变化?国际关系中的权力面孔,1979-2019

IF 2.6 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
G. Gallarotti
{"title":"变化?国际关系中的权力面孔,1979-2019","authors":"G. Gallarotti","doi":"10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article traces how the major paradigms in international relations have viewed power over the past 40 years. It argues that theorizing in the 1970s began a bifurcation that served to split the vison of power between two extremes: a hard-power pole on one side (Realism) and a soft-power pole on the other (Neoliberalism and Constructivism). It further argues that scholars who have studied international power have merely been engaged in hovering around the mean, and have always embraced the belief that power was not a binary concept. Rather than looking to the theoretical poles for the true face of international power, scholars are best off embracing a smarter middle or Cosmopolitan view of power.","PeriodicalId":45560,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Power","volume":"14 1","pages":"209 - 234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879573","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The changing? Face of power in international relations, 1979-2019\",\"authors\":\"G. Gallarotti\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article traces how the major paradigms in international relations have viewed power over the past 40 years. It argues that theorizing in the 1970s began a bifurcation that served to split the vison of power between two extremes: a hard-power pole on one side (Realism) and a soft-power pole on the other (Neoliberalism and Constructivism). It further argues that scholars who have studied international power have merely been engaged in hovering around the mean, and have always embraced the belief that power was not a binary concept. Rather than looking to the theoretical poles for the true face of international power, scholars are best off embracing a smarter middle or Cosmopolitan view of power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45560,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Political Power\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"209 - 234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879573\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Political Power\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879573\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Power","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要本文追溯了过去40年来国际关系中的主要范式是如何看待权力的。它认为,20世纪70年代的理论化开始了一种分歧,将权力观分裂为两个极端:一方是硬权力极(现实主义),另一方是软权力极(新自由主义和建构主义)。它进一步认为,研究国际权力的学者只是徘徊在平均水平上,并且一直相信权力不是一个二元概念。学者们最好接受一种更聪明的中间派或世界主义的权力观,而不是从理论两极寻找国际权力的真实面貌。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The changing? Face of power in international relations, 1979-2019
ABSTRACT This article traces how the major paradigms in international relations have viewed power over the past 40 years. It argues that theorizing in the 1970s began a bifurcation that served to split the vison of power between two extremes: a hard-power pole on one side (Realism) and a soft-power pole on the other (Neoliberalism and Constructivism). It further argues that scholars who have studied international power have merely been engaged in hovering around the mean, and have always embraced the belief that power was not a binary concept. Rather than looking to the theoretical poles for the true face of international power, scholars are best off embracing a smarter middle or Cosmopolitan view of power.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Political Power
Journal of Political Power POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信