who exist outside of this binary are structurally ignored.

 

Both Waltz’s and Morgenthau’s discussions of realist theories centers on men and conceptions of masculinity. Much of Waltz’s book is dedicated to the exploration of war and methods through which peace can be promoted. He describes the dynamic at play between man and war: “Root of all evil is man, and thus, he is himself the root of the specific evil, war.”[1] The focus on men in the language used to describe the “evil” of war effectively separates women from the event of war. By establishing this divide, the experiences of women in, and their contributions to, war are overlooked. The focus is instead directed exclusively to the decisions and actions made by men.

 

Furthermore, the male archetype is positioned as essential in conducting analyses of the international order. Waltz asserts, “So fundamental are man, the state, and the state system in any attempt to understand international relations that seldom does an analyst, however wedded to one image overlook the other two.”[2] No consideration is given to women’s roles. The lack of inclusive language employed presents a structural impediment to expanding realist discussions to include more diverse experiences. This limited scope fails to acknowledge the involvement of about half the global population in international developments. Thus, this structural erasure stymies the paradigm’s efforts to better understand states’ decision-making processes and broader international dynamics.

 

Similarly to Waltz, Morgenthau centers conceptions of masculinity in his explanation of power. Morgenthau defines power as “man’s control over the minds and actions of other men.”[3] The male figure is assumed to be the only relevant actor for analysis because he alone has the agency to exercise power. Morgenthau extends such conceptions of power to the political setting by defining political power as “the mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and between the latter and the people at large.”[4] Though not explicitly stated, political power maintains a masculine connotation based on the male-centric framework in Morgenthau’s definition of power. Therefore, the reality faced by women and people of other marginalized identities under such power dynamics is excluded. In this way, it is innately difficult to investigate and analyze women’s experiences utilizing the paradigm’s established language. 

 

The structural impediment to discussing the role of anyone other than men is further reinforced in Morgenthau’s explanation of the tension that exists among actors in the political system. Morgenthau states, “Thus the actor on the political scene is always at the same time a prospective subject. While he seeks power over others, others seek power over him.”[5] Though the term “man” likely stands for all humankind, and “men” for all people in this context, in a global system dominated by men in all spheres of politics, it is difficult to accept assertions regarding the inclusiveness of these terms. This language reinforces the idea that masculinity is associated with the exercise of power. The political actor and subject are both assigned traditionally male traits. Again, women and people of other marginalized identities are effectively erased from the political scene, and by extension, global affairs. In addition to closing off opportunities for examination, this language reinforces the notion that masculine figures are the sole holders of power in the international system. As a result of this exclusivity and positioning power in this dominant manner, others are denied the possibility to exercise influence on the global stage.

 

Realist Depictions of Women

In traditional realist literature, references to women are rare. In the few instances that Waltz and Morgenthau mention women at all, they rely on stereotypical feminine assumptions. The gendered nature of the authors’ few references to femininity and women will be demonstrated throughout the following section. Moreover, through the utilization of selected works by J. Ann Tickner, a feminist realist scholar, these depictions will be problematized and challenged.

 

One of the few explicit mentions of women in Morgenthau’s book pertains to the assumed dynamic at play between a mother-in-law and her child’s spouse. He describes their relationship as “a struggle for power, the defense of an established power position against the attempt to establish a new one.”[6] Morgenthau’s decision to place women in a familial context in his depiction of power dynamics is reflective of the domestic assumptions projected onto women. His reliance on stereotypical characterizations of women as catty individuals further highlights the gendered biases upon which realism is dependent. That the limited depictions of women remain in the private sphere, while the countless references made to men and masculinity extend to the public sphere and governance speaks to the paradigm’s assumptions. This domestic setting further captures the minimization experienced by anyone other than men under traditional realist examinations of global developments.

 

Realist language presents the concept of masculinity as the dominating, powerful force in international politics. Characteristics associated with femininity, on the other hand, are deemed to be under the control of this masculine force. This practice is highlighted by one of the few other references to femininity in Morgenthau’s work – his description of countries. When discussing the alliance between the U.S. and Pakistan, Pakistan is referred to as “her.”[7] The same feminine trait is assigned to Portugal, with the country depicted as “her” in the examination of its alliance with Great Britain.[8] Assigning feminine qualities to these “weaker” countries normalizes the role of “great powers” in guiding and protecting them. This characterization extends to current political conflicts, including the war between Russia and Ukraine. The feminization of Ukraine, and its resulting need of Russian help, placed Russia in a superior position and simultaneously framed Ukraine as a non-male, inferior actor on the international stage.[9] The masculine Russia was therefore justified in its domination of the feminine Ukraine.

 

Furthermore, the feminization of countries is reflective of the concept of the “motherland.” Statesmen and military soldiers, roles associated with masculinity, have a responsibility to sacrifice for the country that raised them. This assumed duty effectively normalizes the male figure’s role in securing his state. The language utilized is reflective of trends observed by Tickner in Western state building, in which “nationalist movements have used gendered imagery that exhorts masculine heroes to fight for the establishment and defense of the mother country.”[10] This emphasis on the importance of masculinity in projecting strength has been used to justify the masculine domination of the feminine motherland. It should be noted, however, that this feminization of a country is not universal–Germany, the Netherlands, and other Scandinavian countries have referred to their country as the “fatherland.”[11] Like the use of the term “motherland,” this masculinization also evokes patriotic feelings, though instead by invoking feelings of strength and military power. By extension, association with femininity and feminine defense of the state is innately perceived as a weakness. Men are the central actors – anyone else is largely assumed to be powerless.

​

Though Waltz’s work includes slightly more references to women than Morgenthau’s, these mentions remain highly dependent on gendered assumptions. In his discussion of war, Waltz suggests that the odds of conflict would be reduced if there were an alternative activity to distract men and channel their energy. The alternative provided traces its roots to Aristophanes, who posited, “If the women of Athens would deny themselves to husbands and lovers, their men would have to choose between the pleasures of the couch and the exhilarating experiences of the battlefield.”[12] The feminine responsibility, from this perspective, is to incentivize peace by seducing men to distract them from conflict. Men have the agency to decide between war and sex. Women are left as a distraction from, and not a participant in, war. As such, this language usage, and presentation of the role of women, overlooks their experiences in times of conflict. 

 

Only a passing mention is made regarding the potential for women to hold power. Waltz references the opinion of J. Cohen, a psychologist, believes that “the cause of peace might be promoted if women were substituted for men in the governing of nations”in his discussion of remedies for war.[13] In this context, peace is ascribed a feminine character, as with peace comes the absence of masculine concepts of violence and conflict. Even this brief reference to the opportunities associated with women’s greater political agency is reliant on their perceived pacifistic preferences. Such views can be traced to normalized assumptions regarding their inherently nurturing and maternal characters. Not only does this framing reduce women to essentialized gendered stereotypes, the gender hierarchy of masculinity over femininity is perpetuated by such language.

​

The realist view of women as pacifists places the responsibility for war solely on men, thereby assuming women’s absence from the conflict. Tickner problematizes this characterization by highlighting the “considerable evidence of women's support for men's wars in many societies.”[14] This observation runs in direct opposition to Waltz’s and Morgenthau’s polarized positioning of men and women regarding war, where war is characterized as a masculine endeavor and peace as a feminine one. Nonetheless, in reality, women have contributed to the phenomenon of war, even taking on roles in the conduction of international conflicts. However, the gendered nature of realist language places structural impediments to examining such contributions, as this falls out of the paradigm’s expectations.

 

Perhaps most impactfully, the majority of Waltz’s discussion of women pertains to their identity as mothers. This emphasis on their role in raising children, effectively positioning such tasks as the most influential contribution that can be made, again places the onus on women for men’s decisions and state outcomes. Waltz, discussing ideas developed by Margaret Mead, emphasizes the importance of knowing “what the Chinese mothers say to their babies and how they hold them to develop their special virtues; and what the Russian mothers say to their babies and how they hold them, to develop theirs.”[15] This study is positioned as being carried out to preserve a society’s values as peacefully as possible, an effort dependent on women’s position in the domestic and private sphere. Waltz takes this examination of women’s roles as mothers a step further in his discussion of their responsibility to foster patriotism among their children, following Rousseau's thinking:

 

If children are brought up in common in the bosom of equality, if they are imbued with the laws of the State and the precepts of the general will; if they are taught to respect these above all things; if they are surrounded by examples and objects which constantly remind them of the tender mother who nourishes them, of the love she bears them, of the inestimable benefits they receive from her, and of the return they owe her, we cannot doubt that they will learn to cherish one another as brother, to will nothing contrary to the will of society, to substitute the actions of men and citizens for the futile and vain babbling of sophists, and to become in time defenders and fathers of the country of which they will have been so long children.[16]

 

It should be noted that no reference is made to daughters or sisters in this discussion of children – the focus remains on brothers and fathers. The only roles deemed important in the international system are those perceived as masculine. Thus, the most meaningful responsibility a woman can take on under this paradigm is raising future generations of statesmen. The realms of governance and war, due to their masculine nature, fall outside of the feminine function. Statesmen, whose mothers fostered within them strong patriotic fervor, ultimately remain the actors responsible for making decisions regarding how to lead and protect their state.

 

In broader strokes, the above discussion highlights that feminine characteristics are not perceived as indicative of power on the global stage. This devaluation is captured by the language utilized in realist thought, which marginalizes concepts that fail to be deemed “masculine” and “powerful” in the analysis of international relations. This minimization, therefore, extends to anyone who does not fall into this male-centric framework. Tickner explores this detraction of femininity: “this devalued femininity is bound up with myths about women as victims in need of protection; the protector/protected myth contributes to the legitimation of a militarized version of citizenship that results in unequal gender relations that can precipitate violence against women.”[17] As a result of their framing as victims, women are denied political agency under realist language. Men are established as the party responsible for deciding how to protect women and determining women’s security. The gendered nature of realist language contributes to the further normalization of this dynamic – ultimately, women’s lack of agency is thus reinforced and their minimization persists. 

 

In addition to the marginalization of the opportunities available to, and experiences of, women, this gendered language has real ramifications for attempts to engage in meaningful analysis of the international system. Realism, with its emphasis on the role of men, completely overlooks the contributions and experiences of over half the global population. Consequently, per Tickner, realism is “a world view that offers us only a partial view of reality.”[18] There are countless structural limitations in the realist attempt to examine international outcomes. These constraints stem from assumptions regarding the centrality of masculinity in determining power, as well as its disregard for the decisions made by anyone other than a man. Realist examinations face limitations in the analysis of international developments and the potential for changes in the global system, such as methods to promote greater peace, due to the inherent erasure of anything perceived as feminine.

 

From a more general lens, the innately gendered nature of realist language can be traced back to its foundations. Tickner articulate these limitations in her article, “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,” with her comment on the importance of gender-sensitive language in the analysis of international relations: “claims of gender neutrality mask deeply embedded masculinist assumptions which can naturalize or hide gender differences and gender inequalities.”[19] As illustrated throughout this examination of realist assumptions surrounding the roles of women and femininity in international politics, this gender bias is deeply rooted in the realist paradigm. It is challenging to truly understand the scope of its influence on foundational understandings of global affairs stemming from its marginalization of women and people of other gender identities. Consequently, a restructuring of realist thought is necessary to begin the work of delving into the paradigm’s gendered roots. Expanding the language available under realist thought is a place to start.

​

Reshaping Realism

This gender bias is not unique to realist examinations of international relations. Realism is based on observations and perceptions regarding how society functions. Consequently, larger societal gender norms and misogyny are reflected in the paradigm’s language. In her piece, Gender in International Relations, Tickner delves into the societal phenomenon of hegemonic masculinity and its relationship with international politics:

 

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.[20]

 

This specific naming of hegemonic masculinity demonstrates the opportunities afforded by expanded language, though, interestingly, it does draw on realist concepts of hegemony, power, and hierarchy. Not only does this language allow for conversations regarding the identification of structural shortcomings within realist thought, but it also establishes the groundwork for conversations surrounding their ramifications. Understanding the role broader societal misogyny plays in the realist approach will promote improved analysis of such assumptions' impact on current and historical realist thought. This recognition could allow for a restructuring of the realist paradigm.

 

For realism to better reflect the experiences of women and other marginalized groups, and to engage with international politics with greater meaning, a transformation must take place. The perception of stereotypically feminine characteristics must be examined and restructured when conducting analyses of global politics. One proposed strategy discussed by Tickner is the introduction of gender as a unit of analysis. She delves into the rationale for this proposal: “only by introducing gender as a category of analysis can the differential impact of the state system and the global economy on the lives of women and men be analyzed and understood.”[21] This exploration of gender would force the expansion of the language used under realist thought. Expanded language options would also allow for a deeper analysis of the global system, thus promoting an improved examination of decisions made by actors on the international stage.

 

Nonetheless, beyond adding gender as a unit of analysis, the concept of citizenship itself requires a redefinition. The construct of the citizen is rooted in the historically male-dominated realm of politics and political engagement. Consequently, it contains masculine characteristics that minimize the role of women in society and on the international stage.

 

As Carole Pateman (1988) has pointed out, women were not included in the original social contract by most contract theorists in the Western tradition; rather, they were generally subsumed under male heads of households with no legal rights of their own. In most parts of the world women are still struggling for full equality…Therefore, terms such as citizen, head of household, and breadwinner are not neutral but are associated with men. In spite of the fact that many women do work outside the household, the association of women with housewife, care-giver, and mother has become naturalized, thereby decreasing women’s economic security and autonomy.[22] 

 

This expansion of realism and the reconstruction of language used is not impossible. Realism as a paradigm is a construct. Social institutions are the result of human creations. These creations, including citizenship, can be reshaped. These changes, though, will require massive changes in perceptions of femininity and masculinity, as well as their ability to contribute to the international system. 

By challenging patriarchal assumptions and reevaluating the concept of citizenship, realism can achieve a deeper understanding of power—one that recognizes the contributions of women, who make up half of every population, to their economies, militaries, and knowledge systems. In essence, redefining realist language and fostering greater gender equity in these assumptions will lead to a more nuanced understanding of a state’s power and its role in the international arena.