Search results

What the military is for, certainly in the US, seems to have changed dramatically, & the absorption of large numbers of women into the military is one striking feature of this change. But I would suggest that placing all the weight on its so-called "feminization" is mistaken. A careful analysis has to situate itself within the broader political dynamics, including the decline of notions of civic duty, that contributed to the transformation of the militaries of the advanced countries, & examine the influence of technological innovations on the outlook of the armed forces. No doubt, a variant on arguments for gender equality -- a version I find problematic -- has also played its part. But it is only a part -- not, as van Creveld would have it, the whole picture. Adapted from the source document.

It seems almost churlish to criticize a book as well-intentioned and clearly argued as The Transformation of Political Community. There is much in the volume to admire and to endorse. But there are also problems—there always are—and I will move to address these shortly. First, however, I want to point to some of the book's undeniable strengths. Perhaps the most refreshing aspect of Linklater's argument is the manner in which he takes on board a number of the perduring vexations of political and moral theory and addresses these within the context of international relations. For too long political theory and 'IR' have occupied separate niches, as if these two enterprises had little to do with one another. The result of the separation has been an impoverishment of both realms. 'IR' could move along as if questions of war and peace, security, order, power, engagement, citizen and soldier were not inescapably political and ethical issues impossible to deal with adequately in a manner that models sophisticatedly but falls flat conceptually. Too many underlying presuppositions in such undertakings are not brought to the surface and dealt with as is painfully evident in rational choice accounts with their impoverished views of what makes human beings tick.