Suchergebnisse

Before we can fruitfully discuss what Europe ought to do about its various policy dilemmas, we need to re-examine the lens through which we view these dilemmas. I will highlight two problems with the habitual lens on Europe's future: firstly, it's unrealistic emphasis on clarity and coherence and, secondly, its state-centrism and state-envy. I explore the ways in which we can reverse the lens to examine familiar problems from unfamiliar angles.

This article seeks to connect political geographic scholarship on institutions and policy more firmly to the experience of everyday life. Empirically, I foreground the ambiguous and indeterminate character of institutional decision-making and I underscore the need to closely consider the sensory texture of place and milieu in our analyses of it. My examples come from the study of diplomatic practice in Brussels, the capital of the European Union. Conceptually and methodologically, I use these examples to accentuate lived experience as an essential part of research, especially in the seemingly dry bureaucratic settings. I do so in particular through engaging with the work of Michel de Certeau, whose ideas enjoy considerable traction in cultural geography but are seldom used in political geography and policy studies. An accent on the texture and feel of policy practice necessarily highlights the role of place in that practice. This, in turn, may help us with communicating geographical research beyond our own discipline.

AbstractThis essay addresses a relatively neglected practical aspect of critical policy studies: the pressure to produce many research outputs. That pressure emanates in part from the fast‐paced policy world studied by the researcher, and in part (perhaps even more significantly) from the university environment of the researcher herself. The essay highlights how the tendency towards output‐driven or fast research operates and what analytical traps it engenders. My goal is to spell out, more explicitly than is commonly done, why the push toward fast research is problematic on analytical grounds and why it ought to be resisted on these same grounds. I call for slow research to underscore that context‐sensitive critical investigation of a social field, such as policy, is a necessarily slow process.

This paper investigates the workings of symbolic power in diplomatic practice. At the level of empirical observation, it focuses on the intangible and incalculable 'feel for the game' that distinguishes a well-informed and relaxed insider from an ill-informed and ill-at-ease outsider in European Union (EU) diplomatic circles in Brussels. By highlighting the play of social resources, such as reputation, presence, poise, and composure in these circles, I examine EU diplomacy from an angle – symbolic power – that is often overlooked in the existing work on that field. Conceptually, the analysis focuses on the role of informal social resources rather than formal institutional structures in diplomatic practice. It also outlines the potential synergies between the study of diplomacy in international relations (IR) on the one hand and geography, anthropology, and sociology on the other. The paper thereby advances the analytical toolbox of diplomatic studies and practice theory. Such conceptual sharpening is needed, especially now that diplomacy is becoming more transnational and less linked to the foreign ministries of states.

AbstractBureaucratic structures and procedures are an integral part of the production of political space today. Analyses of geopolitical practices must therefore unpack the bureaucratic context in which these practices unfold on a daily basis. This is particularly important if we wish to understand transnational processes that operate at scales and in contexts other than the familiar contours of the nation‐state. In this article, I focus on one bureaucratic centre of geopolitics – the European Quarter in Brussels, Belgium, the institutional centre of the European Union. Drawing from scholarship on geopolitics and policy‐making, as well as primary interview material from field research in Brussels, I make two related points – (1) that we need detailed close‐up studies of the bureaucratic settings of contemporary geopolitics, and (2) that we must carefully situate such settings in their place‐specific contexts to reveal dynamics that remain unnoticed from afar. Empirically, the article contributes to the interdisciplinary scholarship on the EU as a transnational power centre of global importance. Theoretically, it seeks to improve our understanding of geopolitics as a bureaucratic and material practice.