Suchergebnisse

The debate between realists and liberals has reemerged as an axis of contention in international relations theory. Revolving in the past around competing theories of human nature, the debate is more concerned today with the extent to which state action is influenced by "structure" (anarchy and the distribution of power) versus "process" (interaction and learning) and institutions. Does the absence of centralized political authority force states to play competitive power politics? Can international regimes overcome this logic, and under what conditions? What in anarchy is given and immutable, and what is amenable to change?

The field of international relations (IR) theory is something of a misnomer; since it is constituted by two distinct, though not unrelated, scholarly enterprises. Its core consists of first order theorizing about the structure and dynamics of the international system, and as such it attempts to contribute directly to our understanding of world politics in the form of substantive theories like realism, liberalism, and so on. The proliferation of such theories in recent years, however, has been a cause for some disciplinary concern (or celebration as the case may be), not least because the substantive disagreements between them are as often over what kinds of questions
and answers are important or legitimate as they are over the 'facts of the matter'. This has helped open the door since the mid-1980s to a wave of second order or meta-theorizing in the field. The objective of this type of theorizing is also to increase our understanding of world politics, but it does so indirectly by focusing on the ontological and epistemological issues of what constitute important or legitimate questions and answers for IR scholarship, rather than on the structure and dynamics of the international system per se.

AbstractChristian Tewes and Giovanni Stanghellini deliver a collective volume, dedicated to the honours of Thomas Fuchs. The contributors mainly belong to the phenomenological movement and provide different perspectives on the subject matter of psychopathology. Several common references, such as Fuchs, Parnas, and Sass, as well as motives, such as the experience of time or narrative self-consciousness, give the collection a unitary outline. The volume is well-edited and offers an adequate representation of the state of the art in phenomenological psychopathology thanks to diverse and reputable contributors. However, it remains to be shown how phenomenology can succeed in having a constructive and lasting influence on or at least controversial dialogue with the mainstream discourse of either cognitive psychology or psychiatry.

Since gaining independence in 1961, Tanzania has enjoyed high levels of national identification, far higher than other states in east Africa. Yet, between 2005 and 2015, the Afrobarometer survey recorded a decline in the national identity and an increase in ethnic identities in Tanzania. These changes are striking because of the successful nation-building policies implemented by former president Julius Nyerere. In addition, during the same period of 2005-2015, states bordering Tanzania have increased their level of national identification. This thesis reviews the literature on how changes in institutions, economic modernization, and conflict create incentives for political competition that may in turn reshape identities. The preliminary results suggest that while the introduction of the multiparty rule in 1992 in Tanzania created a more competitive and democratic political process, it may have also brought about a longer trend of identity shift in the Tanzanian population: the national identity has been declining, while ethnic identities have been rising

Im Laufe des 20. Jahrhunderts entstand innerhalb der europäischen Phänomenologie eine innovative und originelle Strömung namens Leib-Phänomenologie, Phénoménologie de la perception. Ihre grundsätzliche Kritik des Intellektualismus, Sensualismus und Objektivismus ist einer wissenschaftstheoretischen Inspiration der etablierten akademischen Psychologie dienlich. Hierbei besteht ihr inhaltlicher Fokus in der Analyse von Leibesphänomenen an der Schnittstelle von Körper und Geist. Während die traditionelle Psychologie hauptsächlich über diese Phänomene hinweggeht, generiert die Leib-Phänomenologie eine integrative Perspektive, um eine ganzheitliche Berücksichtigung der menschlichen Lebenswelt in der Psychologie zu ermöglichen. Die bisherigen Konzepte einer phänomenologischen Psychologie verweisen demgegenüber jedoch bisweilen ausschließlich auf die Methode der Phänomenologie, nicht auf die Perspektiven, mit denen die Leib-Phänomenologie die Psychologie bereichern kann.

Das "Rational Design Project" ist an sich schon beeindrucken. Es bezieht sich jedoch nicht auf eine Reihe anderer Ansätze, die für die Ausgestaltung internationaler Institutionen relevant sind. Um den Vergleich zu erleichtern, werden zwei "Kontrasträume" in seinem Umfeld dargestellt. Der erste teilt die Fragestellung des Projektes - Was erklärt den Aufbau institutionalerInstitutionen? - greift jedoch auf zwei alternative Erklärungsansätze zurück: konkurrierende und erklärende Erklärungen, die jedoch tiefer in der Kausalkette angesiedelt sind. Der zweite Kontrast beginnt mit einer anderen Frage: Welches Wissen ist notwendig, um Institutionen in der realen Welt zu entwerfen? Diese Frage offenbart erkenntnistheoretische Unterschiede zwischen den positiven Sozialwissenschaften und institutionellen Entwürfen, die über die Zeit auf unterschiedliche Orientierungen zurückgeführt werden können. Das Schaffen von Institutionen hängt mit der Zukunft zusammen und zeichnet sich durch ein normatives Element aus. Die Erklärung von Institutionen hat mit der Vergangenheit zu tun und besitzt dieses normative Element nicht notwendigerweise. Um ein "Fahren mit dem Rückspiegel" zu vermeiden, sind zwei zusätzliche Arten Wissen ausser denjenigen notwendig, die in diesem Band entwickelt werden, Wissen über institutionelle Effektivität und über Wertvorstellungen. Somit ist das Problem der institutionellen Gestaltung ein fruchtbares Gebiet, um ein weiteres und praktischeres Konzept der Sozialwissenschaft zu entwickeln, das normative und positive Aspekte integriert. (SWP-Jns)

Während der Neorealismus die Struktur eines sozialen Systems auf die Summe seiner Handelnden reduziert, reduziert die "world-system theory" die Handelnden zu Ergebnissen der Struktur. Beide Theorien sind nicht in der Lage, staatliches Handeln im internationalen System adäquat zu beschreiben. Lediglich die 'strukturelle Theorie' (structuration theory), die sich aus dem 'wissenschaftlichen Realismus' (scientific realism) ableitet, leistet dies, da sie sowohl die Struktur als auch die politisch Handelnden als bestimmende Faktoren in ihre Betrachtung einbezieht. (SWP-Mee)

While neorealism and world-system theory both claim to be "structural" theories of international relations, they embody very different understandings of system structure and structural explanation. Neorealists conceptualize system structures in individualist terms as constraining the choices of preexisting state agents, whereas world-system theorists conceptualize system structures in structuralist terms as generating state agents themselves. These differences stem from what are, in some respects, fundamentally opposed solutions to the "agent-structure" or "micromacro" problem. This opposition, however, itself reflects a deeper failure of each theory to recognize the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures—a failure which leads to deep-seated inadequacies in their respective explanations of state action. An alternative solution to the agent-structure problem, adapted from "structuration theory" in sociology, can overcome these inadequacies by avoiding both the reduction of system structures to state actors in neorealism and their reification in world-system theory. Structuration theory requires a philosophical basis in scientific realism, arguably the "new orthodoxy" in the philosophy of natural science, but as yet largely unrecognized by political scientists. The scientific realist/structuration approach generates an agenda for "structural-historical" research into the properties and dispositions of both state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded.