Stop Telling Us How to Behave: Socialization or Infantilization?1

Epstein, Charlotte

doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2012.00458.x

Cited by 124 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However -and a careful instead of only a critical reading of our contribution would have made this clear -we do not criticize the concept of socialization for being per se oblivious to power (we do not use this term at all, by the way, it is adapted from Deitelhoff's and Zimmermann's reading of our text). We rather argue, building upon an article by Charlotte Epstein (2012), that power is not sufficiently problematized in the socialization approach as this concept constructs a particular framing of normative change which represents norm diffusion »as a teleological process of progress, which leads to an improvement of the socialize« (Engelkamp et al 2012: p. 109). Furthermore, we criticize the socialization model for constructing the actor who is being socialized as passive and reacting and as a morally empty subject whose »own values and identities are suppressed and therewith revoked« (Engelkamp et al 2012: p. 109).…”

Section: Oblivious To Power and Unreflective? Readings Of Constructivmentioning

confidence: 98%

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Engelkamp¹,

Glaab²,

Renner

2014

World Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their response to our article »Office Hours«, Nicole Deitelhoff and Lisbeth Zimmermann issue three major points of critique towards our proposal of a critical approach to norm research: They criticize, firstly, our discussion of constructivist norm research, secondly, our use of the concepts of local and Western and, thirdly, the overall critical potential of our proposed approach, which they criticize as going merely beyond an unmasking gesture. We take our response to our critics, firstly, as an opportunity to clarify some of the arguments made in our article. Secondly, we confront the points of criticism outlined above and show that Deitelhoff's and Zimmermann's critique can only be maintained if one accepts their specific reading of our article. Moreover, it gets tangled up in three major contradictions and is built upon a problematic understanding of the relation between empirical facticity and normative evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Oblivious To Power and Unreflective? Readings Of Constructivmentioning

confidence: 98%

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Engelkamp¹,

Glaab²,

Renner

2014

World Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even when non-Western states challenge the existing world order, this is usually confined to its particular elements and is aimed at the redistribution of benefits within the system rather than at any radical change of its guiding principles (Bull 1984). Arguably, this is also the implicit assumption in the literature on 'norm diffusion', which is typically traced back to the influential article by Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink (1998, for critical overviews, see Epstein 2012, Adler-Nissen 2014, Zarakol 2014. In its other aspects, this understanding is close to David Lake's (2009) contractual theory of international hierarchy, in which the latter is understood as a set of mutually beneficial arrangements between the rulers, who provide social order, and the subordinates, who agree to limit their freedom for the sake of predictability and security.…”

Section: International Society and Its Undersidementioning

confidence: 98%

Russia's Postcolonial Identity

Morozov

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The articles of Epstein (2012), Inayatullah and Blaney (2012a), MacKenzie and Sesay (2012) and Widmaier and Park (2012) (Epstein 2012: pp. 140-141;MacKenzie and Sesay 2012: pp.…”

Section: Constructivist Norm Research As Political Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Office Hours: How (Critical) Norm Research Can Regain Its Voice

Engelkamp¹,

Glaab²,

Renner³

2014

World Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social Science research cannot be neutral. It always involves, so the argument of this article, the (re)production of social reality and thus has to be conceived as political practice. From this perspective, the present article looks into constructivist norm research. In the first part, we argue that constructivist norm research is political insofar as it tends to reproduce Western values that strengthen specific hegemonic discursive structures. However, this particular political position is hardly reflected on in norm research. Hence, it is our goal in the second part of the article to outline research strategies potentially useful in reflective and critical norm research. We propose a critical research program based upon three central methodological steps that are inspired by post-structuralism: first, the questioning of global hegemonic values; second, the reconstruction of marginalized knowledge; and third, the explicit reflection of one's own research perspective.

show abstract

Stop Telling Us How to Behave: Socialization or Infantilization?1

Abstract: International Studies Perspectives (2012) 13, 135-145.

Cited by 124 publications

References 18 publications

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Russia's Postcolonial Identity

Office Hours: How (Critical) Norm Research Can Regain Its Voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About