Suchergebnisse

Philosophy after theory: transdisciplinarity and the new / Peter Osborne -- Theory as a research program: the very idea / Cary Wolfe -- Theory after critical theory / William Rasch -- Extinct theory / Claire Colebrook -- Perception attack: the force to own time / Brian Massumi -- The will of the people: dialectical voluntarism and the subject of politics / Peter Hallward -- The persistence of hope: critical theory and enduring in late liberalism / Elizabeth Povinelli -- The practice of judgement: Hannah Arendt's 'Copernican revolution' / Linda Zerilli -- When reflexivity becomes porn: mutations of a modernist theoretical practice / Rey Chow -- The canny subaltern / Eva Cherniavsky -- Theory after postcolonial theory: rethinking the work of mimesis / Simon Gikandi -- After life: swarms, demons, and the antinomies of immanence / Eugene Thacker -- Inclining the subject: natality, alterity, ethics / Adriana Cavarero -- The person and human life / Roberto Esposito -- The wrong turn of aesthetics / Henry Staten -- Literature after theory, or: the intellective turn / Laurent Dubreuil -- The liberal aesthetic / Amanda Anderson -- The arche-materiality of time: deconstruction, speculative materialism, and radical atheism / Martin Hagglünd -- Concepts, objects, gems / Ray Brassier -- The pharmacology of the spirit / Bernard Stiegler

The author refers to and use as scholarly inspiration Charmaz's excellent article on constructivist grounded theory as a tool of getting to the fundamental issues on why grounded theory is not constructivist. The author shows that constructivist data, if it exists at all, is a very very small part of the data that grounded theory uses.' (author's abstract)|

Waltz's 1979 book, Theory of International Politics, is the most influential in the history of the discipline. It worked its effects to a large extent through raising the bar for what counted as theoretical work, in effect reshaping not only realism but rivals like liberalism and reflectivism. Yet, ironically, there has been little attention paid to Waltz's very explicit and original arguments about the nature of theory. This article explores and explicates Waltz's theory of theory. Central attention is paid to his definition of theory as `a picture, mentally formed' and to the radical anti-empiricism and anti-positivism of his position. Followers and critics alike have treated Waltzian neorealism as if it was at bottom a formal proposition about cause—effect relations. The extreme case of Waltz being so victorious in the discipline, and yet being so consistently misinterpreted on the question of theory, shows the power of a dominant philosophy of science in US IR, and thus the challenge facing any ambitious theorising. The article suggests a possible movement of fronts away from the `fourth debate' between rationalism and reflectivism towards one of theory against empiricism. To help this new agenda, the article introduces a key literature from the philosophy of science about the structure of theory, and particularly about the way even natural science uses theory very differently from the way IR's mainstream thinks it does — and much more like the way Waltz wants his theory to be used.

Waltz's 1979 book, Theory of International Politics, is the most influential in the history of the discipline. It worked its effects to a large extent through raising the bar for what counted as theoretical work, in effect reshaping not only realism but rivals like liberalism and reflectivism. Yet, ironically, there has been little attention paid to Waltz's very explicit and original arguments about the nature of theory. This article explores and explicates Waltz's theory of theory. Central attention is paid to his definition of theory as 'a picture, mentally formed' and to the radical anti-empiricism and anti-positivism of his position. Followers and critics alike have treated Waltzian neorealism as if it was at bottom a formal proposition about cause--effect relations. The extreme case of Waltz being so victorious in the discipline, and yet being so consistently misinterpreted on the question of theory, shows the power of a dominant philosophy of science in US IR, and thus the challenge facing any ambitious theorising. The article suggests a possible movement of fronts away from the 'fourth debate' between rationalism and reflectivism towards one of theory against empiricism. To help this new agenda, the article introduces a key literature from the philosophy of science about the structure of theory, and particularly about the way even natural science uses theory very differently from the way IR's mainstream thinks it does -- and much more like the way Waltz wants his theory to be used. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

This article offers a history of the wave metaphor in social theory, examining how waves became rhetorical forms through which to think about the shape of social change. The wave analytic—"waves of democratization," "waves of immigration," "waves of resistance"—wavers between high theory and popular model, between objectivist sociological explanation and hand-waving sociobabble, between vanguardist predictions of social revolution and conservative prognoses of political inevitability, between accountings of formal change and claims about material transubstantiation. The article examines usages in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, arguing that techniques of inscription—graphical, numerical, diagrammatic—have produced formal claims about rising and falling tendencies in the social body. It argues, too, that in such deployments, waves are either (1) overpowering forces of social structuration or (2) signs of the animating effects of world-transforming collective social agencies. The "wave" thus generates questions—and uncertainties—about the relation of structure to agency.

This working paper contains an intervention by Corentin Debailleul and an extended reply by Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan. The exchange was first posted on the Capital as Power Forum in January 2016. Debailleul's original questions are articulated at greater length here, while Bichler and Nitzan's reply is reproduced as is. ; http://www.capitalaspower.com/2016/02/no-201601-debailleul-bichler-and-nitzan-theory-and-praxis-theory-and-practice-practical-theory/ ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Recently, alternatives to both the structure and content of 'orthodox' just war theory have been proposed by Jeff McMahan and David Rodin. In this paper, I draw on this debate to show that key ideas in just war theory can be disputed in both of these respects. More broadly, it is unclear how we should assess the debate between differing conceptions of individual principles (such as just cause and proportionality) and the competing wider theories in which they might be situated. I employ the idea of reflective equilibrium, taken from John Rawls, to show how these conflicting viewpoints might be understood and assessed. I argue, then, that contemporary just war theory faces both important questions of substance, and a set of difficult meta-theoretical issues concerning the grounds on which competing just war theories can be assessed. Futhermore, I contend, this should influence the character of – and our expectations for – real-world just war institutions.

The recent prominence of the ideal/non-ideal debate is largely due to the fact that it offers a vocabulary in which to diagnose what many see as a key problem of political theory: its relative unwillingness to provide solutions to urgent problems facing people here and now; or for people as they are rather than as they should be. The primary aim of this article is to offer an improved understanding of the territory that the ideal/non-ideal debate relates to.

Central to most sociologists' self-image is the claim that their theories are based on research. However, using a random sample of 680 articles appearing in major American, British and Canadian journals, Dr Menzies shows that in some areas of sociology the wide gap between theory and research means that much of sociological theory is virtually untested. He explains how theory is embodied in eight particular types of research, critically examines these research theories, and contrasts them with the positions of modern theorists. The sample of journal articles also permits a comparison of Britis

Abstract
Firms increasingly use complex hybrid governance structures to manage value generation networks. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the structures contain soft, "enforcement-challenged" contractual devices. Existing contract theories, however, fail to recognize and explain how these soft contract devices work as legal devices. The article seeks to address this failure.
The article uses a conceptual innovation by Schepker et al to construct an actor-network theory (ANT) inspired contract theory. Schepker et al argued that contracts are best understood as often concurrently serving safeguarding, coordination, and adaptation goals. The article argues that combined with ANT the functional contracting frame allows us to recognize that contracts work and gain efficacy in multiple ways. To understand how the soft, "enforcement-challenged" contract devices work, the article traces the efficacy mechanisms the devices perform and enact.
The tracings lead the article to propose an ANT contract theory that builds on three intertwined ideas: 1) contract devices have no core efficacy networks but multiple parallel efficacies, 2) contracts should be understood as bricolage collages of small-scale contractual point intervention devices that each deploy and rely on their own efficacy mechanisms and patterns, and 3) the force of contract resides in the socio-material assemblages contracts are capable of creating and sustaining.

Matthew Moore's survey of political theorists in U.S. American colleges and universities is an impressive contribution to political science (Moore 2010). It is the first such survey of political theory as a subfield, the response rate is very high, and the answers to the survey questions provide new information about how political theorists look when compared to political scientists overall. We are roughly the same age, for example, and are slightly more likely to be female. The survey also gives us a picture of political theorists' conditions of employment: about half of us get jobs in the first year upon receiving our Ph.D.s; most of us teach at schools that range from 1,000 to 10,000 students; most of us are not at Ph.D.-granting institutions.