Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The concept of habitus is a centerpiece of Pierre Bourdieu's cultural sociology and is among the most popular conceptual imports into the Bourdieu-inspired "practice turn" in International Relations (IR). There have, however, been recurrent questions whether IR work using habitus and Bourdieu mainly "re-describe in different language" what scholars already know about world politics. This article argues that a more traditional use of habitus that pays attention to the production of habitus is key to advancing distinctly Bourdieusian and practice-based accounts of international politics. Drawing on a detailed survey of habitus scholarship in IR, the article shows how the practice turn takes a narrow view of social structure by bracketing social class, race, and gender; is preoccupied with the pedagogical labor of secondary socialization over primary socialization; and neglects the concrete embodied dimension of practice. Looking to Bourdieu's own work, this article calls for theoretically armed empirical attention to social structure, primary socialization, and embodiment. It articulates a specific strategy for this recovery: closer attention to the production of habitus by mapping the biographies of individuals and groups and relating these sedimented histories to agents' practices and shared structures of experience.

This article takes the study of populism beyond political parties and individual leaders and foregrounds coalitions in the making and unmaking of populist projects. It compares Rodrigo Duterte's presidency in the Philippines with figures of an older vintage in postcolonial Southeast Asia—the Cold War neutralists President Sukarno of Indonesia and Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia, neither of whom fit neatly within dominant frameworks of populism in International Relations (IR). Drawing on Rogers Brubaker's conceptualization of populism as a "discursive and stylistic repertoire," I argue that the projects of Duterte, Sukarno, and Sihanouk embody populism in general and are suggestive of a distinct type vis-à-vis right- or left-wing party and individual populists. Specifically, these are populists who presided over ideologically diverse coalitions in contexts of intrusive Great Power competition. This comparison advances the study of populism in IR in three ways. First, rather than populist political parties and leaders, this article focuses on populists crafting coalitions in contexts of weak party milieus. Second, it draws on a capacious conceptualization of populism (as repertoire) which pushes beyond exclusively "ideological," "strategic," and "discursive" conceptions and better accounts for the empirical diversity of this phenomenon outside Euro-American shores. Third, this article highlights a novel pathway by which international politics shapes the fates of populism. The three cases show how a strident discourse of anti-colonialism glued populists' diverse coalitions at home, while populists' external alignment choices and efforts to steer "independent" foreign policies exacerbated coalitional fault lines, straining, if not unraveling, their projects.

This article advances a methodological argument on how to do ethnographic fieldwork amid social elites and inaccessible bureaucracies in international politics. Instead of participant observation or semi-structured interviews, the article proposes "hanging out" as an alternative strategy to generate immersion and ethnographic insight. While the ethnographer studying "down" is arguably always "hanging out" (the village as the exemplary mise-en-scene of this genre), this technique takes a more defined form when studying "up" elites. Specifically, hanging out when studying "up" is a strategy where the fieldworker commits to a period of continuous residence amid members of a community; engages in ludic, informal, and often sociable interactions outside or at the sidelines of their professional habitats; and participates in a range of activities where building rapport is as important as the primary goals of the research. I illustrate this methodological strategy and its payoffs by reflecting upon a year of fieldwork among the diplomats and bureaucrats of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—an informal, quiet, and often sub rosa diplomatic project run by a band of mostly authoritarian states in Southeast Asia. This article contributes to debates on the viability of ethnographic fieldwork in international relations (IR); advances a methodological corrective to fieldwork prescriptions in new micropolitical studies of practice, interactions, and emotions in IR; and offers a practical illustration of what studying "up" looks like in diplomacy and international politics.

AbstractThis article advances a theory on the power of international bureaucrats and bureaucracies in world politics. It argues that bureaucrats become powerful when they stage emotionally calibrated performances as "servants" before state principals and carve out space for action through "whispering," "propagating," cultivating patrons, and building coalitions in the backstage of official interaction. These "servant" performances involve what sociologist Arlie Hochschild calls "emotional labor"—the management of feelings in work performances. I develop a theory of emotional labor that suggests why international bureaucrats manage emotions as they perform as servants and why some bureaucrats with prized sociological profiles are empowered on the back of "confident" servant performances. In contrast to principal–agent, constructivist, and psychological accounts, this is a micro-sociological explanation for bureaucratic power. I evaluate this theory with an ethnography of the Secretariat of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—a "least likely" case for bureaucratic power under prevailing theorizations. I also demonstrate how the ASEAN case is a sharper instance of a more general phenomenon. This article advances the study of emotions and emotional labor, the role of social class in shaping competent practice, and the debate on the power of bureaucrats and international organizations in international relations.

AbstractSociability or "the play form of association" appears in a range of interactions in world politics sited at banquets, drinking gatherings, golf courses, and even the sauna. Notwithstanding this salience, the form and effects of sociability are poorly understood in International Relations. This article fills this gap. It conceptualizes sociability—its distinct sociological structure; its variations along class, race, and gender; its effects on social interaction—and argues that sociability matters in world politics. Specifically, sociability contributes to identity formation and community maintenance, enables learning, produces social capital, and generates a "backstage" where actors can manage disagreement. I substantiate this argument by examining the sociability fostered from playing golf in the diplomacy of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). I explain why golf emerged as a sociable practice in capitalist ASEAN's diplomacy in contrast to socialist and nonaligned circuits of Cold War Southeast Asia; examine the elite and male-homosocial character of this sociability; suggest how it influenced the Associations' diplomacy; and outline the structural shifts that have led to its post–Cold War decline. This article contributes to the study of sociability in world politics, international practice theory, the political sociology of leisure, and the international politics of Southeast Asia.

Face-saving is a ubiquitous yet under-theorized phenomenon in International Relations. Prevailing accounts refer to face-saving as a shorthand for status and reputation, as a "cultural" trait found outside Euro-American societies, and as a technique for defusing militarized inter-state crisis, without, however, an explanation of its source and repertoire. In this article, I argue that it is possible to recover face-saving from cultural essentialism, and that face-saving practices geared to avoid embarrassment are micro-level mechanisms that produce international institutions like diplomacy. Drawing on the work of sociologists Erving Goffman and Pierre Bourdieu, I propose a theory of face-saving that accounts for its source, effects, and variation. I evaluate this theory with a study of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a diplomacy that has long espoused a discourse of "saving face" couched in Asian cultural exceptionalism. I combine a political sociology of ASEAN's ruling regimes with an ethnography of its diplomats based on 13 consecutive months of fieldwork in Jakarta, Indonesia, to substantiate this wider theoretical argument. I demonstrate that, first, ASEAN's face-saving practices are rooted in the legacies of authoritarianism rather than essentialist "culture," and, second, that face-saving practices enable performances of sovereign equality, diplomatic kinship, and conflict avoidance among ASEAN's diplomats. This article grants a distinct conceptual space to face-saving in International Relations, contributes to international practice theory by situating practices in the context of state–society relations, and offers a novel interpretation of what the "ASEAN Way" of doing diplomacy looks like in practice.

There are long-standing civil arguments about whether offering the decision in the middle of private and state funded schools influences the value and nature of training frameworks. With minimal regulation, tuition based school development dangers happening in a spontaneous way, with little government oversight and possibly intensifying imbalance. With excessively, private suppliers could be prevented, and conceivable chances for extending school access could be diminished. This paper analyses as to how the privatization could be testified towards the good education governance. Is it good or otherwise for the sector?

Has the global financial and economic crisis provided stimulus for institutional development in ASEAN? Exploring the empirical trends concerning ASEAN's plans for a comprehensive community by 2015, it is argued that no such developments have emerged. Instead, two alternative sources for potential change in ASEAN's institutional norms are elaborated.

Why have Asia's many projects in regionalism not been able to realize their stated goals, despite the fecundity of, and enthusiasm for, region-building initiatives over the last two decades? In an attempt to answer this question, this article identifies the pursuit of a holistic regionalism embodied in the desire for a regional community as a persistent goal in official discourse, and argues that an apparent state of frustration describes the difficulty of regional institutions and forums in bridging the growing gap between these articulated goals and actual outcomes. The empirical case for the argument here is provided by the founding of the East Asia Summit in 2005, which has disclosed the limits of both exclusive and inclusive models of regionalism in Asia. In exploring causation, the article argues that both structural and agential factors are at the heart of this problem. The tensions thrown up by the competing processes of realist and liberal-institutionalist order-building in Asia have imposed structural constraints on the ability of regional projects to realize their normative aspirations. Equally important in causing this state of frustration are the agents of regionalism - in particular, regional elites - who articulated the goal of a regional "Community" to propel regional projects, and have set the bar above the current capacities of regional institutions. (Contemp Southeast Asia/GIGA)

Sociability or "the play form of association" appears in a range of interactions in world politics sited at banquets, drinking gatherings, golf courses, and even the sauna. Notwithstanding this salience, the form and effects of sociability are poorly understood in International Relations. This article fills this gap. It conceptualizes sociability—its distinct sociological structure; its variations along class, race, and gender; its effects on social interaction—and argues that sociability matters in world politics. Specifically, sociability contributes to identity formation and community maintenance, enables learning, produces social capital, and generates a "backstage" where actors can manage disagreement. I substantiate this argument by examining the sociability fostered from playing golf in the diplomacy of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). I explain why golf emerged as a sociable practice in capitalist ASEAN's diplomacy in contrast to socialist and nonaligned circuits of Cold War Southeast Asia; examine the elite and male-homosocial character of this sociability; suggest how it influenced the Associations' diplomacy; and outline the structural shifts that have led to its post–Cold War decline. This article contributes to the study of sociability in world politics, international practice theory, the political sociology of leisure, and the international politics of Southeast Asia.