Advertisement

Introduction

  • Erica Resende
  • Dovilė Budrytė
  • Didem Buhari-Gulmez
Chapter

Abstract

Drawing on Dirk Nabers’s 2015 book on crisis and change, this edited volume is built on the key assumption that any social inquiry into global politics should transcend the canonical emphasis on intergovernmental relations with the privileged agency conferred to the role of states. Following a not so recent trend in social theory, we conceptualize the social realm as a discursive space of infinite, endless articulations in which power attempts to transform social relations in an open process to constitute society. We turn our lenses to Ukraine (which has been elsewhere described as a classic crisis) in order to engage with some of the assumptions prescribed above: What is the relationship between crisis and change? Is there an ontology of crisis? How are crises culturally and socially constructed? How do issues of agency and structure come into play in Ukraine? Which subjectivities were brought into existence by the Ukraine crisis discourse? How does identity come to play with the making of this crisis? This introductory chapter explains the rationale behind the book and summarizes the arguments behind the chapters that make this edited volume.

References

  1. Allison, G., and P. Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Åslund, A. 2015. Ukraine: What Went Wrong and How to Fix It. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  3. Berenskoetter, F. 2014. “Parameters of a National Biography.” European Journal of International Relations 20 (1): 262–88.Google Scholar
  4. Boin, A. 2004. “Lessons from Crisis Research.” International Studies Quarterly 6 (1): 165–74.Google Scholar
  5. Brassett, J., and C. Clarke. 2012. “Performing the Sub-prime Crisis: Trauma and the Financial Event.” International Political Sociology 6 (1): 4–20.Google Scholar
  6. Brecher, M. 1984. “International Crises and Protracted Conflicts.” International Interactions 11 (3–4): 237–97.Google Scholar
  7. Brecher, M., and J. Wilkenfeld. 1982. “Crises in World Politics.” World Politics 24 (1): 380–417.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, N. 2004. Global Instability and Strategic Crisis. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Carr, E. H. 2001 [1939]. The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919–1939. New York: Perennial.Google Scholar
  10. Croft, S. 2006. Culture, Crisis, and America’s War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dayton, B. W., ed. 2004. “Managing Crises in the Twenty-First Century.” International Studies Review 6 (1): 165–94.Google Scholar
  12. Deleuze, G. 1990. Difference and Repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Deleuze, G. 2004 [1990]. Logic of Sense. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  14. Edkins, J. 2003. Trauma and the Memory of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, J. 1994. Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Gilpin, R. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hay, C. 1996. “From Crisis to Catastrophe? The Ecological Pathologies of the Liberal-Democratic State Form.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences 9 (4): 421–34.Google Scholar
  18. Hay, C. 2013. “Treating the Symptom Not the Condition: Crisis Definition, Deficit Reduction and the Search for a New British Growth Model.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15 (1): 23–37.Google Scholar
  19. He, Kai. 2013. “Hazard Rate Determinants of Efficient and Successful Crisis Management: An Event History Analysis of Foreign Policy Crises, 1918–2007.” Cooperation and Conflict 48 (1): 51–79.Google Scholar
  20. Hebron, L., and P. James. 1997. “Great Powers, Cycles of Relative Capability and Crises in World Politics.” International Interactions 23 (2): 145–73.Google Scholar
  21. Hermann, C. F. 1969. “International Crisis as a Situational Variable.” In International Politics and Foreign Policy, edited by J. N. Rosenau. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hermann, C. F., and L. P. Brady. 1972. “Alternative Models of International Crisis Behavior.” In International Crises: Insights from Behavioral Research, edited by C. F. Hermann. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hollis, M., and S. Smith. 1990. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  24. Kouzmin, A., and A. M. G. Jarman. 2004. “Policy Advice as Crisis: A Political Redefinition of Crisis Management.” International Studies Review 6 (1): 182–89.Google Scholar
  25. Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  26. Lynn Doty, R. 1993. “Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines.” International Studies Quarterly 37 (3): 297–320.Google Scholar
  27. Mälksoo, M. 2015. “‘Memory Must Be Defended’: Beyond the Politics of Mnemonical Security.” Security Dialogue 46 (3): 221–37.Google Scholar
  28. McCormick, J. M. 1978. “International Crises: A Note on Definition.” The Western Political Quarterly 31 (3): 352–58.Google Scholar
  29. Menon, R., and E. Rumer. 2015. Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Morgenthau, H. J. 1948. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  31. Nabers, D. 2015. A Poststructuralist Discourse Theory of Global Politics. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Plokhy, S. 2000. “The City of Glory: Sevastopol in Russian Historical Mythology.” Journal of Contemporary History 35 (3): 369–83.Google Scholar
  33. Resende, E., and D. Budryte, eds. 2013. Memory and Trauma in International Relations: Theories, Cases, Debates. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Reynolds, J. 2008. “Wounds and Scars: Deleuze on the Time and Ethics of the Event.” Deleuze Studies 1 (2): 144–66.Google Scholar
  35. Stern, E. K. 1999. Crisis Decisionmaking: A Cognitive Institutional Approach. Stockholm: CRISMART/The Swedish National Defence College.Google Scholar
  36. Stern, E. K. 2003. “Crisis Studies and Foreign Policy Analysis: Insights, Synergies, and Challenges.” International Studies Review 5 (1): 183–91.Google Scholar
  37. Weldes, J. 1999. “The Cultural Production of Crises: U.S. Identity and Missiles in Cuba.” In Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, edited by J. Weldes, M. Laffey, H. Gusterson, and R. Duvall. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  38. Widmaier, W. W. 2007. “Constructing Foreign Policy Crises: Interpretive Leadership in the Cold War and War on Terrorism.” International Studies Quarterly 51 (4): 779–94.Google Scholar
  39. Widmaier, W. W., M. Blyth, and L. Seabrooke. 2007. “Exogenous Shocks or Endogenous Constructions? The Meanings of Wars and Crises.” International Studies Quarterly 51 (4): 747–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erica Resende
    • 1
  • Dovilė Budrytė
    • 2
  • Didem Buhari-Gulmez
    • 3
  1. 1.Brazilian War CollegeRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Political ScienceGeorgia Gwinnett CollegeLawrencevilleUSA
  3. 3.International Relationsİzmir University of EconomicsİzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations