Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Elaborating on the theories of active audiences the concept of resistance was incorporated in the discursive agenda of scholars in media studies. Especially by using the work of Foucault (1980; 1984) resistance as a concept entered the academia. The linking of power and resistance has resulted in an academic believe in the ‘power’ of marginality. These margins are deconstructed and represented as resistance and radical social change. A dangerously uncritical construction of the margins occurs as sites of resistance. This neo-romanticism presents resistance as a subversive field which is positioned opposite of hegemony. In this paper we will use an empiric study on gender bending as resistance to hegemonic gender identities in popular visual culture to elaborate on the conceptualisation of resistance. Resistance will be rearticulated as part of a hegemonic discourse and the notions of partial and potential are introduced to construct a theoretical inside in the concept of resistance.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Over the past 5 or so years, scholars of social movements have begun to pay close attention to the conceptual and methodological challenges posed by the study of the impacts movements have on policy, the broader culture, and activists themselves. This paper will discuss two of the most vexing challenges with the hope of sharing some potential solutions with those interested in studying the effects of movements on new organizations. The first challenge has to do with defining and operationalizing outcomes (or impacts or consequences) of movements. There are many potential outcomes of movements, many of which are not intentional. As well, movements can have both intra- and extramovement consequences. Once one has settled on what outcome is of interest, there is the need to come up with adequate measures of the outcome. While obviously easier for some types of outcomes (e.g., the passage of a policy), this can be much more difficult when one is examining cultural outcomes. Once one has defined and operationalized the outcome of interest, one faces a second challenge. Specifically, the researcher needs to sort out potential rival causes of the outcome of interest and deal with the threat of spuriousness. Both of these challenges will be discussed in detail and some possible research designs in the field of organizations will be discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Despite decades of trying to discipline Southeast Asia into a coherent field of academic endeavour the future of Southeast Asian studies looks set to change. Individual countries have been admitted and expelled from academic literature on Southeast Asia as the region's boundaries are redrawn to accommodate changes in the academy and in the region. The geographical imaginaries that were shaped by the rise of area studies during the Cold War are giving way to new spatial configurations that are influenced by the war on terror and its inevitable association with Islam, and the rise of China as an economic power. Southeast Asian studies was integral to the proxy wars and massacres that characterized the Cold War period and it remains to be seen whether its reconfiguration will see it drawn into service in the war against terror. This paper explores the power/knowledge nexus in the maintenance of Southeast Asia and the likely eclipse of Cold War Southeast Asian studies against the backdrop of wider changes in area studies and the passing of the Three Worlds.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The round table FD14 is sponsored by the Japan Association of International Relations, which is in fact called “Nihon Kokusai Seiji Gakkai” in Japanese. If this name is translated literally into English, it should be called the Japan Association of International Politics. This might not be surprising at all in the United States. However, in Japan, “International Politics” and “International Relations” are not necessarily interchangeable. “International Relations” has a more comprehensive meaning, containing “International Politics” as a branch among others such as “International Law” and “International Economics.” Though distinguishing the state of International Studies in Japan from that in the United States, this historical conditioned divergence has not been well explicated in English. The whole body of International Studies prior to the Second World War has been grasped as “an amalgamation of Law, History, and Economics in the international arena” to borrow from Professor Inoguchi (who was supposed to attend this round table, but actually could not). The various strands of International Studies, including those leading into International Politics and International Relations, are all conflated into this all-inclusive “amalgamation.” Therefore, in this paper, I will resolve this “amalgamation” into its originally individual strands as observed in the form of university subjects. Particularly, I will look into the curriculums of the University of Tokyo and Waseda Universities. The genealogical distinctiveness of International Politics and International Relations will appear in the process.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Develops a framework for integration of the generalizing spirit of science with the concern for the uniqueness of case studies, history and area studies.