Suchergebnisse

AbstractAutoethnography is a way and method to reflect on the mutual constitution of the self and the social. It allows one to consider how her/his personal and professional subjectivity was constructed and how her/his actions in the world reproduce or change this world. Autoethnography enables one to acquire an agentive role in the world by highlighting one's uniqueness and voice. It also aims to create mutual empowerment among people, ordinary individuals, by means of identification, connectivity, and empathy. In this article I explore some conceptual issues relating to autoethnography and then present my personal account of why I study International Relations (IR) and how I decided to bring myself more openly into my texts and lectures. I conclude by arguing that autoethnography made me more confident in sounding my voice in print and in class, and that, consequently, I became much more aware of the human capacity to make a difference.

Terror threats and fear of ethnic and religious outbursts, combined with the aspirations of governments to better integrate immigrants into society, have led a growing number of Western states to adopt the practice of citizenship tests as a prerequisite for full citizenship. These tests require the immigrant, usually of non-Western origin, to demonstrate advanced language skills as well as comprehensive civic and cultural knowledge of the host society. While existing literature focuses either on internal inconsistencies within civic integration policies or on the models of citizenship reflected in the exams, the present article offers a critical and power-centered approach to the subject. Using a Foucauldian perspective, we analyze the tests as a sign of authority, a technology of naturalizing authority, and a disciplinary tool. This study joins a growing body of literature on the concept of governmentality, putting the spotlight on the `microphysics of power', specifically at borders and liminal points where the state's presence is prominent.

This article suggests that institutions of violence in the international system sanction Great Power (GP) authority in this system. We argue that the degree to which Great Powers (GPs) construe various threats as challenges to their international authority informs their use of force against the sources of these threats. Serious challenges to GP authority prompt punishment not only to achieve rational and utilitarian ends (such as secession of harm or deterrence), but also to reproduce authority and reify it. We examine in this respect the US-led War on Terror and argue that the US response to the 9/11 terror attacks was largely constituted by the acute and unprecedented challenge to America's GP authority that these attacks symbolized. We conclude by reflecting upon the dilemmas the United States now faces to its GP authority.