Suchergebnisse

Dans cet entretien, Prof. Caroline Levine (University Wisconsin , Madison) répond à nos questions sur les rapports entre art et politique. Partant des idées les plus intuitives sur la collusion entre ces deux champs, des questions plus précises sont abordées sur la subversion, la propagande, la censure, les limites de l'action politique, ou encore la technique. De multiples collusions et contaminations entre art et politique apparaissent alors, faisant de la thématique centrale de ce numéro d'Émulations un questionnement crucial d'aujourd'hui.

In this interview, Prof. Caroline Levine (University of Michigan at Madison) answers to our questions on the interconnections between art and politics. Developing from common-sense ideas on the topic, the discussion then examines more specific issues of art-politics intermingling, such as censorship, propaganda, the control of the subversive function of the avant-garde, the limits of political action, or the role of technique. The subsequent picture of the interplay between art and politics appears contrasted and wide-ranging, illustrating the importance of the topic hereby addressed by Émulations ; Dans cet entretien, Prof. Caroline Levine (University Wisconsin, Madison) répond à nos questions sur les rapports entre art et politique. Partant des idées les plus intuitives sur la collusion entre ces deux champs, des questions plus précises sont abordées sur la subversion, la propagande, la censure, les limites de l'action politique, ou encore la technique. De multiples collusions et contaminations entre art et politique apparaissent alors, faisant de la thématique centrale de ce numérod'Émulations un questionnement crucial d'aujourd'hui.

This paper offers a multi-dimensional analysis of the ways and extent to which the US president and UK prime minister have securitized the Covid-19 pandemic in their public speeches. This assessment rests on, and illustrates the merits of, both an overdue theoretical consolidation of Securitization Theory's (ST) conceptualization of securitizing language, and a new methodological blueprint for the study of 'securitizing semantic repertoire'. Comparing and contrasting the two leaders' respective securitizing semantic repertoires adopted in the early months of the coronavirus outbreak shows that securitizing language, while very limited, has been more intense in the UK, whose repertoire was structured by a biopolitical imperative to 'save lives' in contrast to the US repertoire centred on the 'war' metaphor.

The performance of ritual and the ritualisation of performance are the two main theoretical repertoires of ritual study in international politics and beyond. However, they also escalate tensions between those who insist on ritual's ability to operate by virtue of participants' presence and those who believe that global networks of media call for a representational turn, which must tie participants and audiences across borders. Should we fail to understand how these distinct theoretical repertoires interact, it would be difficult to study international ritual, identify its functions, and trace its effects. Anchored in the sociology of 'social occasions', this article weaves ritual's patterns, properties, and resources into a coherent analytical framework. The framework enables us to better to grasp how actors move between/within different worlds (ritual and performance) and to what effects. The comparative study of two post-terrorism ritual occasions (the 2011 Rose March in Oslo and the 2015 Republican Marches in France) illustrates the usefulness of this theoretical proposition and its related framework.

This paper offers an original theoretical framework for the study of insults in international relations (IR). Bringing into IR the two main theoretical approaches to aggravating language, slurs and dysphemisms, we conceptualize insults' disruptive impact on international interactions in a way that explains their logic, consequences, and risks. Specifically, we argue that insults constitute both at once tactical tools used by international actors to achieve their interests by disrupting an interaction and modifying the payoffs associated with it and linguistic artifacts constructing and sharpening self- and other identities. The components of our theoretical framework are illustrated with a wide range of empirical cases of international insults.

In the past two decades, calls for International Relations (IR) to 'turn' have multiplied. Having reflected on Philosophy's own linguistic turn in the 1980s and 1990s, IR appears today in the midst of taking – almost simultaneously – a range of different turns, from the aesthetic to the affective, from the historical to the practice, from the new material to the queer. This paper seeks to make sense of this puzzling development. Building on Bourdieu's sociology of science, we argue that although the turns ostensibly bring about (or resuscitate) ambitious philosophical, ontological, and epistemological questions to challenge what is deemed to constitute the 'mainstream' of IR, their impact is more likely to be felt at the 'margins' of the discipline. From this perspective, claiming a turn constitutes a position-enhancing move for scholars seeking to accumulate social capital, understood as scientific authority, and become 'established heretics' within the intellectual subfield of critical IR. We therefore expect the proliferation of turns to reshape more substantively what it means to do critical IR, rather than turning the whole discipline on its head.

Cet article propose un large débat sur les politiques européennes en matière de migration. Par le biais d'un dialogue, les deux auteurs cherchent à confronter leurs vues respectives – celle de l'expert et celle du théoricien politique – sur les principaux enjeux posés par la gestion du phénomène migratoire en Europe. Au-delà des différences stratégiques et analytiques des deux auteurs, il ressort de cet échange une insatisfaction commune vis-à-vis de nombreuses dimensions de la politique migratoire actuelle de l'UE. Ses fondements et ses présupposés, ses concepts, ses finalités et ses impacts sont déconstruits au cours de cet entretien.

This article is a discussion on European migration policies. More precisely, the two authors – one is expert and the other political philosopher – confront their views on the main issues in European immigration policies. Despite their different standpoints and methods of analysis, both authors share a common dissatisfaction regarding many key aspects of the current set of policies. Its rationale, its concepts, its aims and side-effects are hereby deconstructed. ; Cet article propose un large débat sur les politiques européennes en matière de migration. Par le biais d'un dialogue, les deux auteurs cherchent à confronter leurs vues respectives – celle de l'expert et celle du théoricien politique – sur les principaux enjeux posés par la gestion du phénomène migratoire en Europe. Au-delà des différences stratégiques et analytiques des deux auteurs, il ressort de cet échange une insatisfaction commune vis-à-vis de nombreuses dimensions de la politique migratoire actuelle de l'UE. Ses fondements et ses présupposés, ses concepts, ses finalités et ses impacts sont déconstruits au cours de cet entretien.

"The Third Debate and Postpositivism" published on by Oxford University Press.

Securitization theory has developed into a fruitful research program on the construction of security threats. The theory has experienced growing sophistication, and empirical studies have produced stimulating insights on issues as varied as the politics of immigration, health, climate change, or cybersecurity. Understanding how social issues become perceived as threats seems timelier than ever given the rise in securitizing narratives in recent political elections across the globe. We propose that this research agenda would benefit from broadening its methodological diversity. In particular, the use of experiments could complement existing methods in securitization theory, mitigate some of the program's methodological weaknesses, and help explain when securitizing moves are likely to succeed or fail.

Dans ces pages, nous plaçons la situation politique belge actuelle sous la lumière de l'analyse socio-psychologique. Répondant aux questions de Stéphane Baele (Université de Namur), le Professeur René Zayan (Université catholique de Louvain) et la Professeur Valérie Rosoux (Université catholique de Louvain), tous deux experts en psychologie sociale et politique, donnent ici en chassé-croisé une lecture décalée de la crise de formation gouvernementale qu'a connue la Belgique en 2007-2011. Leurs approches, différentes mais complémentaires, mettent en avant des éléments comme le charisme, le traumatisme, ou les représentations mentales.

In the following pages, the political crisis that Belgium experienced in 2007-2011 is put under a socio-psychological light, thanks to a discussion led by Stéphane Baele (University of Namur) with two leading experts in political psychology and philosophy and acute observers of the Belgian political scene. Even if their methods and theoretical assumptions differ, Prof. Rosoux and Prof. Zayan (both at Université catholique de Louvain) offer together a fresh, complex, original frame of understanding of Belgian record-breaking governmental negotiations. ; Dans ces pages, nous plaçons la situation politique belge actuelle sous la lumière de l'analyse socio-psychologique. Répondant aux questions de Stéphane Baele (Université de Namur), le Professeur René Zayan (Université catholique de Louvain) et la Professeur Valérie Rosoux (Université catholique de Louvain), tous deux experts en psychologie sociale et politique, donnent ici en chassé-croisé une lecture décalée de la crise de formation gouvernementale qu'a connue la Belgique en 2007-2011. Leurs approches, différentes mais complémentaires, mettent en avant des éléments comme le charisme, le traumatisme, ou les représentations mentales.

This book offers a comprehensive overview and analysis of the Islamic State's use of propaganda. Combining a range of different theoretical perspectives from across the social sciences, and using rigorous methods, the authors trace the origins of the Islamic State's message, laying bare the strategic logic guiding its evolution, examining each of its multi-media components, and showing how these elements work together to radicalize audiences' worldviews. This volume highlights the challenges that this sort of "full-spectrum propaganda" raises for counter terrorism forces. It is not only a one-stop resource for any analyst of IS and Salafi-jihadism, but also a rich contribution to the study of text and visual propaganda, radicalization and political violence, and international security.

Violent extremist groups regularly use pictures in their propaganda. This practice, however, remains insufficiently understood. Conceptualizing visual images as amplifiers of narratives and emotions, the present article offers an original theoretical framework and measurement method for examining the synchronic and diachronic study of the manipulative use of images by violent extremist groups. We illustrate this framework and method with a systematic analysis of the 2,058 pictures contained in the Islamic State's propaganda magazines targeting Western audiences, exposing the "visual style" of the group, and highlighting the trends and shifts in the evolution of this style following developments on the ground.