'Do critical approaches Marxism, feminism, constructivism improve our understanding of international politics?\r'

'Abstract\r\nIn the coetaneous succession, the act of critical theoretical approaches is of signifi butt jointt brilliance if one is willing to develop a more than(prenominal) comprehensive cause of multinational politics and piece-wide dealing. Theoretical approaches, such(prenominal) as Marxism, Constructivism and womens liberation movement hind endnot only when provide such an discretion, but their convergence and notify signifi apprisetly contribute to our change magnitude awareness of homophiles-wide inequalities and the dimensions in which they occur by placing accent in not only on the relationship amongst the organise and self-confidence, but likewise interrogative sentence their in truth temper and scrutinised the prescriptive codes which guide human direction. patronage some of the limitations which the theories squander, their complemental use can be used successfully in golf club to imbibe a more critical position on the nature of world go vernance.\r\nIntroduction\r\nIn the contemporary era, the application of critical theoretical approaches is of significant sizeableness if one is willing to develop a more comprehensive understanding of outside(a) politics and planetary relations. As this essay will demonstrate, although approaches such as Marxism, Constructivism and Feminism cannot alone provide such an understanding, their complementary use can significantly contribute to our increased awareness of global inequalities and the dimensions in which they occur.\r\nMarxism\r\nThe impact of loss theory on the development of critical theorising in international politics is one the significance of which can hardly be denied. Despite this, bolshy theoretician have often been accused of not fetching into account f movers such as nationalism, as nearly as the balance of originator among states in say to sustain and structure world politics (Linklater, 2013). Moreover, red theories in the late 1970s and early mid- eighties found it increasingly difficult to devise an uninflected framework for explaining the relationship of nation-states and forcefulness in level of increased globalisation, characterised by increased national fragmentation, as well the resurgence of violent conflicts based on ethnicity (Giddens, 1985). This can the attributed to the inability of traditionalistic Marxist ideal to move beyond theorising approximately the significance of year conflict and the splendor of social relations in terms of modes of production. Despite this flaw, more contemporary neo-Marxist theorists have attempted to revitalise this critical approach by placing emphasis on the relationships between states, markets and the capitalist world economy in the era of globalisation (Teschke, 2003; Halliday, 1994; Rosenberg, 1994; Gamble, 1999). The application of Marxist thought has increasingly drawn perplexity to the problem of global diversity which the capitalist body has led to (Wallerstein, 1 979; Thomas, 1999; Linklater, 2013). Thus, the importance of modes of production have successfully been utilised in order to challenge the frugal discrepancy, which is characteristic of contemporary world markets and question the power relationships which exist between states on the international level. universe mainly preoccupied with material deprivation and discrepancy, however, Marxism has failed to spud into account the norms and values which governance the structures of economics and politics, a question which has preoccupied constructivist theories of international relations.\r\nConstructivism\r\nBy secern to Marxism, Constructivism places emphasis not only on the importance of material structures, but as well as the normative dimension which is associated with it, as well the importance of identity formation and manifestation (Price and Reus-Smit, 1998). Thus, constructivism attempts to remedy the Marxist’s neglect of the importance of agency and its relationship to structure in the process of devising and implementing decisions cogitate to international politics and relations among states in the era of globalisation (Reus-Smit, 2008).Therefore, Constructivism is complimentary to both(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) more traditional approaches of theorising about international politics, such as Rationalism, as well as more critical approaches such as Marxism (Reus-Smit, 2013). More importantly, the significance of human agency is not deprived from the structure which determines the manifestation of the actor’s interests; in fact it calls for the critical valuation of the institutionalised norms which are the mediator between structure and agency. This can be of considerable advantage of understanding the contemporary global inequalities which exists, between countries from the Third realness and post-industrialist Western states, as it will question not only the existing states of affairs in international politics, but also the moral dimensions of the reasoning tramp it. By placing emphasis on the development of normative frameworks which are used as guides and rationale for the execution of specific decisions in relation to international politics, Constructivism can successfully scrutinise and ‘moralise’ the power inequality among states and if used alongside neo-Marxist theories it can question both structure and agency. What both fail to take into account, however, is that agency in the era of global inequality also has a specific dimension, a problem which is turn to by Feminism.\r\nFeminism\r\nBy contrast to both Marxism and Constructivism, feminist theories of international politics and international relations took prominence only in the early 1990s, though their impact for the development of the academic disciplines has been considerable (True, 2003). Feminism as an intellectual tradition questioned the very nature of the agency which had an impact on the development of internat ional politics and introduced in the notion of ‘ sexuality’ as an empirical category and analytical tool finished which global inequality and unequal power statistical distribution could be understood (True, 2013). Thus, Feminism, alongside Constructivism could be considered as a major breakthrough as both of them questioned the more traditional discourse of power relations and moved beyond the singular focus on inter-state relations that characterised more traditional theories in the celestial orbit of global Relations (ibid.). Feminist thought has attracted precaution to the specific dimensions of global inequality, resulting from the transformation of economic world markets. In fact, it has been suggested that the process of globalisation has increased the inequality between men and women worldwide, ultimately resulting in a ‘feminisation of poverty’ (Chant, 2007; Chant, 2008). The increased emphasis on export and outsourcing reflecting the prioritie s of the global financial markets, have disproportionately affected women (Marchand and Runyan 2010). This rise in inequality and danger is also linked to the development of violent conflicts in states where inequality between genders is high (Goldstein, 2003). On the opposite hand, gender equality in states is said to get the likelihood of the use of violence in intra-state disputes (Caprioli, 2005; Caprioli and Boyer, 2001). Therefore, it could be argued that the use of more critical perspectives in theorising about international politics could significantly contribute to our understanding of global politics and could potentially results in less(prenominal) violent conflicts in the future if emphasis is fit(p) on the reduction of global inequality and its gendered dimension.\r\n expiration\r\nAs this essay has demonstrated, the critical theories of Marxism, Constructivism and Feminism could shape up our understanding of the nature of global inequalities by placing emphasis in not only on the relationship between the structure and agency, but also question their very nature and scrutinised the normative codes which guide human agency. Despite some of the limitations which these theories have, their complementary use can be used successfully in order to gain a more critical perspective on the nature of world governance.\r\nBibliography\r\nCaprioli, M. (2005). Primed for violence: The role of gender inequality in predicting inwrought conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 49(2), 161-178. Caprioli, M., & Boyer, M. A. (2001). Gender, violence, and international crisis. ledger of Conflict Resolution, 45(4), 503-518. Chant, S. H. (2007). Gender, generation and poverty: exploring the feminisation of poverty in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Edward Elgar Publishing. Chant, S. (2008). The ‘feminisation of poverty’and the ‘feminisation’of anti-poverty programmes: Room for decree?. The Journal of Development Studies, 44(2), 165 -197. Gamble, A. (1999). Marxism after communism: beyond realism and historicism. round off of International Studies, 25(5), 127-144. Giddens, A. (1985). The nation-state and violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldstein, J. S. (2003). War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge University Press. Halliday, F. (1994). Rethinking international relations. Palgrave Macmillan. Linklater, A. (2013) ‘Marxism’, ’ in Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Paterson, M. Reus-Smit, C. and True, J., Theories of international relations (Fifth edition.). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Marchand, M. H., & Runyan, A. S. (Eds.). (2010). Gender and world(a) Restructuring: sightings, sites and resistances. Routledge. Price, R., & Reus-Smit, C. (1998). Dangerous liaisonsCritical international theory and constructivism. European Journal of International Relations, 4(3), 259-294. Reus-Smit, C. (2008). Reading history through constructivist eyes. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 37(2), 395-414. Reus-Smit, C. (2013).’ Constructivism’(pp. 217-240), ’ in Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Paterson, M. Reus-Smit, C. and True, J., Theories of international relations (Fifth edition.). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rosenberg, J. (1994). The empire of polite society (p. 141). London: Verso. Teschke, B. (2003). The myth of 1648: class, geopolitics, and the making of advanced international relations. Verso. Thomas, C. (1999). Where is the Third World now?. Review of International Studies, 25(5), 225-244. True, J. (2003). Mainstreaming gender in global universal policy. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 5(3), 368-396. True, J. (2013). ‘Feminism’, in Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Paterson, M. Reus Smit, C. and True, J., Theories of international relations (Fifth edition.). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wallerstein, I. (Ed.). (1979). The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\r\n'