Suchergebnisse

This article is about femisocial capital: a type of gendered political capital tended towards facilitating greater intra-female collaboration. Unlike its similar conceptual counterpart of homosocial capital that typically reinforces male dominance in politics, femisocial capital, at least within the scope of legislative activity, highlights a positive function of gender and politics. By examining the bill sponsorship networks of multi-term female legislators in South Korea, this article finds that the institutional legacy of the progressive party in South Korea and its female lawmakers sharing associational membership in feminist organizations (hence, the prefix 'femi'), enables such gendered political capital to function in their favor. In contrast to research agendas that seek to find gender working in explicit ways (i.e., whether more women in office leads to greater empowerment for women in politics), this article shows that while gender does matter, it may matter in much more discreet and less obvious ways.

Actors in international politics have been driven predominantly by two (maybe three) logics of social interaction: fighting, bargaining, and some arguing. Yet, if international politics is characterized by a lack of determinate laws unlike its domestic corollary, it would be unrealistic to expect leaders to simply rely on a singular mode of evaluating facts based primarily on cognition and interests. In turn, I offer quarreling to address this gap. As a type of affective social interaction based on the subjective validity of one's feelings and thus one that goes beyond mere disagreement to disapproval, quarreling tries to establish who is right about what is right. I establish a theoretical framework based on Kant's intuitions of a quarrel ( streiten) and in so doing clarify both the purpose and utility of quarreling: to demand assent for one's feelings (in the absence of established rules and norms) and expose an underlying contention involving values.

Summary
As a 'banal' everyday practice of state conduct, diplomatic summonses — colloquially known as a 'dressing down' — are a rich yet untapped source for research. To that end, this article's objectives are to: 1) introduce this practice of reprimand between states, along with a sample dataset of summonses in North-East Asia from 2000 to 2016; and 2) then extract valuable contributions that summonses could make to a variety of ongoing discourses. Specifically, the article highlights a summons' ability to reveal the foreign policy priorities of a state, as well as emphasise the need to think about dyadic relations as a set of two separate relations that might not exhibit the kind of reciprocity or symmetry that scholars have come to associate with inter-state relations. Along the way, the article also suggests ramifications for the ongoing literature on 'emotions', given the nature of summonses and its aspect of 'insult' or 'shaming'.