|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
076506
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent research suggests that cultural differences in Chinese and Western modes of conceptual reasoning play a significant role in political discourse and relations between the United States and China. In contrast, our analysis of the discourse surrounding the 2001 collision of an American surveillance plane with a Chinese fighter jet over international waters reveals a surprisingly high degree of similarity in conceptual metaphors used across the two cultures. Using tools from cognitive linguistics and cognitive science, we compare U.S. and Chinese conceptual metaphors used to frame the incident over a 13-day period, ultimately distinguishing between shared metaphorical conceptualizations (War, Journey, and Economic) and competing metaphorical conceptualizations (Game, Technical Fix, Victim, and Civil Relations). Our analysis allows us to make empirically grounded claims about Chinese-American relations that avoid cultural stereotypes and suggest possibilities for further integration of interpretive and scientific approaches for understanding intercultural discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
175156
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Sil and Katzenstein present analytic eclecticism as a pragmatic, problem-driven, policy-oriented heuristic, posed against the paradigmatism and parsimony inhibiting the study of world politics. I argue that Sil and Katzenstein’s approach is both promising (in that it is one of the more flexible available frameworks to bring separate research traditions into fruitful dialogue) and potentially problematic (if it limits itself to the triad of realism, liberalism, and constructivism). Informed by a recent methodological turn in post-positivist International Relations (IR) and Political Science, this essay takes seriously eclecticism’s commitment to theoretical multilingualism by imagining an eclectic engagement beyond the heuristic’s original purview and calling for eclectic attention to reflexivity, constitutive theorizing, and the dynamics of power and ethics. The article reflects on existing disciplinary power dynamics and disparities and the urgent demand for scholars to more fully contribute to developing effective approaches to real-world threats, such as climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
145119
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent interest in Global international relations (IR) theory has prompted efforts to give voice to non-Western approaches to international politics, accentuating how cultures and their specific local problems contribute to distinct scholarly practices, and how this in turn challenges the hegemony of taken-for-granted, “universalized” Anglo-American IR theory. Encouraged by the overtures of Western academics, Chinese scholars have begun to articulate the role of “traditional” mindsets in Chinese thinking about world politics, proposing avenues toward the development of an IR theory “with Chinese characteristics.” Although these efforts are a laudable attempt to break through ethnocentrism, broaden the relevance of IR theory, and legitimate non-Western knowledge, we argue that the fact that gender seems to be entirely absent from the China-centered portion of this collaborative “West/non-West” project results in a partial and problematic approach: It fails to engage Chinese feminist theorizing by relying upon unexamined gendered concepts. This article uses the results of a series of interviews with mainland scholars to spotlight the challenges faced by existing Chinese IR feminists whose work is overlooked in mainstream Chinese IR’s holistic, Confucian approach to international society. We suggest ways gender sensitivity might inform debates about “Chinese IR” and how to improve Western efforts to engage non-Western IR more broadly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
102442
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why has English School theory, even as it has been re-imagined as critical international society theory, ignored the workings of gender in international politics? This article stages an encounter between the English School and feminists in International Relations (IR), first demonstrating the broad compatibility of the two approaches. I argue that to conduct a conversation between English School and IR feminist approaches, it is necessary to reconstruct the English School's three traditions - Realist, Rationalist, and Revolutionist - so as to allow a greater role for gender as a category of analysis. I then review the work of two key English School scholars, Hedley Bull and Barry Buzan with this reconstruction in mind. Finally, I argue that IR theorists who have participated in the recent English School revival should consider integrating gender into its theoretical and research agenda, and show several examples of how a hybrid approach can be brought to bear on the expansion of international society, diplomacy, and human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|