Suchergebnisse

Practice as an analytical category has received re-renewed attention in the discipline of International Relations (IR). We discuss the shared assumptions & disagreements among theories of practice in IR & the challenges these pose. Practice theory is identified as an expression of cultural theorizing, differing from rational-interest based or norm-oriented theories of action. Yet, the locus of meaning is not seen in internal mental stances, or in external textual structures, but in the inbetween of practice. Four crucial challenges are discussed: first, the repetitive character of practice, & the degree of stability reached in social orders, second, materiality & the quest of material agency, third, a moderate reflexive understanding of scientific practice highlighting the social consequences of scientific reasoning, and, fourth, a reconsideration of the spectrum of methods in IR. The contribution provides an analytical summary of the turn to practice in IR, & an identification of the key challenges associated with it. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

What does it take to be an international relations (IR) scholar? IR discourses have tackled this question with focus on very different problems: the role & function of IR scholars for policy; the (ir)relevance & impact of IR knowledge & expertise in world politics; disciplinary history; or in studying IR's institutions. We argue that all these "disciplinary sociology" debates struggle with the relation between an internal scientific IR world & an external social context (policy, society). We reject this distinction & argue that science studies can help us to address these problems more adequately by treating IR as a scientific practice that is closely tied to its social environment. The article sets out to explore science studies' possible contributions. Based on science studies key assumptions, we develop a heuristic by which the relations between IR & its environment can be grasped systematically. From this perspective, IR is pivotally a culture constituted by different domains of practice. Hence, understanding IR scholars in "doing IR" requires taking into account their daily & sometimes trivial practices. For instance, writing an article in IR means much more than only thinking theoretically at a desk. We systematize the different domains of practices as the articulation of knowledge claims, mobilizing the world, autonomy seeking, alliance building, & public representation. "Being an IR scholar" & "producing IR knowledge" depends inevitably on these sets of practices & IR is intrinsically interwoven with its environment through these. References. Adapted from the source document.

Gegenstand des Beitrags ist die Erarbeitung eines Vokabulars für die Neubeschreibung der Beziehung zwischen der Gemeinschaft von Forschung der Internationalen Beziehungen (IB) und der Politik. Die Idee eines "großen Grabens" zwischen IB und Politik wie auch die Vorstellung, die IB seinen allein ein politisches Subjekt, halten die Verfasser für unangemessen. Unter Rückgriff auf die kulturtheoretische Perspektive der Wissenschaftsforschung sprechen sie von IB als Wissensgemeinschaft. Ein Blick auf andere Wissensgemeinschaften macht - anknüpfend an Latour - deutlich, welcher Praktiken sich IB-Forscher bedienen (Autonomisierung, Allianzen, Mobilisierung der Welt, öffentliche Repräsentation). Abschließend wird verdeutlicht, welche Konsequenzen sich aus diesen Überlegungen für die Forschungspraxis der IB ergeben. (ICE2)

How does governing work today? How does society (mis)handle pressing challenges such as armed violence, cultural difference, ecological degradation, economic restructuring, geopolitical shifts, global pandemics, migration flows, and technological change in ways that are democratic, effective, fair, peaceful, and sustainable? This book addresses this key question around the theme of 'polycentrism': i.e. the idea that contemporary governing is dispersed, fluctuating, messy, elusive, and headless. Chapters develop this notion of polycentrism from a broad spectrum of academic disciplines and theoretical approaches. Readers thereby obtain a full coverage of exciting new thinking about how today's world is (mis)ruled. The book distinguishes four paradigms of knowledge about polycentric governing—organizational, legal, relational, structural—and pursues conversations across the divides that normally keep these approaches in separate research communities. These exceptional inter-paradigm exchanges focus especially on issues of techniques (how governing is done), power (what forces drive governing), and legitimacy (whether governing is rightful). Comparisons between the multiple perspectives on polycentric governing highlight, and help to clarify, the distinctive emphases, potentials, and limitations of each approach. In addition, combinations across the diverse theories generate promising novel avenues of thought about polycentrism. Through their engagement with the book, readers can develop their own understandings of governing today and thereby become more empowered political subjects.

Narrative theoretisieren: Konzepte und Methoden -- Narrative analysieren: politikwissenschaftliche und interdisziplinäre Forschungspraxis -- Narrative der Gestaltung: Politikfelder und Technologie -- Narrative Perspektiven: Global und lokal.- Narrative der Herrschaft: Literatur und Bild.- Narrative Machttechniken: Führung und Vermittlung.

Abstract
This paper contributes to debates on the growing appeal of right-wing populism by combining a focus on visuality, narratives, and emotions. We argue that right-wing populists' claims extend to establishing alternative emotion norms that collectivize feelings and their expression, and are conveyed in visual narratives. The emotional range covered by these norms transcends emotions usually associated with right-wing populism such as fear or humiliation. By employing seemingly inoffensive modes of presentation, emotional responses including indignation, compassion, and schadenfreude can be used as narrative bait for hitherto uninterested audiences. Following from that, emotion norms, such as exclusive forms of sympathy and humor, can be established. We illustrate our argument in three short case studies from Austria, France, and Italy. The conceptual and methodological insights are particularly relevant for those interested in the power of emotions, different modes of visual storytelling in world politics, and the performative effects of right-wing populist practices and narratives in politics.

Der Erfolg rechtspopulistischer Parteien und Bewegungen entzieht sich eindeutigen Erklärungen wie etwa dem Verweis auf wirtschaftliche Not. Ein zentrales Motiv, mit dem wir uns als Forschende in den IB näher befassen wollen, ist die Rolle der Globalisierungskritik solcher Bewegungen. Durch die Betonung unterschiedlicher "Gefahren" von "außen" mobilisieren Rechtspopulist*innen Unterstützung, lenken aber gleichzeitig von mangelnden eigenen Politikvorschlägen und hausgemachten Problemen ab. Mit interpretativen Methoden, genauer der Narrativ- und Metaphernanalyse, die auch bildliche Darstellungen umfasst, nähern wir uns der performativen Dimension solcher rechtspopulistischer Versprechen. Metaphern bieten breite Anknüpfungsmöglichkeiten, da sie in ihrer Mehrdeutigkeit verschiedene Rezeptionen ermöglichen und sich Festlegungen immer wieder entziehen. Wir konzentrieren uns besonders auf die Metapher des "Hauses" in drei Dimensionen: das "Außen", das "Innen" und die Rolle des "Hausvaters". Die Analyse wirkmächtiger Metaphern soll dabei nachvollziehbar machen, wie in diesem mehrdeutigen Erzählmodus emotionale Zustimmung zu extremen politischen Positionen generiert oder im Umkehrschluss auch entzogen werden kann.