A Comparison of Cross-regional Masculinities in International Relations: Case Studies on the US, Japan and China

國際關係領域近來有兩大爭論，一為主流國關理論與非主流國關理論的爭議、二為國關理論對不同區域的適用性。其一，國際關係理論長期以來由現實主義及自由主義為主流。然而，隨著不同觀點進入國際關係領域，例如：女性主義；開始質疑長久以來支配國際關係的基本假設。其二，隨著國際政治的發達，越來越多非西方國家在國際社會中活躍，現行國際關係理論開始被質疑是否適用於非西方國家。 傳統國際關係理論：自由主義與現實主義，認為國際關係是性別中立的。但女性主義否定這項先驗假設，認為國際社會並非性別中立的，而是以性別中立掩蓋依靠性別分立運作的事實。性別分析的觀點更認為國際政治實際上是藉由定義「陽剛氣質」(masculinity)運作的「陽剛政治」(politics of masculinity)。此外，現實主義與自由主義是建構在傳統西方政治哲學上的國際關係理論，但東方國家有不同的政治、社會文化，則以西方傳統為基礎的理論不一定適用於非西方國家。 本研究之目的為檢視基於區域差異而產生的國家展演陽剛氣質的不同。研究方法為檢視衝突情境中分屬不同區域國家的官方論述，並藉由文本分析、論述分析與性別分析：霸權陽剛氣質的概念，呈現國家展演的國家氣質、國家角色想像，並比較區域間陽剛氣質的不同。因此，本文以古巴飛彈危機與2012年中日釣魚台爭端為分析案例，以美國代表西方典型、中國及日本做為東方的對照組，分析與比較美、中、日三國展演的陽剛氣質及西方─東方的差異。 在古巴飛彈危機中，美國同時實踐現實主義與自由主義的陽剛氣質，展演國際社會中霸權陽剛氣質的典範；相對地，中國與日本皆受儒家文化及自身文化脈絡影響，各自展現了獨特的陽剛氣質。尤其是中國因為不相信西方價值，因此表現出截然不同於西方典範的陽剛氣質與國家角色。There have been two research paradigms in International Relations (IR). The first mainstream, realism and liberalism included; consider international society is constructed of gender-free actors (states). The second one, feminism and other post-structuralist theories alike, believe that international society is built upon deliberate construction and separation of sex, such as feminity and masculinity. Now, gender approach already got its ways into IR and gender-based theoretical case studies are applied to IR, which offer innovative visions in contemporary international relations. Meanwhile, there has been intensely debated that whether the mainstream IR paradigm originated from the West could be conducted to the East (from Turkey, Russia to Japan and China). Given the various regional / civilizational features of culture and history, there is a growing concern that mainstream IR theories from the West may not be “universal” to the East. These cultural and historical diversities also lead to different construction of the separation and identity of sex. Though the World constructed by IR theories from the West, it does not mean that the same identity will be simply taken for granted. Being grounded on the conception of hegemonic masculinity, this study tries to compare the different hegemonic masculinities between the West and the East. Given the similar conditions of international relations, eastern countries may still practice different separation of sex, gender identities, and masculinities in their respective region. This study intends to compare 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis and the Senkaku Islands/ Diaoyu Islands disputes in 2012, of which the foreign discourse and behavior are examined. The main research method is content and discursive analysis over top political leaders’ speeches during these two crises. Through analyzing and comparing selected texts, the author concludes the paper with different, cross-region types of masculinities, which help formulate how the targeted countries conducted foreign policy in different way. While the U.S. performed realism-liberalism hegemonic masculinity, Japan and China performed their own distinct masculinities