Paradigmatic Faults in International-Relations Theory

Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus; Nexon, Daniel H.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00562.x

Cited by 80 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The concepts of role-taking, role-making, and alter-casting are employed as Weberian ideal-types (Weber 1997;Jackson and Nexon 2009). They represent a conceptual schema designed to capture the core elements of interaction as seen from a symbolic interactionist perspective.…”

Section: A Meadian Interactionist Approach: Step II -Analytical Concementioning

confidence: 99%

The roles states play: a Meadian interactionist approach

McCourt

2011

J Int Relat Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constructivist scholars have largely limited their view of how state action is socially constructed to the concepts of norms and identity. As for individuals, however, roleplaying is also a core aspect of state activity. I demonstrate the potential of this concept for constructivists on the basis of a reconsideration of the roles states play in international politics -drawing on symbolic interactionism and in particular the thought of G.H. Mead. From a Meadian perspective, roles are sets of appropriate behaviours, not bundles of fixed duties; they emerge in interaction and give the actor a sense of its structure and the scope of possible action. Roles are thus the necessary social vehicle for action in its meaning-creating, identityaffirming sense. Using the illustration of the Suez Crisis of 1956, I develop a 'Meadian interactionist' conceptual approach that builds on previous attempts to harness the potential of the role concept in International Relations (IR) and sharpens constructivist understandings of the links between role, identity, norms, and action in IR.

show abstract

Section: A Meadian Interactionist Approach: Step II -Analytical Concementioning

confidence: 99%

The roles states play: a Meadian interactionist approach

McCourt

2011

J Int Relat Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Research programme" bersifat progresif, terus mengalami pertumbuhan, menghasilkan fakta-fakta baru, prediksi, teknik, bahkan teori baru yang konsisten dengan elemen intinya (Brown, (2013). Sebaliknya, dalam kenyataan, tidak ada satupun teori HI yang benarbenar memenuhi kriteria Lakatos tersebut (Brown, (2013, p. 488) (Nexon, 2009).…”

Section: Matinya Teori Hi?unclassified

Perkembangan Dan Permasalahan Teorisasi Hubungan Internasional Pasca “Perdebatan”

Mantra

2015

JHI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are two contradictory narratives those enframe the contemporary development of International Relations (IR) AbstrakAda dua narasi kontradiktif yang membingkai perkembangan teori Hubungan Internasional. Di satu sisi muncul semacam kerisauan akan berakhirnya teori HI seiring dengan semakin absennya perdebatan yang mewarnai perkembangan studi ini. Sementara itu, pada sisi lain, terdapat narasi yang justru merayakan optimisme akan berseminya bunga-bunga teori sebagai tanda yang cerah bagi masa depan perkembangan studi hubungan internasional. Problem dari gejala pertama adalah munculnya semacam "debatisme" yang melahirkan kesalahan persepsi atas sejarah perkembangan teori hubungan internasional. Sedang fenomena kedua mengidap problem berupa miskinnya debat-debat filosofis dan mendasar yang amat diperlukan dalam memperkaya perspektif hubungan internasional. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk membingkai dua kecenderungan tersebut untuk kemudian melihat ruangruang baru eksplorasi teoritis yang penting dalam perkembangan studi Hubungan Internasional. Kata kunci: debat studi hubungan internasional, keragaman, teorisasi, kontruksi http://dx

show abstract

“…This dynamic is anticipated in Robert Keohane’s identification of a rationalist synthesis between neo‐realism and neo‐liberalism (Waever 1996:163; see also Katzenstein, Keohane, and Krasner 1999) on the basis of common epistemic principles. It is also evident in the construction of “liberal‐constructivist” and “realist‐constructivist” perspectives (Jackson and Nexon 2009; Barkin 2010).…”

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%