STUDYING THE ECONOMIZATION OF DISCOURSE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: THE CASE FOR ECOLINGUISTICS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2022.009Słowa kluczowe
critical theory, green theory, international relations, ecolinguistics, discourse analysis, economization, constructivism, interpretivismAbstrakt
Purpose: The purpose of the article is to serve as an interdisciplinary methodological proposal which aims to enrich the critical, constructivist and interpretivist schools of International Relations. It builds on the already existing, although still modest tradition of using discourse analysis in IR.
Methodology/approach: The methodology proposed is the combination of the interpretivist method with ecolinguistics. The inclusion of this innovative linguistic school provides an avenue of research that is both critical, ecological (or even eco-radical) and focused on language and its role in shaping both international politics and the world at large. The article contains a short introduction to ecolinguistics for IR scholars and tries to showcase its potential usefulness for analyzing different IR discourses.
Findings: The article is supplemented by a short empirical case study that shows the viability of using basic econliguistics in IR discourse analysis. The study is focused on the phenomenon of increasing economization of mainstream discourse on international affairs and uses the example of IR think tanks. Ecolinguistics are thereby applied to the narratives on the Paris Agreement published by chosen European think tanks in 2015 and 2016. The findings confirm both the economization of discourse on the matters of global political ecology as well as the usefulness of ecolinguistics in revealing this phenomenon.
Originality/value: The article is among the first syntheses of IR and ecolinguistics, which may prove relevant to many fields of international studies, with the most obvious one being political ecology. The proposed methodology will be useful to scholars representing critical, constructivist, “green” and ecofeminist approaches to studying IR.
Bibliografia
Besthorn, F. H., & McMillen, D. P. (2002). The oppression of women and nature: Ecofeminism as a framework for an expanded ecological social work. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 83(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.20
Blok, Z. (2017). Bariery eksplanacyjne w ekonomii i politologii. Teoria Polityki, 1, 79–106. https://doi.org/10.4467/00000000TP.17.005.6584
Bookchin, M. (1982). The ecology of freedom: The emergence and dissolution of hierarchy. Cheshire Books.
Burke, A., Fishel, S., Mitchell, A., Dalby, S., & Levine, D. J. (2016). Planet politics: A manifesto from the end of IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(3), 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816636674
Chandler, D., Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2018). Anthropocene, capitalocene and liberal cosmopolitan IR: A response to Burke et al.’s ‘Planet politics.’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 46(2), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817715247
Chaturvedi, S., & Doyle, T. (2015). Climate terror: A critical geopolitics of climate change. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chilton, P. A. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Clapp, J. (2006). International political economy and the environment. In M. M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler, & D. Stevis (Eds.), Advances in international environmental politics (pp. 107–136). Palgrave Macmillan.
Corry, O. (2020). Nature and the international: Towards a materialist understanding of societal multiplicity. Globalizations, 17(3), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1676587
Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K. E., Ragnarsdóttir, K. V., Roberts, D., De Vogli, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2014). Development: Time to leave GDP behind. Nature, 505(7483), 283–285. https://doi.org/10.1038/505283a
Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
Cox, R. W. (1992). Multilateralism and world order. Review of International Studies, 18(2), 161-168.
Cox, R. W., & Schechter, M. G. (2002). The political economy of a plural world: Critical reflections on power, morals and civilization. Routledge.
Delaney, D. (2003). Law and nature (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493690
Duszak, A. (2015). Wielogłosowość języków nauki a tożsamość akademicka w świetle lingwistyki stosowanej. In A. Duszak, A. Jopek-Bosiacka, & G. Kowalski (Eds.), Tekst naukowy i jego przekład. Universitas.
Dyduch, J., Mikiewicz, P., & Rzeszótko, S. (2006). Krytyczne wprowadzenie do teorii stosunków międzynarodowych. Oficyna Wydawnicza Arboretum.
Ferguson, Y. H., & Mansbach, R. W. (2004). Remapping global politics: History’s revenge and future shock. Cambridge University Press.
Fierke, K. M. (2002). Links across the abyss: Language and logic in international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 46(3), 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00236
Germain, R. D., & Kenny, M. (1998). Engaging Gramsci: International relations theory and the new Gramscians. Review of International Studies, 24(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210598000035
Guattari, F. (2000). The three ecologies. The Athlone Press.
Gunderson, R. (2015). Environmental sociology and the Frankfurt School 1: Reason and capital. Environmental Sociology, 1(3), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2015.1054022
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. Webster (Eds.), On language and linguistics. Continuum.
Harding, S. (1996). Science is ‘good to think with’. In A. Ross (Ed.), Science wars (pp. 16-28). Duke University Press.
Hartwick, E., & Peet, R. (2003). Neoliberalism and nature: The case of the WTO. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 590(1), 188–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203256721
Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature, and the geography of difference. Blackwell Publishers.
Jackson, P. T. (2011). The Conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. Routledge.
Kurowska, X. (2020). Interpretive scholarship in contemporary international relations. Teoria Polityki, 4, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.4467/25440845TP.19.018.11784
Lalueza, F., & Girona, R. (2016). The impact of think tanks on mass media discourse regarding the economic crisis in Spain. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.09.006
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. SAGE.
Maslow, S., & Nakamura, A. (2008). Constructivism and ecological thought: A critical discussion on the prospects for a “Greening” of IR theory. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 14(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.4036/iis.2008.133
McGann, J. (2020). 2019 Global go to think tank index report. TTCSP Global go to Think Tank Index Reports. https://repository.upenn.edu/think_tanks/17
Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the web of life. Verso.
Moore, J. W. (2018). The capitalocene part II: Accumulation by appropriation and the centrality of unpaid work/energy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(2), 237–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1272587
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary∗. Inquiry, 16(1–4), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682
O’Neill, K. (2009). The environment and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Polus, A. (2013). Krytyczna analiza rozwoju teorii stosunków międzynarodowych. In Ł. Młyńczyk & B. Nitschke (Eds.), Aspekty metodologiczne oraz teoretyczne w subdyscyplinach politologii (pp. 516-531). Wydawnictwo Naukowe GRADO.
Price, R., & Reus - Smit, C. (1998). Dangerous liaisons?: Critical international theory and constructivism. European Journal of International Relations, 4(3), 259–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004003001
Shiva, V. (2000). Poverty and globalization [Speech transcript]. BBC Online Network. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm
Steciąg, M. (2012). Dyskurs ekologiczny w debacie publicznej. Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego.
Stibbe, A. (2012). Ecolinguistics and globalization. In N. Coupland (Ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 413-418). John Wiley & Sons. https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/1913/
Stibbe, A. (2014). An ecolinguistic approach to critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse Studies, 11(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.845789
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Routledge.
Sujecka-Zając, J. (2020). Czy jesteśmy gotowi na ekoglottodydaktykę w polskim kontekście edukacyjnym?. Neofilolog, 55/1, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.14746/n.2020.55.1.2
Walewicz, P. (2019). “Greening” the critical theory of international relations with the concept of world-ecology. Torun International Studies, 1(11), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2018.011
Wallerstein, I. M. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press.
Wapner, P. (2008). The importance of critical environmental studies in the new environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2008.8.1.6
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2022 Torun International Studies
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 443
Liczba cytowań: 0
