Suchergebnisse

This article offers a conceptual framework that broadens and enhances our understanding of the role of 'history' in contemporary governance and the attempts by policy‐makers to 'manage' critical issues. Building upon the literature on historical analogies in policy‐making, we distinguish three dimensions that clarify how the past may emerge in and affect the current deliberations, choices and rhetoric of policy‐makers. We apply this in a comparative examination of two cases of crisis management where historical analogies played an important part: the Swedish response to (alleged) submarine intrusions in 1982, and the European Union sanctions against Austria in 1999. We induce from the case comparison new concepts and hypotheses for unders

This article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? There had been attempts to answer this question already. In general four approaches based on the role of historical analogies they see can be outlined: instrumental, cognitive, cognitive-instrumental and constitutive. However a review of conventional approaches revealed their limits and questions that they ignore. None of the conventional approaches has a theoretical explanation of how policymakers use historical analogies in order to show differences between past and present events that they compare. None of the conventional approaches can explain the role of historical analogies in constituting rule-based context that governs actions of actors. Instrumental and cognitive approaches are not interested in consequences of historical analogy use. Instrumental, cognitive and cognitive-instrumental approaches do not explain constitutive role of the use of historical analogy.This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. It enables answering all of the above mentioned questions that conventional approaches can not. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and includes dialogical analysis method. Based on speech act theory use of language and in this case – use of historical analogy is a form of action. Historical analogy is not a simple comparison of past and present events but it is a comparison of what is perceived as social rules of the past and the present. Based on rule-oriented constructivism theoretical question how historical analogies construct social rules is answered. With dialogical analysis method empirical question how historical analogies construct social rules is answered.It is argued that historical analogies play two roles in foreign policy decision-making stage. First role is cognitive – policymakers use historical analogies in order to understand foreign policy issues with the help of intersubjective rules that are linked with particular past or present events. Second role is constitutive – foreign policy context, identities and interests of actors are constituted by giving them meanings that are related with particular rules of the past or present events.The role of historical analogies in foreign policy implementation stage is to construct rule-based context in which foreign policy takes place. This is not an individual action as the constitutive role of historical analogies may imply. Construction of rule-based context is a collective process that involves interaction between actors who use historical analogies and actors that are described by those historical analogies. Thus in order to explain foreign policy one needs to identify rules that actors follow and constitute. Thus the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies, can be answered by identifying what type of rules and context are emerging out of interaction between policymakers who use historical analogies. ; Straipsnyje keliamas klausimas, kaip galima paaiškinti valstybės užsienio politiką analizuojant užsienio politikos veikėjų pasisakymuose naudojamas istorines analogijas ir su jomis susijusį užsienio politikos procesą. Teigiama, kad konvencinių požiūrių į istorinių analogijų vaidmenį užsienio politikos procese atstovai pernelyg siaurai apsibrėžia istorinės analogijos sampratą. Taip pat, kad besivadovaujantieji konvenciniais požiūriais, pirmenybę teikdami pozityvistų prielaidoms, jog istorija yra faktų rinkinys ir kalba nesvarbi arba aprašo tikrovę, apriboja galimybes tirti istorines analogijas. Straipsnyje formuluojamas naujas istorinių analogijų analizės modelis, apimantis taisyklių konstruktyvizmo ir kalbėjimo akto teorijos prielaidas bei dialoginės analizės metodą.

The article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? It is claimed that conventional approaches are too narrow because of two reasons. The first reason is the way conventional approaches perceive the role of historical analogies. The second reason is the dominance of positivist assumptions about history and language analysis in conventional approaches. This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method.

The article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? It is claimed that conventional approaches are too narrow because of two reasons. The first reason is the way conventional approaches perceive the role of historical analogies. The second reason is the dominance of positivist assumptions about history and language analysis in conventional approaches. This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method.

The article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? It is claimed that conventional approaches are too narrow because of two reasons. The first reason is the way conventional approaches perceive the role of historical analogies. The second reason is the dominance of positivist assumptions about history and language analysis in conventional approaches. This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method.

The article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? It is claimed that conventional approaches are too narrow because of two reasons. The first reason is the way conventional approaches perceive the role of historical analogies. The second reason is the dominance of positivist assumptions about history and language analysis in conventional approaches. This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method.

Comparing present and past situations by means of historical analogy is prevalent in political and public discourses. But when researching this phenomenon, scientists often use reception paradigms, where they ask people which past event is most applicable to a current situation or issue. In these paradigms, analogies are treated as unequivocal—rather than flexible—in their meanings. In this paper, we use a production paradigm to examine why European citizens (in France, Belgium, and Germany) selected historical analogies and justified their meanings following the two 2015 terrorist attacks in France. We find that most participants tend to mention a relatively small number of past events, characterized by similarities in time (recent), space (geographically close) and type (terrorist attacks) with the current attacks. However, a multiple correspondence analysis indicates that, even when they overwhelmingly agree about the relevance of a particular event (the attacks of September 11th 2001) for the present situation, participants confer widely varying—even conflicting—meanings to the "same" analogy, which align with different socio-political attitudes. We suggest that these variations do not just represent the emphasis that different participants place on particular sets of similarities between the past and the present attacks: They also embody specific, and conflicting, stances on salient and controversial issues surrounding the topic of contemporary terrorism (e.g., why were 'we' attacked, who deserves to be grieved, how should the government respond). Results are discussed in light of the literature on social representations of both history and terrorism.

Comparing present and past situations by means of historical analogy is prevalent in political and public discourses. But when researching this phenomenon, scientists often use reception paradigms, where they ask people which past event is most applicable to a current situation or issue. In these paradigms, analogies are treated as unequivocal—rather than flexible—in their meanings. In this paper, we use a production paradigm to examine why European citizens (in France, Belgium, and Germany) selected historical analogies and justified their meanings following the two 2015 terrorist attacks in France. We find that most participants tend to mention a relatively small number of past events, characterized by similarities in time (recent), space (geographically close) and type (terrorist attacks) with the current attacks. However, a multiple correspondence analysis indicates that, even when they overwhelmingly agree about the relevance of a particular event (the attacks of September 11th 2001) for the present situation, participants confer widely varying—even conflicting—meanings to the "same" analogy, which align with different socio-political attitudes. We suggest that these variations do not just represent the emphasis that different participants place on particular sets of similarities between the past and the present attacks: They also embody specific, and conflicting, stances on salient and controversial issues surrounding the topic of contemporary terrorism (e.g., why were 'we' attacked, who deserves to be grieved, how should the government respond). Results are discussed in light of the literature on social representations of both history and terrorism. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The idea that the past holds lessons for the present, under the guise of historical analogies, is prevalent in political and public discourse. Those analogies are often accompanied by dire warnings befalling those who "forget" or otherwise neglect the powerful lessons of History—and would then be "doomed to repeat it", as the saying goes. So, Would remembering history make it seem more or less likely to repeat itself in the future? In other words, does exposure to specific lessons about past events, especially ones involving causal claims, affect how people expect real-life events to turn out? Four studies (three preregistered) tested this experimentally. In Studies 1 and 2, participants expected the same behavior (the US adopting a harsh stance against Iran in the Nuclear Treaty) to result in a more negative outcome when this current stance seemed to match a "lesson" they had read about the break-out of World War II (European leaders adopting a harsh approach against Germany in the 1919 Versailles Treaty vs. a conciliatory approach in the 1938 Munich Agreement). Studies 3 and 4 attempted to eliminate some confounds present in the first two studies and to generalize the effect to different events. While results varied across studies, an internal meta-analysis indicated that the analogical effect on predictions (d = –.08) tended to become stronger as participants' knowledge about the target situation decreased (d-1SD = –.24). These findings support the possibility of analogical-based predictive effects for real-life political events, and are discussed in light of their research and political implications. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Political scientists, historians, and diplomatists are concerned with the extent to which historical analogies provide clues and insights of use to policy­makers. This essay will endeavor to extract from the experience of the negotiations which ended (in theory) the first Indochina war in 1954, what may be of significance in the current effort to end the second Indochina war in Paris in 1968.

In this article we position the contributions to our special issue in relation to existing scholarship on racism and stereotypes. We pay close attention to conceptual strands in the literature that emphasize two cognitive-discursive characteristics of stereotypes: their essentialist reductions and projections and their metonymical qualities. We then extend our conceptual and thematic map further to include recent discussions of the relationships between national and European identifications, particularly in crisis contexts, and the role of memory politics in them. We conclude with a brief mention of the scope and potential dangers of historical analogies in moments of crisis and fragmentation.