| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
081204
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While the recent proliferation in philosophical discussions in International Relations indicates a welcome increase in the discipline's conceptual sophistication, a central issue has gone relatively unremarked: the question of how to understand the relationship between scholarly observers and their observed objects. This classical philosophical problem has a number of implications for the conduct of inquiry in the discipline, and raises particular challenges for the status of knowledge-claims advanced by constructivists. I clarify these issues and challenges by distinguishing between 'dualist' and 'monist' ontological standpoints, in the hope of provoking a more focused philosophical discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
081203
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues for a concept of hegemony that goes beyond current usages in IR to examine its more structural aspect. First, it looks at this more structural aspect in relation to some of Gramsci's own arguments. Then it adds hegemony to the structure-agency debate. It develops the concept of hegemony in two ways - first as a mediating moment between structure and agency, second as a factor in securing the unity of structural combinations. These arguments are in turn dependent upon a scientific realist ontology that sees structure as more than just intersubjective relations. Finally, the article tries to show how this reworked concept of hegemony allows for a social theory of international relations, while respecting the specificity of the international.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
081205
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The rise of the 'cultural turn' has breathed new life into the practice of international history over the past few decades. Cultural approaches have both broadened and deepened interpretations of the history of international relations. This article focuses on the use of culture as an explanatory methodology in the study of international history. It outlines the two central criticisms often made of this approach. The first is that it suffers from a lack of analytical rigour in both defining what culture is and understanding how it shapes individual and collective policy decisions. The second is that it too often leads to a tendency to exaggerate the importance of the cultural predispositions of individual or collective actors at the expense of the wider structures within which policymaking takes place. The article provides a brief outline of the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu - which focuses on the interaction between the cultural orientations of social actors and the structural environment that conditions their strategies and decisions. It then argues that Bourdieu's conceptual framework can provide the basis for a more systematic approach to understanding the cultural roots of policymaking and that international historians would benefit from engagement with his approach
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
081202
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The commonplace view that the intellectual roots of Hans J. Morgenthau's Realist theory lie in conservative central European political traditions (such as Bismarckian Realpolitik) requires modification. The young Morgenthau was a protégé of one of Weimar Germany's most prominent left-wing legal thinkers and barristers, Hugo Sinzheimer, a committed Social Democrat who influenced many young jurists who hoped to pursue a peaceful, legally-based transition to democratic socialism. Although Morgenthau's biographers have acknowledged his close personal ties to Sinzheimer, they have ignored the ways in which his early work was directly influenced by Sinzheimer's left-wing legal sociology. Morgenthau's initial rendition of Realism took the form of a critical-minded sociology of law, inspired by Sinzheimer, which aimed to bring about fundamental reforms to the international system. Only after the demise of the democratic Left did Morgenthau begin to shed his reformist faith in the possibility of legally based global reform. His mature version of Realism can be interpreted as a response to his disillusionment with the politically progressive and socially reformist vision of law championed by the interwar democratic Left
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
081201
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article investigates Morgenthau's views on the ethics of scholarship and argues that all his works should be read in the light of his central goal: speaking truth to power. Doing so demonstrates that for Morgenthau, a realist theory of international politics includes two dimensions: it is supposed to explain international relations, but it is also, fundamentally, a critical project which questions the existing status quo. While the explanatory dimension of realism is debated at great length, its critical dimension is consistently overlooked by the more recent, self-named 'critical' approaches which tend to present the two adjectives 'realist' and 'critical' as mutually exclusive. This amounts to an insidious high-jacking of the very adjective critical, which in most cases merely signals one does not espouse a realist perspective. This is highly problematic as it obscures the fact that for Morgenthau, the founding father of realism, political science is by definition a subversive and revolutionary force critical of the existing order. Highlighting the critical dimension that lies at the core of the realist project as formulated by Morgenthau therefore challenges the current narrow use of the adjective 'critical' in the discipline and leads to reclaim it for the realist tradition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|