From Wendt to Kuhn: Reviving the ‘Third Debate’ in International Relations

Aalberts, Tanja; Munster, Rens van

doi:10.1057/ip.2008.26

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More systematic study of emotions in IR will also address the concern that most political scientists, including IR scholars, believe emotions to be opposite to and thus inferior to rational cognitive decision‐making processes 22 . It would respond to concerns that recent IR work, for example among constructivists, has neglected the role of agency in world politics, such that agents have become “undersocialized” (Aalberts and van Munster 2008:729) with less focus on how structures impact on and condition the behavior of actors. At the same time, IET can help speak to alternate criticisms that emotions‐type factors are perhaps relevant to FPA, but not to the broader discipline of IR because they are too unit level (see Hymans’ discussion of Lebow, Hymans 2010:461–462).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theorizing States’ Emotions1

Sasley

2011

International Studies Review

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article starts from the assumption that emotions are inherently part of life in the international system, but that this is not as well reflected in the discipline of International Relations. The study of emotions can be incorporated more systematically into the discipline through more rigorous theorizing about how states-as main actors in world politicsexperience and act on emotions. To do so, I draw on intergroup emotions theory, an emerging area of research in social psychology. This approach points out the process by which groups come to have emotional reactions, and from there how emotions generate intergroup perceptions and intergroup behavior-or foreign policies in the case of states. Understanding states-as-groups addresses many of the criticisms mainstream IR scholars direct toward the study of emotions, including how individual-level factors such as emotions matter for intergroup relationships.1 I would like to thank the following people for reading earlier drafts of the paper and facilitating a sharpening of the argument: Widmaier. Exchanges with Andrew Ross helped me better understand the relationship between constructivism and emotions. Positive and constructive comments from three anonymous reviewers, as well as helpful discussions with the editors, improved the presentation of the argument.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theorizing States’ Emotions1

Sasley

2011

International Studies Review

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is one important caveat, though, and that is a genuine interest in interdisciplinary dialogue, driven by curiosity, intellectual exchange, and real engagement, accepting the other (discipline) as different and equal at the same time. 21 This means refraining from making caricatures, straw men, or prostitutes of the other discipline, as well as being ready to face the limits and biases of my own perspective. As such, interdisciplinarity can be characterized as a mental outlook that combines curiosity with open-mindedness and a spirit of adventure and discovery.…”

Section: The Politics Of International Law and The Perils And Promisementioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of International Law and the Perils and Promises of Interdisciplinarity

Aalberts¹

2013

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the previous editorial, Larissa van den Herik and Jean d'Aspremont referred to LJIL's ‘special plural identity’. On the one hand, this plurality shows in its table of contents; on the other hand, the plural identity is equally – if not even more – treasured in terms of appreciating the plurality of voices within the legal discipline, as the editors-in-chief also highlight. Diversity and heterogeneity are an asset for academic debate, and LJIL as such seeks to provide a forum for scholars from different ‘paradigms’. The appreciation of diversity and plurality is also reflected in the interest of LJIL to look beyond the confines of the legal discipline itself and engage with external perspectives to foster discussions about international law. It is in light of this open-mindedness and the wish to reach out to non-legal audiences, and to the international relations community in particular, that I was invited to join the LJIL team some years ago. Whereas there is a growing audience of IR scholars genuinely interested in (theorizing) international law, LJIL is not very well known as a journal with that profile for its International Legal Theory section. As a leading scholar in IR once remarked: ‘LJIL is the best kept secret in IR’. So when the request came for me to write an editorial, it seemed only apt to reflect upon some of the perils and promises of interdisciplinarity from my experience as an IR scholar within the LJIL editorial board.

show abstract

“…Some refer to it as the "third debate"(Aalberts and Van Munster 2008) while others understand that it should be characterized as part of a "forth debate" instead(Kurki and Wight 2013). The "Great Debates" in International Relations (IR) have been responsible for the theoretical development of the field and even to its birth as an autonomous discipline.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Construction of Identities in Protracted Conflicts

Ricarte

2022

Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter focuses on the concepts of identity and conflict. Drawing from many others who place identity as the central factor explaining the mutually reinforcing dynamics of protracted conflicts and protracted peace processes, this chapter suggests that the processes of identity building in protracted conflicts bear specific characteristics due to the multigenerational aspects of these contexts. The argument developed is that peace processes in this kind of conflicts tend to become protracted themselves, turning into a structure of their own that impact perceptions about the ‘self’ and the ‘other’, thus influencing the negative dimension of identity—the detachment or difference from others—and, therefore, the very behavior and interests of actors involved in the conflict. For this reason, identity and violence must be read as mutually constituted in the cases of historical conflicts, making it impossible to discuss conflict transformation without addressing the main categories of identity and violence, as well as their interconnectedness.

show abstract

From Wendt to Kuhn: Reviving the ‘Third Debate’ in International Relations

Cited by 9 publications

References 62 publications

Theorizing States’ Emotions1

Theorizing States’ Emotions1

The Politics of International Law and the Perils and Promises of Interdisciplinarity

The Construction of Identities in Protracted Conflicts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About