realist theory fails to explain motives for conflict –gender hierarchy is the best predictor of war and state behavior –this card is really awesome

Gender hierarchy as a/the cause of war Seeing the international system as gender-hierarchical suggests different understandings of when, how, and why war occurs than those currently dominant in IR theory and Security Studies. First, appropriating a Clause- witzian observation, war can be seen as politics by other means. If gender hierarchy is a structural feature of the international system and a key organizing principle in dictating state identity, interaction, and relative position, then conflicts between states can be characterized as conflicts within/about the gendered order of the international structure. Conflict can be seen as, at least in part, gendered posturing between actors jock- eying for a higher position along the gendered sociopolitical hierarchy among states. Conflict is not, as realists argue, a competition for survival (an explanation which has always been somewhat unsatisfactory given the relative inequality of states and the self-help behavior of states at no risk of failing to survive). Instead, it is a competition where states, as gendered actors in a gendered system, are out to dominate rather than to survive, and are more interested in dominance than prudence. For example, Haynes notes that Soviet World War II-era socialist realist film characterizes the Nazi breaking of the non-aggression pact in terms of gender, where Nazi Germany’s hypermasculinity would ultimately be its downfall (2003, 7). States do not look to continue to exist or to end others’ existence, they look to affirm their masculinity (and protect their feminine elements) while feminizing others. When we think of structural gender hierarchy as a key part of explaining state behavior, governments that risk their survival for honor (like the Belgians or the Melians before them) do not appear so singular. Second, and following, then, gender hierarchy can be seen as a/the permissive cause of war. Wendt (1999) was correct in arguing that there is nothing inherent about anarchy that makes the international system conflictual, but perhaps too quick in looking for ‘cultures of’ that anarchic structure. A third theoretical path, the one I argue holds the most explanatory potential, is that there is a structural factor other than or in addition to anarchy in the international system which can explain the conflictual nature of the international system. I suggest that gender hierarchy is such a structural factor. Some scholars might see little theoretical progress in the assertion that gender hierarchy (rather than anarchy) might be a permissive cause of war. I argue that even if this supposition did not add predictive value to theorizing global politics, it would be of value for its explanatory power. Gender hierarchy, though it manifests itself in different ways at different times in different contexts, consistently organizes social and political value on the basis of (perceived) gender and normally valorizes characteristics associated with (hegemonic) masculinities over characteristics associated with (subordinated) femininities. As such, regardless of the specific content of the competition, units within the system (states) are in constant competition to prove their masculinities and deny (or protect) their femininities, in whatever configuration. Since gender-based characteristics are often measured relatively, this incentivizes competition and conflict in the inter- national system. Even if this explanation predicted competition the same way that understanding the international system as anarchic did, it would be useful to think about the influence of gender to the extent that it exists. I suggest there is more to it, however. The third potential implication of system structural gender hierarchy is that it functions differently than anarchy as a permissive cause of war, and potentially adds predictive ability as well as improving explanatory value. This is because variations among states’ ideal-typical understandings of genders can account for variations in the level of competition and bellicosity of states within the gender hierarchical structure of the international system. Therefore, it is possible that structural gender hierarchy has something to say not only about the causes of war, but also about the causes of wars and the variations among them. Genders in the gender hierarchy among states vary both at the system- level and within the system. If gender hierarchy is the structural property of the international system, which shapes political processes, the particular gender tropes along the hierarchy and the relative position thereof both differ among units (states) and change over time despite the constant nature of structural gender hierarchy. Put differently, a fundamental limitation of most structural explanations for war is that they are only structural explanations and therefore only a permissive cause, since whatever makes them structural makes them immovable. As a result, what Waltz identifies as ‘other causes’ are necessary to explain the occurrence of wars and the variation among them. A more parsimonious way to account for the frequent occurrence of wars alongside the frequent non-occurrence of wars is to look for a structural feature of global politics, which is at once structural (constant, ordering) and varies (accounting for when states fight and when they do not). Systemic gender hierarchy provides such a structural explanation, as gender as an ordering principle is constant, even as the genders and their orders are fungible. Therefore, and fourth, it is possible to see that gender hierarchy as a structural feature of the international system predicts state behavior differently (and potentially more precisely) than seeing the international system as an anarchy (alone). While structural gender hierarchy predicts the existence of war (the question that Waltz was interested in), it also has the potential to do some accounting for wars. The next section of this article briefly discusses some potential hypotheses which arise.