Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Peace Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wæver, O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Language of Foreign Policy

Ole Wæver

Centre for Peace and Conflict Research, Copenhagen

In Ideology and Foreign Policy: Problems of Comparative Conceptualization, Walter Carlsnaes develops a framework for the study of foreign policy based on the concept of action. Functionalist and structuralist theories are thrust aside on the way to a logical clarification of the nature of explanation. Overall, this contribution is evaluated as positive and stimulating. Three points for possible criticism are made: (1) The `action' framework relegates structural factors to a secondary position; (2) the conceptualization in terms of values and perceptions rests on a narrow and rationalist understanding of psyche and language; (3) the concept of `ideology' remains too closely linked to the issue of beliefs (held by individuals) and thereby an important ideational dimension of social reality is missed. The first point is seen by the reviewer as a necessary price to be paid for the clarification of the intentional dimension. Emphasis is put on the second point. Based on a contrasting conception of language it is pointed out how Carlsnaes ends up in a too narrow concept of politics. This is the major source of the problems in the third category, too. The review suggests that the book might form part of a new `Scandinavian Approach' taking a different approach to the role of theory from the dominant US and British approaches to foreign policy analysis. The review indicates lines along which this new approach can be developed.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, 335-343 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343390027003009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
European Journal of International RelationsHome page
B. WHITE
The European Challenge to Foreign Policy Analysis
European Journal of International Relations, March 1, 1999; 5(1): 37 - 66.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
I. B. NEUMANN
Identity and Security
Journal of Peace Research, May 1, 1992; 29(2): 221 - 226.
[Abstract]