A Struggle for Hegemonic Feminisation in Six Feminist Foreign Policies Or, How Social Hierarchies Work in World Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks at how six states that adopted feminist foreign policies (FFPs) – Sweden, Canada, France, Luxembourg, Mexico and Spain – relate to each other, using an analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with diplomats and public officials from the six states. It connects the literature on social hierarchies in world politics with scholarship on identities in foreign policy and on masculinities in global politics, concluding that FFPs do not create solidarity but instead lead adopting states to engage in competition with each other. The article develops a concept of hegemonic feminisation to argue that competition between FFP states becomes possible because these states symbolically rank and evaluate each other based on their perceived performance on gender equality. More specifically, it is demonstrated that ranking and evaluation takes place through references to each state’s progress on gender equality before and after the adoption of FFP and to geographies of progress at home and abroad. The article argues that while this stratification of states leads to the emergence of multiple versions of hegemonic feminisation, these versions reproduce the civilisational distinctions between the Global North and the Global South. It concludes with the implications of hegemonic feminisation for the possibility of states becoming feminist. Une lutte pour la féminisation hégémonique dans six politiques étrangères féministes: Ou comment les hiérarchies sociales fonctionnent dans la politique mondiale
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".