Critical thinking poses questions such as how current situations come to exist or how power works to sustain particular contexts. Critical geopolitical writers, in contrast to realist observers, argue that the assumption of a detached and objective researcher recording the observable realities of international politics is fallacious. Far from being objective, the research perspective of realism often contributes to the presentation of a view, which appears to legitimate the power politics of states. In contrast, critical approaches to world politics would suggest that unless one challenges or question contemporary structures and power relations then academic approaches run the risk of merely condoning existing practices. Critical geopolitical scholars now acknowledge that their approaches to world politics are self-consciously situated within a body of conceptual and methodological assumptions about the world.
To begin with, let us once again refer to Wajnryb (2005), who claims that insult is an offensive term that ought to be understood literally rather than metaphorically. This appears to contradict the description provided by Archard (2014), who insists that insult is an expressive act that apart from having disparaging meaning and being directed at a specific individual or group, has a peculiar propositional content that does not have to be realistic, as it usually allows for considerable exaggeration. Azzaro (2005) further theorizes that insults tend to be not only targeted, but also reciprocal, i.e. they involve emotional reaction from both the offender and the offended. In the pursuit of a comprehensive picture of an insult, we are forced to pinpoint its key objectives.
Victor Turner in his book, From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Serious ness of Play (1982), presents his personal journey of discovery from traditional anthropological studies of ritual performance to his curiosity in modern theatre, particularly experimental theatre. The purpose of
The title of F.R.Leavis’ critique on Othello itself depicts the entire critique. The main title of his critique “Diabolic Intellect and the Noble Hero” suggests the Bradley’s point of view of analyzing Othello, which according to Leavis is sentimental approach towards Othello. Leavis accused Bradley and other critics who supported Bradley’s point of view for not being objective. And thus he called them sentimental and their critique “Sentimentalist’s Othello”. According to Leavis, because of the collective opinion about Othello, it essence suffers.
2.2.1 Constructivism Social Constructivism is one of international relations approach. This approach challenged the rationalism and positivism of neorealism and neoliberalism. One of constructivism character is its emphasis on the importance of normative as well as material structures, the role of identity in shaping political action and on the mutually constitutive relationship between agents and structures (Burchill et al. 2005: 188). The term “constructivism” was first introduced by Nicholas Onuf in his book World in Our Making.
1. Introduction The purpose of this section of the essay is to present the theoretical framework that will be employed and unpacked in completing my field of study, which seeks to investigate bias in media representations of conflict. The ways in which the media construct the news regarding conflict and peace are important. This is the case because society often depends on the media as a major source of information about conflicts. The main focus of this section seeks to unpack the journalistic techniques used by the media when representing conflict.
It has also been found sometimes that both the theories are antagonistic to each other regarding their views about the international relationships and the development of the world too. There are major differences between the two theories especially in relation to the connection between the developed and developing nations. In fact it has been noticed that the major differences between the Modernization Theory and Dependency Theory exist from the origin of the Dependency Theory itself which have been created in response to the Modernization Theory (Theory, Dependency Theory v. Modernization, 2007). When we do the analysis of the differences between the two theories the major difference which is found is that the Modernization Theory views the world development and the association between the developing and the developed countries is that of potentially equal countries and these countries are at different stages of development at present. To state it more accurately Modernization Theory specifies that and is very much fixed about the fact that the Western nations are well- developed.
Translation is a political activity and product being the result of process of the negotiation among different agents including the translators, readers, as well authors. While taking this factor into consideration, the ideology can be also given such definition: an action without knowledge or false consciousness. Ideology is a term which can be viewed both in positive and negative political sense. From a negative political sense, ideology is identified as ‘a system of wrong, false, distorted or otherwise
The theory believes that agency and social, political and economical rhetoric is what surrounds international relations theory. Therefore if you cite the agency of which is produced for example in capitalist sense then from a historical perspective you can question the agency. Notably one of the most acknowledge constructivist scholars, Alexander Wendt discusses how anarchy effectively something formed of discourse surrounding international relations theory (Wendt 391-425). Similarly in Teschke article he writes how ‘Dissatisfaction with universalizing IR theories has made room for arguing the historicity of international organization by inquiring into the nature of the political order that preceded the European absolutist and capitalist states systems’ (Teschke 6). The correlation between constructivism and Marxism is apparent when looking at the criticism of capitalist theory.
(2013) have conducted critical research on the mainstream ideas of foreign policy of small states. The notion of “conventional wisdom” not indoctrinated within the overall theory of foreign policy of small states but, it is often used by scholars who criticize the mainstream neo- or structural realist perception which predominates academic discourse on the subject matter. There are two crucial assumptions highlighted by critiques as being essential for conventional wisdom as related to the concept of foreign policy of small states. The two major assumptions of conventional wisdom derive from the neo-realist vision of states’ behavior in the international system. Neo-realism claims that it is the international anarchic system which serves as a primary casual factor for states’ behavior, as the “internal characteristics and the preferences of nations do not provide sufficient grounds for predicting behavior” (Waltz 1979, 202).