Theories of International Politics

Like other field of politics, the political theories of international relations also deal
with empirical and normative aspects. The empirical scientific theory tries to explain the
working of the nature of international politics and treats the human realm of international
politics as a part of nature.While on the other side, normative theory tries to make us
understand whatthe events mean. It shows that events do not occur simply, but they have
symbolic and normative meaning for the actors. What actors mean by their action depends on
the idea that they consider valuable and worthy. There have been long, historical debatesover
values like the right of a nation to declared itself free, sovereign right of nation, self-defence,
legitimate and illegitimate regimes, just and unjust wars, moral responsibility of legitimate
regime to intervene in the situation when other nations need help or humanitarian
intervention etc.
However, when we move from the domestic sphere to the international sphere of
political theory, moral value for states interaction concernsappear weak and no consensus is
found among theories on the right act for states and who will act on the behalf of
international community to decide just and unjust.According to realist and liberal theories,
international politics is characterized by the absence of world government. The area of
international politics is seen as a Hobbesian state of nature and states are considered as
largely self-sufficient and competitive units, driven by instinct of self-interests and norms and
culture of particular society. Morality in international politics is also treated as a flowing
from the free will of the states and each powerful state on its partinfluences the other states to
adjust their behaviour according to the values that it holds.As power transition perspective
argues that there is close relation between powerful state and norms and values promoted by
a particular state. Thus hegemon state and ethics uphold by that state has greater role in
shaping ethical norms of particular time. Hence in absence of world government the
immediate moral concern in the international system or community of states, is argued as to
maintain order, precedence of order over justice, and prevent war by giving preference to
peaceful settlement of disputes.
The realist understanding of international politics has been challenged by rival
theories that claim that the absence of central world government does not mean
absence of moral and human concerns. They have also challenged the state centric
view of IR and claimed that the communities, individuals, groups and international
 organizations are also part of international politics. “International relations consist of
such a broad range of behaviour, encompassing multiple levels, that no one image,
explanation, or model, in any composite sense, could be expected to explain allof
international behaviour. If a minefield mentality exists, it results partly from
unwillingness to recognize clear differences in what is conventionally called the
dependent variable”(Sullivan 2001: 2).The alternative approach to international
politics focus on the different levels of analysis of international politics and the role of
ideas, discourses and values upheld by nations and represented by the state in
international politics. The alternative conceptualizations to power politics by Critical
Theory, Constructivist Theory and Feminist Theory brought non-force concepts like
identity, culture, human emancipation, global governance, integration, human
security, human rights, democratic peace, humanitarian intervention, collective
security and nationalism to understand the nature of interaction and interests defining
process among the states.

Liberalism
In the field of international relations theory, liberalism is often viewed as the ethical
alternative to an ostensibly amoral realism. Liberal theory is the optimistic theory of
international politics. It does not believe that international politics has origins that are
different from domestic politics. The purpose of international politics is same as that of
domestic politics: to achieve a happy and honourable life of people and norms and value-
based relations among states, groups and communities across the world.
Since the days of Western Enlightenment, the liberal scholars have argued that
democracies are legitimate regimes because they are based on the consent of the people
whom they govern and are peaceful in nature. Kant’s democratic peace theory is the bases of
liberal democratic peace theory. According to Kant, the three articles of peace, i.e.
democratic rule, the pacific union between democracies, and the “cosmopolitan law”
emanating from economic interdependence arethe prerequisites for the evolution of humanity
towards global peace and cooperation (see Doyle 1986: 1156; Danilovic and Clare 2007:
398).Liberal democracies share common values and norms, and recognize each other as
legitimate forms of government. Hence, they do not indulge in war with each other. These
regimes based on rational constitutions believe that it is in their interest to adhere to
international law in their foreign policies. They have mutual respect for each other and
peaceful relations bound them under perpetual peace or democratic zone of peace (Kant
1970; Doyle 1986; Fukuyama 1992).The peaceful restraints work only among democracies
and at the same time they are prone to make war with non-democracies to promote the value
of freedom (Doyle 1986: 1152).
Following the three Kantian principles (of democracy, interdependence and
cosmopolitan law) the scholars of international liberalism focus on each of these aspects.
Doyle (1986, 2005) highlights the importance of liberal democracy and cosmopolitan law.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1990) focus on interdependence; and Fukuyamaon liberal
democracy (1992). Republican representation, an ideological commitment to fundamental
human rights, and transnational interdependence are the three causal mechanisms to explain
the foreign affairs of liberal-democratic states. The foreign policy of a republican state is
bound to promote peace and make war with non-liberal state in order to protect and promote
freedom, free market and to form alliances to promote democratic zone of peace (Doyle
2005). According to liberal theorists, the foreign policy of a state does not depend on the
structure of international politics but on the nature of domestic regime. As Sebastian Rosato
argues, the republican state acts as a Kantian pacific state when it deals with other republican
or liberal democracies, and as a Machiavellian Imperial state to promote what J. S. Mill
called the civilizational mission of teaching the art of governing to the barbarian nations
(2003: 588).
As already mentioned, the scholars of democratic peace theory have explored the
impact of cosmopolitan nationalism, management of relations through institutional and
reducing national competition through economic interdependence. Following the experience
of mature democracies of the West within the European Union and NATO, scholars have
argued that interaction through international institution and collective security through
regional arrangement has made force irrelevant in Europe (Deutsch 1957; Haas 1961;
Keohane 1977).
The liberal democratic peace theory provides the normative logic that liberal political
order is peaceful. It argues that democracies promote rule based order and are committed to
protecting the life of people when an illegitimate regime rules over them or a government
violates the basic laws of human dignity through acts such as genocide and apartheid. Thus,
there is a moral argument in the liberal theory on the nature of the democratic system and
foreign policy. The Western civilizational mission has been criticized on the ground that
European colonialism promoted Western imperial interests rather than democracy and
freedom in their colonies. The liberal claim of no major wars between Britain, France and US
during their imperial expansion has also criticised as Sebastian Rosato puts as:
The democratic peace theorists have claimed that Britain, France, and the United
States were not sufficiently liberal in the period under review and thus cannot be
expected to reliably externalize their internal norms. If this claim is true, the
normative logic cannot tell us a great deal about international politics. The no major
warbetween Britain, France, and the United States during the colonial expansion can
be explained by otherfactors like balance of power and convergence of national
interests (Rosato 2003: 560).
The available evidence suggests that democracies do not have a powerful inclination
to treat legitimate regimes with trust and respect when their interests clash. During the Cold
War, American interventions to destabilize fellow democracies in the developing world, like
Guyana, Brazil, and Chile, involved instances where democratic processes were fairly well
established. Iran, Indonesia, and Nicaragua were fledgling democracies. When their interests
came in conflict with each other, none of the target states had turned to communism or joined
the communist bloc and were led by what were at most left-leaning democratically elected
governments. American officials chose neither to trust nor to respect them, preferring to
destabilize them by force and replace them with autocratic regimes (Rosato 2003: 590). Even
in post-Cold War era, the United States did not trust its European democratic allies. It had
adopted an information technology surveillance system spying and monitoring the European
Union states.  Thus, “the international system is, and always has been, inherently adversarial,
even among allies. To paraphrase the 19th-century British statesman Lord Palmerstone,
countries don’t have friends, they have interests” (Fisher 2013:1). The states may be
democracies and allies but they are also competing with each other in many areas. In order to
protect their national interest, it is their national ethic to do what they can.
Liberal theory generally entails assumptions about the dignity of humanity and beliefs
about rights, found in documents like the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the US
Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and human dignity would be
recognized and protected by an effective system of international laws maintained and
supported by international institutions. These concepts entail an indispensable universal and
secular vision of human or political modernity as closely related to European Enlightenment.
However, the European experience of colonization of the nineteenth century denied these to
the colonized in practice (Chakrabarty 2000; Chibber 2013; Said 2003).1
Realism
1
In practice, non-Europeans were treated as barbarians, subhumans, and unworthy of dignity whether it was the
colonization of Asia and Africa in the nineteenth century or the response to Japan during the Second World War
and Vietnam War.
Realism as a political paradigm in international politics emerged only after the end of First
World War. However, the realist arguments and orientations have been central to Western
political theory and practice of international relations. In particular,the ideas of Thucydides in
the fifth century BC and modern realist political thinkers like Machiavelli at the turn of the
sixteenth century or that of Hobbes in the mid-seventeenth century have been closely linked
to the realist concept of the nation state as the highest form of ethical institution
representative will of its people in the form of national interest and concept of balance of
power politics. Towards a realist theory of international politics and foreign policy, the steps
were taken by the scholars like E. H. Carr, Reinhold Niebuhrand Hans Morgenthau and
prominent practitioners like George Kennan and Henry Kissinger during the two World wars
and the Cold War.
During the Cold War and post-Cold Warperiods, structural realists like Kenneth
Waltz, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Waltgained prominent. The realist theory of
international politics highlights the recurrent political constraints posed by human selfishness
and international structure or anarchy to the foreign policy of the state which limits the scope
of morality advocated by liberal theory (Forde 1995; Donnelly 2004). Classical realism best
represented by Machiavelli, Hobbes and Morgenthau who argue that all politics is power
politics. They locate the source of power politics in human nature which, they claim, is
greedy, selfish, and egoistic and suggest that humans are security-driven beings. As
Morgenthau writes, “Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is
governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. In order to improve society
it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives; the operation of these laws
being impervious to our preferences men will challenge them only at the risk of failure”
(quoted in Tickner 1998: 430).
Realism assumes that the character of a state’s foreign policy can be ascertained only
through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences
of these acts. Politics in international relations are expressed as an extension of human nature
at the larger level ofnations. International politics is a struggle for power which is different
from other spheres, such as economics, ethics, aesthetics and religion. In order to preserve
peace, one need not think in opposition to power political but rather play with it the force of
power. Political realism considers a rational foreign policy to be good foreign policy. For
only a rational foreign policy can minimize risks and maximize benefits and, hence, complies
both with the moral precept of prudence and the political requirement of success (Carr 1946;
Morgenthau 1948). Realism is inspired by the moral principle of national security and
survival. It argues that there can be no political morality without prudence. Thus, when the
end is well the means are good. If good intentions do not preserve national interests, they will
be questioned.
During the Cold War, a paradigm shift came in the realism when Waltz published his
book The Theory of International Politics (1979)which offered a value-free scientific
approach of structuralism. Structural realism argues that international politics is like natural
science. It is governed by the objective laws of systematic interaction of units which is
independent of the state preference (Waltz 1979; Mearsheimer 2001).
The structural realist tradition in international politics can be divided into three
variants: offensive, defensive and neoclassical realism. The offensive realists assert that
international politics is a Hobbesian state of nature, apart from bipolarity and nuclear
deterrence, security is scarce in international politics and states always are motivated by the
desire to maximize their security. The rationalist states pursuing security are prone to lead to
conflict with others- and usually do. While defensive realism contends that systemic factors
explain the main aspects of state behaviour but not its overall behaviour. Defensive realism
claims that anarchy is often more benign, security is often more plentiful rather than scarce,
and states learn over the time from experience (Jervis 1978). In the post-Cold War era, a new
variant of realism called neoclassical realism came into the forefront in defence of realism. It
incorporated some first and second (domestic) level variables along with systemic
(international) factors to explain state behaviour. Like neorealism, it takes a state-centric view
of international politics and suggests that international politics is inherently competitive. The
neoclassical realists argue that systemic factors are powerful in explaining state behaviour but
to understand the way in which state responds to the systemic pressures and translate them
into actions, we need to understand some unit level variables like domestic structure,
perceptions of decision makers, state-society relations etc. which can provide both
opportunities and constraints to foreign policy to respond to the external environment
(Brooks 1997; Rose 1998).
Moreover, for realists it is not the choice of the state about the kind of objectives it
should adopt but the structure of international politics that determines the potential success of
policy. As Fareed Zakaria argued, “it was the objective of Germany and Japan to achieve
regional hegemony but it was structure of international politics that decided the fate of their
choices and preferences.” He further argued that “a good theory of foreign policy should ask
what effect the international system has on national behaviour, because the most powerful
generalizable characteristic of a state in international relations is its relative position in the
international system” (Zakaria 1992: 1997).
Classical realism can be summed up in the words of George Washington, who
observed that nations cannot “be trusted too far beyond their interests.” But it is also true that
nations are capable of considering the interests of others. What can be expected of nations is
neither generous nor self-sacrifice, but a “wise self-interest” capable of finding the point of
concurrence between the interests of self and the general welfare (Good 1960:609). Structural
realism rejects the role of values in international politics and foreign policy. For it,state
survival is the main concern in the anarchic system which requires giving preference to both
military capabilities and productive economic base. The realist is clear that a state will
maximize its military capacity even if it requires constraint of long term economic
opportunities and institutional cooperation and long term economic opportunities (Waltz
1979; Mearsheimer 2001). The states follow values as long as they do not affect their national
interest. Whenever the national interest of the state will be constrained by the moral principle,
international law or international institutions, the rational foreign policy of the state will stop
following that. Hence, values for states are conditional. The realist recognizes values as a
reflection of the distribution of power. Changes in the distribution of power can result in
changes in the norms, values and decision making procedures of international politics.

Kenneth Waltz

Kenneth Waltz completed his MA at Columbia University in 1950, and in 1954 he finished

his doctorate, which was published that year to great acclaim. Man, The State and War was

not only a superb exercise in the history of ideas on the causes of war between states. His

books theory of international relations has been instrumental in shaping the study of

international politics and structural realism. Waltz's realism is based on the assumption that

the international system is anarchic, meaning that there is no central authority to enforce rules

or resolve disputes. States are the primary actors, and they are driven by the desire to

maximize their power and security. According to Waltz, the pursuit of power is not
necessarily a sign of aggression or irrationality, but rather a rational response to the

competitive environment of international politics.

Waltz's theory of international relations, known as neorealism or structural realism,

emphasizes the importance of the international system in shaping state behavior. According

to Waltz, war is most likely to occur at the international system level, where states interact

with each other in a competitive environment. He distinguishes between two types of

international systems: bipolar and multipolar. In a bipolar system, two superpowers dominate

the international arena, and there is a balance of power between them. In a multipolar system,

there are several major powers, and the balance of power is more complex. Waltz argues that

bipolar systems are more stable than multipolar systems because they are characterized by

clear lines of authority and decision-making. In contrast, multipolar systems are more prone

to instability because the balance of power is more complex, and there are more opportunities

for miscalculation and conflict.

Waltz also emphasizes the role of nuclear deterrence in maintaining peace in the international

system. He argues that the possession of nuclear weapons by two or more states can create a

stable balance of power because the use of these weapons would result in mutual destruction.

Therefore, states are deterred from using nuclear weapons, and the threat of mutually assured

destruction serves as a deterrent against aggression.

Man, The State and War

Man, The State and War (1954) was not only a superb exercise in the history of ideas on the

causes of war between states. At one level his first book is simply an attempt to examine

systematically the answers given by philosophers, statesmen, historians and political

scientists to the fundamental question, what is the cause of war? He argued that they could be

classified as either optimists or pessimists. Those could be located among levels of analysis
or ‘images: human nature, the domestic economic and political systems of states, and the

anarchical environment. Waltz argued that it was necessary to be aware of the interaction

between these images and not to exaggerate the importance of any one of them. The third

image describes the framework of world politics, but without the first and second mages there

can be no knowledge of the forces that determine policy; the first and second images describe

the forces in world politics, but without the third image it is impossible to assess their

importance or predict their results.

One of the key contributions of "Man, the State, and War" is Waltz's distinction between

three types of international systems: the Hobbesian system, the Lockean system, and the

Kantian system. The Hobbesian system is characterized by a high degree of anarchy and a

lack of cooperation between states. The Lockean system is characterized by a moderate

degree of anarchy and some level of cooperation between states. The Kantian system is

characterized by a low degree of anarchy and a high level of cooperation between states.

Waltz argues that the Kantian system is the most desirable type of international system

because it is characterized by a high level of cooperation and a low risk of war. However, he

acknowledges that achieving a Kantian system is difficult because it requires states to give up

some of their sovereignty and work together towards common goals.

Waltz’s (1979) Theory of International Politics has been described as ‘the single most widely
read contribution to neorealism. Waltz claimed that he had achieved the equivalent of a
‘Copernican revolution’ in the study of world politics by finally unravelling the level-of-
analysis problem that he had revealed in the 1950s. He also claimed that Theory was the first
scientifically defensible theory of the balance of power in international relations.
In marked contrast to all those scholars who were arguing that international relations were
undergoing a radical transformation as a result of growing interdependence in the
international economy as well as the limitations of force in the nuclear age, Kenneth Waltz
reaffirmed the salience of the state as the main actor in international politics and castigated
his opponents’ arguments as reductionist and non-falsifiable. During the so called inter-
paradigm debate that dominated international relations in the 1980s, Waltz was a key figure,
and his book continues to be a critical reference point for supporters and opponents of
neorealism in IR. The argument of Theory is both a continuation of some of the ideas first
presented in Man, The State and War, as well as a repudiation of the latter’s conclusions.
Rather than explore the interrelationship between the levels of analysis that he had identified
in his earlier work, Waltz focuses on the autonomy and influence of the structural component
of the international system. This third level influences state behaviour, and hence outcomes
such as the incidence of war, by constraining states from certain policies and predisposing
them toward others.
He defines the international political structure by two criteria. The first is a principle of
arrangement by which states relate to one another. The inter-state system is a self-help, or
anarchical, one. This principle, he argues, is constant over time, and severely constrains the
degree to which a division of labour can take place between states. They are, as Waltz puts it,
functionally undifferentiated. Multiple sovereignty, therefore, limits the scope for
interdependence among states.
While anarchy is a constant, the second criterion of the structure, the distribution of
capabilities, varies among states. States are similar in the tasks they face, although not in their
abilities to perform them. The empirical referent for this latter variable is the number of great
powers who dominate the system. Given the small number of such states, and Waltz suggests
that no more than eight have ever been consequential, international politics ‘can be studied in
terms of the logic of small number systems. This logic, he argues, can be understood without
making any untestable and vague assumptions about whether and to what extent states seek to
pursue power. ‘Balance-of-power politics prevail whenever two, and only two, conditions are
met.

Waltz’s Theory of IR
International System: System is composed of structures and interacting units. A
system comes into existence with the interaction of the units that makes it a composite
whole. The interaction of the units is necessary for the system. But the attribute of the
system is different from that of its units.
The Structure of System: the structure is a theoretical device that makes it possible to
produce uniform results despite the variance among the units. The structure defines the
pressure at the system level without going into details of units. It defines why
democracy and non-democracy behaves similar in same conditions and why same states
behaves dissimilar in different international context. The structure is a system wide
concept that defines the arrangement of the units in a system. The change in
arrangements results change in structure. Thus structure defines the order of the system.
Structure defines that the configuration of power affects the character of states, their
choice, their behaviour, their aspirations and even their internal organizational
arrangements.
Order Principle: the ordering principle of the international politics is different from
domestic politics in following domains:
Domestic International
Hierarchical (center, province and Anarchic (lack of central authority)
local)
Vertical (legislative, executive and Homogeneous (all states are legally
judiciary) equal)
Directive Un-dircetive
Contrived (manufactured) Mutually adoptive

In case this system comes into existence through conquest, it is a directive system, and
when it comes through democratic means, it is a non-directive system.

Characteristics of the Units

In the domestic politics there is a division of labour. Different parts of administration
perform different functions (legislative, executive and judiciary) and each part is
dependent on each other to make system functional. While in IP, states perform similar
functions, big or small and each struggles for survival and security. The each step of the
states in direction of achieving security has corresponding effect of reducing security of
other state, this condition is called security dilemma.
Distribution of Capabilities
In domestic politics there is a separation of power. Each part acts as watch dog for
other. But in IP, there is a distribution of power. Some states are big and some small.
Some are powerful and some are weak. The unequal distribution of power makes
powerful states pole(s) of the system. By and large the existence of number of poles
gives order to the system. However, the power is a variable factor in a long run and thus
states rise and fall.
Stability in International Politics
According to Waltz, the international system level is the most important level of analysis

because it provides the context in which states interact with each other. Waltz argues that the

behavior of states can be explained by the incentives created by the international system,

rather than by their internal characteristics. Having isolated the structure, Waltz then argues

that a bipolar structure dominated by two great powers is more stable than a multipolar

structure dominated by three or more great powers. It is more likely to endure without

system-wide wars. Again, in contrast to earlier realists who were concerned about the

ideological confrontation of the superpowers in a nuclear era, Waltz claims that there are

striking differences between multipolarity and bipolarity in terms of strategic behaviour.

Under multi-polarity, states rely on alliances to maintain their security. This is inherently

unstable, since ‘there are too many powers to permit any of them to draw clear and fixed lines

between allies and adversaries’.

In contrast, the inequality between the superpowers and every other state ensures that the
threat to each is easier to identify, and both the Soviet Union and the United States maintain
the central balance by relying on their own devices rather than allies. The dangers of
miscalculation and defection are thereby minimized.
Conclusion
Waltz's theory has been subject to criticism, particularly for its focus on the structure of the

international system at the expense of other factors, such as domestic politics or culture. The

first issue is the degree to which Waltz succeeds in isolating the structure as a cause of state

behaviour. He argues that it functions rather like the human liver or a progressive income tax
system, working its effects by socialisation and competition among states. Waltz admits that

he was inspired by Durkheim as well as sociological studies of crowd behaviour, but the

extent to which the structure functions independently of states’ perception of the balance of

power is not clear. Attention has also been drawn to the inconsistencies between Waltz’s

substantive arguments on the merits of bipolarity in the 1970s and his theory of the balance of

power. Some of his critics have argued that the ‘stability’ of the Cold War had much more to

do with nuclear weapons (a ‘unit level’ phenomenon) than bipolarity. Just because the

superpowers were more powerful than other states in the system did not mean that they were

equally as powerful as each other and had become successfully ‘socialised’ to the prevailing

structure. Again, the explanatory and predictive power of Waltz’s theory was compromised

by the difficulty of separating levels of analysis and determining the content of each. Finally,

a number of critics have argued that Waltz’s model is too static and deterministic. It lacks any

dimension of structural change. States are condemned to reproduce the logic of anarchy and

any co-operation that takes place between them is subordinate to the distribution of power.

Waltz’s assumptions regarding the nature of states has been hotly contested by neoliberals

who believe that it exaggerates the degree to which states are obsessed with the distribution

of power and ignores the collective benefits to be achieved via co-operation. Rather than seek

to amend or reconstruct Waltz’s theory to deal with some of its alleged shortcomings, others

have regarded Theory with much more suspicion as a scarcely disguised attempt to legitimate

the Cold War under the mantle of science. Much of the book is concerned with problems of

theory construction, the relationship between laws of behaviour and theories that explain

those laws, and how to test a theory so that it conforms to proper behavioural scientific

standards. For Waltz, a theory is an instrument to explain patterns of state behaviour within a

circumscribed realm of human activity. Although explanation is a necessary precondition for

successful purposeful action, theoretical inquiry is a politically value-free activity. Given his
rigid distinction between international political theory and foreign policy analysis, the former

cannot evaluate and prescribe for the latter. ‘The problem is not to say how to manage the

world, but to say how the possibility that great powers will constructively manage

international affairs varies as systems change.

John J. Mearsheimer’s offensive realism

John J. Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar who developed the theory of

offensive realism, also known as structural realism or neorealism. Offensive realism is a

theory of international relations that focuses on the security competition between states in an

anarchic international system. According to offensive realism, states are driven by a desire

for security, and they pursue this security by seeking to maximize their power relative to

other states (Mearsheimer, 2001). In an anarchic international system, where there is no

central authority to provide security, states are forced to rely on their own capabilities to

protect themselves. This leads to a security dilemma, where a state's efforts to increase its

own security can be perceived as a threat to other states, which may respond by increasing

their own military capabilities.

Offensive realism argues that states are inherently aggressive and expansionist, and that they

will seek to dominate their neighbors and the international system as a whole in order to

ensure their own security. In this view, there is no such thing as a satisfied state; even

powerful states will continue to seek greater power and influence in order to maintain their

position of dominance.

Mearsheimer's theory is often contrasted with defensive realism, which argues that states are

primarily interested in preserving their own security and are not inherently aggressive.

Offensive realism, on the other hand, sees security as a relative concept and argues that states

are driven to increase their power in order to maintain their security in a competitive

international system.
Salient Features
1) Nature of International System: The international system is ‘anarchic’but
chaotic. It is ‘ordering principle’ which distinguishes it from domestic politics
which is ‘hierarchic’. This ordering principle of International system says that
there is no central authority in international politics.
2) Offensive nature of States: states inherently possess some offensive military
capability which gives them potential to hurt and destroy each other.
3) Role of Fear: States can never be certain about the intentions of other states
leadership. Today’s internationalist outlook leadership in a powerful country may be
replaced tomorrow by nationalist and imperialist leadership. This does not mean that
states have necessarily hostile intentions. Indeed, all of the states in the system may
be reliably benign, but it is impossible to be sure of that judgment.
4) All States primary goal is Survival: states primarily seek to maintain their sovereignty
and survival because once a state is conquered, it is loses sovereignty. In international
politics God helps those who help themselves and states understand the logic of ‘self
help’ thereby always act according to their own self-interest and do not subordinate
their interests to the interests of other states, or to international community. The
reason is simple; it pays to be selfish in a self help world.
5) States are rational actors: Like other realists, Being Mearsheimer also aggress that
states are rational actors but this does not remove the chances of strategic
miscalculations.
6) Maximizing of Security: States being apprehensive of other states intentions and
operating in a self help world, they quickly understand that the best way to ensure
their survival is to be the most powerful state in the system. By increasing power
relative to other competitors, a state becomes more secure. However, in case of
conflict between power and security, state will not go for power maximization.
7) International Institutions are dependent Variable: Mearsheimer (1994) argued that
the international institutions are basically a reflection of the distribution of power in
the world. They are based on the self-interested calculations of the great powers,
and they have no independent effect on state behavior. NATO was basically a
manifestation of the bipolar distribution of power in Europe during the Cold War, and
it was that balance of power, not NATO per se, that provided the key to maintaining
stability on the continent. Furthermore, Mearsheimer writes that states in a realist
world are motivated by relative gains concerns when considering cooperation.
The main assumptions of neoliberalism include:

States are not the only important actors in international relations: Neoliberals argue that

international institutions, non-state actors, and transnational networks can also play important

roles in shaping international outcomes.

Institutions and rules matter: Neoliberal agree that international system is anarchic in

nature, but this does not mean it cannot be controlled. They emphasize the importance of

international institutions in order making and facilitating cooperation and reducing conflict

among states. These institutions can include international organizations, trade agreements,

and regimes that govern specific issue areas. Institutions are not dependent variable on state

rather can achieve independent identity and can influence state behavior.

Cooperation is possible even in the absence of a common identity or interest: Neoliberals

argue that states can cooperate and achieve common goals even if they have different

interests or identities. This can be accomplished through bargaining and negotiation, as well

as through the creation of institutions that facilitate cooperation.

Power is not the only factor shaping international outcomes: While power is an important

factor in international relations, neoliberals argue that other factors such as institutions,

norms, and rules can also shape international outcomes and constrain state behavior.

Markets can promote efficiency and prosperity: Neoliberals believe that free markets can

promote economic growth and development, and that international trade and investment can

benefit all participating states. They are against Keynesian model of welfare state in which

state take economic role to help market in maintain equilibrium.

Overall, neoliberalism is a theory that emphasizes the importance of international institutions

and cooperation in addressing global challenges, promoting economic growth, and reducing

conflict. Neoliberalism has had a significant impact on international economic policy and the

governance of global trade, but it has also been criticized for its emphasis on markets and its

failure to address issues of inequality and social justice.

The liberal hegemonic stability theory argues that the international stability needs a
liberal hegemon. Therefore, the existing democracies will unite behind a hegemon. The
characters of the liberal hegemon would be:
1) To promote ideology of democracy and turn as many as countries into
liberal democracies,
2) To foster an open international economy
3) To build international institutions.

The theory suggests that a liberal hegemon can provide public goods such as security, trade,
and finance to other countries in the system, which in turn reduces the likelihood of conflicts
and enhances economic growth. The theory argues that such a liberal order is more likely to
be stable than other orders, as it encourages the spread of democratic norms, open markets,
and international institutions.

However, the theory also acknowledges that the stability created by a liberal hegemon is not
permanent and may be challenged by other powers in the system. Moreover, the theory is
criticized by some scholars for being too focused on the role of the hegemon and ignoring
other factors that may contribute to stability or instability in the international system. Overall,
the liberal hegemonic stability theory remains a prominent and influential theory in
international relations, particularly in the study of international political economy and the role
of power in shaping global governance.

Constructivism
The constructivist perspective in international relations is often seen as part of Critical
Theory. It involves two basic claims: one, that the fundamental structures of international
politics are more social rather than a strictly material (a claim that is opposite to realism),
and, two that these structures shape actors’ identities and interests, rather than just their
behaviour (a claim made by rationalism). Thus, constructivism is a form of sociological
rather than micro-economic structuralism. The different assumptions about the ontological
nature of the state lead constructivists to argue that international politics is structured by the
shared knowledge, material resources, and practices. For constructivist theory, power in
international politics is a partial factor to understand politics. There is also the role of factors
like culture, identity and values that structure international politics.
Social theory of international politics and foreign policy explains that anarchy and
self-help system are not given as claimed by rationalist theories. However, it is the negative
definition of security that leads to characterization of international politics in terms of
anarchy and security dilemma. The lack of positive security regime and power politics based
self-help system of states will necessarily consist of efforts by states to manipulate others to
satisfy self-regarding interests. The contrast with this is “cooperative regimes” in which
security of self-help is defined as security of community and national interests as
international. As Alexander Wendt has argued, “Anarchy is what states make of it. Such
behaviour of the state is a self-fulfilling prophecy and that this is due to both agency and
social structure. Thus, on the agency side, what states do to each other affects the social
structure in which they are embedded by the logic of reciprocity” (1995: 77). The form of
identity and interests are not exogenous to the interaction, identities are produced in and
through “situated activity”. We do not begin our relations with the allies in a security
dilemma. It is not given by nature but once we become institutionalized such dilemma may
be hard to change. The point remains that identities and interests are constituted by collective
meaning that is always in process. If international politics is marked by self-help, it is the
practices of the state that sustain it. The change in practice leads to change in the nature of
politics. In contrast to the self-help system, there are cooperative regimes in which security of
self-help is defined as “security of community” and national interests as international.
Moreover, material resources only acquire meaning for human action through the structure of
shared knowledge in which they are embedded. As Wendt noted“500 British nuclear
weapons are less threatening to the United States than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons,
because the British are friends of the United States and the North Koreans are not; and amity
or enmity is a function of shared understandings” (1995: 78).
Moreover, according to constructivist theory, peace and conflict in international
politics are shaped by the shared debate and discourses. The identity of actors is
“intersubjective”– the change in the idea of other can change identity and practices. The state
can transcend older norms and move towards regional cooperation and international
cooperation in the social, economic and security areas. For example, European States started
the process towards cooperation as self-interested states but in the process of cooperation
they reconstructed their interests in terms of shared commitments to social norms. They have
developed a positive interdependence and a European identity through European Union and
collective security by NATO. Democracy, human rights protection andfree trade are
acceptable values in the Atlantic-Europe region. While on the other side in the Middle East,
there is strong Islamic influence and countries support their own sharedcultural belief and
theological worldview. Militant anti-western movements like Al-Qaida are more driven by
values than by material interests. Religious institutions, theological worldviews and political
ideologies are important issues in world politics. Those values are a source of unity and
stability and as well as tools forfuelling hatred, superiority and dominance. Thus,in
international politics material power is a dominant factor but non-material sources of power
are also factors that play a role. The idea backed by power may be more powerful. But ideas,
collective values and social identity are also factors in determiningthe structure of the social
world.
Marxism
Marxist theory of state
Marxist theory of Human Rights
The Marxist theory of international relations is a school of thought that applies Marxist

principles to the analysis of international relations. This theory seeks to explain the dynamics

of international relations in terms of economic and class relationships, and it emphasizes the

role of imperialism and capitalist exploitation in shaping the global political system.

Karl Marx (1818–1883)

Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), with whom he shared an
unmatched partnership, critically evolved the 19 the century capitalism, cooperative
and socialist visions, and propagated an alternative world view of scientific socialism or
communism. Marxism is an orientation, programme of action and a working class
movement. Karl Marx is considered as originator of Modern Communism.
Karl Marx is often treated as a revolutionary, an activist rather than a philosopher.
Marx is known for his philosophical anthropology, his theory of history, his economic
analysis, and his critical engagement with contemporary capitalist society. He wanted
to change the world. He said, the philosophers have interpreted the world, the point,
however, is to change it. Theorists must work among people. He paid prices for his
political activisms. He never has a permanent job. He suffered economically and so his
family. The influence of market did not end with Marx, but it opened the Marist school
of thought. His entire pre-occupation was with capitalist system.
Every theorist engages with the ideas and intellectual traditions of his time. The 19 th
century was a unique period in the human history. Marx was able to critically engage
with his period. He became interested in the political economy. He studied the English
economic thought of Adam Smith, David Racido, French Anarchism, Prudhan (against
maximalist state, private property) and German idealism of George W. Hegel.
Besides this, Karl Marx and Engel wanted to know the causes of economic changes in
human society. They also wanted to discover what further changes are required. They
established that the changes in human society were not the least accidental like changes
in external nature. They worked out a scientific theory of society based on the actual
experience of men. Karl Marx applied this theory to the society in which he lived
mainly Capitalist Britain. He had an opinion that it was quite impossible to separate his
economic theories from historical and social theories. Marx criticized the existing
capitalist institutions. He did not believe in the essential goodness of man. He
considered that a man is more as an economic than as a political animal.

Marx inherited and combined three legacies in his theoretical groundwork:

- German philosophy

- French political thought

- English economics

From the German intellectual tradition, he borrowed the Hegelian method of dialectics
and applied it to the material world. From the French revolutionary tradition, he
recognized the idea that change motivated by a messianic idea was not only desirable,
but also practicable. He applied his method with a view to bringing about huge change
within the industrialized capitalist economy of which England was the classical model
in the 19th century. He used the English classical economists to comprehend the
dynamics of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.
Marx increasingly became preoccupied with an attempt to understand the contemporary
capitalist mode of production and how it produces alienation of labour and exploitation.
He developed an influential theory of history—often called historical materialism.
The Capitalist class extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat.
Human Nature
Marxist theory sees human nature as shaped by the material conditions of the society in

which individuals live. According to Marx, human nature is not fixed or predetermined, but

rather is shaped by historical and social forces. The development of human nature is closely

tied to the development of productive forces, technology, and economic systems.

Marxist theorists argue that human nature is fundamentally social but can be distorted by the

social and economic systems in which individuals live. Capitalism, for example, creates a

society in which individuals are primarily motivated by self-interest and the pursuit of profit,

rather than by collective goals or values. This can lead to alienation, competition, and social

conflict.

Cooperation

Marxist theory also recognizes that human by nature are cooperative. The role of cooperation

is vital for the process of social and economic development. Marx argued that the

development of productive forces, such as technology and industrial infrastructure, required

the cooperation of large numbers of people working together. Cooperation also allows for the

efficient distribution of resources and the sharing of knowledge and skills, which can lead to

economic growth and social progress.

Overall, Marxist theory sees human cooperation as essential for the functioning of society

and for the achievement of collective goals, whether they be economic, social, or political in
 nature. By working together, individuals can build the collective power necessary to

challenge the existing social order and create a more just and equitable society.

The basic ideologies of Marxism can be mentioned as follows:

1. Dialectical Materialism
2. Historical Materialism
3. Theory of Alienation
4. Theory of surplus value
5. Class struggle
6. Dictatorship of the proletariat
7. Vision of a communist society

Dialectical materialism:

Karl Marx is obligated to both Hegel and Hobbes for his theory of Dialectical materialism.

Marx took dialectical method from Hegel but reformed it at basic level. While Hegel had

applied the dialectics to explain the idealist conflicts of life, Marx applied the dialectics to

elucidate the material conditions of life. Hegelian dialectic sees history as a process of

contradiction and conflict that leads to new stages of development. In the process of doing so,

he criticized the Hegelian philosophy of dialectical idealism. According to Marxist theory,

the development of society is driven by contradictions between the productive forces and the

relations of production. The productive forces include the tools, technology, and knowledge

that people use to produce goods and services, while the relations of production refer to the

social relationships that exist between people in the process of production, such as ownership

and control of the means of production.

Still Marx argued that the environment can help or hinder the evolutionary process nor

capable of preventing it from reaching its unavoidable goal. Matter is active and not passive,
and moves by an inner necessity of its nature. We may put it in another way, Dialectical

Materialism of Marx is more interested in motion than matter, in the vital energy within

matter inevitably driving it towards perfect human society. Engels signified that the

dialectical method grasps things and their images, ideas essentially in their sequence, their

movement, their birth and death. According to Marx, every state of history which falls short

of perfection carries within itself the seeds of its own annihilation. Each stage reached in the

march to the classless society.

Historical materialism is the use of the principles of dialectical materialism to the

development of society. Marx applied dialectical materialism to the social world consisting of
economic production and exchange. It is a conception of society in terms of evolution from
one state to another, which Marx refers to as Modes of Production and Material or Economic
factors have a pivotal role in historical change. It is historical because it studies evolution of
societies or state from one stage to another. It is material, because it understands the
conception of change from change in material conditions and not ideas or metaphysical
factors. He understands the historical evolution process in terms of a dialectic process where
two opposing forces interact with each other and new structures are produced and the
dialectic process continues.

In his Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels has defined historical materialism as a theory
which maintains that the ultimate cause which determines the whole course of human history
is the economic development of society. The whole course of human history in explicated in
terms of changes occurring in the mode of production and exchange. Beginning from
primitive communism, the mode of production has passed through three stages: Slavery,
feudalism and capitalism and the consequent division of society into two antagonistic classes
at each stage of development (Slave- master, serf-baron and proletariat-capitalist) and the
struggle of these classes against one another.

The most thoughtful statement of Marx's theory of historic materialism is contained in his
preamble to a contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1858). In this work, Marx
marked that: "The economic structure of society, constituted by its relations of production is
the real foundation of society. It is the basis on which there rises a legal and political super
structure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. Along with it, the
society's relations of production themselves corresponds to, a definite state of development of
its material productive forces. Thus the mode of production of material life determines the
social, political and intellectual life process in general." Here Marx defines the economy as
the base and state, religion and ideology as the super-structure.

Marx expounded that the general relations as well as form of state are to be grasped from the
material conditions of life. As the society's productive forces develop, they clash with the
existing relations of production. This incongruity between forces of production and relations
of production divides the society into different classes. As people become conscious of this
conflict they fight it out. The conflict is resolved in favour of the productive forces and higher
relations of production. Analogous to his dialectical materialism, Marx created his
materialistic conception of history out of the Hegelian system itself which had sought to
bridge the gap between the rational and actual concept. Marx borrowed such concepts as civil
society and property from the Hegelian system and set them in a revolutionary relationship to
the concept of the state. Hegel confronts civil society as a sphere of materialism and
counterposes it to the state as sphere of idealism. On the contrary, Marx maintains that
relations as well as forms of state are to be grabbed neither from themselves, nor from the
general development of human mind but rather they have their roots in the material
conditions of life. As a consequence, Hegel stated that the real world is only the external
phenomenal form of the idea, while for Marx, the ideal is nothing else than the material world
reflected by human mind and interpreted into forms of thought. In other words, while in the
Hegelian scheme, human consciousness determines social existence in the Marxian scheme,
it is the social existence that determines their consciousness.

Historical materialists abandon the ideas such as rights (e.g. "right to life, liberty, and
property) as liberalism professed. Historical materialism looks for the causes of
developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans
collectively produce the necessities of life. The development of human society has
progressed through a series of stages, from hunting and gathering, through
pastoralism and cultivation, to capitalist society. According to Marx, the dynamic of
history was shaped precisely by clash of interests determined by material conditions,
like inequalities between clearly separate groups.
Theory of surplus value:

Man is a social animal. They satisfy their needs in collective activities, which gives rise
to division of labour. In market, man enters into relations with means of production
(land, tools, industry and technology) in the nature of ownership and non-ownership.
Those who own means of production, becomes Haves and those who sell their labor or
work for livelihood become Have-nots. In order for subsequent generations of human
beings to survive, it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the material
requirements of everyday life. The labour is paid only that much amount, which is
sufficient for his survival, and product produce is sold in the market at higher prices. In
this way the fixed capital of investor receives higher returns. The surplus earned by
capitalist is reinvested and makes him richer.
The theory of surplus value is conferred by Marx thoroughly in his famous work 'Das Capital' which
was considered as the Gospel or Bible of socialism. The idea of surplus value is the most relevant
theoretical contribution of Karl Marx. The theory of surplus value is imbedded in the labour theory of
value holds that labour spent by the labour in the production of the commodity is the sole criterion for
determining its value. Marx acknowledges that human labour cannot create value by itself alone. It
uses instruments of production which are owned by the capitalists. The capitalist buys the labour
power of the labour and applies it to the raw material to produce commodities which have an
exchange value of the commodity and the wages paid to the worker by the capitalist in producing that
commodity is surplus value. Marx explicates the whole process of exploitation with his theory of
surplus value. It is a distinct feature of capitalist mode of production. Surplus value ensues because
the commodity produced by the worker is sold by the capitalist for more than what the worker
receives as wages. In his Das Capital, Marx elaborated it in a simple technical manner. He contended
that the worker produces a commodity which belongs to the capitalist and whose value is realized by
the capitalist in the form of price. This capital has two parts-constant capital and variable capital.
Constant capital relates to means of production like raw material, machinery toolset used for
commodity production. The variable capital denotes to the wages paid to the worker. Surplus value is
the differences between the value produce by the worker and what he actually gets in exchange for
this value of his labour. In other words, surplus value is unpaid labours of the labour.
Marx's theory of surplus value is simply examination of capitalism. According to Marx, capitalism
constantly produces the germs of its own destruction. The instruments which the owners use to
increase their profits and rents are the instruments, fall inevitably into the hands of workers to be used
by them to thrash the whole capitalist system. Professor Francis. W. Coker has précised this process
as follows:
First place, the tendency under capitalist production is towards large production and monopoly.
Secondly the tendency towards local concentration, large-scale production necessitates the bringing
together of thousands of workers into small areas and by these contacts they become more fully
conscious of their common hardship and needs. In the third place, the tendency of capitalist
production is towards the accomplishment of ever wider fields for markets. This requires huge
development of the means of communication among different parts of the industrial world and this, in
turn, enables inter communication among the workers distribute throughout the industrial world.
Fourthly, the capitalist system produces recurrent economic crises: Lastly, the tendency under
capitalism is towards a steady increase in the unhappiness, ignorance and dependency of the workers
and this worsens their hostility and dissatisfaction

The labor gets only substance value. The labor ideally should get according to his work. He
also believes work is alienated from his work because he does not have right to over his
labor. He works for industry and gets alienated from once talent. Thus, industry exploits
workers and earns profit.

Dictatorships of the proletariat:

The notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat' is widely slandered. In Marxist socio-
political theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat denotes to a state in which the proletariat,
or the working class, has control of political power. The phrase was devised by Joseph
Weydemeyer and then was adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In Marxist theory,
the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and
communism, when the government is in the process of changing the ownership of the means
of production from private to collective ownership. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a
transitional phase on the track form capitalism to socialism and communism. In the critique
of the Gotha programme, he further illuminated that between capitalism and communist
society lies a period of revolutionary transformation from capitalism to socialism. In political
domain, this change will take the form of dictatorship of the proletariats. It is the first step in
the uprising of the working class which will raise the proletariat to the position of a ruling
class.

According to Marx, during the dictatorship of the proletariat, there will be a regime in which
the proletariat will control the state power. Such a transitional phase of dictatorship of the
proletariat is required because the demolition of whole capitalist social and political order
cannot be fully accomplished without capturing the state power and without using it as a tool
to create condition for the helping a communist social order. It was only when the proletarian
majority detained the state structure that the state became truly democratic and majoritarian.
Whatever might be the form the state assumed, it was controlling machinery which the
proletariat had to contend with while making its revolution. He believed that political
centralization would assist the revolutionary process.

In a book review written around 1848-1849, Marx witnessed that the destruction of the state
had one implication for the communists, such as the cessation of an organised power of one
class for the suppression of another class.

In a series of articles entitled the class struggles in France, Marx debated that the
announcement of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat is
the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally to the abolition of all
social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all
the ideas that result from these social relations." Thus, Marx wrote that the first step in the
working class revolution is the raising of the proletariat to the position of the ruling class.
There is contradiction among philosophers regarding the nature and character of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. The communists said that this dictatorship means the despotic
rule of the communist minority within the proletariat but the socialists hold that this means a
socialist government by a proletarian majority.

Dependency theory is a Marxist-oriented theory that views the economic and political
relationship between the Global North (developed countries) and the Global South
(developing countries) as exploitative and unequal. It was developed in the 1960s and 1970s
as a response to modernization theory, which argued that the key to economic development in
the Global South was to follow the path of the Global North.

According to Dependency theory, the global economy is divided into three regions: the Core,
the Semi-Periphery, and the Periphery.

The Core refers to the developed countries that control and dominate the global economy.
They are the ones who have the power and resources to create and control the means of
production and technology. The Core countries are characterized by high levels of
industrialization and advanced technology, and they are the main consumers of raw materials
and natural resources from the Global South. Examples of Core countries include the United
States, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe.

The Semi-Periphery refers to countries that have intermediate levels of development and are
characterized by a mix of industrial and agricultural production. They serve as a buffer zone
between the Core and the Periphery, and they are often exploited by the Core countries for
cheap labor and natural resources. Examples of Semi-Periphery countries include Brazil,
Mexico, and China.

The Periphery refers to the underdeveloped and least industrialized countries in the Global
South. They are heavily dependent on the Core countries for investment, technology, and
markets, and they often have to export raw materials and natural resources to the Core
countries at low prices. This perpetuates their underdevelopment and prevents them from
achieving economic independence. Examples of Periphery countries include many countries
in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Some of the key scholars who contributed to the development of Dependency theory include
Raúl Prebisch, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Andre Gunder Frank.

Feminism: Descriptive and Normative Claims

Feminism is a movement that seeks to challenge and dismantle systemic

oppression and discrimination based on gender. It aims to achieve
equality, justice, and empowerment for all genders and to create a
society where gender does not determine one's social, political, and
economic status. Feminism makes two kinds of claims: descriptive and
normative.

Descriptive Claims

Descriptive claims of feminism are concerned with describing the current

state of affairs regarding gender and power relations. Feminists argue
that gender-based oppression is pervasive and systemic, affecting all
areas of life, including education, employment, politics, health care, and
social relationships. Women are underrepresented in positions of power,
and they often face discrimination and harassment in the workplace and
public spaces. The gender wage gap persists, with women earning less
than men for the same work. Women also experience higher rates of
poverty and violence.

According to Simone de Beauvoir, a major feminist thinker, the problem

of women's oppression is not a matter of individual experiences but a
result of the social and cultural structures that limit women's possibilities
and define them as "other." Beauvoir argues that women are not born
but made as a result of socialization that reinforces gender roles and
expectations.
Normative Claims

Normative claims of feminism are concerned with the ideals and goals
that feminism seeks to achieve. Feminism seeks to promote gender
equality, justice, and empowerment, and to create a society where all
genders have the same opportunities and rights. Feminists advocate for
policies and practices that challenge gender-based discrimination and
oppression, such as affirmative action, reproductive rights, and anti-
violence measures.

One of the most influential feminist theorists is Bell Hooks, who argues
that feminism must be intersectional to be effective. She argues that
gender cannot be understood in isolation from other aspects of identity,
such as race, class, and sexuality. Hooks emphasizes the importance of
recognizing the experiences of marginalized groups and their struggles
against intersecting forms of oppression.

Feminism makes both descriptive and normative claims. Descriptive

claims highlight the systemic and pervasive nature of gender-based
oppression and discrimination, while normative claims focus on the goals
of achieving gender equality, justice, and empowerment. Major feminist
scholars such as Simone de Beauvoir and Bell hooks have emphasized
the importance of understanding gender in relation to other aspects of
identity and recognizing the experiences of marginalized groups.
Feminism continues to be a critical movement in promoting social and
political change towards a more just and equal society.
 The claim that someone is oppressed because she is a woman suggests that the
best (causal) explanation. the claim that someone is oppressed because she is a
woman suggests that the rationale or basis for the oppressive structures requires
that one be sensitive to someone’s sex in determining how they should be
viewed and treated, i.e., that the justification for someone’s being subject to the
structures in question depends on a representation of them as sexed male or
female.

 Objectification
 It is important to note that objectification, by definition, reduces a
person to the status of an object, which can be harmful and
dehumanizing. Feminist debates on objectification center on the
ways in which individuals, particularly women, are treated as objects
rather than as fully realized human beings with complex inner lives,
desires, and personalities. Objectification can occur in many
different contexts, including media representations, workplace
interactions, and interpersonal relationships. One of the main
debates within feminist discourse is whether objectification is
always inherently harmful, or whether it can be empowering or even
desirable in certain contexts. Some argue that objectification can be
empowering for individuals who are able to assert control over their
own bodies and sexuality, and who actively choose to present
themselves in a sexualized manner.
Furthermore, even if a woman is able to assert control over her own
objectification, this does not negate the broader societal harms that
stem from the objectification of women. When women are routinely
portrayed as objects of male desire, it reinforces harmful gender
roles and perpetuates a culture in which violence against women is
normalized and accepted.
Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in
the idea of treating a person as an object:
 1. Instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s
purposes.
 2. Denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and
self-determination;
 3. Inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in
activity;
 4. Fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
 5. Violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
  6. Ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another
(can be bought or sold).
 7. Denial of subjectivity: The treatment of a person as something whose
experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

Feminist Methodology

Feminist methodology refers to the set of research methods and practices that
are grounded in feminist theories and values. This approach emphasizes the
importance of understanding gender as a socially constructed category and
seeks to challenge and transform dominant power structures that perpetuate
gender inequalities. In this literature review, we will explore the key concepts
and debates in feminist methodology.

Intersectionality

One of the central concepts in feminist methodology is intersectionality, which

recognizes that gender is not the only axis of oppression and that individuals are
often subjected to multiple forms of oppression, such as race, class, and
sexuality. Intersectionality emphasizes the importance of understanding how
these multiple identities intersect and interact with each other, and how they
shape individuals' experiences and social positions. Kimberlé Crenshaw's
(1991) concept of intersectionality has become a cornerstone of feminist
methodology and has been widely adopted in research across various fields.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity is another important concept in feminist methodology, which refers

to the critical reflection of the researcher on their own positionality and biases.
This includes an examination of how the researcher's own identity and
experiences shape their research questions, methods, and interpretations of data.
Reflexivity is crucial in feminist research because it recognizes that the
researcher is not a neutral observer but rather an active participant in shaping
knowledge production.

Participatory Research
Participatory research is a feminist research method that emphasizes the active
involvement of participants in the research process. This approach challenges
the traditional power dynamic between the researcher and participants and seeks
to empower participants by giving them a voice in the research process. This
method is particularly useful in research that aims to address social justice
issues, as it allows for a more democratic and collaborative approach to
knowledge production.