Suchergebnisse

THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEMS WITH MANY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT, WIDELY HELD ARGUMENTS IN SECURITY STUDIES AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY. HE BELIEVES THAT WHEN ONE COMPARES THE CONTRIBUTION TO SECURITY STUDIES OF THE LATEST WAVE OF FORMAL THEORY, WHICH BEGAN IN THE MID-1980S, TO THAT OF NONFORMAL THEORY, THE FORMER HOLDS UP QUITE WELL. FORMAL THEORY HAS MADE IMPORTANT ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS, AND MANY FORMAL THEORIES ARE BEING TESTED EMPIRICALLY. HE SHOWS THAT ONE CAN STILL OBTAIN A BADLY DISTORTED PICTURE OF AN ENTIRE LITERATURE EVEN IF ONE EXAMINES ONLY MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS. ALSO, NO ONE SHOULD JUDGE THE RATIONAL CHOICE LITERATURE ON THE BASIS OF STEPHEN WALT'S SUMMARY OF ELEVEN EXAMPLES.

Debates imitates scholarship, which imitates debate. Using perspectives from both my policy debate career and my research career, this article argues that the enterprise of critique, whether in critical security studies or elsewhere, is always and already failing and failed. It proceeds in four sections. The first section sets up my entry into the problems of/with critique. The second section analyzes the types of dissonances inherent in the production of critical security studies scholarship. The third section theorizes those dissonances as failures – arguing that failure itself is a part of in and of critical security studies. The conclusion discusses where to go from, during, and in a world of failed critique in critical security studies.

Book Review: Stanisław Sulowski (ed.), Tożsamość nauk o bezpieczeństwie. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek 2015 (pp. 217). ISBN 978–83–8019–120–4. Price: PLN 33.81.