This article demonstrates how by using J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (LOTR) as a text in the classroom instructors can relay the international relations (IR) ''Great Debates'' and feminist ''waves'' to students through the framework of ''where you stand depends on where you sit.'' It overviews how J.R.R. Tolkien's acclaimed trilogy is relevant to learning about IR and then presents a number of ''cuts'' into using LOTR to inform IR teaching of both problem solving and critical theory. It begins by parsing the three ''Great Debates'' of IR theory and three ''waves'' of feminist theory in terms of different worldviews by relating them to characters from the trilogy. Next, the paper suggests that a critical evaluation of this analysis conveys that concerns, goals, and understandings of problems and insecurities are influenced (although not determined) by context, such as gender, race, class, sexuality, and postcolonial position. It concludes by suggesting that further use of popular culture and the humanities can help IR teaching both illustrate and critically reflect on IR scholarship.Overview: The Lord of the Rings and International Relations J.R.R. Tolkien's (1993Tolkien's ( , 1994 epic literary trilogy, The Lord of the Rings (LOTR), a renowned work of literature set in a fictional world known as Middle-earth, is a potential gift to pedagogy and self-awareness in International Relations (IR). This classic tale of adventure, written half a century ago, returned to prominence with the release of three very successful movies earlier this decade. Further study of the books and movies demonstrates how IR scholars can benefit from using intersections of IR with popular culture. Particularly, LOTR can be used as a pedagogical light to illustrate the historical context and current debate within both problem solving and critical forms of IR theory. In addition, it can be used as a pedagogical mirror to elucidate how paradigms provide a form of tunnel vision that both illuminate and restrict understandings of our world.Authors' note: We would like to thank the anonymous ISP reviewers as well as Christina Gray, Angela McCracken, Spike Peterson, Jennifer Sterling-Folker, Ann Tickner, and especially the late Hayward Alker for thoughtful comments on previous drafts. We are particularly grateful to have benefited from Hayward's attentive and extensive critique before his passing and will miss his excellent colleagueship. Ó 2008 International Studies AssociationInternational Studies Perspectives (2008) 9, 377-394.

This paper develops a social identity approach to diplomatic negotiations that links research on gender and culture in negotiations by treating gender as an analytic category. By critically interrogating literature on diplomacy, negotiation, and masculinity in China and the United States and comparing hegemonic forms of masculinity and other ''ideal type'' gender and negotiator models, this suggests that in each culture:(1) dominant negotiating styles (generally integrativeF''win-win''For distributiveF''win-lose'') parallel dominant ideal typical males, (2) informal negotiating styles (reliance on personal relationships) parallel subordinate ideal typical females, and (3) creative negotiating tactics are possible by code-switching (changing relationship type and strategy style), or creatively reinterpreting existing models to address negotiation goals. This paper seeks to contribute to the literature by linking previously separate but related subfields (''gender and negotiation'' and ''culture and negotiation'' research), adding to existing research frameworks, and creating the opportunity for improved international diplomacy.

How is it possible to create more just forms of peace in our world? This article responds to calls for a feminist theory/peace studies collaboration by integrating work on feminist care ethics and conflict transformation. We propose that justpeace is possible by strengthening ways of knowing which sustainably weave together understandings of "self" and "other" to support relationships of care over dehumanization and violence. Building on Sara Ruddick's work, we argue that her "maternal thinking" can be understood as a feminist "weaving" epistemology or flexible way of knowing that promotes meaningful inclusion, symmetrical power relations, and positive peace through three major practices: (1) living with dissonance, (2) creatively overcoming disconnects between the interests of the self and the other, and (3) bridging practical goals for surviving the present with more idealistic goals for best practices in the future. As such, it provides an alternative to "othering" practices at individual, national, and international levels which reinforce asymmetrical power relations, strengthen unjust social, economic and political structures, and support violent conflict. In conclusion, we illustrate how this weaving epistemology supports human rights practices promoting people over profit, equality over discrimination and violence, and restorative rather than retributive forms of conflict transformation.