A genealogical approach is anti-essentialist in orientation, affirming the idea that all knowledge is situated in a particular time and place and issues from a particular perspective. Genealogy is a reminder of the essential agonism in the historical constitution of identities, unities, disciplines, subjects and objects. One of the important insights of postmodernism, with its focus on the power–knowledge nexus and its genealogical approach, is that many of the problems and issues studied in International Relations are not just matters of epistemology and ontology, but of power and authority; they are struggles to impose authoritative interpretations of international
Dichotomies as false reflections of reality: Scholars also argue that dichotomies are not concrete reality but rather assumptions and metaphors which hardly correlate with the reality, which is fluid and in which such fixed concrete categories are rarely found (Barbe 2001, Eckel and Weber 2007). Katharina Barbe (2001) suggest that there is a serious need to re-evaluate dichotomies before their repeated use since its use can lead us to misconceive “relationship between opposing hypothesis” (Wilkins 1982: 22 cited in Barbe 2001). In the case of the North-South divide, Julian Eckl and Ralph Weber argue that such divisions tend to simplify issues of global inequality in two categories, wherein both the practitioners and analysts start treating
The aim of this essay is to critically outline and evaluate Critical Theory and how it is applied in the sphere of International Relations (referred to from this point as IR). Critical Theory is one of many lenses through which one can view and interpret interaction between nations; others include Realism, Liberalism, Structuralism and Post-Modernism. Contained within this essay will be detailed analysis of the ideas and thinkers which have shaped Critical Theory, as well as criticisms of the theory and key differences between this theory and other prevalent IR thought. The fundamental concept behind Critical Theory is suggested in its name: Critical Theory. Critical Theorists believe that all knowledge is biased and that philosophies and
Numerous educators and understudies of philosophy today feel that the subject is under risk – from a more inescapable and less quantifiable social move towards measuring our thoughts just in such instrumental and fiscal terms. The topic of why the theory is vital some of the time gets caught with our own gaudiness. More to the point, maybe, when we look to ensure rationality we are additionally securing our point of view. There is an incongruity here since philosophers frequently introduce themselves as masterminds who accomplish an incomparable objectivity in connection to whatever issues they draw in with. In the values of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell guarantees that Philosophy is important on account of the inquiries that it poses—these questions such as expand our origination of what is
Some political thinkers may be of the idea that this had undermined the importance of geopolitics in the global political sphere. International borders and territories were thought of as less significant. However, is this indeed the end of geopolitical thought in international relations or is it not so? I think not. Lets us explore the relationship between globalisation and geopolitics and understand the crucial role of non-state actors, who have gained importance on the global scene in recent times.
The claim is that the identities of key decision-makers go a long way in explaining foreign policy. As examining the Indo-Pakistani conflict through rationalist lenses should not be radically denied, this thesis will test conventional constructivism as a method in studying Pakistan 's situation. 4. Post-Colonialism I will explain the basic assumptions of Post-Colonialism, its usefulness and its weaknesses. Its operative characteristics.
Name: SOLOMON OTUBO Student Number: Y1214.110007 COMPARISM BETWEEN NEO-REALISM AND NEO-LIBRALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Introduction The quest to solve the problem ravaging the relations among states in the international system has being a challenge among scholars in the international relations as a discipline of study. This is not because there are no attempt to proffer solutions to such problems, or that theories have not being formulated to tackle such challenges. But it is because there has not being an adequate theory that would either proffer a lasting solution, or give a holistic analysis that will be generally accepted among scholars of international relations. In an attempt to analyse the causes of this problem and provide solutions
It places the greatest importance not on state actors, but on the institutions and norms that exist in the international system (Karns, p. 59). Unlike Realism, Social Constructivism suggests that interests and identities of states can in fact change and are not assumed to be fixed. For example, the institution of state sovereignty is important, but the idea of what sovereignty is has changed as the social beliefs, cultural, and norms of states change (Karns, p. 59). According to this theory, the greatest means to affect these kinds of socially constructed changes is through multilateralism. Also in contrast to Realism, Social Constructivism purposes that IGOs have actual power, and their power comes not from their need to enforce authority, but their ability to act impartially as vessels for cooperation, and as actors that can teach and create new norms (Karns, p.
Solving global problems is probably one of the most ambitious issues on the global political agenda. Firstly, it would be necessary to evaluate problems from an objective perspective: it is crucial to appraise global problems, not from an individual or national approach, but from a global angle. As Maja Zehfuss states, in order to look at an issue from a broader perspective, it would be necessary to analyse it objectively, by “stepping back from the world”. Although, how is this achievable? (Zehfuss 2014, 621).
This affects me because I might be at a disadvantage with regards to perhaps my specific qualifications. I will not be paid my worth. PART 2 THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Theories of International Relations are the formal academic results of the activity of thinking systematically about our assumptions concerning the cross- border interaction between actors, and the broader public-policy implications of these interactions. (Mc Gowan, 2006:27) The theories are divided into three categories, namely, (1) Realism, (2) Idealism and (3) Marxism. These shall be discussed with relation to the following subcategories of the assumptions; (a) Anarchy, (b) Power, (c) Morality, (d) Role of States and (e) Continuity.