Women’s participation and representation in governments around the world have increased. In examining the connection between women, gender, and politics, scholars have focused on the number of women in politics (descriptive representation) and their impact on policy, particularly whether women promote policies that further women’s empowerment and gender equality (substantive representation). Much of the research on women and politics examines women legislators and their impact on policies at the domestic level. The work on the connection between women, gender, and foreign policy, particularly the gender gap between men and women and the use of force, has focused primarily on legislatures, as well as public opinion and peace activists.
However, there is a growing body of research on women in executive positions (presidents, prime ministers, cabinet-level ministers/secretaries), including works by Mary Caprioli and Mark Boyer; Valerie Hudson and Patricia Leidl; Farida Jalalzai; Nancy McGlen and Meredith Reid Sarkees; and Ann Towns and Birgitta Niklasson. This research makes clear that it is important to consider where women are represented—what positions they actually hold. Men are more likely to be in positions considered prestigious (defense, economy/trade, foreign policy), whereas women are more likely to hold positions in what are considered to be “soft” or “feminine” areas (education, health).
Sylvia Bashevkin’s book is therefore a welcome contribution to this scholarship on women, gender, and politics, specifically focusing on women in foreign policy. Using a case-study approach, Bashevkin provides an illuminating study of four women appointed to high-level US foreign policy and national security positions in the executive branch: Jeane Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. She focuses on two main research questions: “[T]o what degree were these appointees transformative decision-makers who made a measurable difference to the understanding and practice of international relations in a global superpower?” and “how did they operate with respect to matters of political conflict and gender equality?” (pp. 15–16). She argues, “Each held a senior foreign policy position during a pivotal moment in international affairs, when a seat in the top ranks of the US executive branch brought with it the real possibility of shaping world politics” (p. 15). The contributions to foreign policies made by each women “were inconsistent with prevailing assumptions” of women promoting pacifist policies (essentialism) or that women would promote “masculine norms of aggression and belligerence” on assuming their positions. Rather, “all four women advocated a forceful defense of US national interests on the global stage” (p. 16).
In the first two chapters, Bashevkin provides an overview of the literature on women, gender, and politics and research on political executives and, more specifically, on women in executive positions. She further narrows the focus to women and foreign policy, using feminist historiography as her starting point to trace the evolution and impact of gender and women in diplomacy. She presents several relevant themes in this section of the book, including how diplomacy and diplomatic practice since 1500 became increasingly masculinized and thus restricted the opportunities available to women to engage in such practices. This literature is useful for understanding the contemporary period insofar as it “identifies important patterns of exclusion, as well as routes toward gaining acceptance that foreground present circumstances, and illuminates the push and pull of actors inside changing structures” (p. 11).
In chapter 2, Bashevkin situates her argument through a review of the literature on women, war, and feminism (including works by Jean Bethke Elshtain and Sara Ruddick), as well as research on American public opinion, in considering whether women are more peaceful than men. She elucidates the arguments of these works and their critiques; namely, that women vary in their opinions on war and feminism. It follows therefore that some women (both elite women and mass publics) support war, whereas others oppose it; some women support progressive feminist goals of gender equality, whereas others do not.
The empirical chapters 3–6 are presented in chronological order: each offers a comprehensive examination of each woman’s personal and professional backgrounds, the role that each played in the presidential administration to which they were appointed, how their views affected their positions on US foreign policy and approach to international affairs, and their impact on actual US foreign policy decisions. Throughout the book, Bashevkin convincingly demonstrates that all four women’s views about foreign policy and women’s rights were well established before their appointments to top-level foreign policy positions. In chapter 3, we see how Kirkpatrick’s background as a political scientist informed her views about a more assertive US foreign policy, which brought her to Reagan’s attention and led to his subsequent appointment of her as US ambassador to the UN. The first woman in US history to have a cabinet-level position, she was a moderate liberal feminist, but did not act to promote progressive feminist policies while serving in the administration. In chapter 4, we learn how Albright’s personal background (particularly her experience as a child refugee fleeing Europe) and leadership style informed her support for the use of force for humanitarian purposes, as both Bill Clinton’s US ambassador to the UN and then as secretary of state. In contrast to Kirkpatrick, Albright promoted women’s rights and gender equality as part of US foreign policy. Chapter 5 examines Rice—George W. Bush’s national security adviser and then secretary of state—who also trained as a political scientist, highlighting the role she played in the US “war on terror” following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. With regard to women’s rights and gender equality, although the administration used pro-equality rhetoric to justify the US invasion of Afghanistan, Rice did not use it to propose new policies on women and gender. Given her background as a feminist activist, law professor, and lawyer, Obama’s first secretary of state, Clinton, explicitly linked women’s rights and gender equality with US foreign policy and national security (see chapter 6).
In the concluding chapter, Bashevkin reiterates the findings from the case-study chapters: each woman played a transformative role in US foreign policy, as evidenced by their contributions to the specific foreign policy decisions of each administration. As she asserts, although there were similarities in terms of traits, such as individual determination and interpersonal skills, there were also differences, primarily a function of party affiliation. The Republican appointees favored more unilateral approaches to US foreign policy, whereas the Democratic appointees promoted multilateral approaches, working within international institutions to promote US interests. In terms of women’s rights and gender equality, Bashevkin unpacks these partisan differences to show that Kirkpatrick and Rice’s views reflected “the preferences of electoral constituencies that brought Reagan and Bush, respectively, to presidential office” (p. 222). She argues that Republican appointees, as was the case with Kirkpatrick and Rice, “proved as capable as Democrats of ‘acting for’ women, even though the content of their substantive representation was quite different” [American women opposed to progressive feminism and the Democratic Party] (p. 222). Consequently, Bashevkin reveals the nuanced ways in which descriptive and substantive representation intersect.
Women as Foreign Policy Leaders is an important contribution to the literature. Bashevkin’s comprehensive and detailed analysis of these four women who were instrumental in US foreign policy is essential for scholars interested in the interplay between gender, politics, and international relations.
