| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
190698
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Dehumanisation is one of the most invoked factors in analyses of mass atrocities with many scholars focusing on its crucial role in enabling perpetrators to inflict violence on their victims. However, while its application is widespread, its relevance is often assumed a priori, with claims regarding its empirical relevance often asserted rather than argued for. Not only does its meaning, nature, and function remain amorphous, current scholarship also lacks a general conceptualisation of the basic features that bind the manifold appearances of dehumanisation together. It is this paucity of sustained reflection and particularly the lack of conceptual clarity that the present article seeks to address. Drawing on the work of Hannah Arendt, it aims to deliver a more thoroughgoing appraisal of the nature of dehumanisation as a fundamental violation of plurality to conceptually consolidate and ground its meaning and bind together its diverse manifestations across cases of mass violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
117842
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The field of International Relations (IR) although in many quarters still immersed in the epistemological trenches surrounding the fourth debate between positivism and post-positivism saw the emergence of a renewed interest and debate about the state and rigour of 'our' ontological assumptions. One currently very prominent contribution to this emerging or re-emerging interest in ontological questions can be found in the Critical Realist (CR) approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
161634
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Drawing on quantum theory, Alexander Wendt’s Quantum Mind and Social Science suggests a thought-provoking reorientation of the social sciences. Addressing some of the key assumptions in Wendt’s account, this article argues that despite a quite elaborate and eloquent development of a monist ontological position, conceptual discussions remain solely focused on the nature of beings and neglect wider implications for the nature of being, particularly human being, that arise out of its abandonment of a substance ontology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
088099
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In recent debates in IR theory a specific trend has evolved which advocates a renewed focus on matters of ontology as a way to overcome or at least to reconceptualise the divides within the field of IR that we encounter especially after the considerable widening of scope after the end of the Cold War. Responding to these claims the article sets out to provide a closer look at the different arguments presented for a renewed concern with ontology and its ramifications. With this task in mind, three particular complexes will be addressed. First, we have to identify the central claims of these new ontological approaches and assess them in respect to coherence and analytic rigour. Secondly, then, we will proceed with identifying the underlying reasons for their shortcomings which as will be shown lie with the misguided concept of ontology. If this conception is properly reworked, can indeed bring new light into otherwise protracted or even deadlocked debates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
119989
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article evaluates Patrick Jackson's recent book The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. Jackson delivers a thoughtful and timely contribution to meta-theoretical debates in International Relations by highlighting the diverse landscape of incompatible philosophico-ontological positions. Specifically discussing the practical pay-offs of Jackson's taxonomy, the article, though generally sympathetic to Jackson's account, argues that he overlooks three interconnected areas: the myth-historical character of 'International Relations', the semantic heterogeneity or polysemy of his taxonomical categories, and the scope and nature of translation necessary to sustain his suggested methodological pluralism. These shortcomings question the stability and practical usefulness of his taxonomy and call for a more versatile, less static delineation of philosophico-ontological positions and an embrace of a plurality rather than a pluralism in International Relations meta-theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|