Advertisement

Strategy and Strategic Discourse

  • Hasan Yükselen
Chapter
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Strategy as the main focus of this book is defined in its very basic terms, as the match of means and ends. However, as it will be discussed in subsequent parts of this chapter, when strategy is analyzed through the lens of positivism, it brings about reification of ends in favor of mean leading to inevitable focus on means. Distinctively, in this book, a different perspective that enables a dialectical approach to means and ends will be adopted.

References

  1. Adler, Emanuel. 2002. “Constructivism and International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsneas, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, 95–113. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2005. Communitarian International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Adorno, Theodor W., and Max Horkheimer. 1979. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, Margaret. 1998. “Realism and Morphogenesis.” In Critical Realism: Essential Readings, edited by Margaret Archers, Roy Bhaskar, Andrew Collier, Tony Lawson, and Alan Norrie, 356–382. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Banta, Benjamin. 2012. “Analyzing Discourse as a Causal Mechanism.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (2): 379–402.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, Richard J. 1999. Praxis and Action: Contemporary Philosophies of Human Activity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, Roy. 1989. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of Contemporary Human Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1997. A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  9. Booth, Ken. 2007. Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdiue, Pieree. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, David. 1993. Politics Without Principles: Sovereignty, Ethics, and the Narratives of the Gulf War. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2001. “International Engagements: The Politics of North American International Relations.” Political Theory 29 (3): 432–448.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, Robert W. 1986. “Social Forces, States and World Orders.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by Robert Keohane, 204–254. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1996. “Realism, Positivism and Historicism” In Approaches to World Order, edited by Robert W. Cox and Timothy J. Sinclair, 49–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cozette, Muriell. 2010. “Realistic Realism?: American Political Realism, Clausewitz and Raymond Aron on the Problem of Means and Ends in International Politics.” Journal of Strategic Studies 27 (3): 428–453.Google Scholar
  16. Dessler, David. 1989. “What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Problem.” International Organization 43 (3): 441–473.Google Scholar
  17. Devetak, Richard. 2009. “Post-structuralism.” In Theories of International Relations, edited by Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Terry Nardin, Matthew Peterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True, 184–190. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Edkins, Jenny. 1999. Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing Political Back. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  19. Gellner, Ernest. 1994. Encounters with Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. George, Jim. 1994. Discourses of Global Politics. Colorado: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  21. Harvey, David. 2002. “Agency and Community: A Critical Realist Paradigm.” Journal for the Theory of Social Science 32 (2): 163–194.Google Scholar
  22. Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  23. Heine, Christian, and Benno Teschke. 1996. “Sleeping Beauty and the Dialectical Awakening: On the Potential of Dialectic for International Relations.” Millennium 25 (2): 399–423.Google Scholar
  24. Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. 1991. “Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 17 (4): 393–410.Google Scholar
  25. Hume, David. 2003. A Treatise on Human Nature. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, Richard Wyn. 1999. Security, Strategy and Critical Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  27. Joseph, Jonathan. 2004. “Foucault and Reality.” Capital & Class 28 (1): 143–165.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2007. “Philosophy in International Relations: A Scientific Realist Approach.” Millennium 35 (2): 345–359.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2008. “Hegemony and the Agent Structure Problem in International Relations: A Scientific Realist Contribution.” Review of International Studies 34 (1): 109–128.Google Scholar
  30. Joseph, Jonathan, and John Michael Roberts. 2004. Realism, Discourse and Deconstruction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Kasaba, Reşat. 2006. “Dreams of Empire, Dreams of Nations.” In Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Moderns World, edited by Joseph W. Esherick et. al., 198–228. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  32. Klotz, Audie. 2006. “Moving Beyond the Agent-Structure Debate.” International Studies Review 8 (2): 355–381.Google Scholar
  33. Kurki, Milja. 2008. Causation in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lebow, Richard Ned. 2014. Constructing the Cause in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Leon, David. 2010. “Reductionism, Emergence and Explanation in International Relations Theory.” In Scientific Realism and International Relations, edited by Colin Wight and Jonathan Joseph, 31–50. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Marx, Karl. 1966. Capital. London: Lawrance & Wishart.Google Scholar
  37. McSweeney, Bill. 1999. Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Merand, Frederic, and Amelie Forget. 2013. “Strategy: Strategizing About Strategy.” In Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR, edited by Rebecca Adler-Nissen, 93–113. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Milliken, Jennifer. 1999. “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods.” European Journal of International Relations 5 (2): 225–254.Google Scholar
  40. Olmann, Bertell. 2003. Dance of Dialectics: Steps in Marx’s Method. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  41. Outhwaite, William. 1998. “Realism and Social Science.” In Critical Realism: Essential Readings, edited by Margaret Archers, Roy Bhaskar, Andrew Collier, Tony Lawson, and Alan Norrie, 282–296. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Patomaki, Heikki. 1996. “How to Tell Better Stories About World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 2 (1): 105–133.Google Scholar
  43. Patomaki, Heikki, and Colin Wight. 2002. “After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism.” International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 213–237.Google Scholar
  44. Porpora, Douglas V. 1993. “Cultural Rules and Material Relations.” Sociological Theory 11 (2): 212–229.Google Scholar
  45. Sayer, Andrew. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Scott, John. 2001. “Where Is Social Structure?” In After Postmodernism: An Introduction to Critical Realism, edited by José Lopez and Garry Potter, 77–85. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  47. Shapiro, Michael J. 1988. The Politics of Representation: Writing Practices in Biography, Photography and Policy. Analysis. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 1990. “Strategic Discourse/Discursive Strategy: The Representation of Security Policy in the Video Age.” International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 327–340.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, Steve, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski. 1996. Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Teschke, Benno, and Can Cemgil. 2014. “The Dialectic of the Concrete: Reconsidering Dialectic for IR and Foreign Policy Analysis.” Globalizations 11 (5): 605–625.Google Scholar
  51. Tucker, Robert C. 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader. 2nd ed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  52. Walker, R. B. J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Weaver, Ole. 1996 “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 149–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Weldes, Jutta, and Diana Saco. 1996. “Making State Action Possible: The United Sates and the Discursive Construction of the Cuban Problem, 1960–1994.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 25 (2): 361–395.Google Scholar
  55. Wendt, Alexander. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations.” International Organization 41 (3): 335–370.Google Scholar
  56. Wight, Colin. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wight, Colin, and Jonathan Joseph. 2010. “Scientific Realism and International Relations.” In Scientific Realism and International Relations, edited by Colin Wight and Jonathan Joseph, 1–30. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Yalvaç, Faruk. 2010a. “Critical Realism, IR Theory and Marxism.” In Scientific Realism and International Relations, edited by Colin Wight and Jonathan Joseph, 167–185. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  59. ———. 2010b. “Eleştirel Gerçekçilik: Uluslararası İlişkiler Kavramında Post-Positivizm Sonrası Aşama.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 6 (24): 3–32.Google Scholar
  60. ———. 2012. “Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisindeki Temel Tartışmalar ve Eleştirel Gerçekçilik.” In Uluslararası İlişkilerde Post-Modern Analizler-1, edited by Tayyar Arı, 1–38. Bursa: MKM Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2014. “Approaches to Turkish Foreign Policy: A Critical Realist Analysis.” Turkish Studies 15 (1): 117–138.Google Scholar
  62. Zizék, Slavoj. 1999. The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hasan Yükselen
    • 1
  1. 1.PeterboroughUK

Personalised recommendations