Suchergebnisse

Tensions between the United States and China have grown considerably during the last couple of years. While China bolstered its claims on disputed territories and engaged other states to form regional organizations separate from established Western dominated ones, the United States conducted a "return to Asia", "rebalance" or "pivot" in order to reassure its allied partners. Following these moves policy-makers, think tanks and academics debated opportunities and challenges of new great power relations. This paper seeks to explain the U.S.-China conflict as a result of deeper ontological assumptions and distinct understandings of international relations. Both sides engage primarily in mirror imaging rather than empathizing. For the purpose of this paper mirror imaging is defined as information processing that bases the construction of meaning on one's own, independent assumptions, theories and worldviews. Empathizing by contrast is information processing by using the lens (assumptions, theories, worldviews) of others when making sense of their behavior. Based on its findings the paper concludes that there are alternatives to the ways the conflict is constructed that could facilitate different ways of peaceful change. The paper first evaluates western political perceptions of the China-U.S. relationship. Secondly, it summarizes how western think tanks mapped the conflicts and how they affect American interests. Thirdly, it confronts this map with recent academic scholarship on sources of China's foreign policy written by Asian area studies specialists. Fourthly, it uncovers hidden ontological assumptions and theories of international relations upon which Chinese scholars seem to base their analysis of American foreign policy, contemporary great power relations and policy recommendations for China's foreign policy. Fifthly, the paper shows that these assumptions and theories indeed clearly show up in the recent Chinese academic literature on great power relations. Finally, it concludes that exploiting this finding ...

AbstractRecent metaphysics has seen a surge of interest in grounding—a relation of non-causal determination underlying a distinctive kind of explanation common in philosophy. In this article, I investigate the connection between grounding and another phenomenon of great interest to metaphysics: ontological dependence. There are interesting parallels between the two phenomena: for example, both are commonly invoked through the use of "dependence" terminology, and there is a great deal of overlap in the motivations typically appealed to when introducing them. I approach the question of the relationship between grounding and ontological dependence through an investigation of their modal connections (or lack thereof). I argue, firstly, that on the common assumption that grounding is factive, it can be shown that no known variety of rigid ontological dependence is either necessary or sufficient for grounding. I also offer some suggestions in support of the claim that this generalizes to every possible form of rigid ontological dependence. I then broaden the discussion by considering a non-factive conception of grounding, as well as by looking at forms of generic (rather than rigid) ontological dependence. I argue that there is at least one form of rigid ontological dependence that is sufficient for non-factive grounding, and that a form of generic dependence may be necessary (but not sufficient) both for factive and non-factive grounding. However, justifying even these fairly weak modal connections between grounding and ontological dependence turns out to require some quite specific and substantive assumptions about the two phenomena that have only rarely been discussed.

Is social theory possible without a positive ontology? Do we need ontology as the very first step toward/of theorisation? Is or isn't ontology a consequence of the theorisation process? Is a meta-theory/theory delineation nothing more than a rhetorical/discursive artifice? If that were the case, why should we give priority to one assumption/consequence (for example, ontology) over others? What are the conditions of possibility and/or limitations for giving priority to any ontological assumption? It is almost unthinkable among social scientists nowadays to envision a formulation of social theory that does not posit an ontological beginning point, that is, by making explicit/implicit assumptions on the most basic entities -- subjects, objects, agents, structures, and/or processes -- that one takes to be the foundations of the (world-) view being explored or posited. This is usually considered a theoretical necessity of, as much as a desire for, soundness driven by our conception of what theorising means, or should mean. The issue is even put at the heart of what politics is, or is about. 'Politics is the terrain of competing ontologies', says Wight. He, and, well before him, Walker, and Wendt, as well as most of today's social scientists, all assert that theories necessarily presuppose a basic positive ontology upon which all other considerations are built and that there is no social theory without ontology. Adapted from the source document.

This paper explores the question of what we can consider to be real in drug policy. It examines two common approaches in drug policy analysis (and criminology more broadly); radical constructionist critique and successionist data science. It shows how researchers using both approaches have produced valuable findings, but also demonstrates the theoretical incoherence of their ontological assumptions, based on their shared 'flat ontology'. The radical constructionist detachment of knowledge from an independently existing reality – seen in some qualitative studies - is shown to be unsustainably self-defeating. As acknowledged by Annemarie Mol, it is analytically 'paralyzing'. This leads to two common inconsistencies in radical constructionist studies; crypto-empiricism and ersatz epistemic egalitarianism. The Humean successionist approach of econometric data science is also shown to be unsustainable and unable to provide explanations of identified patterns in data. Four consequent, limiting characteristics of this type of research are discussed: causal inference at a distance, monofinality, limited causal imagination, and overly confident causal claims. The paper goes on to describe and exemplify a critical realist ontology for drug policy analysis based on Roy Bhakra's 'Realist Theory of Science'. The 'depth ontology' of this approach enables more deeply explanatory, methodologically eclectic and democratically inclusive analysis of drug policy development and effects.

Abstract Reindeer herding (RDH) is a livelihood strategy deeply connected to Sami cultural tradition. This article explores the implications of two theoretical and methodological approaches for grasping complex socioenvironmental relationships of RDH in Subarctic Sweden. Based on joint fieldwork, two teams – one that aligns itself with political ecology (PE) and the other with social-ecological systems (SES) – compared PE and SES approaches of understanding RDH. Our purpose was twofold: 1) to describe the situation of Sami RDH through the lenses of PE and SES, exploring how the two approaches interpret the same empirical data; 2) to present an analytical comparison of the ontological and epistemological assumptions of this work, also inferring different courses of action to instigate change for the sustainability of RDH. Key informants from four sameby in the Kiruna region expressed strong support for the continuation of RDH as a cultural and economic practice. Concerns about the current situation raised by Sami representatives centered on the cumulative negative impacts on RDH from mining, forestry and tourism. PE and SES researchers offered dissimilar interpretations of the key aspects of the RDH socio-economic situation, namely: the nature and scale of RDH systems; the ubiquitous role of conflict; and conceptualizations of responses to changing socioenvironmental conditions. Due to these disparities, PE and SES analyses have radically divergent sociopolitical implications for what ought to be done to redress the current RDH situation.

Reindeer herding (RDH) is a livelihood strategy deeply connected to Sami cultural tradition. This article explores the implications of two theoretical and methodological approaches for grasping complex socioenvironmental relationships of RDH in Subarctic Sweden. Based on joint fieldwork, two teams – one that aligns itself with political ecology (PE) and the other with social-ecological systems (SES) – compared PE and SES approaches of understanding RDH. Our purpose was twofold: 1) to describe the situation of Sami RDH through the lenses of PE and SES, exploring how the two approaches interpret the same empirical data; 2) to present an analytical comparison of the ontological and epistemological assumptions of this work, also inferring different courses of action to instigate change for the sustainability of RDH. Key informants from four sameby in the Kiruna region expressed strong support for the continuation of RDH as a cultural andeconomic practice. Concerns about the current situation raised by Sami representatives centered on the cumulative negative impacts on RDH from mining, forestry and tourism. PE and SES researchers offered dissimilar interpretations of the key aspects of the RDH socio-economic situation, namely: the nature and scale of RDH systems; the ubiquitous role of conflict; and conceptualizations of responses to changing socioenvironmental conditions. Due to these disparities, PE and SES analyses have radically divergent sociopolitical implications for what ought to be done to redress the current RDH situation ; L'élevage de rennes (RDH) est une stratégie de subsistance étroitement liée à la tradition culturelle sami. Cet article explore les implications de deux approches théoriques et méthodologiques pour saisir les relations socio-environnementales complexes de RDH dans la Suède Subarctique. Sur la base du travail sur le terrain, deux équipes - une qui s'harmonise avec l'écologie politique (PE) et l'autre avec les systèmes socio- écologiques (SES) - ont comparé les approches PE et SES pour comprendre le RDH. Notre but était double: 1) décrire la situation de Sami RDH à travers les lentilles de PE et SES, en explorant comment les deux approches interprètent les mêmes données empiriques; 2) présenter une comparaison analytique des hypothèses ontologiques et épistémologiques de ce travail, en déduisant également différentes voies d'action pour instaurer un changement pour la durabilité de RDH. Les informateurs clés de quatre sameby dans la région de Kiruna ont fortement soutenu la poursuite de RDH en tant que pratique culturelle et économique. Les préoccupations concernant la situation actuelle soulevée par les représentants de Sami ont été centrées sur les effets négatifs cumulatifs sur le RDH des activités minières, forestières et touristiques. Les chercheurs de PE et de SES ont proposé des interprétations différentes des aspects clés de la situation socioéconomique de RDH: la nature et l'échelle des systèmes RDH; Le rôle omniprésent du conflit; Et les conceptualisations des réponses à l'évolution des conditions socio-environnementales. En raison de ces disparités, les analyses PE et SES ont des implications socio-politiques radicalement divergentes pour ce qui devrait être fait pour remédier à la situation actuelle de RDH ; El pastoreo de renos es una estrategia de sustento profundamente arraigada en la tradición cultural del pueblo sami. Este artículo explora las implicancias de dos enfoques teóricos y metodológicos, para comprender las complejas relaciones socio-ambientales de esta actividad socioeconómica en el sub-ártico de Suecia. Basados en un trabajo de campo conjunto, dos equipos - uno que se alinea con la ecología política (PE) y el otro con los sistemas socio-ecológicos (SES) - realizan un estudio comparativo, con el doble propósito de: 1) describir la situación actual del pastoreo de renos, explorando como se interpretan los mismos datos empíricos desde ambos enfoques (PE y SES); 2) presentar una comparación analítica de los supuestos ontológicos y epistemológicos de este trabajo, infiriendo también diferentes cursos de acción para fomentar el cambio hacia un pastoreo de renos más sustentable. Los informantes clave de cuatro comunidades sami de la región de Kiruna expresaron su firme respaldo a la continuación del pastoreo de renos como práctica cultural y económica. Sus preocupaciones sobre la situación actual se centraron en los impactos negativos acumulados de la minería, la silvicultura y el turismo sobre esta actividad socioeconómica ancestral. Los investigadores de PE y SES ofrecieron diferentes interpretaciones de los aspectos clave de la situación del pastoreo de renos; a saber: la naturaleza y la escala del sistema; el papel omnipresente de los conflictos; y las conceptualizaciones de las respuestas a las cambiantes condiciones socio-ambientales. Debido a estas disparidades, los análisis de PE y SES tienen implicaciones sociopolíticas radicalmente divergentes sobre lo que se debería hacer para remediar la actual situación del pastoreo de renos del pueblo sami.

Stuart McAnulla provides an eloquent defence of a particular variant of critical realism, suggesting that it provides a more appropriate set of ontological foundations for the kind of critical political analysis I espouse than the ontological actualism he attributes to me. In this rejoinder, whilst welcoming McAnulla's important intervention in the debate, I defend myself against his charge of actualism (if the attribution of an ontology to an author can be regarded as a charge), whilst indicating how the 'as-if-realism' that perhaps better reflects my ontological assumptions is perfectly compatible with critical political analysis. In so doing I caution against ontological evangelism, the notion that only 'real' entities can be causal, and the appeal to structures (like patriarchy) as causes. I conclude by reflecting on the complex and seldom discussed relationship between experience and ontology.

Over the past decades, irregular movement across national borders has increased when various humanitarian crises have forced people to seek refuge outside their country of origin. Due to increased displacement of people, asylum seekers have become a highly controversial topic in politics and public discussion. While there is plenty of research on asylum policies and experiences of asylum seekers, the ways in which politicians justify their arguments for or against particular asylum bills have received less attention. The aim of this study is to fill the research gap by examining justifications of arguments in asylum law debates of two different countries, Finland and Australia. Similarities and differences in political discourses are accessed through epistemic governance approach. The study focuses on commonly accepted facts and assumptions that politicians rely on when they create and reproduce certain images of social reality. These ontological assumptions are analysed through discourse analysis. Although there are some differences in the ways in which Finnish and Australian politicians debate on asylum seekers, the study discovered significant similarities between asylum law-related discourses in the two countries. The study identified several shared assumptions of reality that can be found in both Finland and Australia, which supports the claims of epistemic governance that national policies are affected by world cultural influences. While this study contributed to epistemic governance research by examining one object of epistemic work, ontology of environment, in relation to asylum laws, future studies are needed to create a more comprehensive picture of how asylum seekers are portrayed in political sphere.

AbstractDebates and discussions in an intellectual field help us to come to terms with our existing condition and work towards its needed transformation. Debates and discussions have been very much part of traditions of sociological reflections in India. In the 1950s there was a debate about the 'book view' and 'field view' of studying Indian society in which the works of M. N. Srinivas and Louis Dumont were discussed. A recent debate has arisen on the need for Indian social sciences to overcome their entrenched parochial fixations and be simultaneously interested in fieldwork at home and the world. The article begins with this and discusses the need for Indian social sciences overcome their parochial fixation and simultaneously work with India and the world. This calls for overcoming the limits of loyalty such as uncritical loyalty to nation-state and cultivate a relationship of gratitude to both one's country and the world.

Research on ontological security in world politics has mushroomed since the early 2000s but seems to have reached an impasse. Ontological security is a conceptual lens for understanding subjectivity that focuses on the management of anxiety in self-constitution. Building especially on Giddens, IR scholars have emphasized how this translates to a need for cognitive consistency and biographical continuity – a security of 'being.' A criticism has been its so-called 'status quo bias,' a perceived tilt toward theorizing investment in the existing social order. To some, an ontological security lens both offers social theoretic foundations for a realist worldview and lacks resources to conceptualize alternatives. We disagree. Through this symposium, we address that critique and suggest pathways forward by focusing on the thematic of anxiety. Distinguishing between anxiety and fear, we note that anxiety manifests in different emotions and leaves room for a range of political possibilities. Early ontological security scholarship relied heavily on readings of Giddens, which potentially accounts for its bias. This symposium re-opens the question of the relationship between anxiety and subjectivity from the perspective of ontological security, thinking with and beyond Giddens. Three contributions re-think anxiety in ontological security drawing on existentialist philosophy; two address limitations of Giddens' approach.

The aim of this article is to compare and contrast the ideas of Friedrich von Hayek and Joseph Alois Schumpeter, who both adopted an indeterminist approach in their economic analyses, through a discussion of their relative strengths and weaknesses. The analysis makes extensive references the ideas of Karl Popper and Roy Bhaskar because of their profound impact on philosophical as well as economic thought. The article examines the indeterminism that marks the theories of Hayek and Schumpeter from an ontological and epistemological standpoint. More specifically, it addresses Popper and Hayek on the side of epistemological indeterminism as they theorized indeterminacy on the basis of the uncertainty of the future, and temporality in general, as well as the everchanging and always incomplete nature of knowledge, whereas it analyzes Bhaskar and Schumpeter as ontological indeterminists who saw indeterminacy as resulting from the nature of economic and social systems. The article?s conclusion is that epistemological approaches to the study of indeterminacy are bound to remain within a static framework and that an ontological reasoning is needed for a transition to a dynamic framework. In other words, the reasons lying behind discontinuity in economic systems can be found only within the inherent characteristics of those systems. Therefore, any economic analysis should start with a careful assessment of the social reality?s nature, because faulty assumptions about it will inevitably lead to disconnect between theory and practice.

The thesis of the ontological primacy of antagonism, thus the political, is central to Chantal Mouffe's call for taming antagonism into agonism, or agonistic pluralism. Within planning theory, Mouffe's conflictual ontology that underpins this call has raised questions over the ontological assumption of the presently prominent and consensus-oriented communicative and deliberative planning approaches. This is because these approaches consider consensus formation as a normative ideal and always at least a potential outcome from open and inclusive deliberation, that is, ontological. Yet, the notion that antagonism is also an ever-present possibility for all social relations and therefore an ineradicable risk for consensus-building effort in planning practices appears to be increasingly accepted even by communicative planning theorists. In this article, I trace the origin of Mouffe's thesis of the ontological primacy of antagonism back to both her original collaborative work with Earnest Laclau, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, and Carl Schmitt. With Derrida and Laclau, I then argue that this Mouffean thesis does not hold: antagonism operates at the ontic level in the social and it is only but one way of discursively inscribing the experience of exclusion and the use of power. This insight supports a new, post-antagonism approach to politics and the political based on the ontology of radical negativity. Finally, I discuss how this approach can be linked with planning theory by adopting a de-ontologised notion of the political. I conclude by arguing that since agonism is not the only option for dealing with antagonism for the socially established actors, for example, planners, its implementation in planning practice can appear merely as a top-down imposition of a democratic ethos. Sometimes, depoliticisation of agonistic planning might therefore be necessary.

AbstractReal knowledge emerges from "impossible" worldviews. Or, put differently, it is possible to accept knowledge that is produced by people whose ontological presuppositions–their baseline assumptions about the nature of reality–one entirely rejects. How can this fact be accommodated, not by advancing a wishful post-dualism, dangerous post-secularism, or implausible ontological relativism, but by working within the tradition of secular political philosophy so that indigenous knowledge, too, can be a basis for public policy and collective action in secular societies? Via a reframing Amazonian multinaturalist perspectivism–which has so inspired post-dualist civilizational critiques–as a social theory of health and illness that informs contemporary Western epidemiology's struggles to theorize the distribution of health and illness in mass society, this article advances a general approach to recognizing knowledge that has been developed on the other side of boundaries of ontological difference. It argues that the accuracy or efficacy of any particular indigenous knowledge-practice implies the generative potential as theory of the ontological presuppositions that facilitated the knowledge-practice's evolution. Combining the ontological turn's interest in the innovativeness of indigenous concepts with a proposal for superseding its incommensurable worlds and abandonment of the aspiration to more-than-local knowledge, the article shows that indigenous ideas and their underlying ontologies are more than generic alternatives to inspire Western civilizational renewal, and opens a path to their legitimization as actionable knowledge in the terms of secular public reason.