本体论不安全机制的类型学:俄罗斯在叙利亚的军事介入

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Hugo von Essen, August Danielson
{"title":"本体论不安全机制的类型学:俄罗斯在叙利亚的军事介入","authors":"Hugo von Essen, August Danielson","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Because of the novel explanations it generates for states’ security- and identity-related behavior, the concept of ontological security has been used increasingly in the International Relations (IR) literature in recent years. However, the abundance of interpretations of the concept means that it is often used in conflicting ways. To counter the risk of conceptual stretching and provide the foundation for a common research agenda, this article constructs a typology of ontological security mechanisms. Two dimensions of ontological insecurity are highlighted: the sources and the causes of anxiety. We argue that the source of anxiety can be reflexive, relational, or systemic, while the cause of anxiety can be either shame or discontinuity. These two dimensions produce six mechanisms of ontological insecurity that reflect how the concept is used in the contemporary ontological security literature in IR. By specifying these mechanisms, we argue that the typology offers IR scholars the ability to produce even more nuanced and fine-grained explanations of state behavior driven by ontological insecurity. Finally, to demonstrate the utility of this typology, the article provides an illustrative case study of Russia's engagement in the conflict in Syria in 2015–2017.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"2013 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Typology of Ontological Insecurity Mechanisms: Russia's Military Engagement in Syria\",\"authors\":\"Hugo von Essen, August Danielson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/isr/viad016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Because of the novel explanations it generates for states’ security- and identity-related behavior, the concept of ontological security has been used increasingly in the International Relations (IR) literature in recent years. However, the abundance of interpretations of the concept means that it is often used in conflicting ways. To counter the risk of conceptual stretching and provide the foundation for a common research agenda, this article constructs a typology of ontological security mechanisms. Two dimensions of ontological insecurity are highlighted: the sources and the causes of anxiety. We argue that the source of anxiety can be reflexive, relational, or systemic, while the cause of anxiety can be either shame or discontinuity. These two dimensions produce six mechanisms of ontological insecurity that reflect how the concept is used in the contemporary ontological security literature in IR. By specifying these mechanisms, we argue that the typology offers IR scholars the ability to produce even more nuanced and fine-grained explanations of state behavior driven by ontological insecurity. Finally, to demonstrate the utility of this typology, the article provides an illustrative case study of Russia's engagement in the conflict in Syria in 2015–2017.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Studies Review\",\"volume\":\"2013 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Studies Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad016\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于本体论安全的概念对国家安全和身份相关行为产生了新的解释,近年来,本体论安全的概念在国际关系文献中得到了越来越多的应用。然而,对这个概念的大量解释意味着它经常以相互冲突的方式使用。为了应对概念延伸的风险并为共同的研究议程提供基础,本文构建了一个本体论安全机制的类型学。本体论不安全感的两个维度被强调:焦虑的来源和原因。我们认为,焦虑的来源可以是反射性的、关系性的或系统性的,而焦虑的原因可以是羞耻感或不连续性。这两个维度产生了本体不安全的六种机制,反映了该概念在当代本体安全文献中的使用情况。通过指定这些机制,我们认为类型学为IR学者提供了对本体不安全驱动的状态行为进行更细致和细粒度解释的能力。最后,为了证明这一类型学的实用性,本文提供了2015-2017年俄罗斯参与叙利亚冲突的说明性案例研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Typology of Ontological Insecurity Mechanisms: Russia's Military Engagement in Syria
Because of the novel explanations it generates for states’ security- and identity-related behavior, the concept of ontological security has been used increasingly in the International Relations (IR) literature in recent years. However, the abundance of interpretations of the concept means that it is often used in conflicting ways. To counter the risk of conceptual stretching and provide the foundation for a common research agenda, this article constructs a typology of ontological security mechanisms. Two dimensions of ontological insecurity are highlighted: the sources and the causes of anxiety. We argue that the source of anxiety can be reflexive, relational, or systemic, while the cause of anxiety can be either shame or discontinuity. These two dimensions produce six mechanisms of ontological insecurity that reflect how the concept is used in the contemporary ontological security literature in IR. By specifying these mechanisms, we argue that the typology offers IR scholars the ability to produce even more nuanced and fine-grained explanations of state behavior driven by ontological insecurity. Finally, to demonstrate the utility of this typology, the article provides an illustrative case study of Russia's engagement in the conflict in Syria in 2015–2017.
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
6.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The International Studies Review (ISR) provides a window on current trends and research in international studies worldwide. Published four times a year, ISR is intended to help: (a) scholars engage in the kind of dialogue and debate that will shape the field of international studies in the future, (b) graduate and undergraduate students understand major issues in international studies and identify promising opportunities for research, and (c) educators keep up with new ideas and research. To achieve these objectives, ISR includes analytical essays, reviews of new books, and a forum in each issue. Essays integrate scholarship, clarify debates, provide new perspectives on research, identify new directions for the field, and present insights into scholarship in various parts of the world.
×
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