WTH?

The ES does come close to Wendtian constructivism on one point: materialism vs idealism. Both are in-between positions here, the ES somewhat more materialist than all/most constructivists. But they differ on a whole complex of other questions (notably the view of language, rationality, analysts role, and IR theory/theories) and this brings the ES closer to classical realism and post-structuralism, than to constructivism.
- Ole Waever, 1999.

ARGH! Stop screwing with my mind! That was NOT what I thought the ES was! And how can you mention classical realism and post-structuralism in the same breath? How?!?! How could you? Now what am I supposed to do? Now I know nothing!

------ (edited)

Ok, now that I've calmed down somewhat.

It seems I always get stuck on the theory, esp. the definitions... largely because I still believe that half the argument is won by definitions and categorization. I never seem to get to the application of theory. Ok I admit, it's also partly because I prefer theory to application.

This was exactly what happened to my HT, which was supposed to be an application of theory, but ended up being a meaningless 10,000 word exposition on a minor theoretical point that I could have dealt with in 2 sentences. Oh the benefits of hindsight.

I have to stop reading these theory-related articles and actually get down to application. Soon. As soon as I've got this latest bit figured out.

Work

I need to start thinking about work. Seriously. So I'll combine work and blogging as usual.

I need to write a paper showing that ASEAN is an international society, and it'll probably be more difficult than I initially thought. I'll need to take on realism, constructivism (especially constructivism!) and I'll have to say a word or two on regime theory. The thing is, I have to distinguish between arguing for the merits of the English School and arguing that ASEAN is an international society. I'm so used to arguing the first that I've to be very careful not to mix up the 2 arguments (even though they obviously overlap). So... I know that regime theory is different from ES theories - but the question is, is a regime different from an international society?

Assuming I'm able to do that, I've got to look at the 'meat' of international society theory. What does it mean when you say a group of states form an international society? Since I'm adopting the Hedley Bull approach, I'll probably split it into rules and institutions. So I'll be looking at constitutive, coexistence and cooperative rules, and here I'll have to go back to the formal documents + the 'ASEAN Way'. I'll have to look at instances where these rules came into effect. I'll also have to look at balance of power as the primary primary institution, and see if balance of power in ASEAN fits Bull's framework. And then obviously I'll have to deal with the rest of the institutions. War, especially, stands out, and I'll have to deal with the difference between 'classical' ES theory and practice in ASEAN. Throughout this I'll probably have to keep mentioning common interests and values, and how these common interests and values led states to agree on common rules & institutions.

I suspect (especially when talking about bop) that I'll be borrowing a lot from my lecturer's own work. Which I don't like. I don't know how I can bring anything new, and I'd like to at least put up a small defence (however feeble) against my lecturer's arguments. So I should probably take a close look at his book (haha. sighz).

I can probably take issue with Narine's idea of Southeast Asian international society. (assuming the quote I have is representative of his work)

Note to self: when dealing with Constructivism I should also look at ASEAN-6 vs the rest, and then adopt Narine's point about identity not being a precondition for cooperation.

2nd note to self: I'll have to deal with the changes in the international society throughout ASEAN's history. ASEAN expansion would be a problem in terms of organization of the paper.

I'm writing another paper on performance legitimacy in Singapore, and how it has been shaped by discourses.

Surprisingly, I find that I'm more interested during discussions of Singapore politics than discussions about anything else.

For this one I want to narrow down what I mean by 'shaping' performance legitimacy. 'Shape' in what way?

I have to do more theoretical work on 'performance legitimacy'.

I'm also concerned about sources and causal links. So even though there's stuff in the secondary literature to back me up, I'll want to look at more recent official statements etc.

Hopelessly sleepy. Argh.