Gender and the ‘Critical Turn’: Where International Relations Does Understand
Gender and the ‘Critical Turn’: Where International Relations Does Understand
The “critical turn” in International Relations (IR) marks a significant shift away from positivist, state-centric, and problem-solving approaches toward reflective, interpretive, and power-sensitive analyses. Critical theories—such as feminism, post-structuralism, postcolonialism, Marxism, and critical security studies—challenge the taken-for-granted assumptions of mainstream IR. From a gender perspective, the critical turn represents the point at which IR begins to understand how global politics is structured by power relations that are social, historical, and deeply gendered.
This unit examines how the critical turn creates conceptual and methodological space for gender analysis in IR, while also acknowledging its limits and internal tensions.
From Mainstream IR to the Critical Turn
Traditional IR theories—realism, liberalism, and institutionalism—largely treated gender as irrelevant to international politics. They focused on states, sovereignty, war, and diplomacy, assuming these domains to be neutral and objective. Gender relations were relegated to the private sphere and excluded from serious analysis.
The critical turn disrupted this orthodoxy by questioning who produces knowledge, whose interests theory serves, and what counts as “political.” By rejecting claims of neutrality and objectivity, critical IR opened the door for feminist scholars to demonstrate that global politics is not only about material power but also about social hierarchies, identities, and norms.
In this sense, the critical turn marks the moment where IR begins to “understand” gender as constitutive of world politics.
Feminism and the Expansion of the Political
Feminist IR scholars argue that one of the most important contributions of the critical turn is the expansion of what counts as political. Issues previously dismissed as private or marginal—care work, social reproduction, sexuality, everyday violence—are revealed as central to global political order.
J. Ann Tickner argues that mainstream IR’s exclusion of gender is not accidental but reflects masculinized assumptions about power and security. Feminist critique shows that war, diplomacy, and economics depend on gendered divisions of labor and social norms.
Through this intervention, the critical turn allows IR to recognize that gender is not an “add-on” variable but a structuring principle of international relations.
Post-Structuralism, Discourse, and Gender
Post-structuralist approaches within the critical turn emphasize language, discourse, and representation. From a gender perspective, this shift is crucial because it reveals how masculinity and femininity are produced and normalized through political narratives.
Critical scholars examine how concepts such as security, sovereignty, and national interest are framed in masculine terms—strength, autonomy, rationality—while femininity is associated with weakness, dependence, or emotion. These discourses shape policy choices and legitimize particular forms of power.
Gender analysis thus benefits from post-structuralism’s insight that power operates through meaning, not only through material force.
Critical Security Studies and Gender
Critical security studies challenge the idea that security is solely about military threats to the state. Instead, they focus on whose security is prioritized and how insecurity is socially produced.
Feminist scholars extend this critique by showing that women’s insecurities—domestic violence, economic precarity, displacement, sexual violence—are systematically excluded from dominant security agendas. The critical turn enables IR to see security as a gendered practice, rather than a neutral policy goal.
Here, IR begins to understand that what is labeled “high politics” is sustained by ignoring everyday, gendered forms of violence.
Postcolonial Critiques and Intersectionality
Postcolonial theory, another strand of the critical turn, further deepens gender analysis by situating it within histories of colonialism and empire. Feminist scholars argue that gender cannot be analyzed in isolation from race, class, nation, and colonial power.
Cynthia Enloe demonstrates how global politics depends on the labor and lives of marginalized women—often in the Global South—whose experiences remain invisible in mainstream theory. Postcolonial feminist approaches show that global hierarchies are simultaneously gendered and racialized.
This intersectional understanding represents one of the most important ways in which the critical turn advances IR’s comprehension of gender.
Knowledge, Reflexivity, and Feminist Methodologies
A defining feature of the critical turn is reflexivity—the recognition that scholars are not neutral observers but participants in knowledge production. Feminist IR embraces this insight by questioning who speaks for whom and whose knowledge is valued.
Feminist methodologies emphasize lived experience, ethnography, narratives, and standpoint epistemology. These approaches challenge the dominance of positivist methods and argue that understanding global politics requires listening to marginalized voices.
Through reflexivity, the critical turn allows IR to take gender seriously as both an analytical and ethical concern.
Limits of the Critical Turn
Despite these advances, feminist scholars caution against overstating the inclusiveness of the critical turn. Much critical IR remains gender-blind, treating gender as secondary to class, discourse, or state power.
In some cases, masculinity is critiqued abstractly without engaging women’s lived experiences. In others, feminist insights are incorporated rhetorically without challenging institutional or theoretical hierarchies.
Thus, while the critical turn enables IR to understand gender, it does not guarantee feminist transformation.
Where IR Does Understand Gender
The critical turn allows IR to understand gender in several key ways:
- Gender as constitutive of power, not peripheral
- Security and sovereignty as socially and genderedly constructed
- Knowledge production as political and situated
- Global inequalities as intersectional and historical
These insights mark a decisive break from traditional IR and demonstrate the value of feminist engagement with critical theory.
Conclusion: Gender, Critique, and the Future of IR
The critical turn represents a crucial moment in which International Relations begins to understand gender as central to global politics. By challenging neutrality, expanding the political, and embracing reflexivity, critical approaches create space for feminist analysis to reshape the discipline.
However, feminist IR reminds us that understanding is not the same as transformation. Gender must remain a critical lens, continually questioning power, knowledge, and exclusion within IR itself.
In this ongoing dialogue between feminism and critical theory lies the possibility of a more inclusive, reflexive, and just understanding of international relations.
References
- Tickner, J. Ann. Gender in International Relations.
- Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist.
- Peterson, V. Spike. Gendered States.
- Sylvester, Christine. Feminist Theory and International Relations.
- Cox, Robert W. “Social Forces, States and World Orders.”
