| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
Power and cause
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of International Relations and Development. - London : Palgrave Macmillan. - 1408-6980 .- 1581-1980. ; 20:4, s. 737-759
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Conceiving power relations as a subset of causal relations can be used toexpose the problems of a certain behaviouralist take on causality and develop aninterpretivist approach to explanation. The first section of this article shows that abehaviouralist approach ultimately clashes with a relational understanding of power,since the latter requires endogenising values and understandings in an analysis in whichseveral causal paths to the same outcome can exist (equifinality) with radically differentimplications for attributing power. Power relations can be non-linear, and power dispositionalor latent, as well as not translating into influence. The second section drawsthe consequences of these contradictions by conceptualising causal/social mechanismsfor and in an interpretivist framework. Such mechanisms can be part of a wider analysisof contingent processes that answer ‘how possible’ questions. Although interpretivistprocess-tracing provides explanations without strict regularity, such processes includemechanisms which are transferable to other cases, hence generalisable. Finally, thearticle establishes a specific discursive mechanism of crisis reduction in foreign policyidentity discourses, as developed in the comparative study of the processes that make usunderstand the unexpected return of geopolitical thought in Europe in the 1990s.
|
|
| 4. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
Power
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Concepts in World Politics. - London : Sage Publications. - 9781446294284 ; , s. 23-40
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
Saving Realist Prudence
- 2020
-
Ingår i: The Social Construction of State Power. - Bristol : Bristol University Press. - 9781529209839 ; , s. 217-232
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 7. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
Embrace IR Anxieties (or, Morgenthau's Approach to Power, and the Challenge of Combining the Three Domains of IR Theorizing)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Studies Review. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1521-9488 .- 1468-2486. ; 22:2, s. 268-288
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article addresses the call made by the ISA Sapphire panel to focus on “the opportunities and the challenges of theory-building in interdisciplinary scholarship.” The article focuses on the multiple anxieties that exist in the discipline of IR, its departmental subalternity, its fragmentation of content, its methodological diversity, and its hybrid constitution of practical and observational knowledge. However, rather than arguing for any restriction, the article pleads for these anxieties to be embraced and for IR to be treated as a privileged space in which to integrate that knowledge. It invites scholars to link three distinct yet important domains of IR theorizing: the philosophical, the explanatory, and the practical. It invites the discipline to see the three domains as equally fundamental for its identity. Using Morgenthau's theory of power as a foil, the article shows the need to think about these three domains of theorizing concomitantly, despite the difficulties involved in providing a coherent link between them, something Morgenthau did not achieve.
|
|
| 8. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
The ends of International Relations Theory : Stages of reflexivity and modes of theorizing
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Journal of International Relations. - : Sage Publications. - 1354-0661 .- 1460-3713. ; 19:3, s. 521-541
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- International Relations theory is being squeezed between two sides. On the one hand, the world of practitioners and attached experts often perceive International Relations theory as misleading if it does not correspond to practical knowledge, and redundant when it does. The academic study of international relations can and should not be anything beyond the capacity to provide political judgment which comes through reflection on the historical experience of practitioners. On the other hand, and within its disciplinary confines, International Relations theory is reduced to a particular type of empirical theory with increasing resistance to further self-reflection. Instead, this article argues that neither reduction is viable. Reducing theory to practical knowledge runs into self-contradictions; reducing theorizing to its empirical mode underestimates the constitutive function of theories, the role of concepts, and hence the variety of necessary modes of theorizing. I present this twofold claim in steps of increasing reflexivity in International Relations theory and propose four modes of theorizing: normative, meta-theoretical, ontological/constitutive and empirical.
|
|
| 9. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
A dual history of securitization
- 2015
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This Working Paper provides a dual historisation of ‘securitisation’, i.e. of the origins of the Copenhagen School in terms of its direct world historical context and of the historical origins of the specific bias in our political discourse which is prompted by security discourses. Born almost as a rationalisation of German Ostpolitik, and hence with desecuritisation, the Copenhagen School understood the speech act less as a kind of conspiratorial or elite manipulation than as the manifold processes that give prominence to the discourse of security (the reversal of Clausewitz) in public debate or diminish it, as in the processes of desecuritisation. This means that I see ‘securitisation’ not in the ‘act’ of those ‘speaking’ security, but in the possibly unintended and unconscious de-/mobilisation of the inherent logic, or grammar, of the discourse of security.This begs the question, however, of where the discourse of security would have gained its inherent logic from. It is here where a second necessary historicisation has to take place, not about the context of the theory itself, but about the content of its central concept. The Copenhagen School has been criticised for being basically still too conventional or realist in its reading of security, being connected to exceptional measures, done by foreign-policy elites, etc. But just as the increasing number of security sectors indicates, this is not to be understood as the ‘essence’ of security, but rather as the effect of a historical development in which certain actors have traditionally come to be authorised to talk and effect war and peace in a ‘realist’ way. This implies that, by reifying a historical moment into a general framework of analysis, securitisation theory may indeed help to reproduce such an understanding, although it does not need to. In return, it implies, however, that if a different understanding of security (beyond the raison d’État) appears and becomes shared, the Copenhagen School will also have to adapt. Its conceptualisation is historically bound.
|
|
| 10. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
Benjamin Cohen on global order : when Keynes meets realism - and beyond
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Contexto Internacional. - Rio de Janeiro. - 0102-8529 .- 1982-0240. ; 37:3, s. 851-887
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article analyses the trajectory of Benjamin J. Cohen’s work by focusing on his ongoing concern with the nature and governance of world order. Benjamin Cohen on global political order:when Keynes meets realism – and beyond does so by playing out his debt to realism and to Keynesianism. In a first moment, Cohen criticises the economic determinism of dependency scholarship, while turning to political realism, and then to possible Keynesian co-operation under anarchy: agents have the power to affect positive change. Later, Cohen the disillusioned Keynesian, watching how the possible reform of financial markets is marginalised by politicians and academics alike, shifts his analysis to more structural aspects of governance or rule that affect actors’ preferences. I draw two conclusions. First, in this shift towards theorising the global political order away from steering capacity towards impersonal rule and bias, Cohen also questions the very setup of the theories with which we deal with that world – only to see that this very inspiration of original IPE is abandoned in the course of the ongoing ‘professionalisation’ of IPE as practised in the United States. Second, his analysis seems to incorporate a warning. The underlying grand question is nothing less than the bargain between capitalism and liberal democracy as we know it, since the present system undermines equality before the law – money trumps equal political rights – and undermines democratic accountability. One of the main achievements of the post-war Keynesian turn was the reappropriation of political space from anti-democratic forces. Therefore, the decline of Keynesianism could provoke a Polanyian nightmare in which the ‘double movement’ by which the laissez-faire is answered by moves to protect society does not strengthen democracies, as in earlier times of ‘embedded liberalism’, but undermines them instead.
|
|
