Angst Springs Eternal:Dangerous Times and the Dangers of Timing the “Arab Spring”

Various reflections on the ‘Arab Spring’ evince a common view of the relationship between change and time that imbues events with a sense of intrinsic peril. Based on a framework developed from Norbert Elias’s concept of timing, this article elaborates the relationship between time and the ‘Arab Spring’ by unpacking and explaining three rhetorical tropes prevalent in academic responses to the revolts. The first two construct a problem to which the third proffers a solution. First, analysts treat time itself as a problematic force confounding stability and progress. Second, they deploy fluvial metaphors to present dynamic events as inherently insecure. Third, they use temporal Othering to retrofit the ‘Arab Spring’ to the familiar arc of liberal democracy, which renders the revolts intelligible and amenable to external intervention. These moves prioritize certainty and order over other considerations and constrain open-ended transformations within a familiar rubric of political progress. They also constitute an active timing effort based on a conservative standard, with important implications for our understanding of security and for scholarly reflexivity. The article concludes with three temporal alternatives for engaging novel changes like the ‘Arab Spring’

Deep Theorizing in International Relations

This paper starts from the observation that, at a time when the popularity of grand theory is in decline among IR scholars, they do not agree on what they mean by theory. In fact, the celebration of theoretical pluralism is accompanied by the relative absence of a serious conversation about what ‘theory’ is, could, or should be. Taking the view that we need such a conversation, this puts forward the notion of ‘deep theorizing’. Countering both the shallow theorizing of modern scholarship that conflates theory with scientific method, and the postmodern view that abstract narratives must be deconstructed and rejected, it offers a reading of the parameters along which substantial theorizing proceeds. Specifically, it suggests that ‘deep theorizing’ is the conceptual effort of explaining (inter)action by developing a reading of drives/basic motivations and the ontology of its carrier through an account of the human condition, that is, a particular account of how the subject (the political actor) is positioned in social space and time. The paper illustrates the plausibility of this meta-theoretical angle in a discussion of realist, liberal and postcolonial schools of thought

Constant Questioning On-and-Off the Page: Race, Decolonial Ethics and Women Researching in Africa

© The Author(s) 2019. Drawing from emergent scholarship in feminist political geography on discomfort feminism and the literature on decolonial ethics for research more broadly, I argue that further work is necessary to deconstruct the artificial barriers between ‘the field’ and ‘non-field’/home and that this project remains particularly acute for research ‘on Africa.’ Motivated by the conversations inspired by this volume—which importantly consider the possibilities, challenges and tensions of woman-researchers in Africa—I argue that our exchanges must be simultaneously attuned to the racial politics of doing research in contemporary African societies. The adoption of decolonial ethical orientations is valuable in pushing such a project forward.https://fount.aucegypt.edu/faculty_book_chapters/1099/thumbnail.jp