5/27/2016

Neorealism and Game of Thrones:

A Gender Critique of Neorealism

Timothy GeschwindtUniversity of Cape Town

“In a Game of Thrones you either win or you die”- George R. R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

Plagiarism Declaration

Name Timothy Geschwindt

Student no. GSCTIM001

Course Code POL4002F

Course Name Theories of International Relations

Convenor Dr Karen Smith

“Neorealism in Game of Thrones: A Gender Critique.”

Declaration

1. I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and pretend that

it is one’s own.

2. I have used the APA convention for citation and referencing. Each contribution to,

and quotation in, this essay from the work(s) of other people has been attributed, and

has been cited and referenced.

3. This essay is my own work.

4. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of

passing it off as his or her own work.

Signature ______________________________

Essay due date 27 May 2016

Submitted 27 May 2016

Date stamp

1

Mark awarded

Signature

Contents

Plagiarism Declaration...........................................................................................................................1

Part I: Context........................................................................................................................................3

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3

Game of Thrones...............................................................................................................................5

Part II: Neorealism...............................................................................................................................10

Neorealism......................................................................................................................................10

Key Assumptions..........................................................................................................................10

The Security Dilemma..................................................................................................................11

Cooperation.................................................................................................................................12

Neorealism: A Zero-Sum Game of Thrones?....................................................................................12

Wildling Defeat............................................................................................................................12

The Red Wedding........................................................................................................................15

Part III: Gender Theory........................................................................................................................17

What is Gender Theory?..................................................................................................................17

Through the Gender Lens................................................................................................................19

New Perspectives............................................................................................................................21

Part IV: The Individual Matters............................................................................................................25

Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................27

2

Part I: ContextIntroduction

Game of Thrones is arguably the most influential television series of a generation, with the

potential to radically alter how certain ideas are perceived by mainstream society. The complexity of

the fiction, along with intricate histories, events and actors that creates a world almost as difficult to

navigate as our own. When researching the security dilemma in relation to the Iran-Iraq war

between 1980-89, the thought that the security dilemma explains conflict in Game of Thrones aptly

encouraged an investigation. Weeks later, the rape of Sansa Stark whipped up controversy – with

Game of Thrones widely criticised for gratuitous violence and for portraying dominion of women so

explicitly by a sadistic male protagonist. Yet, this gendered dimension was the tip of the iceberg –

and warranted further analysis. In International relations gender is frequently cast aside as an

unwanted product of radical feminists, with little utility within traditional scholarship. Yet the lived

experience of half of the globe needs to be incorporated into the male-dominated international

relations sub-disciplines of war, trade and diplomacy; fields dominated by elite white men. With a

strong relationship between fiction and applying theories about reality, Game of Thrones provided a

stable and interesting starting point. This essay begins by introducing those unfamiliar with this work

of fiction to the basic elements, groups, and geographies crucial to understanding the complexity of

the relationships later described. Part II applies neorealism to the Game of Thrones universe,

focusing on the application of the security dilemma as a way of explaining the Wildling defeat at the

hands of Stannis Baratheon. The second dimension examined in neorealism is the relationship

between relative gains and the problem of cheating that it motivates – with evidence provided by

the Red Wedding. Part III begins by describing what gender theory is, unlike neorealism it cannot be

defined by a series of assumptions in such a neat framework, but presents a series of observations

and relationships which bring gender to the foreground within a given environment. Part III

continues with a brief challenge to neorealism from gender as a post-positivist perspective,

challenging the inherent assumption of objective scientific rationally and thus the ability to create

truly falsifiable theory. Following this, I analyse the Wildling defeat and Red Wedding through a

gender lens to uncover valuable insights. Having highlighted the importance of the individual in

explaining both Stannis’ actions and Robb/Walder Frey’s, the analysis progresses to an examination

of three areas with which gender theory provides convincing explanations for success and failure in

navigating Westerosi society; firstly, the success of the ungendered; secondly, the influence of

multiple masculinities upon men; and the influence of multiple femininities upon women. This essay

argues that the gender critique convincingly illustrates the importance of incorporating agency into

3

theory, because the individual matters. War cannot be depersonalised as an experience when its

importance is only due to the scope of the horrendous effect it has on us, humans, as individuals.

Fiction and International Relations

The relationship between fiction to highlight the nature of human relations has a rich

history. In ancient Greece fiction was used by philosophers to create thought experiments that

allowed the other person in the conversation to realise the premises their beliefs about a particular

issue rested upon. The power of fiction to exemplify philosophical and political realities comes from

the impossibility of developing new social relations. Despite the environment being fiction, the

existing social relations that the author has been socialised within is inevitably reflected onto the

social relations of the constructed universe. Game of Thrones provides an appropriate fictional text

to analyse in terms of international theories due to the prominence of inter-group interactions, in

trade, diplomacy and conflict – the three essential facets of international relations. Another reason

that Game of Thrones provides appropriate fiction for analysis is due to the extreme nature of the

plotlines – unlike conventional narratives in mainstream media, Game of Thrones presents human

nature in an unadulterated fashion. Game of Thrones presents themes that mainstream media,

especially the Hollywood movie industry, avoid as taboo or because the themes are deemed too

unsavoury to please audiences. Game of Thrones presents life and death in a way that is far-closer

aligned to reality – key characters are not protected due to a relationship with the audience. A third

valid justification for the analysis of Game of Thrones is provided by the breadth of the content.

Game of Thrones manages to include such a multitude of narrative and plot themes that its

complexity mirrors in many ways how we perceive our own reality. Sir Arthur Thomas Quiller-Couch

argued that all stories are a deviation from one of seven stories. Man against man; man against

nature; man against himself; man against God; man against society; man caught in the middle; and

lastly, man and woman (Quiller-Couch, 1916). Since Quiller-Couch produced this misogynistic

deduction the typology has developed slightly. Overcoming the Monster; Rags to Riches; The Quest;

Voyage and Return; Comedies; Tragedies; and Rebirth are the seven essential themes of story-

telling. What makes Game of Thrones so powerful is that all seven are incorporated into the myriad

of plots, plot-linkages and cross-hatching of character arcs. The effect of the detail and complexity

produced by including such a diverse range of themes is profound – which could explain the global

fascination with a television series that is downloaded illegally twice as often as any other series, and

has 10 million weekly audience figures for the United States alone. With such complexity and diverse

content that so closely symbolises and represents the realities of our current global system – Game

of Thrones is an apt choice.

4

Game of ThronesThe Known World

A Game of Thrones is a name that refers to book one of A Song of Ice and Fire by George

Martin. The book series is yet to be completed, and the television series as of 2016 has moved

further in plot terms than the last book that was released by Martin in 2011 (reference?). This

research project utilises the narrative from the television series as opposed to the books due to the

progress the series has made in 2016, not covered in the books thus far, that provide ideal examples

for critique. In Game of Thrones there are multiple similarities with human history, and is set in the

time period roughly between the 12th and 15th century. The social structure is predominantly feudal,

stressing the importance of hierarchy – with a landed aristocracy assigned Lordships over particular

territories. Each territory has a ‘House’ that possesses a unique banner, a familial linkage and

heritage, and usually an army to defend the territory that conventionally contains numerous castles

and outlying villages. Predominantly Game of Thrones takes place on the fictional continent of

Westeros – that consists of seven kingdoms united by an Iron Throne. In this context, each individual

House is not deemed to be a state in our understanding of what a state is – as the series clearly pre-

dates state creation through the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. However, each of the seven kingdoms

in Westeros, and all of the nine ‘Free Cities’ on the neighbouring continent of Essos have essential

features of states. Each possess the territorial integrity of defined borders, a centralised authority

(usually a dominant House), autonomous self-governance, and control over their own armed forces.

Thus for the purpose of the analysis, each of the seven kingdoms and the nine free cities (very

similar to the Italian city-states of the 16 th century) are treated as states within an international

system.

The Nine Great Houses

House Stark of Winterfell: Winter Is Coming: This House governs ‘The North’, a

region between then rest of Westeros and the Wall – manned by the Night’s

Watch – that protects the realm from the exterior forces that exist beyond the

Wall. The Stark’s are important throughout the series, however have Winterfell

taken from them when Lord Eddard Stark is beheaded by King Joffrey Baratheon, and Robb Stark’s

rebellion is ended with his death at The Red Wedding. The rest of the Stark children play a crucial

role in the series.

House Tully of Riverrun: Family, Duty, Honor: This House governs the Riverlands to

the south of the Stark’s. Closely allied with House Stark due to the marriage of Lord

5

Eddard Stark and Lady Catelyn Tully. The Tully’s are with House Stark and House Forrester, along

with the rest of the Northern army, when they are betrayed at the Red Wedding.

House Lannister of Casterly Rock: Hear Me Roar/A Lannister Always Pays His

Debts: This House governs the Westerlands. The Lannister’s are the financial

powerhouse of Westeros along with House Tyrell. Since the Lannister’s were

almost defeated when supporting House Targaeryen and Mad King Aerys, a

marriage between Cersei Lannister and Robert Baratheon joined their Houses. After Robert

Baratheon dies, his son with Cersei takes the throne, Joffrey Baratheon, and procedes to execute his

father’s close friend Lord Stark and causes the War of the Five Kings. Tyrion Lannister, the dwarf,

leaves his family to join Daenerys of House Targaeryen in her pursuit of the Iron Throne from her

base outside of Westeros.

House Targaryen of Dragonstone: Fire and Blood: The rulers of the Iron Throne

and Westeros for an Age, House Targaryen lost the Iron Throne when Mad King

Aerys was killed by Jaime Lannister. The only living heir is Daenerys Targaryen, who

escapes Westeros after the fall of her family and is supported in Braavos – one of

the free cities. After the death of her Dothraaki horselord husband, she possesses three dragons and

aims to eliminate slavery from Slaver’s Bay as well as eventually re-take the Iron Throne.

House Baratheon of Storm’s End: Ours Is The Fury: A House that causes much

controversy, once King Robert Baratheon is killed, his brothers Renly and Stannis

both claim that Robert and Cersei’s son Joffrey Baratheon is infact a product of

incest between Cersei and her brother Jaime Lannister. Both declare themselves

King and participate in the War of the Five Kings.

House Greyjoy of the Iron Islands: We Do Not Sow: A House that reigns over the

Iron Islands, the Greyjoys attempted to exploit the rebellion of Lord Robert

Baratheon and Lord Ned Stark by invading the North – but were defeated. King

Balon Greyjoy’s son Theon serves as a prisoner/war to Ned Stark until his

beheading, upon which he betrays the Stark’s and leads a Northern invasion that is defeated. King

Balon is killed by his younger brother Euron Greyjoy who claims the throne and proclaims his desire

to sail to the other side of the world, wed Daenerys Targaeryen and invade conquer Westeros.

House Arryn of the Eyrie: As High As Honor: Governs over the Vale of Arryn, a

mountainous region in the east of Westeros. Allies of the North due to the 6

marriage between Catelyn Tully and Ned Stark, and the marriage of her sister Lisa Tully to Jon Arryn.

During the series due to Lisa Arryn’s death, Lord Peter of House Baelish manipulates himself into

ruling the Vale as Robyn Arryn grows up.

House Martell of Sunspear: Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken: A sunny, sandy area in

Southern Westeros, Dorne is governed by House Martell. Technically an extinct

House now that Doran Martell and his heir Trystane have been murdered by

Doran’s bastard half-nieces. Dorne is the only kingdom of the seven that resisted

the Targaryen conquest, using insurgent strategy – nullifying the effect of the dragons. The House

with little love for House Lannister are responsible for poisoning Myrcella, daughter of Cersei and

Jaimie Lannister.

House Tyrell of Highgarden: Growing Strong: A financially and agriculturally

important House, the Tyrells govern the Reach. joins in the War of the Five Kings

on the side of the Lannisters, turning the tide of the battle of the Blackwater and

winning a decisive victory for both Tyrell and Lannister against Lord Stannis

Baratheon and his allies. Lady Margaery of House Tyrell is the current Queen of King Tommen of

House Baratheon, younger brother of King Joffrey, who is the incumbent of the Iron Throne.

7

Map

8

Figure 1: Westeros split into seven kingdoms

Figure 2: Westeros and Essos

9

Part II: NeorealismNeorealismKey Assumptions

Realism has been the dominant theoretical perspective in international relations at least

since World War II (Grieco, 1988: 486). International tensions and conflicts during the 1970s

undermined the progress that strands of liberal theory had made since 1945, reaffirming the

dominance of realism within academia and within the political conceptions of actors in public policy

(Grieco, 1988: 487). However, neorealism has foundations in the classical realism that preceded it

(Dunne and Schmidt: 96). From Thucydides, Hobbes and Machiavelli the importance of human

nature producing and creating political events was centralised. In Hans Morgenthau’s book Politics

Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, he presents the foundation for realism as a

framework (1948). Morgenthau finds the root of state behaviour is due to human nature, an

element that he believes is unchanged since “the classical philosophies of China, India, and Greece

endeavoured to discover these laws” (1948: 5). The school of neorealism developed after this belief

in state behaviour as a product of human nature was challenged in 1979 by Kenneth Waltz’s book

Theory of International Politics. Waltz asserted that instead of human nature, state behaviour was a

natural result of the absence of authority within the international system (Waltz, 1979: 106).

Although widely attributed to Waltz, the notion of anarchy in the international system causing

conflict has a longer history with thinkers such as Grotius, a contemporary of Hobbes, emphasising

the need for rules and laws in the international system to limit the effect of anarchy (Wight, 2005).

This absence of a higher authority was what Waltz characterised as the anarchic nature of the

international system. This anarchic structure produces state behaviour due to the need to survive,

and despite the incorrect synonymous connotation between anarchy and chaos the anarchic

structure of the system is actually an ordering principle (Mearsheimer, 2011: 31). The second

assumption of neorealism is that states inherently possess offensive military capability which gives

states the capacity to pursue power (Mearsheimer, 2011: 31). The third assumption is that because

all states possess military capability, a state can never be certain about another states’ intention – as

such despite the chance that all states within the system are benign entities that do not wish to

pursue power over one another but rather simply survive, a state cannot know for certain this is the

case (Mearsheimer, 2011: 31). The fourth assumption is that due to the absence of a higher

authority that could safeguard state security, each states’ inherent goal is survival – at any and all

costs. This is why realists often refer to the anarchic international system as a “self-help” system,

due to the inability of states to rely on any other entity to ensure security (Waltz, 1979). This

perspective is presented with clarity by then-Soviet leader Josef Stalin who, during a war scare in

10

1927, said: “We can and must build socialism in the [Soviet Union]. But in order to do so we first of

all have to exist” (Jacobson, 1994: 271). The fifth assumption of neorealism is that states are rational

actors aware of their external environment and how to strategically manoeuvre to survive within it

(Mearsheimer, 2011: 32).

Waltz defined the international system in terms of three elements – organising principle,

differentiation of units, and distribution of capabilities. In terms of an organising principle, the

international system creates both anarchy, and hierarchy as the basis of domestic order (Dunne and

Schmidt, 98). Sovereign states, in terms of functionality, have a low level of variation and as such do

not explain the outcomes of international politics. Thus it is the third element of the international

system that Waltz defined that is the most important – the distribution of capabilities among states

(Dunne and Schmidt, 98). It is the relative distribution of power in the international system that is

the most important determining variable for state behaviour. I take two dimensions from neorealism

to explain two events within Game of Thrones, beginning with the theory of the security dilemma

and following with cooperation – specifically relative gains and the problem of cheating in the Red

Wedding.

The Security DilemmaThe security dilemma is a theory developed by Herz in Political Realism and Political Idealism

which posits that the anarchic structure of the international system leads to a self-help situation.

This situation leads to states constantly seeking to increase their relative security, which decreases

the relative security of their neighbours “as each interprets its own measures as defensive and the

measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz, 1951). Barry Posen outlined three dimensions

to the security dilemma that intensify that natural insecurity that develops from the anarchic

international system. Firstly, situations in which military capabilities have indistinguishable offensive

and defensive capacities – for example a bow and arrow has both indistinguishable offensive and

defensive capabilities whereas a shield does not have offensive capabilities (Posen, 1993: 29).

Secondly, the contextual environment is important, particularly whether there is a relative

superiority for offensive over defensive action (Posen, 1993: 30). There are many situations in which

there is an obvious advantage over attacking your enemy rather than waiting to defend the

inevitable incoming enemy attack. For example, Israel knew that its strategic location was

surrounded by enemies readying to invade, thus pre-emptive war allowed it to dismantle enemy

aircraft before they could do any damage (Posen, 1993: 30). Lastly, Posen determined that the

security dilemma became particularly intense when there was a clear window of vulnerability or

opportunity (Posen, 1993: 30). In an arms race with a neighbour, a window of opportunity is created

as soon as a technological breakthrough has been achieved, or if a regime is overthrown then its 11

initial instability can be exploited before regime consolidation occurs. Both indicate windows of

vulnerability or opportunity that accentuate the security dilemma.

CooperationThe second dimension from neorealism that will be utilised to examine Game of Thrones is

the nature of cooperation. While the security dilemma will assist in explaining conflict, the nature of

cooperation in a realist perspective will assist in evaluating the creation and dissolution of alliance in

Westeros. Neorealist’s posit that cooperation is not impossible, or an unsavoury outcome – but that

simply, cooperation is difficult to achieve – this is due to two dimensions. Firstly, neorealism places

emphasis on the importance of relative gains over absolute gains in relation to national self-interest

(Baldwin, 1993; Haas, 1990. In this sense states seek to gain a relative advantage over other states

and as such only cooperate in instances where relative gains are attainable (Haas, 1990: 122). The

second dimension to cooperation according to neorealism is the problem of cheating (Cai, 2011).

According to neorealist scholars the problem of cheating is a pervasive threat to cooperation due to

the third and fourth assumptions of neorealism. The third assumption is that states can never be

certain about each other’s intentions and thus due to relative gains there is an impetus for states to

cheat. The fourth assumption is that survival in a self-help system is the most important state

interest due to the severity of insecurity in a state context – utter annihilation and often erasure

from history. Thus, the problem of cheating allegedly perpetually threatens the existence of

cooperation within the international system (Cai, 2011).

With the theoretical framework of neorealism established and two essential dimensions

outlined in detail – the security dilemma and cooperation – it is possible to investigate a neorealist

evaluation of Game of Thrones (GoT). Therefore, what follows is an in-depth look into the

explanatory utility of neorealism in this context. The security dilemma will be the theory to explain

occurrence of conflict in Westeros, while the nature of cooperation according to neorealism will

illuminate the occurrence of alliance creation and dissolution.

Neorealism: A Zero-Sum Game of Thrones?Wildling Defeat

Toward the end of season four Lord Stannis Baratheon, after his defeat at the Blackwater to

King Joffrey Baratheon, Lord Tywin Lannister and House Tyrell, makes the foreign policy decision to

mobilise his forces again. Beyond the massive Wall that separates the North from the Wildlings – a

fragmentary and anarchistic grouping of ‘free people’ loosely connected by a joint exclusion from

Westerosi society south of the Wall – essentially imprisoned in a particularly hostile territory. The

Wildings united under the King-beyond-the-Wall Mance Rayder due to the threat of the White

12

Walkers – entities that were created thousands of years ago capable of reanimating corpses to fight

against humanity. The Wildlings march on the Wall and the Night’s Watch that is duty-bound to

defend the realms of ‘men’ from the forces of evil beyond the wall. The Wildlings scale the wall and

assault Castle Black, the main castle of the Night’s Watch, from the South while hundreds of

thousands of Wildlings amass north of the wall and attack the wall directly, defended by Lord

Commander Jon Snow. Lord Commander Snow and the surviving forces of the Nights Watch are

spared by the sudden arrival of Stannis Baratheon and his forces – who rout the Wildlings and burn

King Rayder alive for treason. This foreign policy decision deserves enquiry for two reasons. Firstly,

there is no direct tangible benefit for Stannis to eliminate the Wildlings – only risking his forces in

extreme conditions against an army that contained animals, giants and vastly outnumbered his

knights. Secondly, Stannis Baratheon resides on Dragonstone – a gift from his late brother King

Robert Baratheon for helping in the rebellion against the Targaryen’s – which is lengthy distance

from the North.

How can the security dilemma explain this foreign policy decision? Let us begin with the

indistinguishability between offense and defence. In this instance to House Baratheon of

Dragonstone the weaponry used by the Wildlings could serve both offensive and defensive

capacities. The widespread use of the bow and arrow or steel/bone axes by the Wildlings can be

utilised for both defensive and offensive action. The build-up of weaponry and mobilisation of forces

by the Wildlings was a reaction to the insecurity created by the increasing presence and attacks by

the White Walkers north of the wall. Yet due to the indistinguishability between offence and defence

House Baratheon had no choice but to mobilise his army because of the severity of ignoring security

concerns in a self-help system of anarchy. House Baratheon could only view the build-up in military

capability by the Wildlings as creating the possibility for offensive action and therefore begin

mobilising themselves.

Next, let us consider the relative superiority of offensive over defensive action. Neorealist’s

would focus on the offensive power of the Wildlings in this context (Haas, 1990). To House

Baratheon of Dragonstone the Wildling threat posed an inherently offensive advantage due to a

number of factors. Firstly, the Wildling army contained giants which had the offensive capacity to

render traditional Westerosi military defensive structures obsolete. In terms of material structures

giants threaten the defensive utility of castles and defensive battlements due to their enormity. In

terms of military personnel, the giants also had the offensive advantage in that defensive positions,

including the pincer defence that utilises flanking cavalry to encircle attacking forces in the centre,

would cave to the impact of an attacking giant. Secondly, the Wildlings do not possess or craft good 13

quality armour – the most common apparel consisted of furs, bones and wood as resistance to

weaponry. Thirdly, the Wildlings had not created castles and defensive structures north of the wall

due to the disparate and decentralised nature of its tribalistic social linkages – and as such could not

defend from either a White Walker or an attack from the South by any Westerosi Kingdom. Fourthly,

the Wildlings were loosely allied due to a common threat from the White Walkers but possessed

little cohesion or discipline – it is common strategy that in such a context attacking is more effective

than defending. Separation between groups most often occurs during stagnation, whereas imminent

action can mobilise disparate groups to unite for a short term goal. Therefore, in the perspective of

House Baratheon of Dragonstone the superiority of the Wildling offensive potential and its defensive

vulnerabilities made offensive action preferable to defensive action. In the perspective of the

Wildlings offensive action against the Night’s Watch at the wall was vastly superior to waiting for the

White Walkers or the Night’s Watch to attack.

Lastly consider the importance of Posen’s window of vulnerability/opportunity. In this

environment House Baratheon had a couple of considerations which created a window of

opportunity for invasion. Due to the defeat of House Baratheon of Dragonstone at the Battle of the

Blackwater the forces of Stannis were largely mobilised already, to avoid losing momentum from

defeat there was a dire need for a swift victory. The longer the time spent declaring or deciding the

next action to take presented the likelihood of Houses switching allegiance to the Lannister/Tyrell

allegiance incumbent to the throne and winning the War of Five Kings. Also, to mobilise armies from

all the Houses in support of Stannis Baratheon took time and money – to re-mobilise later after all

the men and supplies had been re-dispersed across their territories would be a timely and expensive

exercise. In terms of a window of vulnerability the Wildlings were attacking the wall which exposed

them south of the treeline that traditionally allowed the free peoples to disappear back into terrain

ill-suited to Westerosi armies. Secondly, the Wildlings were distracted by their assault on the wall

and thus would be vulnerable to an attack by Stannis’ cavalry. In the perspective of the Wildlings and

King Mance Rayder the attack on the wall was an opportune moment seized. The army of the Nights

Watch was so depleted by this stage there were less than a thousand rangers, builders, cooks and

new recruits spanning the entire length of the wall. The Wildlings also had a window of opportunity

similar to House Baratheon in the sense both had mobilised armies that were highly vulnerable to

dissolution. The Wildlings had never grouped together in such a large number and as such it was an

instance in which the chance an army of this size could be created again was impossible. Therefore,

the Wildlings saw this as a window of opportunity, one which counter-balanced the window of

vulnerability their forces existed within. Due to the advancing White Walkers and their zombie army

14

the Wildlings had limited time to take action and were in a strategically vulnerable area pressed up

against a wall to the south, two seas on either end and the advancing enemy to the north.

It is clear that looking through the perspective of a security dilemma provides convincing

explanations for both the attack on the wall by the Wildlings, as well as the third party sneak flank

attack by House Baratheon of Dragonstone. Through indistinguishability of offensive and defensive

capabilities, the superiority of offensive over defensive action, and the windows of vulnerability and

opportunity, the security dilemma illuminates the existence of structures that limited individual

agency and motivated both sides to engage in conflict. What follows is a brief analysis of

neorealism’s characterisation of cooperation within the international system and why the problem

of cheating remains a crucial aspect of relative and absolute gains.

The Red Wedding

During the War of the Five Kings the King in the North, Robb Stark, moves southward to the

river crossing between the North and the Riverlands – an area the Northern army must cross to get

to the Lannister capital of Casterly Rock in the Westerlands, one of the seven kingdoms of Westeros.

The river crossing is held by House Frey led by Lord Walder Frey at a castle on a bridge called The

Twins. The twins are sworn banner-men of the North and its ally in the Riverlands, House Tully – led

by Lord Tully, Catelyn Stark’s brother. King Robb Stark agrees to wed Lord Walder Frey’s daughter

Roslin to unite the Houses of Stark and Frey. King Robb reneges on the agreement and marries

healer Talisa Maegyr instead – and gets Edmure Tully to marry Roslin Frey instead. During the

wedding a sacred pact is made between Lord Walder Frey and his guests as they all partake in bread

and salt from the same bowl, confirming all visitors into his home have guest right – an ancient

principle in which the guests now cannot be harmed. Conspiring with House Bolton and House

Lannister Walder Frey organised for the wedding band to be armed with crossbows while the Bolton

men around the hall were armed and armoured.

At the signal of Lord Frey Lord Robb Stark, his mother Catelyn Stark, his pregnant wife Talisa,

Lord Gregor Forrester, and the entire Northern Army are slaughtered. The Frey and Bolton

contingent of the Northern army pretend to drink until the signal is given and they rout the Starks

and supporting Houses. The betrayal leads to the end of the Northern Rebellion against the 15

The Red Wedding, they’re calling it. Walder Frey committed sacrilege that day. He shared bread and salt with the Starks. He offered them guest right… The Gods will have their vengeance. Frey will burn in the seventh hell for what he did. - A Riverlands farmer loyal to the Tullys

Lannister-Tyrell King Joffrey. House Frey is rewarded by Lord Tywin Lannister – the true manipulator

in the situation – and is raised to Warden of the Riverlands (replacing House Tully). House Bolton is

rewarded as well becoming the Warden of the North and granted the Stark capital of Winterfell and

its surrounding lands.

How does the Red Wedding highlight the neorealist conception of cooperation? In many

ways the events exemplify both the problem of relative gains, as well as the problem of cheating.

Firstly, to address relative gains, the aims of the initial allegiance and thus rationalisation for

cooperation need outlining. House Stark decided to initiate cooperation with House Frey to achieve

mutual goals. In terms of absolute gains the Stark’s offered House Frey the opportunity to be

participants in a successful rebellion – inevitably raising the stature of House Frey to one of the most

important houses in Westeros. It is undeniable the rebellion was winning at this point, with three

victories in succession – taking territory far south of where the North ends. There were tangible

absolute gains in this context, as all Houses that allied with the winning Stark forces were including

themselves in the spoils of war and the rewards of supporting its victor. Yet in terms of relative gains

House Frey and House Bolton were still losing out to House Stark. The newly-annointed King in the

North Robb Stark had a level of power and prestige that had not been present in the North since the

dominion of House Targaryen and their dragons – when the North was a fully independent kingdom.

Therefore, although the absolute gains of cooperation would raise both House Bolton and House

Frey within the Northern hierarchy there were powerful motivations to aspire for relative gains – in

opposition to House Stark.

The problem of cheating is described by neorealism as being the second reason for the

difficulty in achieving cooperation. As the fourth dimension of neorealism notes, survival in a self-

help system is the most important state self-interest. In this sense cooperation can become almost

impossible because the problem of cheating can lead to disastrous consequences, thus states are

naturally pessimistic and ultimately cautious when engaging in cooperation. The Red Wedding

highlights this principle excellently, as the problem of cheating is directly represented. Despite Robb

and Catelyn Stark’s reservations about the intentions of the Frey’s after Robb reneged on the agreed

marriage arrangement, the potential of absolute gains for House Stark motivated them both to

attempt cooperation. The guest right promise is the most important facet of the Red Wedding

because it was the principle that supposedly protected House Stark and House Tully from direct

threats to their survival. Guest right is a sacred standard of behaviour that only existed because the

threats to cooperation in that environment were so great one needed a sacred principle to prevent

the murder of guests under a hosts’ roof. Yet, GoT highlights how even fealty to religion could not 16

prevent the problem of cheating, because the rewards in terms of relative gains were too great.

House Bolton and House Frey could not turn down the chance to betray the Starks and attain new

titles, lands and favour with the Iron Throne.

The security dilemma is a theory applicable to numerous theories but is grounded in

neorealist assumptions. This theory highlights important factors with regard to the motivations for

making the decision to initiate conflict. The notion of relative gains and the problem of cheating in

the neorealist understanding of cooperation explains the motivation behind the betrayal of House

Stark. Both theories provide insight and potential explanations for two key events in GoT.

 Part III: Gender TheoryWhat is Gender Theory?

Gender as a discipline within international relations is an emerging field that brings a critical

edge to existing scholarship. In terms of a conventional understanding of international relations;

diplomacy, trade and war, the absence of feminine influences is remarkable. Indeed, it is a wonder

that gender theory is included as a school of radical thought – considering the theory incorporates

the lived experiences of half of the global population (Cohen, 2008: 62). The effects of marginalising

the influence of women within international relations has significantly hindered human progress,

according to the of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, a landmark measure

that recognized both the disproportionate impact war has on women and the role women must play

in ensuring peace and security (Rothschild, 2014: 2).

When one considers gender theory the dominant perspective is undoubtedly feminism.

Feminism is the theory that is most concerned with considering gender in international relations.

Feminism is responsible for including the marginalisation of women in politics as a lens with which to

examine international politics through (Etten, 2014). However, gender theory does not stop at the

role of women, and their exclusion – with the analysis also including the role of men in gender

(Romaniuk & Wasylciw, 2010; Hooper, 2001; Runyan and Peterson, 1999). Etten argues that men can

equally be victimised in conflict situations – especially for example through sexual torture (2014: 3).

By excluding gender from analyses of international relations one perpetuates the gender hierarchies

that inherently value the masculine over the feminine (Tickner, 1992; Hooper, 2001).

Gender is a complex concept and there are multiple definitions across disciplines and

methodologies – “there is no consensus on either the nature or significance of gender identities”

(Hooper, 2001: 20). A ground-breaking differentiation was formulated by Oakley in Sex, Gender, and

Society who separated the notion of sex and gender; with the former relating to the biological

17

physiology of the individual and the latter referring to the socially constructed notion of what ones

role as a particular gender is within society (Oakley, 1972). This essay accepts the tri-dimensional

definition provided by Charlotte Hooper. Hooper differentiates between firstly, the physical

embodiment – including the body and role of reproductive biology; secondly, the institutions and

gendered social processes they encompass including the family, the economy, the state (Runyan &

Peterson, 1999: 17); and thirdly, the discursive dimension of the gendered construction of language

and its constitutive role in the gender order (Hooper, 2001: 20).

Reality is socially constructed and material outcomes depend largely on shared beliefs, the

ubiquity and salience of beliefs about sexual differences – thus the construction of gendered

identities is worthy of study (Carpenter, 2002: 153). Stereotypical gender identities are created

through the process of dichotomisation – in which the feminine is created out of what the masculine

is not (Runyan and Peterson, 1999: 22). Despite varying in time and space masculinity is generally

associated with the first term, and femininity with the less-valuable binary opposite; objective vs

subjective; reason vs emotion; strength vs weakness; mind vs body; culture vs nature; self vs other;

public vs private (Keller, 1985; Tickner, 1988: 431; Harding, 1986: 148). The characteristics of

masculinity are valued by both men and women alike (Harding, 1986: 148).

Postmodern feminists added an extremely valuable contribution to gender theory in

identifying the distinction between multiple gender identities within a gendered hierarchy (Hooper,

2001). In female terms the experience of gender identities are determinant on other identities –

race, class, ethnicity, religion – thus the experience of the powerful and privileged is different to that

of a marginalised whose identity lacks the same “coherence” (Hooper, 2001: 29). In male terms

there are multiple masculinities within which is a form of hegemonic masculinity which encompasses

the entire societal level that has sub-ordinate masculinities and femininities (Hooper, 2001: 34). The

hierarchy of gendered identities is determined by the intersection of class, race and sexuality

(Hooper, 2001: 34). Connell applies Gramscian notions of hegemony to hegemonic masculinity in

which ideological ascendancy of a particular masculinity is created through moral persuasion and

consent – rather than brute force (Hooper, 2001: 34). This notion of hegemonic masculinity is

protected from threats from individuals or groupings that deviate from the gendered identity

socialised onto their sex, and sexuality – by the creation of homosexuality and threat of feminisation.

Homosexuality provided a deviant category that served the purpose of normalising heterosexuality

(Ehrenreich, 1983). Thus, masculine females, and feminine males, are policed into conforming by

socialising such an identity as homosexual.

18

There are four ideal types of hegemonic masculinity relevant to this paper, yet it is

important to note the overlapping nature of these types in actual individual identities. Hooper

provides the following distinction (2001: 33). The first hegemonic masculinity is the warrior-citizen

model originally characterised by ancient Greek men – focusing primarily on an identity of

militarism, rationality and involvement in public affairs. The Patriarchal Judeo-Christian model

emphasises the responsibility of the man to protect his domestic environment, with ownership over

his family and authority as father in familial relations. The third model of Honor-Patronage is

characterised by the bonds these men have between their conception of themselves, the idea of

military heroism, and of risk-taking action. The more modern hegemonic masculinity and fourth

model is that of the bourgeois-rationalist – of whom men are characterised by idealised competitive

individualism, reason, self-control, and combining being familial breadwinner with rationality in

public life (Hooper, 2001: 33). These ideal types are utilised later in this analysis to highlight the

presence of hegemonic masculinities within key GoT characters, and the consequences produced.

Through the Gender LensRealism

Part II utilised the dominant strand of international relations theory, neo/structural realism,

which has a direct relationship with gender. Classical realism describes assumptions about human

nature and the Hobbesian nature of man that are partial and privileges masculinity (Tickner, 1988:

431). Realism in its quest for scientific rational study of social relations attempts to be objective, with

stringent focus placed on logic. There is no acknowledgement of the inherent subjectivity of an actor

due to their positionality (Tickner, 1988: 432). Thus, instead of being the white heterosexual male

author of this article, my individual identity is irrelevant as my processes of argumentation are

logical. The choice of the Wilding Defeat and the Red Wedding reinforce neorealism because the

importance of security in international relations has socialised this framing of security in terms of

group military capabilities and balancing of power distributions. Realism embodies hegemonic

masculinity in many ways – as a perspective of white elite men whom apply the ideal of the glorified

male warrior onto the behaviour of states (Tickner, 1992). Hooper argues that different realist

scholars in different periods of time describe differing conceptions of masculinity, as such the

eminence of realism as a theoretical perspective is due to devolving multiple masculinities into a few

foundational traits and assumptions (Hooper, 2001: 43). Gender does not aim to provide falsifiable,

scientific theories as Tickner so aptly demarcates in You Just Don’t Understand, instead arguing that

positivist theories’ quest for scientific objectivity was impossible as theories reflect the gender

positioning of its author (1997: 611). Gender as a lens allows for dimensions related to gender

19

excluded from neorealism to be placed in the foreground, providing alternate explanations of events

in international relations.

Re-interpretation

Stannis Baratheon embodied a combination of two ideal types of hegemonic masculinity.

Stannis relates easily to the warrior-citizen masculinity as his self-conception of his identity is that of

an essential political actor, both as counsel for his brother Robert Baratheon and Lord Stark in the

rebellion against Mad King Aerys Targaryen, and as rightful King of the Iron Throne during the War of

the Five Kings. Stannis also perceives himself as an accomplished warrior, with consistent reference

to his leadership in defeating the Siege of Storm’s End; in which for an entire year the island was

held by Stannis against surrounding House Tyrell forces – in support of King Aerys Targaryen. The

influence of his masculinity is evident in his decision to attack the Wildlings north of the wall in a

theatre of war far-removed from the political focus of the war – King’s Landing, the capital of

Westeros. Stannis is emasculated by his defeat in the Battle of the Blackwater, especially considering

his reputation as one of the best military commanders in Westeros. His opponents were disparate

and separated due to the war against King Robb Stark – with Blackwater Bay defended by the dwarf

Tyrion Lannister and an illegitimate boy-King Joffrey. Thus after such a humiliating defeat to enemies

that are distinctly less masculine than himself, he makes the decision to attack quickly – rather than

being a decision due to the chance of his forces deserting or de-mobilising – it is to regain the

reputation of being a skilled battle commander. A second element to the citizen-warrior model of

hegemonic masculinity that explains the decision is the important of rationality. The warrior-citizen

model in relation to femininities is overtly misogynistic – with the intrinsic identity founded on the

domination of women (Hooper, 2001: 43). Stannis makes decisions prior, during and after the

Wildling defeat that exemplifies his utter disregard for women. He strangles his priestess

Melisandre, drives his wife to suicide, and sacrifices his daughter to the Red God by burning her at

the stake in front of his army. All were misogynistic actions that devolve out of a gender identity of

masculinity that emphasised character traits that motivated these particular actions.

In re-evaluating the Red Wedding there are interesting explanations provided by assuming

the perspective of both Lord Robb Stark and Lord Walder Frey. Robb represents the bourgeois-

rational model of hegemonic masculinity. Robb emphasises the importance of counsel and the

participation of numerous voices in decision-making – including that of allowing women to counsel

his war strategy, a policy not used by male King’s very often in GoT. The entire existence of the Red

Wedding was due to the decision by Robb to pursue cooperation, instead of domination of his

20

opponent. His self-perception of his gendered identity created the motivation to bring reason and

self-control to the foreground – traits deemed integral to the bourgeois-rationalist masculinity.

Therefore the explanation for why Robb Stark sought cooperation can be traced to his gender

identity. In the perspective of Walder Frey, who embodies the traditional patriarchal model, would

have experienced Robb’s actions as emasculating and therefore a direct personal insult. The

patriarchal model centralises the importance of family and the authority of the father figure. The

decision by Robb to wed an obscure healer from Essos, instead of one of Walder’s daughters,

despite the agreement to do so showed disrespect toward Frey’s position. In a sense it was an insult

to his authority as a father, the chief dictator of what happens within his territory. By perceiving

Robb’s actions as a betrayal his hegemonic masculinity was challenged. The presence of an affront to

Walder Frey’s masculinity also explains why the reaction was that of revenge, rather than dialogue

or renegotiation of terms. The association between revenge as a traditionally masculine endeavour

is well documented (Baden-Daintree, 2016; Findlay, 2012). By focusing on gender dimensions an

entirely different picture of the attack and defeat of the Wildlings is created; while a brief look at the

Red Wedding also highlights significant gendered dimensions to explain the problem of cheating.

New PerspectivesThe influence of the ungendered

This essay could conclude with the brief re-evaluation of the neorealist explanation for the

Wildling Defeat and the Red Wedding. However, by applying a gender lens to GoT there are strong

examples that support contributions by gender theory, firstly with regard to the ungendered,

secondly in terms of feminine males and lastly masculine females. When you examine the character

arcs of crucial individuals in Game of Thrones the ungendered frequently highlight how restrictive

stereotypical gendered identities can be in terms of agency. The ungendered refer to individuals that

have disconnected the relationship between their sex and their gender because they have no

biological sex anymore – due to removal of the male reproductive organs and thus capacity. Varys is

the Master of Whisperers who, for the majority of the story, retains a seat on the Small Council – a

body of individuals tasked with assisting the King of the Iron Throne in the administration of

Westeros. He was born in the free city of Lys on Essos as a slave, but was sold by his master to a

sorcerer who removed his penis and testes to throw into the fire for a ritual, and then dumped in

the street to die. Realising that thievery of material possessions was far less valuable than stealing

information, Varys grew to access and control an intelligence network that spans both Westeros and

Essos. Yet, considering his status as both a foreigner to Westeros, and an actor whose profession is

deceit and illicit information, he is threatened by very few events that transform the existing

21

structures within Westeros. When he advised Mad King Aerys not to open the gates to Tywin

Lannister and the Lannister army, he was ignored, Lord Tywin sacked the city and Aerys was killed –

yet Varys was pardoned by King Robert Baratheon and allowed to retain his seat on the Small

Council, an undoubtedly remarkable result in the circumstances. Varys uses his effeminacy to

manipulate situations in his favour. His lack of gendered identity allows him to pursue goals other

than procreation, marriage or protection and prosperity of a family. This unique position allows him

to legitimately position himself as a genuine ‘protector of the realm’, unconcerned by inter-House

politics but support effective and just rule of Westeros. Despite existence within a conventionally

masculine field of intelligence and espionage, just think James Bond and the stereotype is

characterised, Varys utilises soft power and his effeminacy to create relationships of trust with his

spies (usually children), influential women that appreciate his effeminacy, and influential men that

appreciate his services and are not threatened by his identity.

The second example pertains to the unfortunate life of Theon Greyjoy, formerly a ward of

Lord Ned Stark after the defeat of the Greyjoy’s, who decides to betray Robb Stark after he is sent to

persuade his father King Balon Greyjoy to answer the call to support the North as vassal. Instead,

Theon invades the North with Robb distracted south and captures Winterfell – the capital of the

North. After his eviction and capture by the Bolton’s, and the subsequent betrayal of the North by

House Frey and Bolton at the Red Wedding, Theon is taken prisoner by Lord Roose Bolton’s bastard

son Ramsay. Ramsay proceeds to torture Theon – initially simply physical by screwing a nail into his

foot and removing fingernails. After psychological torture through an elaborate fake escape, Theon

is almost broken – Ramsay allows him a moments respite with two beautiful women – as Theon

infamously is well-endowed. Moments later Ramsay interrupts, restrains Theon and castrates him.

His penis is sent in a package by Ramsay to Theon’s father Balon and his sister Yara Greyjoy. Theon is

the victim of gender stereotypes in which a core source of one’s identity is the reproductive capacity

of being either male or female (Etten, 2014). The power in sexual torture is the feminisation it

creates in men, without the penis is Theon still a man? This question is dealt with at the Kingsmoot –

a ceremony in which the King of the Iron Islands is decided, after Balon Greyjoy is killed in a storm

falling off a bridge. Theon by this point has escaped Ramsay Bolton and is back on the Iron Islands;

yet his sister Yara Greyjoy nominates herself to be Queen of the Iron Islands despite Theon’s

presence, indicating her belief in a change in Theon’s identity.

“You cannot be Queen”, proclaimed a leader of the Ironborn, “a woman will not lead us, not when

Balon’s own male heir has returned.”

22

“I am Theon Greyjoy. I am the last living son of Balon Greyjoy, and she [pointing to Yara] is your

rightful ruler.”

Theon’s endorsement is met with agreement by those present at the Kingsmoot. His

legitimacy as both a man, and as one with influence is seemingly assured. Yet in the moments that

follow the consequence of his castration is made clear. Balon Greyjoy’s brother Euron Greyjoy

arrives and declares his nomination for the ‘Salt Throne’. Euron immediately plays on gender to

legitimise himself and de-legitimise Theon and Yara. He begins by greeting Theon, “Little Theon […] I

even heard you have no cock, which explains why you think a woman can be King.” In the course of

the interaction Euron admits to murdering King Balon, with Theon constantly providing legitimate

critique of Euron’s reasoning. The responses to his reasoning did not need to be coherent,

convincing the all-male leadership of the Iron Islands by re-stating the notion that Theon is no longer

a man. Euron concludes his speech by declaring his intention to using his “big cock” to seduce

Daenerys Targaryen – emphasising the basis requirement of reproductive capacity for hegemonic

masculinity.

Multiple MasculinitiesPreviously we have discussed the importance of multiple masculinities, and how certain

forms of masculinity are sub-ordinate to others – and all are sub-ordinate to overarching hegemonic

masculinity. In Game of Thrones numerous examples undermine the notion that in the context of

Westerosi society, a gender identity that conforms to hegemonic masculinity or hyper-masculinity

generally fares worse than less masculine forms of gender identity. In this brief illustration, the

comparison between brothers Tyrion and Jaime Lannister highlight this trend. Tyrion is weak, a poor

fighter, ugly, and is a dwarf. As a dwarf there is an immediate assumption that the individual will also

struggle with normal sexual interactions. Dwarfism is deeply emasculating and a source of caricature

and comedy within Westeros and Essos. Jaime on the other hand is completely opposite – strong,

the best tourney fighter in Westeros, famously handsome, and fully-sized. Yet Tyrion thrives in the

world of Westeros, attaining high positions both in King’s Landing and later as advisor to Daenerys in

Meereen, Essos. Tyrion utilises the other valued traits of masculinity to craft his own path – relying

especially on reason, his mental capabilities, his aptitude for public life, and his knowledge. In

contrast Jaime is punished for his gender identity which embodied the warrior-citizen and honor-

patronage models. Lord Bolton’s man-at-arms Locke specifically punished Jaime by removing his

sword hand because of that identity. The right hand was Jaime Lannister’s sword hand, which

enabled him to dictate his power and prestige as a master swordsman. Jaime’s identity was

interwoven with his ability to fight, as is usually the case with hegemonic masculinity, and without it

23

his role as a Kingsguard was impossible – along with an inherent vulnerability and emasculation due

to the disability derived from losing a hand.

Multiple FemininitiesSimilar identification of non-conformity is illustrated by the multiple femininities within

gender identities of female protagonists in Game of Thrones. The individuals that conform to

feminine gender stereotypes are consistently punished for doing so, whereas those who reject

conformity and embrace masculine traits generally succeed. Brienne of Tarth, a sworn knight firstly

to Renly Baratheon, then to Catelyn Stark, and later to her surviving daughter Sansa, represents this

non-conformity well. Brienne stands well-over six feet tall and is the only individual in Westeros that

bests Jaime Lannister in a duel – indicating unmatched fighting ability. Brienne presents herself to

Renly, Catelyn and later Sansa and each time is presumed to not be capable of the granting the

protection she offers. Each Lord/Lady eventually realises the capabilities of Brienne and accept her

oath of loyalty. Brienne succeeds by showing her aptitude at what men can do – rather than by

distinguishing herself through feminine traits. Daenerys does not need to prove to others that she

does not conform to gendered stereotypes, as she leads by birth-right of being a Targaryen. Yet it is

how Daenerys navigates her situations that highlights how she conforms to what is valued by society

about masculinity. One dimension she exemplifies constantly is a lack of forgiveness – an element

traditionally associated with weakness, and thus femininity. In Slavers Bay she crucifies 143 slave

masters for crucifying slaves, in Qarth she uses her dragons to burn alive sorcerer Pyat Pree, and

locks Xaro Xhoan Daxos within his own vault to starve. Yet if any incident best illustrates how

Daenerys Targaryen treats those who oppose her, it is how she dealt with her trial at Dosh Khaleen.

Due to the death of her husband Khal Drogo and leader of the horselord army the Dothraaki,

Daenerys is put on trial at Dosh Khaleen by the new leader Khal Moro to determine her fate. Instead

of allowing traditional procedures conclude she ignites a fire within the hall and burns the men alive.

The gendered aspect is made particularly pertinent as the leadership of Khal Moro debate over how

they will rape her, with Khal Moro lauding how he will even let his horses rape Daenerys. Yet, as the

blaze incinerates the men and with it the symbol of oppressive patriarchal structures within

Dothraaki society, she stands – engulfed in flame, yet unburnt – as the Dothraaki horde circle around

the blaze and kneel.

In contrast women that conform to stereotypical feminine gender roles are punished. Cersei

Lannister, at one point Queen of Robert Baratheon and later King’s mother to both Joffrey and

Tommen, has characteristics of a form of femininity. This form is associated with motherhood, the

primacy of the family, protection, beauty, emotion, the primacy of the private over the public, and

subjectivity. The dominant plot theme for Cersei is the protection of her family, and especially the 24

influence of Kingship upon her sons. Despite the constant pursuit of safety for her children Cersei

loses Joffrey to a poisoned pigeon pie at his wedding to Margaery Tyrell at the Purple Wedding. As

Cersei pursues justice against Tyrion, who despite being her brother she insists must have poisoned

Joffrey, she inadvertently involves the Martell’s when Tyrion chooses trial by combat and elects

Prince Oberyn Martel to fight for him. Prince Oberyn’s death at the hands of Ser Gregor Clegane in

the ensuing duel led to Oberyn’s daughters and paramour in Dorne deciding to avenge his death.

They decide to murder Lord Doran Martell’s ward and Cersei’s daughter Myrcella. Another female

character that conforms to feminine traits is Sansa Stark; timid, polite, focused on female duty, and

extremely beautiful – Sansa’s conformity is founded in her naivety. Sansa fails to realise the cruelty

and danger that she finds herself surrounded by when her marriage to Joffrey Baratheon to unite

House Lannister and House Stark is proposed. Her assumption to trust those she encounters is

revealed to be ruefully misplaced, becoming the victim of the most harrowing scenes in Game of

Thrones. The on-screen rape of Sansa by her newly-wedded psychopath Ramsay Bolton was the

most shocking example of punishment for conforming to her gender role. Yet, she is manipulated by

Lord Petyr Baelish because of his desire for her; as well as the abuse she suffered at the hands of

Joffrey Baratheon, whom only agreed to marry her in the first place because of her outstanding

beauty. Thus, beauty and her kind, gentle personality played into the hands of those that are

threatened or motivated to dominate purity.

Part IV: The Individual MattersThe neorealist analysis in part two provides a coherent and replicable framework with which

to examine threats of security, and how perceptions of threat can lead to insecurity and a security

dilemma. The security dilemma is a widely utilised theoretical framework, with three dimensions

that can be applied to any inter-group security situation; the indistinguishability of offensive and

defensive military capabilities; a superiority of offensive over defensive action; and the presence or

absence of a window of vulnerability. The application of the security dilemma to the Wildling defeat

at the wall by Stannis Baratheon provided insights into why both sides attacked at particular times.

Structural realism’s focus on factors with little variation through time need a thorough explanation

for why conflict happens at a certain point in time within those structures. The security dilemma is a

sound framework to provide that explanation. Another insight provided by neorealism about the

nature and effect of relative gains in relation to cooperation does successfully explain the Red

Wedding. However, a definite limitation of structural realism is the absence of the possibility of

human agency. Alternative positivist, and emerging post-positivist theories of international relations

are reinforcing the importance of the individual in determining outcomes. This research paper aimed

25

to investigate Game of Thrones in terms of a dominant international relations theoretical

perspective, and then provide a critique through an opposing perspective. An intra-positivist

theoretical debate could have provided more definitive, falsifiable conclusions – however, by

presenting the critique of a post-positivist theory, I have undermined its assumed superiority in

explaining events while also criticising the assumption of scientific rational objectivity neorealism

rests upon. Yet, this paper highlights how neorealism and gender can complement one another –

with neorealism providing insights about the consequences of structural factors, and gender

providing the deeply personalised individual experience of those same structures. In this sense, by

bringing gender to the foreground in international relations, entrenched theories can assimilate

gender into their analyses – inevitably strengthening its explanatory capacity.

An undoubted conclusion from the gender critique is the importance of the individual.

Looking through a gendered lens toward the self-conceptions of gender identities, and how

socialisation of particular behaviour and character traits deemed appropriate for either masculine or

feminine individuals, one can incorporate insights from sociology, psychology, biology, and other

disciplines. Gender theory highlighted the importance of Stannis’ self-perception of his masculinity in

relation to the femininities and masculinities around him, and how this influenced taking immediate

and violent action. The re-evaluation of the analysis of neorealism also highlighted how masculinities

can interact to cause conflict – especially when one feels emasculated by the others’ actions – in this

case Lord Frey’s perception of betrayal by King Robb Stark, and how gender identity can determine

how one reacts. This paper went further than re-evaluating neorealism’s analysis – briefly examining

three areas gender theory provides convincing explanations of and from; the influence of the

ungendered; multiple masculinities among men; and multiple femininities amongst women. The

result of this analysis illustrated how Game of Thrones presents gender roles in particular ways; the

ungendered are successful due to the absence of a perceptible threat; masculinities that embody

hegemonic masculinity navigate the hostile environment less easily than men that utilise feminine

traits to their advantage; while conformity to a stereotypical feminine gender role leads characters

to punishment, non-conformists circumnavigate patriarchal forces and are usually very successful –

thus reinforcing the notion that to be successful like man, woman must simply become more like

him. I am cognisant of the fact this research paper only briefly covers one or two big events in Game

of Thrones, and the gender analysis only focuses on a few individuals, yet the groundwork for an in-

depth look at gender is provided. Further insights could be provided by examining the role of gender

in the eunuch army the Unsullied; the gendered aspects of the varied religions; the gender blind

primogeniture of Drone; and the effect of providing the gender-neutral threat of the White Walkers.

Yet, thus far, one can conclude that gender theory presents coherent and constructive criticisms of 26

neorealism and its capacity for objective scientific explanation of our socially constructed reality.

Game of Thrones not only highlights how important gender is for men as well as women, but that

the characters consistently challenge assumptions about women, and often in radically different

ways – solidifying the importance of the individual, in particular the agency of women.

BibliographyArt, R. & Waltz, K. (2004). The use of force. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Baden-Daintree, A. (2016). Grief, Revenge and Masculine Identity in the Alliterative Morte Arthure. In L.

Dawson, & F. McHardy (Eds.), Revenge and Gender from Classical to Renaissance

Literature. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, Edinburgh.

Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism the Contemporary Debate.

Blanchard, E. (2003). Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory on

JSTOR. Jstor.org. Retrieved 25 May 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/368328

Cai, F. (2011). Absolute and Relative Gains in the Real World. E-International Relations. Retrieved 27 May

2016, from http://www.e-ir.info/2011/04/28/absolute-and-relative-gains-in-the-real-world/

Carpenter, R. (2002). Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist

Standpoint? International Studies Review, 4(3), 153-165. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468

Drezner, D. W. (2011). Theories of international politics and zombies. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University

Press.

Ehrenreich, B. (1983). The hearts of men. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Etten, T. (2014). Questions of Gender and International Relations. E-International Relations. Retrieved 27

May 2016, from http://www.e-ir.info/2014/06/05/questions-of-gender-and-international-relations/

27

Findlay, A. (2012). Female Fury and the Masculine Spirit of Vengeance | Classical Reception Studies Network

| Open University. Open.ac.uk. Retrieved 26 May 2016, from

http://www.open.ac.uk/arts/research/crsn/events/female-fury-and-the-masculine-spirit-vengeance

Forna, A. (2013). Nadine Gordimer helped me see how fiction writing can illuminate reality | Aminatta

Forna. the Guardian. Retrieved 26 May 2016, from

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/aminatta-forna-witness-inward-

testimony-gordimer

Galtung, J. (1975). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. In J. Galtung, Essays in Peace Research (1st ed.).

Copenhagen: Christian Eljers.

Haas, P. (1990). Saving the Mediterranean. New York: Columbia University Press.

Harding, Sandra. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY.

Herz, J. (1951). Political realism and political idealism, a study in theories and realities . [Chicago]: University

of Chicago Press.

Hooper, C. (2016). Masculinist Practices and Gender Politics: The Operation of Multiple Masculinities in

International Relations. In M. Zalewski & J. Parpart, The 'Man' Question in International

Relations (1st ed., pp. 29-53). Boulder: Westview Press.

Jacobson, Jon. (1994). When the Soviet Union Entered World Politics. University of California Press: Berkeley,

p. 271.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. (1985). Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale University Press: New haven, CT.

Mearsheimer, J. (1981). The theory and practice of conventional deterrence.

Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of Great Power politics. New York: Norton.

Mearsheimer, J. (2011). Realists as Idealists. Security Studies, 20(3), 424-430.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2011.599190

Peabody, (2013). [online] Groupthink.kinja.com. Available at: http://groupthink.kinja.com/in-game-of-

thrones-world-of-defined-gender-roles-the-479859031 [Accessed 18 May 2016].

28

Posen, B. (1993). The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival, 35(1), 27-47.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00396339308442672

Shepherd, L. (2010). Gender Matters in International Relations. E-International Relations. Retrieved 27 May

2016, from http://www.e-ir.info/2010/02/20/gender-matters-in-international-relations/

Tickner, J. (1992). Gender in International Relations.

Tickner, J. (1997). You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR

Theorists. Int Studies Q, 41(4), 611-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00060

Tickner, J. (1988). Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation.Millennium -

Journal Of International Studies, 17(3), 429-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0305829888017003080.

Tyler, M. (2012). Are Men Still Missing? The Marginalisation of Feminism and Gender in IR. E-International

Relations. Retrieved 26 May 2016, from http://www.e-ir.info/2012/06/05/are-men-still-missing-the-

marginalisation-of-feminism-and-gender-in-ir/

Truong, A. (2015). Redefining Strong: What Game of Thrones Can Teach Us About Being an Empowered

Woman. [online] Everyday Feminism. Available at: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/women-

game-of-thrones/ [Accessed 18 May 2016].

Waltz, K. (1959). Man, the state, and war. New York: Columbia University Press.

Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Ware, Vron. (1992). Beyond the Pale. London: Verso.

Wilson, S. (2014). The Women of "Game of Thrones": A Study on Gender Roles - The Geekiary. [online] The

Geekiary. Available at: http://thegeekiary.com/the-women-of-game-of-thrones-a-study-on-gender-

roles/7888 [Accessed 18 May 2016].

Wight, Martin. (2005). Four Seminal Thinkers in International Relations Theory: Machiavelli, Grotius, Kant,

and Mazzini.

Zalewski, M. (2010). Fixing Gender in International Politics. E-International Relations. Retrieved 26 May 2016,

from http://www.e-ir.info/2010/08/18/fixing-gender-in-international-politics/

29

30

31