未来只是另一个过去

IF 3.2 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1017/s0260210524000135
Oliver Kessler, Halvard Leira
{"title":"未来只是另一个过去","authors":"Oliver Kessler, Halvard Leira","doi":"10.1017/s0260210524000135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Before International Studies can confront the future, it needs to get a better grip on its past and present. The discipline lacks agreement on both its own name and the name of its object of study. More importantly, key concepts used to describe phenomena have changed continuously: no concept emerging in the 19th century has remained untouched, no envisioned future of the past could have prepared us for the present. Old concepts have been discarded, new ones adopted, and existing ones modified. This implies that any exercise in ‘futurology’ must necessarily come with an openness towards conceptual change, and that a key challenge for International Studies going forward will consist in matching our conceptual toolbox to an ever-changing world. The importance of conceptual change has until recently been neglected in the study of global politics. Thus, in this paper we start by presenting the empirical case for incorporating conceptual change by laying out key past and present conceptual changes in the international realm. We then move on to a presentation of conceptual history and the tools it provides us for grasping conceptual change, before discussing how to tackle conceptual developments when thinking about the future of global politics.","PeriodicalId":48017,"journal":{"name":"Review of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The future is just another past\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Kessler, Halvard Leira\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0260210524000135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Before International Studies can confront the future, it needs to get a better grip on its past and present. The discipline lacks agreement on both its own name and the name of its object of study. More importantly, key concepts used to describe phenomena have changed continuously: no concept emerging in the 19th century has remained untouched, no envisioned future of the past could have prepared us for the present. Old concepts have been discarded, new ones adopted, and existing ones modified. This implies that any exercise in ‘futurology’ must necessarily come with an openness towards conceptual change, and that a key challenge for International Studies going forward will consist in matching our conceptual toolbox to an ever-changing world. The importance of conceptual change has until recently been neglected in the study of global politics. Thus, in this paper we start by presenting the empirical case for incorporating conceptual change by laying out key past and present conceptual changes in the international realm. We then move on to a presentation of conceptual history and the tools it provides us for grasping conceptual change, before discussing how to tackle conceptual developments when thinking about the future of global politics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of International Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of International Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210524000135\",\"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":"Review of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210524000135","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: 1

摘要

国际研究在面对未来之前,需要更好地把握自己的过去和现在。这门学科对自己的名称和研究对象的名称都缺乏共识。更重要的是,用于描述现象的关键概念在不断变化:19 世纪出现的任何概念都未曾改变,过去对未来的任何设想都无法让我们为现在做好准备。旧的概念被抛弃,新的概念被采纳,现有的概念被修改。这就意味着,任何 "未来学 "研究都必须对概念变革持开放态度,国际研究今后面临的一个主要挑战就是如何使我们的概念工具箱与不断变化的世界相匹配。直到最近,概念变革的重要性在全球政治研究中一直被忽视。因此,在本文中,我们首先通过阐述国际领域过去和现在的主要概念变化,提出了纳入概念变化的实证案例。接着,我们将介绍概念史及其为我们提供的把握概念变化的工具,然后讨论在思考全球政治的未来时如何应对概念的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The future is just another past
Before International Studies can confront the future, it needs to get a better grip on its past and present. The discipline lacks agreement on both its own name and the name of its object of study. More importantly, key concepts used to describe phenomena have changed continuously: no concept emerging in the 19th century has remained untouched, no envisioned future of the past could have prepared us for the present. Old concepts have been discarded, new ones adopted, and existing ones modified. This implies that any exercise in ‘futurology’ must necessarily come with an openness towards conceptual change, and that a key challenge for International Studies going forward will consist in matching our conceptual toolbox to an ever-changing world. The importance of conceptual change has until recently been neglected in the study of global politics. Thus, in this paper we start by presenting the empirical case for incorporating conceptual change by laying out key past and present conceptual changes in the international realm. We then move on to a presentation of conceptual history and the tools it provides us for grasping conceptual change, before discussing how to tackle conceptual developments when thinking about the future of global politics.
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
Review of International Studies
Review of International Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.30%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Review of International Studies serves the needs of scholars in international relations and related fields such as politics, history, law, and sociology. The Review publishes a significant number of high quality research articles, review articles which survey new contributions to the field, a forum section to accommodate debates and replies, and occasional interviews with leading scholars.
期刊最新文献
Towards an abolitionist feminist peace: State violence, anti-militarism, and the Women, Peace and Security agenda Degrowth, green growth, and climate justice for Africa No place to hide: The public attribution of responsibility for policy failures of international organisations Images of international thinkers The future is just another past
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1