Download
1 / 115
E N D
1. ??e??e?? S??se?? st?? ?e?te?? ep??? Treaty of Westphalia, 1648
S?????? ??????? µeta?? t?? ????? ??µa??? ??t????t??a ?a? t?? ?as???? t?? Ga???a? ?a? t?? s?µµ???? t???
?e????se ? s??????? d?p??µat?a ?a? t? ?e?te?? s?st?µa ??at??
2. 19?? a???a? The Congress of Vienna, 1815
?pa?as?ed?asµ?? t?? ???t? t?? ????p?? µet? t?? ?tta t?? ?ap?????ta
3. The Concert of Europe
- ???e?a s??e??as?a µeta?? t?? µe????? e???pa???? d???µe?? µet? t? 1815 µe s??p? t?? d?at???s? t?? e?????? t?? S??ed???? t?? ???????
5. ????? 20?? a???a The Hague Conferences, 1899 and 1907
?a S???d??a ?ta? ta p??ta d?e??? s???d??a e?????? ??a t?? µe??s? t?? e??p??sµ??.
6. World Governments in 1900
7. World Governments in 1950
8. World Governments in 2000
9. World Governments in 2050 ?!?!
10. ?? «pat?????e?»
11. ????ap??t?ta st? ?e???a t?? ?S G??st??? ap?te??sµata
?et? ap? a?t? t?? pa???s?as? ?a p??pe? ?a µp??e?te:
?a e?t?µ?te t?? s?µas?a t?? ?e???a? ??a t?? ?ata???s? t?? d?e????? p???t????
?a ??ete µ?a ßas??? e????e??s? µe t?? ßas???? ?e???t???? ??se?? st?? ?S
?a a?a??????ete t?? s?µas?a t?? p????a??st???? ?ata???se?? t?? ?e???t???? ped??? t?? ?S
12. S?µas?a t?? Te???a? ???a? d?s???? ?a ????????µe t? «p?a?µat???» ????t??d?te? t??? ??pte? ap?f?se?? ? se t? ?fe????ta? s???e???µ??a p???t??? ?e????ta st? d?e??? p???t???. St?? p??sp??e?? µa? ?a a???????s??µe p??a?? ????t?a ?a? e?µ??e?e? a?ap?fe??ta ?ata?????µe st? ped?? t?? ?e???a?.
??af??et??? ?e???t??? s?st?µata µp????? ?a µa? ?d???s??? se d?af??et???? d?ast?se?? t?? d?e???? p???t???? p??ß??µ?t?? ?a? ?a «d??µe» t? d?e??? p???t??? µe d?af??et????? t??p???.
13. G?at? Te???a ?? ?e???e? ?S e??a? ?e????? ?d?e? pe?? ta d?e???
?? ?d?e? ????? s?µas?a (ideas matter)
?? ?e???e? ep??e????? t?? p???t???? ?a? t?? p???t???
?? ?e???e? µa? ß?????? ?a a?t?µet?p?s??µe t?? p???p????t?ta
14. ?? ?????? ?? ?e???e?; ?e?????f???
???????
???ß??p???
???te?????
15. ?? ?e???e? de? e??a? ??µ?? ??ta?a????? ?st?????? s??????e?
??ta?a????? t?? p??s?p???? ap??e?? ?a? eµpe???e? t?? s????af???
S??e??? a?a?e?????ta? ?p? t? f?? µetaßa???µe??? s???????
16. Be critical!!! G?a ta pe??ss?te?a p???p???a p??ß??µata ?p?????? e????e? ??se?? p?? s?????? e??a? ?????
Common sense can be non sense!
?a ???t?, ?p?? ?a? ?? ?????p??, d???? ??a p?????? ?????? ?? ?p???? ??p??e? f???? e??a? a?t?fat????
?? d?s???e? ep?????? s???? ?ata?????? se ?a??? p???t???
17. ??? a?apt?ss??ta? ?? ?e???e? ?e?????? µe e?t?µ?se?? (assumptions)
???sf????? ?p???se??
????? a?e???t?te? ?a? e?a?t?µ??e? µetaß??t??
?a??de??µa:
?? s??e??s??µe ?a ?ata?a?????µe a??a??µe?e? p?s?t?te? pet?e?a??? ? pa???sµ?a ?e?µ???as?a ?a a??ße?: a?e???t?t? µetaß??t? t? pet???a??, e?a?t?µ??? µetaß??t? t? pa???sµ?? ???µa
?? ep?st?µ??e? e??????? t?? ?e???e? eµpe????? – µet???ta? t?? a?e???t?t? µetaß??t?
?e?????? µ?a s??s? a?t???-ap?te??sµat?? ??a t?? pa???sµ?a ?pe????µa?s?
18. ?????e? p?? p??pe? ?a ????????µe ?p???se??
??e???t?te?/e?a?t?µ??e? µetaß??t??
???t???a epa???e?s??
????te?
?p?peda a????s??
19. ???a ep?peda a????s?? International Level (“third image”)
Qualities of the International System
Domestic Level (“second image”)
Qualities of the Political and Economic System
Individual Level (“first image”)
Qualities of Individual Leadership
20. ?? t?e?? e????e? Kenneth Waltz. 1954. Man, the State, and War. ???e? e??a? ?? a?t?e? t?? p???µ??;
21. ???t? ?????a: ?????p??? F?s? ??s??d???? ?? ?????p?? e??a? ?at? ß?s? ?a???
??aµ??f?s? ?a? pa?de?a
?? ?????µa ?a? ? p??eµ?? e??a? pa?e???????se? s?µpe??f????
? p???d?? e??a? p??a??, ?s?? a?ap?fe??t?
????… ?d??e? ? ???s? st?? e?????; S?µa??e? ? ???s? ?d?e? p??t?µ?se??;
?pa?s??d???? ? a????p??? f?s? e??a? ate???
?? p???? ?a? ? e???sµ?? e??a? ?eµe???d?
?? ?????µa ?a? ? p??eµ?? e??a? «?a???????» s?µpe??f????
??t?p??? ?de?d? e??a? µ? ep?te???µa
????… ? e????s? e??a? ate???
22. ???t? ?????a ?? p??pat????? aµ??t?µa: ?????st???? (354-430)
- Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932)
T????d?d?? (460-400 p?), f?ß??, ?s???, t?µ?
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), as??e?d?t?, ?atap?es?
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in World Politics (1976)
23. ?e?te?? e????a: t? ???t?? Internal strife -> diversionary war
Despotic states/leaders vs democratic states
Institutional characteristics, transparency, lag times, popular opinion
Internal strife -> diversionary war
Despotic states/leaders vs democratic states
Institutional characteristics, transparency, lag times, popular opinion
24. ?? ???t??
25. ? t??p?? pa?a????? ?a?????e? t?? ?????????? s??se??
? ??ß????s? e?p??s?pe? ta s?µf????ta t?? ????a???? t????
?p? t?? ?ap?ta??sµ?
?p??tas? t?? pa?a????? ?d??e? se µe???µe?a ???d?
??a??t?s? ??a ???d? ?d??e? st?? apa?t?s? ??a ??e? a????? ?a? epe?d?t???? e??a???e? ?? ???t??
26. ???t? ?????a: ??e???? ??a???a ?a a????p??a ??ta e??a? ??a p?? a?a??t??? ?d??? ?a? ep?ß??s?
Se f?s??? ?a?est?? (state of nature), ?? ????? e??a? ape????, ?ts? ???? e??a? se p??eµ?
? ??? e??a? “nasty, brutish and short”
G?a ?a ?pe?ß??µe t?? a?a???a, pa?ad?d??µe ta f?s??? µa? d??a??µata se ??a? ap???t? µ?????? µe ??a ????????? s?µß??a?? (social contract)
27. ?? e??a? ???p?? µ?a ?e???a; ?? ???e? e?µ??e?e?… Theory is "the net which we throw out in order to catch the world – to rationalize, explain, and dominate it."
Karl Popper. Logik der Forschung, 1935: p.26
(The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Routledge Classics 2002, 2003, 2004)
A good theory should fulfil the following functions:
describe, explain and predict (Burchill) – positive idea of theorizing
verify and falsify (Popper) - by confronting accumulated knowledge with reality
“No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white”.
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, op. cit.
be internally consistent and coherent
28. Great debates ? ?st???a t?? ?S ??e? e?e????e? µe ????? «great debates», a? ?a? a?t? ? a?t????? de? e??a? ????? p??ß??µata
Te??e?ta?, ?e????, ?t? ????? ?p???e? 4 µe???e? s???t?se??:
29. Fourth debate Ge???? ?e??e?ta? ?? ? s?µe???? ????a??? s???t?s?
?p??e? ?a p??sd????ste? µe p?????? t??p???: O? µ?a s???t?s?
between explaining and understanding
between positivism and postpositivism
between rationalism and reflectivism
30. Explanation vs. understanding ?? «explanatory» ?e???t???? p??spa???? ?a µ?µ????? t?? f?s???? ep?st?µe? a?a??t??ta? ?e????? a?t?e?
? ??s? «understanding» ?e??e? ?t? ?a p??pe? ?a p??spa???µe ?a e?e?e???s??µe t? e??a? d?a???t? st?? ????????? ??? ?a? ?a est??s??µe st?? e?µ??e?a t?? es?te????? ???µ?t??, a?t??? ?a? pep????se?? t?? d???t??
31. Positivism vs postpositivism Positivism (? ?et???sµ??) e??a? µ?a f???s?f?a t?? ep?st?µ??:
«?pe?asp??eta?» µ?a ep?st?µ? p?? ßas??eta? se s?st?µat??? pa?at???s? ?a? a??????e? ?e???a???? ?a???e? (guidelines)
??ste?e? st? µe??t? pa?at???s?µ?? ?a??????t?t??
3) ?p?fe??e? ?a «µ???se?» ??a µ? pa?at???s?µe? p?a?µat???t?te?
Postpositivism (? µeta?et???sµ??) a?af??eta? se µ?a se??? ?e????? ??p??e? ap? t?? ?p??e? a?t???? ap? e?µ??e?t???? (interpretive) ?e???e?, ??p??e? ap? t?? ?p??e? a?a??t??? µ?a µ?-?et???st??? e?d??? t?? ep?st?µ??
32. Rationalism vs. Reflectivism Rationalism (a?t????at?a) a?af??eta? se a?t??? p?? efa?µ????? µe??d??? ??????????? ep????? ?a? ?et???st????
Reflectivism (a?ast??asµ??) a?af??eta? se a?t??? p?? ap????pt??? a?t?? t?? µe??d??? ?a? ?p?st??????? e?µ??e?t???? ?a? a?ast??ast???? (interpretive, reflective) µe??d?????e?
33. 10 ?ept? Coffee Break !!
34. ??as???? ????t???? ?ea??st??
35. ??µ???? ?ea??st?? ? ?e??ea??st??
36. Realism (Neo-Realism) ? f?s? t?? d?e????? s?st?µat??: ??a???a
G?a t?? ?ea??st?, ? a?a???a s?µa??e? ?t? de? ?p???e? ?pe?e????? a???s?a p?? ?a e??a? ??a?? ?a p??sf??e? asf??e?a
??e??????s?: ? d?e???? a?a???a µe a?t? t?? ?????a de? s?µa??e? apa?a?t?ta ata??a (disorder) ? s??????s? a??? e??a? ??a p?a?s?? ??a t?? e?µ??e?a t?? d??se?? t?? «????? pa??t??»
??ef??e? ap? t?? a?a???a t?? s?et???? f???s?f?a? p?? ??t? ?a ?ata???se? t?? e???s?a t?? ???t???. ?? ?ea??st?? e??a? ??at?st??
37. Realism (Neo-Realism) ?????? d???te?: ???t? (“unit-level” politics)
???? t?? d?e????? a?a???a?, ta ???t? «st??f??ta?» se «?a?est?? f?s??» (state of nature) ?a? d???? ??a t? s?µf???? t??? (s?efte?te t??? Machiavelli ?a? Hobbes).
?? ?e?-?ea??st?? (? Structural Realists) e?et????? p?? µ? ??at???? d?µ?? ep??e????? ap?f?se?? a??? ta ???t? d?at????? t?? ?e?t???? t??? ??s? st?? a????s?
38. Realism (Neo-Realism) S?µf????ta-??e?d??: Survival (Classical Realism) Security (Neo-Realism)
?pe?d? de? ?p???e? e????t?? asf??e?a? se d?e???? ep?ped?, ta ???t? ep?d?????? ep?ß??s?
?? ??ass???? ?ea??st?? ß??p??? ta ???t? sa? e??e??? ep??et???, p?? e??????ta? µ??? ap? ???e? d???µe??
?? ?e??ea??st?? ?e????? ?t? ta ???t? e?d?af????ta? ??a asfa?? ?pa??? (existence) (t? µetap??eµ??? d???µµa asf??e?a? ?? ep?ßeßa??s?)
?a p??ß??µata t?? s?et???? ?e?d?? (Relative gains) p???a??? µ?a d?e??? t??? µ?de????? a????sµat?? (zero-sum) ?p?? ta ???t? µp??e? ?a ap?p??????? «???d?» aµ ???a ???t? ?e?d????? pe??ss?te?a. ??t? ap??a????e? t? s??e??as?a
39. Realism (Neo-Realism) ?fa?µ????
??eµ???a
???? d?e???? s?st?µa e??a? p?? sta?e??: ??eµ?????, µ???p?????, d?p?????,p???p?????;
?s????p?a ?s????, ?s????p?a ?pe????, ?sfa?e??p???s? (Securitization)
?p?t??p?: ?fa?µ??eta? se st?at?????? counter-insurgency (Afghanistan, Iraq) ?a? asymmetric warfare (counter-terrorism)?
40. ?a ?eµ???a t?? ??ass???? ?ea??sµ?? ? ??ass??? ?ea??st??? ?e???a p????e? ap? t?? Hobbes
???a? s?µßat? µe t?? Clausewitz (On War)
?a? t? T????d?d?, ?d?a?te?a t?? ??????? t?? ??????
?as??? e?t?µ?s?: ?? st????, ta s?µf????ta, ?a? ?? a??e? t?? ??at?? de? s?????????
? s??????s? e??a? e??e??? st?? a?????e?a?t?µe?e? s??se?? t?? ??at??
? s??????s? ep???eta? µe d??aµ? ?a? ?ata?a?asµ? ?ta? ??a ta ???a µ?sa ??a s?µß?ßasµ? ap?t?????
? d??aµ? ?a? ? ?ata?a??asµ?? ?p?????? se ??e? t?? s??se?? µeta?? ??at??
41. ????e? ?p???se?? t?? ??ass???? ?ea??sµ?? s?µe?a ?? ???t?? e??a? ? ?????? d??? st?? d?e??e?? s??se?? ?a? t?? pa???sµ?a p???t???
G?at?; ?pe?d? µ??? t? ???t??, ???? t?? ????a???a?, ?at??e? t? µ???p???? ??µ?µ?p???µ???? d??aµ?? ??a t?? ep???s? s??????se??
?eta?? at?µ?? ?a? ?µ?d?? e?t?? t?? ??at???? ep????te?a?
?eta?? t?? ?d??? ?a? ????? d?e???? d???t??
42. ???e? ?d??t?te? t?? ??at?? ?? ?? ?????? d???te? st?? d?e??e?? s??se?? ???? ta ???t? µp????? ?a a?a?????s??? ???a ???t? ?a? ?a s???pt??? s??se?? µe a?t?
?? s??????? ??e???? ???a?? ?a? ?? ?????? ?a???e? pa?ad????ta? t? e?d??? ? p????µ?a?? ?a?est?? ?a? t?? e???s?a t?? ??at??
?? d?e??e?? ???a??sµ?? ?a? ?d?a?te?a ? ??? e??a? ?p??e?µe??? sta ???t? p?? t??? d?µ????????
43. Failed States (Paradoxically) Bolster Realist Theory ??a ap?t???µ??? ???t?? – t? ???t?? p?? e??a? a???a?? ?a e?p????se? t?? es?te????? ?a? d?e??e?? ?p???e?se?? asf??e?a? de? ?p???µe???? t? ?ea??st??? ?e???a:
? ap?t???a ?a? ? e???t?s? ap? ???a ???t? ap?de??????? t?? ?e?t???? s?µas?a t?? e???s?a? ?a? t?? ?s???? t?? ???t???
S?µe??ste ?t? ?? ?????t?te? p?? de? ????? a??µ? ??at??? ?p?stas? t?? ep?d?????? µe ???e t??p? - ????d??, pa?a?st?????, ?sets????
44. ? ?????? st???? t?? ??at??: ?s??? G?a ?a e?asfa??s??? t?? asf??e?? t??? ?a? t?? ep?ß??s? t???, ta ???t? p??pe? ?a ep?d?????? ?s??
???pe? p??ta ?a a??s????? ??a t? s?et??? t??? ??s? µe ???a ???t?
? ?s??? e??a? t? ßas??? µ?s? ? e??a?e?? ??a ?a p?a?µat????? t?? p??t?µ?se?? t??? – ??a ????? ???d?, status, ?p?st????? ??a ta s?µf????ta t?? ?a?? t???, ??p
?? p?? s?µa?t??? e?d?? ?s???? e??a? ? st?at??t??? d??aµ?
45. Hans Morgenthau, Politics among States
“We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out”
46. ??? µp??e? t? ???t?? ?a ap??t?se? ?s??; ?e ?d?a µ?sa
?????sµ??
??ß??µ?????s?
?p?st?µ? ?a? te???????a, ??p
?e s?µµa??e?
??e? ?? s?µµa??e? te???? ?p? a??es?: ?s????? µ??? ef’ ?s?? pa?aµ????? sta s?µf????ta ?s???? t?? ???t???
??a ????? ?de?????a de? ap?te?e? e????s? ?t? µ?a s?µµa??a ?a e??a? a???p?st?
? F?a???s??? I t?? Ga???a? s?µµ???se µe ??a ???s???µ??? ßas???? e?a?t??? ?e?t?????? ???st?a????? ??at??
? d?µ???at??? ??d?a s?µµ???se µe t?? ?SS? e?a?t???t?? ???, e?? t? a?ta????? ?a??st??, a?t?pa??? t?? ??d?a?, s?µµ???se µe t?? ???
47. ???? t? ap?t??esµa t?? S?µµa????; St?? ep?d???? d?at???s?? t?? s?et???? t?? ?s???? e?a?t??? ????? ??at??, µ?a µetaßa???µe?? ?s????p?a ?s???? a?ad?eta?
??a ta ???t?, t?te, ?p???e????ta? ?a ep?d?????? µ?a st?at????? ?s????p?a? ?s????
48. ? ?st???a t?? ????pa???? ??at?? ?a? ?s????p?a ?s???? 18?? a???a?18th: ?e???e? d???µe?? ?ta? ? ?????a, ? Ga???a, ? ??st??a, ? ???ss?a ?a? ? ??ss?a ?? ?p??e? s???? ???a?a? µe???? ??a ?a d?at???s??? t?? ?s????p?a
? Ga???a t?? ?ap?????ta (1789-1815) p??sp???se ?a ?atast???e? t?? e???pa??? ?s????p?a ?a? ?a e??a??d??se? ??eµ???a ??a ?a ?tt??e? ap? ??a e???pa??? s??asp?sµ?
?? «Concert of Europe» (1815-1914) d?at???se t?? e????? µ?s? e?????t?? ?a? ep??????? s?µµa???? ??a ?a e?asfa??se? µ?a ?s????p?a ?s???? ?? ap?t??p? st?? p??eµ?
49. ? ?s????p?a ?s???? t?? 20? a???a ? a?aµ??a t?? ?s????p?a? ?s???? t? de?aet?a p??? ap? t?? ?’?? µe????? e???e? t?? p??eµ?
The Triple Entente of two democratic states with authoritarian Russia vs. the Central Powers of semi-democratic/autocratic Germany and Austria-Hungary
? ?’ ?? «????e» d?? es?te???? a?t?fat????? s??asp?sµ??? se a?t?pa??t?ta ?a? s??????s?
? ?ats?st??? ?a??st??? Ge?µa??a ?a? ? ?ap???a e?a?t??? t?? d?µ???at???? ??? ?a? ??eta??a? ?a? t?? ??µµ????st???? ?SS?
? ?????? ???eµ?? e??e ?? ap?t??esµa µ?a d?p????? ?s????p?a ??? vs. ?SS?
?? s??asp?sµ?? ?ta? ?de????????, ta ???t? ep??????a? ta ???d? ?s???? (p? ?. ??at???)
? pa??µe?a? ??d?te?a ??a ?a ap?f????? t?? «?p?ta??» se µ?a ? ?a? t?? d?? ?pe?d???µe??
50. ?e??ea??sµ?? ?a? Kenneth Waltz ? ?e?t???? a?t?a ??a t? s?µpe??f??? t?? ??at?? e??a? t? S?S???? t?? e????-??at??
??t? t? ??a??? s?st?µa ep?ß??e? t?? a?a??a??t?ta t?? asf??e?a? ?a? t?? ep?ß??s??
? ?e???a t?? d?e???? s??se?? e??a? st?? ??s?a ? s??s? s?st?µat??-???t???
?a ???t? ep?d?????? t?? ep?ß??s? t???, ??? ?s??. ? ??at??? s?µpe??f??? de? e?µ??e?eta? ap? t??? d??f????? st????? ?a? ta s?µf????ta p?? ep?d??????
?a ???t? p?? a?????? t?? s?et??? t??? ?s?? se s?????s? µe ???a ???t? ?a «ep??e????» ??a pe???????p???s? ?a? ?p?ta??
?? s?st?µa e??a? s?st?µa a?t?ß???e?a? (self-help system). ?a???a ???t?? de? µp??e? ?a ßas??eta? se ???? ???t?? ??a t?? asf??e?? t??
?? ?e??ea??st?? ?e????? ?t? ? a?t????? t??? ??a t?? d?e??e?? s??se?? e??a? µ?a ep?st?µ????? p??tas?
?? ??a??? s?st?µa, ?p?? ????eta? ap? t?? ?ata??µ? ??a??t?t?? µeta?? ??at?? de? µp??e? ?a ?epe?aste?
?? d?p????? s?st?µa e??a? p?? sta?e?? ap? ??a p???p????? af?? ? ?s????p?a ?s???? µeta?? t?? ?pe?d???µe?? µp??e? ?a ?p?????ste? p?? a???p?sta ?a? µe µe?a??te?? a???ße?a
51. ??s? ?a?? e???e? ? ?ea??sµ?? (?a? ? ?e??ea??sµ??) t? t???? t?? ?????? ????µ?? ? ?ea??sµ?? e???e? t?? a??d?s? t?? ?????? ????µ??
?? ??? ?a? ? ?SS? p??sp???sa? ?a ep?ß?????? t?? ?s?? t??? ?a? t?? p??t?µ?se?? t??? se ???a ???t? ?a? st? pa???sµ?? s?st?µa
?a? ?? d?? a??pt??a? pa???sµ?a s?st?µata s?µµa???? ?a? s??asp?sµ??
??t?? p??sd???????ta? ap? ?s????p?e? ?s???? ?a? ??? (p??ta) ap? ?de?????a
?? ??? s?µµ???se µe µ? d?µ???at??? ?a?est?ta se ??? t?? ??sµ?
? ?SS? s?µµ???se µe p???? µ?-??µµ????st??? ???t? (??d?a, S???a ??p)
52. ?a? ?? d?? ?pe?d???µe?? eped???a? ??eµ?????? st?at??t???? p???t???? Se p??????? ep?ped?, ???e p?e??? ?ate??e (?a? ?at??e?) a??et? d??aµ? ??a ?a ?atest???e? ??? µ??? t?? ???? a??? ?a? ???????? t?? p?a??t? (overkill)
?a? ?? d?? ap??t?sa? te??st?e? s?µßat???? ??a??t?te? ?? ?p??e? ?ta? st?aµµ??e? e?a?t??? t?? ????? p?e???? st?? ????p? ?? ap?t??p? st?? p??eµ? ?a? t?? ep??tas?
?a? ?? d?? d?µ??????sa? ??a pa???sµ?? d??t?? st?at??t???? eta???? ?a? ????????sa? st?? pa???sµ?a a???? e??p??sµ?? st? d????e?a t?? ?????? ????µ??
53. ??te, ??at? ?at???e?se ? ?SS? ?a? te?e??se ? ?????? ???eµ?? ??? p?????se?? ?s???? de? a?t?µet?p?st??a? ap? t?? ?SS?
???t??, ??a s???e?t??t??? ?a? ??afe????at??? ??????µ??? s?st?µa de? µp??ese ?a a???????se? t?? ??????µ??? a??pt??? t?? s?st?µat?? a????? t?? ??s??
?a? ? ??µµ????st??? ???a (t? 1979) ?a? ? ?SS? (t? de?aet?a t?? 1980) p??sp???sa? a? ????et?s??? t? ??t??? µ??t???
???? ? ???a ?at?fe?e ?a p??sa?µ?ste? st? pa???sµ?? ?ap?ta??st??? s?st?µa ????? ?a ?p???µe??e? t? ?a?est??
54. ? ?SS? ?a? ? e?????sµ?? ? de?te?? ????a e????s?, ?a? ?s?? p?? s?µa?t???, ?ta? ?? es?te????? ad??aµ?e? t?? ?????????? s???es?? t?? ?SS?
? ?SS? ?ta? a???a?? ?a e????e? t?? e?????? apa?t?se?? ??a a?e?a?t?s?a t?? s?ß?et???? d?µ???at??? ?a? t?? ??at?? t?? S?µf???? t?? ?a?s?ß?a?
?? ???t??-??e?d? t?? ?????? ????µ?? – Ge?µa??a – e?????? ?p? t?? ??t??? ?µp????a ?a? ?ate????se??
55. ???t??? ??a t?? «ap?t???a» p??ß?e??? ?a? e????s?? t?? ?e??ea??st???? ?e???a? ?? s?ß?et??? ???t?? ?at???e?se – ta ???t? de? «pa?a?????» ??t? t?t???, ?d?a?te?a ?? ?pe?d???µe??
? te????????? ?a? ??????µ??? d??aµ? t?? f??e?e??e??? ??s?? ?ta? p??? µe???? ?a? e???st??? ?a? ? p??sp??e?a t?? ?SS? ?a p??sa?µ?ste? st? µ? st?at??t??? ?s?? t?? ??s?? ?fe?e t?? ???s? ?a? t?? ?a????e?s? t?? s?ß?et???? ???t???
??t? ? d?ad??as?a a?t??atast??f?? ep?ta??????e ap? t? «?p?a ?s??» ??? µ??? t?? p????sµ?? t?? ????? s?ß?et???? ?a? a?at?????e???pa???? ??at?? a??? ?a? - e?????a! – t?? ??s???? ?a?? p?? e??at??e??e t?? ep?d???? ??eµ???a? ?a? pa???sµ?a? ?s????
56.
? pa??d?s? t?? F??e?e??e??? d?e????? ?e???a?
57. ??sa???? ???te ?a?a?t???st??? t?? f??e?e??e??? s?????
?s???? p?st? st?? a????p??? ??????
??st? st?? p??a??t?ta ?st?????? p???d?? ?a? a?aµ??f?s?? t?? d?e???? s??se??
?st?as? st?? d?as??d?se?? ???t???-???????a? ?a? st? ste?? s??s? µeta?? es?te????? ?esµ?? ?a? p???t???? ?a? d?e????? p???t????
????s?: ???a??µe?? ??????µ??? a????e???t?s? µeta?? ??at?? µe???e? t?? eµf???s? s??????s?? ?a? p???µ??
?µfas? st? ?et??? ap?t??esµa t?? d?ad??as??? ?esµ?p???s?? t?? d?e???? s??se??
58. Ge?ea????a ????µ?? 20?? a???a? – ?????e? ??e?d?? ?a? ep??e???µata:
? p??eµ?? de? ?fe?e? ?a???a – N. Angell (1913)
??e???? a?a???a - G.L. Dickinson (1916)
? p??t? pe??pt?s? f??e?e??e??? ?esµ?p???s?? ? League of Nations
S???????? asf??e?a
?et? t?? ?’ ??
D. Mitrany (1943) A Working Peace System
?e??fe?e?a?? ????????s?, p???µe?e?? ?esµ??, “cooperation under anarchy”
“Theorizing non-material structures thoroughly”
59. ?e?µata F??e?e??e??? S????? Interdependence Liberalism
R. Keohane and J. Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence
Republican Liberalism
I. Kant (1795/ 1983) The Perpetual Peace
Neoliberal Institutionalism
R. Keohane
60. «??d?» F??e?e??e??? Te???a? ?a????st??? p??s????s?
?µe???a??? f??e?e??e???: S?µpe??f????? epa??stas? ?a? ap??t?s? ??a ep?st?µ????? ?a?est??
1980s: F??e?e??e?? s???? ?a? ?e???a pa??????
R. Axelrod (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation
R. Keohane (1984) After Hegemony
??t????at?a (Rationalisµ)
A. Moravcsik´s liberal intergovernmentalism (1998)
S??d?asµ?? ???st????t?ß?st???? µeta-?e???a? ?a? f??e?e??e??? ?e???a
A. Wendt (1999) Social Theory of International Politics
61. ????e? «p??????e?» ?e????? Democratic Peace Theory
Democracies do not fight wars among themselves ( I. Kant - 18th century)
F. Fukuyama (1992) : The End of History and the Last Man
Transnational Theory
Look beyond state-state relations ? society-society relations are equally important to world politics
K. Kaiser (1969)
R. Keohane and J. Nye (1971)
J. Rosenau (1980, 1990), K. Deutsch (1957), J. Burton (1972)
T. Risse-Kappen (1995)
62. ????e? «p??????e?» ?e????? Theory of Cooperation
A. Wendt (1999) Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt´s ambition to build a systemic theory ? emphasizing social rather than material structures
Liberal Intergovernmentalism
A. Moravcsik´s (1998) theoretical framework synthesizing theories of domestic preference formation, strategic bargaining & institutional design
63. ????e? s???t?se?? e?t?? t?? pa??d?s?? (Intra-Tradition Debates) Neoliberal Institutionalism vs. Liberal Democratic Peace Theory & versions of Commercial Liberalism
Liberalism/ Adherents of Democratic Peace Theory vs. Idealism
Liberal version of Rationalism vs. Constructivism
64. Research Agenda International institutions & organizations: F. Kratochwil, J. Ruggie (1986); R. Keohane (1989)
Multilateralism, J. Ruggie (1993)
Democratic Peace Theory & democratization processes
International cooperation ? international regimes
S?????e?s? µeta?? d?e?????? p??s????s?? µe sp??d?? pa???sµ??p???s?? / sp??d?? ??????µ???? ?a? p???t???? d?ad??as??? pa???sµ??p???s??
65. F??e?e??e??sµ?? (?e?-f??e?e??e??? ?esµ?sµ??) ? f?s? t?? d?e????? s?st?µat??: ??a???a
G?a t?? f??e?e??e??, ? a?a???a s?µa??e? ?t? de? ?p???e? ?pe?e????? e???s?a p?? ?a µp??e? ?a ep?ß???e? s?µf???e?
?? ?a? ? f??e?e??e??sµ?? ?a? ? ?ea??sµ?? µ???????ta? t?? ?p??es? t?? d?e????? a?a???a?, ?? ?e?f??e?e??e??? ???t??????? t?? ?ea??st?? ??a t?? ?p?t?µ?s? t?? e??a????? ??a s??e??as?a st? s?st?µa
?? ??t?µa e??a? p?? ?a d?µ??????s??µe ??a d?e???? s?st?µa p?? ?a e??a????e? t?? s??e??as?a
66. Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism) ?????? d???te?: ?????a??st??? S?st?µa (ta ???t? st? ???t??, a??? ep?s?? ep??e???se??, d?e??e?? ???a??sµ??, ??? (NGOs), ??µ??
?a ???t? s??e??????ta? µe µ?-??at????? d???te? ?ta? e??a? ??a t? s?µf???? t???
?pe?d? de? ?p???e? d?e???? µ??a??sµ?? ep?ß???? p?? ?a e?asfa???e? ?t? ta ???t? efa?µ????? t?? s?µf???e?, t? e?de??µe?? µ? s?µµ??f?s?? e??a? ?e?t????? s?µas?a?
?d??e? st?? ep???µ?a ?a d?µ?????????? st??e?? ?esµ?? p?? «??at???» ta ???t? se s??e??as?a??? s?µf???e?
67. Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism) S?µf????ta-??e?d??Key: ???t?µ?se?? (Utility determined by the state)
??t??eta ap? ?t? st?? ?ea??sµ?, ?p?? ta ???t? a??s????? ??a s?et??? ???d? ?a? ?a a??????? s??e??as?a ?p? ???sµ??e? s?????e?, ?? «?esµ????» ep?d?????? ap???ta ???d? (absolute gains)
???µ? ?a? se ?atast?se?? ?p?? eta???? ????? s?et??? pe??ss?te?a ???d?, ? s??e??as?a ??a ????? s?µf????ta d?µ?????e? a??e?t???? s?µµa??e?
? ?e???a t?? pa?????? pe?????fe? µe??d??? p?? ta ???t? ???s?µ?p????? ??a ?a ap?fas?s??? p?te ? s??e??as?a e??a? p??? t? s?µf???? t??? (prisoner’s dilemma).
68. Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism) ?fa?µ????
?e??pt?se??:
Alliances/Coalition Building
United Nations
International Law
Economic Interests/International Corporations
?? p??ß??µa t?? µetaßa???µe??? p??t?µ?se?? ?a? e?a??ass?µe??? s?µµa???? (?d?a?te?a p?a?µat??? µe d?µ???at??? s?st?µata se ?a??? p???µ??)
69. S?µp??asµa ???? p???s?a pa??d?s? s?????
?? f??e?e??e?? ??aµa ??a t?? d?µ??????a µ?a? ??a? a?ad?µa???? pe??a???a? (d?e??e?? s??se??)
???a ????a ?e?µata
??p???? f??e?e??e??? = s?????? ??at??e?t?????
“Liberalism has its ups and downs”
70. ???st????t?ß?sµ?? ? f?s? t?? d?e????? s?st?µat??: ????????? ?atas?e?asµ???
??t??eta µe t?? ?ea??sµ? ?a? t?? f??e?e??e??sµ? t?? ?p???? ? a?t??? ep?st?µ?????a a?t?e? ap? t? ?et???st??? (ep?st?µ?????) ?a? d?µ??? (structuralist) (eµpe?????) pa??d?s?, ? ???st????t?ß?sµ?? e??a? µeta-?et???st???? ?a? ap?d?µe? t?? ??t???????? ?p???se?? t?? ????? ?e?????
“Anarchy is what states make of it…” –Alexander Wendt
71. Constructivism ????te?-??e?d??: Shared Ideas: te?????, ta ???t? pa?aµ????? ?? ßas???? pa??te?, a??? ?? ?d?e? p??sd???????? ta ??at??? pa?ade??µata (paradigms) ??a t? d?e???? s?st?µa
? ?e???a a?apt?sseta? ?? µ?a p??a?? e????s? t?? ap?t???a? t?? ????a???? ?e????? ?a p??ß?????? µe???a ?e????ta (p? t?? pt?s? t?? ?SS?)
?a?t?t?te? ?a? s?µf????ta ?atas?e?????ta? ap? p???t?sµ???? ???µe? ?a? ?????? «shared» f???s?f?e?
?? ?a? ? p??ta????? ?e?t?????a t?? ???st????t?ß?sµ?? e??a? ? ???t??? st?? ßas???? ?e???e? t?? d?e???? s??se??, t? e??t?µa e??a? a? p?esße?e? ??t? se ep?ped? p???t???? p?????
72. Constructivism S?µf????ta: ???sd????sµ?? ?de??, S??e??as?a ??a t?? a??a?? t?? d?e????? s?st?µat??
??t? t? st???e?? ??e? ?p?ste? ???t???
?e? e??a? t?p?te ???? pa?? µ?a µeta?et???st??? e?d??? t?? ???-f??e?e??e??sµ?? (social agency shapes state preferences)
?e? e??a? p?a?µat??? µeta?e?te????, e?a?t?a? t?? ??????????? d?a?e?t???? ??a t? p?? ?? ?d?e? µp????? ?a a?t?µet?p?s??? ?a? ?a ep???s??? «e??te????» p??ß??µata
73. Constructivism ?fa?µ????:
Security Kritik
?s???/?pe???? e??a? ????????? ?atas?e?asµ??e?
?p?d?as?:
??t?????a: ? d?a?e?t??? t?? ape???? p???a?e? ß?a
?p?st?µ?????a: ?? a????p??? st???e?? (de? e??a? d??at?? ?a ???e? a? ?? ape???? e??a? p?a?µat???? ? a?t????e?? (perceived)
??a, St?at??t??? ???µ???s?, ?e??ßa????t??? ?p?ß??µ?s?, ??????µ??? ?at???e?s?
??a??a?t????:
??p???, ap?????? (voting ?ff precludes end of threat construct)
???s? ?e?f??e?e??e??? ?esµ???? ?atas?e??? ??a ?a epa?ap??sd????se?? a??e?
75. Coffee break!
76. ???t???? & µeta-d?µ???? d?e??e?? s??se??
77. ‘Critical Theory’ and Post-structuralism in IR: Philosophical underpinnings:
positivism vs. anti-/post-positivism;
foundationalism vs. anti-foundationalism
Marxism and structuralism
Feminist IR
78. Ge???? p??s????s? t?? ???t???? ?a? µeta-d?µ???? d?e???? s??se?? ?as??? ?a?a?t???st??? t?? ?e?????
(1) ??? ?e??e?te t?? ?S sa? µ?a a?t???µ? pe??a???a, a??? t?p??et?ste t?? se ??a e???te?? p?a?s?? ?????????? s?????
(2) “hold that the purpose of theory is to ‘unsettle’ established categories and ‘disconcert the reader’” (Brown 2005)
79. ?ata???? t?? ???t???? ?S Robert Cox (1981) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’:
??????s? µeta?? ‘problem-solving’ ?a? ‘critical’ theory
? ?e???a e??a? ‘always for someone and for some purpose’
‘it is always an expression of a perspective’
‘and situated in space and time (historically specific)’
80. S??p?? t?? ?e???a? ? ?e???a µp??e? ?a ?p??ete? d?? d?a???t??? st?????:
(1) ?a p??sf??e? µ?a e??e?a ap??t?s? st?? ep???s? p??ß??µ?t?? st? p?a?s?? µ?a? s???e???µ???? p???pt????
(2) ?a a?ast????eta? ??a t?? d?ad??as?a t?? ?d?a? t?? ‘?e???t???p???s??’:
??? p???pt???? p?? t?? a??de??e ?a? t?? s??s?? t?? µe ???e? p???pt????
??? p??a??t?t?? ??a ‘choosing a different valid perspective from which the problematic becomes one of creating an alternative world’ (Cox 1981)
81. ‘Problem-solving’ theory: ? p??t?? st???? af??? st? s?µßat??? ?e???a‘problem-solving’:
???eta? t?? ???sµ? µ?a? s???e???µ???? ?at?stas?? ?? ded?µ????
???sa?at????eta? p??? t?? ep???s? t?? p??ß??µat?? p?? ? s???e???µ???? ???sµ?? pa???e?
? p?e????f?a t?? ?e????? (f??e?e??e??sµ??, ?ea??sµ??)
82. ‘Critical’ theory: ? de?te??? st???? ?d??e? st?? ???t??? ?e???a:
?e? ?e??e? t??? ???sµ??? t?? ?????????? p?a?µat???t?ta? ?? ded?µ?????
???spa?e? ?a a?ade??e?:
??? ??a? s???e???µ???? ???sµ?? ?p??ete? s???e???µ??a s?µf????ta
??? ap???e?e? s???e???µ??a ep??e???µata
‘directed toward an appraisal of the very framework for action, or problematic, which problem-solving theory accepts as its parameters’ (Cox 1981)
«a??s??e?» ??a t?? d?ad??as?e? ?st?????? a??a???:
?? a?t??e?µe?? t?? s??e??? a????e?
«critical theorising is never complete»
83. ???aµ? ?a? ad??aµ?a ? ???t??? ?e???a de? ??e? t?? a???ße?a t?? ?e????? «problem-solving»
?p? t?? ????, ? a???ße?a ??e? ??st??:
«pa???s???e?» t?? p???t??? ?a? ????????? t??? ?? ded?µ??e? ?a? ??a ?? ?e???e? “proble-solving” e??a? ?de??????? f??t?sµ??e? ?a? a?????? ta st???e?a ?a? t?? p??a??t?ta a??a???
?p??et??? s???e???µ??a s?µf????ta (p?, e?????, ta????) p?? e??????ta? ap? t? status quo.
S??t???t???? p??sa?at???sµ??
? ???t??? ?e???a e??a? µ?s? ?e??af?t?s??:
‘approaches practice from a perspective that transcends that of existing order’ and ‘allows for a normative choice in favour’ of a different political order (Cox 1981)
84. Cox’s intellectual legacy: Antonio Gramsci; Frankfurt School
Horkheimer’s inaugural lecture on ‘Traditional vs. Critical theory’
Critical theory:
should investigate how the world in which the theorist finds him/herself has got to be this way
asks historical questions
emancipatory:
exposes the existing world order as non-arbitrary
enquires into interests and forces that shaped its movement along a particular historical trajectory
uncovers other possible routes
‘constructivist’ since it views the given reality as a construct – a result of human action in all its guises
85. ???a ?e?µata ???t???? ?e???a? Richard Ashley: ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’ in Robert Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics (1986)
?as??eta? st??:
???t??? t?? ?????????? ep?st?µ?? t?? Habermas
St?? ?a????? µeta-st????t???a??sµ? (Foucault, Derrida)
??a f???a?d?a?? ?e???s? t?? ?????????? d?ad??as???:
?st?as? st?? ????a ?s???-???s? (d??d?as? µeta?? «s?st?µ?t?? ?s????» ?a? «s?st?µ?t?? ???s??»
??af??et???? ?st?????? pe???d?? ?a?a?t??????ta? ap? d?af??et???? d?µ?? t?? s??se?? ?s????-???s??
R.B.J. Walker; James Der Derian; David Campbell
86. Habermas’s legacy: Habermas – a successor of Frankfurt School
Adorno’s PhD student
inherited Horkheimer’s chair
Habermas’s works include:
Knowledge and Human Interest
Legitimation Crisis
Theory of Communicative Action (a rethinking of social sciences in 2 vols., 1981-2):
A mission to re-energise an independent public sphere to counterbalance spoon-fed ‘truths’ about reality from those in power
87. Marxism: Critical theory’s boarder intellectual origins in Marxism
Marx formulated the global-level ‘emancipation project’:
political emancipation
elimination of economic inequality
Historical emphasis:
‘historical materialism’
mostly, historic change has been un-emancipatory
Recognition that a given order serves particular interests
e.g. class; or the ‘developed countries of the West’
Representation of the existing order as ‘natural’:
Gramsci: ‘hegemony’
88. Yet another strand of critical theory: John Ruggie in IPE
A reaction to Waltz:
Neorealist view of international system does not account for historic change
Realism as a mode of reasoning is not genuinely historical even where its ‘material’ is derived from history
Dictates that with regard to the ‘essentials’, the future will always be like the past:
Realist IR theory is a status quo theory: not ‘emancipatory’
89. ‘Emancipation’ project: Liberalism was originally seen as emancipatory:
In the context of the Enlightenment, its function was to free humanity ‘from self-imposed immaturity’ (Kant)
Liberalism ceased to be emancipatory ?
Critical theorists: there is need for a different kind of theorising to ‘rescue’ the emancipation project
Post-structuralists (drawing on Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida): emancipation project is doomed
Possibility of emancipation premised on ontological and epistemological assumptions:
Positivisim vs. anti- or post-positivism;
Foundationalism vs. anti-foundationalism
90. Social ‘sciences’: the ‘scientific’ = positivist method for social sciences:
make a conjecture about causality;
formulate that conjecture as a hypothesis consistent with established theory;
specify the observable implications of the hypothesis;
test for whether those implications obtain in the real world;
and report one’s findings, ensuring that one’s procedures are publicly known and hence replicable to other members of a particular scientific community that he identified as the IR community of scholars (e.g. Keohane)
91. A positivist methodology: Following this method, one will
attain ‘objective’ truth about the social reality?
contribute to a wider agreement on descriptive facts and causal relationships, based on transparent and replicable methods
a positivist methodological framework assumes that:
the social world is amenable to the kinds of regularities that can be explained by using causal analysis with tools borrowed from the natural sciences
the way to determine the truth of statements is by appealing to neutral facts
92. Four rules of positivism: established by Hume; summarised, e.g., by Kolakowski (Positivist Philosophy (1972)):
(1) the rule of phenomenalism: only phenomena that can be directly experienced can generate knowledge of the real nature of the world
(2) the rule of nominalism: proposes that general statements about the world that do not have their reference in independent, observable, atomized objects should not be afforded real knowledge status
(3) value judgements are not part of science: values cannot be observed or verified and thus are ‘metaphysical’ categories, not facts;
(4) unity of scientific method: the methods of natural sciences are applicable to social and political analysis
93. Accepting positivism? Observance of positivist rules restricts possible objects for scientific enquiry
Enticement of ‘scientific’ status?
One can question
possibility of adhering to the rules of positivism
the validity of the rules themselves
? Critique of positivism
94. Problems with the rule of phenomenalism: How to account for differences in direct sensory experiences?
Natural sciences:
objective verifiable measurements, repeated experimentation etc.
Social sciences: problematic
Observable reality does not neatly fall into predefined clear categories
? e.g. assigning a case to a category involves a value judgement
95. Questioning the rule of phenomenalism: Hume’s philosophical position is predicated on the distinction between:
an objectively existing sphere of reality ‘out there’
a thinking subject who (passively) receives:
sense ‘impressions’ and
constructs ‘theoretical’ images of the facts (‘ideas’)
Sense ‘impressions’ are fundamentally different from the retrospective/theoretical realm of ‘ideas’:
‘idea’ realm does not correspond with reality per se, because an abstract category does not correspond with what actually (physically) exists in the universe
96. Questioning empiricism: Hume conclusion:
because we never directly experience external bodies,
we cannot experience a correlation between those bodies and the impressions they cause
Therefore, empiricist based claims for real knowledge cannot be defended except in metaphysical terms (i.e. something beyond the immediate physical reality):
‘The implication of this position is clear enough: there is no logical basis, even in positivism’s own terms, for the proposition that knowledge of reality is directly derived from an independent world “out there”.’ (George, 1994)
97. Other problems with positivism: Has to make use of language:
Natural language is imprecise, open to multiple understandings
Positivism counters this with establishing special languages of science and abstract terminologies, but:
Terms still need to be defined through natural language
This potentially introduces:
uncontrollable variance in understandings of what one or another term implies and value-laden connotations
Does not ask the question of ends of theorising:
does not problematise its impact on the world
? irresponsible: ‘Treating the feelings as mere effects of causal processes takes them out of our hands, and relieves us of responsibility’ (Toulmin 1990)
98. Foundationalism vs. anti-foundationalism: The foundation of positivist science rests on infallibility of logico-mathematical procedures of thought:
Universal and unbiased by sensory input
Descartes: ‘cogito ergo sum’
Belief that whoever follows these procedures of reasoning is bound to arrive at the same conclusions about what is knowable in the world:
Oakeshott (1962): a rationalist finds ‘it difficult to believe that anyone who can think honestly and clearly will think differently from himself’
99. Universality of the ‘rational’ method? The rational dichotomy of reason vs. sensual experience
? a separation into subjects that can be studied scientifically and those that cannot:
Despite the alleged universality and timelessness of the rational method, it deliberately confines itself to a narrow selection of subjects and kinds of knowledge that can be achieved with regard to them
‘Certainty’ of science is achieved at the expense of a vast expanse of the unknown beyond its limits
100. Post- or anti-positivists: Embrace Wittgenstein’s realisation that
‘no independent or objective sources of support’ can exist ‘outside of our language and actions’
This position is called anti-foundationalism:
‘the facts of the world (e.g., historical, political, social) are always intrinsically bound up with the way we give meaning to them and accord them “real” status. This is an interpretive process grounded in historico-philosophical, cultural, and linguistic complexity, not in some Archimedean point of ultimate reference beyond history and society’ (George 1994)
Deny the possibility of an independent, value-free perspective that could produce universally valid knowledge
101. Positivists vs. post-positivists: Positivist social theory insists that
unless there is certain knowledge there can be no real knowledge at all
‘either there is some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or we cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelop us with madness, with intellectual and moral chaos’ (Bernstein)
any approach that refuses to privilege a single perspective (as corresponding to reality) is guilty of relativism and is unable to make judgements about everyday life and political conflict
Post-positivists argue that although there may be no ‘absolute’ knowledge, this does not undermine one’s ability to make decisions in the world:
this ‘allows for a decisionmaking regime based on personal and social responsibility’ which is not relegated ‘to objectified sources “out there” (e.g., the system, the government, science, the party, the state, history, human nature)’ (George, 1994)
102. Developments in methodology: Post-positivist methods:
Discourse analysis - a ‘language turn’ (e.g. Foucault; Milliken)
Analysis of practices (Neumann 2002)
Shift from ‘mimetic’ approaches (that attempt to model reality) to aesthetic ones (aimed to relive reality in unique creative ways (Bleiker 2001)
Natural sciences also have moved on:
New approaches: chaos theory, complexity theory, quantum theory, discoveries in life sciences
This changed the outlook of natural sciences and affected their methodology
Social science positivists out of touch with these developments?
103. Constructivism and post-positivism: Constructivist scholars differ in the extent to which they view their approach as antithetic to positivism
Predominantly, do not emphasise their anti-positivistic stance
Most IR constructivists share following features:
Interpretive understanding as an intrinsic (albeit not necessarily exclusive) part of any causal explanation
Preference for middle-range theorising as opposed to ‘grand theory’
Recognition that social scientists are part of the social world which they are trying to analyse (‘double hermeneutics’)
Thomas Risse: ‘is anybody still a positivist?’
104. Post-structural challenge: Although positivist scholars reject normative issues, they agree with critical theorists on this:
theory has a direct impact on the world:
‘good theory’ should inform (and change) practice
Post-structural theorists are doubtful of this impact
do not purport to create emancipatory theories
that would simply substitute one view of reality informed by particular interests with another view – or one discourse with another
concerned with exposing the terms on which one or another description of reality hangs together
105. Legacy of structuralism: IR structuralism:
IPE (International Political Economy): e.g. Wallenstein's world-systems approach (cores, peripheries and semi-peripheries); dependency relations between North and South (e.g. Dependencia theory)
peace studies (the view of structural inequalities as a major source of conflict and unrest (e.g. Johan Galtung)
structuralism in semiotics and linguistics:
influenced the development of French post-structuralist philosophy (Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari etc.)
and through it the more ‘radical’ IR post-structuralists
106. Semiotic structuralism: impact on social theory at large
viewed the structure of language (‘alphabet’ and ‘grammar’ broadly defined) as the generator of meaning
The 1968 political unrest (student demonstrations etc.) in France signified a major turn in this thinking:
exposed its statism and excessive stress on continuity
failure to account for the dynamics of change
questioned the Saussurean emphasis on ‘langue’ (language) as opposed to ‘parole’ (‘speech’) - i.e. the uses of language produced from the deep-rooted structures of language
speech – or rather writing – came into a spotlight (e.g. Derrida)
107. Textual strategies of post-structuralism: Discourse analysis and genealogical enquiries
Deconstruction: seeks to unsettle stable concepts and demonstrate the effects and costs of the settled concepts and oppositions, to disclose the ‘parasitical relationships between opposed terms and to attempt a displacement of them
Double reading: the first reading is a commentary on the dominant interpretation demonstrating how it achieves its stability. The second reading applies pressure to the points of instability within a text, with the purpose of exposing how any story depends on suppression of internal tensions in order to achieve homogeneity and continuity.
108. Some strands of post-positivist theorising: David Campbell (1992) Writing Security:
a critique of the US foreign policy
its reliance on radical ‘othering’
Search for a new ‘enemy’ image after the Cold War
William Connolly’s work on ‘Culture Wars’ of the present-day US
its categorising and alienating effects.
Neither has abandoned ‘critical’ emancipation
James Der Derian:
Foucault-inspired analyses of diplomatic practice
Paul Virilio-inspired post-modern enquiries about how the virtual reality, increased speed of life and interactions are affecting our understanding of the international
109. Feminism in IR IR represents a gendered view of reality, that is premised on ‘masculine’ interests
Not necessarily ‘post-structural’ or ‘critical’ in their methods; nor is feminism confined to IR
Issues:
Women’s equality and greater visibility in politics
Critique of the Enlightenment as premised on a voice that is ‘European, rationalist and male’ (and ‘white’).
In Gramsci’s terms:
the ‘hegemony’ of the existing world order and the bulk of IR theorising has naturalised masculine interests
women’s voices are consistently marginalised and silenced
110. Challenges of post-structural IR feminism: to challenge the often unseen androcentric/ masculine biases in the way that knowledge is constructed
to develop accounts of the social world that trace the influence of gender in all our discursive categories, and especially ‘the international’
to question/ ‘dislocate’ what we accept as normal:
E.g. Cynthia Weber (1999) Faking It: US Hegemony in a ‘Post-Phallic’ Era
111. A feminist approach: reject commitment to ‘scientific’ methodology
claim no single standard of methodological correctness
feminist knowledge has emerged from a deep scepticism about the claims of ‘universal’ knowledge, which, in reality, are based primarily on masculine experiences and perspectives
regard knowledge-building is an ongoing process
describe knowledge-building as emerging through ‘conversation’ with texts, research subjects, or data
research focus is not only on the subordination of women, but also other disempowered people
112. Feminists: agree with positivists that research should pose questions that are ‘important’ in the ‘real world’ (King et al. 1994; Van Evera, 1997)
disagree with the positivist definitions of ‘important’ and the ‘real world’
Conventionally, scientific progress is judged not on the merit of the questions that are asked but on how questions are answered
Feminists find that the questions that are asked – and also questions that are not asked – are more important for judging knowledge.
The questions that feminists ask
are typically not answerable within a conventional social ‘science’
challenge the core assumptions of the discipline and deconstruct its central concepts
113. Questions that feminists ask: E.g. ‘Why have wars predominantly been fought by men and how do gendered structures of masculinity and femininity legitimate war and militarism for both women and men?
To answer such a question:
challenge the separation of ‘public’ and ‘private’
seek to uncover continuities between disempowerment of women in the domestic sphere and in the public – political and international – life
E.g. investigate military prostitution and rape as tools of war and instruments of state policy
114. Feminist methodology: Knowledge based on the standpoint of women’s lives leads to more robust objectivity:
broadens the base from which we derive knowledge
the perspectives of marginalised people may reveal aspects of reality obscured by more orthodox approaches to knowledge-building
Emphasis on sociological analyses that begin with individuals and the hierarchical social relations in which their lives are situated
Reject the conventional separation between subject and object of research:
acknowledging the subjective element in one’s analysis increases the objectivity of research
115. Some works by feminist writers: Cynthia Enloe (2000) Bananas, Beaches and Base: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics
Jean Bethke Elshtain (1987) Women and War
Jill Steans (1998) Gender and International Relations: An Introduction (a textbook)
