Description
In recent year, Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) has gained increasing attention. Following Sweden’s lead in 2014, various states have adopted or are preparing to adopt a FFP approach to their foreign policy. Still, FFP is not homogeneously defined but can be broadly understood as a multidimensional political framework that fundamentally emphasizes the needs, experiences and welfare of marginalized groups and individuals. Thereby, it is crucial to differentiate between FFP as a policy framework and as a theoretical concept. As a theoretical approach, FFP critically questions the initial state of foreign policy and its biased structures and, thus, challenges major paradigms within the highly masculinized field of foreign policy as a system- and power-critical approach. Yet, the former, policy approach regards FFP as an analytical toolbox and critical lens through which (foreign) policy decisions should be reflected upon. Hence, states’ policy approaches differ significantly. In this regard, this research seeks to find first theoretical responses to the question of how FFP is performed by states and how meaning, in a broader sense, is consequently constructed in different state FFPs. Drawing on Butler’s performativity theory, FFP will be theorized considering its performance and performative construction. Though Butler focuses on gender’s performativity, this research attempts to translate Butler’s theory to FFP. Following performativity, meaning depends on situatedness and positionality including, for instance, context and cultural framework. Standing in interdependency, (new) meaning is constructed through repetitive performance and the embeddedness in certain contexts. Accordingly, FFP needs to redefine itself through a continuous performance. Here, the research not only questions who is included, how and where redefinition takes place and which dominant conceptions and hegemonic patters are present but tries to further scrutinize what performativity entails for FFP and its construction. In a second step, the theoretical assumptions are exemplarily reviewed by taking different state FFPs into account - conceivable, Sweden’s, Mexico’s, Germany’s, Canada’s or Spain’s FFP.
