|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
100477
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
085401
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the past two decades, the body has emerged as an increasingly important focus of study in the social sciences generally, but little work has been done on it in International Relations. Drawing on a disparate yet voluminous literature on gender, as well as on Bourdieu's analysis of class, this article demonstrates the importance of gendered and classed bodies within the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Part one, which is based on archival work and interviews, details the emergence of women within the diplomatic service. In part two, which is based on interviews and ethnographic data, I postulate the existence of three masculinity scripts and three femininity scripts within MFA discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
006475
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Houndmills, Macmillan, 1996.
|
| Description |
xii,167p.
|
| Standard Number |
0333650062
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 038158 | 327.101/CLA 038158 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
102424
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article addresses how entry into international society has been conceptualised, suggests a reconceptualisation that will make the concept more relational, and illustrates with a case study. Part one attempts a summary of relevant debates without the English School, and directs attention to the importance of how entrants draw on memories of its subject position in the suzerain system that it left as it entered international society. Part two discuses the experiences of Russia's predecessor polities, with the focus being on the place of Russian principalities within the suzerain system of the Golden Horde (ca. 1240-1500). I argue that Russia's basic stance towards European polities in the 16th and early 17th centuries is readily understandable in terms of a key memory, namely the one of being dominated by this polity, which was itself an outgrowth of the Mongol empire. Part three demonstrates how the resulting understanding of politics was confirmed by Russian experiences in the 16th and 17th centuries. I suggest that Russia never really let go of its memories of being part of a suzerain system, and that it is therefore still suspended somewhere in the outer tier of international society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
113809
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Drawing on the work of cultural anthropologists Clifford Geertz and Marshall Sahlins, I suggest a layered conceptualization of diplomacy as consisting of myths, sociabilities and practices which allows us to open the question of diplomacy's Euro-centrism to empirical scrutiny. As do all known diplomatic systems, European diplomacy has its roots in the social systems of kinship and religion. It is rooted in Christian mythology, and this mythology informs its sociabilities and practices. Three mini-case studies (of diplomatic immunity, permanent representation and the institution of dean of the corps diplomatique) demonstrate that this mythology shines through in present-day diplomacy as well. Since diplomatic practices bear the mark of a European cultural context, it privileges the life chances of those native to that context. In this sense, diplomacy is Euro-centric. I then go on to argue that, empirically, this does not seem to be a particularly pressing problem. The real problem may be external to diplomacy itself, and concern the idea that European diplomacy was uniquely peaceful. As I demonstrate by means of a mini-study of Iroquois diplomacy, this is simply not the case. If the erroneous idea of uniquely peaceful European diplomacy is paired up with a framing of relations between European and non-European polities in terms of peaceful diplomacy, the result may easily be that we occlude other aspects of those relations, such as conquest and colonialization. The Euro-centrism of diplomacy that matters is thus less to do with diplomatic practices than with mnemonic practices about diplomacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
108089
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
073552
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Studies of global governance typically claim that the state has lost power to nonstate actors and that political authority is increasingly institutionalized in spheres not controlled by states. In this article, we challenge the core claims in the literature on global governance. Rather than focusing on the relative power of states and nonstate actors, we focus on the sociopolitical functions and processes of governance in their own right and seek to identify their rationality as practices of political rule. For this task, we use elements of the conception of power developed by Michel Foucault in his studies of "governmentality." In this perspective, the role of nonstate actors in shaping and carrying out global governance-functions is not an instance of transfer of power from the state to nonstate actors but rather an expression of a changing logic or rationality of government (defined as a type of power) by which civil society is redefined from a passive object of government to be acted upon into an entity that is both an object and a subject of government. The argument is illustrated by two case studies: the international campaign to ban landmines, and international population policy. The cases show that the self-association and political will-formation characteristic of civil society and nonstate actors do not stand in opposition to the political power of the state, but is a most central feature of how power, understood as government, operates in late modern society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
060240
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
159793
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Drawing on identity and prototype theory, the article sets out to analyse the historically dominant monumentalising ways in which polities try to shore up their own Selves by halting their Others in time. The first part of the article discusses how monuments represent Self/Other relations from ancient Mesopotamia in the East to modern Britain in the West by limning off a constitutive outside, be that as visual absence or presence. Temporality is of the essence here, with the basic idea being that the Self is in temporal motion, while the Other is literally petrified. I then postulate that the Other is halted in time in three basic ways: as visual absence, as dead and as subjugated. Crucially, however, the Second World War is actually the end point of the extraordinary stability of monumental ways in which to represent the Other. We see the tentative emergence and damning of a fourth Other, namely a previous incarnation of the Self. I conclude, with Norbert Elias, that the fading away of the Other as dead and as subjugated is significant as part of a civilisation process that works against denying the Other its future agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
129444
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The two pre-Napoleonic Nordic polities are best understood as empires. Drawing on recent analytical and historical scholarship on empires, I argue that 17th and 18th century Denmark, on which the piece concentrates, was very much akin to the other European empires existing at the time. Read in this light, national identities within the fragments of the empire appear similar. Nationalisms are all shaped directly on the Danish model, having at the same time Denmark as their constitutive cultural other. The introduction notes that, where all European imperial experiences are concerned, overseas territories had the most wounds inflicted upon them. We would not know this if we considered Faroese, Icelandic and Norwegian nationalism in isolation. These polities, Norway in particular, participated in and benefited from the colonial policies of the empire. This notwithstanding, their national identities insist that these nations were on the receiving - as opposed to the imposing - end of imperialism. This is a historically unwarranted and ethically problematic stance requiring further discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
134736
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this written version of his inaugural lecture for the Montague Burton chair in IR at the LSE, Iver Neumann takes stock of International Relations understood as a social science. Having paid homage to predecessors, in the first part of the lecture, he detects and regrets a certain unwillingness within the discipline to address the full universe of pertinent cases. Inspecting the toolbox of the discipline, he finds things to be satisfactory where data collection, theory and meta-theory are concerned, but traces a glaring lack of attention to data collection method among qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) scholars. In the lecture’s second part, Neumann draws on Marcel Mauss’s idea that human agency draws on a constellation of social, psychological and physiological sources and on Emile Durkheim’s insistence that a social science has to privilege social sources of agency, without neglecting sources of other kinds. A nutshell review of relevant trends within psychology and evolutionary biology highlights work that competes with the discipline’s own. While insisting, with Durkheim, on the need to privilege social causes, Neumann calls for more work that explores the possible compatibility of new findings within these non-social disciplines and International Relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
108090
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
003091
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, St.Martin's pr., 1992.
|
| Description |
x,210p.
|
| Standard Number |
0312080905
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 034322 | 327.1/NEU 034322 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
148468
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Russia defines itself as a Great Power in relation to Europe and the West. The first part of the article traces how, since 1991, a story about greatness centred on being part of contemporary European civilization has given way to a story of how Russia is great by being superior to a Europe that is now seen as rotten and decadent. The former story spelled cooperation with Europe and the West, where the latter spells confrontation. The second part argues that Russia's superiority complex is unsustainable. It is hard to see how, in the face of the formative structural pressure of the state system, Russia will be able to sustain its superiority complex. A state that does not order itself in such a way that it may either gain recognition as a Great Power by forcing its way and/or by being emulated by others, is unlikely to maintain that status. The costs of maintaining Great-Power status without radical political and economic change seem to be increasing rapidly. If Russia wants to maintain its status, an about-turn is needed. Such a turn may in itself be no solution, though, for if Russia does not do anything about the root causes of its perceived inferiority to Europe, then the Russian cyclical shifting from a Westernizing to a xenophobic stance will not be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
060824
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
139418
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
If the scholarly self is irretrievably tied to the world, then self-situating is a fruitful source of data production. The researcher becomes a producer, as opposed to a collector, of data. This how-to paper identifies three analytical stages where such self-situating takes place. Pre-field; there is autobiographical situating; in-field, there is field situating, and post-field, there is textual situating. Each of these stages are presented in terms of the three literatures that have done the most work on them – feminism, Gestalt, and poststructuralism. A number of how-to examples are used to illustrate. In conclusion, we discuss how two different methodological commitments to situatedness, which Jackson (2010) dubbed reflexivist and analyticist, give rise to two analytically distinct ways of using the scholarly self for data production. Reflexivists and analyticists approach data production from opposite ends of the researcher/informant relationship. Where a reflexivist researcher tends to handle the relation between interlocutor and researcher by asking how interlocutors affect the researcher, an analyticist researcher tends to ask how the researcher affects them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
076799
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The emergence of the modern state and the European states system limned the inside of a state different from its outside. Inside the state, peace and progress could be furthered by means of disciplinary power, while outside the state, anarchy reigned. Academic disciplines such as political theory, International Relations and International History treat this divide as foundational, and so the knowledge they produce contributes to its reproduction. The article traces the emergence of the divide where Norway and Denmark are concerned through a reading of the concept of 'realm' (rike), and asks when Norway evolved a foreign policy (as distinct from a non-discriminating foreign/domestic one). There are two extant views. A legal view starts from sovereignty and fixes the date at 1905, whereas a nationalistic view popular with historians treats it as originary to the political entity of Norway, which means that it may be dated back some thousand years or so. Treating discriminating institutions such as foreign ministries as preconditions for the existence of a permanent divide between inside and outside, the article suggests the end of the eighteenth century. One may speculate that the firming of the divide is related to the rise of nationalism, in which case it is not surprising that the two phenomena fade concurrently. Since Nordic cooperation stood out as a special phenomenon in international relations because of the particular way in which it handled the domestic/foreign divide, Nordic cooperation will lose its role as special in the degree to which the domestic/foreign divide becomes less foundational
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|