O.k.,
since there seem to be at least some people on this list interested in IR, I
am forwarding my mail to Antoine to the list. A remark to Alexandre: Naming
someone a postmodernist is always as impossible as it is to categorize
anything else, and at the same time, you, I and everyone else does
categorize... Chris Brown, however, would probably reject the label
postmodernist. Speaking of him, another article drops into my mind, in
addition to Jim George's book. It is by Brown, published in Millenium:
Journal of International Studies, 23 (1994): 2, 213-236. (And if I may
advertise for myself a little bit: my MA thesis was published under the
title of "Neues Europa, altes Modell" by Haag+Herchen (Frankfurt/M.), and it
contains a few pages at the beginning about the impact of
poststructural/postmodern thinkers on IR theory - for everyone on this list
who reads German.)
Best,
Thomas
>Antoine,
>
>unfortunately I didn't follow this whole discussion closely enough to give
you such a response that is most helpful for you and your interest. The term
"Realism" in IRtheory has always been a quite contested concept, and there
have been many traditions of Realism. You might want to check out an article
by R.B.J. Walker on this, republished in his "inside/outside: international
relations as political theory", cambridge up. The inclusion of Bull, for
example, is not an undebated one. Seabrooke gave a good a description of
Realism as he could in the space given, but that is only one reading. One
should be aware, for example, that the tradition line of Realism in IR is
usually drawn back to Machiavelli and Hobbes. The term Realism in this case
has less to do with any epistemological claim, but rather with the
ontological claim that the world of states is anarchical and that the ruler
/ the people have to defend themselves against the foreign / the outside.
Realists start from this premise, and in their view cooperation can only
occur as long everybody's interests are served. (Of course, that is also a
very crude version...) That is why norms do not matter very much. The
individual realist him/herself may well try to force cooperation from the
normative imperative of peace, and s/he would insist that in order to do so,
one has to keep in mind that the world of states is anarchical. There even
have been some attempts by critical theorist, especially Richard K. Ashley
(who at the end of the 80s introduced Foucault to the IR community after he
worked with a mixture of philosophers from Haberams to Derrida in his
works), to rescue the old Realism from the new Realism that fused the
aforementioned line with structuralism and a strong positivist claim.
Opposed, idealists believe in certain ideals and thus, the normative
dimension is much more explicit. This, so to speak, would be the "Rousseau"
side. From a Foucauldian/poststructuralist or however-you-want-to-name-it
perspective, both sides have their flaws. If you're looking for futher
literature, check out the journal "Alternatives". It has been and is the
major journal for Poststrcutralists in IR to publish in. And of course, Jim
George's book is just great. And if you need any further information or have
any more specific questions, feel free to mail me again.
>
>Best,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
PLEASE NOTE:
There has been a restructuring of servers at the University of Mannheim.
Please use the address Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for your reply.
************************************************************************
Thomas Diez
Mannheim Centre for European Social Research
Mannheimer Zentrum fuer Europaeische Sozialforschung
Steubenstrasse
D-68131 Mannheim
Tel. ++49-(0)621-292-8465
Fax. ++49-(0)621-292-8435
Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
************************************************************************
since there seem to be at least some people on this list interested in IR, I
am forwarding my mail to Antoine to the list. A remark to Alexandre: Naming
someone a postmodernist is always as impossible as it is to categorize
anything else, and at the same time, you, I and everyone else does
categorize... Chris Brown, however, would probably reject the label
postmodernist. Speaking of him, another article drops into my mind, in
addition to Jim George's book. It is by Brown, published in Millenium:
Journal of International Studies, 23 (1994): 2, 213-236. (And if I may
advertise for myself a little bit: my MA thesis was published under the
title of "Neues Europa, altes Modell" by Haag+Herchen (Frankfurt/M.), and it
contains a few pages at the beginning about the impact of
poststructural/postmodern thinkers on IR theory - for everyone on this list
who reads German.)
Best,
Thomas
>Antoine,
>
>unfortunately I didn't follow this whole discussion closely enough to give
you such a response that is most helpful for you and your interest. The term
"Realism" in IRtheory has always been a quite contested concept, and there
have been many traditions of Realism. You might want to check out an article
by R.B.J. Walker on this, republished in his "inside/outside: international
relations as political theory", cambridge up. The inclusion of Bull, for
example, is not an undebated one. Seabrooke gave a good a description of
Realism as he could in the space given, but that is only one reading. One
should be aware, for example, that the tradition line of Realism in IR is
usually drawn back to Machiavelli and Hobbes. The term Realism in this case
has less to do with any epistemological claim, but rather with the
ontological claim that the world of states is anarchical and that the ruler
/ the people have to defend themselves against the foreign / the outside.
Realists start from this premise, and in their view cooperation can only
occur as long everybody's interests are served. (Of course, that is also a
very crude version...) That is why norms do not matter very much. The
individual realist him/herself may well try to force cooperation from the
normative imperative of peace, and s/he would insist that in order to do so,
one has to keep in mind that the world of states is anarchical. There even
have been some attempts by critical theorist, especially Richard K. Ashley
(who at the end of the 80s introduced Foucault to the IR community after he
worked with a mixture of philosophers from Haberams to Derrida in his
works), to rescue the old Realism from the new Realism that fused the
aforementioned line with structuralism and a strong positivist claim.
Opposed, idealists believe in certain ideals and thus, the normative
dimension is much more explicit. This, so to speak, would be the "Rousseau"
side. From a Foucauldian/poststructuralist or however-you-want-to-name-it
perspective, both sides have their flaws. If you're looking for futher
literature, check out the journal "Alternatives". It has been and is the
major journal for Poststrcutralists in IR to publish in. And of course, Jim
George's book is just great. And if you need any further information or have
any more specific questions, feel free to mail me again.
>
>Best,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
PLEASE NOTE:
There has been a restructuring of servers at the University of Mannheim.
Please use the address Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for your reply.
************************************************************************
Thomas Diez
Mannheim Centre for European Social Research
Mannheimer Zentrum fuer Europaeische Sozialforschung
Steubenstrasse
D-68131 Mannheim
Tel. ++49-(0)621-292-8465
Fax. ++49-(0)621-292-8435
Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
************************************************************************