In the light of post-structural and feminist insights to social theory and knowledge construction, the paper endeavors to build on the thesis that mainstream IR has been narrowly defined and contested by the dominant players of the field. In carrying out this narrowly defined ‘modernist’ project, it is argued here that mainstream IR has excluded multiplicity of voices and issues. Furthermore, these voices and issues not only have the potential to bring their unique insights to IR, but are also sensitive to changes in international affairs. The second part of argument flows naturally from the first prep... ... middle of paper ... ...and denaturalization of dominant discourses have theoretical and practical implications for agency and transformation in IR. In carrying out their respective projects, postmodern and feminist IR theories have carved out a thinking space that can be appropriated by marginalized voices.
His essay argues for an approach that surrenders the fieldworker’s hypothetical gain to the socio-emotional needs of subjects’ epistemological structure and, most intriguingly, he treats ethnographic materials as praxis rather than data. After years of apprehension with the objectifying habits of cultural anthropology, a discipline internally dithered by the bickering of Science vs. Humanities, I am finally moved to disengage from such authoritatively based methods altogether as a result of Toelken’s example. Perhaps the most ubiquitous quality shared between humans is the capacity to know. The English language seems stark and stale when considering a definition for the word itself that encompasses the various feelings that can be summoned in knowing something. John Farella examines the inequality that exists in the relationship between the West... ... middle of paper ... ...in our collaborative endeavors as progressive scholars in cultural studies, I had never considered until now just how much of my own work I would actually compromise if a circumstance similar to that of Toelken’s Yellowman tapes ever arose.
Kant thereby established a precedent for ... ... middle of paper ... ...contemporary concepts and concerns. While Burgin provides a means of distinguishing postmodernism from Modernism in art, there remains the problem of how to, or indeed whether, one ought to distinguish qualitatively between different postmodernist works. If social relevance is a characteristic of postmodernism, then degree or accuracy of social relevance may be used as an evaluative tool; however, as Harrison and Wood have pointed out (see Modernism in Dispute, p.240) radically critical work may become marginalised and lose its ability to challenge. Furthermore, if the main impact of a work depends on its contemporary relevance, it is likely to lose conceptual value with the passage of time; Haacke's The Safety Net (pl.D24) borrows its meaning from contemporary politics rather than conforming with Greenberg's idea of art as self-defining, and is hence now arguably of historic rather than artistic interest. The aesthetic of Greenbergian Modernism may never recover a dominant position within art history but, as Harrison and Wood have suggested, 'the contingency of the historical is only half the point of art'.
Lanser, Susan S. "Feminist Criticism, 'The Yellow Wallpaper,' and the Politics of Color in America." Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism, edited by Thomas J. Schoenberg, vol. 201, Gale, 2008. Literature Resource Center, Accessed 1 June 2017. Originally published in Feminist Studies, vol.
Accessed 30 Oct. 2017. Lanser, Susan S. "Feminist Criticism, ‘The Yellow Wallpaper,’ and the Politics of Color in America." Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism, edited by Thomas J. Schoenberg, vol. 201, Gale, 2008. Literature Resource Center, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&sw=w&u=mill30389&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CH1420082954&it=r&asid=fa503d396619394dc49024ab2704723f.
is doubtlessoften dealt with in sociological and cultural studies, but Huxley’s technique of using this problem as a vehicle into the ancient and modern mind isunique. This is why the paper must be viewed in terms of a greater picturethan the individual events described. The methodology to be used takesgreatest use of Huxley’s demonstrations of contrast, and is therefore focusedonthe shifts and variances of perspective. This is often broght aboutin situations where he alternately raises the most miniscule of detailsto the highest pedestal and dismisses the giants of philosophy in commonlists. The purpose of this is to even the bias of time, or essentiallyto provide the reader with a firm grasp of the notion that all great thoughtis still limited by environment.
The Failure of the Dominant Approach In extracting Taylor’s argument for expressivism, it will serve us well to begin with a discussion of his critique of modernity. Taylor is critical of several mainstream disciplines, including the natural sciences, psychology, linguistics, and philosophy. He takes issue not with these disciplines themselves, but rather with a conceptual scheme which underlies the dominant approaches in these fields, and consequently their objectives. Taylor’s discontent is directed toward one influential attempt to resolve the old problem of meaning in the philosophy of language, a problem which has fuelled debate for centuries. This is what Taylor calls the ‘designative’ theory of meaning, the view that meaning consists in the role of individual words and sentences as designators for objects, relations, ideas and so forth in the world.
In this paper, I will discuss and address the arguments that he had put forward. If you recall my main point in “The Clash of Civilizations?”, I argued that the conflicts of the future will dominantly be due to cultural differences (Huntington, 1993). However, Said argues that instead of cultural differences, conflicts will stem from the ignorance that different cultures have when it comes to the other (Said, 2001). I defend my argument by pointing out that although Said believes the conflicts will stem from ignorance, the conflicts are still between civilizations. For Said’s argument to make sense, he has to admit that there are and always will be differences between these cultures that are of a sufficient scale, in order for one side to be ignorant about the beliefs and values of the other.
However, Michel Foucalt was able to change critics’ viewpoint to see that cultural processes cause material outcomes. The authors explain that, “Foucault removed the critical aspect of determinism from his theories by talking about ‘what was possible’ in various social contexts between groups and people with varying levels of power/knowledge.” (CITE) The problem they see with this new cultural turn is that it leads from positivistic universalism into institutional and historical specification of theoretical domains and then into somewhere that theory serves only to regulate interpretation of certain events. The authors believe that the middle-range theory provides an appropriate middle point in this slippery slope. They also believe sociologists need to avoid cultural theorizing into particularism. Three different approaches are provided for new cultural sociology.