This article posits empirical and political reasons for recent 'micro--moves' in several contemporary debates, and seeks to further develop them in future International Relations studies. As evidenced by growing trends in studies of practices, emotions, and the everyday, there is continuing broad dissatisfaction with grand or structural theory's value without 'going down' to 'lower levels' of analysis where structures are enacted and contested. We suggest that empirics of the last fifteen years -including the war on terror and the Arab Spring -have pushed scholars into increasingly micropolitical positions and analytical frameworks. Drawing upon insights from Gilles Deleuze, William Connolly, and Henri Lefebvre, among others, we argue that attention to three issues -affect, space, and time -hold promise to further develop micropolitical perspectives on and in IR, particularly on issues of power, identity, and change. (Routledge, 2008). He is currently working on a project investigating restraint in global politics, an edited volume on methods and constructivism, and two journal symposia on the politics of constructivism. He is also the co--editor of three books and one handbook, and has published articles in a number of international studies journals. 2 Every macro--theory presupposes, whether implicitly or explicitly, a micro--theory to back up its explanations--Steven Lukes, Introduction to Emile Durkheim's The Rules of Sociological Method, (1982: 16) The balance one strikes between the macro and micro is a tension that has characterized social theory since at least Durkheim's time. Whether it is titled a level--of--analysis (Singer, 1961) or agent--structure (Wendt, 1987) 'problem', International Relations (IR) has faced its own related quandaries over which level(s) should be regarded theoretical, methodological, and even normative primacy. Since Kenneth Waltz's (1959) critique of the first and second images as inadequate to capture the most important dynamics of world politics, IR has at times focused within a grand theory mode that too--often eschews the myriad of sub--system and sub--state phenomena. Attention to anarchy and its inescapable pressures on nation--states were said to offer the most reliable insights into the 'small number of big and important things' of which IR should mostly concern itself (Waltz, 1986: 329). While a recent and persuasive 2013 special issue of European Journal of International Relations considered whether we were at the 'End of IR theory', there continues to be a default admonition to scholars, and students, to re--embrace grand theory (Snyder, 2013; Harrison and Mitchell, 2014). A 15 December 2011 post by Professor Brian Rathbun on the popular blog 'Duck of Minerva' provides ample illustration of this move --an exaltation to all IR scholars to find the 'big' theoretical argument that will make them famous. The post asks graduate students (especially) whether the empirical studies that 3 seem to have permeated IR as of late 'will make you the next Robert Keohane? Or Ale...

The concept of soft power occupies a prominent place in International Relations, foreign policy, and security studies. Primarily developed by Joseph S. Nye, the concept is typically drawn upon to emphasize the more intangible dimensions of power in a field long dominated by overtly material (i.e. military) power. Recently, some scholars have reframed soft power -specifically the key notion of attraction -as a narrative and linguistic process. This literature, however, has downplayed some of the other deep-seated underpinnings of soft power, which this article argues lie in the dynamics of affect. Building upon the International Relations affect and aesthetics literatures, this article develops the concept of soft power as rooted in the political dynamics of emotion and introduces the concept of affective investment. The attraction of soft power stems not only from its cultural influence or narrative construction, but more fundamentally from audiences' affective investments in the images of identity that it produces. The empirical import of these ideas is offered in an analysis of the construction of American attraction in the war on terror.

While the recent interest in affects and emotions in world politics is encouraging, the crucial relationships between affect, emotion, and discourse have remained largely under-examined. This article offers a framework for understanding the relations between affect and discourse by drawing upon the theories of Jacques Lacan. Lacan conceptualises affect as an experience which lies beyond the realm of discourse, yet nevertheless has an effect upon discourse. Emotion results when affects are articulated within discourse as recognisable signifiers. In addition, Lacanian theory conceptualises affect and discourse as overlapping yet not as coextensive, allowing analyses to theoretically distinguish between discourses which become sites of affective investment for audiences and those that do not. Thus, analysing the mutual infusion of affect and discourse can shed light on why some discourses are more politically efficacious than others. The empirical import of these ideas is offered in an analysis of American affective reactions to 11 September 2001.

No abstract

No abstract