How Tickner’s Feminist Approach Can Change The World

Tickner’s article, Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism, A Feminist Reformulation, poses some thought-provoking critiques of the realist approach to international relations. Not only are her arguments representative of the feminist perspective, they also revise realist theory to include broader themes which are critical to understanding politics, such as culture, community, and environment. By reframing the classic realist understanding of politics from an amoral and objective study to one that considers all possible factors and perspectives, Tickner’s argument offers a possible pathway towards changing the world. And in my opinion, this broad framework for analyzing international politics is the best chance we have to address issues of inequality, warfare, and other struggles between countries.

In her article, Tickner proposes that, “a truly realistic picture of international politics must recognise elements of co-operation as well as conflict, morality as well as realpolitik, and the strivings for justice as well as order.” (Tickner 437) This point is crucial for her argument because it explains that a synthesis of both realist and feminist approaches are necessary for a truly multidimensional understanding of the world. While realism does make some relevant claims about the importance of the balance of power and security, it is also based on an approach to politics that is one-sided, absolute, and objective. Realpolitik, the realist foreign policy, focuses on making decisions without consideration for morality, a practice that Tickner says, “detracts from our ability to tolerate cultural differences and to seek potential for building community in spite of these differences.”(433)​​ Thus, an amoral approach to politics diminishes our ability to gain a wholistic view of politics. Furthermore, realism emphasizes the idea that international politics is ‘largely stable/continuous’ because the structure of the system is based in human nature, which cannot change. This idea neglects to consider all of the contextual factors that have shaped our international community, proving its one-sided and narrow-minded nature. This realist approach, compared to Liberalist, Constructivist, or Feminist’s approach, misses out on other explanatory factors, such as changes in environment, norms, and culture. Clearly, there are a plethora of other foreign policy factors that realism, on its own, fails to address.

It is in the search for such missing factors that we come across Tickner’s Femininst Reformulation. Firstly, Tickner revises Morgenthau’s idea of politics as governed by objective laws with roots in human nature by adding the concept of dynamic objectivity, the idea that we should be open to new information to inform policy. To support this argument, Tickner explains that as a femist, we should be, “skeptical about the possibility of finding a universal and objective foundation for knowledge,” as realists believe, and instead should, “share the belief that knowledge is socially constructed.” (432) This point addresses the issues presented in the text above, that Realism’s absolute definition of power poses the danger of a one sided argument. Another central revision made by Tickner aims to change the concept of power and security proposed by Morgenthau. Instead of conceiving of power as absolute, she proposes that it should be seen as a communal effort. As she argues, “thinking about power in this multidimensional sense may help us to think constructively about the potential for cooperation as well as conflict.” In terms of national security, Tickner claims that interdependent thinking about military, economic, and environmental security will be mutually beneficial for all parties, by influencing new methods of conflict resolution. Altogether, these adaptations to the classic realist thought not only adjust, but augment our modern approach to foreign policy.

In conclusion, Tickner’s revisions to the realist approach embody the policy changes that are necessary to make this world a better place. As she puts it, “if the way in which we describe reality has an effect on the ways we perceive and act upon our environment, new perspectives might lead us to consider alternative courses of action.” (434) And it will be these new perspectives, proposed by Tickner, that will help legislators and politicians fundamentally change their view of the world, and hopefully devise solutions that prove more effective than those of the power-centric perspective of the realist.