Abstract The paper reflects on the conception of the phenomenon of fear employed in the international relations theory. A critique of understanding of fear as a rational incentive of conventional international relations theories paves the way for the notion of fear as an emotion. It is argued that the behaviour of states in international politics should be explained via their psychological and emotional aspects. The paper proposes to connect the arising of and experiencing fear with collective memory and the imagery entrenched in nations' subconscious. It also proposes to distinguish the two levels of arising of and experiencing the emotion of fear, namely the attempt to consciously arouse fear and its nonconscious experience. On the first level, mnemonic-emotive agents consciously activate collective emotions via the nation's collective memory. On the second, once the contents/imagery of the society's subconscious are activated, the aroused emotions are nonconsciously experienced by the society. The paper offers a case study from the Lithuanian foreign policy: its relations with Russia. Discourse analysis of Lithuania-Russia relations, where President Dalia Grybauskaitė plays an active and important role in discourse formation, suggests that the formation of Lithuanian foreign policy, with regard to Russia, is affected by the emotion of fear.
The paper reflects on the conception of the phenomenon of fear employed in the international relations theory. A critique of understanding of fear as a rational incentive of conventional international relations theories paves the way for the notion of fear as an emotion. It is argued that the behaviour of states in international politics should be explained via their psychological and emotional aspects. The paper proposes to connect the arising of and experiencing fear with collective memory and the imagery entrenched in nations' subconscious. It also proposes to distinguish the two levels of arising of and experiencing the emotion of fear, namely the attempt to consciously arouse fear and its nonconscious experience. On the first level, mnemonic-emotive agents consciously activate collective emotions via the nation's collective memory. On the second, once the contents/imagery of the society's subconscious are activated, the aroused emotions are nonconsciously experienced by the society. The paper offers a case study from the Lithuanian foreign policy: its relations with Russia. Discourse analysis of Lithuania–Russia relations, where President Dalia Grybauskaitė plays an active and important role in discourse formation, suggests that the formation of Lithuanian foreign policy, with regard to Russia, is affected by the emotion of fear.
This article reflects on the concept of fear in theories of international relations and foreign policy. The text discusses the concepts of the phenomenon of fear and rational behavior emphasizing that the concept of fear, contrary to the concept of anarchy, has no emotional charge in the theory of international relations. Having surveyed the factor of emotions in the theory of international relations and foreign policy, the author suggests that the emotional meaningful charge be returned to the concept of fear. The study stresses that fear (if treated as an emotion) can also have a destructive function disrupting the international system and disturbing the international communication. The third part of the article is devoted to an analysis of the ideas of Lithuania's foreign policy. The study explores the idea of Lithuania as a regional leader. The writer claims that the idea was irrational because it was based on the factor of the emotion of fear.
In this article by applying the ideas of M. Foucault, E. Said, A. Negri, M. Hardt, L. Wittgenstein, Z. Norkus, N. Statkus, R. Lopata, N. Luhmann and others, the model of the EU imperialism is introduced. By using the theory of family resemblance by L. Wittgenstein and logic of its employment as shown by Z. Norkus in his work on Grand Duchy of Lithuanian as the empire, the conclusion arrives that the EU gravitates from the classical or neo-classical definition of the empire. However, inaccuracies, found by applying Z. Norkus' methodology, are caused more by the form, and not by the content, thus the claim that EU holds the notion of the empire is valid. This allows entitling the EU as the post-modern empire. In this work the main focus is set on the ruling regime of the post-modern empire of EU and on the main centre, which subordinates the other centres – "the core". It is the main centre of the empire of EU. The core is not visual (European Commission, Court of Justice of the European Union are just the parts of "the core".) It is more of a governing strategy, the entirety of values, standards, texts and rules that are imposed onto other centres. Two time-periods are highlighted: the first one is the expansionist experience of the Europe in 16th–20th centuries, when the justification of the EU as a civilizing force emerges (legitimate expansionism of the governing of the EU); the second is the time-period from the end of 20th century, since when the sensation that only the law, standards and virtues of the EU outtops the preferences of the national state, arises. That last momentum determines the equality of all the member-states, even though the asymmetry of force is clearly visible. The capability to subordinate the national preferences for the values and strategies of "the core" determines the success or the failure of the national politics. On this account, the influence of the small states in the EU is immediately concerned with the level of its integration and the ability to assimilate the standards and virtues, as postulated by "the core". The more the state integrates and the more of the sovereignty it renounces, the more leverage it acquires. Accordingly, the asymmetry of force between the large and small states decreases. As the conclusion that the renouncement of sovereignty ensures more of the force, arises, the Lithuanian claim for regional leadership is proposed through the better integration and renouncement (delegation) of sovereignty. ; Straipsnyje, remiantis Michelio Foucault, Edwardo Saido, Antonio Negri, Michaelio Hardto, Ludwigo Wittgensteino, Zenono Norkaus, Nortauto Statkaus, Raimundo Lopatos ir kitų mokslininkų mintimis, per imperinę paradigmą aiškinama ES struktūra, didžiųjų ir mažųjų valstybių santykiai bei pastarųjų įtakos didinimo galimybės. Pasitelkus L. Wittgensteino šeimyninio panašumo teoriją ir jos taikymo logiką, kurią naudojo Z. Norkus, įprasmindamas Lietuvos Didžiąją Kunigaikštystę kaip imperiją, prieinama išvada, kad ES "per daug nukrypsta" nuo klasikinio ar neoklasikinio imperijos tipo. Tačiau atsižvelgus į tai, kad neatitikimai, išryškinti taikant Z. Norkaus metodiką, yra lemti formos, bet ne turinio, teiginys, kad ES išlaiko imperijos sampratos prasminį krūvį, yra pagrįstas. Tai leidžia ES įvardyti kaip postmodernią imperiją. Straipsnyje orientuojamasi į ES postmodernios imperijos valdymo režimą ir pagrindinį, visus kitus centrus subordinuojantį centrą, – "branduolį". "Branduolys" pristatomas kaip esminis postmodernios imperijos atpažinimo kriterijus, darantis esminę įtaką visiems ES vykstantiems procesams, ypač mažųjų valstybių įtakos įtvirtinimo galimybėms. Priėjus išvadą, kad suvereniteto atsisakymas laiduoja didesnę galią, siūloma Lietuvos regioninės lyderystės siekį grįsti kuo gilesnės integracijos ir suvereniteto atsisakymo (delegavimo) motyvu.
In this article by applying the ideas of M. Foucault, E. Said, A. Negri, M. Hardt, L. Wittgenstein, Z. Norkus, N. Statkus, R. Lopata, N. Luhmann and others, the model of the EU imperialism is introduced. By using the theory of family resemblance by L. Wittgenstein and logic of its employment as shown by Z. Norkus in his work on Grand Duchy of Lithuanian as the empire, the conclusion arrives that the EU gravitates from the classical or neo-classical definition of the empire. However, inaccuracies, found by applying Z. Norkus' methodology, are caused more by the form, and not by the content, thus the claim that EU holds the notion of the empire is valid. This allows entitling the EU as the post-modern empire. In this work the main focus is set on the ruling regime of the post-modern empire of EU and on the main centre, which subordinates the other centres – "the core". It is the main centre of the empire of EU. The core is not visual (European Commission, Court of Justice of the European Union are just the parts of "the core".) It is more of a governing strategy, the entirety of values, standards, texts and rules that are imposed onto other centres. Two time-periods are highlighted: the first one is the expansionist experience of the Europe in 16th–20th centuries, when the justification of the EU as a civilizing force emerges (legitimate expansionism of the governing of the EU); the second is the time-period from the end of 20th century, since when the sensation that only the law, standards and virtues of the EU outtops the preferences of the national state, arises. That last momentum determines the equality of all the member-states, even though the asymmetry of force is clearly visible. The capability to subordinate the national preferences for the values and strategies of "the core" determines the success or the failure of the national politics. On this account, the influence of the small states in the EU is immediately concerned with the level of its integration and the ability to assimilate the standards and virtues, as postulated by "the core". The more the state integrates and the more of the sovereignty it renounces, the more leverage it acquires. Accordingly, the asymmetry of force between the large and small states decreases. As the conclusion that the renouncement of sovereignty ensures more of the force, arises, the Lithuanian claim for regional leadership is proposed through the better integration and renouncement (delegation) of sovereignty.
The European Union has introduced a most impressive integration project, which has the potential to establish a political unity not only in Europe, but also in the whole world. Since a sudden transition from one status (national state system) to another (supranational global governance) is hardly possible and the consequences are unpredictable, a gradual transition is recommended and it is more in favour by the EU. In other words, the EU integration process is a strategy aimed at "destruction" of the national state, which seeks full compliance with the terms of the social contract and the complete elimination of the anarchy. This strategy might be a new task or function of Europe.
The European Union has introduced a most impressive integration project, which has the potential to establish a political unity not only in Europe, but also in the whole world. Since a sudden transition from one status (national state system) to another (supranational global governance) is hardly possible and the consequences are unpredictable, a gradual transition is recommended and it is more in favour by the EU. In other words, the EU integration process is a strategy aimed at "destruction" of the national state, which seeks full compliance with the terms of the social contract and the complete elimination of the anarchy. This strategy might be a new task or function of Europe.
This paper criticizes the realistic approach to international relations. Due to the essence of the main categories of realism (such as state, sovereignty, nation), the realism paradigm is presented as non-optimal and defective, and it is explained by interpretation of the social contract. Following the latter interpretation, the social contract does not eliminate anarchy completely and anarchy can still appear at the international level. Because of the globalization processes, the world has grown tiny and the states are closely interrelated, this means that in the 21st century for an individual international anarchy is as dangerous as anarchy on the state level. For this reason the national state becomes a source of insecurity for the individual and, therefore, the transformation of the state becomes a necessity. This paper supports the statement that the international order should be organized by creating global and unified governance. The European Union has introduced a most impressive integration project, which has the potential to establish a political unity not only in Europe, but also in the whole world. Since a sudden transition from one status (national state system) to another (supranational global governance) is hardly possible and the consequences are unpredictable, a gradual transition is recommended and it is more in favour by the EU. In other words, the EU integration process is a strategy aimed at "destruction" of the national state, which seeks full compliance with the terms of the social contract and the complete elimination of the anarchy. This strategy might be a new task or function of Europe. ; Straipsnyje kritikuojamas realistinis požiūris į tarptautinius santykius. Ontologizuotas valstybės, suvereniteto, tautos kategorijas laikant būdingais realizmo teorijos bruožais teigiama, kad pagal realizmo paradigmą aiškinama ir organizuojama pasaulio tvarka yra ne tik neoptimali, bet ir ydinga. Tai atskleisti padeda visuomenės sutarties kaip fundamentalaus potencialaus aiškinimo metodas. Jo diktuojama logika teigia, kad visuomenės sutartis nepanaikino anarchijos. Nors vidiniu nacionaliniu valstybės lygmeniu visų karo prieš visus padėtis įveikta, anarchija išliko tarpvalstybiniu lygmeniu. Kadangi dėl globalizacijos procesų pasaulis tapo mažas, o valstybės tarpusavyje labai susijusios – tarptautinė anarchija XXI amžiuje individui ne ką mažiau pavojinga nei anarchija valstybiniu lygmeniu. Dėl šios priežasties nacionalinė valstybė tampa individų nesaugumo šaltiniu. Todėl būtina nacionalinės valstybės ir tarptautinės sistemos transformacija. Straipsnyje siūloma tarptautinę tvarką organizuoti kuriant globalią, vieną valdžią. Kadangi Europos Sąjunga pateikė įspūdingiausią valstybių integracijos projektą, siūloma nauja Europos funkcija – laipsniškas viršnacionalinės, "etatistiškai" ir civilizaciniu atžvilgiu neutralios valdžios steigimas per integraciją. Ši Europos funkcija traktuojama kaip viena iš galimybių įtvirtinti Europos politikos dominavimą visame pasaulyje.
In this article by applying the ideas of M. Foucault, E. Said, A. Negri, M. Hardt, L. Wittgenstein, Z. Norkus, N. Statkus, R. Lopata, N. Luhmann and others, the model of the EU imperialism is introduced. By using the theory of family resemblance by L. Wittgenstein and logic of its employment as shown by Z. Norkus in his work on Grand Duchy of Lithuanian as the empire, the conclusion arrives that the EU gravitates from the classical or neo-classical definition of the empire. However, inaccuracies, found by applying Z. Norkus' methodology, are caused more by the form, and not by the content, thus the claim that EU holds the notion of the empire is valid. This allows entitling the EU as the post-modern empire. Adapted from the source document.
