Attempts to define the strand of postmodern theory in the field of contemporary international relations are often overwhelmed by the challenge of having ‘to make intelligible some of the different problematique, focii, and theoretical strategies’. As opposed to the analyses of traditional theoretical strands, which attempt to represent their approach as a coherent and unified theory, any analysis of the postmodern must be prepared to navigate what Lapid describes as a ‘confusing array of only remotely related philosophical articulations,’ which shelter beneath the ‘rather loosely patched-up umbrella’ of postmodernity.
As a result of the fact that ‘most secondary works on Hegel’s political philosophy neglect its international dimension or tend to limit the latter to [his] account of war’, it would seem that the full scope of Hegelian thought has had a limited impact on contemporary international theory. Appearances can be deceiving. While we might not find many international theorists who would actively identify as Hegelians, Hegel’s work has informed many different strands of international theory, often in unexpected ways.
Nearly half a century separate Cardinal Richelieu and Francesco Guicciardini but the parallels between the two men betray the similarities in their understanding of power politics and theories of negotiation. Richelieu may have operated outside the Renaissance and Guicciardini from its Florentine apex, but both were influenced by the developing political theories of early modern Europe and the realist raison d’ état of Machiavelli; Guicciardini counted Machiavelli as a friend, and Richelieu was his intellectual descendent – the first politician to prosecute state national interest above notions of medieval universal Christian morality.
Feminism is a relatively new force in politics. It addresses the underlying assumptions that make politics a male-dominated discipline and seeks to improve the position of women within it. In recent decades feminism has been present throughout the world in varying forms and has begun to make an impact in many regions.
Gender is one of the most crucial aspects of individual identity and it is closely linked to ideas of war. Elshtain’s ‘Just Warriors’ and ‘Beautiful Souls’, her portrayal of the ideal gender types for western society, make clear the war roles that each of us is encouraged to aspire to in peace-time society. Patriarchy refers broadly to rule by men and can be seen almost universally. In this essay I will examine the patriarchy of the international system and the international relations theory that serves to reinforce and recreate the male-dominated nature of this system.
Gender categorisations are an inherent part of our culture; we accept them as an essential part of our identity and use them continually. To challenge the ‘truth’ or desirableness of concepts such as ‘woman’ or ‘man’ is a radical proposal but one which is increasingly put forward by post-structuralist feminists and queer theorists.
For Bourdieu, ‘The only way to bring about organisational change that does not entail merely replacing one modality of domination with another is to address specifically and to undo the mechanisms of dehistoricisation and universalisation – “always and everywhere has it been this way” – whereby arbitrary workings of power are enabled to continue.’ (Emirbayer and Johnson, forthcoming; 47-8)
The idea of poverty as a security issue has been fairly commonplace since the end of the Cold War. In 1993, the United Nations sought to redefine security with individuals as the referent object; a framework in which poverty is one of the principal security threats as it significantly reduces quality and quantity of life. At the same time, poverty was gaining importance in the security agendas of states. This is based on the idea that poverty is a threat to the rich as well as the poor and that an unequal world is an unstable one; a view that has become very powerful in the years since September, 2001. This essay will address the implications of this second type of securitisation – world poverty as a threat to the west.
India is often seen as a post-colonial success story. It is the world’s largest democracy with a thriving civil society and a culture of pluralism and tolerance. Despite its huge size and multi-ethnic character, conflict has been rare and multiple groups coexist peacefully. The major exception to this is the religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims which has spilled over into violence numerous times in the years since independence. Recently there has been a rise in communal rioting linked to the ascendancy of Hindu right wing politics will I will address specifically in this essay.
Within the discourse on development, there has been a fundamental intransigence of neo-liberal principles and attitudes to development. At the heart of this discourse, is a fundamental judgement about the ‘truth’ of human nature. Humans are innately stable, pre-determined entities that generally behave as autonomous, egoistic, utility maximisers. Thus with this ontological question answered the building of structures, be they financial or ones of governance, should be based upon allowing the subject to flourish within this system. At the heart of this is the emphasis of ‘le Politique’, the smooth economic running of things, over ‘la Politique’, the more philosophical debate about how we consider the ontological make-up of people, and if we can even do this.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
