Search results

Social constructivist discourse analysis has, since the early 1990s, become increasingly popular across the social sciences, including international relations. The aim of this chapter is to outline the possibilities for the use of discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy. Pure rationalists often dismiss EU foreign policy as ‘just words’ or ‘declaratory diplomacy’ as it is often

in Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy

This book reviews a variety of approaches to the study of the European Union's foreign policy. Much analysis of EU foreign policy contains theoretical assumptions about the nature of the EU and its member states, their inter-relationships, the international system in which they operate and the nature of European integration. The book outlines the possibilities for the use of discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy. It sets out to explore the research problem using a political-cultural approach and seeks to illuminate the cognitive mind-maps with which policy-makers interpret their political 'realities'. The book provides an overview and analysis of some of the non-realist approaches to international relations and foreign policy, and proposes an analytical framework with which to explore the complex interplay of factors affecting European foreign policy. The book suggests one way of seeking theoretical parsimony without sacrificing the most defining empirical knowledge which has been generated about Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) over the years. It argues that while the sui generis nature of CFSP presents an acute problem for international relations theory, it is less pronounced with regard to traditional integration theory. The book discusses the dimensions of European foreign policy-making with reference to the case of arms export controls. Situated at the interface between European studies and international relations, it outlines how the EU relates to the rest of the world, explaining its effort towards creating a credible, effective and principled foreign, security and defence policy.

Cultural readings of race, imperialism and transnationalism

This book analyses black Atlantic studies, colonial discourse analysis and postcolonial theory, providing paradigms for understanding imperial literature, Englishness and black transnationalism. Its concerns range from the metropolitan centre of Conrad's Heart of Darkness to fatherhood in Du Bois's The Souls of Black Folk; from the marketing of South African literature to cosmopolitanism in Achebe; and from utopian discourse in Parry to Jameson's theorisation of empire.

David Lloyd’s work

transformations that take place through the dialectic between the state and what it perforce negates as a condition of its existence’ (p. 87). I want to suggest that Lloyd’s formalism proves, on the contrary, antithetical to a materialist approach. I choose this article for discussion because it seems to condense a number of current dispositions in Western anti-foundationalist critical theory, political critique, and colonial discourse analysis. Lloyd’s concern with Enlightenment ideologies is shared by a growing number of postcolonial critics. His work corresponds to the

in Postcolonial contraventions

2012 and 2015 decisions to return African migrants to their country of origin or to third countries. Against this backdrop, this chapter focuses on the legitimisation of these technologies of blocking and exclusion in the Israeli political discourse. More specifically, through a discourse analysis of political actors’ public speeches and parliamentary debates, I seek to answer the following questions

in Security/ Mobility

analysis of various New Labour texts that utilises a method of critical discourse analysis adapted from the work of Fairclough and of Laclau and Mouffe. 1 Furthermore I argue that this particular concept of citizenship is inherently exclusionary in its operationalisation within policy. These exclusionary effects can be seen in New Labour’s operationalisation of their particular discourse of

in The Third Way and beyond
Open Access (free)

government. I am not arguing that such people had any cynical plans to destroy other nations or promote violence as such, nor that they are guilty by association of ‘ethnic cleansing’. Nevertheless, in their own ways, they contributed to the escalation of events by adding more fuel to the fire; and sometimes their arguments were used in ways that they neither intended nor could have foreseen. Throughout this book, I will be using a form of discourse analysis to explore the themes, ideas and vocabulary present in Serbian and Croatian propaganda. I have used a qualitative

in Balkan holocausts?
Open Access (free)

basic ideas advanced by discourse analysis, social constructionists, and symbolic interaction approaches, as well as ideas taken from feminist and queer scholarship. The surge in singlehood literature published from around 2000 onwards undoubtedly contributes to a more critical reading of prevalent representations of single women. It also challenges widespread hegemonic assumptions about them. The literature responds to what is now a well-established fact, namely that more and more people are living on their own. Scholars like Shelly Budgeon (2008; 2015) Michael Cobb

in A table for one
Acceptance, critique and the bigger picture

attachments from which people speak and act.8 Discourse, language and visual imagery do not simply reflect or describe reality. They play an integral role in constructing reality and experience, in the ways that we know and understand the world, and in what we assume to be natural or normal. Discourse analysis can tell us a great deal about how social forces influence what individuals do, say and think. Research that uses discourse as its analytical tool concentrates on the accounts, understandings and meaning repertoires of the participants, rather than on their individual

in The end of Irish history?

discourse analysis, its possible effect on the future theorisation of non-Asian materials. Critical Quarterly subsequently carried a negative description of my piece as the work of a neo-colonialist; in criticising her I performed a gesture analogous to ‘the coloniser’s displacement of the colonised’.7 Spivak, my critic suggested, was a ‘representative colonised voice’. In his haste to impute a neo-colonialist subject-position to me, Pimomo did not stop to question the large problems attached to conferring colonised ‘representativeness’, nor did it occur to him, when

in Postcolonial contraventions