Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
Wobec kryzysu współczesnej ekopedagogiki, której dorobek wydaje się niewystarczający do przezwyciężenia trwającego kryzysu ekologicznego, artykuł próbuje poddać pod rozważania teoretyczne dwie koncepcje z innych nauk. Mowa o geologicznej konpcecji antropocenu oraz ekologiczno-społeczno-ekonomicznej koncepcji kapitalocenu. W tej pierwszej znaleźć można podłoże do systemowych rozważań na temat roli człowieka w ekosystemie globalnym, zaś w tej drugiej podłoże do krytycznego przewartościowania podstawowych założeń ekopedagogiki, rozumianej jako „zielona” gałąź pedagogiki krytycznej, kontestującej kształt współczesnego systemu społeczno-gospodarczego (kapitalizmu).
EN
Faced with the crisis of contemporary ecopedagogy whose merits seem insufficient to overcome the current ecological crisis, the article tries to give into consideration two theoretical concepts from other sciences. Those are the geological concept of Anthropocene and the eco-socio-economic concept of Capitalocene. The former can be the basis of systemic considerations of humanity’s role in the global ecosystem, while the latter can be the basis of critical reevaluation of the founding principles of ecopedagogy, which is understood as the “green” branch of critical pedagogy, contesting the shape of the current socio-economic system (capitalism).
EN
The article signals the need for a deepened theoretical analysis of environmental issues in International Relations studies. It initializes the idea of “Greening” the Critical Theory of International Relations with critical concepts from other sciences. Thus it proposes the scope of Critical Theory of IR to be expanded to cover not only the relations between power and capital, but the relations of power-capital-nature. It shows common points between the Critical Theory of IR and the concepts of world-ecology and the Capitalocene by Jason W. Moore and proposes reforming some founding definitions that the Critical Theory of IR is based on. This includes re-conceptualizing the critique of capitalism as a way of organizing nature, but also distancing oneself from the Cartesian dichotomy of Society + Nature, which is an obstacle to properly including environmental issues in IR research.
EN
Articles in Foreign Affairs have always been an informative collection of opinions, which allowed understanding how the U.S., and especially its intellectuals that comment on international relations, perceive other countries and their foreign policies. Then when an international crisis comes, such as the one in Ukraine in 2014 and the subsequent annexation of Crimea, one wonders if the Western analysts might have predicted such outcome. The article analyzes more than three dozen Foreign Affairs publications from 1999 to 2013 and concludes that the authors held rather close-minded views when it comes to foreign policy analysis. They did not present a holistic standpoint, but tried to answer all questions with only a limited number of tools and foci. It is also concluded that combining the realist, liberal internationalist and constructivist attitudes would have allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of the process of creation of Russian foreign policy.
EN
The article is an operationalization of a new theoretical-methodological approach to analyzing International Relations discourse. The approach is based on the Critical Theory of International Relations and the concept of world-ecology. It re-conceptualizes the critique of mainstream International Relations theories and paradigms in a way which foregoes the Cartesian dualism of Society and Nature in order to analyze the subject through the dialectical power-capital-nature relation. The article analyzes two contemporary texts from “Foreign Affairs” which defend the realist and liberal theories. It shows that both discourses only stabilize the existing order without challenging it in any way or proposing radical ways of dealing with the ecological crisis. They either ignore environmental issues or treat them as solvable under the current political-economic status quo.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.