Jonathan Havercroft. A picture of sovereignty holds the study of politics captive. Captives of Sovereignty looks at the historical origins of this picture of politics, critiques its philosophical assumptions and offers a way to move contemporary critiques of sovereignty beyond their current impasse. The first part of the book is diagnostic. Why, despite their best efforts to critique sovereignty, do political scientists who are dissatisfied with the concept continue to reproduce the logic of sovereignty in their thinking?
Havercroft draws on the writings of Hobbes and Spinoza to argue that theories of sovereignty are produced and reproduced in response to skepticism. The second part of the book draws on contemporary critiques of skeptical arguments by Wittgenstein and Cavell to argue that their alternative way of responding to skepticism avoids the need to invoke a sovereign as the final arbiter of all political disputes.
Halaman terpilih Halaman Judul. The second part of the book draws on contemporary critiques of skeptical arguments by Wittgenstein and Cavell to argue that their alternative way of responding to skepticism avoids the need to invoke a sovereign as the final arbiter of all political disputes.
Introduction to Part II. Part I. Part II.
While it is not quite accurate to say that " we are all social constructivists now " , we do think that it is accurate to say that anyone studying international norms must necessarily be a social constructivist of some kind. After all any norm must be constructed through some set of social practices that spells out a standard of appropriate behavior in a given context. If all norms research must in some sense be socially constructivist, then the real fissures between norms scholars are not at the level of ontological debates over materiality or ideality.
Instead they are on the two substantive issues at the heart of Wiener's book: how are norms generated and how are they validated.
And if this is the case, then the real. John G. New York: Columbia University Press, These two concepts can be recovered from Spinoza for a contemporary first image approach to IR theory that takes emotions seriously.
Rationalist IR theories tend to marginalize emotive causes of conflict. His theory of the modes can also account for the role that emotions play on any level of analysis — be it an individual, a state, or a global community.
My paper explains how such an approach would enable us to understand the role affect plays in all three levels of analysis, and show us what IR scholars miss when they attempt to reduce the study of conflict to a phenomenon that can be studied through a rationalist lens. I argue that because religious experience is one form of human practice that is often experienced in visceral terms, a deeper attention to the role of emotions and the visceral will help IR scholars understand the ways in which religion affects global politics.
Nietzsche uses the term misarchism to describe the general hatred of government. The article traces the origin of this ideology to the philosophical writings of Herbert Spencer and late 19th century debates over laissez-faire government policies. Misarchism is a distinct ideology from libertarianism and social conservatism. After explaining the theoretical basis of the ideology in the first part of the article, the second part uses the concept to analyze the Tea Party movement.
The concept of misarchism can help resolve several existing puzzles in the literature over apparent contradictions in Tea Party preferences for a limited government while supporting increased police powers, defense of conventional moral values, and protection of large government spending programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
New Keywords. Editorial: Donald Trump as global constitutional breaching experiment. This text is considered a formative American work in the literary genre of captivity narratives. Now was I full of joy, and yet not without sorrow; joy to see such a lovely sight, so many Christians together, and some of them my neighbors. University of Southampton Institutional Repository. Mary White was born c.
Two Concepts of Agreement in Democratic Theory. A significant point of contention between deliberative and agonistic democratic theorists is over Much debate between deliberative and democratic theorists over the last 20 years has focused on whether or not democratic debate should foster agreement or disagreement.
In this paper I will argue that this debate is arguing at cross-purposes because the different camps are operating with different understandings of the words agreement and disagreement.
Unfortunately, if I am correct, my analysis of the two different types of agreement will actually make agreement between deliberative and agonistic democrats less likely as it will double the possible points of contention between the two schools of thought. But, by offering this conceptual clarification I hope to clarify what is at stake in the deliberative-agonistic democratic theory debate.
Why is there no just riot theory?
Western political thought has a long tradition of arguing about when and under what circumstances The realist tradition argues that warfare is a necessary instrument of statecraft; the just war theory tradition argues that warfare can be justified if it prevents or ends aggression by other states. Comparatively few have defended a position of complete pacifism — i.
Book description A picture of sovereignty holds the study of politics captive. Captives of Sovereignty looks at the historical origins of this picture of politics, critiques its philosophical assumptions and offers a way to move contemporary critiques of sovereignty beyond their current impasse. Captives of Sovereignty [Jonathan Havercroft] on warbcenberesting.ml *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A picture of sovereignty holds the study of politics captive.
Despite this tolerance for violence at the interstate level, when we consider sub-state level violence there is virtually no tradition that says political violence by individuals is either necessary or justifiable under any conditions. This essay asks why there is no just riot theory?
Given the prevalence of riots throughout human history, the lack of theorizing on riots when compared to other forms of political violence is striking. The tentative hypothesis that this essay will advance is that riots are a form of spontaneous anti-state violence and that the especially western tradition of political theory is heavily vested in defending organized state violence. When we lay that contrast out starkly, however, the lack of a just riot theory may say more about the poverty of political theory and its dubious allegiance to state power, than condemning the acts of specific rioters.
The essay will proceed in five parts.