Suchergebnisse

Introduction 1. - 1 In Defence of Ontology 9. - 1.1 Introduction 9. - 1.2 From relativism to relationism: on reading and normativity 13. - 1.3 Ontology is not (necessarily) essentialism: on temporality 24. - 2 The Problem of "Otherness" and Modes of Temporality 41. - 2.1 Introduction 41. - 2.2 Western ontologies and the construction of "otherness" 44. - 2.3 Searching for thinking difference beyond 70. - 3 Phenomenologies of "Otherness" 81. - 3.1 Introduction 81. - 3.2 Being-in-time, transformativity, and sociability 83 . - 3.3 'Crisis'/'trauma', the question of beginning, and the permanence of critical exegesis 91. - 4 From E Pluribus unum to Fatemini Pluribus Pluribum 101 . - 4.1 Introduction 101. - 4.2 Non-silence and the embrace of differences 104. - 4.3 Western narratives of 'peace': a critique 112 . - 4.4 Peace as living towards differences 140 . - Conclusions: Conditions of the Possibility of Peace 158

"This book develops a notion of differences and "otherness" beyond hegemonic and hierarchical thinking as represented by the legacies of Western philosophical and political thinking. In doing so, it relates to the 20th Century phenomenological discourse, especially to Georg Simmel, Alfred Schütz, Emmanual Lévinas, and Jacques Derrida, and drafts our understanding of difference as a genuine human experience of a social and political world that is in motion and transformative, rather than static and predictable. On this basis of temporalized ontology and its normative consequences, differences are drafted as a positive social and political force and as powerful capacities of transformation and change. In practical terms, this understanding is most important for our theorizing and acting upon peace, peace-building, and conflict solution. Differences appear now not as obstacle to peace and reconciliation, but as lively and constructive articulation of "otherness" and as a positive power of transformation, emancipation, and change. This book will be of interest to students of international relations, philosophy, and political theory."--

Machine generated contents note: Preface IntroductionPART I: UNIVERSALISM IN GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITY AND CHRISTIAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYGreek and Roman Antiquity Christian Political Pragmatism and Ethical Universalism - Aurelius Augustine and Thomas AquinasPART II: UNIVERSALISTIC THINKING FROM EARLY MODERN TIMES TO ENLIGHTENMENT Universalistic Thinking in Christian Legal Philosophy - Bartolom de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria Universalistic Frameworks in Early Modern Political Theory PART III: THE EMERGENCE OF PARTICULARISM IN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURYPhilosophies of National InterestManufacturing Inter-National Co-operation: The English School PART IV: THE TRIUMPH OF PARTICULARISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY Neo-Realism and the Scientification of International Political TheoryMisreadings in IR: Re-assessing Morgenthau, Ideology, and the Reification-Problem PART V: INSTEAD OF A CONCLUSION TOWARDS RENEWED ONTOL-OGY(IES)Universal, Universalistic - UniversalizedLoss of Ethics, or the Re-invention of Universal Thinking in Global Politics? NotesBibliography Index Preface IntroductionPART I: UNIVERSALISM IN GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITY AND CHRISTIAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYGreek and Roman Antiquity Christian Political Pragmatism and Ethical Universalism - Aurelius Augustine and Thomas AquinasPART II: UNIVERSALISTIC THINKING FROM EARLY MODERN TIMES TO ENLIGHTENMENT Universalistic Thinking in Christian Legal Philosophy - Bartolom de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria Universalistic Frameworks in Early Modern Political Theory PART III: THE EMERGENCE OF PARTICULARISM IN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURYPhilosophies of National InterestManufacturing Inter-National Co-operation: The English School PART IV: THE TRIUMPH OF PARTICULARISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY Neo-Realism and the Scientification of International Political TheoryMisreadings in IR: Re-assessing Morgenthau, Ideology, and the Reification-Problem PART V: INSTEAD OF A CONCLUSION TOWARDS RENEWED ONTOL-OGY(IES)Universal, Universalistic - UniversalizedLoss of Ethics, or the Re-invention of Universal Thinking in Global Politics? NotesBibliography Index

This book brings together a genealogy of thoughts on peace, war and ethics in Western political philosophy highlighting their legacies for contemporary theories on International Relations. Throughout this exciting history, the reader discovers important arguments against some of the mainstream narratives of International Relations, such as the contextualization of neo-realism in Hegelian philosophy rather than in an ostensibly realist tradition of international political thought. On an ontological and epistemological level, this book argues for a reinvention of universalistic notions in international and global politics to overcome the politics of 'national interest' and their perennial self-affirmations through violence, egocentrisms, and war.

In a historical perspective, technocracy, emphasising bureaucratic and technical expertise in political, social and economic areas, is a double edge sword: on the one side, it guaranteed the condition for international cooperation post-WW II, providing as an ideologically neutral basis the condition for governance in a politically bitter international climate. On the other hand, it indicates the tragedy of increasing delegitimization of EU governance, causing the alienation of political willing from the peo-ple that is (mis-)used by populists present-day and their slogan 'back to the people'. Technocracy is theoretically symbolised through the functionalism of EU integration, politically manifest in the re-definition of democracy from "input"- to "output"-orientation by e.g. Fritz Scharpf. The tragedy of EU politics being trapped in technocratic governance as condition of the possibility and calamity of coop-eration at the same time is analytically at the heart to understand contemporary approaches of EU (dis-)integration and identity. However, in both understanding alienation and (populist) opposition to the EU integration processes as systemic phenomena, deeply seeded in the structure of the EU and of EU policy studies themselves, as well as in suggesting a triangular democratic process to rectify the EU's birth deficit, the paper significantly goes beyond current policy studies (e.g. on EU dis-integration) and their non-normative stance. These studies are still anchored in the epistemological commitments of neo-functionalism that need finally to be overcome as they tend to ignore the human factor and agency in politics.

While contingency and negation are relatively well-established notions in the theoretical analysis of international relations, their practical implications remain under-conceptualised. In order to discuss the question of how to act under conditions of contingency and negation, this article, in a first step, triangulates both with Aristotelian noesis. Such triangulation suggests that the consequences of political action cannot be predicted and always have inadvertent consequences due to the contingent and historically and intellectually negated and refutable (even self-refutable) character of politics. It therefore appears as irresponsible to enact policies with interminable consequences. Rather, responsible political action — which is responsible precisely as, and only if, it accounts for contingency and negation — must hence act only in such a way that its consequences are reversible. In a second step, policy theory is critically reviewed in light of reversibility and its underlying philosophical principles, trying to bridge political philosophy and policy studies for a mutually enriched analysis of politics. Such a bridging exercise not only brings enhanced normative reflection into policy studies, but also, in reverse, hints at the crucial aspect of the non-linear unfolding of action consequences, which is, in addition to questions for a future research agenda, discussed in the concluding section. These discussions are understood as a twofold, yet interlinked, contribution: first, to develop a concept of reversibility as a practical response to the philosophical notions of contingency and negation; and, second, to bridge two different paradigms, encouraging the synergy of scholarly expertise for the management of contemporary international and global problems.

Critique is a driving force not only for the development of political ideas and concepts but also for protecting humane and democratic politics against the perils of epistemic and political ideologies. Yet, while there is much debate about the question of ' What is critique?' the conditions of critique appear largely under-reflected in International Politics and the Social Sciences more generally. This article goes beyond the question of what critique in politics and social science might consist of and holds that critique is not an end in itself, but rather requires a yardstick to discuss and judge its generative conditions, that is, its foundation, legitimization and direction that it must pertain to be meaningful. The following article will explore the oeuvres of twentieth-century political and social theorists Hans J. Morgenthau, Herbert Marcuse and Eric Voegelin and argues that the three principles of 'perspectivity', 'negation' and 'noesis' that can be concluded from their work provide such generative conditions of critique, practically leading to a novel policy framework of the non-irreversibility of politics.

Hans Morgenthau's Scientific Man vs. Power Politics appeared in 1946, one year after he received tenure at the University of Chicago. Thus, the monograph demarcates the beginning of Morgenthau's career in the United States, to which he had emigrated nine years earlier. Three main aspects seem important for understanding this work. The first is Morgenthau's bewilderment about American political culture and, as he perceived it, its cheerful optimism about the betterment of politics, society, and humanity in general. The second aspect is the nature of the argument: Scientific Man is a dogmatic tract, an attempt to hammer home certain philosophical positions—positions that were largely unpopular in the U.S. social sciences in the 1940s (and later)—rather than a reflective scholarly elaboration of certain philosophical commitments. The third is Morgenthau's place between two academic cultures: Morgenthau's language in his American writings partly stems from, but also tries to leave behind, his European academic socialization. The monograph thus reflects the author's peculiar situation, as he inhabits two sometimes crucially different semantic and cultural contexts, but fails to bridge or broker them.