7/31/2019 Feminist International Relations-Unfinished Issue

1/4

Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey by Christine SylvesterReview by: Marysia ZalewskiContemporary Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 29-31Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3593590 .

Accessed: 14/05/2012 08:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3593590?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3593590?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

7/31/2019 Feminist International Relations-Unfinished Issue

2/4

Inequalities 29nequalities 29Hispanic and Asian populations, blacks willlose any special claimthey mighthave on the"nationalconsciousness" by virtue of beingthe oldest or main minority group. She sug-gests that blacks might once again get"passedover"-the firsttime was duringear-lier European migrations-in their strugglefor full participation n U.S. society. DerrickBell argues that there is little empiricalsup-port or logic for thinkingthat U.S. society iswilling or capable of living up to its color-blind ideals. He arguesthat the jury s still outon whether Hispanics and Asians will beenticed into a romance of "quasi-whitesta-tus" or if they will join in coalitions withblacks to fight "the economic and socialrejection"suffered by both. Joe Feagin andHernan Vera maintain that white economicelites exploit racial minorities, while whitepoliticians whip up white's fearof impendingminoritytakeover of the United States.Theyprovocatively argue that the United Stateswill either be forced by unstoppable demo-graphicchange to redistributeresources andpower, or the United States will turn into arepressive and unstable regime resemblingthe former South Africa. In stark contrast,other authors speak blissfully of a futurewhere groups work out their differencescooperativelyand marchin unison toward ahappy multiculturalAmerica. These tensionsare not worked out or directly engaged any-where in the book.The New Politics of Race seems to sug-gest-and I wish that the point was posedmore sharply throughoutthe chapters-thatblacks are at a critical crossroadspolitically.They can continue on the same pathof elect-ing increasingly solated and ineffectiveblackofficials in majorityblack districts(Denton),supportingband-aid social welfare programsthat merely drain away the "revolutionarypotentialin theirdeprivations"Bell), or theycan forge new kinds of coalitions withAsians, Latinos,and white groups cognizantof theirdeclining power. Unfortunately,noneof the chapters discussing politics suggestwhat kinds of organizationsin white, black,Asian, or Hispanic communities might beespecially interested in cross-racialalliances,or why. Nor did the chaptersmake much ofthe nationalbackgroundsof immigrants om-ing into the UnitedStates.Blackdemands areseen as historicallybased, but immigrantsareonly viewed as having immediate demands

Hispanic and Asian populations, blacks willlose any special claimthey mighthave on the"nationalconsciousness" by virtue of beingthe oldest or main minority group. She sug-gests that blacks might once again get"passedover"-the firsttime was duringear-lier European migrations-in their strugglefor full participation n U.S. society. DerrickBell argues that there is little empiricalsup-port or logic for thinkingthat U.S. society iswilling or capable of living up to its color-blind ideals. He arguesthat the jury s still outon whether Hispanics and Asians will beenticed into a romance of "quasi-whitesta-tus" or if they will join in coalitions withblacks to fight "the economic and socialrejection"suffered by both. Joe Feagin andHernan Vera maintain that white economicelites exploit racial minorities, while whitepoliticians whip up white's fearof impendingminoritytakeover of the United States.Theyprovocatively argue that the United Stateswill either be forced by unstoppable demo-graphicchange to redistributeresources andpower, or the United States will turn into arepressive and unstable regime resemblingthe former South Africa. In stark contrast,other authors speak blissfully of a futurewhere groups work out their differencescooperativelyand marchin unison toward ahappy multiculturalAmerica. These tensionsare not worked out or directly engaged any-where in the book.The New Politics of Race seems to sug-gest-and I wish that the point was posedmore sharply throughoutthe chapters-thatblacks are at a critical crossroadspolitically.They can continue on the same pathof elect-ing increasingly solated and ineffectiveblackofficials in majorityblack districts(Denton),supportingband-aid social welfare programsthat merely drain away the "revolutionarypotentialin theirdeprivations"Bell), or theycan forge new kinds of coalitions withAsians, Latinos,and white groups cognizantof theirdeclining power. Unfortunately,noneof the chapters discussing politics suggestwhat kinds of organizationsin white, black,Asian, or Hispanic communities might beespecially interested in cross-racialalliances,or why. Nor did the chaptersmake much ofthe nationalbackgroundsof immigrants om-ing into the UnitedStates.Blackdemands areseen as historicallybased, but immigrantsareonly viewed as having immediate demands

here in the United States that aredisconnect-ed from the colonial or slave historiesin theirnative countries. Thus the larger issues ofglobalizationand North/Southpoliticalstrug-gles and their possible impact on interracialand ethnic coalition-buildingin the UnitedStates, are not considered by the authors.This is an importantomission, as it distortsthe balance of forces affectingpolitics in theUnited States, as well as global debatesalreadyinfluencingrace and ethnic identitiesin this country. For example, in terms ofpressureon U.S. institutions o recognize thesignificanceof ethnic and racialdiversity,cer-tainly the rising economic and politicalimportance of developing countries (China,Mexico, Nigeria) is as importanta factor asdemographictrends inside the United States.The coalitions that blacks, Hispanics, andother groups pursue in the future could betransnationalas well as internally (in theU.S.) cross-ethnic.The New Politics of Race pulls togetherinteresting data and begins to open upimportant questions about the changingmeaning of race and ethnicity in the UnitedStates,but I hope it is only the beginning ofa more far-reachingexploration.

here in the United States that aredisconnect-ed from the colonial or slave historiesin theirnative countries. Thus the larger issues ofglobalizationand North/Southpoliticalstrug-gles and their possible impact on interracialand ethnic coalition-buildingin the UnitedStates, are not considered by the authors.This is an importantomission, as it distortsthe balance of forces affectingpolitics in theUnited States, as well as global debatesalreadyinfluencingrace and ethnic identitiesin this country. For example, in terms ofpressureon U.S. institutions o recognize thesignificanceof ethnic and racialdiversity,cer-tainly the rising economic and politicalimportance of developing countries (China,Mexico, Nigeria) is as importanta factor asdemographictrends inside the United States.The coalitions that blacks, Hispanics, andother groups pursue in the future could betransnationalas well as internally (in theU.S.) cross-ethnic.The New Politics of Race pulls togetherinteresting data and begins to open upimportant questions about the changingmeaning of race and ethnicity in the UnitedStates,but I hope it is only the beginning ofa more far-reachingexploration.Feminist International Relations: AnUnfinishedJourney, by Christine Sylvester.Cambridge, UK; New York: CambridgeUniversityPress, 2002. 350 pp. $65.00 cloth.ISBN:0-521-79177-4.$25.00 paper. ISBN: 0-521-79627-X.MARYSIAALEWSKIQueens University-Belfast,UKm.zalewski@queens-belfast.ac.kFeminists of varying persuasions are con-stantly reminded of the paradoxes of theirendeavors. While working toward destabiliz-ing the epistemologicaland ontological mas-ter-narrativesof our discipline or field ofstudy, we are simultaneouslydrawn towardthe traditional measures of legitimacy andauthority. Christine Sylvester's expeditionthrough nearlytwo decades of feminist workin and on InternationalRelations, primarilythrough re-citings of her own previouslypublished work, intriguingly performs thisdilemma.

Feminist International Relations: AnUnfinishedJourney, by Christine Sylvester.Cambridge, UK; New York: CambridgeUniversityPress, 2002. 350 pp. $65.00 cloth.ISBN:0-521-79177-4.$25.00 paper. ISBN: 0-521-79627-X.MARYSIAALEWSKIQueens University-Belfast,UKm.zalewski@queens-belfast.ac.kFeminists of varying persuasions are con-stantly reminded of the paradoxes of theirendeavors. While working toward destabiliz-ing the epistemologicaland ontological mas-ter-narrativesof our discipline or field ofstudy, we are simultaneouslydrawn towardthe traditional measures of legitimacy andauthority. Christine Sylvester's expeditionthrough nearlytwo decades of feminist workin and on InternationalRelations, primarilythrough re-citings of her own previouslypublished work, intriguingly performs thisdilemma.

Contemporary ociology33, 1ontemporary ociology33, 1

7/31/2019 Feminist International Relations-Unfinished Issue

3/4

30 InequalitiesThe book begins with an overview of themethodological conundrums the academicfield of International Relations has tussledwith since the late 1970s and early 1980s.Sylvesterimposingly chartsher way through

theoretical turf wars, expertly mappingdebates around realism and neoliberal insti-tutionalism, the British inspired interpara-digm debate, critical theory andpostmodernism,through to the currentturnto culture and constructivism.Weaving ques-tions about gender into her discussion, sheremindsthe readerthat her main focus is onfeminist work in InternationalRelations, ndi-cating her intention to act as a guide to analternative(feminist) trail through the field.To begin this task, Sylvesterselects three sin-gle authored books written by three U.S.feminists:Jean Bethke Elshtain's1987 book,Women and War, Cynthia Enloe's 1989,Bananas, Beaches, and Bases, and J. AnnTickner's 1992, Gender and InternationalRelations.

Veering away from the conventionalcourse of InternationalRelations, Sylvesterreturns o these "indisputable lassics" p. 18)to remind the reader how Elshtain, Enloe,and Ticknerhave enabled clearersightingsofgender in International Relations. (Thebook's three main sections are titled"Sightings,"Sitings,"nd "Citings"-enticing-ly gesturingto ways in which we see, don'tsee, or might see gender). Sylvester tells astoryabout each book, a narrativehatplaceseach writer in terms of their private lives,theirpersonallinks with and to the disciplineof International Relations, their distinctiveapproachesto the questions of feminismandgender and InternationalRelations,and theirtheoretical place within feminism. Elshtainand Enloe's sexual identities are flagged;Tickner is positioned as the wife of a "'bigman' of IR" (p. 40). Sylvester describesElshtainas offeringa "methodologicallynno-vative feminist ethnographyof war"(p. 23);Enloe focuses her attention, not onInternationalRelations,but ratherthe "worldIR purports to study" (p. 29); whereasTickner concentrates "almostexclusively onAmericanIR" p. 43). Elshtain s identified asthe most postmodernof the three,with Enloepositioned as a standpointfeminist,althoughshe "can sound like a constructivist some-times"(p. 32); Tickner is also signposted asseeming "comfortablewith standpoint femi-Contemporary ociology33, 1

nism"(p. 42). All three scholars are honoredfor their contributionto-or creation of-thecanon of feminist InternationalRelations,andall are reproachedfor their shortcomings.InElshtain's ase, this involves not alwaysmain-taining her own standardsof openness andbalance (p. 29); Enloe's tendency towardanecdotes and exuberant generalizationsrather than more systematic research, con-cerns Sylvester (p. 35); while Tickner's"slimtext"(p. 42) elides the opportunityto engagerobustly enough with complex feministdebates (p. 47).The rest of the book, indeed the vast bulkof it (12 out of 14 chapters), is devoted toSylvester'spreviously published essays, eachprefaced by a short genealogical positioningthat, taken together, impartto the reader avivid sense of Sylvester'sown personal andintellectual travels.To be sure, many, if notmost or all of these chapters are inspiring,innovative, challenging, even touching onthe brilliant.I particularly alue the essay on"HandmaidsTales of WashingtonPower:theAbject and the Real Kennedy White House"(Chapter 3). Interweaving "feministtheory"and "internationalelationstheory,"Sylvesternarrates a unique tale of the practices ofpower in Kennedy'sadministration. t is oneof Sylvester's trademarks to combine theseemingly incompatible,to great effect. Oneof her most recent ventures in this regardinvolves a cross-fertilizationbetween (high)artand InternationalRelations("Feministartsof InternationalRelations,"Chapter13). Theother chapters in the book cover a widerange of Sylvester'swork since 1987 to thepresent.

This is an interestingbook, indeed a valu-able book. Sylvester's feminist voyagethroughInternationalRelationshas producedsome extraordinarily ood work. Yet, I thinkthe readermightreflecton the choice of textsto foregroundSylvester'swork. It is not thatI think Elshtain, Enloe, and Tickner do notdeserve a place in the canon of feministInternationalRelations,they surely do. But Iquestion the genuflection to U.S. producedwork alongside the acceptance of the con-ventionalmarkerof the university publishingestablishment-the single authored book. Iam not saying Sylvesteris wrong to do this,but it does indicatethat the conservativehier-archy bequeathed by the discipline ofInternationalRelationshas enticed Sylvester

7/31/2019 Feminist International Relations-Unfinished Issue

4/4