Many Worlds, Many Theories?

Inoue, Cristina Yumie Aoki; Tickner, Arlene B.

doi:10.1590/0034-7329201600201

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“….and how perhaps to create a middle path'. 176 . Since Global IR traverses the thresholds of Western and non-Western worlds, it delivers a venue to crush geo-epistemological divides and carve that middle path.…”

Section: Global Ir: a Paradigm? No A Research Programmementioning

confidence: 99%

How to Problematize the Global?

Witt

Anderl

Acharya

et al. 2022

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International Relations (IR) has long been criticized for taking a particular (Western) experience as basis for formulating theories with claim to universal validity. In response, recent discussions have therefore centered on making IR ‘truly global’, that is, more inclusive and less parochial in its language and substance. But the concept of the global underpinning this discussion is both illusive and strongly contested. It requires problematization. But how? In this Forum, scholars discuss this question with a forward-looking agenda. Building on recent critical engagements with the question of the global as a concept in general and Global IR specifically, the authors ask how the global should be problematized in order to achieve a (more) progressive agenda for IR. They draw on different regional and disciplinary perspectives to both further the agenda of a less exclusive and racist discipline without falling into the trap of shallow inclusivity, and to discuss ways of problematizing the global without falling back into nativism or nationalism. Comment problématiser la globalité ?

show abstract

Section: Global Ir: a Paradigm? No A Research Programmementioning

confidence: 99%

How to Problematize the Global?

Witt

Anderl

Acharya

et al. 2022

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They point out, for example, the marginalisation of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding and addressing the governance challenges of global environmental change. Such knowledge, these scholars argue, is vital, however, in bringing a more holistic worldview of nature and of human-nature relationships in contrast to the dichotomies (human versus nature) produced by modernity (Inoue and Moreira 2016;Inoue and Tickner 2016;Parsons et al 2017). This is because many indigenous cultures place a higher value on the spiritual and non-material aspects of all living species than what is often represented by Western discourses and governance approaches (see also Kohler et al 2019).…”

Section: Interplay Between Access and Allocation And Other Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemological and ethical understandings of access and allocation in Earth System Governance: a 10-year review of the literature

Kalfagianni

Meisch

2020

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access and allocation" is one of the five analytical problems identified as key for analysing earth system governance in the first Earth System Governance Science and Implementation Plan officially published in 2009. Ten years later and with a new Science and Implementation Plan in place, it is time to take stock. Therefore, this paper addresses the question: What does a decadal review of the Earth System Governance literature tell us about how to conceptualize and define access and allocation, what ethical norms and epistemologies underlie access and allocation research, and what does Earth System Governance scholarship reveal about the interplay between access and allocation and other norms? We find that: (a) there is a relatively small body of the Earth System Governance literature on access and allocation, albeit growing; (b) this literature is largely empirical and dispersed across a variety of topics; and (c) there is a diversity of ethical norms and principles emphasized in Earth System Governance scholarship, but the dynamics between different forms of access and related implications for allocation are relatively underexplored. In light of these findings and with a new Earth System Governance Science and Implementation Plan in place, this paper highlights key areas for further research and development.

show abstract

“…The use of ideas to maintain the US dominance over Latin America is the main subject of the article presented here. In this sense, this study is a theoretical effort to rethink International Relations -largely a US, state-centric, and androcentric domain (Hoffman, 1977;Tickner, 2003;Acharya and Buzan, 2010;Tickner and Inoue, 2016;Villa et al 2017) -from the perspective of Neo-Gramscian Critical Theory. Indeed, Antonio Gramsci was fundamental to understand and emphasize the role of ideas and intellectuals from a Marxist perspective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, this study seeks to build a bridge between the already established consensus about the US academic domain in the scope of International Relations -specifically in the formation of the fundamental theories of the area (Hoffman 1977;Tickner 2003;Acharya and Buzan 2010;Tickner and Inoue 2016;Villa et al 2017) and the empirical study of this domination on the political and ideological place in Latin America. If, as Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) state, theory without empiricism is empty and empiricism without theory is blind; the effort here takes place, in particular, in the study of US interference in South American countries through a US 'pedagogical' effort.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Vidal

2023

Contexto int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is a theoretical effort to rethink International Relations from the perspective of Neo-Gramscian Critical Theory in which its empirical object is the US hegemony in the scope of Latin America. More specifically, this study refers to the fabrication of consensus directed by an American ruling class through its own vehicle for this – the Atlas Network – which finds legitimacy and support in its Latin American counterparts. Based on primary data, public documents, and specialised bibliography, this study aims to contribute to the rethinking of International Relations using this institute as an object of empirical relation to theoretical study. More than presenting domination strategies through private hegemony apparatus, this study encourages us to reflect on relatively forgotten (or marginalised) practices and concepts in International Relations, such as imperialism, hegemony, and the role of consensus building. Finally, from Critical Theory, it contributes to understand the role of ruling classes in the creation of consensus in subaltern countries and classes to maintain this same hegemonic structure.

show abstract

Many Worlds, Many Theories?

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

How to Problematize the Global?

How to Problematize the Global?

Epistemological and ethical understandings of access and allocation in Earth System Governance: a 10-year review of the literature

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About