Suchergebnisse

Classical political theorists such as Thucydides, Kant, Rousseau, Smith, Hegel, Grotius, Mill, Locke and Clausewitz are often employed to explain and justify contemporary international politics and are seen to constitute the different schools of thought in the discipline. However, traditional interpretations frequently ignore the intellectual and historical context in which these thinkers were writing as well as the lineages through which they came to be appropriated in International Relations. This 2006 collection of essays provides alternative interpretations sensitive to these political and intellectual contexts and to the trajectory of their appropriation. The political, sociological, anthropological, legal, economic, philosophical and normative dimensions are shown to be constitutive, not just of classical theories, but of international thought and practice in the contemporary world. Moreover, they challenge traditional accounts of timeless debates and schools of thought and provide new conceptions of core issues such as sovereignty, morality, law, property, imperialism and agency

In this article, I explain how International Relations scholarship relates to ableism. Ableism is a sociopolitical system of narratives, institutions, and actions collectively reinforcing an ideology that benefits persons deemed able-bodied, able-minded, and normal by others, and devalues, limits, and discriminates against those deemed physically and/or mentally disabled and abnormal. International Relations scholars have been quick to utilize disability metaphors as rhetorical support for their arguments and analyses. This article discusses how metaphors in general — and disability metaphors in particular — get their meaning from various other discourses and narratives. International Relations scholars, in the case of disability metaphors, often draw from discourses and narratives that perpetuate ableism. I demonstrate how disability metaphors can be ableist by researching how several International Relations foreign policy analysts and theorists have applied autism metaphors. I argue that International Relations' uses of autism metaphors are ableist insomuch as they shape or reinforce understandings of autism that often oversimplify, overgeneralize, or otherwise misrepresent autism and Autistic people in ways that portray autism negatively. In the conclusion, I reflect on the importance of a disability studies program in International Relations and the broad set of topics that such a program should pursue.

Many of our theories of international politics rely on microfoundations. In this short note, I suggest that although there has been increasing interest in microfoundations in international relations (IR) over the past 20 years, the frequency with which the concept is invoked belies a surprising lack of specificity about what microfoundations are, or explicit arguments about why we should study them. I then offer an argument about the value of micro-level approaches to the study of conflict. My claim is not that all theories of IR need to be developed or tested at the micro-level in order to be satisfying, but rather, that many of our theories in IR already rest on lower-level mechanisms—they either leave these assumptions unarticulated or fail to test them directly. In these circumstances, theorizing and testing micro-level dynamics will be especially helpful. I illustrate my argument using the case of resolve, one of the central explanatory variables in the study of international security. I argue that the absence of microfoundations for resolve is one reason why IR scholars have had difficulties testing whether resolve has the effects we often claim, and sketch out a two-stage research design political scientists can use to study unobservable phenomena.

This article starts from the observation that International Relations scholars do not agree on what they mean by theory. The declining popularity of grand theory and the celebration of theoretical pluralism are accompanied by the relative absence of a serious conversation about what 'theory' is or should be. Taking the view that we need such a conversation, especially given the shallow theorizing of modern scholarship that conflates theory with method, and the postmodern view that abstract narratives must be deconstructed and rejected, this article puts forward the notion of 'deep theorizing' as the ground for grand theory. Specifically, it argues that deep theorizing is the conceptual effort of explaining (inter)action by developing a reading of drives/basic motivations and the ontology of its carrier through an account of the human condition, that is, a particular account of how the subject (the political actor) is positioned in social space and time. The article illustrates this angle through a discussion of realist, liberal and postcolonial schools of thought. It basically argues that, through their particular readings of the human condition, these approaches develop distinct conceptions of political agency and, hence of the nature and location of world politics.