Suchergebnisse

From Trump's America to Putin's Russia, from climate change denial to corona denial, so-called post-truth politics are experiencing a global rise. How can we understand and explain this phenomenon? In the attempt to answer this question, this article advances two core claims. First, it suggests that post-truth politics is (despite its name) marked not only by the denial of claims to objective truth, but also by the naturalization of one specific truth claim: namely, the cynical belief that self-interests are behind all public discourse. Second, it locates the social sources of this dogmatic cynicism in the global expansion of neoliberal competition.

AbstractFrom Trump's America to Putin's Russia, from climate change denial to corona denial, so-called post-truth politics are experiencing a global rise. How can we understand and explain this phenomenon? In the attempt to answer this question, this article advances two core claims. First, it suggests that post-truth politics is (despite its name) marked not only by the denial of claims to objective truth, but also by the naturalization of one specific truth claim: namely, the cynical belief that self-interests are behind all public discourse. Second, it locates the social sources of this dogmatic cynicism in the global expansion of neoliberal competition.

Post-truth politics poses a specific problem for critical theories. The problem is that the relativisation of facts – the claim that knowledge is merely a product of power, history, and perspective – is a core aspect of present-day ideological thinking. Critical theories have been unable to respond to this challenge, because their critique has been directed against the opposite claim, namely the naturalisation of facts. While acknowledging this problem, this article argues that post-truth discourse actually combines relativisation and naturalisation. It does not simply relativise truth, but also naturalises the belief in specific 'facts' – notably the belief that 'conspiracies are behind it all'. Once we recognise the twin character of post-truth, we must reject the view of Bruno Latour and others who have made critique responsible for the crisis. Instead, it then becomes apparent that there are deep and disconcerting similarities between post-truth politics and the totalitarian and authoritarian ideologies of the twentieth century. The task of critique is to confront and counter this resurgent ideology, thereby providing direction and orientation in the struggle for emancipation

Ist es zum Lachen oder zum Weinen? Diese Frage stellt sich immer wieder bei der Beobachtung der Worte und Taten des neuen US-Präsidenten – zum Beispiel anläßlich seines ersten Fernsehinterviews mit dem Journalisten David Muir (ABC America, 27.1.2017). Trump benahm sich wie ein rechthaberisches, selbstbezogenes, liebesbedürftiges Kind. Er beharrte auf seiner Version der Amtseinführung, nach der noch nie so viele Menschen wie diesmal an der Zeremonie teilgenommen hätten. Er sprach nicht nur davon, er verwies auch auf Fotos, die er an Wänden im Weißen Haus hat aufhängen lassen. Trump wiederholte außerdem seine Behauptung, dass es viele illegale Stimmen gegeben hätte, und alle für Hillary Clinton. Natürlich würde man auch den einen oder anderen finden, der illegal für ihn abgestimmt habe. Diese Person würde man dann, sagte Trump, als Gegenbeweis vor die Kameras zerren. Aber die Wahrheit sei, dass Millionen von illegalen Stimmen fast ausnahmslos für Clinton abgegeben worden seien.

The research on international organisations (IOs) continues to be dominated by two distinctions: on the one hand, the distinction between rational choice and social construction; on the other hand, the distinction between IOs as arenas for states and IOs as actors in their own right. In this article I argue that these two distinctions structure not only our theoretical debates on IOs, but also what our theories aspire to explain: political conflicts in IOs. Through an in-depth study of two debates during a conflict in the world food organisations, I show how the distinctions were used to create lines of dispute. I conclude that research that itself establishes the distinctions on a theoretical basis is unable to grasp what conflict in IOs, since it fixes theoretically what is contested politically. What is called for is instead a practice-theoretical approach.

Der Beitrag betrachtet Macht und Widerstand am Beispiel zweier UN-Exekutivchefs als Widerstandskämpfer. Ziel des Beitrags ist es, Webers Bild moderner Machtausübung in einem bestimmten Sinn zu ergänzen. Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass sich rational-legale Machtansprüche nicht nur durch ihre objektive Überlegenheit durchsetzen, sonder auch - und gerade - durch ihre wahrgenommene Unterlegenheit. In dem Beitrag werden die Orte der Macht in einem spezifischen, eng begrenzten institutionellen Raum genau untersucht. Dabei befasst sich der Beitrag mit den Exekutivchefs von zwei in Rom angesiedelten UN-Organisationen: dem Australier James Ingram - von 1982 bis 1992 Exekutivdirektor des Welternährungsprogramms (WFP), und dem Libanesen Edouard Saouma, der von 1976 bis 1994 Generaldirektor der Landwirtschafts- und Ernährungsorganisationen (FAO) war. Auf der Basis von autobiographischen Berichten, historischen Dokumenten und Zeitzeugeninterviews mit früheren UN-Mitarbeitern und Diplomaten wird gezeigt, dass die Führungsspitzen von WFP und FAO zwar von außen als Orte überlegener Macht wahrgenommen wurden, dass aber im Inneren dieser Orte die Überzeugung herrschte, rational-legalen Widerstand gegen illegitime Unterdrückung zu leisten. (ICA2)

Introduction : theory as ideology in international relations / Benjamin Martill & Sebastian Schindler -- Theory vs. ideology : validity criteria for knowledge claims and normative conditions of critique / Hartmut Behr -- Ideology as decontestation / Benjamin Herborth -- Theory, ideology and IR's quest for scientific credibility / Katarzyna Kaczmarska -- 'I see something you don't see' : Niklas Luhmann's social theory between observation and meta-critique / Florian Edelmann -- The costs of the democratic turn in political theory / Albena Azmanova -- The spirits we cite : how democratic war theory reproduces what it opposes / Valerie Waldow -- From theory to practice : the paradox of neoliberal hegemony in 21st century world politics / Philip G. Cerny -- Liberalism and the Cold War : the international thought of Jo Grimond / Benjamin Martill -- Ideologies of international organization : exploring the trading zones between theory and practice / Leonie Holthaus & Jens Steffek -- From allegations of ideology to conflicts over forms of life; or, Why political scientists don't talk about ecovillages / Philip Wallmeier -- Microanalysis as ideology critique : the critical potential of 'zooming in' on everyday social practices / Sebastian Schindler -- Conclusion : from the politics of knowledge to knowledge of politics / Beate Jahn.

"Are theoretical tools nothing but political weapons? How can the two be distinguished from each other? What is the ideological role of theories like liberalism, neoliberalism, or democratic theory? And how can we study the theories of actors from outside the academic world? This book examines these and related questions at the nexus of theory and ideology in International Relations. The current crisis of politics made it abundantly clear that theory is not merely an impartial and neutral academic tool, but instead implicated in political struggles. However, it is also clear that it is insufficient to view theory merely as a political weapon. This book brings together contributions from a number of different scholarly perspectives to engage with these problems. The contributors, drawn from various fields of International Relations and political science, cast new light on the ever problematic relationship between theory and ideology. They analyze the ideological underpinnings of existing academic theories, and examine the theories of non-academic actors such as staff members of international organizations, ecovillagers, and liberal politicians. This edited volume is a must-read for all those interested in the contemporary political crisis and its relation to theories of International Relations"--

AbstractIn this article, we elaborate two distinct ways of criticizing international practices: social critique and pragmatic critique. Our argument is that these two forms of critique are systematically opposed to each other: They are based on opposing epistemic premises, they are motivated by opposing political concerns, and they pursue opposing visions of social progress. Scholars of International Relations (IR) who want to work with the conceptual tools of practice theory are thus confronted with a consequential choice. Understanding the alternatives can help them to be more self-reflexive in their research practices and intervene more forcefully in contemporary political debates. We illustrate these advantages through a discussion of the scholarly debate on the practices of multilateral diplomacy through which the United Nations Security Council authorized a military intervention in Libya in 2011.

The end of the Cold War led to intense debates about how change happens in international politics. In this article, we argue that practice theory has great potential for illuminating this question. Drawing on Vincent Pouliot's empirical analysis of NATO-Russia relations after the end of the Cold War, we elaborate how change happens in and through practice. We show that post-Cold War security practices are inherently unstable, because there is a fundamental uncertainty about whether the Cold War is really over or whether the Cold War logic of bipolar confrontation still applies. Uncertainty about the meaning of the past destabilizes present practices and thus makes sudden and drastic change possible. To date, many contributions to the literature on international practices have, however, failed to grasp the inherent instability of practice. We argue that this failure is due to a particular conception of change that can be found in the works of Pierre Bourdieu. Through a close reading of Pouliot's Bourdieusian analysis of post-Cold War politics, we demonstrate the limitations of such a perspective, notably that it is unable to grasp how change originates in practice.