Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

So when I offered my "top ten" list of favorite books in international relations last week, how many of you noticed that all of the authors were men? I did, and so did my wife. Not only that, but most of the suggestions sent in by commenters referred to books written by men as well. Of course, my interests tend to lie on the security side of the field, which has tended to attract more men than women until fairly recently. And my list leaned toward recognized classics, which biased it towards older works (and thus to eras when women scholars were fewer in number). But I've been in the business long enough to know that subtler forms of bias might be involved too, so I thought I'd put out a list of some of my favorite books by women scholars (plus a few journalists/public intellectuals). It's not hard to come up with ten (and a few more).

1. Roberta Wohlstetter, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. To take nothing away from others, this is arguably the most influential book by a woman scholar in the field of security affairs, and it cast a long shadow over subsequent studies of intelligence failure and strategic surprise.

2. Susan Strange, States and Markets. Strange was a pioneering figure in the history of international studies in Britain, and a clear-eyed thinker and writer. Frankly, I enjoyed some of her articles (such as "Cave! Hic Dragone: A Critique of Regime Analysis," in the 1983 International Organization issue on regimes) more than her books, but the overall contribution earns a place on my list.

3. Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. This book helped convince me that constructivist analysis could say something important and tangible about security affairs.  It’s sharply written and persuasive, too. Need I say more?

4. Frances FitzGerald, Fire in the Lake: Vietnamese and Americans in Vietnam. A Pulitzer-prize winning investigation of Vietnamese society and a piercing critique of America's tragic intervention there. Students of missile defense should also read her Way out There in the Blue: Star Wars and the End of the Cold War, a fascinating account of Ronald Reagan's campaign to make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete."

5. Kathryn Sikkink and Margaret Keck, Activists beyond Border: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Both Keck and Sikkink have written other important works, but this is my favorite, as it brought to light an under-studied (and one might argue increasingly important) phenomenon.

6. Samantha Power, "A Problem from Hell": American in the Age of Genocide. Another Pulitzer Prize-winner by (full disclosure) a friend and colleague. Power is no realist, but I think the book’s lessons point in that direction. If great powers like the United States are too self-interested to do very much to save the lives of others (a tendency she deplores), why expect that to change? A wonderful book, full of passion and insight and gripping prose.

7. Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. When one considers that issues of the "commons" are now central to much of world politics, and how institutions will be central to any effective solution, this was a remarkably far-sighted book.

8. Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions. Although primarily a work of comparative historical sociology, Skocpol’s path breaking work also emphasizes the role of international pressures in driving great revolutions.  Like its author, a work to be reckoned with.

9. Beth Simmons, Who Adjusts?: Domestic Sources of Foreign Economic Policy during the Interwar Years, 1923-1939. For those of you who thought Charles Kindleberger answered all your questions about the Great Depression. And worth re-reading in light of our current situation.

10. Valerie Hudson and Andrea Den Boer, Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population. I mentioned this in my earlier discussion, and can’t resist highlighting it here. The argument is simple but striking and could have far-reaching implications. Short version: if a cultural preference for male offspring leads to too many unattached men in your society, look out.

Like my earlier top ten, this list just scratches the surface of interesting works on different aspects of world politics. Other obvious contenders (i.e., books I've enjoyed and/or learned a lot from) would include Etel Solingen, Nuclear Logics; Jo-Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics; Elizabeth Kier, Imagining War, Monica Toft, The Geography of Ethnic Violence; Mia Bloom, Dying to Kill; Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking; Debora Spar, The Cooperative Edge, Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919, Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire, and Nina Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo.  And yes, I know I'm leaving plenty of deserving scholars out, but I'm confident readers will tell me who I missed. 

TORSTEN SILZ/AFP/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

PERCNON

5:16 PM ET

April 14, 2009

For a woman writing about

For a woman writing about women in international politics its hard to beat Cynthia Enloe - Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Mandatory reading for anyone even remotely acquainted with feminist perspectives on IP/IR.

 

COURTNEYME109

5:50 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Statecraft

Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World by Baroness Margaret Thatcher

 

COHENM

6:19 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Rose McDermott

Rose McDermott should be on the list too. An important book on prospect theory (c1994), on political psychology and IR (2004), article on women and security in current issue of IS, and much other interesting work. She would have to be one of the more productive (female) scholars of late too.

 

PETER N W

6:38 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Anne Appelbaum

Her history of the Gulag should be required reading for any IR student.

 

NATASHA LEITE

7:24 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Mary Kaldor

For her work on Global Civil Society and Human Security. And her book New and Old Wars is becoming a must read for students of International Relations.

Heather Rae, for State Identities and the Homogenization of Peoples.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

8:26 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Professor, it would be more

Professor, it would be more realistic to give your list of books in following categories:

IR Books by Secularists
IR Books by Jews
IR Books by Christians
IR Books by Muslims
etc.
because those are the major players in FP at least for the last couple of millenniums. Secularists would give you only their perspective of FP as being dominant owners of right to law to carry on their tyranny.

Are you scared of getting ex-communicated by secularists?
How can you claim being a realist when you are scared of your own shadow?

Grand Sen~or.

 

TESS

10:54 AM ET

April 15, 2009

Grand Señor, I disagree with

Grand Señor,

I disagree with this. Women constitute half of the world's population. It is through patriarchal systems and assumptions that our perspectives became irrelevant. In a more modern world, women are gaining their voices. IMHO, there are still inhibitors, because the institutions that we function in were created by men, for men long before women entered the world of business, higher education and politics. The systems structures simply are irrelevant to our biological functioning. Still, in most cases, women can make choices that allow their passage through the institutions.

Studies show that women think differently than men. I believe that feminist literature argues men are more binomial and women more shades of gray. I have seen business studies that say men are more abstract and women more personal. Either way, I would say we do think different and I would not be the least surprised if the thought of an Christian woman and a Jewish woman on political events were more alike than a Christian woman and Christian man.

Now that I think about it, I don't remember any Comparative books in Walt's first post. I remember something that was held kind of colloquially from the time before my biological function made me leave higher education. Of the international students, we had one female that chose IR and one male Comparative as their core studies, and the rest of the men chose IR as a specialization, and the rest of the young ladies Comparative. I was told this distribution was pretty usual, though it was not a scientific study, of course. It reflects a difference in thinking and approach.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

9:13 PM ET

April 15, 2009

I don't know what you are

I disagree with this. Women constitute half of the world's population.

If you jumble them yes. Actually they are 40 million less than men;-)

I don't know what you are complaining about, I didn't exclude women from my list. In fact I left my list open. You could include Feminists as another category to it if you wish. Your comments are typical universalist, secularist comments. You are proud to be secularist and you see non-secularists as not so much developed/modern yet, if they did they would also become a secularist like yourself becaus your laws are perfect and universal - that is what you believe, otherwise you wouldn't be secularist. This is good for you as a secularist but a Christian thinks about the same for non-christians and they are as proud as yourself to be Christian and they expect one day you may reborn to be one like them because their laws are revealed by God and covers all creatures including secularists even if they don't realise it. That is good for Christians as well. And for the Jews, it is even better, they are selected by G-d and the rest is Gentile to be used according to the Laws, so they are the proudest of all, prouder than Secularists I would say, and it is good for Jews. That is how we identify a Secularist and Christian etc. But for me what is not so good is every one of those chasing each other to impose their laws to all. Most of the time I blame Secularists on that for they happen to be in power, but I don't ignore that Jews/Christians/Mulsims are after this power even on the cost of their beliefs. They are ready to convert to Secularism to gain the power represented by State. That is why I try to disclose the real status of State in every occassion to show all that they are running after a mirage towards Hell to save the "state";->

You are welcome to create a sub-category if you wish for all the groups for man/woman/etc. like:

Jewish men
women
others

You could also add more sub-categories for different sects under Jews to be more precise. People already do this on this Blog for groups such as Zionist, Sephardim, Eshkanazi for Jews and Sunni, Shia for Muslims when it comes to the detail discussions. Those people have different world views which would be reflected in their IR and IR literature.

Grand Sen~or.

BTW, I know what will be posted here next by Prof. Walt:
Top ten IR books by gays.
Because for Secularists the world composed of secularist men/women/gays. The rest is not even human yet, they are barbarians. Typical sort of Athenian Democracy. I am really impressed, I am from Mars;->>>>

Note : My name is not "Grand Señor" it is "Grand Sen~or (Sen + denial sign ~ + or (like and/or, logical "or", so it is denial or = ~V : (TT F, TF F, FT F, FF T))";->>

 

TESS

12:12 AM ET

April 16, 2009

point of clarification:

This is good for you as a secularist but a Christian thinks about the same for non-christians and they are as proud as yourself to be Christian and they expect one day you may reborn to be one like them because their laws are revealed by God and covers all creatures including secularists even if they don't realise it.

Unlike Islam and Judaism, Christian revelations do not contain a body of laws for governing society. The Vatican has used the verse of Matthew 16:18 "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," (as well as others) to create the authority of its institutions. It then created governance though the Church structure, not through any set of laws. As part of the Protestant Revolution, the idea of sola scripta called into question the authority of the Church. New interpretations opened the door to new Churches. Today, there are over 200 sects of Christianity mostly down the Protestant line. I doubt any Church could organize themselves into any semblance of a single body of thought to create laws. The Vatican has been try to spearhead a reconciliation project. It is, unsurprisingly, not going well with many branches.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

6:54 AM ET

April 16, 2009

Unlike Islam and Judaism,

Unlike Islam and Judaism, Christian revelations do not contain a body of laws for governing society.

Are you saying that Christians are lawless society;->>
Look this is just a secularist argument to keep Christians happy;->>I know how Christians involved in legal process in their early stage in Roman Empire administration.

I doubt any Church could organize themselves into any semblance of a single body of thought to create laws.

Why do you expect them to create a single body of laws?
This is not your problem as a secularist, is it?
Leave Christians alone to create as many body of laws as they need. You are not their Boss, are you?;->>
Why can't you imagine a Multi-law Christian Societies? Is it because you are so used to mono-law-secularo-fascist State structure?

Think big Mate!
If they will, they can!

Grand Sen~or.

 

TESS

11:08 AM ET

April 16, 2009

I am not their boss. I am,

I am not their boss. I am, however, a trained educator in the Christian community that is recognized as such by the community itself to pass on our mores and beliefs of our system to the next generation. As such, I am informing you, as you seem not to be aware, Christian revelation does not have its own body of law unlike Judaism and Islam.

Pope John Paul the II chastised his clergy often for being part of ruling institutions. (specifically in Latin America) He felt it diminished their ability to criticize politicians and their actions on moral grounds. And, he backed that with threats of stripping priests of their titles. I guess the Pope was a "Secularist" too, but would that mean he would not know his religion? Or, that secularism was imposed on the religious by those outside the system?

Back to the topic, you have not said why women are not a relevant sub-group. Studies have shown that even within their own religious subgroups, female political thought is quite different from mens. It has nothing to do with secularism.

 

IQBOL

1:04 PM ET

April 16, 2009

Tess, if we follow your

Tess, if we follow your reasoning,then we could not have a single list which could contain books written either by men or women (thus recognizing that men and women could produce books of same value). Rather, we should have two distinct lists for men and women respectively because their works have different values. Pr. Walt also is following your logic then; because he felt himself obliged to produce a distinct list for women authors.

But, personally I think we could content ourselves with one single list which could contain both men and women authors.
Giving example, from international law discipline, I can cite many interesting women authors' works (like Mireille Delmas-Marty) who don't need another additional list for getting into top.

PS. You say that men and women reason differently. Look at this philosopher (guru of new right in France); he thinks like you :)

http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/la_societe_sans_pere.pdf

 

TESS

3:00 PM ET

April 16, 2009

Since when is gender

Since when is gender differences so controversial? Is it no longer standard practice to keep gender as a control variable in an analysis because there are difference in perceptions between the genders? I have not said whether I feel they are socialized or natural. Just that research shows that difference currently exists.

I have said I feel that the structure of social institutions inhibits women from attaining different "rights of passage" related to biological function. Think for a minute about the tenure process. You have 4 years for a BA, 2-3 yrs for an MA, another 2-3 for your Ph.D. including your thesis and defense. Then it is 4-7 years to get tenure of heavy writing and research plus your teaching load. So that is 12 years on the low end to complete the process safely. That puts you at 30 yo. That's ideal. But, who has an ideal life, the reality is it is closer to 35, and that is the magic number for "geriatric pregnancy". In the end, it is choice for women, then men don't face because they don't have a biological deadline.

Now, as to the list of female authors, I think Professor Walt hit on the issue for a different list well. It was not because they are "female" alone, it is because traditional barriers. I wonder, how many tenured females are there as a portion to males in Political Science, or specifically in IR? I don't know. I do know that there was exactly one tenured female in the grad school I attended, and she had a second specialization and only worked part time in the department. It was the exact same for my undergraduate. One tenured female professor in the whole department of Political Science, and none at all in Economics.

I would not mind seeing other lists that would show difference in thought, like Hispanic, Arab, Jewish or Latino scholars, or Jewish, Muslim and Orthodox, if you will. I bet it would be enlightening and interesting. And, I certainly would not deride it.

As to Monsieur Alain de Benoist, his article seems to address his perception of how the feminist movement has impacted the family. I did not talk about the feminist movement or say how home life should be. I said research shows women approach topics differently and their scholarship is a worthy of note, since institutional barriers would traditionally have limited their contributions.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

11:10 AM ET

April 17, 2009

Tess, please don't get me

Tess, please don't get me wrong. I am not against some or all Christians to choose to adopt Secularists' laws as their laws and still call themselves Christians. What I am against is their assuming that they have all the right to make and impose their laws to others, denying their right to law. In the end, Christians (or sects of Christians) decide what laws they live with and if they are same as secularists' I have no problem with that. But when Secularists (call them Christians if you wish) expose Amish women on TVs and judge them according to their laws (call them Christian Laws if you wish) I have a big problem with such tyranny. Amish's right to law should not be denied, they should have their own institutions to settle their legal issues themselves. Secularists coming to solve their legal problems?! Who asked them? What is that? Secularists has no such right. But of course in such a case I assume that members of Amish by their will choose to live according to their laws and have a right to resign being member to Amish Community according to the rules accepted.
How would you like Amish catching secularists and judging them at their courts according to their laws?
They would wipe them out of the map, wouldn't they?

I guess the Pope was a "Secularist" too, but would that mean he would not know his religion?

We identify religion of people according to the laws they accept and practice. If there is no difference between the laws Pope accept and practice than secularists' laws, then either Secularists became Christians or Christians became Secularists or they together created a brand new religion which they have not named it yet;->

Back to the topic, you have not said why women are not a relevant sub-group.

I didn't say that women are not a relevant sub-group. But I said if you want you can sub-goup like
Secularist-men
Secularist-women
etc.
I also reminded that on this Blog you already group people according to their religions like Jews, Zionists, etc.

Studies have shown that even within their own religious subgroups, female political thought is quite different from mens. It has nothing to do with secularism.

That is why I offered above sub-groupings. Yes it may have a lot to do with Secularism/Christianity/Judaism/Zionism/etc. A secularist woman writer may have quite different perspective of IR than a Christian woman writer, may not she?

Grand Sen~or.

 

STEPHEN M. WALT

7:43 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Quick reaction

I confess I haven't read Applebaum's book on the Gulag or Thatcher's Statecraft, but Enloe and McDermott are both excellent suggestions.
 

GRAND SEN-OR

9:00 PM ET

April 14, 2009

I confess ...Professor we

I confess ...

No! no! Professor we expect you to confess more than that;->

Have you read Confessions by St. Augustine of Hippo (Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis) ? That would give you some idea how to confess;->>

Grand Sen~or.

 

IQBOL

8:07 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Was this really necessary? Do

Was this really necessary?

Do the books have a gender?

 

GRAND SEN-OR

8:19 PM ET

April 15, 2009

Hey! Women are equal to Men,

Hey! Women are equal to Men, but not so equal when it comes to IR according to Secularists, they still have their own mind as long as they are secularists, thanks to Jupiter! (should I say "State"?);->>

Grand Sen~or.

 

WIGWAG

12:52 AM ET

April 15, 2009

I second the recommendation about Cynthia Enloe

I second the recommendation mentioning Clark University's Cynthia Enloe. She is one of the brightest, most progressive and most provocative foreign policy experts to be found anywhere. My favorite is one of her earlier works,

"Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives."

I would also repeat a recommendation I made on the earlier thread; anyone who wants to understand ethnic conflict should read Rebecca West's account of her pre-world war II travels through the Balkins, "Black Lamb, Gray Falcon."

 

KALERGI85

10:21 AM ET

April 15, 2009

Prof. Walt, what about the

Prof. Walt, what about the greatest living dipomatic historian, Margaret Macmillan? Surely you must be familiar with her work. While I understand that her perspective might not be congenial to the worldview of someone with your MIT/positivist rearing, can we not, for once, think outside the strictures of our disciplinary biases and recognize the unique value of Prof. Macmillan's work?

 

MAURO

11:12 AM ET

April 15, 2009

Gowa?

Dear Professor, what about Ballots and Bullets of Joanne Gowa?
Similarly important is her book Allies, Adversaries and International Trade.

 

HB34

5:24 PM ET

April 15, 2009

Umm...

... kinda forgetting a biggie here: Jean Bethke Elshtain's Women and War!!!

 

IQBOL

1:03 PM ET

April 16, 2009

double post

double post

 

FORMER GRAD

1:45 PM ET

April 16, 2009

Though I do not agree, Mary

Though I do not agree, Mary Kaldor on New and Old Wars made a lot of noise.

Probably the argument is wrong, as most of the things MK wrote, but certainly it deserves some skimming.

best

ps: Prof Walt, is this post due to the fact that in your one World, many theories, you did not mention feminism? AHAHAH (it was a good move, btw).

 

FORMER GRAD

3:40 PM ET

April 16, 2009

SORRY SORRY SORRY, but are we

SORRY SORRY SORRY, but are we not forgetting the master?

Carl von Clausewitz's master-piece On War would not be available if his "beliebte" wife, Mary, had not edited and published it.

Well... if Clausewitz was a genius, without her wife we would probably miss his work. This is not exactly a minor contribution to IR theory.

 

STEPHEN M. WALT

7:25 PM ET

April 16, 2009

Spousal contribution

Nice point! And from the foreword to Kenneth Waltz's MAN, THE STATE, AND WAR (!959): "My wife has done more than keep the children quiet and move commas around; she did most of the research for one chapter and contributed ideas and information to all of them." Hardly a surprise to those of us who knew Ken's very smart and interesting partner.
 

DILAPIDATEURDEGINGEMBRE

5:49 PM ET

April 25, 2009

Walt Shouldn't Naomi Klein be

Walt

Shouldn't Naomi Klein be included in this list, considering the considerable influence her best-sellers "No Logo" and "The Shock Doctrine" have had on our understanding of the recent history of international relations through the perspective of multinational corporate strategies and their influence on national policies?

She may not strictly speaking be regarded as an "academic" - but the very notion of academia is losing much of its halo as the "knowledge-based society" becomes more of a reality and the frontiers between specialist disciplines dissolve. Not everyone, naturally enough, is happy with this, but that seems to be the way things are moving.

She may have less direct influence on establishment policy-makers than some of the women in your list, but the fact that her books have sold millions of copies and influenced many of the world's educated people is likely, in the long run, to influence the decisions that are made by them perhaps to an even greater extent.

In addition to which, you included journalists in your list and Naomi Klein, though holding militant views, is a journalist.

And speaking of spouses, what about Alvin Toffler's wife, who has had a considerable role in writing Future Shock and the Third Wave, which may not strictly speaking be IR publications, but which have had a major influence on some of the world's leading corporate "gurus" - Peters being the first that comes to mind.

I get the impression that there is a lack of recognition here of the increasingly influential role of multinational corporations on national policies, to the extent that one could convincingly argue that Eisenhower's warnings as regards the Research Establishment and the military-industrial complex have become true today and that few decisions by policy-makers are independent of corporate lobbies.

So it is hardly surprising then that academics writing about international relations who miss the importance of this factor are increasingly ignored by policy-makers (a theme which you mentioned in one of your above posts). Obviously, without taking this factor into account, their contributions are becoming irrelevant (but their careers are preserved ;-).

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More