ROOTS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

When society requires to be rebuilt, there is no use in attempting to rebuild it on the old plan. No great improvements in the lot of mankind are possible until a great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought. �JOHN STUART MILL

OUR ANALYTICAL MINDS rarely tend toward a holistic view of complex systems, such as national and international relations. For example, take a moment and picture a tree. What do you see? Perhaps you envision a tall tree with many leaves and a big straight trunk with long branches. Do you think about the root system that is sometimes larger than the part of the tree above- ground�the roots that keep the tree alive? What alternatives would you have to heal sick trees or to grow new trees if you never considered the roots? We rarely consider the whole picture, and Mill is right that our own modes of thought are the key to effective and positive change. In this book we ask that you consider the whole picture when examining the world of states and inter- national society. Although often overlooked, sex and gender play a big role in world affairs. By overlooking sex and gender, we limit the policy alternatives that we see in the quest to find solutions to world problems.

In this chapter, which is oriented to undergraduates in international relations (IR) classes, we introduce some of the theories you have been taught about national and international relations and then show you the �roots� of them. We also examine some foundational definitions and concepts that may help us begin to see the roots more clearly. The point is to see the entire tree�not just the part aboveground and not just the roots.

You were taught that a sustainable population meant population control, but were you told that empowering women will naturally restore the population balance? Slowing population growth does not necessarily entail population control�the restriction of the number of children women are allowed to bear. The best approach is to support reproductive freedom for women. With reproductive freedom, women tend to have fewer children. Population control rests on a top-down approach that punishes rather than empowers. Reproductive freedom, on the other hand, gives women choice. If you weren�t taking a gendered perspective, you might see population control as the only alternative. Yet when you take into consideration the empowerment of women, policies based on reproductive freedom become viable alternatives that are arguably more effective.

You were taught that the U.S. economic recession that began in 2008 may have altered the landscape of power in the international system, but were you told that this meltdown may have been aggravated by the exclusion of women from important decision-making roles in society? If women were to make up one-third of corporate boards, it is possible that the likelihood of a banking failure would be diminished because women tend to be more risk averse. Women and men working together as equals create a more balanced perspective. In addition, studies have shown that women tend to be less corrupt than men. Without taking a gendered perspective, you might think that the recession precipitated by the banking failure was inevitable, but once you look at gender you realize that the global economy is profoundly affected by the structural power of each gender in society.

You were taught that AIDS is affecting the future of states, but were you told that the roots of the AIDS epidemic are to be found in sexual violence against women, sexual exploitation of women, sex trafficking of women, etc.? HIV/AIDS is devastating parts of Africa and India and is on the rise in China. HIV/AIDS is disproportionately affecting women because the structural in-equality of men and women in traditional cultures ensures that women have little real choice to refuse sexual relations, even when such a refusal would be an act of self-preservation. Myths such as that having sex with a female virgin will cure a man of HIV/AIDS feed into the violence against women and girls and further spread the disease. Limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, therefore, requires a gendered perspective that includes education and emphasis on gender equality in sexual relations, rather than just treating the symptoms and making condoms available to women who have no power to make men use them.

You were taught that poor states invest little in their people and treat women badly, but were you told that states that treat women badly are more likely to be poor and invest little in their people? Certainly poor states have few resources to invest in their people�they have few social and welfare services available. What is often not seen is that women bear the brunt of the lack of such services in these states, making up for that lack through their un-paid labor. Interestingly, those states that invest in their women�for example, ensuring that girls are educated to an equal level with that of boys � are more likely to be wealthy, to be stable, and to be democratic. So taking a gendered perspective allows us to realize that foreign aid to poor states isn�t enough to change the underlying inequality that leads to poor economic growth, insta- bility, and autocracy. Policies must target societal norms of gendered inequality and violence that prevent the state from achieving the prosperity, stability, and political freedom its citizens crave.

You were taught that the security of the state rests on power (getting it, keeping it, and displaying it), but were you told that norms of equality create a more sure security for the state? What makes a state safer�power or gender equality? The answer may surprise you: both make a state more secure. Those states that foster gender equality through laws and enforce those laws are less likely to go to war. They are less likely to use force first when in conflict. They are less likely to get involved in violent crises. Once again, a gender-neutral perspective leads you to focus on military might, whereas a gendered perspec- tive highlights the importance of gender equality to facilitate state security.

You were taught that states go to war over oil and scarce resources, but were you told that the roots of violence are even more micro-level than that? States do go to war over oil and scarce resources, among other things, but they are more likely to do so if the society has norms of violence rooted in gender inequality. Violence becomes an acceptable option when women are not considered equals. Here, too, you will find that a gendered perspective leads to different conclusions about international affairs. Oil and scarce resources are a source of conflict, but they do not necessarily lead to war. Those societies that have gender equality are less likely to resort to warfare to meet their resource needs.

You were taught that the clash of civilizations is based on ethnopolitical differences, but did you know that the real clash of civilizations may instead be based on gender beliefs? Samuel Huntington argues that people�s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in our world; in his view, the fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. It would appear, however, that the battle lines of the future are more likely to be found between those states that treat women equally and those states that are fraught with gender inequality. The important cultural distinction is actually between societies that have greater gender equality and those that foster an environment of gender inequality and gender violence. As stated above, societies that are more gender-equal are less likely to go to war, to use force first during conflicts, or to be involved in violent international crises.

You were taught the democratic peace theory�that democratic states are much less likely to go to war with other democratic states�but were you told that democracy was rooted in the character of gender relations? As we will explore in a subsequent chapter, the historian Mary Hartman argues that the unique experience of Europe�one that included the greatest equality for women�gave rise to sustainable democracy in that continent. Democracy in this sense stands on the shoulders of gender equality. As stated above, states with greater gender equality are more likely to be democratic, stable, and prosperous.

You were taught that youth bulges would be an important demographic factor affecting the destiny of states, but were you told that the existence of such bulges depends on whether women have choices in their sexual life and choices in their reproductive life? And were you told that sex ratios are a major force that will also affect the future of the world? Youth bulges and an excess of males from skewed sex ratios lead to migration, crime, revolution, and even war. It is women�s lack of reproductive freedom that is at the root of both youth bulges and the phenomenon called �bare branches,� in which young adult males find themselves vastly outnumbering women in their age cohort. Whether we speak of husbands or of states that manipulate women�s bodies for their own reproductive aims, these population imbalances have at their root unequal gender relations.

You were taught that loss of life in war, civil war, and genocide is a major source of suffering and a major focus of international relations (IR) theory, but were you told that most lives are lost not because of these kinds of conflict but rather as a result of societal devaluation of female life? Interestingly, more lives are lost through violence against women from sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, suicide, egregious maternal mortality, and other sex-linked causes than were lost during all the wars and civil strife of the twentieth century. From this perspective, the greatest security dilemma is, then, the systemic insecurity of women�half of the world�s population. Indeed, if we want to be technical about it, the systemic insecurity of women has resulted in a situation in which women are now no longer half of humanity, with a world sex ratio of 101.3 men per 100 women on the planet.

The treatment of women is an �unseen foundation� for many of the phenomena we see as important in international affairs. What you were taught was simply the visible branches of the tree. We ask that you look beyond the obvious to see the roots that give rise to the phenomena discussed. Policymakers trying to find solutions to problems are quick to dismiss women as important actors�or do not think about women at all. Yet, as we have shown, it is imperative to take a gendered perspective to understand international issues.

In this book we take a micro-level approach to understanding international relations. We argue that gender inequality is a form of violence that creates a generalized context of violence and exploitation at the societal level. These norms of violence have an impact on everything from population growth to economics and regime type. In IR theory, we assume that our theoretical assumptions, such as the democratic peace thesis, are gender neutral. These assumptions, however, clearly take a male-centric view. We want you to see the whole picture�the tree and the roots�and to experience an approach to understanding that does not exclude but rather embraces a female perspective. It is this gendered approach that is often ignored and might be compared with the roots of the tree. In this book we will make the case that the treatment of women is an unseen foundation for many of the phenomena we see as important in international affairs.

Sex and World Peace offers three major contributions: two of them analytical and one normative. First, we hold that gender in quality, in all of its many manifestations, is a form of violence�no matter how invisible or normalized that violence may be. This gender-based violence not only destroys homes but, we argue, also significantly affects politics and security at both the national and the international levels. This linkage�empirical as well as theoretical�between gender inequality and national and international security is a new approach that has seldom if ever been considered within the discipline of international relations (and other disciplines as well). In a major shift from the conventional understanding, we suggest that efforts to establish greater peace and security throughout the world might be made more effective by also addressing the violence and exploitation that occur in personal relationships between the two halves of humanity, men and women.

A second contribution of this book is to suggest that security studies must include an account of women�s security in order to fully address phenomena at the state and system levels. We hope a consideration of the situation of women will become as central to the discussion of world security as power, democracy, religion, culture, resources, and economic growth currently are. We hope that by the time you finish reading this volume, you will consider it quite odd that something so basic and so essential to peace and security is only now beginning to be recognized as such.

Our final hope is this book will be not simply an academic exercise but also a call to action. Through an examination of possible strategies to effect change in both top-down and bottom-up directions, we hope to provide information about skills and best practices that can be put to use immediately on behalf of women. In particular, our focus is on three major areas of concern: to improve the bodily integrity and physical security of women in their homes and communities, to render family and personal status law equitable between men and women, and to increase women�s participation in the councils of human decision making at all levels.

Before we begin, we need to set out a few foundational definitions and concepts.

FOUNDATIONAL DEFINITIONS

Sex refers to the biological differences between men and women. For example, women can have babies; men cannot.¹

Gender refers to the socially defined differences between men and women. For example, women are socialized to be what the society onsiders feminine� submissive, sentimental, nurturing, etc.� whereas men are socialized to be what the society considers to be masculine�strong, stoic, protective, etc.

Gender as an Adjective: One of the complicated aspects of the English language is that the adjective for �sex���sexual��has connotations both about sexual intercourse/sexual practices and about sex as the biological difference between men and women. Thus the term �sexual beliefs� could refer to beliefs about sexual intercourse/practices or beliefs about the relationship between the sexes. Because of this inherent linguistic difficulty, when an adjective is required we will use the word �gender� in this volume to refer to both gender and sex. Thus the term �gender beliefs� refers to beliefs held within the society about the relationship between the genders as well as the relationship between the sexes. A �gendered perspective� refers to a perspec- tive that takes into account issues of both gender and sex. �Gender equality� refers to equality between the genders and between the sexes.

Inequality is understood as an aspect of violence based on the relative power or standing a person has in society. For example, the inequality of women in some states effectively allows men to rape their wives, or it may allow employers to pay female employees less than they pay male employees. When we contrast equality with inequality, we do not define �equality� as sameness or identity. Men and women do not have to be the same to be equal. One can have equality in the context of difference. Therefore, our definition of �inequality� does not denote difference per se; rather it refers to the subordination of one who is different.

FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS

WOMEN AS BOUNDARIES OF THE GROUP

Jan Jindy Pettman, extending the work of Nira Yuval-Davis, has called women the boundaries of their nations.². What she means by this phrase is that women physically and culturally reproduce their group. While women who are not of the group may physically reproduce it, they will be inadequate cultural reproducers. Only in-group women can play both roles for the group and effectively ensure its survival.

As a result, the capture through force or seduction of women from one group by men of another is not simply a personal issue; it is a group issue. This may be codified in law. For example, take the case of a Lebanese Christian man who married a Muslim woman of the United Arab Emirates and did not convert to Islam: the government of the UAE convicted him of violating Islamic marriage laws and sentenced him to one year in jail and thirty-nine lashes for this offense against the group.3 Similarly, women in many societies still possess only conditional citizenship, which they may not be able to confer upon their children. A woman�s citizenship will be inferred from her father before she is married, and inferred from her husband after she is married. If he is from another country, she may lose her home country citizenship altogether, and her children will be considered citizens of the father�s country. In cases where a woman has children out of wedlock with a man from another country, her children may actually end up entirely stateless (see WomanStats variables CLCW and CLCC).⁴

Because of the unique position of in-group women in the group�s survival, the group will aim to protect the women from capture by other groups. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why the symbol of a nation is often personified as a woman, in order to elicit these deep feelings of protection. A woman becomes a �protectee� of the men of the group, especially those in her own family. However, as V. Spike Peterson has noted, over time this �protection� begins to elide into �control� and �possession.�⁵ �Protecting� a woman may involve practices such as purdah and infibulation,⁶which in effect lower the cost to men of protecting their female kin. Indeed, one story of how female infanticide came first to northwest India involved local patriarchs who wished to prevent the capture of their daughters by invading Aryans, who would use them as wives and concubines to cement their rule over the country. To �protect� their daughters from such capture, their fathers killed them.⁷ To understand that logic more fully, we must introduce a second concept.

HONOR/SHAME SOCIETIES

Because of the unique role that in-group women play as boundaries of the group, with the resulting need of the group to protect them, the value of a woman in many cultures soon becomes associated with the state of her sexual relations. If she is chaste before marriage, and perfectly sexually faithful after marriage, her sexual relations build the group. If her sexual relations and attendant behavior, such as manner of dress, do not conform to this model, her activities are viewed as bringing chaos and instability to the group. Thus the need to protect a woman becomes more and more associated with the need to protect her chastity�not her life, not her freedom. Indeed, her life and her freedom are both subordinate to the goal of ensuring her chastity�and may even be at odds with that goal.

In this way, the honor of her family and her group becomes associated with her sexual behavior in an almost one-to-one correspondence. This is especially true for the men of her family: the chastity of their female kin is their honor.⁸ As one of our Ecuadorean students related to us, a common saying in her country is, �The honor of a man lies between the legs of a woman.� Serap Cileli, author of the book We Are Your Daughters, Not Your Honor, recounts,

In many families, boys grow up as first class citizens and girls are second class citizens. Boys see their fathers hitting their mothers and learn to abuse their wives. Daughters are seen as a burden and as a possible source of social shame. The Quran says that men and women should be virgins at the time of marriage, but most men are no longer virgins by 18. Most of these young men have sex with non-Muslim girls but then want to marry a Muslim and a virgin. . . . The concept of honor is attached to the physical purity of the woman, and that�s why only her blood can cleanse the shame her actions bring on a family.⁹