Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:34:13.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feminist methodology between theory and praxis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2020

Elisabeth Prügl Open the ORCID record for Elisabeth Prügl [Opens in a new window]
Elisabeth Prügl*
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article revisits the problematic relationship between feminist theory and praxis through the writings of Marysia Zalewski, one of the foremost feminist theorists of IR. Zalewski has dealt with this relationship through her work on methodology. In three sections, the article explores: (a) her engagement with standpoint theory through her interventions in feminist IR debates with ‘the mainstream’; (b) her adoption of feminist postmodernism, embracing a deconstructive posture and in particular the notion of ‘hauntings’ as a methodological device; and (c) the development of a distinctive methodological attitude that seeks to involve, rather than explain or instruct. Crucially, for Zalewski, theory and praxis/politics cannot be separated methodologically: languages of mastery and an attitude of ‘doing something’ are of one cloth. The paper ends with a reflection about how L. H. M. Ling's method of ‘chatting’ could be enacted in engagements that cross the social fields of academia and policy.

Keywords

Feminist MethodologyStandpoint TheoryFeminist PostmodernismMarysia ZalewskiFeminist Praxis
Type
Forum Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 304 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2020

Access options

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

References

1 Harcourt, Wendy, Ling, L. H. M., Zalewski, Marysia, and Swiss International Relations Collective, ‘Assessing, engaging, and enacting worlds: Tensions in feminist methodologies’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 17:2 (2015), p. 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Zalewski, Marysia, Feminist International Relations: ‘Exquisite Corpse’ (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Distracted reflections on the production, narration, and refusal of feminist knowledge in International Relations’, in Ackerly, Brooke A., Stern, Maria, and True, Jacqui (eds), Feminist Methodologies for International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 51Google Scholar.

4 Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True, ‘Feminist methodologies for International Relations’, in Ackerly, Stern, and True (eds), Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, p. 6.

5 Ackerly, Stern, and True, ‘Feminist methodologies for International Relations’, p. 10.

6 Hutchings, Kimberly, Zalewski, Marysia, Tickner, J. Ann, Sylvester, Christine, Light, Margot, Jabri, Vivienne, and Halliday, Fred, ‘Roundtable discussion: Reflections on the past, prospects for the future in gender and international relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37:1 (2008), p. 177Google Scholar.

7 Harding, Sandra G., The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), p. 141Google Scholar. Other key founding texts include Smith, Dorothy E., The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Hartsock, Nancy, ‘The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism’, in Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill B. (eds), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004)Google Scholar.

8 Harding, Sandra G., ‘Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”?’, in Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth (eds), Feminist Epistemologies (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 54Google Scholar.

9 Hartsock, Nancy, The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 107–08Google Scholar.

10 Tickner, J. Ann, ‘What is your research program? Some feminist answers to International Relations methodological questions’, International Studies Quarterly, 49:1 (2005), pp. 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Brooke A. Ackerly and Jacqui True, ‘Studying the struggles and wishes of the age: Feminist theoretical methodology and feminist theoretical methods’, in Ackerly, Stern, and True (eds), Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, p. 248.

12 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Feminist standpoint theory meets International Relations theory: A feminist version of David and Goliath?’, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 17 (1993), p. 20Google Scholar.

13 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘“Well, what is the feminist perspective on Bosnia?”’, International Affairs, 71:2 (April 1995), p. 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Ibid., p. 353.

15 Collins, Patricia Hill, ‘Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought’, Social Problems, 33:6 (1986), pp. S14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haraway, Donna, ‘Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective’, Feminist Studies, 14:3 (autumn 1988), pp. 575–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harding, Sandra G. (ed.), The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies (London: Psychology Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

16 Zalewski, ‘“Well, what is the feminist perspective on Bosnia?”, p. 353.

17 Zalewski, ‘Feminist standpoint theory meets International Relations theory’, p. 13, citing Enloe.

18 Ibid., p. 14.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., p. 22.

21 This is not the place to recount this debate. See Ann Tickner, J., ‘What is your research program? Some feminist answers to International Relations methodological questions’, International Studies Quarterly, 49:1 (2005), pp. 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ann Tickner, J., ‘You just don't understand: Troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, 41:1 (December 1997), pp. 611–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weber, Cynthia, ‘Good girls, little girls, and bad girls: Male paranoia in Robert Keohane's critique of feminist International Relations’, Millennium, 23:2 (June 1994), pp. 337–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Where is woman in International Relations? “To return as a woman and be heard”’, Millennium, 27:4 (December 1998), pp. 847–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Do we understand each other yet? Troubling feminist encounters with(in) International Relations’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9:2 (2007), pp. 302–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Locher, Birgit and Prügl, Elisabeth, ‘Feminism and constructivism: Worlds apart or sharing the middle ground?’, International Studies Quarterly, 45:1 (2001), pp. 111–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waylen, Georgina, ‘You still don't understand: Why troubled engagements continue between feminists and (critical) IPE’, Review of International Studies, 32:1 (January 2006), pp. 145–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Zalewski, ‘Feminist standpoint theory meets International Relations theory’, p. 21.

23 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘The debauching of feminist theory/the penetration of the postmodern’, Politics 11:1 (April 1991), pp. 30–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Ibid., p. 33.

25 Ibid., p. 34.

26 Ibid., p. 35.

27 Ibid., p. 35.

28 For key texts, see Benhabib, Seyla, Butler, Judith, Cornell, Drucilla, and Fraser, Nancy, Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange (New York and London: Routledge, 1995)Google Scholar; Nicholson, Linda, Feminism/Postmodernism (New York and London: Routledge, 1990)Google Scholar.

29 Zalewski, Marysia, Feminism After Postmodernism?: Theorising Through Practice (London: Routledge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Ibid., p. 30. Even though she progressively embraces postmodernism, she reiterates the importance of understanding standpoints in a recent interview: ‘It, of course, matters very much “who we are” and “from where we speak”, especially when we profess knowledge in some form or other.’ However, she cautions that ‘imagining we can control that, or isolate which bit belongs where, is suggestive of a lingering faith in the “God's eye view”, which feminists have demonstrated as theoretically and politically bereft’. Harcourt et al., ‘Assessing, engaging, and enacting worlds’, p. 170.

31 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘“All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up”: Theorists, theories and theorizing’, in Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken, and Zalewski, Marysia (eds), International Relations: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 340–53Google Scholar.

32 Zalewski, ‘Where is woman in International Relations?’, p. 850.

33 Ibid., p. 862, citing Butler.

34 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Is Women's Studies dead?’, Journal of International Women's Studies, 4:2 (2003), p. 130Google Scholar; emphases in the original.

35 Ibid., p. 129.

36 Ibid., p. 126; citing Brown, Wendy, Politics Out of History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Gordon, Avery, Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

38 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Gender ghosts in McGarry and O'Leary and representations of the conflict in Northern Ireland’, Political Studies, 53:1 (March 2005), p. 213CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Intervening in Northern Ireland: Critically re-thinking representations of the conflict’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 9:4 (December 2006), pp. 479–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Zalewski, ‘Distracted reflections on the production’, p. 52.

41 Zalewski, ‘Gender ghosts in McGarry and O'Leary’, p. 207.

42 Ibid., p. 218.

43 Zalewski, ‘Intervening in Northern Ireland’, p. 484, citing Jameson.

44 Hutchings et al., ‘Roundtable discussion’, p. 179.

45 Zalewski, ‘Do we understand each other yet?’.

46 Stern, Maria and Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Feminist fatigue(s): Reflections on feminism and familiar fables of militarisation’, Review of International Studies, 35:3 (July 2009), p. 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Searching for the hard questions about women's human rights’, in Holder, Cindy and Reidy, David (eds), Human Rights: The Hard Questions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 372Google Scholar.

48 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘“I don't even know what gender is”: A discussion of the connections between gender, gender mainstreaming and feminist theory’, Review of International Studies, 36:1 (January 2010), pp. 12, 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Stern and Zalewski, ‘Feminist fatigue(s)’, pp. 615–16.

50 Zalewski, ‘Searching for the hard questions about women's human rights’, p. 372.

51 Ibid., p. 373, citing MacCormack.

52 Zalewski, Marysia and Runyan, Anne Sisson, ‘Taking feminist violence seriously in feminist International Relations’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 15:3 (September 2013), p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Zalewski, Feminist International Relations, p. 88.

54 Zalewski and Runyan, ‘Taking feminist violence seriously in feminist International Relations’, p. 7.

55 Zalewski, Marysia and Runyan, Anne Sisson, ‘“Unthinking” sexual violence in a neoliberal era of spectacular terror’, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8:3 (2015), pp. 439–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Zalewski, Feminist International Relations, p. 19.

57 Ibid., p. 2.

58 Ibid., pp. 19–23.

59 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Feminist approaches to International Relations theory in the post-Cold War period’, in The Age of Perplexity: Rethinking the World We Knew (London: Penguin Random House Group Editorial, 2018), p. 17Google Scholar.

60 Following Halberstam, Judith, The Queer Art of Failure (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

61 Zalewski, Feminist International Relations, p. 45.

62 Harcourt et al., ‘Assessing, engaging, and enacting worlds’, p. 168.

63 Halberstam, The Queer Art of Failure, kindle loc. l. 65.

64 Harcourt et al., ‘Assessing, engaging, and enacting worlds’, p. 168.

65 Halberstam, The Queer Art of Failure, kindle loc. l. 87.

66 Masters, Cristina and Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Reflections on the Special Section, “Well, what is the feminist perspective on international affairs?”: Theory/practice’, International Affairs, 95:6 (November 2019), p. 1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 For a discussion, see Zalewski, ‘“I don't even know what gender is”’.

68 Masters and Zalewski, ‘Reflections on the Special Section’, p. 1310.

69 Ibid., p. 1310.

70 Harcourt et al., ‘Assessing, engaging, and enacting worlds’, pp. 163–4.

71 Ibid., p. 163.

72 Ling, L. H. M., The DAO of World Politics: Towards a Post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations (New York: Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2013), p. 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Forget(ting) feminism? Investigating relationality in International Relations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32:5 (September 2019), p. 629CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Ling, The DAO of World Politics, p. 123.

75 See Holvikivi, Aiko, ‘Gender experts and critical friends: Research in relations of proximity’, European Journal of Politics and Gender, 2:1 (22 February 2019), p. 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar.