Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Rising anti-American sentiments in South Korea have recently been at the center of much discussion and analysis by scholars and pundits concerned about the deterioration of bilateral relations between the formerly staunch allies. Although differing in their diagnoses, most analyses agree that the current round of anti-Americanism in Korean politics is relatively new and unprecedented, shaped by a confluence of domestic and external factors. The election of President Roh Moo-hyun and his progressive cabinet has directly challenged all corners of Korean politics and society as well as conservative elites. The result has been the unleashing of fierce domestic debates on the future of Korean security, asking Koreans to choose either �alliance or self-reliance.� This shift in Korean attitudes toward the U.S. is also seen as part of a new wave of anti-Americanism throughout the world, a global backlash against the hegemonic influence of the U.S. as the lone superpower with the end of the Cold War.
Either attributed to a case of Korean exceptionalism or U.S. exceptionalism, the current trend of anti-Americanism in Korea is treated as a unique moment in history. In this paper, I argue instead that Korea�s brand of anti-Americanism is actually a manifestation of anti-Great Power-ism, which is not new in the history of Korean politics. In fact, President Roh�s election platform of finding autonomy and self-reliance demonstrates close parallels with the anti-Qing mobilization in turn-of-the-century Korea. Anti-Great Power-ism (anti-sadae) emerged as a potent tool of political mobilization in the late 19th century, when the newly created Reform/Enlightenment Party made their criticism of the existing policy of �revering Great Powers� (sadae) the centerpiece of their attack against the conservative establishment. Even though sadae was originally a pragmatic policy of accommodating the powerful Qing, marking a departure from a cultural-ideological emulation of Ming China, it was stigmatized during 19th century politics as subservient and Great Power-dependent. What we see then is the emergence and recurrence of anti-Great Power-ism as a powerful tool for political challengers in their mobilization against the established regime in Korea. By comparing the progressives� political mobilization processes in the late 19th century and in 2002-2006, I show that today�s anti-Americanism is actually a continuation of anti-China-ism seen from a broader historical perspective.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Based in part on the methodology developed by Keohane and Katzenstein (2007) and Singh (2006; 2007) this paper begins by exploring the long history of anti-Americanisms in Canada, paying particular attention to its “Liberal” and “Sovereignty Association” variants. The first half of the paper contextualizes the phenomena in Canadian history, but concentrates on manifestations of these two types since the 1990s. I pay particular attention to debates over the NAFTA, continental integration, and the current “war on terror”. The second half examines notions of American “anti-Canadianism”, arguing that examining only one half of the relationship provides a decontextualized picture. If anti-Americanism has been likened to prejudices like racism and anti-Semitism, anti-Canadianism can best be compared to sexism, where American superiority in all things is assumed, and Canada is portrayed as a junior or subservient partner. Canada’s influence in international politics is often downplayed, even ignored. Further, anti-Canadianism, unlike anti-French or anti-German sentiments often denies that Canada has a discernable positive national identity separate from its negation of America. A systematic understanding of both types of biases offers a new perspective on relations along the world’s longest undefended border.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this essay, I ask a few questions about the interaction of cinematic political philosophy with considerations of differences between individual occurrences of large-scale violence directed against minority populations. In particular, this essay asks how Deleuze�s and Balibar�s theories might affect dialogues about the prevalence of ethnic cleaning and its cousin, racial cleansing (see Jaspin 2006) within U.S. domestic politics? In answer to this question, this essay argues that both Taxi Driver and A Day Without a Mexican lead the viewer to question the spatial arrangements of ethnicity and race. However, A Day Without A Mexican pushes the viewer a little bit further to encounter the actual consequences of �racial cleansing.� The viewer is likely to encounter the actual consequences of �racial cleansing� since the viewer is put in the context of being a member of a society in a racially cleansed area.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper investigates the perceptions of the United States in the mass publics in eight predominantly Islamic countries and in six European countries. Using a Bayesian Multi-Level Item-Response Theory Model, it distinguishes two types of attitudes, namely attitudes towards American culture and society and attitudes towards American policies. The empirical patterns in anti-American sentiment define a loosely constrained belief system where attitudes towards the American polity and American policies are only moderately connected. Approval of the American political ideals does not guarantee approval of America's political choices in the international arena. But the disapproval of America's policies does not have the psychological force to displace the aspirations that America symbolizes. Far from being the trump card that wins over the sympathy and approval of ordinary people, the mechanism of soft power nonetheless is at most an antidote to the most blatant forms of opposition to America.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: While affirming that it is difficult to draw one general picture of the heterogeneous Arab communities, this paper will analyze the discourses of a variety of Egyptian intellectuals and leaders of the anti-war movement in Egypt in the post �September 11th period. I will explore the limitations of sociological theories that reduce anti-Americanism in the context of the war on terror to �hatred or critiques against the hegemony of U.S. culture and lifestyle� or the clash of civilizations thesis. My argument is two fold. First, I will argue that anti-Americanism in Egypt is as diverse as the variety of political factions and groupings in Egypt and is constantly shifting based on each faction or groups� relationship to the state (or state power). Second, I will argue that each form of anti-Americanism in Egypt is constituted by multiple and intersecting discourses and ideologies. In other words, reductionist frameworks such as those that seek to explain religious movements solely through a religious studies framework cannot explain the complexity of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that is inspired by faith in addition to competition over political power vis-�-vis the Egyptian state. Through an exploration of the discourses and movements of 1) Islamists; 2) Nasserist-pan Arab nationalist; and 3) Marxist intellectuals and activists in Egypt, I will argue that theoretical frameworks that transgress a singular framework of analysis (such as �religion� or �economics�) and instead, highlight the intersections of culture, religion, nationalism, and imperialism are required in order to capture the complexities and nuances of anti-Americanism movements and the overlap between anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism in Egypt, particularly in the aftermath of September 11th.