Panel CFP, ISA 2013: “It’s kicking off… everywhere? Diffusion, resistance and the post-political”

Posted on by
Reply

3 – 6 April 2013
ISA San Francisco

#Provisional title
It’s kicking off… everywhere? Diffusion, resistance and the post-political.

#Call for panel participants
With the global financial crisis now in its fourth year, a host of horizontally-organised antagonisms from the Indignad@s to #OccupyDataran have emerged to challenge the traditional institutions of world order. It is perhaps no wonder that scholars and commentators are debating the extent to which it is necessary or appropriate to identify lines of similarity and commonality among these struggles. Neither is it surprising that some may express reservations concerning these emerging analyses as risking the subsumption and universalization of that which might best be approached as singular. Yet these debates emerge simultaneous to events and uprisings, and the strategies and tactics of current struggles are still very much in development. In response to the ISA CfP, the panel will ask, indeed, how desirable is specificity and congruity in the diffusion of ideas? Who specifically are the agents involved in such movements, and what causal mechanisms carry out, as well as block diffusion? Furthermore, what are the predicted outcomes of the diffusion of ideas, energies, emotions, and desires emerging from the Occupy movement?

The ongoing rise of social struggle predicted by the Social Unrest Index in the International Labour Organisation’s 2012 World of Work Report means that governments have strong incentives to depoliticise issues of rapidly rising unemployment, austerity measures and cuts in public spending, pressures on immigration law, and the rise in punitive government sanctions and policing. How are specific strategies of depoliticisation emerging, and how can these be revealed as obstacles to diffusion amongst resistance movements? This panel, avoiding theoretical or disciplinary boundaries, will seek to examine recent movements in light of global pressures and the philosophical challenges arising from them. What exactly changed to bring forth new energies? To what degree can background conditions and experiences be claimed to be shared? To what extent have recent social movements sacrificed transformative potential, for inclusivity? Indeed, in a world where the sphere of political participation looks increasingly bulimic, to what extent does the strategic refusal of the movements (as yet) to pose themselves as a constituted or final subjectivity, represent a remedy or a hindrance in the increasingly formidable project of global democratic renewal?

The organizers of this panel wish to invite proposals for papers on any of the above questions or related themes.

#Submissions
Please submit a 200/250 word abstract to Nicholas Kiersey <kiersey@ohio.edu> and Phoebe Moore <P.Moore@salford.ac.uk> no later than Thursday, May 24. Should we receive a strong number of proposals, we will be happy to coordinate splitting the submissions over a number of panels.

#Dissemination
Please note that this CfP is being issued in the context of recent events and critical discussions associated with the #occupyirtheory movement, and in anticipation of further such discussions at ISA-BISA in Edinburgh and the Millennium Conference in London later this year. As such, our goal would be to evolve this proposal into a book length volume entitled (provisionally) ‘Occupy World Politics’.

On Formulation in Hardt and Negri’s ‘Declaration’

Posted on by
Reply

Among the various bits and pieces circulating about Hardt and Negri’s new Declaration, Jason Read’s blog suggests a tension between the newer, constitutionalist tones of their project and the sentiments of Negri in an older text, Insurgencies. For Read, Declaration is somewhat overly fascinated with “the US constitution”, whereas the younger Negri was much less interested in dictating formulations:

“A great current of modern political thought, from Machiavelli to Spinoza to Marx, has developed around this open alternative, which is the ground of democratic thought.  In this tradition, the absence of preconstituted and finalized principles is combined with the subjective strength of the multitude, thus constituting the social in the aleatory materiality of a universal relationship, in the possibility of freedom.”

via Unemployed Negativity: Revolution in Theory/Theorizing Revolution: On Hardt and Negris Declaration.

But interestingly its their openness to the non-formulative approach of the movements that draws ire. For example, Doug Henwood was rather critical on his FB page about H&N’s reference to the Israeli tent protest being pretty hushed on the topic of Palestine (Loc. 41/1506), thus reading H&N as saying this topic was treated was somehow correctly expendable in the interests of unifying the movement. Others chimed in on occupy being shallow on the topic of war in general, and not letting Cyndi Sheehan speak. But this seems to be missing the point. The movements of course likely contain sizable numbers of people who would wish to express solidarity with the Palestinians. That they don’t do so is no sign of lack of interest or solidarity. As the pamphlet argues, the movement does need to be strategic about its longevity. To accomplish this, the movement is experimenting with ways of finding an effective common platform. Of course, if not mentioning an issue necessarily means that you don’t care about it then this is an issue. But it could also mean that you you just want to avoid getting bogged down in an intractable debate. This is a common technique adopted by the GAs in the OWS movement where minimal common principles can be agreed as a consensus position and then returned to later. OWS movements are themselves careful on this. While they do express solidarity with other ‘occupy’-style movements around the world, they do not offer expressions of solidarity with people involved in armed conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Uganda).

What is interesting about H&N’s new work is the extent to which they balance observation with evaluation. The general tendencies of the movements are examined for their ‘commonality’ but also for their potential to live up to their promise. They’re establishing criteria of what, in their view at least, would likely constitute a Princely strategy of success, all the while saying its too soon to tell what will come of it all. I need to give the book a much more detailed reading so these comments are necessarily somewhat sophomoric at this stage, but the initial intellectual reactions to this question of formulation are interesting. Commenting on the book more from the perspective of the activist, Mirzoeff summarizes the valences of domination that H&N suggest confront the populations of the world, and agrees with the way the book poses the ‘counter powers’ to these valences as necessarily exterior to ideology or centralized political leadership. The task of developing a new, open constitution against such an array of forces is a daunting one, to be sure. But Mirzoeff seems to get the point. As he concludes, “the next steps won’t be found in a pamphlet but in the sometimes arduous, sometimes exhilarating process of communing.”

Occupyirtheory ISA2012 Lineup, & Poster!

Posted on by
Reply

#occupyirtheory at #ISA2012

Just a reminder! Don’t forget to join us for the #occupyirtheory session at ISA 2012 in San Diego, Tuesday April 3 (Room 204 Hilton Bayfront Hotel). The event will feature a brief roundtable-style discussion followed by a ‘General Assembly’-style open forum to talk about what the IR and IPE communities want from Occupy Wall Street, and what Occupy can expect from us. Confirmed speakers at the roundtable event at this time include: Pablo K, Robbie Shilliam, Luke Ashworth, and Nicholas Kiersey. Wanda Vrasti will facilitate the GA and introduce the procedural format for those as yet unfamiliar with how it all works. Really looking forward to seeing you there!

Also, a very special thanks to Pablo K for putting together this absolutely brilliant poster for the event!

Issue 5 Imperialism, Finance, #Occupy 2012 | Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies

Posted on by
Reply

Announcing the publication of Issue 5 of the Journal of Critical Globalization Studies featuring, amongst other things, a large Occupy IR forum on the Occupy Wall Street movement and its relevance for International Relations and International Political Economy. The forum contains short comment pieces from Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, Elizabeth Cobbett with Randall Germain, Ian Bruff, Elisabeth Chaves, Wanda Vrasti, Michael J. Shapiro, Nicole Sunday Hughes, Simon Tormey, David J. Bailey, Agnes Gagyi, Aida A. Hozic, Ivan Manokha with Mona Chalabi, Nicholas J. Kiersey, and Colin Wight. The issue also includes an extended contribution on the Occupy movement in Canada by Konstantin Kilibarda.

Issue 5 Imperialism, Finance, #Occupy 2012 | Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies.

Exercise caution with KONY 2012 | This Blog Harms

Posted on by
Reply

If like me you are scratching your head over this sudden surge in KONY postings all over the social media sphere, you could do worse than check out the mighty Robin Cameron’s compilation of useful posts weighing up the various sides to the issue. This meme harms! Do be sure to check out the KONY Drinking Game link, too!

Exercise caution with KONY 2012 | This Blog Harms.

The Definitive ‘Kony 2012′ Drinking Game | Wronging Rights.

#OCCUPYIRTHEORY @ ISA2012, San Diego

Posted on by
Reply

ISA Headquarters have kindly granted the use of a room for a special #occupyirtheory meeting at the upcoming Annual Convention, in San Diego, April 1-4, 2012.

The meeting will be listed on the official online version of the schedule as #OCCUPYIRTHEORY? Lessons from OWS for the Study of World Politics. It will be held at at the Hilton Bayfront Hotel on Tuesday, April 3 from 6:30 to 9:30 pm.

The event will open with a brief roundtable with various speakers (TBA) addressing a diversity of themes related to IR, IPE, and OWS. It is hoped we will have some local Occupy San Diego activists present to offer their thoughts, too. This will be followed by a GA-style event where audience members will be welcome to engage in informal discussion on strategies and initiatives that the movement might chose to pursue.

There will also be an informal strategy meeting on Sunday night for anyone interested in helping out with running the event.

If you are interested in playing a role in organizing this, or you just have any questions or concerns, feel welcome to email us at occupyirtheory *AT* gmail *DOT* com, or contact one of the group members on Facebook.

Thanks everyone!

#occupyirtheory

TRIP, Wendt, and IR’s Disorder

Posted on by
Reply

So, here we have an excerpt from OSU’s Mershon newsletter – which is a nice way to introduce the below excerpt from the Disorder of Things blog…

In a survey of faculty at more than 1,400 colleges and universities worldwide, Alexander Wendt was named as having the most influence in the field of international relations over the past 20 years. Wendt is Ralph D. Mershon Professor of International Security.The survey was part of the Teaching, Research, and International Policy TRIP Project done by the Theory and Practice of International Relations at the College of William and Mary. This is the projects fourth survey since 2004.Wendt was also named for producing the best work in the field of international relations over the past 20 years, and third for producing the most interesting scholarship over the past five years.Wendt is author of Social Theory of International Politics Cambridge, 1999, widely cited for bringing social constructivist theory to the field of international relations. His book argues that international politics is determined not primarily by material concerns such as wealth and power, but by states perceptions of each other as rivals, enemies, and friends. Social Theory of International Politics was named Best Book of the Decade by the International Studies Association in 2006 and has been translated into 10 languages.Wendt is also co-editor, with Duncan Snidal, of International Theory: A Journal of International Politics, Law and Philosophy. His recent publications include New Systems Theories of World Politics Palgrave, 2009, edited with Mathias Albert and Lars-Erik Cederman. Based on a 2005 Mershon Center conference, the book uses a number of systems theoretical approaches to analyze the structure and dynamics of the international system. Wendt’s contribution, “Flatland: Quantum Mind and the International System,” compares the international system to a hologram.

via Mershon Memo.

And now a quote from this excellent Disorder of Things commentary:

The self-image of the discipline continues to shift within the American heartland, not least with respect to the Big Other of Realism. The 2009 TRIP Survey recorded the percentage of self-identified Realists among US respondents at 21%, with Liberals at 20% and Constructivists at 17%. Things have progressed some way since then, with only just over 16% now willing to call themselves Realist against a steady 20% of Liberals and a narrowly triumphant 20.4% of Constructivists (and given the rankings awarded to Wendt within the ‘top four scholars’ sections, the shorter TRIPS may be rendered more simply as: ALEXANDER WENDT MADE ME A CONSTRUCTIVIST). Agnostics and Refuseniks together continue to outnumber these main categories with 11.5% naming themselves ‘Other’ and a further 25.7% declining to name any paradigmatic preference (a slight increase, but essentially the same levels as in 2008).

Read more here…

Occupy Foreign Affairs | FPIF

Posted on by
Reply

With thanks to Pablo K:

When Foreign Affairs puts inequality on its cover – and hosts a debate on the topic at the tony offices of the Council on Foreign Relations – the Occupy Wall Street movement has achieved a major victory that eclipses even the generally favorable coverage in liberal bastions such as The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker. It’s also a sign that a profound anxiety gnaws at the foreign policy elite in this country. The question is: why are foreign policy mandarins suddenly so fretful? Or, put another way, why does Foreign Affairs want its readers to take this issue so seriously?

via Occupy Foreign Affairs | FPIF.