Suchergebnisse

"Der Iran wird von den Entscheidungsträgern in den USA als nicht-demokratischer aggressiver und gleichzeitig irrationaler Akteur wahrgenommen, der über Massenvernichtungswaffen verfügt, und dessen Absicht es ist, die regionale und wenn möglich auch die internationale Ordnung zu zerstören. Dieses Feindbild, das seit der Frühphase der iranischen Revolution fortgeschrieben wird, basiert auf erstaunlich oberflächlichen und lückenhaften Kenntnissen des feindlichen Akteurs." (Autorenreferat)

Develops a rhetorical field theory that conceptualises the relationship between background ideas and foreground communication Distinguishes between two layers of background ideas ( nomos and topoi) that underpin communicative encounters in a field Conceptualises communicative opportunities and moves through which actors change the nomos of a field Illustrates the added value of a rhetorical field theory by inquiring into nomic change in the nuclear-weapons field A burgeoning literature in International Relations draws on Bourdieu's theory of social fields to address the question of how actors make and unmake order in world politics. Inquiring into deeply seated background ideas constituting order, this literature often neglects how communication reproduces and (de)contests background ideas. Our article seeks to remedy this shortcoming by outlining a rhetorical field theory. This theory puts background ideas and foreground communication on an equal footing and conceptualises their relationship in detail. We distinguish between two layers of background ideas ( nomos and topoi) and address the crucial question of how nomic change becomes possible. We introduce a typology of nomic change (destabilisation, adaption, disorientation, shift) and conceptualise the interplay of rhetorical opportunities and rhetorical moves that bring about particular types of nomic change. We probe this theoretical framework by analysing the recent nomic change in the nuclear-weapons field. This empirical analysis provides evidence for our theoretical framework.

Distinguishes five contending International Relations perspectives on background ideas Calls for more cross-fertilisation across perspectives to deal with conceptual challenges pertaining to backgrounds, agency, as well as change and persistence Summarises contributions to forum The actors we study do not reflect upon their background ideas. They simply take them for granted. Precisely because of this taken-for-grantedness, these ideas are very powerful. They shape world politics in profound ways. The discipline of International Relations has neglected background ideas for a long time. In the last two decades, however, a heterogeneous cluster of research has developed that inquires into what constitutes background ideas, how backgrounds affect politics, and how they come to change. The purpose of this special forum is to take stock of the current state of research, to make authors embracing different perspectives on background ideas engage with one another's arguments, and thus to improve our explanatory and normative understandings of backgrounds in world politics.