2 forum responses 1 question International relations theory 300 words each with works cited.
International relations, as well as much of politics and history has primarily been a male-dominated environment until fairly recently, when more and more women have been involved in international relations, as well as researchers delving into the accounts of women and their roles in the past. It is also general knowledge that much of our formal history is told not only by men, but white men. Essentially, up until recent times, the vast majority of the rhetoric and perspectives of international relations and political science have been one-sided.
The effects of the study of international relations encompass everybody; not just the men. When women are included in the dialogue and discussion, and (perhaps most importantly) are taken seriously, everyone benefits. In a hypothetical situation that could be applied to almost any area of conflict, national leaders and organizations will think about the potential for armed violence, what sorts of militias are forces will be required to defeat the opposition, etc. In many of these situations, the combatants are men. However, while men are fighting, it is the women who are often at home, maintaining the home and society and community while also dealing with the effects of conflict, and may also be facing non-combatant violence, such as sexual assault and rape.
The implications of a feminist approach are simple. By recognizing the abuse and violence that happen outside of combat zones and the amount and types of unpaid labor that women do every day (child-rearing, home upkeep), governments and leaders will have a more in-depth understanding of what their countries are capable of, what resources are needed, and what the concerns of all of their citizens are. By not implicating feminism, men suffer as well. By placing such a high value on hypermasculine actions, men have heightened and intensified expectations of what it is to be a man, and thus powerful (Evans 2016, 555). However, as Rebecca Susan Evans writes, referencing J. Ann Tickner, “…contemporary economic, environmental, and terrorism-related security issues cannot be addressed with military power alone (2016, 555).” By allowing the power of men to exist outside of brute or military force and combining it with the strengths and capabilities of women, only then can a nation use the fullest extent of its resources.
The scientific method is made in order to formulate, hypothesize, collect data and analyze it, and finally conclude the results of the subject the person is exploring. So when a group of theorists try to argue and disregard the scientific method in the field of international relations simply does not compute for me at least. So no I do not agree with the critical theorist statements. Humans are what created everything we have today except for the earth and all the inhabitants in it, and humans are no perfect beings that are simple to describe and explore. So when pertaining to international relations, of course, there are ways of using the scientific method along with the social sciences to determine the cause and effects of what occurs in the world. It is simply due to the reason because we people are at the helm and make the decisions in which affect the world around us. These can be used to conclude results to answer the questions we want to know the answers to. So a scientific method does have the ability to be a useful tool in the study of international relations.
Two advantages that the critical theory has a use for in international relations are that it offers many schools of thought and philosophy in which it can be used for multiple purposes that people are looking for to be used in the international relations field. Another advantage of the critical theory is that it improves the understanding of society due to the multiple integrations of many social sciences that are used in comprehending society.