| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
129484
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Some critical international relations scholars have adopted theories of governmentality both as a heuristic framework for exploring modalities and functions of power and as a descriptive tool to explore the oppressive effects of global liberalism. I argue that, as a descriptive tool, much governmentality literature remains rooted in the same substantialist ontology and epistemology as the liberal discourses it seeks to criticize. This ontological orientation especially has a bearing on conceptualizations of political agency, which remain confined to the liberal struggle of power and freedom. I suggest that reimagining political agency calls for a reorganization of the ontological and epistemological framework of international relations in non-substantialist ways. The analysis maps non-substantialist positions across disciplinary lines. By treating power and subjects as deeply imbricated, non-substantialist ontologies examine political engagements as processes of hybridization aimed at producing practical effects in specific contexts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
152723
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Practices are capturing increased interest in international relations. Throughout this article, I demonstrate that the body of work under review contributes to a progressive research agenda in world politics. As such, the high quality of the books under review attests to the dynamism of the practice turn. This review puts forward two main arguments. First, I distinguish at least four different forms of a practice approach on display in the reviewed books. Second, I suggest that practice is an essentially contested concept. Overall, this review article highlights some trends flowing from these books as well as some questions that remain either underdeveloped or unanswered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
182454
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The relational turn in International Relations (IR) has made important contributions by challenging the substantialist claim to substance/thing as ontological primitives, by drawing much-needed attention to relations as ontologically fundamental, and by introducing a diversity of relational ways of being/becoming, knowing and doing. Yet, while rightly repudiating substantialism, the relational turn has remained ambivalent about the concept of substance itself, leaving open an important question: How should we understand substance within a relational ontology? As a result, we are left with different and sometimes confusing positions on the issue of substances vis-à-vis relations. Seeing this gap as a missed opportunity for relationalism in IR, this article seeks to bring substance back in without falling back into substantialism. It draws on a quantum conception of substance via the idea of quantum holography (QH) and its related notion of whole-part duality, and stresses the little-understood dual and inseparable nature of substance-relation (‘relatance’). The concept of substance-relation duality not only enriches our relational thinking, but also allows us to engage in relational analysis through a reimagined notion of substance. To illustrate, the article turns to a substance-based relational analysis of US-China relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|