Suchergebnisse

The article argues for a new strategy for Czech IR research which would stimulate local scholars to produce innovative contributions to the international IR discipline. The strategy is supposed to go beyond the emulation of the Anglo-American IR, which currently prevails & which, despite occasional successes, failed in its goals. It aims at innovative contributions with a maximum utilization of the Czech domestic conditions which embed the research. The strategy argues that the relations between Czech IR & the international discipline need to be sustained & even strengthened. At the same time, the Czech research should focus on the Czech political experience by examining the political phenomena by which this experience has been constituted & drawing on the traditions of Czech political thought. Adapted from the source document.

This essay addresses the issue of how to transcend the long-lasting stalemate between positivism and various forms of post-positivism. The main assumption rests in the belief that one of the possible solutions to this stalemate can be offered by replacing the positivism versus postpositivism debate by a discussion between scientific realism and pragmatism. The article thus starts with a brief characterization of logical positivism, which is followed by a more thorough deliberation on the issue of pragmatism and scientific realism. The text raises questions of the mutual incompatibilities of both positions, as well as their respective influence on the discipline of International Relations. It is also argued that by adopting one or another of these philosophies of science, we can bring about specific consequences for actual research practices. Adapted from the source document.

This text is a polemical contribution to the debate on positivism & postpositivism in the study of international relations. It focuses on four aspects rendering Louzek's defense of positivism rather flimsy: first, the untenability of the positivism-normativism dichotomy. Second, a more detailed analysis of theories incorrectly grouped with normativism. Third is an analogous analysis of positivistic theories, & particularly their claims to an epistemologically neutral access to reality, & fourth, we discuss Louzek's ambivalent attitude to modernity, particularly to the notion of progress. Adapted from the source document.

The category of antisystemic actors is employed relatively often in political science. The aim of this article is two-fold. First, it criticizes the contemporary usage of "antisystemicity" as too self-contained an analytical concept. In order to demonstrate this, two key theoretical traditions of the term -- G. Sartori's classification of party systems & world-systemic ("Wallersteinian") research of international political economy & its challengers -- are described, analyzed & mutually compared. Their understanding of antisystemic protest is depicted in order to show some shortcomings & inadequacies of their usage of this category. Second, the article strives to theoretically & formally unfold, integrate & further develop the concept of antisystemic contention in order to clarify the modes of its usages for socio-political reality. This inquiry consists of analyses of three key factors of antisystemic collective action -- ie., its object, subject & relations in-between. The analysis of object is basically grounded in Luhmann's neofunctionalist theory of modernization. Based on a systems theory analysis of society, the article proceeds to grasp the subject-actor as a general & case insensitive category, thus connecting existing concepts of antisystemic political subjects. Further analyzed dimensions of antisystemic protest are its goals & forms of action, but also its penetration by politics & economy. In conclusion, a general three-dimensional typology of antisystemic collective action is drawn from preceding analyses & offered as a methodological tool for empirical research of political contention. Adapted from the source document.