Originally published in 1998, The "Man" Question in International Relations looks the prevalence of man in the world of international relations. The book argues that, focusing on women as a way of changing the gender of international relations can position women as "the problem." The authors of this book suggest that the problem is not "woman" but "man." Rather than highlighting the absences and presence of women in the theories and practices of international relations, the authors concentrate on questioning the practices of masculinities, the hegemony of men, and the subject of "man." In this way, they hope to destabilize the field in ways that "adding women and stirring" has not.

The reality of international relations and its academic study are still almost entirely constituted by men. Rethinking the Man Question is a crucial investigation and reinvigoration of debates about gender and international relations. Following on from the seminal The Man Question in International Relations this book looks at the increasingly violent and 'toxic' nature of world politics post 9/11. Contributors including Raewyn Connell, Kimberley Hutchings, Cynthia Enloe, Kevin Dunn and Sandra Whitworth consider the diverse theoretical and practical implications of masculinity for international relations in the modern world. Covering theoretical issues including masculine theories of war, masculinity and the military, cyborg soldiers, post-traumatic stress disorder and white male privilege. The book also focuses on the ways in which masculinity configures world events from conscientious objection in South Africa to 'porno-nationalism' in India, from myths and heroes in Kosovo to the makings of Zimbabwe. This essential work will define the field for many years to come.

Much has been written on how masculinity shapes international relations, but little feminist scholarship has focused on how international relations shape masculinity. Charlotte Hooper draws from feminist theory to provide an account of the relationship between masculinity and power. She explores how the theory and practice of international relations produces and sustains masculine identities and masculine rivalries. This volume asserts that international politics shapes multiple masculinities rather than one static masculinity, positing an interplay between a "hegemonic masculinity" (associated with elite, western male power) and other subordinated, feminized masculinities (typically associated with poor men, nonwestern men, men of color, and/or gay men). Employing feminist analyses to confront gender-biased stereotyping in various fields of international political theory—including academic scholarship, journals, and popular literature like The Economist—Hooper reconstructs the nexus of international relations and gender politics during this age of globalization.

-- Political Science Quarterly

What do we mean by theory in international relations? What kinds of knowledge do theories seek? How do they stipulate it is found? How should we evaluate any resulting knowledge claims? What do answers to these questions tell us about the theory project in IR, and in the social sciences more generally? Lebow explores these questions in a critical evaluation of the positivist and interpretivist epistemologies. He identifies tensions and problems specific to each epistemology, and some shared by both, and suggests possible responses. By exploring the relationship between the foundations of theories and the empirical assumptions they encode, Lebow's analysis enables readers to examine in greater depth the different approaches to theory and their related research strategies. This book will be of interest to students and scholars of international relations theory and philosophy of social science.

Publisher Description

The realist theory of international relations is based on a particularly gloomy set of assumptions about universal human motives. Believing people to be essentially asocial, selfish, and untrustworthy, realism counsels a politics of distrust and competition in the international arena. What Moves Man subjects realism to a broad and deep critique. Freyberg-Inan argues, first, that realist psychology is incomplete and suffers from a pessimistic bias. Second, she explains how this bias systematically undermines both realist scholarship and efforts to promote international cooperation and peace. Third, she argues that realism's bias has a tendency to function as a self-fulfilling prophecy: it nurtures and promotes the very behaviors it assumes predominate human nature. Freyberg-Inan concludes by suggesting how a broader and more complex view of human motivation would deliver more complete explanations of international behavior, reduce the risk of bias, and better promote practical progress in the conduct of international affairs.