英语学校的口译员:我们不都是吗?

IF 1.1 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Charlotta Friedner Parrat
{"title":"英语学校的口译员:我们不都是吗?","authors":"Charlotta Friedner Parrat","doi":"10.1177/17550882221134959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is a reply to Bevir and Hall, who recently argued in this journal that the English School needs to reflect more on its philosophy. They are right. Yet, their preferred distinction between a structural and an interpretivist strand of the School is not a constructive way forward. This is because their distinction between a structural and an interpretivist strand of the school is too stark, their chosen dimensions for sorting through the School are arguably not the most fruitful, and the inclusion of the English School’s normative agenda must remain independent of whether one is inclined to start from structure or from agency. After elaborating these points, the article moves on to suggesting a number of other philosophical issues which would be more relevant for the English School to work through. It ends with an empirical illustration of what an integrated English School approach, inspired by structuration, could look like.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"221 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpretivists in the English School: Aren’t we all?\",\"authors\":\"Charlotta Friedner Parrat\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17550882221134959\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article is a reply to Bevir and Hall, who recently argued in this journal that the English School needs to reflect more on its philosophy. They are right. Yet, their preferred distinction between a structural and an interpretivist strand of the School is not a constructive way forward. This is because their distinction between a structural and an interpretivist strand of the school is too stark, their chosen dimensions for sorting through the School are arguably not the most fruitful, and the inclusion of the English School’s normative agenda must remain independent of whether one is inclined to start from structure or from agency. After elaborating these points, the article moves on to suggesting a number of other philosophical issues which would be more relevant for the English School to work through. It ends with an empirical illustration of what an integrated English School approach, inspired by structuration, could look like.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Political Theory\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"221 - 241\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Political Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882221134959\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882221134959","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

这篇文章是对Bevir和Hall的回复,他们最近在本杂志上辩称,英国学校需要更多地反思其哲学。他们是对的。然而,他们倾向于区分学派的结构主义和解释主义,这并不是一条建设性的前进道路。这是因为他们在学校的结构和解释主义之间的区别太明显了,他们选择的学校分类维度可以说不是最富有成效的,而且英国学校的规范议程的纳入必须独立于人们倾向于从结构还是从机构开始。在阐述了这些观点之后,文章继续提出了一些其他哲学问题,这些问题对英国学派来说更为相关。它以一个实证的例子结束,说明了受结构化启发的综合英语学校方法可能是什么样子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interpretivists in the English School: Aren’t we all?
This article is a reply to Bevir and Hall, who recently argued in this journal that the English School needs to reflect more on its philosophy. They are right. Yet, their preferred distinction between a structural and an interpretivist strand of the School is not a constructive way forward. This is because their distinction between a structural and an interpretivist strand of the school is too stark, their chosen dimensions for sorting through the School are arguably not the most fruitful, and the inclusion of the English School’s normative agenda must remain independent of whether one is inclined to start from structure or from agency. After elaborating these points, the article moves on to suggesting a number of other philosophical issues which would be more relevant for the English School to work through. It ends with an empirical illustration of what an integrated English School approach, inspired by structuration, could look like.
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
11
×
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