|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
117913
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conventionally, the concept of cosmopolitanism is dealt with as a normative discourse. However, a far more useful understanding is to focus on the practices that the concept enables. The aim in this article is to highlight two manifestations of such practices, namely those that have as their imperative security, the cosmopolitanism of government, and those that might be defined in terms of solidarity, the cosmopolitanism of politics. Both the socio-historical context of the rise of liberal modernity as well as its late-modern manifestations in contemporary security practices suggest that these two articulations of cosmopolitanism should not be seen in oppositional terms, but rather as being mutually implicating and mutually present. While the concept enables a government of populations, containing within it a colonial rationality, the article suggests that there is an excess to the concept that steers it beyond government through security and towards the politics of solidarity. Placing the lens on the forms of political subjectivity generated through cosmopolitan practices, the article highlights the concept's potential in revealing the political implications of contemporary practices that have the postcolonial world as the primary target of their operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
054400
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jun-Jul 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
145970
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Patricia Owens’s (2015) Economy of Force is one of the most thought-provoking and engaging interventions in recent discourses on war, conflict and security practices. Its central claim is that liberal interventionism, and in particular operations conducted in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, might be understood in terms of what Owens understands as the ‘ontology of household rule’. Using ‘counterinsurgency’ as a case study, Owens’s wider aim is to provide a critique of the ‘rise of the social’ or ‘sociolatory’ in political and international theory. So enamoured are discourses in politics and international relations with ‘the social’, she suggests, that it is taken for granted as a category of explanation in the absence of any serious attempt at a historical explanation of the rise of the social and ‘the household’ as its fundamental ontology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
077542
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The absence of the international as a distinct socio-political sphere in Michel Foucault's work forms a major part of the postcolonial critique of his writings. The absence of the international has a number of consequences for any critical engagement with Foucault in the context of global politics. The significance of these consequences becomes apparent when we consider Foucault's analytics of war and power, situate these in relation to the particularity of the international, consider the very pertinent critiques of Foucault emanating from postcolonial writings, and finally re-locate Foucault in the international not, as is the predominant approach in International Relations, through the application of Foucaultian concepts, but through Foucault's own political writings on the non-western arena, specifically his engagement with the Iranian Revolution. While limited in their scope, an evaluation of these writings appears to vindicate postcolonial critiques of Foucault, though with some revealing qualifications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
071591
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
War in late modern politics is a technology of control. While its violent manifestations - for example, the invasion and occupation of Iraq - are directly felt by the population targeted, the practices associated with that war and the wider so-called war against terrorism have a far wider span of operations that encompasses spaces across the globe. This article provides an understanding of global war as a distinctly late modern form of control. It shows that the practices constitutive of global war are best understood in terms of a matrix, incorporating states and their bureaucracies, as well as non-state agents, and targeting at once states, particular communities and individuals. The matrix of war operates in the name of humanity; however, it is ultimately this humanity as a whole that comes to be the subject of its operations of global control. The implications, as the article argues, are monumental for democratic government and the spaces available for scrutiny and dissent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|