Racial and Imperial Thinking in International Theory and Politics: Truman, Attlee and the Korean War

- Connects the background ideas of race and empire to world politics - Uses case of Truman and Attlee in the Korean War - Argues that liberal-realist internationalists’ assumptions about the US-led post-war order obscure those background ideas and fail to understand the character of the post-war order - Argues liberal-realist internationalism is akin to a legitimating ideology rather than an explanatory theory - Argues that such failings render liberal internationalism inadequate to explain or prescribe ways for the United States/West to manage the ‘rise of the rest’ today This article connects the background ideas of race and empire to world politics by looking at the world views and actions of Truman and Attlee in the Korean War. The article argues that liberal-realist internationalists’ assumptions about the US-led post-war order obscure those background ideas and fail to understand the character of the post-war order. I consider two kinds of ‘background ideas’—policy-makers’ and those embedded in liberal internationalism. Put together, these ideas render liberal-realist internationalism akin to a legitimating ideology rather than an explanatory theory. More broadly, and in the longer run, such failure to comprehend the character of the post-war order, and the roles of race, empire and periphery war in it, renders the theory inadequate to explain or prescribe ways for the United States/West to manage the ‘rise of the rest’ today

Introduction to the Special Issue on Social Darwinism

A brief history is provided of interventions with people with emotional disorders since the 1950s. A shortage of therapists is inescapable and even successful treatment does not change incidence. But the individual defect model supports the conservative view that causes are to be found inside people, rather than in social injustice. People who are defective are to be treated as part of the medical model that is extended to cover social problems. This view is an obvious extension of Social Darwinism that has long attributed success and failure to bad genes and good genes rather than to advantaged and disadvantaged social-economic environments

‘No Man is an Island’ : Effects of social seclusion on social dream content and REM sleep

Based on the Social Simulation Theory of dreaming (SST), we studied the effects of voluntary social seclusion on dream content and sleep structure. Specifically, we studied the Compensation Hypothesis, which predicts social dream contents to increase during social seclusion, the Sociality Bias – a ratio between dream and wake interactions – and the Strengthening Hypothesis, which predicts an increase in familiar dream characters during seclusion. Additionally, we assessed changes in the proportion of REM sleep. Sleep data and dream reports from 18 participants were collected preceding (n = 94), during (n = 90) and after (n = 119) a seclusion retreat. Data were analysed using linear mixed-effects models. We failed to support the Compensation Hypothesis, with dreams evidencing fewer social interactions during seclusion. The Strengthening Hypothesis was supported, with more familiar characters present in seclusion dreams. Dream social interactions maintained the Sociality Bias even under seclusion. Additionally, REM sleep increased during seclusion, coinciding with previous literature and tentatively supporting the proposed attachment function for social REM sleep. CC BY 4.0© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Psychology published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological SocietyFirst published: 09 June 2021</p

Corporate elite networks and US post-cold war grand strategy from Clinton to Obama

This article seeks to explain both the continuity and the changes in US grand strategy since the end of the Cold War by adopting a critical political economy approach that focuses on the social origins of grand strategy-making. Systematically seeking to link agency and structure, we analyse how grand strategy-makers operate within given social contexts, which we define in terms of, on the one hand, elite networks within which these actors are embedded, and, on the other hand, the international structural context in which the US is positioned. After reviewing the grand strategies as pursued by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, and relating them to the structural context in which they evolved, we proceed by offering a Social Network Analysis in which we compare the networks of key officials of the three administrations in terms of: (1) their corporate affiliations, and (2) their affiliations to so-called policy-planning institutions. On this basis we argue that the continuities of post-Cold War US grand strategy - which we interpret as reproducing America's long-standing 'Open Door' imperialism - can be explained in terms of the continuing dominance of the most transnationally oriented sections of US capital. Second, we show that, this continuity notwithstanding, there is significant variation in terms of the means by which this grand strategy is reproduced, and argue that we must explain these variations not only in terms of the continuously changing global context, but also as related to some significant differences in affiliation with the policy-planning network. © The Author(s) 2012