Postan, Cynthia ( Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. See also the following seminal works of Duby, Georges: La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la region mâconnaise (The society of the 12th and 13th centuries in the Mâconnais region)( Paris: Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 1971) Google Scholar and The Chivalrous Society, trans. 2 ( Paris: Aubier, 1970) Google Scholar Mundy, John H., Europe in the High Middle Ages, 1150–1309 ( New York: Basic Books, 1973) Google Scholar Poly, Jean-Pierre and Bournazel, Eric, La mutation féodale, Xe-XIIe siècles (The feudal transformation, 10th–12th centuries) ( Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1980) Google Scholar and Reynolds, Susan, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300 ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) Google Scholar. ( Paris: Aubier, 1968) Google Scholar Boutruche, Robert, Seigneurie et féodalité, vol. ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) Google Scholar Boutruche, Robert, Seigneurie et féodalitié (Lordship and feudal society), vol. Bloch, Marc, Feudal Society, 2 vols., trans. 2 of A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism ( Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) Google Scholar.ġ5. For an important extradisciplinary source, see Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and Violence, vol. 335–70 CrossRef Google Scholar and Halliday, Fred, “ State and Society in International Relations: A Second Agenda,” Millennium 16 ( Summer 1987), pp. 403–34 CrossRef Google Scholar Wendt, Alexander, ” The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization 41 ( Summer 1987), pp. 301–12 CrossRef Google Scholar Ashley, Richard K., “ The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics,” Alternatives 12 ( 10 1987), pp. 162–75 CrossRef Google Scholar Linklater, Andrew, “ Realism, Marxism, and Critical International Theory,” Review of International Studies 12 ( 10 1986), pp.
126–55 CrossRef Google Scholar Cox, Robert W., “ Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” Millennium 12 ( Summer 1983), pp. Representative articles beyond the ones already cited include the following: Cox, Robert W., “ Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium 10 ( Summer 1981), pp. 481–82 CrossRef Google Scholar and “ Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique,” Millennium 17 ( Summer 1988), especially p. With regard to critiquing liberal utilitarianism as part and parcel of neorealism, see the following works of Ashley, Richard K.: “ The Three Modes of Economism,” International Studies Quarterly 27 ( 12 1983), especially pp. 51– 73 Google Scholar and Keely, James F., “ Toward a Foucauldian Analysis of International Regimes,” International Organization 44 ( Winter 1990), pp. 263–84 CrossRef Google Scholar Wendt, Alexander and Duvall, Raymond, ”Institutions and International Order,” in Czempiel, Ernst-Otto and Rosenau, James N., eds., Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s ( Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1989), pp. See Kratochwil, Friedrich, “ Regimes, Interpretation and the ‘Science’ of Politics: A Reappraisal,” Millennium 17 ( Summer 1988), pp. Indeed, critical theorists have already begun to appropriate the institutional component of liberalism. Overall, the advent of critical theory will thus focus the field of international relations on its “interparadigm debate” with neorealism.Ģ. With regard to liberal institutionalism, critical theorists are naturally sympathetic to its communitarian component while castigating its utilitarian strand as the accomplice of neorealism. Traditional realists, by contrast, find a little more sympathy in the eyes of critical theorists because they join them in their rejection of social science and structural theory. In international relations, this approach particularly critiques the ahistorical, scientific, and materialist conceptions offered by neorealists. In essence, critical theorists claim that all social reality is subject to historical change, that a normative discourse of understandings and values entails corresponding practices, and that social theory must include interpretation and dialectical critique. After the realist challenge to the pervasive idealism of the interwar years and the social scientific argument against realism in the late 1950s, it is now the turn of critical theorists to dispute the established paradigms of international politics, having been remarkably successful in several other fields of social inquiry.
The discipline of international relations faces a new debate of fundamental significance.
0 kommentar(er)
