The ASEAN-ISIS Network: Interpretive Communities, Informal Diplomacy and Discourses of Region

Stone, Diane

doi:10.1007/s11024-011-9171-5

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, work derived from this tendency in EU studies can be applied to regions outside Europe. For example, Mark Aspinwall (2009) has shown persuasively that the Europeanization literature can 'travel' to NAFTA, and much of the informal governance literature is perfectly applicable to contexts beyond the EU (Blatter, 2001;Christiansen andPiattoni, 2003: Elliott, 2012;Helmke and Levitsky, 2004;Peters, 2006;Stone, 2011). Second, the governance turn in EU studies reflects and is related to a broader shift in the way that politics happens under the conditions of both neoliberalism and globalization; in other words, the very fact that states and civil society actors have turned to regional structures and processes in recent years is part of the shift, or transformation, from 'government' to 'governance' (Blatter, 2003;Hettne, 2003;Hettne and Söderbaum, 2008).…”

Section: From the General To The Particularmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Greatly exaggerated’: the death of EU studies–new regionalism dialogue? A reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

Rosamond¹,

Warleigh‐Lack²

2013

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent piece in this journal Jørgensen and Valbjørn (2012) develop a typology of intellectual dialogue across fields that yields rather negative conclusions about the prospects for sustainable dialogue between 'European studies' and the 'new regionalism'. This response explains why we dispute this pessimistic conclusion. First, we argue that while their derivation of models of dialogue is impressive, it is nonetheless incomplete. Using Jørgensen and Valbjørn's premises, we derive a 'market' mode of dialogue that represents a challenge to their assumption that dialogue will tend towards hierarchy. Second, we accept that there are important 'sociology of knowledge' impediments to effective dialogue within political science and International Relations, but maintain that Jørgensen and Valbjørn fail to work through the question of 'dialogue between whom?' We argue that methodological division is the most significant impediment to dialogue, but maintain that withinmethodology dialogue is more than viable in the case under scrutiny in this debate. Third, having established these general parameters of disagreement, we move to a number of more particular criticisms of the assumptions made by Jørgensen and Valbjørn about our own calls for dialogue between scholars in these two fields.

show abstract

Section: From the General To The Particularmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Greatly exaggerated’: the death of EU studies–new regionalism dialogue? A reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

Rosamond¹,

Warleigh‐Lack²

2013

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stanley Fish's (1980) discussion of "interpretive communities" emphasizes the links between meaning-making, social structures, and frames of reference (Fontaine 1988;Goodheart 1983;Kálmán 1997;Stone 2011). As an analytical frame, the idea of interpretive communities has been compared to "linguistic communities," arguing that the meaning is contingent to a set of cultural assumptions (Farrer 2015).…”

Section: Interpretive Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This includes definitions of resources and even source selection (Shahzad 2011;Zelizer 1993). In other words, interpretive communities serve as powerful channels in the process of receiving, analyzing, and retaining the meaning of cultural symbols (Farrer 2015;Stone 2011).…”

Section: Fish Statedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interpretive communities provide insight, as well as limiting frames, specifically in terms of what is considered politically feasible (Stone 2011). As a result, groups in conflict may not only be unable to reach compromise, it may be difficult for members to even consider what sort of future actions can be taken by other units of governance to benefit both sides.…”

Section: Fish Statedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Who Speaks for (and Feeds) the Community? Competing Definitions of “Community” in the Austin, TX, Urban Farm Debate

Romero

Harris

2019

City & Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternative food supporters claim that food produced outside the corporate system can improve the wellbeing of communities. A closer look at these claims raises the question: How are members of the alternative food movement defining “community” and who is being included in and excluded from these definitions? We draw from in–depth interviews with (1) urban famers and their supporters and (2) neighborhood members of gentrifying East Austin to examine irreconcilable disputes on the process of rewriting Austin's urban farm code. We use Stanley Fish's concept of “interpretive communities” to understand competing definitions of “community” and theorize beyond this point by noting that when communities feel at threat, they come together as coalesced communities to gain support for their stance. The discussions in this paper can be situated within dialogues of critical geography, gentrification, alternative foodways, and public health to show how class, race, and ethnicity remain tied to environmental justice.

show abstract

“…Table all of which are waning somewhat in relation to other dialogue mechanisms such as the Shangri-La Dialogue and the Boao Forum (Stone, 2011;.…”

Section: It Acts In Tandem With Other Similar Bodies (Such As the Conmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Group of 20 transnational policy community: governance networks, policy analysis and think tanks

Stone¹

2015

International Review of Administrative Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The G20 is an evolving international institution. Aided by both advances in information technology and support from home governments, a number of knowledge actors and networks seek to influence global economic governance with policy analysis and advice. This paper assesses the international G20 think tank network called Think20 and the policy advocacy of private research institutes (such the Lowy Institute in Australia and the Centre for International Governance and Innovation in Canada) which are in the orbit of the G20 policy community. Think20 assists the global economic governance processes of the G20 by developing 'coordinative discourses' for policy development and implementation.

show abstract

The ASEAN-ISIS Network: Interpretive Communities, Informal Diplomacy and Discourses of Region

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

‘Greatly exaggerated’: the death of EU studies–new regionalism dialogue? A reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

‘Greatly exaggerated’: the death of EU studies–new regionalism dialogue? A reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

Who Speaks for (and Feeds) the Community? Competing Definitions of “Community” in the Austin, TX, Urban Farm Debate

The Group of 20 transnational policy community: governance networks, policy analysis and think tanks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About