Suchergebnisse

International Relations and the Problem of Difference has developed out of the sense that IR as a discipline does not assess the quality of cultural interactions that shape, and are shaped by, the changing structures and processes of the international system. In this work, the authors re-imagine IR as a uniquely placed site for the study of differences as organized explicitly around the exploration of the relation of wholes and parts and sameness and difference-and always the one in relation to the other.

"Units, Markets, Relations, and Flow: Beyond Interacting Parts to Unfolding Wholes" published on by Oxford University Press.

Since the putative end of the Cold War, modernization is increasingly reimagined as a global process— as an expanding liberal zone of peace, a global civil society, or as emerging forms of global governance. Thus, new forms of modernization theory, what we call neo-modernization, have emerged as important theories of International Relations (IR). Such a convergence of events and theory permit us to examine the logical overlap between IR and modernization theory. IR fails to herald a unique contribution to social theory because it persistently avoids and denies the historical problem from which it surfaces, namely, the problem of what to do about cultural difference. Modernization theory provides an essential contribution to IR's avoidance of this central problem. While modernization theory implicitly relies on IR's freezing of difference into geopolitical containers, it also projects a natural and universal developmental sequence through which all cultures must pass. In this way modernization theory anticipates the eventual total homogenizing of difference into sameness. Surprisingly, while partners with IR in the joint venture to contain and then eradicate difference, modernization theory also offers an alternative vision. This recessive theme, what we call an ethnological politics of comparison, has the potential to transform IR into the science and art of facing, understanding and addressing difference.

This paper discusses the current concept of equality among states, especially the challenges of maintaining one's culture, religion, & lifestyle while finally facing the problems posed by differences outside the state. As the sovereignty of the nation-state is challenged by globalization & other forces, scholars are returning to the history of the Westphalian order to review the origins, principles, & purpose of the state to gain insights into how to shape tomorrow's world. The Westphalian order at the end of the Thirty Years War was an acknowledgment that a war to eliminate the "religious other" had not succeeded & that if differences were contained within states, wars might be avoided. Imperial rule became a mechanism for handling differences. While a conquering nation considered its people superior, the conquered were allowed to keep their identities. In current international relations, the absence of hierarchy & imperialism creates a new vulnerability to differences. Groups that tolerate differences still need the affirmation of those who are different in order to define their own status. With world changes must come the ability to grant equality & to allow differences to coexist. The authors discuss possible theories for achieving a tolerance of difference as well as their implications. 100 References. L. A. Hoffman