“…As has been noted, further work on emotions should bring neuroscience findings into closer engagement with social and political theory, connecting emotions to ideational theory (Reus-Smit 2014). Because of the inherently materialist framework of much of the scholarship on emotions, many of its findings have been difficult to integrate with the ideational framework of constructivist IR (Jeffery 2014). 29 Yet ideas and ideational structures provide the context for emotional reactions and effects, as different ideas will suggest particular valences.…”
This article examines the role of spatial shape in the justification, practice, and study of territorial claims, focusing in particular on the concepts of contiguity and compactness. A territory is contiguous if all parts are connected to all other parts, and a territory is compact if all its parts are closely joined or densely packed spatially. Shaping territories to be contiguous and compact is often implicitly taken to be a worthwhile goal, in both empirical and normative assessments of territorial claims. This article focuses directly on these two concepts, taking a novel approach to the study of territory by raising questions about these foundational, but often unexamined, background assumptions. Interrogating territorial shape thus provides a useful means of examining arguments about the justice or legitimacy of the territorial rights attributed to states or peoples. The contingent origins of the concepts of contiguity and compactness suggest that evaluations of territorial shape have sometimes been based on an implicit affective ‘feel’ or emotional reaction as much as on logical or empirical argument. This conclusion allows us to rethink some of our unstated assumptions about the shapes of states and other political territories, and thus to reconsider the justice or legitimacy attributed to those claims.
“…As has been noted, further work on emotions should bring neuroscience findings into closer engagement with social and political theory, connecting emotions to ideational theory (Reus-Smit 2014). Because of the inherently materialist framework of much of the scholarship on emotions, many of its findings have been difficult to integrate with the ideational framework of constructivist IR (Jeffery 2014). 29 Yet ideas and ideational structures provide the context for emotional reactions and effects, as different ideas will suggest particular valences.…”
This article examines the role of spatial shape in the justification, practice, and study of territorial claims, focusing in particular on the concepts of contiguity and compactness. A territory is contiguous if all parts are connected to all other parts, and a territory is compact if all its parts are closely joined or densely packed spatially. Shaping territories to be contiguous and compact is often implicitly taken to be a worthwhile goal, in both empirical and normative assessments of territorial claims. This article focuses directly on these two concepts, taking a novel approach to the study of territory by raising questions about these foundational, but often unexamined, background assumptions. Interrogating territorial shape thus provides a useful means of examining arguments about the justice or legitimacy of the territorial rights attributed to states or peoples. The contingent origins of the concepts of contiguity and compactness suggest that evaluations of territorial shape have sometimes been based on an implicit affective ‘feel’ or emotional reaction as much as on logical or empirical argument. This conclusion allows us to rethink some of our unstated assumptions about the shapes of states and other political territories, and thus to reconsider the justice or legitimacy attributed to those claims.
“…Yet, while using insight and finding support and inspiration in neuroscience, and any other field of research for that matter, is often very sensible and helpful, we are probably better off avoiding any one methodological position becoming the standard for proper emotional research and rather embracing methodological pluralism in the study of political emotions. This follows Jeffery (), who, in the context of a journal “forum discussion” ( International Theory ) on emotions and world politics, concludes with this reflection:Where the emotions are concerned, they allow us to take heed of marvellous and ground‐breaking discoveries in the neurosciences but without donning white coats ourselves or falling into the trap of thinking that we humans are nothing but brains. (p. 588)…”
This introductory article to the special issue zooms in on the literature on political emotions with a specific focus on methodological questions of "how to study" political emotions. To the extent that methodological matters are addressed in the extant literature, the associated challenges are often portrayed as a clash between social science and natural science disciplines, a clash frequently illustrated by the meeting between political science and neuroscience. Rather than being a clash between academic disciplines, this article argues that many of the methodological challenges facing emotional research have their origin in scholars' diverse views on the relationship between themselves as researchers and political emotions as a research object. In the light of this acknowledgment, the article encircles and discusses the methodological challenges associated with three key conceptual distinctions between: (1) individual and collective emotions, (2) emotions and reason, and between (3) involuntary political emotions and the strategic usage of political emotions. Using the contributions to this special issue as illustrations, the article argues in favor of moving beyond mutually exclusive dichotomies regarding these conceptual distinctions and offers pathways for dealing with current methodological challenges to emotional research. It points to methodological pluralism, transparency, and context-sensitive research strategies.KEY WORDS: methodology, individual and collective emotions, emotions and reason, involuntary and strategic emotions bs_bs_banner
“… Holmes (2015), assessing the difference between latent and emergent emotions, and their impact on foreign policy decision-making, mentions affective neuroscience. Despite scattered references to Panksepp's work in IR(Jeffery 2014a, Hutchison 2016, Lebow 2015, it has not been systematically evaluated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a forum on emotions and world politics in this journal, neuroscience features prominently (Bleiker and Hutchison 2014). Within it, Jeffery contends that experimental neuroscientific findings, allied with contextual facts generated from interpretivist approaches, form webs of meaning that can explain and interpret the dynamics of IR (2014a, 588). For Bially Mattern, neuroscience substantiates features of emotions long suspected by social scientists: it endorses views that emotions ‘are intersubjective social phenomena as much as they are biological subjective ones’, and that emotions and cognition are deeply intertwined (2014, 590).…”
International relations (IR) has witnessed an emerging interest in neuroscience, particularly for its relevance to a now widespread scholarship on emotions. Contributing to this scholarship, this paper draws on the subfields of affective neuroscience and neuropsychology, which remain largely unexplored in IR. Firstly, the paper draws on affective neuroscience in illuminating affect's defining role in consciousness and omnipresence in social behavior, challenging the continuing elision of emotions in mainstream approaches. Secondly, it applies theories of depth neuropsychology, which suggest a neural predisposition originating in the brain's higher cortical regions to attenuate emotional arousal and limit affective consciousness. This predisposition works to preserve individuals’ self-coherence, countering implicit assumptions about rationality and motivation within IR theory. Thirdly, it outlines three key implications for IR theory. It argues that affective neuroscience and neuropsychology offer a route toward deep theorizing of ontologies and motivations. It also leads to a reassessment of the social regulation of emotions, particularly as observed in institutions, including the state. It also suggests a productive engagement with constructivist and poststructuralist approaches by addressing the agency of the body in social relations. The paper concludes by sketching the potential for a therapeutically-attuned approach to IR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
