Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T22:41:53.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theorizing the history of women's international thinking at the ‘end of international theory’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2022

Patricia Owens Open the ORCID record for Patricia Owens [Opens in a new window] ,
Sarah C. Dunstan ,
Kimberly Hutchings  and
Katharina Rietzler
Patricia Owens*
Affiliation:
International Relations, Somerville College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Sarah C. Dunstan
Affiliation:
International Relations, Somerville College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Kimberly Hutchings
Affiliation:
International Relations, Somerville College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Katharina Rietzler
Affiliation:
International Relations, Somerville College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Patricia Owens, E-mail: patricia.owens@politics.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Throughout the 20th century, women were leading intellectuals on International Relations (IR). They thought, wrote, and taught on this subject in numerous political, professional, intimate, and intellectual contexts. They wrote some of the earliest and most powerful theoretical statements of what would later become core approaches to contemporary international theory. Yet, historical women, those working before the late 20th century, are almost completely missing in IR's intellectual and disciplinary histories, including histories of its main theoretical traditions. In this forum, leading historians and theorists of IR respond to the recent findings of the Leverhulme project on Women and the History of International Thought (WHIT), particularly its first two book-length publications on the centrality of women to early IR discourses and subsequent erasure from its history and conceptualization. The forum is introduced by members of the WHIT project. Collectively, the essays suggest the implications of the erasure and recovery of women's international thought are significant and wide-ranging.

Keywords

History of international thoughtgenderwomeninternational theory
Type
Forum
Information
International Theory , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , November 2022 , pp. 388 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Ashworth, Lucian M. 2011. “Feminism, War, and the Prospects for Peace: Helena Stanwick (1864–1939) and the Lost Feminists of Interwar International Relations.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (1): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bay, Mia, Griffin, Farah J., Jones, Martha S., and Savage, Barbara D.. eds. 2015. Toward an Intellectual History of Black Women. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Blain, Keisha N. 2021. “‘The Dark Skin[ned] People of the Asian World’: Mittie Maud Lena Gordon's Vision of Afro-Asian Solidarity.” In Women's International Thought: A New History, edited by P. Owens and K. Rietzler, 179–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Little, Richard. 2001. “Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to do about It.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30 (1): 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Confortini, Catia. 2012. Intelligent Compassion: Feminist Critical Methodology in the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunstan, Sarah C., and Owens, Patricia. 2022. “Claudia Jones, International Thinker.” Modern Intellectual History 19 (2): 551–72.Google Scholar
Getachew, Adom. 2019. Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guillot, Nicholas. ed. 2011. The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, Valeska, Pietsch, Tamson, and Rietzler, Katharina. 2021. “Women's International Thought and the New Professions, 1900–1940.” Modern Intellectual History 18 (1): 121–45.Google Scholar
Hutchings, Kimberly, and Owens, Patricia. 2021. “Women Thinkers and the Canon of International Thought: Recovery, Rejection, and Reconstitution.” American Political Science Review 115 (2): 347–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, David, and Wilson, Peter. eds. 1995. Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis: Interwar Idealism Reassessed. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
May, Vivian M. 2021. “Anna Julia Cooper on Slavery's Afterlife: Can International Thought ‘Hear’ Her ‘Muffled’ Voice and Ideas.” In Women's International Thought: A New History, edited by P. Owens and K. Rietzler, 29–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John, and Walt, Stephen. 2013. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is Bad for International Relations’.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 427–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J., and Thompson, Kenneth W.. eds. 1950. Principles and Problems of International Politics: Selected Readings. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Murphy, Craig N. 2017. “Relocating the Point of IR in Understanding Industrial Age Problems.” In What's the Point of International Relations? edited by Dyvik, Synne L., Selby, Jan, and Wilkinson, Rorden, 71–82. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Patricia. 2007. Between War and Politics: International Relations and the Thought of Hannah Arendt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Patricia. 2018. “Women and the History of International Thought.” International Studies Quarterly 62 (3): 467–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Patricia, and Rietzler, Katharina. 2021. Women's International Thought: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Patricia, Rietzler, Katharina, Hutchings, Kimberly, and Dunstan, Sarah C.. 2022. Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietzler, Katharina. 2022. “U.S. Foreign Policy Think Tanks and Women's Intellectual Production, 1920–1950.” Diplomatic History 46 (3): 575–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenboim, Or, and Hartnett, Liane (2021) “International Political Thought and Historical International Relation.” In Routledge Handbook of Historical International Relations, edited by de Carvalho, Benjamin, Lopez, Julia Costa and Leira, Halvard, 99–110. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Barbara D. 2015. “Professor Merze Tate: Diplomatic Historian, Cosmopolitan Woman.” In Toward an Intellectual History of Black Women, edited by Bay, Mia, Griffin, Farah J., Jones, Martha S. and Savage, Barbara D., 252–69. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Savage, Barbara D. 2021. “Beyond Illusions: Imperialism, Race, and Technology in Merze Tate's International Thought.” In Women's International Thought: A New History, edited by P. Owens and K. Rietzler, 266–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, Laura. 2017. “Whose International is it Anyway: Women's Peace Activists as International Relations Theorists.” International Relations 31 (1): 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shilliam, Robbie. ed. 2011. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism, and Investigations of Global Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shilliam, Robbie. 2021. “Theorizing (with) Amy Ashwood Garvey.” In Women's International Thought: A New History, edited by P. Owens and K. Rietzler, 158–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluga, Glenda. 2014. “Turning International: Foundations of Modern International Thought and New Paradigms for Intellectual History.” History of European Ideas 41 (1): 103–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluga, Glenda. 2017. “Women, Feminisms and Twentieth Century Internationalisms.” In Internationalisms: A Twentieth-Century History, edited by Sluga, Glenda and Clavin, Patricia, 61–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Bonnie G. 2000. The Gender of History: Men, Women, and Historical Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stöckmann, Jan. 2018. “Women, Wars, and World Affairs: Recovering Feminist International Relations, 1915–39.” Review of International Studies 44 (2): 215–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thakur, Vineet, and Vale, Peter. 2020. South Africa, Race, and the Making of International Relations. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Thompson, Kenneth W. 1994. Fathers of International Thought: The Legacy of Political Theory. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Tickner, J. Ann, and True, Jacqui. 2018. “A Century of International Relations Feminism: From World War I Women's Peace Pragmatism to the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” International Studies Quarterly 62 (2): 221–33.Google Scholar
Tim, Dunne, Hansen, Lene, and Wight, Colin. 2013. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 405–25.Google Scholar
Umoren, Imaobong D. 2018. Race Women Internationalists: Activist-Intellectuals and Global Freedom Struggles. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umoren, Imaobong D. 2021. “Ideas in Action: Eslanda Robeson's International Thought after 1945.” In Women's International Thought: A New History, edited by P. Owens and K. Rietzler, 93–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitalis, Robert. 2015. White World Order, Black Power Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, Penny A. 2009. Canon Fodder: Historical Women Political Thinkers. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfers, Arnold, and Martin, Laurence W.. eds. 1956. The Anglo-American Tradition in Foreign Affairs: Readings from Thomas More to Woodrow Wilson. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar