Suchergebnisse

Artikkelen gir en oversikt over den «visuelle vendingen» innen IP-faget og diskuterer noen av de mest sentrale teoretiske argumentene som har blitt lagt frem i denne sammenheng, med særlig vekt på studiet av «internasjonale ikoner». Denne diskusjonen leder videre til en empirisk studie, nærmere bestemt en kasusstudie med utgangspunkt i bildet av Omran Daqneesh, også kjent som «Syrian boy in an ambulance». Dette bildet, som ble tatt under beleiringen av Aleppo i august 2016, oppnådde raskt ikonisk status i den bredere vestlige debatten, og det er nettopp samspillet mellom bilde og fortolkning i form av tekst jeg ser nærmere på i analysen. Ved hjelp av en diskursanalyse viser jeg hvordan debatten bar preg av uklarhet og en slags ubestemmelighet når det gjaldt hvordan en burde respondere til ikonet i utenrikspolitisk forstand. Dette funnet leder meg videre til artikkelens teoretiske bidrag: å anskueliggjøre hvordan begrepet apori kan bidra til å teoretisere debatten rundt borgerkrigen i Syria. Mer konkret argumenter jeg for at debattens innramming leder til et selvkonstruert paradoks, som kommer til uttrykk i ulike krav om at noe må gjøres, uten at dette «noe» spesifiseres. Dermed blir kravet i seg selv et symbol på en utveisløshet; det ender i en apori. Formålet med artikkelen er derfor todelt: For det første å undersøke hvilken rolle bilder spiller i internasjonal politikk og, for det andre, å belyse hvordan møtet med en apori fordrer refleksjon, som derfor kan bidra til å åpne opp for alternative tilnærminger til de forståelsesrammene som preget, eller kanskje rettere sagt fremdeles preger, diskursen rundt borgerkrigen i Syria.
Abstract in English:Icons and Aporias in the Western Debate on the Civil War in Syria
This article provides an overview of the 'visual turn' in IR and reflects on some of the key theoretical arguments put forward with particular attention paid to the proposed study of 'international icons'. This discussion provides the basis for an empirical study in which I examine the photograph of Omran Daqneesh, also known as the Syrian boy in an ambulance, as a case study. This photo, which was taken during the siege of Aleppo in August 2016, quickly reached an iconic status in the broader Western debate on the Syrian Civil War. The ensuing analysis zooms in on and accentuates the interplay between the visual and (textual) interpretation. This is done by way of discourse analysis, through which I demonstrate how the debate was characterized by an ambiguity and an undecideability regarding what should be done in terms of foreign policy as a response to the icon. Building on this finding, I advance this article's theoretical contribution: to suggest that the concept of aporia can help us theorize the debate on the Syrian civil war. More specifically, I argue that the current framing of the debate leads to a self-constructed paradox, which finds its expression in the various demands that 'something must be done', without this 'something' being specified. As such, the demand becomes a symbol of a undecidability; it ends in an aporia. Thus, the purpose of this article is two-fold: First, to understand the role of images in international politics and, second, to illuminate how the aporetic encounter demands reflection, which therefore can open up thinking space for alternative approaches to the frames of interpretation that dominated, or rather, continues to dominate the discourse around the civil war in Syria.

This thesis explores the relationship between knowledge and politics in global governance today. To do so, I conduct a case study of the efforts to disarm and govern the use of chemical weapons in Syria between 2013 and 2017. Official documents from this time-period are analyzed by way of assemblage thinking. This perspective directs attention to the practices of assembling coupled with a sensitivity to processes of (de)stabilization. Doing so helps me develop the argument that during the course of this process, the knowledge-politics nexus was performed according to a linear understanding. In this view, knowledge production is to inform political decision-making in a unidirectional way. This practice of delineating knowledge production and politics into two separate spheres was important for establishing a Russian-American consensus. Indeed, it allowed for cooperation on chemical weapons in Syria by isolating the issue from other dimensions of the conflict and, in doing so, stabilized what was perceived to be an apolitical and technical form of expertise. During the post-disarmament phase (2015-2017), the same practice of separating the two turned into a source of tension between Russia and the US. More specifically, following continued allegations of chemical attacks even after the declared stockpiles had been destroyed in 2014, two new expert mechanisms were set up. Russia perceived these overstep their apolitical and technical mandates and took action to reshape their working methods. However, the US and its allies viewed Russia's actions as attempts at interfering with the neutral knowledge producing mechanisms. While these differing perspectives are in agreement that knowledge and politics should be kept separate, I demonstrate how this practice in global governance can be problematic. As such, I end up calling for new ways of thinking and speaking about the relationship between knowledge and politics. ; M-IR