scholarly journals Scopic regimes and the visual turn in International Relations: Seeing world politics through the drone

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 431-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Grayson ◽  
Jocelyn Mawdsley
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The Political ◽  
Targeted Killing ◽  
Representational Practices ◽  
Drone Warfare ◽  
A Site ◽  
Kinetic Force ◽  
Do So

In this article, we argue that the lack of attention paid to the scopic regimes of modernity in the ‘visual turn’ literature misses a key aspect of how visuality produces and shapes the international as both a site — and sight — of politics. In making the case that systemised ways of seeing are central to world politics, we contend that the scopic regimes of modernity help us to understand how it becomes possible for particular representational practices and outputs to resonate within broader discourses as authoritative, truthful, and/or emotively powerful. To do so, we draw from ongoing controversies over targeted killing via drones. We argue that disagreements over the legality and governance of drone warfare are more than disputes over legal statutes and legitimate techniques for the application of kinetic force; they also encompass disagreements over how we see, who we see, what we see, and what counts as being seen. Thus, by demonstrating the importance of scopic regimes, we provide evidence of the value of engaging with how the visual produces the political in International Relations. Moreover, we argue for International Relations to engage with scopic regimes from beyond Western traditions in order to decolonise the ‘visual turn’.

scholarly journals Drones and the Threshold for Waging War

Politik ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezio Di Nucci
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
The Political ◽  
Philosophical Debate ◽  
Drone Warfare ◽  
The One ◽  
Do So

If drones make waging war easier, the reason why they do so may not be the one commonly assumed within the philosophical debate – namely, the promised reduction in casualties on either side – but a more complicated one. One that has little to do with the concern for one’s own soldiers or, for that matter, the enemy, but rather one that is embedded in the political intricacies of international relations and domestic politics. This article will utilize the example of the Obama Administration’s drone policies to illustrate this argument. This analysis is also meant to have a wider methodological significance; that philosophy can make an important contribution in analyzing drone warfare. However, philosophy will not help to simplify realities and provide easy solutions. 

scholarly journals Deep theorizing in International Relations

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 814-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Berenskötter
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Space ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Human Condition ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Actor ◽  
Grand Theory ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Theoretical Pluralism ◽  
The Human Condition

This article starts from the observation that International Relations scholars do not agree on what they mean by theory. The declining popularity of grand theory and the celebration of theoretical pluralism are accompanied by the relative absence of a serious conversation about what ‘theory’ is or should be. Taking the view that we need such a conversation, especially given the shallow theorizing of modern scholarship that conflates theory with method, and the postmodern view that abstract narratives must be deconstructed and rejected, this article puts forward the notion of ‘deep theorizing’ as the ground for grand theory. Specifically, it argues that deep theorizing is the conceptual effort of explaining (inter)action by developing a reading of drives/basic motivations and the ontology of its carrier through an account of the human condition, that is, a particular account of how the subject (the political actor) is positioned in social space and time. The article illustrates this angle through a discussion of realist, liberal and postcolonial schools of thought. It basically argues that, through their particular readings of the human condition, these approaches develop distinct conceptions of political agency and, hence of the nature and location of world politics.

Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Blaney ◽  
Arlene B. Tickner
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Ecology ◽  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Field Of Study ◽  
Colonial Modernity ◽  
Technology Studies ◽  
Representational Practices ◽  
Ontological Turn

This article argues that attention to representational practices and epistemology, however important for expanding the boundaries of International Relations as a field of study, has been insufficient for dealing with difference in world politics, where ontological conflicts are also at play. We suggest that IR, as a latecomer to the ‘ontological turn’, has yet to engage systematically with ‘singular world’ logics introduced by colonial modernity and their effacement of alternative worlds. In addition to exploring how even critical scholars concerned with the ‘othering’ and ‘worlding’ of difference sidestep issues of ontology, we critique the ontological violence performed by norms constructivism and the only limited openings offered by the Global IR project. Drawing on literatures from science and technology studies, anthropology, political ecology, standpoint feminism and decolonial thought, we examine the potentials of a politics of ontology for unmaking the colonial universe, cultivating the pluriverse, and crafting a decolonial science. The article ends with an idea of what this might mean for International Relations.

scholarly journals Meta-Jackson: Rethinking Patrick Thaddeus Jackson’s Conduct of Inquiry

2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hidemi Suganami
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Critical Realism ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The Political ◽  
Philosophical Foundation ◽  
Philosophical Foundations

In his The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, Patrick Jackson identifies four distinct ways of studying world politics: ‘neopositivism’, ‘critical realism’, ‘analyticism’ and ‘reflexivity’. According to him, they all fall under the broad umbrella of ‘science’ but they each stem from a distinct philosophical foundation. In his view, which foundation one subscribes to is a matter of faith, which leads him to advocate pluralism. He classifies the underlying philosophical foundations in terms of two criteria: ‘mind–world dualism’ versus ‘mind–world monism’ and ‘phenomenalism’ versus ‘transfactualism’. Through a step-by-step analysis of his complex text, I show that what divides (1) neopositivism, (2) analyticism and (3) critical realism and reflexivity (classed together) is not in fact their philosophical foundations but the nature of the questions they ask, each reflecting distinct human interests. Accordingly, while praising Jackson’s philosophical vigilance against the dominance of neopositivism, I conclude by pointing to a need to consider the political underpinnings of different modes of knowledge production.

Orders of Exclusion

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle M. Lascurettes
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Perceived Threat ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Change Order ◽  
Do So

When and why do powerful countries seek to enact major changes to international order, the broad set of rules that guide behavior in world politics? This question is particularly important today given the Trump administration’s clear disregard for the reigning liberal international order in the United States. Across the globe, there is also uncertainty over what China might seek to replace that order with as it continues to amass power and influence. Together, these developments mean that what motivates great powers to shape and change order will remain at the forefront of debates over the future of world politics. Prior studies have focused on how the origins of international orders have been consensus-driven and inclusive. By contrast, this book argues that the propelling motivation for great power order building at important historical junctures has typically been exclusionary, centered around combatting other actors rather than cooperatively engaging with them. Dominant powers pursue fundamental changes to order when they perceive a major new threat on the horizon. Moreover, they do so for the purpose of targeting this perceived threat, be it another powerful state or a foreboding ideological movement. The goal of foundational rule writing in international relations, then, is blocking that threatening entity from amassing further influence, a motive Lascurettes illustrates at work across more than three hundred years of history. Far from falling outside of the bounds of traditional statecraft, order building is the continuation of power politics by other means.

Identity in International Relations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Berenskoetter
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Socially Constructed ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Causes Of War ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Do So

The identity perspective first emerged in the international relations (IR) literature in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of two overlapping trends. First, the postmodern Zeitgeist encouraged the questioning of accepted and “naturalized” categories associated with modernity. Embracing diversity and committed to an agenda of emancipation, postmodern thinking was to bring about the “death of meta-narratives” and to unravel assumptions which had come to be taken for granted and justified with, for instance, the need for parsimony. In IR, this meant “fracturing and destabilizing the rationalist/positivist hegemony,” including its ontology of the international system, to establish a new perspective on world politics. The readiness to do so was aided, second, by the end of the Cold War and changing structures of governance. The dissolution of seemingly stable political entities such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia raised questions about the volatility of borders, loyalties, nationalism(s), and the ability to manipulate them. Simultaneously, the phenomenon of “globalization” and processes of European integration undermined the conception of the Westphalian state as the fixed/dominant entity in world politics. Against this backdrop, many IR scholars searching for new conceptual vocabulary turned to “identity” to highlight the socially constructed nature of the state and its interests, and to explain the causes of war and the conditions for peace.

Parties, Pavilions and Protests: The Heteronomous World Politics of the Russian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-61
Author(s):  
Julia Bethwaite ◽  
Anni Kangas
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Contemporary Art ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Cultural Diplomacy ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The State ◽  
Different Types ◽  
A Site ◽  
Venice Biennale

This paper focuses on the role of contemporary art in international relations and world politics. In IR, art is often examined within the framework of cultural diplomacy, country branding, and soft power, or approached as a site of resistance. We argue that the concept of heteronomy offers an alternative conceptual framework for analysing contemporary art in world politics. It highlights the interaction of various fields such as art, commerce, the state and media. We concretise this approach with an analysis of the Venice Biennale. We show that the Biennale is heteronomous in the sense of being an arena where actors from various fields struggle for power by accumulating different types of capital. We focus our analysis on the Russian national pavilion in 2011–2015 and show how the efforts of the country's elite to legitimise its position intertwined with the projects of the state, sponsors, artists, curators and art market actors.

scholarly journals The Curious Case of ‘Schools’ of IR: From the Sociology to the Geopolitics of Knowledge

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongjin Zhang ◽  
Peter Marcus Kristensen
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Sociology Of Knowledge ◽  
Contentious Politics ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Core ◽  
A Site ◽  
Epistemic Diversity ◽  
Recent Insight

Abstract This article interrogates the questions evoked by the curious case of ‘schools’ of thought in International Relations (IR) through the twin perspectives of the sociology of knowledge and geopolitics of knowledge. Drawing inspirations from the tradition of the sociology of IR pioneered by E. H. Carr, the paper first explores how geo-epistemic diversity can help understand the sociologically problematic nature of IR knowledge production in the existing discipline. Taking cues from Randall Collins’s sociology of philosophies, the article moves to identify four clusters of sociological conditions and dynamics that, we argue, facilitate the formation and sustain the operation of schools of thought in IR. Taking seriously the recent insight from geopolitics of knowledge, the article then looks at why and how school labelling constitutes a battleground for contestation and legitimation of knowledge. While the ‘core’ uses the school label to create a parallel, and explicitly inferior, universe of knowledge production to localize theoretical noises from the peripheries, the school label, we argue, has been proactively appropriated by those at peripheries and semi-peripheries for three strategic purposes: to engage in a purposely contentious politics, to question the claim of the American ‘core’ as the creator, depositor, and distributor of universal knowledge, and to unveil the geo-historical linkage between the political and the epistemic. School labelling matters, we further argue, because it has become a site of contestation of geopolitics of knowledge and reflects the perils and promises in our collective pursuit of constructing a truly global IR.

scholarly journals Diplomatic Affairs and International Law, 1910

1911 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-37
Author(s):  
Paul S. Reinsch
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Joint Effect ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The Political ◽  
Not Given ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Social Unrest ◽  
Profound Influence ◽  
Constitutional Regime

The year 1910 continued the era of peace and comparative quiet in international affiairs which the world has enjoyed since the end of the Russo-Japanese War. The electoral and party struggles in Great Britain, involving fundamental constitutional issues, the revolutionary changes in Portugal, the political and social unrest in Spain, the development of the constitutional régime in Turkey, are indeed all facts which considered separately are of the highest interest and which in their joint effect will exert a profound influence also in the field of international relations. But as to these latter themselves, they were free from startling features and dramatic climaxes such as delight the journalist and the war-scare monger. This is not to say that things of the highest significance were not accomplished, that understandings of moment were not given definite form during this year; even some unexpected things came about, but, on the whole, international relations were placid and followed the quiet course of natural development. Yet to the careful observer of international affairs the situations and tendencies that have appeared to the view during this year are of the highest significance. Indeed it may almost be said that some entirely new principles in the action of world politics have been revealed through the groupings and relations of the powers as effected in 1910.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document