DOCSLIB.ORG

The Construction of the American Standard of Civilization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Construction of the American Standard of Civilization THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF CIVILIZATION by Taesuh Cha A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland May, 2016 © 2016 Taesuh Cha All Rights Reserved Abstract This dissertation asks how American identity was formed, contested, and manifested through its interaction with two significant Others — the European empires and the Native Americans — during the country’s formative era in order to understand the origins of American liberal internationalism and popular imperialism. I argue that American identity was constituted in two different ways: as a transformative state against the Westphalian system, and as a civilizing force over “barbarian” natives. Two of the main US foreign policy orientations — the Jeffersonian and the Jacksonian traditions— result from these formative encounters. I demonstrate that a hierarchical, tripartite model of the “standard of civilization” in American security discourse emerged at the turn of the nineteenth century: the USA was at the top, as the revolutionary vanguard of human progress; European international society, which would be eventually reformed in America’s own image, is in the middle; and at the bottom are non-white Others who need to be removed or assimilated. By examining plural and contested American identities and their contending foreign policy traditions, this study offers a new perspective on several important historical and contemporary features of American foreign policy. With the constructivist prism of identity–interest–policy contestations and mixtures, the United States’ contradictory and differentiated attitudes towards the West and the “Rest” can be explained. Underlying my academic interests is an ethical concern about the trajectory of inter-civilizational relationship in modern global politics. This project sheds light on the exclusivist form of American exceptionalism that is obsessed with the representation of “inferior” Others, as well as a desire to reconstruct them in the American image. By engaging this normative question about dialogues among different civilizations, this research explores alternative options for US grand strategy in the age of the War on Terrorism. ii First reader: Daniel H. Deudney Second reader: Renée Marlin-Bennett Third reader: Adam Sheingate iii Acknowledgements Long before the argument presented in this dissertation crystallized, the intellectual seeds were planted and nurtured by my teachers. I have been privileged to have been educated by a series of extraordinary universities. At Johns Hopkins, first and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee, Daniel Deudney, Renée Marlin-Bennett, and Adam Sheingate. In particular, Dan Deudney, as my advisor, has overseen the planning of this research project and have given my work minute consideration for over six years. I can never fully repay him, except to promise that I will try my best to emulate his remarkable example when I myself begin to advise my own students in the future. I should also mention a special word of appreciation for Siba Grovogui, Bentley Allan, Michael Hanchard, and P.J. Brendese. In addition, I was especially fortunate to be taught by many outstanding and inspiring professors at Seoul National University. I am deeply indebted to Young-Sun Ha, Jung-Woon Choi, Wookhee Shin, and Chaesung Chun. Earlier versions of parts of this dissertation were presented at several annual conventions of the American Political Science Association (2015), the International Studies Association (2015; 2016), the International Studies Association-Northeast (2014; 2015), and JHU Racism, Immigration, & Citizenship Graduate Student Conference (2015). I am deeply indebted to Mlada Bukovansky, Elizabeth Cohen, N.D.B. Connolly, Julian Go, Xavier Guillaume, Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, Michael Lind, John Mearsheimer, John Mitton, Jennifer Mitzen, Joseph Parent, Peter Trubowitz, and Lora Viola, who offered valuable comments on my conference papers. I similarly benefited greatly from the comments from John M. Hobson, Ted Hopf, and Daniel Nexon. Additionally, Peter Katzenstein deserves special mention. Although he never knew me before, he expressed his great interest in my project and gave excellent suggestions not only for my research and but also for my future career, when I visited Cornell. His warm hospitality and moral support meant a lot to me. iv I am also grateful to my Hopkins graduate colleagues, Kavi Abraham, Yehonatan Abramson, Hitomi Koyama, Casey McNeill, Benjamin Meiches, Elizabeth Mendenhall, Chad Shomura, Tarek Tutunji, and Túlio Zille for their camaraderie. When it comes to writing a dissertation abroad, an international student’s family pays a big price. My parents, Hyojoon Cha and Hwasook Kim, have always been there for me. They have provided all sorts of tangible and intangible support. I am very happy that they no longer need to ask me, “When are you going to finish it?” It is to them that I dedicate The Construction of the American Standard of Civilization. Lastly, I would like to offer my special thanks to Youngran Park, my dearest friend. A brilliant graduate student and ambitious young scientist in her own right, she understands the process of academic research and all the emotional stresses and frustrations that go with it. She always supported me in times of struggle and was a willing (I believe!) audience whenever I needed to vent while writing the dissertation. Without her, I would not have been able to finish my Ph.D. study. v Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Analytic Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 4 III. The New World vs. The Old World: The Revolutionary State against the European International System ................................................................................................................................................... 48 IV. Civilization vs. Barbarism: the White “Civilizing” State against the Red “Savages” . 80 V. The Two Contending Traditions and the Three-Tier Model ........................................................ 114 VI. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 130 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................. 154 Author’s Biographical Sketch ............................................................................................................................. 184 vi List of Tables Table 1 Bifurcation of the US Foreign Policy Traditions .................................... 41 Table 2 Antifederalists vs. Federalists ................................................................. 65 Table 3 Hamiltonian Realism vs. Jeffersonian Liberal Internationalism ............ 77 List of Figures Figure 1 Evolving Material Structures in Early Modern North America ............ 48 Figure 2 Three Models of Federal "Indian" Policy ........................................... 101 Figure 3 The American Standard of Civilization ............................................... 126 vii I. Introduction This dissertation asks how American exceptional identities were formed, contested, and manifested through their interaction with two significant Others, the European empires and the Native Americans, during the United States’ formative era (circa. 1754/56~1823/31). I argue that, in the wider systemic context of hegemonic rivalry between Britain and France, US identity, informed by its European discursive heritage–Republicanism, Christianity, and the Enlightenment–and entangled with two negative Others, was constituted in two different ways: as a transformative state against the Westphalian system and as a civilizing force over “barbarian” natives. Two of the main US foreign policy doctrines or contending conceptualizations of the national role with American characteristics, the Madisonian/Jeffersonian tradition (the origin of liberal internationalism) and the Jacksonian tradition (the origin of popular imperialism), were produced by these ambivalent American Selves. In this context, a hierarchical, tripartite model of the “standard of civilization” in American foreign policy discourse emerged at the turn of the nineteenth century. First, it defines the nature of the international system as well as the place of the nation in the world. Second, it produces a particular American attitude toward the outside: the USA at the top as a revolutionary vanguard of human progress, European international society that should be negotiated and reformed in the American own image later in the middle, and at the bottom, the “Rest,” non-white Others that need to be removed or assimilated. My study aims to offer an alternative hypothesis on US foreign policy by constructing a causal/constitutive mechanism between American exceptional identities, interests, and practices. It is a competing argument against the conventional structuralist/materialist understanding of US diplomacy in that America’s foreign behaviors will be illustrated as the outcome of its socially constructed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stretching the IR Theoretical Spectrum of Debate on Irish Neutrality: Arguments and Evidence in Favor of a Critical Social Constructivist Framework of Understanding
    An Article Submitted to International Political Science Review Manuscript 1105 Stretching the IR theoretical spectrum of debate on Irish neutrality: arguments and evidence in favor of a critical social constructivist framework of understanding. Karen Devine* * Dublin City University [email protected] Copyright c2007 by the author. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ABSTRACT . In a 2006 IPRS article, entitled Choosing to Go It Alone: Irish Neutrality in Theoretical and Comparative Perspective, Neal G. Jesse argues that Irish neutrality is best understood through a neoliberal rather than a neorealist IR theory framework. This article posits an alternative ‘critical social constructivist’ framework of understanding of Irish neutrality. The first part of the article considers the differences between neoliberalism and social constructivism and argues why critical social constructivism’s emphasis on beliefs, identity and the agency of the public in foreign policy are key factors explaining Irish neutrality today. Using public opinion data, the second part of the paper tests whether national identity, independence, ethnocentrism, attitudes to Northern Ireland and efficacy are factors driving public support for Irish neutrality. The results show that public attitudes to Irish neutrality are structured along the dimensions of independence and identity, indicating empirical support for a critical social constructivist framework understanding of Irish neutrality. Key words : ● critical social constructivism ● neutrality ● Ireland ● public opinion _______________________________________________________________ 1 Stretching the IR theoretical spectrum of debate on Irish neutrality: arguments and evidence in favor of a critical social constructivist framework of understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Essay
    Review Essay Toward an Old New Paradigm in American International Relations by Karl Walling Karl Walling is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI. He is also a FPRI Senior Scholar. Daniel H. Deudney, Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village (Princeton: University Press, 2007). ]NELID$[T David C. Hendrickson, Union, Nation, or Empire: The American Debate over International Relations, 1789–1941 (Kansas: University Press, 2009). [TD$INLE] David C. Hendrickson, Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding (Kansas: University Press, 2003). [TD$INLE] # 2011 Published by Elsevier Limited on behalf of Foreign Policy Research Institute. Spring 2011 | 325 Review Essay George C. Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford: University Press, 2008). [TD$INLE] Walter L. Hixson, The Myth of American Diplomacy (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008). [TD$INLE] How Americans study the history of their foreign relations is changing almost as rapidly as the international environment. In this review, we see Walter L. Hixson applying intellectually fashionable critical theory to American diplo- macy and George C. Herring inviting a host of non-state actors on to the diplomatic stage. Together, David C. Hendrickson and Daniel H. Deudney come close to (re)inventing a discipline by treating American foreign policy as a particular species of a much larger and older intellectual tradition dating back at least as far as ancient Greece. Perhaps for this reason, Deudney’s book was awarded the prize for the best book of the decade by the International Studies Association.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Formulation an Anti-Authoritarian Review of Books
    THE NEW FORMULATION AN ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN REVIEW OF BOOKS February 2003 Volume 2, Number 1 Volume Two, Issue One February 2003 Editor: Chuck Morse Copy Editors: Matt Hoffmann, Erin Royster, Matt Stoner, Shanti Salas, with help from Paul Glavin and Nur Yavuz Cover Illustration: "Vineta para Invitation" by Leopoldo Mendez, 1944. The New Formulation 2620 Second Avenue, #4B San Diego, CA 92103-U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] On the Internet: http://flag.blackened.net/nf7index.htm Biannual Subscriptions: $7 in the United States and $10 elsewhere. Please make checks payable to Charles Morse. © 2003 The New Formulation Statement to Contributors: Contributions are encouraged. This journal is restricted to comparative book reviews. Reviews must examine the failings and virtues of books for a contemporary anarchist theory and politics. Anarchism is understood here as a doctrine seeking the abolition of capitalism, the nation-state, and hierarchy generally, and the creation of a cooperative economy, a decentralized confederation of communes or municipalities, and a culture of liberation. The deadline for the next issue is July 1, 2003. Each review must treat at least two books and one must have been published in the previous two years. In some cases, reviews of works in other media (such as film) will be accepted. Reviews of two books should be between 2,500 to 3,000 words and reviews of three should be 3,500 to 4,000 words. Contents P r o g r a m 1 The State in Hyper-Drive: the Post-September 11th U.S. by Paul Glavin 2 Review of Silencing Political
    [Show full text]
  • ECSP Report 3
    FOREWORD by P.J . Simmons, Editor ust over two years ago, then U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Madeleine K. Albright Jargued that “environmental degradation is not simply an irritation, but a real threat to our national security.” As Secretary of State, Ms. Albright has already indicated that she intends to build upon the pathbreaking initia- tive of her predecessor, Warren Christopher, to make environmental issues “part of the mainstream of American foreign policy.” On Earth Day 1997, Albright issued the State Department’s first annual report on “Environmen- tal Diplomacy: the Environment and U.S. Foreign Policy.” In it, Secretary Albright asserted that global environ- mental damage “threatens the health of the American people and the future of our economy” and that “environ- mental problems are often at the heart of the political and economic challenges we face around the world.” Noting that “we have moved beyond the Cold War definition of the United States’ strategic interests,” Vice President Gore argued the Department’s report “documents an important turning point in U.S. foreign policy— a change the President and I strongly support.” Similar sentiments expressed by officials in the United States and abroad indicate the growing interest in the interactions among environmental degradation, natural re- source scarcities, population dynamics, national interests and security.* The breadth and diversity of views and initiatives represented in this issue of the Environmental Change and Security Project Report reflect the advances in research, contentious political debates and expanding parameters of this important field of academic and policy inquiry. As a neutral forum for discussion, the Report includes articles asserting strong connections between environment and security as well as more skeptical analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • More Than a Paycheck
    More than a paycheck NEWS FROM THE WAR TAX RESISTANCE MOVEMENT April/May 2 01 2 Stop the Money Who says this must be so? California Who cares that this is so? Oakland — Northern California War Tax I shudder that the raids and bombs Resistance joins with CodePINK, Occupy have made us less than human. Oakland, and others in GDAMS demonstra - tion, April 17, 12-4 pm, Oakland Federal I wish to go to our deserted schools Building, 1301 Clay St. Press conference, to understand why we are like this. speakers, music, and visuals on the histori - I used to dream of space, cal extent of U.S. military interventions and costs. March to nearby state building to join blue skies and gentler people. protest against cuts to education funding. I heard mother through her burqa Info: (510) 842-6124 or nowartax.org . pleading “Please stop! Petaluma — War tax resisters participate Stop the money. Stop the killing. in The Really Really Free Market Occupy Petaluma Public Event, April 14, 1-5 pm. Stop.” Music, workshops, clothes, art, kid’s activi - Another local explosion, ties, plants, seeds, community! One person can make a big statement. Rosalie more international lies. facebook.com/events/409991702351215 . Riegle, Tax Day 2 011, Evanston, IL. Photo courtesy Our global problem is that continued on page 4 of Neighbors for Peace. guns impose greater force than common sense or vision, which tells me that my mother’s world is crashing. What Does Conscience Require? By Berry Friesen athy Kelly quoted these lines from Hakim of the Afghan Youth Peace aying taxes that are used for war has annual federal tax return to witness for peace K long been a vexing problem for those and against the wars that have become a per - Volunteers in the December 2 011 P whose conscience forbids direct partici - manent feature of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village, Daniel H
    Reviews Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village, Daniel H. Deudney (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006), 384 pp., $35 cloth, $24.95 paper. With Bounding Power, Daniel Deudney Long in gestation, Bounding Power is a makes a masterly contribution to the ren- vigorously argued and sophisticated book, aissance of classical political theory in which contains a number of important contemporary thought about world poli- strands of discussion that combine to tics; in this regard he follows Michael make the case for what Deudney labels ‘‘re- Doyle and others in demonstrating how a publican security theory.’’ One important fresh reading of the historical traditions strand of the book is its reconstruction of that lie behind contemporary theoretical the concepts of anarchy (an absence of formulations can generate new per- authoritative order) and hierarchy (order spectives on both theory and practice. In established through subordination), and the case of Doyle’s work, a key theme has their reorientation around Deudney’s new been exploring the intellectual roots of formulation, ‘‘negarchy,’’ characterized by liberalism in international relations and the presence of mutual restraints with a thecontoursofliberalpeacetheory—the primary role in generating ordered rela- idea that liberal democracies are not tionships. Two of the heroes of Deudney’s disposed to go to war against each other. intellectual reconstruction are Hobbes and For Deudney, meanwhile, the central Locke. Hobbes develops his argument for subject is republicanism, and in particular sovereign power as a means by which to the idea that the republican tradition depart from anarchy, whereas Locke ar- of thought about security—with its re- gues for the need to enhance freedom cognition of the interplay of changing without jeopardizing law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate on American Hegemony
    The USS Vandegrift. (Credit: Expert Comment meunierd/Bigstockphoto.com) The debate on American hegemony Copyright © 2019 by Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The right of Brian C. Schmidt to be identified as the author of this publication is hereby asserted. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, please write to the publisher: Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute gGmbH Französische Straße 23 10117 Berlin Germany +49 30 209677900 [email protected] 1 Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The debate on American hegemony Brian C. Schmidt Ian Clark is correct when he writes that “the present state of the ‘hegemony debate’ is, to say the least, confusing” (Clark, 2009, p.24). The aim of this paper is to provide some conceptual and theoretical clarity on the diverse means by which the field of International Relations (IR) understands the concept of hegemony. A secondary aim is to consider what these different theoretical accounts of hegemony have to say about the debate on American hegemony. After reviewing several different definitions of hegemony, I find that the concept embodies two main ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Help Decide the Future of SJ County Iran: We Need to Stop the Next
    San Joaquin County’s Alternative Newspaper PRICELESS connections Volume XXV, Number 2 Published by the Peace & Justice Network since 1986 March 2007 Help decide the Iran: we need to SAVE THE DATES future of SJ County stop the next war As we at FCNL walk the an Iranian diplomatic office in Matt Perry March 10 halls of Congress lobbying Erbil, Iraq has caused tensions The population of against the escalation of the not only with Iran but also with foreign policy San Joaquin County war in Iraq, we are hearing also the government of Iraq, which symposium film ....20 is projected to double new concerns from members of condemned the raids. Adding by 2030, and to grow Congress about President Bush's fuel to this conflict was the White by over a million escalating confrontation with House decision last week to tell March 17 new people by 2050. Iran and President Ahmadinejad's reporters that President Bush has Such dramatic growth escalating confrontation with the authorized U.S. soldiers in Iraq to peace convergence raises major questions: U.S. The president accuses Iran kill or capture Iranians in Iraq that with dolores huerta . Where and how should of sponsoring armed, violent the U.S.administration believes to we grow? Where will groups inside Iraq and said in be aiding Shite milita groups. ...........................20 the roads go? How do a January 29 interview that the A f e w d a y s a f t e r t h a t we want this growth U.S. will 'respond firmly' to any announcement, Vice President to affect our economy, Iranian interference in Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Deudney on Mixed Ontology, Planetary Geopolitics, and Republican Greenpeace
    Theory Talks Presents THEORY TALK #60 DANIEL DEUDNEY ON MIXED ONTOLOGY, PLANETARY GEOPOLITICS, AND REPUBLICAN GREENPEACE Theory Talks is an interactive forum for discussion of debates in International Relations with an emphasis of the underlying theoretical issues. By frequently inviting cutting-edge specialists in the field to elucidate their work and to explain current developments both in IR theory and real-world politics, Theory Talks aims to offer both scholars and students a comprehensive view of the field and its most important protagonists. Citation: Schouten, P. (2013) ‘Theory Talk #60: Daniel Deudney on Mixed Ontology, Planetary Geopolitics, and Republican Greenpeace’, Theory Talks, http://www.theory- talks.org/2013/11/theory-talk-60_285.html (20-11-2013) WWW.THEORY-TALKS.ORG DANIEL DEUDNEY ON MIXED ONTOLOGY, PLANETARY GEOPOLITICS, AND REPUBLICAN GREENPEACE World politics increasingly abrasions with the limits of state-centric thinking, faced as the world is with a set of issues that affect not only us collectively as mankind, but also the planet itself. While much of IR theorizing seems to shirk such realizations, the work of Daniel Deudney has consistently engaged with the complex problems engendered by the entanglements of nuclear weapons, the planetary environment, space exploration, and the kind of political associations that might help us to grapple with our fragile condition as humanity-in-the world. In this elaborate Talk, Deudney—amongst others—lays out his understanding of the fundamental forces that drive both planetary political progress and problems; discusses the kind of ontological position needed to appreciate these problems; and argues for the merits of a republican greenpeace model to political organization.
    [Show full text]
  • A Post-Mortem on the Ideas Debate in Mainstream IR/IPE
    Review of International Studies (2003), 29, 39–60 Copyright © British International Studies Association DOI: 10.1017/S0260210503000032 Duelling constructivisms: a post-mortem on the ideas debate in mainstream IR/IPE JOHN KURT JACOBSEN* Abstract: The ideas debate in mainstream IR/IPE was generated by cumulative dissatis- factions with rational choice theory and with Realist tenets. This article examines the contours of this debate and explains how it reached its limit in the form of ‘conventional constructivism’, a bowdlerised form of critical theory and Gramscian cultural studies. ‘Context’ and Gramsci’s ‘common sense’, however, are sufficiently equivalent terms to enable productive conceptual connections across the intradisciplinary divide. The overarching obstacle remains the resistance of mainstream IR to integration with other social sciences. The experience of a critic putting one’s ideas ‘into context’ often rankles and sometimes with good reason. Except in the rare circumstances of equal status, goodwill and an unstinting search for common ground, as expressed perhaps in Habermas’ ideal speech situation, the exercise can be a subtly negating one that simply fits an adversary’s argument inside one’s own framework in order to tell them what they meant to say if only they had sufficient rigour and wit to do so.1 This tactic is commonly is wielded by mainstream scholars against those on the disciplinary fringes – and, whenever possible, vice versa. The rationales are, for the mainstream, that fringe frameworks such as critical theory and
    [Show full text]
  • The Real Axis of Evil*
    The Real Axis of Evil* by George Katsiaficas Long before North Korea announced in October 2002 that it possesses nuclear weapons, Bush’s infamous “axis of evil” speech was a clear sign that his administration had made North Korea a target.1 In early 2002, the US not only labeled North Korea part of an “axis of evil,” it also threatened to use nuclear weapons against it.2 In the first year and a half of the Bush presidency, there were not any serious talks between the US and North Korea. Moreover, under pressure from right-wing congressmen, the Bush administration reevaluated the 1994 U.S. agreement with North Korea, known as “The Agreed Framework.”3 Although most Americans remain completely unaware of it, in 1994 the US came very close to bombing North Korea unilaterally. “The Agreed Framework” narrowly averted a new Korean War that in the estimation of the US military commander in Korea would have killed more than the 3 million people who lost their lives from 1950-1953.4 Alongside its looming war against Iraq and hostile actions against North Korea, Bush and Co. are today waging wars in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Colombia; they arm Israel and permit it to overrun and destroy Palestinian towns and cities; they are * This is a revised version of a speech given at an international peace conference in Seoul, June 21, 2002. 1 On November 25, 2001, the Sunday New York Times featured a story entitled “After the Taliban, Who? Don’t Forget North Korea.” 2 In March 2002, a Pentagon review of US nuclear policy recommended that the US threaten to use nuclear weapons against 7 countries—including North Korea 3 North Korea agreed to shut down and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
    [Show full text]
  • SIS 801 Schools of Thought in International Relations
    Schools of Thought in International Relations American University School of International Service Fall 2017 SIS 801-001 Amitav Acharya Course Information: Class Hours: Tuesdays 11:20am- 02:10pm, Room SIS 348 Office: SIS 323 Office Hours: Monday 11am-1pm Tuesday 2.30-4pm Other days: by prior appointment only Course Description: International relations (IR) is a relatively young discipline, which by some accounts, goes back to a mere 100 years. Founded in the UK, it really came onto its own as an “American social science”. Now, it is rapidly expanding around the globe, especially in emerging countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Turkey. Yet, from the very beginning, IR and its theories have been deeply contested. Some of the earlier debates in IR were between paradigms (Idealism-Realism, Positivism-Post Positivism, Rationalism- Constructivism, etc.) while the more recent debates have been about whether the discipline is genuinely inclusive and global. Indeed, the future of the discipline itself and of IR theory in particular, is being debated. The aim of this course is to help students develop a command over the major theoretical perspectives and debates in IR. But it also goes beyond the standard conventions and narratives of the discipline to look at the emerging perspectives and examine the possibility of a global IR. Learning Outcomes Through this course students will be able to master basic facts, concepts, and central theoretical debates in the field of international relations. Students will learn to critically engage with theoretical debates and form their own approach to the study of international relations.
    [Show full text]