Claire Doyle - Blog Post 1

    The study of international relations is based primarily on a sexist and racist foundation. According to the work of Du Bois, “Of the Culture of White Folk” and Ann J. Tickner’s “Morganthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformation,” the analysis of international politics is based solely on the views of white men. Throughout Du Bois’s work, he critiqued that the study of international politics existed before sociology, political theory, law, and colonial development. Tickner critiqued the work of Hans Morganthau and his Six Principles of Political Realism, which Tickner argued were “a partial description of international politics because it is based on assumptions about human nature that are partial and privilege masculinity” (Tickner, 431). Regardless of what one studies, the basis of that historical foundation is most definitely based on the views of a white male. Whether it is the study of science and using Einstein’s studies, US History, the Founding Fathers, or even just everyday life as an individual in the United States 50 years, white men receive the privilege of being treated better than other races and genders.

    The “Six Principles of Political Realism” by Hans Morganthau are sexist and prove to have points that, due to society’s human nature, are naturally sexist and have a masculine bias. There is a gender hierarchy within the study of international relations due to the language that favors male stereotypes and the circulation around men’s interests and how to benefit men specifically. Introducing her analysis of political realism in a feminist forum, Tickner states, “International politics is a man’s world, a world of power and conflict in which warfare is a privileged activity” (Tickner, 429). In a traditional aspect, the world of international relations has a generally sizeable male domain. Though it is mainly male-dominated, the concern of other genders and other races should be a concern. Tickner acknowledges that she is constructing an alternative to Morganthau’s views on political realism but also states that she does not deny the validity of his work either. She says, “Adding a feminist perspective to the epistemology of international relations, however, is a stage through which we must pass if we are to begin to think about constructing an ungendered or human science of international politics” (Tickner, 438). The views in Morganthau’s work do not only disregard women, but they also disregard the fact that all of the foundations are based on white people. 

    “Of the Culture of White Folk” gives the black perspective on how white people constantly disregard the interests of other races. Du Bois questions why being of European descent makes a man better than another? He argues that the actions the white men are taking are not them acting irrational, it is who they are, “this is not Europe gone mad; this is not aberration nor insanity; this is Europe; this seeming terrible is the real soul of white culture - back of all culture, stripped and visible today” (Du Bois, 437). Europe is so great because of the foundation it was created on - the work and abuse of slaves. Du Bois stated, “It is the duty of white Europe to divide up the darker world and administer it for Europe’s good” (Du Bois, 439). Europeans exploited the lives of darker people to create the foundations of their entire history. The invasions of Africa did not come from a sense of assimilation but that of degradation and exploitation. 

    Historical foundations of any country, theory, or idea were based on the views of the white male. Women and other races were never given a chance to state their opinions without backlash. By comparing Tickners, “Morganthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformation” and Du Bois, “Of the Culture of White Folk,” one can see the constant struggle of women and African Americans to gain their rights and change the culture of today. One cannot change how international relations were founded, but one can work every day to change its future.