| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
115309
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this paper, selected episodes of the 2005 series of the BBC science fiction television show Doctor Who are used to discuss self/other identity formulations, in terms of how "we" relate to those considered different. I shall examine how Doctor Who represents threats and dangers and relate this to how we can use such understandings to learn, discuss, and critique conventional understandings of security in International Relations (IR). Popular culture texts such as Doctor Who provide examples of how difference is often conceptualized as a threat to be eliminated. At the same time, Doctor Who also gives space to question and critique these understandings of "others" as threats, especially in its illustrations of the location of threats, its shifting perspective, and its centralization of a nonhuman as its protagonist. As such, Doctor Who points toward theorizing world politics in which the self = good/others = threats dichotomy can be questioned and opens up new ways of engaging with those considered different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
106577
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
120406
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper examines the global 'war on terror' (WOT) and the case of Nepal. Nepal shifted in its identity from being neutral and uninvolved in global affairs prior to 2001, to being part of the global WOT. Nepal's enactment of anti-terrorism legislation in 2001 helped establish its new 'counterterrorist' identity, while affixing the 'terrorist' label to Maoist rebels that the state was fighting. This allowed regional and global actors to view the Nepali state's actions against Maoist rebels as 'counterterrorist'. The period of November 2001 when the first Nepali anti-terrorism legislation was established and the February 2005 takeover of the state by the (then) king are the main focus of this paper. The goal here is not to discuss whether the Maoists were (or were not) 'really' terrorist; instead, the task is to note how the label of 'terrorism' was used in Nepal to legitimate 'counterterrorism' operations by the state. The article argues that the state's use of the 'war on terror' rhetoric specifically during these two events legitimated repressive actions against its own citizens as countering 'terrorism'. This had the effect of legitimating different types of states - an elected democracy and a monarchist state. At the same time, however, the use of 'terrorism' rhetoric by the state in 2005 was challenged by local actors, thus indicating the instability of the meanings of 'terrorism' and 'counterterrorism'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
113817
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper uses Patrick Thaddeus Jackson's monism/dualism distinction to clarify ongoing methodological debates among students of critical terrorism studies (CTS). We map the distinction onto the CTS literature and emphasize the distinctive ontological starting points and the distinctive epistemological frameworks entailed by each perspective. Then we critically engage monistic, or interpretivist, CTS research, especially that of Richard Jackson. We argue for a more methodologically explicit and logically consistent interpretivist CTS and we suggest three important steps that researchers can take to achieve this aim: (i) take an explicit ontological stance; (ii) embrace reflexivity; (iii) conceptualize terrorism as a meaning-making practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|