Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 245–261 | Cite as

Wie interpretieren wir: Emotionen und ihre Rolle bei der Konstruktion des (bedrohlichen) Anderen

  • Sybille Reinke de BuitragoEmail author
Aufsatz

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit dem Einfluss von Emotionen beim Vorgang des Interpretierens. Emotionen sind zu einem wichtigen Forschungsgegenstand in den Internationalen Beziehungen geworden. Daher ist es von Bedeutung, dass wir uns mit dem Zugang zu Emotionen auseinandersetzen. Hierbei spielt auch die eigene Emotionalität eine Rolle, denn die Art, wie wir etwas verstehen, ist auch emotional geprägt. Der Beitrag geht davon aus, dass Emotionen und Rationalität miteinander verbunden sind. Als Forschende sollten wir daher unsere Emotionalität als Teil der wissenschaftlichen Praxis reflektieren. Zudem versteht der Beitrag Emotionen auf verschiedenen, miteinander verbundenen Ebenen: Emotionen als Forschungsgegenstand, der empirische Zugang zu Emotionen, wie auch die Reflektion der Emotionalität beim Interpretieren. Als Illustration dient eine Fallstudie zur Interpretation von politischen Cartoons, der Schwerpunkt wird auf Selbst- und Fremdbilder und die Konstruktionen des (bedrohlichen) Anderen gelegt. Abschließend setzt sich der Beitrag mit der Reflektion der eigenen Emotionalität auseinander.

How do we interpret: Emotions and their role in the construction of the (threatening) other

Abstract

The contribution focuses on the role of emotions in the process of interpretation. Emotions have become an important research focus in International Relations. It is then also important that we consider how we can empirically access emotions. In this, also the researcher’s own emotionality plays a role, because the way in which we understand something is also emotionally shaped. This contribution sees emotions and rationality as tightly connected. As researchers, we should thus also reflect our emotionality as part of our scientific practice. The contribution sees emotions on different but linked levels: emotions as research object, the empirical access to emotions, and the researcher’s reflection of own emotionality. To illustrate this, a case study on the interpretation of political cartoons is offered; the focus lies on images of self and other, and on the construction of the (threatening) other. In conclusion, the contribution offers reflections on the researcher’s own emotionality.

Literatur

  1. Åhäll, Linda, und Thomas Gregory. 2015. Introduction. In Emotions, politics and war, Hrsg. Linda Åhäll, Thomas Gregory, 1–14. Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, Rune, Juha A. Vuori, und Xavier Guillaume. 2015. Chromatology of security: introducing colours to visual security studies. Security Dialogue 46(5):440–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, Michael, und Raymond Duvall. 2005. Power in international politics. International Organization 59(1):39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleiker, R. 2000. Popular dissent, human agency and global politics. Bd. 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleiker, Roland. 2001. The aesthetic turn in international political theory. Millennium 30(3):509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bleiker, Roland. 2009. Aesthetics and world politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bleiker, Roland. 2014. Visual assemblages: from causality to conditions of possibility. In Reassembling international theory: assemblage thinking and international relations, Hrsg. Michelle Acuto, Simon Curtis, 75–81. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bleiker, Roland. 2015. Pluralist methods for visual global politics. Millennium 43(3):872–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bleiker, Roland. 2018. Mapping visual global politics. In Visual global politics, Hrsg. Roland Bleiker, 1–29. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bleiker, Roland, und Emma Hutchison. 2008. Fear no more: emotions and world politics. Review of International Studies 34:115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bleiker, Roland, und Emma Hutchison. 2018. Methods and methodologies for the study of emotions in world politics. In Researching emotions in international relations: Methodological perspectives on the emotional turn, Hrsg. Maéva Clément, Eric Sangar, 325–342. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, David. 1998. Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clément, Maéva, und Eric Sangar. 2018. Introduction: methodological challenges and opportunities for the study of emotions. In Researching emotions in international relations: methodological perspectives on the emotional turn, Hrsg. Maéva Clément, Eric Sangar, 1–29. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connolly, William E. 1991. Identity/difference. Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crawford, Neta C. 2000. The passion of world politics: propositions on emotion and emotional relationships. International Security 24(4):116–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crawford, Neta C. 2014. Institutionalizing passion in world politics: fear and empathy. International Theory 6(3):535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodds, Klaus. 2010. Popular geopolitics and cartoons: representing power relations, repetition and resistance. Critical African Studies 2(4):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foden, Glenn. 2015. Obama’s fuzzy pink line. Cartoon. https://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/r/red_line.asp. Zugegriffen: 25. Mai 2016.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as practice: discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hansen, Lene. 2011. Theorizing the image for security studies: visual securitization and the Muhammad cartoon crisis. European Journal of International Relations 17(1):51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen, Lene. 2015. How images make world politics: International icons and the case of Abu Ghraib. Review of International Studies 41(2):263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holland, Jack. 2007. Emotions and research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10(3):195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes, Rachel. 2007. Through the looking blast: Geopolitics and visual culture. Geography Compass 1(5):976–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutchison, Emma, und Roland Bleiker. 2014. Theorizing emotions in world politics. International Theory 6(3):491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koterba, Jeff. 2015. Cartoon. The choices program, teaching with the news, the Iran nuclear deal. Political cartoons powerpoint, brown university, providence, RI. http://www.choices.edu/resources/twtn/twtn-iran-cartoon. Zugegriffen: 24. Mai 2016.Google Scholar
  26. Lebow, Richard Ned. 2005. Reason, emotion and cooperation. International Politics 42:283–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leep, Matthew Coen. 2010. The affective production of others: United States policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Cooperation and Conflict 45(3):331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linklater, Andrew. 2004. Emotions and world politics. How collective emotions shift over time. International Theory 6(3):574–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacDonald, Fraser, Klaus Dodds, und Rachel Hughes (Hrsg.). 2010. Observant states: geopolitics and visual culture. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  30. Manzo, Kate. 2012. Earthworks: the geopolitical visions of climate change cartoons. Political Geography 31(8):481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKee, Rick. 2015. Cartoon. The choices program, teaching with the news, the Iran nuclear deal. Political cartoons powerpoint, brown university, providence, RI. http://www.choices.edu/resources/twtn/twtn-iran-cartoon. Zugegriffen: 24. Mai 2016.Google Scholar
  32. Mercer, Jonathan. 2014. Feeling like a state: social emotion and identity. International Theory 6(3):515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reichertz, Jo. 2016. Qualitative und interpretative Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reinke de Buitrago, Sybille. 2010. Threat images in international relations. American and German security policy on international terrorism. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
  35. Reinke de Buitrago, Sybille. 2016. The role of emotions in US security policy towards Iran. Global Affairs 2(2):155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sasley, Brent E. 2011. Theorizing states’ emotions. International Studies Review 13(3):452–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spillmann, Kurt R., und Kati Spillmann. 1989. Feindbilder: Entstehung, Funktion und Möglichkeiten des Abbaus. Zürich: ETH.Google Scholar
  38. Stein Gross, Janice. 2006. Psychological explanations of international conflicts. In Handbook of International Relations, Hrsg. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse und Beth A. Simmons, 292–308. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Varvel, Gary. 2015. Cartoon, US-Iran Framework. The Week. http://theweek.com/cartoons/548347/political-cartoon-world-kerry-iran-nuclear-deal. Zugegriffen: 11. Mai 2016.Google Scholar
  40. Willig, Carla. 2017. Interpretation in qualitative research. In The sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology, Hrsg. Carla Willig, Wendy Stainton Rogers, 267–290. London: SAGE. https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/82114_Willig_Rogers_Ch16_2p.pdf, Zugegriffen: 11. September 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolf, Reinhard. 2011. Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of status recognition. International Theory 3(1):105–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolf, Reinhard. 2012. Der „emotional turn“ in den IB: Plädoyer für eine theoretische Überwindung methodischer Engführung. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik 5(4):605–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) and the Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polizeiakademie Niedersachsen, Projekt VIDEOSTAR & Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations