Abstract
Global studies, or the study of globalization, is a diverse field of research, with different disciplinary focuses and with some national versions. Russian Alexander Chumakov constructed it as a philosophical discipline, while in U.S. academia it is considered an empirical inquiry at the intersection of area studies, international studies, and international relations. This paper focuses on American global studies, pointing out the heavy epistemological burden it inherited from the field of knowledge dominated by international relations, which enshrines both methodological and political nationalism. International relations makes claims to be the sole theory originator in this field, but it may be criticized for several methodological and ethical issues (such as unwarranted simplifications that purge empirical contents to the point of unfalsifiability, antiquated epistemic ideals, Western and hegemonic biases, besides methodological nationalism), thus alternate theorizations are highly desirable.
Highlights
In early 2017, the English-speaking academic world celebrated the publication of a book written by Manfred Steger and Amentahru Wahlrab
The contention we develop is that methodological nationalism cannot be overcome without allowing for the causal efficacy of factors other than nation-states, and this takes a theory doomed to collide with international relations (IR)
The foregoing analyses were geared towards showing that international relations, as we know it, is quite vulnerable to both axiological and epistemological criticisms
Summary
In early 2017, the English-speaking academic world celebrated the publication of a book written by Manfred Steger and Amentahru Wahlrab. Robertson argues global studies should “or be post-disciplinary, anti-disciplinary, cross-disciplinary and, most unfortunate, inter-disciplinary. Can we trust global studies to be more than or ‘multinational’?. To capture few ideas aboutdomain how it could become more andplaced less American. It aimsconfigured at an analysis of the socio-political thinking on issues transcending the nation-state. With four of nation-states, whileofanthe antithetical vision ethos of globalabout connectedness to gain disciplines, bringing evidence for the supremacy of international relations in it. The first section of the paper will detail these statements about the state of the field with four analyze IR’sbringing entrenched biases,for which were transmitted to the nominally international disciplines, evidence the supremacy of international relationsautonomous in it. The concluding part will make the case for unifying the field under the primacy of global studies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
