Imagine having to draw a conceptual map of one of the major Middle East (ME)1 related conflicts—s... more Imagine having to draw a conceptual map of one of the major Middle East (ME)1 related conflicts—say the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 or the terrorist attacks launched by al-Qaeda in New York City in 2001 (9/11)—and choosing to use different colours for identifying the role of the Israel-Palestine conflict (red), the role of the instrumental manipulation of the Arab-Israeli issue (yellow) and the role of variables independent from the Arab-Israeli dispute (blue). You would end up with a complex and dense cobweb-like map of a brownish colour. The question raised by this essay regards the colour that would prevail in all that brown: red, yellow or blue? Are ME conflicts mostly dependent from or independent of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
On 23 January 2013 Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech1 on the future of the United Kingdo... more On 23 January 2013 Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech1 on the future of the United Kingdom (UK) in the European Union (EU), announcing that an in-out referendum will be held in 2017 if another Conservative government is elected in the next elections. The Prime Minister stated that this 4-year time lapse is to be used by British citizens in order to get better informed on the question: “What is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?”2. This question was not put in a value-free context, since his speech was not impartial in depicting the European Union. On the contrary, it framed the EU issue with a set of assumptions that automatically ruled out some options (such as the possibility that British citizens share with other Member States’ citizens an idealised view of the EU), while strengthening others (such as the essentialised, irrevocable “island nature” of Britons).
Considering the importance of British political discourse on the EC in shaping the public mental set and opinion3, and therefore voters’ position on the promised referendum, this essay focuses on the assumptions on “Englishness”4 and “Europeness” implicit in Cameron’s Speech, which is analysed in comparison with the political discourse of Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990) and Tony Blair (Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007). The argument is that British political discourse on the EU is characterised by both elements of change and of continuity that, although analytically separated, merge into each other. In order to recognise them, the British political discourse is analysed from two perspectives: its use and its content.
Burbach (2001, p. 8) provocatively defines “democracy” the “catch phrase for modern societies”. I... more Burbach (2001, p. 8) provocatively defines “democracy” the “catch phrase for modern societies”. Is it really an empty shell (ab)used to try to reanimate the rotten corpse of democracy? Has democracy ever been fully alive? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been adopted less than 65 years ago, yet the decadence of democracy has already become part of rhetoric. Similarly, the word “non-politics” has been disseminated in the media to the extent that it sounds familiar, predictable, obvious. Yet, there is still no clear definition of “anti-politics”.
This essay revolves around the unresolved ambiguity of the word “anti-politics”. It argues that this ambiguity is inherited by the non-univocality of modern politics, which the first section describes as a multilayered and multifaceted construct resulting from the gradual superimposition of four elements (“government”, “economy”, “rationality” and “democracy”). This superimposition has been further complicated by three phenomena derived from three of the above-listed elements: “rationalisation-professionalisation” (rationality), “governmentalisation” (Foucault, 1991, p. 103) (government) and “individualisation/universalisation” (democracy). This process is described, drawing the concept from Mulgan (1994, p. 8), as “modernisation”. What has made “modern politics” ambiguous and contradictory, it is argued, is the fact that each of the elements above listed has modernised independently, thus mining the stability of the construct.
In this sense, modernisation has been a centrifugal force with respect to politics, automatically leading to the birth of forms of structural anti-politics, which is analysed in the second section, where the “anti-politics” concept is reassessed. Special attention is paid to the divide, drawn by some scholars (Mete, 2010), between high and low levels of politics. It is argued that this distinction is reified and (ab)used by anti-political movements’ discourse, to which the third section is dedicated. This theory leads to the conclusion of this essay, which questions the novelty of anti-political phenomena, and argues instead that anti-politics is structurally embedded in modern politics.
“Still a discipline after all these debates?” asks the title of the concluding chapter Wæver wrot... more “Still a discipline after all these debates?” asks the title of the concluding chapter Wæver wrote in 2010 for the book International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Debates were not new to International Relations when he posed that question, but—since the rise of the so called “fourth debate” between rationalism and reflectivism in the late 1980s—the discipline has been internally so divided that one might ask what contemporary International Relations theories and approaches have in common apart from a focus on international relations.
The aim of this essay is to assess the impact of the fourth debate on the discipline itself, particularly on its ontology, epistemology and methodology. It answers the concern, expressed by some scholars, that all this focus on theoretical issues is missing the point of International Relations, namely international relations.
This essay argues that a plurality of approaches is necessary in order to avoid the rise of an all-encompassing hegemonic uber-theory that reflects the worldview and interests of only a percentage of the world’s population. In order to demonstrate why plurality would serve as an “antidote” to such a scenario, the “self-fulfilling prophecy” concept has been drawn from previous studies, most notably Kuhn’s. “Plurality” does not automatically imply “dialogue” nor “debate”. It is accordingly suggested that the fourth debate does not resemble a dialogue, but rather a series of (partly overlapping) monologues.
Mau and Burkhardt (2009, p. 213) understand the welfare state as “a social arrangement for coping... more Mau and Burkhardt (2009, p. 213) understand the welfare state as “a social arrangement for coping with collective risks and reducing social inequality”. This definition reveals itself to be vague once applied to the contemporary European welfare states, which have been facing a continuous flow of various forms of immigration (Papadopoulos, 2011, pp. 23-24). As a consequence, Europe has become characterized by a variegated population, thus complicating the boundaries of the word “collective” and therefore the implications of “reducing social inequality”.
“Equality” means “the rights of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment” (Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2012). If all the inhabitants of a given country formed a homogeneous collectivity, there would be no need of integration policies, because there would be no source of inequality. In a multicultural European country, whose population is increased by massive flows of migrants, a question arises: how should the welfare state include immigrants into society? Less normatively, are European welfare states characterised by policy differences or similarities with respect to immigrants?
“Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall... more “Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.” states Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union. If, according to Rousseau, sovereignty is “indivisible”, should accordingly the double European-national citizenship be conceived as unitary but shared by two levels of government, where the lower is formally given priority to the upper? “The principle of any Sovereignty lies primarily in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it” states Article 3 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789, pillar of the contemporary nation-state. But, in the case of the European Union (EU), where does sovereignty lie? What does an “European citizenship” entail?
Imagine having to draw a conceptual map of one of the major Middle East (ME)1 related conflicts—s... more Imagine having to draw a conceptual map of one of the major Middle East (ME)1 related conflicts—say the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 or the terrorist attacks launched by al-Qaeda in New York City in 2001 (9/11)—and choosing to use different colours for identifying the role of the Israel-Palestine conflict (red), the role of the instrumental manipulation of the Arab-Israeli issue (yellow) and the role of variables independent from the Arab-Israeli dispute (blue). You would end up with a complex and dense cobweb-like map of a brownish colour. The question raised by this essay regards the colour that would prevail in all that brown: red, yellow or blue? Are ME conflicts mostly dependent from or independent of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
On 23 January 2013 Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech1 on the future of the United Kingdo... more On 23 January 2013 Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech1 on the future of the United Kingdom (UK) in the European Union (EU), announcing that an in-out referendum will be held in 2017 if another Conservative government is elected in the next elections. The Prime Minister stated that this 4-year time lapse is to be used by British citizens in order to get better informed on the question: “What is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?”2. This question was not put in a value-free context, since his speech was not impartial in depicting the European Union. On the contrary, it framed the EU issue with a set of assumptions that automatically ruled out some options (such as the possibility that British citizens share with other Member States’ citizens an idealised view of the EU), while strengthening others (such as the essentialised, irrevocable “island nature” of Britons).
Considering the importance of British political discourse on the EC in shaping the public mental set and opinion3, and therefore voters’ position on the promised referendum, this essay focuses on the assumptions on “Englishness”4 and “Europeness” implicit in Cameron’s Speech, which is analysed in comparison with the political discourse of Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990) and Tony Blair (Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007). The argument is that British political discourse on the EU is characterised by both elements of change and of continuity that, although analytically separated, merge into each other. In order to recognise them, the British political discourse is analysed from two perspectives: its use and its content.
Burbach (2001, p. 8) provocatively defines “democracy” the “catch phrase for modern societies”. I... more Burbach (2001, p. 8) provocatively defines “democracy” the “catch phrase for modern societies”. Is it really an empty shell (ab)used to try to reanimate the rotten corpse of democracy? Has democracy ever been fully alive? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been adopted less than 65 years ago, yet the decadence of democracy has already become part of rhetoric. Similarly, the word “non-politics” has been disseminated in the media to the extent that it sounds familiar, predictable, obvious. Yet, there is still no clear definition of “anti-politics”.
This essay revolves around the unresolved ambiguity of the word “anti-politics”. It argues that this ambiguity is inherited by the non-univocality of modern politics, which the first section describes as a multilayered and multifaceted construct resulting from the gradual superimposition of four elements (“government”, “economy”, “rationality” and “democracy”). This superimposition has been further complicated by three phenomena derived from three of the above-listed elements: “rationalisation-professionalisation” (rationality), “governmentalisation” (Foucault, 1991, p. 103) (government) and “individualisation/universalisation” (democracy). This process is described, drawing the concept from Mulgan (1994, p. 8), as “modernisation”. What has made “modern politics” ambiguous and contradictory, it is argued, is the fact that each of the elements above listed has modernised independently, thus mining the stability of the construct.
In this sense, modernisation has been a centrifugal force with respect to politics, automatically leading to the birth of forms of structural anti-politics, which is analysed in the second section, where the “anti-politics” concept is reassessed. Special attention is paid to the divide, drawn by some scholars (Mete, 2010), between high and low levels of politics. It is argued that this distinction is reified and (ab)used by anti-political movements’ discourse, to which the third section is dedicated. This theory leads to the conclusion of this essay, which questions the novelty of anti-political phenomena, and argues instead that anti-politics is structurally embedded in modern politics.
“Still a discipline after all these debates?” asks the title of the concluding chapter Wæver wrot... more “Still a discipline after all these debates?” asks the title of the concluding chapter Wæver wrote in 2010 for the book International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Debates were not new to International Relations when he posed that question, but—since the rise of the so called “fourth debate” between rationalism and reflectivism in the late 1980s—the discipline has been internally so divided that one might ask what contemporary International Relations theories and approaches have in common apart from a focus on international relations.
The aim of this essay is to assess the impact of the fourth debate on the discipline itself, particularly on its ontology, epistemology and methodology. It answers the concern, expressed by some scholars, that all this focus on theoretical issues is missing the point of International Relations, namely international relations.
This essay argues that a plurality of approaches is necessary in order to avoid the rise of an all-encompassing hegemonic uber-theory that reflects the worldview and interests of only a percentage of the world’s population. In order to demonstrate why plurality would serve as an “antidote” to such a scenario, the “self-fulfilling prophecy” concept has been drawn from previous studies, most notably Kuhn’s. “Plurality” does not automatically imply “dialogue” nor “debate”. It is accordingly suggested that the fourth debate does not resemble a dialogue, but rather a series of (partly overlapping) monologues.
Mau and Burkhardt (2009, p. 213) understand the welfare state as “a social arrangement for coping... more Mau and Burkhardt (2009, p. 213) understand the welfare state as “a social arrangement for coping with collective risks and reducing social inequality”. This definition reveals itself to be vague once applied to the contemporary European welfare states, which have been facing a continuous flow of various forms of immigration (Papadopoulos, 2011, pp. 23-24). As a consequence, Europe has become characterized by a variegated population, thus complicating the boundaries of the word “collective” and therefore the implications of “reducing social inequality”.
“Equality” means “the rights of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment” (Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2012). If all the inhabitants of a given country formed a homogeneous collectivity, there would be no need of integration policies, because there would be no source of inequality. In a multicultural European country, whose population is increased by massive flows of migrants, a question arises: how should the welfare state include immigrants into society? Less normatively, are European welfare states characterised by policy differences or similarities with respect to immigrants?
“Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall... more “Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.” states Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union. If, according to Rousseau, sovereignty is “indivisible”, should accordingly the double European-national citizenship be conceived as unitary but shared by two levels of government, where the lower is formally given priority to the upper? “The principle of any Sovereignty lies primarily in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it” states Article 3 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789, pillar of the contemporary nation-state. But, in the case of the European Union (EU), where does sovereignty lie? What does an “European citizenship” entail?
Uploads
Papers by Serena Bertogliatti
Considering the importance of British political discourse on the EC in shaping the public mental set and opinion3, and therefore voters’ position on the promised referendum, this essay focuses on the assumptions on “Englishness”4 and “Europeness” implicit in Cameron’s Speech, which is analysed in comparison with the political discourse of Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990) and Tony Blair (Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007). The argument is that British political discourse on the EU is characterised by both elements of change and of continuity that, although analytically separated, merge into each other. In order to recognise them, the British political discourse is analysed from two perspectives: its use and its content.
This essay revolves around the unresolved ambiguity of the word “anti-politics”. It argues that this ambiguity is inherited by the non-univocality of modern politics, which the first section describes as a multilayered and multifaceted construct resulting from the gradual superimposition of four elements (“government”, “economy”, “rationality” and “democracy”). This superimposition has been further complicated by three phenomena derived from three of the above-listed elements: “rationalisation-professionalisation” (rationality), “governmentalisation” (Foucault, 1991, p. 103) (government) and “individualisation/universalisation” (democracy). This process is described, drawing the concept from Mulgan (1994, p. 8), as “modernisation”. What has made “modern politics” ambiguous and contradictory, it is argued, is the fact that each of the elements above listed has modernised independently, thus mining the stability of the construct.
In this sense, modernisation has been a centrifugal force with respect to politics, automatically leading to the birth of forms of structural anti-politics, which is analysed in the second section, where the “anti-politics” concept is reassessed. Special attention is paid to the divide, drawn by some scholars (Mete, 2010), between high and low levels of politics. It is argued that this distinction is reified and (ab)used by anti-political movements’ discourse, to which the third section is dedicated. This theory leads to the conclusion of this essay, which questions the novelty of anti-political phenomena, and argues instead that anti-politics is structurally embedded in modern politics.
The aim of this essay is to assess the impact of the fourth debate on the discipline itself, particularly on its ontology, epistemology and methodology. It answers the concern, expressed by some scholars, that all this focus on theoretical issues is missing the point of International Relations, namely international relations.
This essay argues that a plurality of approaches is necessary in order to avoid the rise of an all-encompassing hegemonic uber-theory that reflects the worldview and interests of only a percentage of the world’s population. In order to demonstrate why plurality would serve as an “antidote” to such a scenario, the “self-fulfilling prophecy” concept has been drawn from previous studies, most notably Kuhn’s. “Plurality” does not automatically imply “dialogue” nor “debate”. It is accordingly suggested that the fourth debate does not resemble a dialogue, but rather a series of (partly overlapping) monologues.
“Equality” means “the rights of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment” (Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2012). If all the inhabitants of a given country formed a homogeneous collectivity, there would be no need of integration policies, because there would be no source of inequality. In a multicultural European country, whose population is increased by massive flows of migrants, a question arises: how should the welfare state include immigrants into society? Less normatively, are European welfare states characterised by policy differences or similarities with respect to immigrants?
Considering the importance of British political discourse on the EC in shaping the public mental set and opinion3, and therefore voters’ position on the promised referendum, this essay focuses on the assumptions on “Englishness”4 and “Europeness” implicit in Cameron’s Speech, which is analysed in comparison with the political discourse of Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990) and Tony Blair (Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007). The argument is that British political discourse on the EU is characterised by both elements of change and of continuity that, although analytically separated, merge into each other. In order to recognise them, the British political discourse is analysed from two perspectives: its use and its content.
This essay revolves around the unresolved ambiguity of the word “anti-politics”. It argues that this ambiguity is inherited by the non-univocality of modern politics, which the first section describes as a multilayered and multifaceted construct resulting from the gradual superimposition of four elements (“government”, “economy”, “rationality” and “democracy”). This superimposition has been further complicated by three phenomena derived from three of the above-listed elements: “rationalisation-professionalisation” (rationality), “governmentalisation” (Foucault, 1991, p. 103) (government) and “individualisation/universalisation” (democracy). This process is described, drawing the concept from Mulgan (1994, p. 8), as “modernisation”. What has made “modern politics” ambiguous and contradictory, it is argued, is the fact that each of the elements above listed has modernised independently, thus mining the stability of the construct.
In this sense, modernisation has been a centrifugal force with respect to politics, automatically leading to the birth of forms of structural anti-politics, which is analysed in the second section, where the “anti-politics” concept is reassessed. Special attention is paid to the divide, drawn by some scholars (Mete, 2010), between high and low levels of politics. It is argued that this distinction is reified and (ab)used by anti-political movements’ discourse, to which the third section is dedicated. This theory leads to the conclusion of this essay, which questions the novelty of anti-political phenomena, and argues instead that anti-politics is structurally embedded in modern politics.
The aim of this essay is to assess the impact of the fourth debate on the discipline itself, particularly on its ontology, epistemology and methodology. It answers the concern, expressed by some scholars, that all this focus on theoretical issues is missing the point of International Relations, namely international relations.
This essay argues that a plurality of approaches is necessary in order to avoid the rise of an all-encompassing hegemonic uber-theory that reflects the worldview and interests of only a percentage of the world’s population. In order to demonstrate why plurality would serve as an “antidote” to such a scenario, the “self-fulfilling prophecy” concept has been drawn from previous studies, most notably Kuhn’s. “Plurality” does not automatically imply “dialogue” nor “debate”. It is accordingly suggested that the fourth debate does not resemble a dialogue, but rather a series of (partly overlapping) monologues.
“Equality” means “the rights of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment” (Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2012). If all the inhabitants of a given country formed a homogeneous collectivity, there would be no need of integration policies, because there would be no source of inequality. In a multicultural European country, whose population is increased by massive flows of migrants, a question arises: how should the welfare state include immigrants into society? Less normatively, are European welfare states characterised by policy differences or similarities with respect to immigrants?