Suchergebnisse

Presents a debate on political bias among social scientists, particularly as it affects the teaching of undergraduates. Following a general overview of the problem by Robert A. Denemark on behalf of the editors of this journal, David N. Gibbs offers Social Science as Propaganda? International Relations and the Question of Political Bias, in which he criticizes the continuing political bias in mainstream US scholarship for its endorsement (both subtle & overt) of the dominant political ideology & norms. As illustration, the example is offered of how scholars have depicted covert operations practiced by the US military & intelligence services & agencies in Iran, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, & Cuba. In Farewell to "Old Thinking": A Reply to Gibbs, Robert S. Snyder responds to Gibbs's criticisms of his article, "The U.S. and Third World Revolutionary States: Understanding the Breakdown in Relations" (1999). Gibbs's charges of bias in international relations studies, particularly those of US foreign policy, are challenged as overly dogmatic, radical, & structuralist. 85 References. K. Hyatt Stewart

I am convinced at every turn that the international is personal, and the personal is international too.1 Feminist International Relations (IR) scholarship has a small, but significant, presence in the Australian IR discipline. This presence, now over two decades old, has made important contributions to the re-thinking of the agenda, methodology and ambitions of Australian IR. This article offers a guide to tracing the impact of feminist scholarship in the Australian IR discipline. It begins with an overview of feminist IR generally, and then moves to identify the work of Australian scholars in this field. It demonstrates the pioneering breadth and scope of this work and pays tribute to the scholars who broke down the traditional barriers of the discipline to reveal the identities, issues, and ways of thinking about world politics that had been previously unexplored. It doing so, it analyses feminist impact on the core of the discipline as well as its work on expanding the boundaries of IR. It will argue that, in Australia, feminist IR scholarship is often (though not exclusively) located within the pockets of scholarship committed to exploring critical approaches. However, this article also recognises that the discipline of International Relations in Australia has not always been welcoming of feminist insights and contributions. With this in mind, this article turns to the challenges and debates that face feminist IR both within the discipline and without, with a focus particularly on the dialogue between 'critical feminism' and 'mainstream International Relations'. Adapted from the source document.

Metaphors constitute a fundamental way in which humans understand the world around them. This book offers a comprehensive analysis of metaphors in theories of international relations. Until recently, conscious attention to metaphors in theories of international relations has been haphazard and sporadic. This book examines the metaphors that inform the major paradigms in international relations theory.

"Anthropology and International Relations" published on by Oxford University Press.

This article aims to map the most significant influences of Foucault on the study of international relations. This is done through an analysis of Foucault's diverse intellectual toolbox, including the notions of discourse, heterotopias and genealogy. It considers whether Foucault helps us understand the most pressing issues in world politics and offers a critique of the historical and cultural limitations of Foucault's ideas, and questions the relevance of Foucault for an increasingly globalised, virtualised politics. Adapted from the source document.

The question of endings is simultaneously a question of beginnings: wondering if International Relations is at an end inevitably raises the puzzle of when and how 'it' began. This article argues that International Relations' origins bear striking resemblance to a wider movement in post-war American political studies that Ira Katznelson calls the 'political studies enlightenment.' This story of the field's beginnings and ends has become so misunderstood as to have almost disappeared from histories of the field and accounts of its theoretical orientations and alternatives. This historical forgetting represents one of the most debilitating errors of International Relations theory today, and overcoming it has significant implications for how we think about the past and future development of the field. In particular, it throws open not only our understanding of the place of realism in International Relations, but also our vision of liberalism. For the realism of the International Relations enlightenment did not seek to destroy liberalism as an intellectual and political project, but to save it. The core issue in the 'invention of International Relations theory' — its historical origins as well as its end or goal in a substantive or normative sense — was not the assertion of realism in opposition to liberalism: it was, in fact, the defence of a particular kind of liberalism.

AbstractThis article reviews recent contributions to International Relations (IR) that engage the substantive concerns of historical institutionalism and explicitly and implicitly employ that tradition's analytical features to address fundamental questions in the study of international affairs. It explores the promise of this tradition for new research agendas in the study of international political development, including the origin of state preferences, the nature of governance gaps, and the nature of change and continuity in the international system. The article concludes that the analytical and substantive profiles of historical institutionalism can further disciplinary maturation in IR, and it proposes that the field be more open to the tripartite division of institutional theories found in other subfields of Political Science.

This exciting new text brings together in one volume an overview of the many reflections on how we might address the problems and limitations of a state-centred approach in the discipline of International Relations (IR). The book is structured into chapters on key concepts, with each providing an introduction to the concept for those new to the field of critical politics - including undergraduate and postgraduate students - as well as drawing connections between concepts and thinkers that will be provocative and illuminating for more established researchers in the field. They give an overview of core ideas associated with the concept; the critical potential of the concept; and key thinkers linked to the concept, seeking to address the following questions: How has the concept traditionally been understood? How has the concept come to be understood in critical thinking? How is the concept used in interrogating the limits of state centrism? What different possibilities for engaging with international relations have been envisioned through the concept? Why are such possibilities for alternative thinking about international relations important? What are some key articles and volumes related to the concept which readers can go for further research? Drawing together some of the key thinkers in the field of critical International Relations and including both established and emerging academics located in Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America, this book is a key resource for students and scholars alike.