Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T12:48:34.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

Anna M. Agathangelou
Anna M. Agathangelou*
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 739 - 746
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agathangelou, Anna M. 1997. “The Cypriot ‘Ethnic Conflict’ in the Production of Global Power.” Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Agathangelou, Anna M. 2013. “Neoliberal Geopolitical Order and Value: Queerness as a Speculative Economy and Anti- Blackness as Terror.” International Journal of Feminist Politics 15 (4): 453–76.Google Scholar
Agathangelou, Anna M. 2016. “Bruno Latour and Ecology Politics: Poetics of Failure and Denial in IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (3): 321–47.Google Scholar
Allison, Katherine. 2015. “Feminist Security Studies and Feminist International Political Economy: Considering Feminist Stories.” Gender & Politics 11 (2): 430–34.Google Scholar
Burke, Anthony, Fishel, Stefanie, and Mitchell, Audra. 2016. “Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (3): 499–523.Google Scholar
Enloe, Cynthia. 2004. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in The New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, Cynthia. 2015. “Closing Reflection: Militiamen Get Paid; Women Borrowers Get Beaten.” Politics & Gender 11 (2): 435–38.Google Scholar
Hartman, Saidiya. 2007. Lose Your Mother: A Journey Along the Atlantic Slave Route. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Hudson, Heidi. 2015. “(Re)framing the Relationship between Discourse and Materiality in Feminist Security Studies and Feminist IPE.” Gender & Politics 11 (2): 413–19.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2016. Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Mezzadra, Sandro. 2008. La condizione postcoloniale: Storia e politica nel presente globale [Translation: The Postcolonial Condition: History and Politics in the Global Present]. Verona: Ombre Corte.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Audra. 2016. “Is IR Going Extinct?” European Journal of International Relations 1 (1): 13–28.Google Scholar
Peterson, Spike. 2003. A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive, and Virtual Economies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peterson, V. Spike. 2014. “Family Matters: How Queering the Intimate Queers the International.” International Studies Review 16 (4): 604–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, Shirin, and Waylen, Georgina, eds. 2013. New Frontiers in Feminist Political Economy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saunders, Patricia. 2008. “Defending the Dead, Confronting the Archive: A Conversation with M. NourbeSe Philip.” Small Axe, June, 63–79.Google Scholar
Sharpe, Christina. 2016. In the Wake: On Blackness and Being. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Steans, Jill. 2013. Gender and International Relations: Theory, Practice, Policy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Tickner, J. Ann. 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Security. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
True, Jacqui. 2015. “A Tale of Two Feminisms in International Relations? Feminist Political Economy and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” Politics & Gender 11 (2): 419–24.Google Scholar
Wilderson, Frank. 2003. “Gramsci's Black Marx: Whither the Slave in Civil Society.” Social Identities 9 (2): 225–40.Google Scholar