SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "hsv:(SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP) hsv:(Statsvetenskap) hsv:(Globaliseringsstudier) ;pers:(Guzzini Stefano 1963)"

Sökning: hsv:(SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP) hsv:(Statsvetenskap) hsv:(Globaliseringsstudier) > Guzzini Stefano 1963

  • Resultat 1-10 av 21
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  •  
2.
  •  
3.
  • Guzzini, Stefano, 1963- (författare)
  • Power
  • 2016
  • Ingår i: Concepts in World Politics. - London : Sage Publications. - 9781446294284 ; , s. 23-40
  • Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
  •  
4.
  • 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.
  •  
5.
  • 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.
  •  
6.
  •  
7.
  • Guzzini, Stefano, 1963- (författare)
  • Theorizing International Relations : Lessons from Europe's periphery
  • 2007
  • Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
    • Many regional academic communities in International Relations find themselves as passive recipients of ideas and theories developed elsewhere. Shedding off the role of simple ‘ideas-taker’ and becoming an autonomous voice in International Relations, academic communities need to develop the conditions for independent theorising. This paper deals with the potential intellectual and institutional obstacles to autonomous theory formation. A first section argues that the primary obstacle lies within Western IR itself, namely the particularly damaging tradition which denies the very need for more theoretical reflection, at best some day-to-day adaptation of a truth we already know. This position comes in two often combined forms, stating either that IR knowledge is all in historical experience, not fancy theory, or that such theory has been developed long time ago and cannot be superseded (for the unchanging character of world politics). Only if the unfoundedness of this position is shown, can we really tackle the issue of proper IR theorising: ‘which theory?’ My second claim is that the peculiar confusion of IR theory with foreign policy paradigms (often wrapped into the infamous realism-idealism divide), and a topical approach to IR theorising are further obstacles to the understanding of the role and significance of IR theory. I argue that it neglects the constitutive function of theories and hence the value of a theoretical enterprise that assesses assumptions at the theoretical and meta-theoretical level, as well as a conceptual analysis which is self-reflective to the context, regional and historical, within which such concepts have been evolving. Finally, I address the institutional obstacles IR theorising can encounter. Those, or so I will argue, are at least of three kinds. Some obstacles have to do with the intellectual legitimacy of theoretical research in IR within the national academic division of labour, where IR is often relegated to an inferior position, its theory being handled by the ‘real’ subject-matters. Then, IR theorising, as all research, needs a certain material autonomy. Yet, since the type of theorising I stress in this paper is usually connected to basic research, a claim with little legitimacy in the social sciences, the obstacles are far higher. Finally, the way the field of expertise is organised in a country can contribute to undermine the social legitimacy of the theoretical expert which is looking long-term and might not come to sound-bite ready conclusions. And yet, as I will show in the conclusion, for moving out of the periphery, independent theorising is crucial.
  •  
8.
  • 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.
  •  
9.
  • 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)
  •  
10.
  • Guzzini, Stefano, 1963- (författare)
  • A História dual da Securitização
  • 2015
  • Ingår i: Segurança, Liberdade e Política. - Lisboa : Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. - 9789726713456 ; , s. 15-32
  • Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • The chapter ‘A história dual da securitização’ 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.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-10 av 21
Typ av publikation
bokkapitel (11)
tidskriftsartikel (6)
annan publikation (2)
samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (1)
rapport (1)
Typ av innehåll
refereegranskat (15)
övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt (6)
Författare/redaktör
Neumann, Iver B. (1)
Lärosäte
Uppsala universitet (21)
Språk
Engelska (18)
Spanska (1)
Polska (1)
Portugisiska (1)
Forskningsämne (UKÄ/SCB)
Samhällsvetenskap (21)

År

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy