Suchergebnisse

The chapter discusses the soft & rule-oriented modes of constructivism as they have been brought to bear on Gorbachev-espoused Soviet "new thinking," the collapse of the USSR, & international relations in the post-Cold War era. The fall of the USSR was met by multiple & competing political narratives constructed by interested agents. The West's narrative, guided by the topoi of soft constructivism & largely anti-Marxist, has dominated the mainstream & refocused international relations analysis on neorealism, neoliberalism, & globalism. But other constructivisms, however marginalized, remain imperative for understanding Gorbachev's "new thinking" & its failure. 2 Tables, 77 References. K. Coddon

1. World of our making and second generation constructivism / David M. McCourt and Brent J. Steele -- 2. Onufian world-making : three, yes three, vignettes / Patrick Thaddeus Jackson -- 3. How to gain adherents / Gavan Duffy -- 4. "In the beginning was the deed" : Nicholas Onuf and the new realisms / Chris Brown -- 5. Onuf's radical subtlety / L.H.M. Ling -- 6. Queering IR constructivism / Laura Sjoberg -- 7. What do rules do? Making room for rationality in constructivist thought / James C. Roberts -- 8. Contesting rule(s) / Cecelia Lynch -- 9. Acts and effects : conditions of agency in Onufian constructivism / Jamie Frueh -- 10. Still missing the other half : world making and sense making / Antje Wiener -- 11. Making sense of our world : competence, reason, and the emergence of ethical systems / Paul Kowert -- 12. What is the American national interest? Reading Obama with Onuf / Renee Marlin-Bennett -- 13. Social mechanisms : a methodological tool for feminist IR / Elisabeth Prugl -- 14. Following Onuf's rules on rule : the legal road to social constructivism / Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander -- 15. Rules, power, and constitutions : following Onuf / Anthony F. Lang, Jr. -- 16. Of maps, law, and politics : an inquiry into the changing meaning of territoriality / Friedrich Kratochwil -- 17. Modern crisis, modern history : Nicholas G. Onuf's conceptual history / Alexander D. Barder -- 18. Aristotle and the breakdown of order / Richard Ned Lebow -- 19. Ending empire : Lusotropicalism as an imperial ideology / Jens Bartelson.

AbstractThis paper tries to review and compare the perspective of constructivism and Ashabiyah. The discussion of this paper includes an explanation of the concepts of constructivism and Ibn Khaldun's asabiyah, the two concepts will also be explained in the case study of the European Union, from the case study it will be seen how the two perspectives have some of the same characters but some are different. Constructivism and Asabiyah in the context of European integration both have unifying factors, but these factors are different if constructivism is an interest in Ashabiyah the factor is a cultural project. Constructivism and asabiyah both lead to a common interest in realizing a social order or political institution, what is different is if in constructivism the actor tries to form an identity that shapes interests by creating a political institution, while according to Asabiyah the actor forms a social solidarity and brotherhood to realize a political institution that accommodates interests. So constructivists emphasize the formation of new identities by actors on the basis of common interests, whereas in Asabiyah there is no emphasis on identity but on making cultural projects that can be accepted by all political institutions.Keywords: Constructivism, Ashabiyah, European Union AbstrakPaper ini mencoba mereview dan membandingkan perspektif konstruktivisme dan Asabiyah. Pembahasan paper ini meliputi penjelasan tentang konsep kontruktivisme dan asabiyyah Ibnu Khaldun, akan dijelaskan pula dua konsep tersebut dalam studi kasus Uni Eropa, dari studi kasus tersebut akan terlihat bagaimana kedua perspektif tersebut mempunyai beberapa karakter yang sama tetapi ada juga yang berbeda. konstruktivisme dan asabiyyah dalam konteks integrasi Eropa sama-sama mempunyai faktor yang bersifat pemersatu, tetapi faktor tersebut berbeda jika pada konstruktivisme berupa kepentingan pada Ashabiyah faktornya adalah cultural project. Konstruktivisme dan asabiyyah sama-sama mengarah pada sebuah kepentingan bersama dalam mewujudkan ...

This text uses the body to peel back the layers of time and taken-for-granted-ness upon the two defining political forms of modernity, the state and the subject of rights. It traces, under the lens of the body, how the state and the subject mutually constituted each other all the way down, by going all the way back, to their original crafting in the seventeenth century. It considers multiple sites of theory and practice and two revolutions.

This paper tries to make plausible the following claims: The paragraphs §608–612 of "On Certainty" do not speak in favour of what Boghossian construes as the Master Argument for Relativism; that "On Certainty" introduces various relativistic themes; and that Boghossian and Wittgenstein conceptualize epistemic systems in rather different ways that lead to very different views on three candidate cases for radical difference in epistemic systems.

Besides the impact that COVID-19 has had in the sanitary, political and economic domains, it has also triggered multiple discursive processes, what opens up the field for an analysis from sociosemiotics, the social science interested in the study of 'meaning in action'. The aim of this article is to discuss from such a perspective how the current crisis linked to the COVID-19 virus has given place to the emergence of processes of narrative construction of an 'Other' to be blamed for the threat. While in some contexts the dominant narrative has been that COVID-19 is 'the Chinese' –and their unhealthy culinary habits– fault, in others the focus has been set on 'the irresponsible' that do not stay home when indicated to do so, as well as on 'the posh', given that they can afford travelling and hence can import the virus on their return. Departing from the premise which poses that cognition is articulated in narrative terms, the article argues how, in cases such as the current COVID-19 crisis, a discursive construction of collective actors by means of mechanisms of actorialization, generalization and axiologization is necessary for the dynamics of blame-attribution.

This article argues that a regulative norm to act in unity and make the Security and Defence Policy work through crisis management missions is operative within the European Union. EU crisis management missions analysed here demonstrate that this normative concern has influenced the national preferences of even the larger member states, Britain and France. However, Europeanization of foreign and security policies of these two member states appears to take place easier if it does not collide with pre-existing norms and interests at the domestic and international levels. Norms and interests influential at other institutional contexts determine the scope conditions of Europeanization. ; Publisher's Version

The conflict between Armenian and Azerbaijan around Nagorno-Karabakh was violent between 1988 and 1994. Nevertheless, Nagorno-Karabakh dispute is regarded as one of the frozen conflicts, which has been witnessed for many years. In order to stop and contain the conflict, other states and international organizations advocated peaceful settlement. However, the problem went through a number of phases and has not reached a final solution despite of many years of negotiation under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group. In this context, the objective of this paper is to understand the main impeding factors that prevent peaceful resolution and establishment of a long-lasting peace for Armenia. As a framework to analyze the case of Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh, this paper uses the "constructivist theory", which explains national histories and identities as fluid, evolving, and formed over time, and which claims that it is mainly social relationships between agents, structures, and institutions that can lead to ethnic conflicts. Contrary to the primordialist approach, which treats ethnic groups as concrete and independent entities that exist inherently, the explanation of intractability within a constructivist framework constitutes the main difference. In view of this, government policies are also constructed according to interstate perceptions, expectations and the concepts developed towards themselves and others. As a result, rather than only including one-dimensional "ancient hatred" paradigm; "the problem of security", "image of enemy", "other countries" involvement with having interests in the region", and most importantly "internal politics" can be regarded as the contributors to intractability for Armenia.

Contrary to the assumptions of realist theory, this thesis suggests that reality is subjected to social constructions. The national discourse of one country constitutes the context from which societies will generate perceptions and ideas about another society. It is from these socially constructed ideas that states' interests are formed. States interests are what constitute the foreign policy of a country. Given that the United States is the world's hegemon, understanding the process by which countries' interests take shape and evolve will give the United States social awareness and strategic advantage to lead the world's current speedy integration with less volatile rivalries. In order to grasp the factors contributing to the relationship between specific states, some context is needed beforehand. By tracing and comparing historical events in the relations between the United States, Venezuela, and Iran, this thesis examines the constructivist claim that states behavior towards another is directly affected by the social interpretation of their interactions. It is social constructions, not power, what determines if states will view each other as "enemy" or "ally". National identity and worldview ultimately drive state behavior and how countries choose to utilize their capabilities. ; 2013-05-01 ; B.A. ; Sciences, Dept. of Political Science ; Bachelors ; This record was generated from author submitted information.

Explores objectivity in terms of Thomas Kuhn's (1962) constructivism & Ludwig Wittgenstein's objectivism. Objectivism is now seriously challenged, but constructivism is not yet cast in any canonically compelling way. There is an increasing tendency to construe knowledge as a construct of historical experience & to challenge any principled disjunction between objectivity in the natural sciences & in the human sciences & practical life. To favor these themes is, effectively, to deny any privilege or hierarchical order of knowledge favoring the natural sciences. 1 Reference. Adapted from the source document.