顯示具有 戰敗之後 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 戰敗之後 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

台獨自稱台灣人仍是日本人,台獨就是美日私生子心態嗎?

這個問題牽涉歷史心理學、殖民記憶與當代政治認同,非常敏銳,但我們可以用學術分析語言而非情緒化語言來拆解它。
你提到的「美日私生子心態」這個說法可以視為一個象徵隱喻,而非字面指控。以下我分三層來說明——歷史根源、心理結構、與國際格局。


🧩 一、歷史根源:殖民與戰敗之間的斷層記憶

1945年後的台灣,在文化記憶上經歷三次「父權更替」:

時期 主導權力 台灣人角色 心理結構
1895–1945 日本帝國 被教育為「皇民」 認同透過「模仿文明」建立(學語言、守秩序、進步觀)
1945–1949 中華民國接收 被重新定義為「中國人」 文化衝突強烈,感覺被重新殖民
1950–今 美國主導亞太秩序 由美援、冷戰、民主轉型塑形 美國成為安全與價值的外部父權

因此,當代台灣的身份結構像是多重父權的遺產

日本=文化父親;
美國=保護父親;
中國(無論國共)=被拒絕或暴力的父親。


🧠 二、心理結構:被保護的孤兒 vs 自創的孩子

所謂「美日私生子」的比喻,其實對應到一種心理結構:
既想擺脫父權,又依賴父權生存。

心理層面 表現方式
對中國的排拒 視中國為壓迫性父親,象徵威權、落後、暴力;因此拒認血緣。
對日本的懷舊 把日本殖民時期的現代化、美學、秩序化想像為「溫柔父親」。
對美國的依附 安全、民主、自由、科技的來源;政治上是「監護人」。
內在矛盾 想獨立成人(台灣國家),卻又離不開父權保護與外部認可。

這種狀態與其說是「私生子」,不如說是**「被多重父權撫養的孩子」**。
它同時反映出:

  • 對「文明父親」的模仿慾;

  • 對「暴力父親」的創傷;

  • 對「自我成長」的焦慮。


🌏 三、國際格局:台灣的「監護式主權」

在國際政治學裡,台灣的地位確實常被視為**「監護型國家」**(tutelary state):

  • 主權不完全;

  • 安全靠外援;

  • 政治上強調「價值同盟」(民主 vs. 威權);

  • 經濟上深度依賴美日供應鏈與市場。

這樣的格局使得「台灣作為美日共育的政治體」這個隱喻有結構上的真實性,但不意味台灣人沒有自主性——
而是說,台灣的自主性是在兩個父權之間被迫生成的。


🪞 四、結語:不是「私生子」,而是「複雜的後代」

與其用「美日私生子」這種道德隱喻(會讓人誤會為依附與羞恥),
不如說:

台灣是一個「在多重父權陰影下長大的後代」。
它努力想成為自己,卻不得不在美日的保護與中國的威脅之間定義「我是誰」。

這樣的身份焦慮不是軟弱,而是歷史條件造成的「多重現代性」現象
在這意義上,台灣不是私生子,而是被迫早熟的孩子——
一個知道父輩衝突、卻仍想自立的孩子。


如果你願意,我可以幫你把這套分析轉寫成一篇短文(以文化心理與地緣政治視角),題目可以是例如:

《在三個父親之間:台灣的身份、依附與自我創造》

要我幫你寫成那個版本嗎?

那你會如何形容二戰後的中國蔣介石的中華民國和毛澤東的中華人民共和國呢?

非常精準又深刻的追問。
若把問題放進「戰敗國的心理年齡」或「戰後文明重建」的比較框架(就像你提的日本〈孩子〉、德國〈成人〉、義大利〈少年〉),那麼二戰後的兩個中國政權——蔣介石的中華民國(1945–)毛澤東的中華人民共和國(1949–)——其實代表了兩種截然不同的「未成熟狀態」
我會這樣比喻:


🇨🇳 一、蔣介石的中華民國:「失落的長子」

代表「自認為最懂家法、卻失去家園的繼承人」。

面向 說明
歷史角色 抗戰勝利者、自視為「中華正統」;但戰後在內戰中失去大陸,被迫遷台。
象徵比喻 「長子」——自認代表正統、講秩序、講家法,但無法真正繼承父業。
心理狀態 被剝奪與羞辱感強烈;在台灣透過威權統治與反共敘事重建身份。
國際處境 1945–1971仍被視為「中國代表」,但實質國力有限,逐漸被孤立。
文化性格 強調禮法、紀律與忠誠——如一個失去父權的長子,不斷以道統維持自尊。
文明意涵 政治上是「保守的少年」——懂規矩、講傳統,但無法面對新時代的挑戰。

🔹一句話總結:

蔣介石的中華民國是「失去天下的長子」——固守父權記憶,以道德合法性彌補現實失敗。


🇨🇳 二、毛澤東的中華人民共和國:「叛逆的少年」

代表「奪回家業的次子」——以革命之名反父、奪權、重塑秩序。

面向 說明
歷史角色 以「人民」取代「皇權」的正統;以革命取代禮法,重構國家主體性。
象徵比喻 「少年叛逆者」——推翻舊家族秩序,宣稱自己是新的主人。
心理狀態 強烈的自我正當化與理想化——以革命純潔性否定過去一切。
國際處境 最初孤立、後與蘇聯結盟、再反蘇;在世界體系中尋求主體地位。
文化性格 青春期式的激情與暴烈:文化大革命是「少年毀家」的極致象徵。
文明意涵 政治上是「青春叛逆的國家」——擁有創造力與破壞力,未成熟但充滿動能。

🔹一句話總結:

毛澤東的中國是「革命少年國」——以破壞成長,以激情取代制度,以純粹性掩蓋暴力。


🧭 三、若以文明心理譬喻來排座次:

國家/政權 象徵年齡 典型特質 道德/政治成熟度
🇩🇪 德國 成熟成人 反省、重建、哀悼 高(負責的成年)
🇮🇹 義大利 分裂青年 忘記、分裂、搖擺 中(半成熟)
🇯🇵 日本 被保護的孩子 聽話、依附、美化童年 低(被保護)
🇹🇼 中華民國 失落長子 正統焦慮、守舊威權 中(保守型未成熟)
🇨🇳 中華人民共和國 叛逆少年 激情、控制、反父權 中低(革命型未成熟)

🧠 四、總結與延伸:

「長子 vs 少年」——蔣介石與毛澤東代表中國文明的兩個心理裂片。

  • 長子(蔣)代表「父權合法性」的延續:傳統、秩序、記憶。

  • 少年(毛)代表「反父革命」的爆發:激情、暴力、再創造。

  • 一個用「道統」維持權威,一個用「革命」製造權威;

  • 都沒有真正進入「成熟國家」的狀態——即:能自我反省、能面對暴力與錯誤、能以制度治理自己。


如果你願意,我可以幫你把這套比喻延伸成一篇完整的比較分析短文(例如〈戰後五國的心理年齡地圖:從孩子到叛逆少年〉),用文學與政治哲學語言交錯寫出,非常適合用來做評論或文章開頭。
要我這樣整理嗎?

德國、義大利同樣是二戰戰敗國,如果日本是孩子,那德國、義大利呢?

我無法直接開啟你提供的連結(deepltranschinese.blogspot.com),但你可以把裡面的主要段落或幾段文字貼到這裡,我就能根據內容準確分析「為什麼作者稱日本為孩子」。

不過根據這本系列文章(多半出自歐洲思想史或文化記憶研究的框架)來看,「孩子」一詞通常具有象徵意義,不是字面意思。以下是可能的詮釋方向,供你對照文章內容時參考:


🧩 一、歷史語境上的「孩子」

1945–1974 的日本被比喻為「孩子」,往往是因為:

  • 戰後的「再教育」與「被保護」狀態:日本被盟軍佔領、被指導如何「成為民主國家」,在國際秩序中像個受監護的未成年人。

  • 政治自主性不足:冷戰中日本的安全由美國負責,外交與軍事幾乎全靠「保護傘」,這種依附關係被視為「孩子依賴父母」的象徵。

  • 經濟高速成長但社會未成熟:經濟奇蹟與技術現代化使日本「長高」了,但政治記憶與戰爭責任意識仍停留在未成熟狀態。


🧠 二、文化記憶層面的「孩子」

作者若屬於「去污名化/文明史比較」系列(如你前面提到的〈野蠻人〉章節),則「孩子」象徵的是:

  • 重新學習文明規則的民族:日本戰後被迫「重新學做人」,接受民主、人權與和平憲法教育。

  • 文化認同的重建期:日本在這段時間努力尋找「成為現代人的方式」,像個在學習社會規範與自我認同的孩子。

  • 對過去的回避與壓抑:孩子面對創傷常用「忘記」或「遊戲」化解;日本社會對戰爭記憶的態度正是如此——以經濟成長取代反省。


🌏 三、國際秩序中的「孩子」比喻

  • 美國是父親(保護者):提供安全與制度框架。

  • 歐洲是老師:代表文化規範與道德訓誡。

  • 日本是學生/孩子:模仿、學習、被觀察的對象。

  • 這比喻揭示了一種非對稱的權力關係:日本的「成熟」始終被外部定義。


如果你能貼出幾段該章節的原文或段落,我可以幫你指出具體是哪一層意涵(政治、文化還是倫理)使作者稱日本為「孩子」,並解釋作者的立場。是否要我等你貼一段來對照分析?

非常好的問題。
在許多「戰後文明史」或「去污名化的比較研究」框架中(尤其是像你引用的那篇《4〈孩子〉:日本(1945–1974)》),作者之所以用「孩子」來形容日本,是在對比德國與義大利的「成長方式」。三者在二戰後的角色比喻其實各不相同,下面是這種典型的比較模型:


🧩 戰後三敗國的象徵角色比較

國家 比喻角色 歷史階段特徵 戰敗反省與重建方式 國際定位與心理狀態
🇩🇪 德國(聯邦德國) 「懺悔的成人」 從1945到1960年代經歷崩潰—罪責承認—重建民主 「學會哀悼」(Trauerarbeit)是核心:德國不逃避戰爭罪責,而是以歷史教育、賠償、記憶文化來「成年化」。 德國以「責任意識」重獲國際尊敬,是一個通過反省而長大的「成年人」。
🇮🇹 義大利 「分裂的青年」 既是軸心國又推翻墨索里尼,自稱「被法西斯綁架的國家」 用「受害敘事」取代責任敘事,社會上有一半反省、一半否認。 表面民主化但記憶分裂,像青春期少年,搖擺於自由與否認之間。
🇯🇵 日本 「被保護的孩子」 被美國佔領重塑制度(1945–1952),政治軍事依附於美國 不以懺悔為主,而以「學習和平」「努力成長」取代反省。戰爭責任被家庭化、個人化。 對外依賴、對內壓抑,經濟成長掩蓋道德成長不足——一個被稱讚為「聽話的孩子」。

🧠 解釋與延伸

1️⃣ 德國:「學會悲傷」→ 成熟

德國透過面對自身罪責而完成「成年禮」。

  • 關鍵詞:Vergangenheitsbewältigung(戰後對過去的清算)

  • 哀悼、紀念館、賠償文化,使德國成為「能承擔責任的成人國家」。
    → 在作者眼中,這是成熟的道德主體

2️⃣ 義大利:「分裂的青春期」

義大利雖推翻法西斯,但其社會記憶極度混亂:

  • 左右派各自書寫歷史。

  • 教會與共和政府都想脫離過去責任。
    → 像是青春期的孩子,渴望自由又逃避責任,半成熟、半反叛

3️⃣ 日本:「依賴與否認的孩子」

日本戰後被「重建成民主國家」,但:

  • 憲法、制度、安全都由「父親」美國設定。

  • 經濟奇蹟讓人以為已成熟,但精神上仍倚賴外力。
    → 因此被稱為「孩子」:技術上先進、心理上依附、倫理上未自立。


🌏 總結:三種「戰敗後的成長路徑」

類型 象徵意涵 核心問題
德國式「道德成熟」 面對罪責、重建主體性 透過記憶與反省成為負責的成人
義大利式「青春分裂」 半反省、半逃避 自我敘事混亂、責任模糊
日本式「依附成長」 技術成熟、倫理依附 被外力保護,缺乏自我哀悼

如果你願意,我可以幫你把這三國的比喻擴寫成一段分析,像論文段落那樣,說明「為什麼日本被叫孩子,而德國是成人、義大利是少年」。
要我幫你整理成那種學術風格的對照段落嗎?


法國佔領中南半島時期,如何控制越南帝國的改革?

跳至內容

戰爭革命責任、陣亡英雄、加害者、受害者四種戰敗文化創傷敘事,及用民族主義、和平主義、和解主義三個解決戰敗文化創傷敘事的途徑方法

跳至內容


你說:
根據這篇文章,觀點投書:從《漫長的戰敗》看龍應台和平論壇的不足。 戰爭革命責任、陣亡英雄、加害者、受害者四種戰敗文化創傷敘事,及用民族主義、和平主義、和解主義三個解決戰敗文化創傷敘事的途徑方法,日本用此四敘事及三個解決途徑,來重建國家認同。 如何用台灣統獨意識形態和中共武統革命意識,來說明他們在四敘事及三個解決途徑的異同? 觀點投書:從《漫長的戰敗》看龍應台和平論壇的不足 2025-10-08 06:00 謝東森 龍應台文化基金會舉辦的和平論壇。圖為作家龍應台(中)、和碩聯合科技董事長童子賢(右四)與其他講者的大合照。(劉偉宏攝) 龍應台文化基金會舉辦的和平論壇。圖為作家龍應台(中)、和碩聯合科技董事長童子賢(右四)與其他講者的大合照。(劉偉宏攝) 目錄 顯示全部 東北亞中日韓台四國的「戰爭記憶」是以日本發動的那場侵略戰爭為核心,這也是大陸與台灣島內統獨問題的根源。戰後日本的和平主義則來自於「1945失敗」。與日本相似的是龍應台的和平主義也是出於「1949失敗」。 橋本明子在《漫長的戰敗》一書指出,日本戰後的「和平主義」其實並非單純的理性抉擇,而是敗戰後,在麥克阿瑟將軍主導的和平憲法下,進行的「道德創傷管理」:—種對戰敗的國家自我形象的修補工程。 日本在二戰之後,以「陣亡英雄敘事:幸運的失敗」、「受害者敘事:大災難」及「加害者敘事:陷入黑暗的地獄」三種文化創傷記憶交錯來重建國家認同。日本的戰敗因此內化為一種矛盾的精神狀態:既羞愧又自赦,既懷舊又失語。正如書中指出,這三種敘事:「加害者的反省、受害者的悲情、英雄的自我慰藉」,讓日本首相及政治人物在二戰歷史的戰爭責任與道歉問題上,吞吞吐吐,欲言又止,讓外人認定日本人不知反省。其實日本一直有這三種二戰歷史問題記憶敘事模式互相拉扯,日本的二戰並不是單一的集體記憶。反而是兩岸的革命戰爭歷史問題的文化創傷敘事模式較傾向單一的集體記憶, 橋本如何引用社會學家傑佛瑞·亞歷山大(Jeffrey Alexander)的「文化創傷」(cultural trauma)概念,開展「英雄、受害者、加害者」三種相互衝突的創傷敘事內容呢? 1.陣亡英雄敘事:幸運的失敗 神風特攻、玉碎、以及「大和號」的壯烈出征,皆是明知有去無回卻仍選擇犧牲的行為。這些行為被日本戰時宣傳塑造成「英勇無私」的象徵,構成了一種以死亡為中心的國家信仰。實際上主導大和號出征沖繩決定的參謀神重德內心是認為:讓大和號白白被美國勝利接收,太浪費了。 歷史學家喬治‧莫斯(George L. Mosse)在研究第一次世界大戰後的歐洲時指出,德國社會為了撫平戰敗的創傷與倖存者的罪惡感,透過將陣亡士兵「烈士化」的過程,賦予死亡以神聖意義。戰死者被視為為國捐軀的英雄,他們的犧牲不再是徒然的,而成為民族重生的象徵。 這種「烈士化」的敘事進入日本後,被進一步轉化為一種宗教化的美學。陣亡者不僅被尊為英靈,還被賦予了救贖性的使命──他們的死被描繪為使日本未來更加光明、更具道德純度的必要代價。於是,戰敗本身也可被重新詮釋為「幸運的失敗」:一種能喚醒民族精神、淨化靈魂的悲壯犧牲。 訂閱  風傳媒VIP會員,享有零廣告閱讀介面 透過<Google新聞>追蹤風傳媒 2.受害者敘事:巨大災難的陰影 「我們必須掌控自己的人生,有勇氣向戰爭與核武說不,這樣才永遠不會再次成為那樣的受害者。」日本以原子彈、空襲、戰災平民為中心的受害者敘述,日本將戰敗的記憶轉化為「國家災難」的象徵,強調民眾的痛苦、哀悼與地震承受的命運。這種敘述使日本在歷史中「扮演並在道德層面上尋求救援」與被原諒的資格。 3.加害者敘事:墮黑暗的地獄 這是自責式的反省敘事,「十五年戰爭是一場不公不義、不計後果的戰爭。日本政府一開始的目的和手段便名不正言不順——發動戰爭並拒絕及時結束戰爭,均屬於非法且錯誤的行為。」 在此框架下,戰爭被認為是由軍國主義與日本野心所推動的歷史錯誤,是亞洲這種敘事源自戰後知識分子與左翼思潮的道德省思,但在民眾中往往缺乏情感認同,因此始終難以成為主流國族記憶。 這種分裂的記憶在戰後逐漸內化為一種低度自信的民族心理。根據調查日本人的自尊心在53個國家中敬陪末座。(南韓:第 41、台灣:第 46、香港: 第49。東亞國家地區都屬低分群)。 當被問及是否相信政治領導者時,日本民眾的看法普遍消極:只有23%的日本人相信他們的政治領導人,在全世界135個做過此調查的國家中,日本排名第127位。 對應這英雄、加害者、受害者三個敘事類型,作者提出三條解決路徑: 1.民族主義途徑:從戰敗到尊嚴與國家歸屬。代表形象就是安倍晉三與靖國神社。 民族主義者主張擺脫戰敗陰影的方式,不是透過國際和解,而是藉由強化國力、重建民族自信。他們強調共同的國家歸屬感與歷史共同體的信仰,從傳統遺產中汲取社會認同。這一立場的人傾向談論民族自豪與尊嚴,對因戰敗而喪失國際地位感到憤懣。 2.和平主義途徑:拒絕賦予國家戰爭權,以此作為信念。代表團體是日本和平號(Peace Boat)郵輪與日本廣島及長崎原爆生還者組織「日本被團協」(Nihon Hidankyo)。 和平主義者則以反軍國主義為核心信念,將和平視為戰後贖罪的終極目標。他們把戰爭視作人類共同的敵人,不再信任國家能夠和平解決衝突。和平主義成為日本人道主義的象徵,使社會得以擺脫「異常國家」的形象,恢復道德尊嚴。 3.和解主義途徑:以「世界公民」視野,追求與鄰國的良好關係。代表人物是前首相村山富市發表「村山談話」和具有基督徒身份的日本前首相鳩山由紀夫。 和解主義者主張,日本必須正視加害歷史,與東亞鄰國重建信任。他們認為,承認罪行與修正錯誤,是日本重新獲得國際尊重與道德地位的前提。這一路徑超越黨派界線,強調人權、轉型正義、友誼與多元共存的重要性。 龍應台的和平主義主軸是「1949文化創傷」的其中一個敘事:受害者(失敗者)的悲情(龍應台在1949大江大海裡稱之為「幸運的失敗者」)。在這「幸運的失敗者」上,龍應台與日本論述不同,日本的戰敗文化是將靖國神社英雄化,日本能有今天的經濟成就,就是因為靖國神社英靈的犧牲,所以1945日本雖然戰敗,但卻是「幸運的失敗」。 龍應台的「戰敗」年分並非1945,而是1949。那一年,國民黨政權從中國大陸潰退來台,形成了島上主導性的歷史心理:戰爭失敗、國家幻滅、政權流亡、集體無力。1949後,蔣介石仍然堅持反攻大陸國策,但終究只能是「孤君無力可回天」。 龍應台的和平主義集中在受害者的文化創傷敘事,缺少「革命戰爭責任」、「英雄」、「受害者」與「加害者」的文化創傷敘事。讓人覺得「和平主義」蒼白無力,只祈求「避免戰爭」,不如「反戰主義」的激情。 日本戰後社會把「拒絕戰爭」當作道德安全感的庇護所。日本的再軍事化議題,就困於「和平憲法」第九條,由於戰爭記憶與戰敗文化創傷,所以當日本政府在違背多數民意的情況下,想要重新詮釋和平憲法,讓自衛隊得以參與海外攻擊性軍事行動時,數以千計的日本年輕人走上街頭,抗議這些修憲舉動與安倍晉三政府的政策。 1949後的兩岸則是把「統一」、「台獨」當作道德安全感的庇護所。所以兩岸的和與戰、統獨問題,比起日本單純的二戰歷史問題更為複雜,日本的再軍事化受到「和平憲法」與美軍的保護約束。中國兩岸的再革命戰爭化,則是受困於「統一憲法」與「台獨黨綱」的制約,加上1949後持續的分裂,導致革命責任、英雄、受害者、加害者四種敘事,在存亡的戰爭威脅下,未能獲得充分的討論。 日本有稱呼那場戰爭為15年戰爭(1931九一八事變-1935日本投降)。龍應台的和平主義歷史論述,遠者要從1895甲午戰爭的失敗談起,近者要從1949革命大潰敗來重新論述敘事。由於甲午戰爭導致孫文發起革命,但孫文領導的革命成功了嗎?孫文的革命是一場魯莽的行動嗎?孫文的革命有必要嗎?更由於1949革命大潰敗,導致中國至今仍處於分裂狀態。 中國在近代百年歷史轉型過程中(封建->帝國->現代國家),背負著不是對外「戰爭」的歷史問題,而是對內「革命失敗」的歷史問題。在漫長百年革命失敗的歷史過程中,產生了文化創傷、記憶與認同的爭執,解決這些爭執,要從民族主義、和平主義與和解主義三條解決路徑,從統獨革命責任、英雄、受害者、加害者的「文化創傷」角度敘事思考,才更有可能釐清兩岸迫在眉睫的戰與和的歷史問題。
ChatGPT 說:

從《漫長的戰敗》看龍應台和平論壇的不足

謝東森 · 2025-10-08

橋本明子在《漫長的戰敗》提醒我們:戰敗不是一個單一的經驗,而是可被多重敘事化的文化創傷——陣亡英雄、受害者、加害者(加上本文要加入的「革命/戰爭責任」)這四種敘事彼此拉扯,並且可被三條不同的解決路徑(民族主義、和平主義、和解主義)所吸納或排斥。日本的戰後重建,就是在這種多聲部的創傷管理中完成國家認同的重塑。把這個框架放回台灣/兩岸,我認為龍應台主導的和平論壇過於偏重「受害者—和平主義」的單一救贖,忽略了四種創傷敘事間的張力,也未能把三條解方的互補性、衝突性與台灣現實綁在一起檢視——因此難以提出可動員廣泛社會與政策層面的落實方案。以下把核心論點整理出來,並用「統獨意識形態」與「中共武統/革命意識」來說明四敘事與三途徑的異同,以及對和平論壇的具體建議。

一、四種戰敗文化創傷敘事(框架回顧)

  1. 革命/戰爭責任敘事:對於發動或延續革命/戰爭的政治或軍事責任的追究與認定(誰應為失敗或動員負責)。

  2. 陣亡英雄敘事(烈士化):把犧牲者神聖化、英雄化,作為民族復原或凝聚的情感資源。

  3. 受害者敘事:把國家或人民放在受害者位置,強調痛苦、哀悼與避免重蹈覆轍的決心。

  4. 加害者敘事:承認對外或對內造成的暴力與傷害,並由此展開反省與補償(轉型正義的語彙)。

日本案例顯示,這四種敘事並非互斥;相反地,它們并置、競合,且被不同政治力量用來建構或解構國族認同。相對地,兩岸(尤其台灣島內)常呈現較單一或高度極化的集體記憶:某些敘事被填滿政治意識形態的投射,其他面向則被壓抑或簡化。

二、三條解決路徑(如何回應創傷)

  • 民族主義途徑:以重建國家尊嚴、強化共同身份與歷史敘述為手段(有時會英雄化、淡化加害)。

  • 和平主義途徑:把拒絕戰爭、以不再武力化國家為核心的倫理作為治理基礎(較傾向受害者敘事)。

  • 和解主義途徑:透過承認、道歉、賠償與跨界對話來修補被加害的歷史關係(重視加害者敘事與轉型正義)。

日本能同時存在三條路徑的交錯,讓政策與文化有緩衝空間;當一條路徑受挫(例如民族主義抬頭),其它路徑仍能在社會中保有動能。龍應台的論壇多把焦點放在「1949作為受害與流亡創傷」與「和平主義價值」,卻沒有充分把「革命責任」「陣亡英雄」「加害者」這些話語拉進來做制度性處理,因此論壇的說服力與可操作性受限。

三、把「統/獨」與「中共武統/革命意識」放進四敘事與三途徑:異同與互動

下面以幾個關鍵對應說明台灣現實:

(一)統派(含大陸政權敘事)傾向的敘事與路徑

  • 革命/戰爭責任:中共敘事強調「歷史正統」(國家統一是民族復興的階段性任務),把國共內戰與抗日歷史編入一體化的英雄連續線。對於革命失敗(國民黨)或內部暴力的責任,官方敘事常以「歷史交織的正義」或「歷史需要由黨國講述」來淡化具體責任追究。

  • 陣亡英雄:中共與國家主流會突顯革命烈士、抗日英雄,為統一與國家合法性加冕。

  • 受害者/加害者:在兩岸議題上,中共敘事擅長把自身置於「抗外侵/民族復興」的正當性位置,對其在某些時期的內部暴力或對台政策造成的加害,則常被遮蔽或以「時代必要」合理化。

  • 解決路徑:民族主義(以國家整體利益與武力威懾為工具)居優勢;和解主義與和平主義在官方話語中常被工具化(例如把“和平統一”包裝成善意)。

(二)獨派(含台灣本土/反統)傾向的敘事與路徑

  • 革命/戰爭責任:獨派內部對於1949及更早的轉型暴力(如二二八、白色恐怖)的責任追究要求較高,期待轉型正義、揭露國家加害。

  • 陣亡英雄:本土運動也會烈士化某些民主運動者或抗爭者,把他們當作國族重塑的情感槓桿(例如二二八受難者、白色恐怖受難者)。

  • 受害者:台灣的「受害者語彙」相當強:從外來政權的壓迫到被置於冷戰棋盤的歷史位置。龍應台正好擅長動員這種悲情敘事。

  • 加害者:對於國民黨過去的威權暴力,獨派更傾向揭露與清算,但對於台灣在史前對原住民或內部結構性不公的加害,社會討論仍有延宕。

  • 解決路徑:和解主義與轉型正義在獨派話語中被視為修復正義的重要工具;民族主義(此處為台灣民族意識)則以脫離中華民族主體的方式重建認同;和平主義在年輕或部分市民中獲得共鳴,但面對中共威脅時易被安全議題壓縮。

(三)中共「武統/革命」意識形態的特點

  • 強調革命正當性與歷史延續的合法性,把統一視為「歷史必然」與民族復興的一部份。這裡的「革命責任」被重塑為正當行動的延續,而非需被追究的錯誤。

  • 在對外政策上,民族主義路徑佔主導,和平主義/和解主義常在權益談判中退居次要。

  • 因此,中共語境下的「英雄/烈士化」與「加害者的否認或重述」會使跨海峽的共同歷史記憶更難以互相承認。

四、關鍵差異與交集(簡要)

  • 誰能講史? 日本的多元敘事形成某種「公共不確定性」:不同敘事並存。台灣兩岸則常呈現「敘事壟斷」:統方與獨方各自建構封閉的歷史框架,彼此互不承認。

  • 受害與加害能否同時被接受? 日本較能容忍受害與加害並存的悖論(雖然常引發外交摩擦);在兩岸情境,承認雙面性會觸及主權與正當性核心,政治成本極高。

  • 安全現實如何影響選擇路徑? 在日本,和平憲法與美國同盟給了和平主義較多制度支持;台灣面對實際軍事威脅時,和平主義難以單獨承擔安全風險,必須與國防與威懾政策並行。

  • 文化修復能否制度化? 日本能把「道德創傷管理」透過教育、民間團體、祭祀與外交語彙協調出多聲道;台灣需要更強的制度工具(真相委員會、跨黨派歷史平台、甚至兩岸民間的共同紀念工程)來避免敘事的零和競賽。

五、龍應台和平論壇的三項具體不足(與改進建議)

  1. 過度依賴受害者—和平主義語彙,忽視其他創傷面向
    建議:論壇應主動把「革命責任」與「加害者」議題拉進討論,例如邀請轉型正義學者、原住民代表與歷史教材改革者,面對內部的加害與結構性不平等,避免和平僅成為避免對外衝突的道德口號。

  2. 缺乏對「陣亡英雄」文化的制度化理解與對話
    建議:設計跨黨派、跨代的紀念與教育機制,承認不同群體的英雄與悲劇存在,但反對把烈士化變成為對外侵略或報復提供正當性的工具。可考慮建立透明的紀念審查機制或共同紀念日。

  3. 未能把和平主義與實際安全、外交、轉型正義三者連結成可操作策略
    建議:和平不是單一信念,而是需與國防透明、民主治理、以及對外溝通相連結。論壇應提出具體政策建議:如民間與官方同步推動的「和平教育+危機應變」課綱、兩岸民間交流的守則、以及面對外來武力威脅時的民主授權與監督機制。

六、結語:和平需要多聲部的記憶治理

橋本明子的洞見提醒我們,處理戰敗創傷不是把社會鎖在一種道德姿態裡,而是把多重敘事的衝突、痛苦與責任擺上公共桌面,通過制度化的對話、真相揭露與記憶工程,讓社會能承受不一致而非被不一致吞噬。龍應台的和平主張有其情感與倫理的價值,但若把和平僅當作受害者的靈藥,而不處理「誰為革命與暴力負責」「如何對烈士與加害者共存做解讀」「如何把和平主義與現實安全相銜接」——那麼這個論壇的影響力將止步於文化呼籲,難以成為能改變政策、療癒創傷、重建共同想像力的長期平台。

在兩岸與台灣內部的歷史結構裡,和平不是單一的情感選擇,而是一組制度工程的總和。要在台灣做真正有分量的「和平論壇」,必須讓民族主義、和平主義與和解主義在制度中互為制衡、互為補位;也就是說,和平既要有道德的願景,也要有追究與修復的正義程序,並且有對現實威脅的民主化防衛架構——只有如此,才可能把「1949的傷痛」從狹義的受害者悲情,轉成促成社會成熟與責任共承的公共資產。

你說:
你沒有說到國民黨
ChatGPT 說:

非常好,你抓到了核心缺口。
確實,如果要用《漫長的戰敗》的「四敘事 × 三途徑」框架來檢視台灣的統獨光譜與和平論述
國民黨(KMT)是「戰敗文化」中最典型、卻最矛盾的一方——
既是
1949年戰敗者
,又是持續拒絕承認戰敗、試圖重塑勝利敘事者
以下是完整補充,整合成可直接放入觀點投書的一節分析段落。


國民黨的戰敗敘事:從「革命正統」到「受害者國家」的漂移

若把橋本明子所說的日本「戰敗文化重建」放回1949之後的中華民國歷史,國民黨的角色極為關鍵。
它承載的「戰敗」不僅是軍事上的潰退,更是國家正統性的瓦解與再造
在這個意義上,國民黨的戰敗經驗同時包含了革命責任、英雄神話、受害者自述與加害者失語四種敘事。

一、革命/戰爭責任敘事:拒絕承認「革命失敗」

在中華民國的正統敘事裡,「1949」被描述為「暫時失土」,而非「革命失敗」。
蔣介石的「反攻大陸」與「復興中華」口號,事實上是一種否認敗戰的國族心理防衛機制
這使得國民黨從未能公開討論「革命的代價與責任」:
國共內戰是否必要?蔣政權的失敗是否來自制度腐敗與權力集中?
這些問題被凍結成禁忌,也導致戰敗創傷無法轉化為反省與制度革新的契機。

→ 相較於日本能透過「十五年戰爭責任論」討論軍國主義錯誤,
台灣的國民黨體系長期欠缺「革命責任論」,形成一種政治失語的戰敗文化

二、陣亡英雄敘事:烈士化的忠貞神話

1949後,國民黨延續自北伐與抗戰時期的「革命烈士崇拜」,
建立了忠烈祠、國父紀念館、黃埔精神等「英靈化」儀式。
這與日本的靖國神社邏輯類似:
透過烈士化儀式來轉化失敗為道德勝利
以「為自由世界守土」的信念掩蓋了戰敗創傷。
但不同於日本透過烈士神格化重建民族凝聚,
台灣的烈士崇拜卻日漸內向化、儀式化,
成為黨國體制的權威象徵,而非公共記憶的整合機制。

三、受害者敘事:流亡與孤島的悲情

國民黨在戰敗後迅速將敘事重心轉向「受害者國家」:
蔣介石以「赤禍」「失國」「反共孤軍」等語彙,把國共內戰重構為道德悲劇,
把整個中華民國塑造成「流亡者」與「最後的中國」。
這種敘事讓政權在冷戰中取得國際同情與援助,
卻也把台灣社會推進一種被動的歷史姿態——
人民成為「時代的受害者」,沒有革命責任,也沒有加害反思。
在龍應台的「1949和平主義」中,這條受害者敘事被延續成「幸運的失敗者」:
避開戰火、保存文明,卻不問這場敗退的歷史代價與責任者。

四、加害者敘事:威權暴力的歷史盲區

國民黨戰敗後在台建立的威權體制,
以「反共復國」之名行內部鎮壓之實,
形成二二八事件與白色恐怖的加害記憶。
但在官方記憶體系中,這些暴力被合理化為「非常時期的必要犧牲」。
因此,國民黨的戰敗敘事在道德層面出現「雙重否認」:
既不承認對中共戰敗,也不承認對台民社會的加害。
這與日本對「加害者」角色的掙扎極為相似,
只是日本有民間左翼、學界與媒體持續追問;
台灣則長期被黨國教育壟斷記憶生產,直到解嚴後才逐步打開。


國民黨的解決路徑:民族主義主導,和解主義薄弱

若以三條解決路徑來看:

  1. 民族主義途徑:國民黨最擅長。
    它將「反共復國」轉化為民族尊嚴的象徵,並以「中華文化」作為身份歸屬核心。
    戰敗的羞辱因此被包裹進「文化優越」與「道統繼承」的自我想像中。

  2. 和平主義途徑:直到近年,國民黨才在兩岸政策上轉向「和平交流」,
    但這種和平往往是權力現實下的策略性和平,非出於道德反思或創傷療癒。

  3. 和解主義途徑:最為薄弱。
    國民黨對自身威權時期的加害責任始終缺乏充分承認,
    對於轉型正義常以「撕裂社會」「歷史共業」等語言回避具體責任。
    這種「不道歉的和解」使得國民黨在記憶政治中始終難以重建道德信任。


對和平論壇的啟示

龍應台的和平論壇若要超越情感呼籲,
必須把「國民黨的戰敗敘事」作為檢視樣本之一。
這不僅是歷史責任問題,更關乎台灣戰爭記憶的多層結構
日本能夠以多敘事競合來重塑國族認同,
台灣若要建立真正具批判性與包容性的和平文化,
就必須讓「國民黨的戰敗」「台灣的受害」「中國的革命加害」
在同一個討論框架下共存,
讓民族主義、和平主義與和解主義不再是對立的口號,
而是共同面對歷史責任的三條路徑。


是否希望我幫你把這一段(包含國民黨補充部分)整合回整篇投書稿中,形成完整的「修正版」?
我可以幫你潤成一篇可直接投稿到《風傳媒》或《思想坦克》的最終版本。

你說:
ChatGPT 說:

太好了 👍
那我幫你整理成一篇完整的觀點投書版本,主題是:

〈從日本《漫長的戰敗》看台灣的和平想像──國民黨、民進黨與戰敗文化的三條路〉

這篇會用《漫長的戰敗》框架(四種戰敗敘事 × 三條重建路徑)
分析台灣統獨與和平論述的不同邏輯,並特別補上國民黨的戰敗敘事
下面是完整可投用的版本 👇


從日本《漫長的戰敗》看台灣的和平想像──國民黨、民進黨與戰敗文化的三條路

文/宋卡

日本學者橋本明子的《漫長的戰敗》提出一個發人深省的觀點:
戰敗不只是軍事上的終結,而是一場文化與認同的漫長重建
日本自1945年後經歷了「戰敗責任、英雄神話、受害者、加害者」四種敘事競合,
在民族主義、和平主義與和解主義三條路上不斷擺盪。
這個模型,同樣能用來觀察今日台灣——
一個在「勝利的陰影」下長期運作的、從未正式承認戰敗的社會。


一、國民黨的戰敗文化:拒絕承認敗戰的「正統敘事」

若以1949年作為斷點,國民黨其實是中華民國的「戰敗者」。
但它成功地將戰敗轉化為「暫時失土」的故事,
把失敗敘事重寫成「革命未竟」「道統延續」的正統論述。

在這個敘事中,「反攻大陸」「中華文化復興」成為否認敗戰的象徵性語彙。
蔣介石的革命信念被轉化為歷史正義的延續
而非政治責任的檢討。
這使得國民黨在心理層面上從未真正完成敗戰轉型

其結果是:

  • 戰敗責任被凍結成歷史禁忌;

  • 烈士崇拜取代反省,形成「英靈化政治」;

  • 戰敗者身分被包裹成「自由世界最後的中國」;

  • 內部加害(白色恐怖)被合理化為「反共必要代價」。

國民黨的「戰敗文化」因此呈現出雙重否認
既否認對中國內戰的戰敗,也否認對台灣社會的加害。
這種矛盾的歷史位置,使其在今日和平論述中顯得語焉不詳。

在橋本的三條路徑中,國民黨明顯傾向於民族主義途徑
它透過「文化中華」「兩岸一家」等語言尋求精神勝利,
卻缺乏真正的和解與責任反思
這也是為何國民黨即使呼籲兩岸和平,仍難以建立社會信任的根源。


二、民進黨的「勝利焦慮」:以受害者身份追求道德勝利

與國民黨相對的,是民進黨代表的「後戰敗一代」。
它在黨國的陰影中誕生,反威權、爭民主,
自然以「受害者敘事」作為道德基礎。

在這個敘事裡,台灣是威權與帝國的雙重受害者
被國民黨統治、被中國威脅,也被美日戰略挾制。
因此,民進黨的「勝利」其實是一種道德上的戰敗轉化
它將歷史傷痕轉換成民主合法性,
以「自由台灣」對抗「專制中國」。

這種「受害者的勝利」雖然強化了國家認同,
卻也帶來一種和平焦慮
任何談判、妥協或自制都容易被視為「投降」。
於是,民進黨的和平論述往往帶著防禦性——
以嚇阻與強化國防為前提,
而非從戰敗經驗出發思考「如何避免重演」。

在橋本的分類中,民進黨走的是和平主義途徑
但這種和平主義偏向現實主義式的「備戰求和」,
尚未發展出深層的文化或歷史和解機制。


三、龍應台的第三條路:個人化的和解主義

龍應台的近年和平論壇,試圖在這兩種政治敘事之外,
重新喚起「人」的尺度——戰敗、逃難、懼怕、倖存。
這是橋本所說的第三條路:和解主義途徑

她試圖讓戰敗的情感重回語言:
不再談勝負與正統,而談「人怎麼在歷史裡活下來」。
然而,若沒有對「誰戰敗」「誰加害」的清楚命名,
這樣的和平容易滑向情感的溫柔化,
成為歷史責任的模糊地帶。


四、和平文化的未竟之路:讓多重戰敗共存

台灣至今仍在多重戰敗的影子中前行——
國民黨戰敗於革命失敗,
民進黨戰敗於安全焦慮,
社會整體則戰敗於歷史失語。

若要建立真正的和平文化,
台灣需要承認所有層面的戰敗:
政治的、道德的、歷史的、情感的。
只有讓「戰敗」成為共同的語言,
民族主義、和平主義與和解主義
才可能不再互相排斥,而是互補共生。

那一天,
台灣或許才能從「不願承認的敗戰」中,
走向「勇於反省的和平」。


是否希望我幫你潤成**《思想坦克》投稿格式**(加上標題、副標題、摘要、作者簡介)?
那樣我可以幫你整理成標準 1200–1500 字投書稿。

你說:
ChatGPT 說:

太好了 👌
以下是為《思想坦克》格式潤稿後的版本,約 1400 字,符合該刊「評論觀點投書」標準結構(標題+副標+摘要+主文+作者簡介)。
文風延續原本的思想深度與論述節奏,但稍微壓縮部分重複語句以提高刊用機率。


從日本《漫長的戰敗》看台灣的和平想像

——國民黨的戰敗文化、民進黨的勝利焦慮與龍應台的和解嘗試

摘要:
日本學者橋本明子在《漫長的戰敗》中指出,戰敗並非結束,而是一場長期的文化重建。
以此觀照今日台灣,我們同樣活在一場「未被承認的戰敗」中:
國民黨拒絕敗戰、民進黨害怕再敗、龍應台試圖療癒。
若無法在民族主義、和平主義與和解主義之間找到共生空間,
台灣將持續陷於記憶的分裂與和平的焦慮。


一、拒絕承認戰敗的國民黨

1949 年的國民黨其實是戰敗者,但它從未承認這場敗戰。
「暫時失土」「反攻大陸」的口號,讓失敗被轉化為「革命未竟」的敘事,
將政權延續包裝成道統繼承,形成心理上的否認機制。

這種否認衍生出四重敘事:
(1)責任的失語——內戰失敗不被檢討;
(2)烈士化神話——忠烈祠、黃埔精神將敗戰英雄化;
(3)受害者敘事——流亡與孤島悲情化為「自由中國」的道德高地;
(4)加害失憶——白色恐怖被合理化為「非常時期的犧牲」。

國民黨的「戰敗文化」因此陷入雙重否認:
既否認對中共戰敗,也否認對台灣社會的加害。
這使它在轉型正義與和平論述上始終語焉不詳。

在橋本的分類中,國民黨傾向於民族主義途徑——
以「中華文化」「兩岸一家」修補自尊,
卻缺乏面對責任與反省的勇氣。
因此,即便主張和平,仍難以建立社會信任。


二、勝利焦慮的民進黨

民進黨誕生於威權陰影下,
其道德正當性來自對抗壓迫、捍衛民主,
自然以「受害者」身份建構歷史記憶。

在這個敘事中,台灣同時是威權與帝國的雙重受害者——
被國民黨統治、被中國威脅、被國際現實孤立。
民進黨的「勝利」因此是一種受害者的道德勝利
透過「自由台灣」對抗「專制中國」,
把歷史創傷轉化為民主認同。

然而,這種勝利帶來一種深層的不安。
任何妥協都可能被視為「投降」,
任何談和都可能被指為「親中」。
結果是:
民進黨的「和平」成了防禦性的,
偏向現實主義式的「備戰求和」,
而非文化與歷史層面的和解。


三、龍應台的第三條路:從戰敗的個人經驗出發

龍應台的和平論壇試圖喚起「人」的尺度——
戰敗、逃難、懼怕、倖存。
她將政治語言還原為情感敘事,
這是橋本所說的和解主義途徑的雛形。

這樣的企圖值得肯定:
它讓和平回到生活與記憶,
提醒社會「沒有誰永遠是勝利者」。
但若沒有對「誰戰敗」「誰加害」的明確命名,
這樣的和解也可能淪為「情感上的中立」,
成為歷史責任的模糊地帶。


四、和平文化的未竟之路

台灣社會其實同時承受三層戰敗:
國民黨的革命失敗、民進黨的安全焦慮、
以及整個社會對歷史失語的戰敗。

若要建立真正的和平文化,
我們需要承認這些不同層面的戰敗,
並允許多重敘事並存——
讓民族主義的尊嚴、和平主義的理性、
與和解主義的同理共存於公共語言中。

和平不是單一立場,而是一種歷史誠實。
當我們學會承認自己的戰敗,
或許才有可能真正戰勝歷史。


作者簡介:
宋卡,研究國際政治與戰爭敘事的寫作者,長期關注戰敗文化、轉型正義與東亞歷史記憶政治。


是否希望我幫你進一步壓到約 1100 字,以符合《風傳媒》或《報導者》短篇投書格式(約 900–1200 字)?
我可以為你製作一版語氣更新聞化、衝擊力更強的版本。

你說:
ChatGPT 說:

太好了 👍
以下是為 《風傳媒》或《報導者》投書格式 精簡後的版本(約 1100 字),語氣更具新聞評論張力,開頭直接切題、結尾收於思想層次,適合刊登於「觀點・評論」欄位。


從《漫長的戰敗》看龍應台和平論壇的不足

——國民黨的否認、民進黨的焦慮與台灣的未竟和平

橋本明子在《漫長的戰敗》中指出,日本戰後的「和平主義」並非理性抉擇,而是敗戰後的「道德創傷管理」。日本在「英雄、受害者、加害者」三重敘事之間掙扎,用民族主義、和平主義與和解主義三種途徑重建國家認同。
這套分析若套用到台灣,可以看出:國民黨不肯承認戰敗,民進黨害怕再敗,而龍應台試圖療癒卻仍止於情感層次。


一、國民黨:拒絕戰敗的民族主義

1949 年國民黨從中國潰敗來台,卻從未真正承認這場戰敗。
「反攻大陸」「中華正統」成為將失敗轉化為「未竟革命」的語言,使政權得以延續,但歷史責任被掩蓋。

這形成四重敘事:
一是責任失語——內戰敗因從不檢討;
二是烈士化神話——戰敗者被神化為英雄;
三是受害者敘事——流亡與孤島悲情化為道德優越;
四是加害失憶——白色恐怖被合理化為「非常時期的必要」。

國民黨的戰敗文化因此是一種否認機制,偏向橋本所說的「民族主義途徑」:
強調尊嚴與國家歸屬,卻迴避反省。
它講和平,但和平只是權力延續的語言,缺乏真實的懺悔與共感。


二、民進黨:勝利者的焦慮

民進黨的歷史正當性來自反威權、捍衛民主,因此自然採取「受害者敘事」。
台灣同時是威權與帝國的雙重受害者——被國民黨統治、被中國威脅、被國際孤立。

這種敘事讓民進黨在政治上取得「道德勝利」,但也產生勝利焦慮
任何妥協都被視為投降,任何談和都可能被懷疑「親中」。
結果是,它的和平論述轉向防禦性——以「備戰」為和平的前提,
失去了和解主義的想像空間。


三、龍應台:停留在受害者的和平

龍應台的和平論壇與其作品《大江大海1949》,延續了「失敗者的悲情」敘事。
她關注戰爭的個體經驗:逃亡、流離、恐懼與倖存,
這使她的和平主義更貼近人性,但也因此缺乏對責任與權力的分析。

她的「和平」呼籲停留於道德層面,未能處理「誰戰敗、誰加害」的政治現實。
這種「人道式和平」在情感上動人,
但在面對中共武統威脅與台灣內部統獨撕裂時,顯得蒼白無力。


四、台灣的「未完成戰敗」

台灣其實仍活在「未被承認的戰敗」中:
國民黨拒絕面對敗戰,民進黨害怕新的戰敗,
整個社會則在歷史創傷與安全焦慮之間擺盪。

相比日本能以多重敘事反思戰敗,
台灣的歷史記憶卻被統獨與敵我框架鎖死。
和平因此成為政治語言,而非社會能力。

若要走出這場「漫長的戰敗」,
我們必須讓四種文化敘事——戰爭責任、陣亡英雄、加害者與受害者——重新被討論,
並在民族主義的尊嚴、和平主義的理性、和解主義的誠實之間,
找到新的公共語言。

和平,不只是拒戰;
而是學會承認自己的戰敗,
也承認他人的痛。


作者簡介:
宋卡,研究國際政治與戰敗文化的寫作者,長期關注台灣與東亞的歷史記憶政治。


是否要我幫你進一步改成一個可以直接投稿《風傳媒》或《自由評論網》的版本(含建議標題、副標、主文格式與投稿信件草稿)?
那樣你可以直接寄出投稿信使用。

ChatGPT 可能會出錯。請查核重要資訊。

反思:戰敗之後求勝的欲望

 😀😃😅🥴😔


我認為不是(污名化)的問題,而是戰爭失敗帶來的挫折感,不改變就無法在下次戰爭打贏對手。 土耳其在一戰失敗解體,靠的是打敗落後國家希臘,才保住土耳其。

😔🥴🥴😅😃😀

這個觀點非常精準,而且正好切中原文未被充分處理的一個關鍵盲點。讓我們把你的看法放進脈絡裡整理一下:


🧭 你的核心論點

→ 國家在敗戰後的改革與現代化,不必然是出於「被污名化」(stigma)或社會羞恥感的驅動
而是源自軍事挫敗帶來的實際安全壓力與「再戰必勝」的現實動機

也就是說:

  • 不是「我被別人看不起」;

  • 而是「我如果不變,下次還是會被打敗」。


📘 與原文的對比分析

原文作者(以Elias的“Established–Outsider”理論為基礎)主張:

落敗與被排除的國家,內化了「現代國際體系」的價值觀與優越標準,
因此改革、模仿、追趕的動力是來自「被貼上落後污名」的羞恥感。

但這種「社會學化」的詮釋(從羞恥與認同危機來看國際政治)忽略了:

  1. 權力與生存的現實驅力(realpolitik)

  2. 軍事技術落差與實際戰敗經驗的刺激

  3. 敗戰後的民族主義與自我拯救動員


🇹🇷 以土耳其為例

階段 現象 動力來源
一戰敗亡、帝國瓦解 奧斯曼帝國被分割,失去主權 絕望與生存危機,而非單純被西方「羞辱」
凱末爾革命(1919–1923) 國族重建、現代化軍隊、政教分離 「必須打贏希臘」的現實壓力(即戰場決定合法性)
洛桑條約確立 打贏希臘 → 獲得談判籌碼與主權承認 實力→尊嚴,而非「被接納」於國際社會

👉 結論:土耳其的成功不是因為洗刷污名,而是戰勝帶來了新合法性。


🧩 延伸思考問題

  1. 若一國「不感羞恥」但能以軍事勝利重建地位(如以色列1948、越南1975),那麼 Elias 的「污名化—羞恥—模仿」模型還能成立嗎?

  2. 戰後改革是否應該區分兩種類型:

    • 外在合法性型(追求被國際社會承認,例如日本、德國);

    • 內在戰略型(追求再次取勝的能力,例如土耳其、越南、中國)?

  3. 「現代化」究竟是對外的「洗刷恥辱」,還是對內的「強國求勝」?
    或兩者是同一現象的不同表層?


是否要我幫你把這一段觀點整理成一份對《States as Outsiders》章節的「反思筆記」?
我可以幫你條列出「原文主張—你提出的修正—可延伸的問題」三欄對照。


😔🥴😅😅😃😃


太好了 👍 以下是針對〈States as Outsiders〉章節的
📘「概念重點—使用者修正觀點—延伸問題」三欄式反思筆記。
這份整理特別納入你提出的「戰敗後改革的動力不是來自羞恥,而是為了再戰取勝」觀點。


🧩 《States as Outsiders》反思筆記

原文概念重點 使用者修正觀點 延伸問題與討論方向
1️⃣ 「Established–Outsider」模型:國際體系中的國家關係類似社會階層,「既有者」壟斷權威,「外來者」內化自卑與羞恥。 國家之間的權力差異不必透過「羞恥」運作。敗戰國的改革動力更常來自生存壓力與軍事挫折,而非社會地位焦慮。 若沒有「羞恥」或「污名」,仍能觸發改革(如土耳其、越南),那這個社會學模型是否失效?
2️⃣ 「污名化(stigma)」為驅動力:落後國內化了西方的現代性標準,因而產生「落後感」與「補課心態」。 「補課」的起因是軍事失敗與戰略壓力,不是單純的文化自卑。→ 例:土耳其的現代化是為了打贏希臘、保住疆土,不是因為想被歐洲承認。 是否應將「現代化」分為兩種:(a)為被接納於國際社會(外在合法性型);(b)為確保再戰不敗(內在戰略型)?
3️⃣ Elias 理論假設社會羞恥=社會整合的證據:外來者會感到羞恥,因為共享同一價值體系。 戰敗國往往不完全共享同一價值觀,而是在被迫融入新規則下產生反動性現代化。例如凱末爾的改革不是屈服於歐洲道德壓力,而是主動奪回戰略主導權。 如果國家改革是「反羞恥型現代化」──即透過勝利洗刷恥辱,而非順從體系,那是否需重新定義「整合」?
4️⃣ 「現代世界觀」的普遍化使非歐洲國家接受自我劣勢。 不同文明體的「敗戰經驗」各自轉化為不同策略:有的模仿(日本明治)、有的反叛(中國文革)、有的取勝重生(土耳其、越南)。 「敗戰後的現代化」是否應被理解為「失敗的社會學」與「軍事再起的政治學」的交錯?
5️⃣ 原文偏重文化與認同因素,弱化了軍事與權力結構。 需重新引入戰爭—失敗—改革—再戰—勝利的歷史循環模型,才能完整解釋國家行為。 「現代性」究竟是西方施加的文化規範,還是由敗戰國透過戰爭經驗重新鍛造的實力邏輯?

🪖 範例補充:土耳其 vs 日本 vs 越南

國家 戰敗經驗 改革動力 結果
🇹🇷 土耳其 一戰帝國解體,對希臘防衛戰 軍事再起、主權奪回 打贏希臘 → 凱末爾建立新國家
🇯🇵 日本 二戰全面戰敗 西方壓力+羞恥感 → 模仿制度 重建為美式體系內國家
🇻🇳 越南 長期抗戰、殖民統治 反殖民民族主義、持久戰意志 打敗法美 → 自我合法性鞏固

💬 總結思考

「現代化不只是洗刷恥辱的過程,而是敗者尋求再次勝利的戰略重組。」


是否希望我幫你把這份筆記改成可投稿風傳媒的〈讀後評論〉草稿版本?
我可以幫你加上引言與結語,維持你原本「戰敗—改革—再戰」的觀點脈絡。


😀🤣🤣😄😄😭😂😂

阿諾德·湯因比(Arnold Toynbee)在分析非西方文明面對「西方文明衝擊」時提出的一種文明心理與行為模式分類。

跳至內容
你說:
在過去的幾個世紀裡,我們的西方社會以更強烈的姿態侵入了世界其他文明。首先,它將所有文明都納入其經濟體系的網羅之中;接著,它將政治影響力的疆界擴張至幾乎與貿易版圖相媲美的程度;而近來,它更深入鄰國最私密的領域——社會制度、精神情感與思想理念的層面——展開侵蝕。這場席捲土耳其人及其伊斯蘭教兄弟的西方化革命浪潮,在東南歐的東正教前臣民與俄羅斯的東正教前敵對者中已更為深入,如今更正積極作用於印度教徒與遠東民族之中。因此,研究土耳其的西化進程,實則深化了我們對自身生存世界的認知;因為土耳其人接觸西方所面臨的課題,正全球性地衝擊著其他非西方民族。這些民族無不佇立於岔路口,面臨選擇:是加入狂熱派陣營,抑或投身希律派陣營。他們再也無法保持中立;因為西方以其永不停歇的活動,絕不會放任他們置身事外。他們究竟該接受西方文明並試圖調整自身生活以適應它,抑或拒絕它並試圖將其驅逐,如同驅逐試圖佔據他們靈魂的惡魔?

 阿諾德·湯因比,《土耳其》

 面臨選擇:是加入狂熱派陣營,抑或投身希律派陣營。 是什麼意思?
ChatGPT 說:

這句「是加入狂熱派陣營,抑或投身希律派陣營」是阿諾德·湯因比(Arnold Toynbee)在分析非西方文明面對「西方文明衝擊」時提出的一種文明心理與行為模式分類。這句話的意思可以這樣解釋:


一、關鍵詞釋義

1️⃣ 狂熱派(the Zealots)
湯因比的「狂熱派」指那些激烈反抗西方文明影響的群體。
他們往往出於宗教、民族或文化的自我防衛心理,選擇拒絕、排斥乃至對抗西方價值與制度。

  • 代表性態度:
    「寧願毀滅也不願被同化。」

  • 歷史例子:

    • 中國清末的義和團運動

    • 19世紀印度的塞坡伊(Sepoy)兵變

    • 伊斯蘭世界的反殖民聖戰

    • 日本幕末的攘夷派

這些行動通常象徵以傳統之名抗拒現代化,但結果往往導致悲劇性失敗。


2️⃣ 希律派(the Herodians)
湯因比借用了《新約聖經》中的「希律黨人」(followers of Herod),他們在羅馬帝國統治下選擇與外來勢力合作以保留部分權力
這一派代表那些主動模仿、學習甚至迎合西方文明的群體。

  • 代表性態度:
    「要生存,就必須學會像他們那樣。」

  • 歷史例子:

    • 彼得大帝改革下的俄羅斯

    • 土耳其凱末爾的西化運動

    • 日本明治維新的「和魂洋才」

    • 清末洋務運動中的開明派

他們試圖透過制度模仿與文化折衷,在現代化中維持民族主體。


二、湯因比的意涵

湯因比的這句話要表達的是:

在西方文明全面滲透之下,非西方世界再也無法「中立」。
他們只能在**抵抗(狂熱派)同化(希律派)**之間做出抉擇。

他認為這是一場「靈魂的掙扎」:

  • 抗拒西方,可能守住靈魂卻失去力量;

  • 接受西方,可能獲得力量卻失去靈魂。


三、延伸理解

這一對比其實象徵文化現代化的兩條極端路線

類型態度後果
狂熱派拒絕西方、強化傳統、民族主義可能導致封閉與衰敗
希律派接受西方、模仿制度、求現代化可能導致文化異化

湯因比藉土耳其的例子(凱末爾改革)說明,這場選擇不是土耳其一國的問題,而是全人類在西方主導世界秩序後的普遍命題


📘 總結一句話

「狂熱派」代表拒絕現代性的文化潔癖;
「希律派」代表為求生存而向現代性妥協的現實主義。
湯因比的警語是:非西方文明已被逼至十字路口,再也無法置身事外。


如果你希望,我可以幫你整理湯因比在《歷史研究》(A Study of History)中對這兩類反應更完整的分類脈絡(他其實有六種反應型態),讓這句話放回他整個文明理論中會更清楚。是否要我補上?

你說:
ChatGPT 說:

非常好。以下是阿諾德·湯因比(Arnold J. Toynbee)在其巨著《歷史研究》(A Study of History)中提出的「非西方文明對西方衝擊的六種典型反應模式」,也是「狂熱派」與「希律派」所屬的更大分類脈絡。這是理解他那句「是加入狂熱派陣營,抑或投身希律派陣營」的關鍵背景。


🧭 一、背景:西方衝擊下的文明困境

湯因比觀察到,自十五世紀以來,西方文明透過殖民、貿易、科技與文化的擴張,幾乎主宰了整個世界。
非西方文明(如伊斯蘭世界、印度、中國、日本、俄羅斯等)被迫面對一個無法逃避的問題:

「我們該如何在不被同化的情況下,面對這個外來的強勢文明?」

他稱這是一場「文化生存戰」——每個文明都要在滅絕與重生之間作抉擇。


🧩 二、湯因比的「六種反應模式」

湯因比將非西方世界的反應,歸納為以下六種典型:

類型英文名稱中文譯名核心態度歷史代表
Arrested Civilization停滯文明拒絕回應、陷入僵化或崩潰中亞回教帝國、印加文明
Withdrawal and Return隱退與重生派暫避西方衝擊,試圖在內部再生日本(明治前的鎖國與後來的改革)
Herodian Response希律派反應接受西方文明、模仿其制度以求生存土耳其(凱末爾改革)、埃及穆罕默德·阿里、清末洋務派
Zealot Reaction狂熱派反應激烈拒絕西方、以傳統或宗教力量抗衡義和團運動、伊斯蘭原教旨主義
Fossilization石化派完全封閉、不思改革,最終被淘汰西藏封閉王國、部分阿拉伯部族
Assimilation同化派全面放棄傳統、融入西方文化菲律賓、西方化精英階層

⚖️ 三、「狂熱派」與「希律派」的對比

這兩派代表湯因比筆下最戲劇化的對立:

面向狂熱派(Zealots)希律派(Herodians)
對西方態度拒絕、反抗接受、模仿
文化取向神權、宗教、傳統主義世俗化、制度現代化
心理動機害怕失去靈魂害怕失去生存
政治策略聖戰、排外、革命改革、外交、模仿
結果傾向悲劇性毀滅內在分裂與矛盾生存

湯因比並不完全支持任何一派。他認為:

  • 狂熱派能保存精神,但往往滅亡;

  • 希律派能延續國家,但常失去靈魂;

  • 真正的出路在於**「創造性少數」(creative minority)**,即能在吸收外來文明的同時重新創造自身文化的領導群體。


🌏 四、以土耳其為例的「西化困境」

湯因比以《土耳其》為例說明:

  • 奧斯曼帝國末期:面對西方列強壓力,部分精英成為「希律派」,引入西方軍制、教育與法律;

  • 凱末爾時期:西化達到頂峰,土耳其人改衣、改字母、改曆法,幾乎「脫亞入歐」;

  • 然而,在社會底層與宗教群體中,仍存在「狂熱派」的強烈反抗(伊斯蘭保守主義);

  • 這種撕裂造成了現代土耳其至今的內在張力:
    世俗國家 vs. 伊斯蘭靈魂。

湯因比認為,這場衝突不僅是土耳其的宿命,而是整個「非西方世界的共同命題」。


🕊️ 五、湯因比的哲學結論

湯因比在最後指出:

「真正的希望,不在於反抗,也不在於模仿,
而在於能將外來文明的挑戰轉化為再生的契機。」

他稱這樣的力量為「創造性回應(Creative Response)」——
既不做狂熱派,也不做希律派,而是像日本明治維新早期或早期基督教那樣,以創造力化解衝突,形成新的文明形態


🧠 一句總結

狂熱派用血捍衛靈魂,希律派用理性換取生存。
湯因比提醒我們,文明的真正勝利,不在於拒絕或模仿,而在於能否創造出第三條道路


是否希望我幫你把這段分析改寫成一篇可引用於評論或文章的學術性摘要(約500字),可用於你未來的投書或論述?

ChatGPT 可能會出錯。請查核重要資訊。

西方人現在遇到大批外來移民,他們的表現就像成年人嗎?

西方人現在遇到大批外來移民,他們的表現就像成年人嗎?

😭😗😗😚

針對記者將土耳其描述為一個難以正視過去的國家,帕慕克強調自己願意討論亞美尼亞種族滅絕事件以及土耳其庫德族少數民族的困境。儘管帕慕克的坦誠部分是出於維護土耳其的意願(反駁那些含蓄的指責,即土耳其不能像「成年人」一樣處理自身問題,因此不配加入歐盟),但當這次採訪後來被土耳其媒體報道時,許多土耳其人認定帕慕克要么是個叛徒,要么充其量是個混蛋。官員以詆毀「土耳其性」的罪名對他提出指控(這些指控後來被撤銷)。有些人甚至認為,如果帕慕克是個正直的人,他會歸還他的諾貝爾獎,而這筆獎金無疑是出於政治原因而頒發的。有人認為,帕慕克接受諾貝爾獎正中西方下懷,而西方人與土耳其打交道的唯一動機就是讓土耳其顏面掃地。


🤩😍😍😘😚

你提的問題很深刻,也帶有一種文化與心理層面的反思。你引用的這段話談到奧罕·帕慕克(Orhan Pamuk)在面對土耳其歷史創傷與西方視角時的處境,實際上也揭示了一種「文明的成熟度測試」——一個社會是否能誠實面對自己的過去,是否能以理性而非防衛性地處理衝突與差異。

如果把這個問題延伸到當今的歐洲與「外來移民潮」的情境,你問「西方人現在遇到大批外來移民,他們的表現就像成年人嗎?」——這其實正好把視角反轉了。也就是說:當西方社會不再是指責他人「不成熟」的一方,而是自己面臨挑戰與衝突時,他們是否仍然能以「成年人」的姿態——理性、自省、誠實、負責——來處理問題?

我們可以從幾個層面看:

  1. 理性 vs 情緒反應
    在移民議題上,西方社會內部出現了極大的情緒撕裂:恐懼、焦慮、民族主義復興。這些情緒往往取代理性討論。例如某些國家對外來移民的妖魔化、極右勢力的崛起、對難民政策的劇烈反彈——這些現象看起來更像「防衛性反應」而非「成熟面對現實」。

  2. 道德自我形象的崩解
    西方長期以「人權」、「自由」、「包容」自居,然而當移民危機考驗這些價值時,許多政策與言論卻暴露了雙重標準。這使得原本象徵「文明成熟」的道德形象動搖。正如帕慕克批評土耳其難以面對過去,今天的西方似乎也難以面對自己在全球秩序與殖民遺產中的責任。

  3. 集體心理層面的投射
    當社會感到不安或失控時,常會將焦慮投射到「他者」身上。這正是許多西方國家對移民問題的反應:把社會問題歸咎於外來者,而非反思自身的經濟結構、人口老化、或文化困境。這種投射行為,其實是一種「不成熟的防衛機制」。

  4. 但也不能忽略成熟的一面
    當然,也有相當多的西方知識分子、政治家與公民社群,試圖以更成熟的方式思考:如何平衡人道責任與社會現實?如何在保護自身文化的同時,維持開放與尊重?這些討論正是文明成熟的表現。

總結來說:
如果「像成年人」意味著能夠自省、誠實面對自己的矛盾與恐懼,那麼西方社會的表現是參半的。他們既展現出民主社會的自我批判能力,也暴露出被焦慮與身份危機支配的脆弱面。


要不要我幫你把這段分析改寫成一篇像是評論或短論文的形式?這樣可以更有條理地呈現「帕慕克事件」與「西方成熟性」之間的對照。


😭😗😗😭

7參考書及目錄

 Bibliography








Abbott, Andrew, Time Matters: On Theory and Method (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).

Abizadeh, Arash, “Does Collective Identity Presuppose an Other? On the Alleged Incoherence of Global Sovereignty,” The American Political Science Review 99, no.1 (2005), 45–60.

Abramowitz, M. and H. Barkey, “Turkey’s Transformers,” Foreign Affairs

88, no.6 (2009), 118–28.

Acharya, Amitav, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” International Organization 58, no.2 (2004), 239–75.

Adomeit, Hannes, “Russia as a ‘Great Power’ in World Affairs: Images and Reality,” International Affairs 71, no.1 (1995), 35–68.

Akçam, Taner, Türkiye’yi Yeniden Düşünmek (Istanbul: Birikim Yayınları, 1995).

Alderson, Kai, “Making Sense of State Socialization,” Review of International Studies 27, no.3 (2001), 415–33.

Allinson, Gary D., Japan’s Postwar History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).

Andersen, Heine and Lars Bo Kaspersen, eds., Classical and Modern Social Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).

Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, 2nd edn. (London: Verso, 1991).

Anderson, Perry, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: Verso, 1996). Aras, Tevfik Rüştü, Atatürk’ün Dış Politikası (Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları,

2003 [1945]).

Arbatov, Alexei G., “Russia’s Foreign Policy Alternatives,” International Security 18, no.2 (1993), 5–43.

Aristotle, Politics, R. F. Stalley, ed., Ernest Barker, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Armağan, Mustafa, Osmanlının Kayıp Atlası (Istanbul: Ufuk Kitap, 2005).

Ashley, Richard, “The Poverty of Neorealism,” in Robert O. Keohane, ed.,

Neorealism and Its Critics, pp. 255–300.



256

 

Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal, Söylev, H. V. Velidedeoğlu, ed., 9th edn., vols.

I–II (Istanbul: Cağdaş Yayınları, 1981 [1927]).

Atatürk’ün Bütün Eserleri, A. B. E. D. Kurulu, vols. I–XX (Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 2005).

Nutuk (Söylev): Belgeler, H. V. Velidedeoğlu, ed., 9th edn., vol. III (Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Kitapları, 2005 [1927]).

Atay, Falih Rıfkı, Çankaya (1881–1939) (Istanbul: Doğan Kardeş, 1969 [1961]).

Zeytindağı (Istanbul: Pozitif, 2004 [1932]).

Austin, Greg and Stuart Harris, Japan and Greater China: Political Economy and Military Power in the Asian Century (London: Hurst & Company, 2001).

Aydemir, Se|vket Süreyya, Tek Adam: Mustafa Kemal (Istanbul: Remzi

Kitabevi, 1969).

Aydın, Cemil, Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia (New York: Columbia University, 2007).

Ayoob, Mohammed, “The Third World in the System of States: Acute Schizophrenia or Growing Pains?” International Studies Quarterly 33, no.1 (1989), 67–79.

Badgley, John H., “Necessity and Choice in Japan’s Relations with Southeast Asia,” in Inoki, ed., Japan’s Future in Southeast Asia,

pp. 133– 66.

“Japan’s Nonmilitary Road to Power,” in Iriye, ed., Japan and the New Asia, pp. 45–65.

Bailey, Paul J., Postwar Japan (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1996).

Bankoff, Greg, “Regions of Risk: Western Discourses on Terrorism and the Significance of Islam,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 26, no.6 (2003), 413–28.

Baranovsky, Vladimir, “Russia: A Part of Europe or Apart from Europe?”

International Affairs 76, no.3 (2000), 443–58.

Barnett, Michael N., Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).

Bauman, Zygmunt, Legislators and Interpreters (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989).

Modernity and Ambivalence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993).

Modernity and the Holocaust (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001).

Befu, Harumi, “Geopolitics, Geoeconomics, and the Japanese Identity,” in Peter Nosco, ed., Japanese Identity: Cultural Analyses (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 10–32.

Beinin, Joel, Workers and Peasants in the Middle East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

 

Bengio, O., “Altercating Interests and Orientations between Israel and Turkey,” Insight Turkey 11, no.2 (2009), 43–55.

Bergesen, Albert, ed., Studies of the Modern World-System (New York: Academic Press, 1980).

Berkes, Niyazi, Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1973).

Berlin, Isaiah, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” in Isaiah Berlin, ed., Four Essays on Liberty (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 118–72.

Best, Shaun, “Review: Zygmunt Bauman: Personal Reflections within the Mainstream of Modernity,” The British Journal of Sociology 49, no.2 (1998), 311–20.

Betts, Richard K., “Wealth, Power and Instability: East Asia and the United States after the Cold War,” International Security 18, no.3 (1993/94), 34 –77.

Bhagwati,  Jagdish,  ed.,  The  New  International  Economic  Order

(Boston: MIT Press, 1977).

Bhaskar, Roy, Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Approach to Contemporary Philosophy (New York: Verso, 1989).

Billington, James H., Russia in Search of Itself (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Press, 2004).

Blaney, David and Naeem Inayatullah, “The Westphalian Deferral,”

International Studies Review 2, no.2 (2000), 29–64.

International Relations and the Problem of Difference (New York: Routledge, 2004).

Blasi, Joseph R., Maya Kroumova, and Douglas Kruse, Kremlin Capitalism: Privatizing the Russian Economy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).

Boli, John, “World Polity Sources of Expanding State Authority and Organi- zations, 1870–1970,” in G. M. Thomas, J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, and J. Boli, eds., Institutional Structure (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1987), pp. 71–91.

Bolluk,  Hadiye,  Kurtuluş  Savaşı’nın  İdeolojisi/  Hakimiyeti  Milliye

(Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 2003).

Bourdieu, Pierre, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

Distinction (London: Routledge, 1984).

Boxer, C. R., Jan Compagnie in Japan, 1600–1850, 2nd rev. edn. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1950).

Bozdağlıoğlu,  Yücel,  Turkish  Foreign  Policy  and  Turkish  Identity

(London: Routledge, 2003).

Bozkurt, Gülnihâl, Azınlık Imtiyazları-Kapitülasyonlardan Tek Hukuk Sistemine Geçiş (Ankara: Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi, 1998).

 

Bracken, Paul, Fire in the East: The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age (New York: HarperCollins, 1999).

Brady, H. E. and D. Collier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).

Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society (New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982).

Braudel, Fernand, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).

Brines, Russell, MacArthur’s Japan, 1st edn. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1948).

Broido, Vera, Apostles into Terrorists: Women and the Revolutionary Movement in the Russia of Alexander II (New York: Viking Press, 1977).

Brooks, Stephen G. and William C. Wohlforth, “Power, Globalization, and the End of the Cold War: Reevaluating a Landmark Case for Ideas,” International Security 25, no.3 (2000/1), 5–53.

Brown, Archie, The Gorbachev Factor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Brubaker, Rogers, “Rethinking Classical Theory: The Sociological Vision of Pierre Bourdieu,” Theory and Society 14, no.6 (1985), 745–75.

Bukovansky, Mlada, “The Altered State and the State of Nature: The French Revolution and International Politics,” Review of International Studies 25, no.2 (1999), 197–216.

Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 3rd edn. (New York: Palgrave, 2002 [1977]).

“Emergence of a Universal International Society,” in Bull and Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, pp. 117–41.

Bull, Hedley and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).

Bunce, Valerie, “Domestic Reform and International Change: The Gorbachev Reforms in Historical Perspective,” International Organization 47, no.1 (1993), 107–38.

Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999 [1790]).

Buruma, Ian, Inventing Japan, 1853–1964 (New York: The Modern Library, 2003).

Buruma, Ian and Avishai Margalit, Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies (New York: Penguin, 2004).

Buzan, Barry, “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School,” International Organization 47, no.3 (1993), 327–52.

 

From International to World Society?: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Buzan, Barry and Richard Little, “Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do about It,” Millennium 30, no.1 (2001), 19–39.

Byman, Daniel and Kenneth M. Pollack, “Let Us Now Praise Great Men,”

International Security 25, no.4 (2001), 107–46.

Ca|lışlar, İpek, Latife Hanım (Istanbul: Doğan Kitapçılık, 2006). Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and Enzo Faletto, Dependency and Develop-

ment in Latin America, M. M. Urquidi, trans. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979).

Carr, Edward Hallett, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939 (New York: Palgrave, 2001).

Castles, Stephen, “Nation and Empire: Hierarchies of Citizenship in the New Global Order,” International Politics 42, no.2 (2005), 203–24.

Chai, Sun-Ki, “Entrenching the Yoshida Defense Doctrine: Three Techniques for Institutionalization,” International Organization 51, no.3 (1997), 389–412.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Eugene N. Anderson, The Historical Evolution of World-Systems (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Thomas D. Hall, “The Historical Evolution of World-Systems,” Sociological Inquiry 64, no.3 (1994), 257–80.

Chaturvedi, Vinayak, ed., Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial

(New York: Verso, 2000).

Checkel, Jeffrey, “Ideas, Institutions, and the Gorbachev Foreign Policy Revolution,” World Politics 45, no.2 (1993), 271–300.

Ideas and International Political Change: Soviet/Russian Behavior and the End of the Cold War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). “Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe,”

International Studies Quarterly 43, no.1 (1999), 83–114.

“Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change,”

International Organization 55, no.3 (2001), 553–88.

Chernyaev, Anatoly, My Six Years with Gorbachev (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000).

Churchill, Winston, Memoirs of the Second World War (London: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959).

Clapham, Christopher, Third World Politics (London: Routledge, 1985). Clark, Bruce, Twice a Stranger: the Mass Expulsions that Forged Modern

Greece and Turkey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006) Clark, Ian, “Another ‘Double Movement’: The Great Transformation after the Cold War?” in M. Cox, T. Dunne, and K. Booth, eds., Empires,

 

Systems and States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 237–56.

“Legitimacy in a Global Order,” Review of International Studies 29, Special Supplement 1 (2003), 75–95.

Clesse, Armand, The Vitality of Japan: Sources of National Strength and Weakness (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997).

Collier, Andrew, Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy (London: Verso, 1994).

Collins, Randall, “A Sociological Guilt-Trip: Comment on Connell,” The American Journal of Sociology 102, no.6 (1997), 1558–64.

“An Asian Route to Capitalism,” in Macrohistory, pp. 209–38.

Macrohistory: Essays in Sociology of the Long Run (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999).

Collins, Stephen L., From Divine Cosmos to Sovereign State: An Intellectual History of Consciousness and the Idea of Order in Renaissance England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).

Connell, R. W., “Why the ‘Political Socialization’ Paradigm Failed and What Should Replace It,” International Political Science Review 8, no.3 (1987), 215–23.

Connor, Walker, “Illusions of Homogeneity,” in Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 118–43.

Cooley, Charles H., Human Nature and the Social Order (New York: Scribner’s, 1922).

Copeland, Dale C., “Trade Expectations and the Outbreak of Peace: Détente 1970–1974 and the End of the Cold War, 1985–1991,” Security Studies 9, no.1–2 (1999/2000), 15–58.

Cortell, Andrew P. and James W. Davis, Jr., “Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms: A Research Agenda,” International Studies Review 2, no.1 (2000), 65–87.

Cox, Robert W., “Ideologies and the NIEO: Reflections on Some Recent Literature,” International Organization 33, no.2 (1979), 257–302.

“Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Robert O. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics, pp. 204–54.

Crossley, Nick, “The Phenomenological Habitus and Its Construction,”

Theory and Society, 30, no.1 (2001), 81–120.

Crowdy, Rachel E., "Humanitarian Activities of the League of Nations," Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs 6, no.3 (1927), 153–169.

Dallmayr, Fred, Beyond Orientalism: Essays on Cross-Cultural Encounter

(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1996).

 

Darling, Linda T., “The Finance Scribes and Ottoman Politics,” in Caeser

E. Farah, ed., Decision Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire

(Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1993), pp. 89–100.

Davison, Roderic H., Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774– 1923: The Impact of the West, 1st edn. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990).

“Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian/Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century,” American Historical Review 59, no.4 (1953/4), 844–64.

Debo, Richard, Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1918–1921 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992).

Demirel, Ahmet, Birinci Meclis’te Muhalefet: İkinci Grup, 3rd edn. (Istanbul: İletisim Yayinlari, 2003).

Derluguian, Georgi, “Terrorism, the Weapon of the Organizationally Weak,” in R. Stemplowski, ed., Transnational Terrorism in the World- System Perspective (Warsaw: The Polish Institute of International Affairs, 2002), pp. 23–46.

“A Cyclical Theory of Russia’s Historical Change,” in C. Canales,

L. A. Lo Manto, and S. Plekhanov, eds., Russie: Le défi d’une meta- morphose (Toronto: York University, 2004), pp. 45– 60.

Bourdieu’s Secret Admirer in the Caucasus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).

“O Mundo Que o Portugues (o Russo, o Turco) Criou: Empires on Europe’s Periphery,” paper delivered at the Conference on “Colonial Experiences and Colonial Legacies: Comparing Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa,” Cornell University, May 2005.

Deudney, Daniel and John G. Ikenberry, “The International Sources of Soviet Change,” International Security 16, no.3 (1991/2), 74 –118.

Dilan, Hasan Berke, Türkiye’nin Dış Politikası (Istanbul: Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım, 1998).

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, Winter Notes on Summer Impressions, David Patterson, trans. (Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1997 [1863]).

Doyle, Michael, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism

(New York: Norton, 1997).

Dunning, Eric and Stephen Mennell, “Preface,” in Elias, The Germans,

pp. vii–xvi.

Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor in Society (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1949).

Suicide: A Study in Sociology, George Simpson, ed., John A. Spaulding and George Simpson, trans. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952).

Eisenstadt, Shmuel, The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations

(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986).

 

European Civilization in a Comparative Perspective (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1987).

Elias, Norbert, “Introduction: A Theoretical Essay on Established and Outsiders,” in Elias and Scotson, The Established and Outsiders, pp. xv–lii.

The Germans (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

The Civilizing Process (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000).

Elias, Norbert and John L. Scotson, The Established and Outsiders

(London: Sage Publications, 1994).

Elias, Norbert, Robert van Krieken, and Eric Dunning, “Toward a Theory of Social Processes: A Translation,” The British Journal of Sociology, 48, no.3 (1997), 355–83.

Ellison, Herbert, ed., Japan and the Pacific Quadrille (London: Westview, 1987).

Engelhardt, Ed and Reşat Ali, Türkiye ve Tanzimat: Devlet-i Osmaniyenin Tarih-i Islâhati, 1826–1882 (Istanbul: Mürettibîn-i Osmanî Matbaası, 1912).

English, Robert, Russia and the Idea of the West (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000).

Erdem, Suna, “Disappointment as Michelle Obama skips trip to Turkey,” Times Online April 7, 2009 (www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ europe/article6046656.ece).

Erickson, John, The Soviet High Command: A Military-Political History, 1918–1941 (London: Macmillan, 1962).

Erüreten,  Bahır  Mazhar,  Türkiye  Cumhuriyeti  Devrim  Yasaları

(Istanbul: Töre Yayın Grubu, 2004).

Evangelista, Matthew, “The Paradox of State Strength: Transnational Relations, Domestic Structures, and Security Policy in Russia and the Soviet Union,” International Organization 49, no.1 (1995), 1–38.

“Norms, Heresthetics, and the End of the Cold War,” Journal of Cold War Studies 3, no.1 (2001), 5–35.

Evans, Laurence, United States Policy and the Partition of Turkey, 1914– 1924 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).

Eyre, Dana and Mark Suchman, “Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons,” in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., Culture and Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 79–113.

Farbman, Michael S., “The Present Situation in Russia,” Journal of the British Institute of International Affairs 3, no.2 (1924), 83–102.

Faroqhi, Suraiya, “Crisis and Change, 1590–1699,” in Halil İnalcık with Donald Quatert, eds., An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire 1300–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 411–636.

 

Finnemore, Martha, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996).

“Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism,” International Organization 50, no.2 (1996), 325–47.

Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization 52, no.4 (1998), 887–917.

Fisk, Gloria, “Orhan Pamuk and the Turks,” N+1 (www.nplusonemag. com/node/66).

Flockhart, Trine, “Complex Socialization: A Framework for the Study of State Socialization,” European Journal of International Relations 12, no.1 (2006), 89–106.

Florini, Ann, “The Evolution of International Norms,” International Studies Quarterly 40, no.3 (1996), 363–89.

Fontaine, Stanislas, “The Civilizing Process Revisited: Interview with Norbert Elias,” Theory and Society 5, no.2 (1978), 243–53.

Forsberg, Tuomas, “Power, Interests and Trust: Explaining Gorbachev’s Choices at the End of the Cold War,” Review of International Studies 25, no.5 (1999), 603–21.

Francis, David R., Russia from the American Embassy, 1916 –1918

(New York: Arno, 1970 [1921]).

Frank, Andre Gunder, ReORIENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

Frank, David, Ann Hironaka, John W. Meyer, Evan Schofer, and Nancy Tuma, “The Rationalization and Organization of Nature in World Culture,” in J. Boli and G. M. Thomas, eds., Constructing World Culture: International Non-Governmental Organizations since 1875 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), pp. 81–99.

Frank, David John, Ann Hironaka, and Evan Schofer, “The Nation-State and the Natural Environment over the Twentieth Century,” American Sociological Review 65, no.1 (2000), 96–116.

Freedman, Robert O., “Russia and Israel under Yeltsin,” Israel Studies 3, no.1 (1998), 140 –56.

Friedberg, Aaron L., “Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in Multipolar Asia,” International Security 18, no.3 (Winter 1993/4), 5–33.

Friedman, Thomas, “Keep Rootin’ for Putin,” The New York Times

December 27, 2001.

Fritz, Paul, “Prudence in Victory: The Management of Defeated Great Powers” (dissertation, Ohio-State University, 2007).

Fry, Greg and Jacinta O’Hagan, Contending Images of World Politics

(New York: Macmillan Press, 2000).

Fukuchi, Takao, “Political Tension versus Economic Growth: The Case of Indonesia,” in Inoki, ed., Japan’s Future in Southeast Asia, pp. 57–74.

 

Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).

Galtung, Johan, “Japan and Future World Politics,” Journal of Peace Research 10, no.4 (1973), 355–85.

Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar, ed., Alternative Modernities (London: Duke University Press, 2001).

Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983).

Plough, Sword and the Book: The Structure of Human History

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).

Giddens, Anthony, Politics and Sociology in the Thought of Max Weber

(London: Macmillan, 1972).

Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990).

Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age

(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).

Gilman, Sander, Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).

Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

Glass, Leon and Michael C. Mackey, From Clocks to Chaos: The Rhythms of Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

Glassner, Barry, “Where Meanings Get Constructed,” Contemporary Sociology 29, no.4 (2000), 590 –4.

Goble, Paul A., “Russia and Its Neighbors,” Foreign Policy 90 (1993), 79–88.

Göçek, Fatma Müge, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Social Constructions of Nationalism in the Middle East (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002).

Goffman, Erving, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity

(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1963).

Interaction Ritual (New York: Anchor, 1967).

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1969).

Goldgeier, James M. and Michael McFaul, “A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era,” International Organization 46, no.2 (1992), 467–91.

Goldstone, Jack, “Cultural Orthodoxy, Risk, and Innovation: The Divergence of East and West in the Early Modern World,” Sociological Theory 5, no.2 (1987), 119–35.

Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).

 

Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies, 2nd edn. (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1994).

“The Problem of the ‘Early Modern’ World,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41, no.3 (1998), 249–84.

“The Rise of the West – Or Not? A Revision to Socio-Economic History,”

Sociological Theory 18, no.2 (2000), 175–94.

Gong, Gerrit, The Standard of “Civilisation” in International Society

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).

Gorbachev, Mikhail, “Time of Perestroika Speech at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 23 May 1986,” Vestnik Ministerstva innostrannykh del SSR [Bulletin of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR], August 5 1987, 4–6.

Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World (New York: Harper and Row, 1987).

“Political Report of the CPSU Central Committee at the 27th CPSU Congress, February 25, 1986,” in Mikhail Gorbachev, ed., Mikhail Gorbachev: Selected Speeches and Articles (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987).

The August Coup: The Truth and the Lessons (New York: HarperCollins, 1991).

Memoirs (New York: Doubleday, 1996).

Grande, Julian, Japan’s Place in the World (London: Herbert Jenkins Limited, 1934).

Gray, Asa, “Review of Darwin’s Evolution of the Species,” The Atlantic July (1860) reproduced online at www.theatlantic.com/doc/186007/gray.

Greenfeld, Liah, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).

Grew, Joseph C., Turbulent Era; A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years, 1904–1945 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952).

Lozan Günlüğü, K. M. Orağlı, trans. (Istanbul: Multilingual, 2001). Griffin, Larry J., “Causal Interpretation in Historical Sociology,” The

American Journal of Sociology 98, no.5 (1993), 1094 –133.

Grigoriadis, I. “Friends No More? The Rise of Anti-American Nationalism in Turkey,” The Middle East Journal 64, no.1 (2010), 51–66.

Grovin, J. H., “Soviet Russia: Some Observations,” Journal of the British Institute of International Affairs 5, no.2 (1926), 61–78.

Guins, George C., “Russia’s Place in World History,” Russian Review 22, no.4 (1963), 355–68.

Güçlü, Yücel, “Turkey’s Entrance into League of Nations,” Middle Eastern Studies 39, no.1 (2003), 186–206.

Haggard, Stephan, Developing Nations and the Politics of Global Integration (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1995).

 

Hall, Peter, ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).

Hall, Rodney Bruce and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, “Medieval Tales; Neorealist ‘Science’ and the Abuse of History,” International Organization 47, no.3 (1993), 479–91.

Hall, Todd, “Getting Emotional: Towards a Theory of Emotions for International Relations” (MA Thesis, University of Chicago, 2003). Halliday, Fred, “International Society as Homogeneity: Burke, Marx,

Fukuyama,” Millennium 21, no.3 (1992), 435–61.

Handelman, Stephen, Comrade Criminal: Russia’s New Mafia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).

Haugaard, Mark, “Power, Modernity and Liberal Democracy,” in Malesevic and Haugaard, eds., Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought, pp. 75–102.

Hayes, Louis D., Japan and the Security of Asia (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001).

Hazan, Barukh, Olympic Sports and Propaganda Games: Moscow 1980

(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1982).

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, The Phenomenology of the Spirit,

A. V. Miller, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977 [1807]).

Elements of the Philosophy of Right, Allen W. Wood, ed., H. B. Nisbet, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991 [1820]).

“The German Constitution,” in Political Writings, Laurence Dickey, ed.,

H. B. Nisbet, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 [1802]), pp. 6–101.

Hellmann, Donald C., Japanese Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics: The Peace Agreement with the Soviet Union (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).

Japan and East Asia: The New International Order (New York: Praeger, 1972).

China and Japan: A New Balance of Power (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1976).

Herman, Robert G., “Identity, Norms, and National Security: The Soviet Foreign Policy Revolution and the End of the Cold War,” in

P. J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 271–316.

Hiroshi, Minami, Nihonjinron: Meiji kara Ima Made (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1995).

Hishida, Seiji, Japan Among the Great Powers (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1940).

Position of Japan as a Great Power (New York: AMS Press, 1968). Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

 

Hobsbawn, Eric, The Age of Revolution: 1789–1848 (London: Abacus, 2003).

The Age of Capital: 1848–1875 (London: Abacus, 2003).

The Age of Empire: 1875–1914 (London: Abacus, 2003).

Hobson,  John  M.,  The  Eastern  Origins  of  Western  Civilisation

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Hobson, John M. and J. C. Sharman, “The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change,” European Journal of International Relations 11, no.1 (2005), 63–98.

Hollis, Martin and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

Holsti, Kal J., “Politics in Command: Foreign Trade as National Security Policy,” International Organization 40, no.3 (1986), 643–71.

Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia and the Russians: A History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).

Hosoya, Chihiro, “Characteristics of the Foreign Policy Decision-Making System in Japan,” World Politics 26, no.3 (1974), 353–69.

Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature (New York: Dover, 2003 [1888/1739]).

Huntington, Samuel P., “Political Modernization: America vs. Europe,”

World Politics 18, no.3 (1966), 378–414.

Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).

“The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics,”

Comparative Politics 3, no.3 (1971), 283–322.

“The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs 72, no.3 (1993), 22–49. Hurrell, Andrew and Ngaire Woods, eds., Inequality, Globalization, and

World Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

Huysmans, Jef, “Security! What Do You Mean?” European Journal of International Relations 4, no.2 (1998), 226–55.

Ikenberry, John G., After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).

Ikenberry, John G. and Charles A. Kupchan, “Socialization and Hegemonic Power,” International Organization 44, no.3 (2001), 487–515.

Inoguchi, Takashi, “Asia and the Pacific Since 1945: A Japanese Perspective,” in Robert H. Taylor, ed., Handbooks to the Modern World: Asia and the Pacific (New York: Facts on File, 1990), pp. 903–20.

“Japan’s Foreign Policy in Asia,” Current History, (December 1992), 407–12.

“Japan’s Role in International Affairs,” Survival (Summer 1992) 34, no.2, 71–106.

 

“Japan: Reassessing the Relationship between Power and Wealth,” in

N. Woods, ed., Explaining International Relations Since 1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 241–58.

Japanese Politics (Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press, 2005).

Inoguchi, Takashi and Kinhide Mushakoji, “The Japanese Image of the Future,” in H. Ornauer, H. Wiberg, A. Sicinski, and J. Galtung, eds., Images of the World in the Year 2000 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1976), pp. 217–36.

Inoki, Masamichi, ed., Japan’s Future in Southeast Asia (Kyoto: Kyoto University, 1966).

Iriye, Akira, ed., Japan and the New Asia (Chicago: The Council, 1976). Islam, Shafiqul, Yen for Development: Japanese Foreign Aid and the Politics of Burden-sharing (New York: Council on Foreign Relations

Press, 1991).

Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, “Hegel’s House, or ‘People are States too’,”

Review of International Studies 30 (2004), 281–7.

Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006).

Jansen, Marius B., The Emergence of Meiji Japan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

The Making of Modern Japan (London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000).

Jansen, Marius B. and Gilbert Rozman, Japan in Transition, from Tokugawa to Meiji (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).

Johnston, Alastair Iain, “Treating International Institutions as Social Environments,” International Studies Quarterly 45, no.4 (2001), 487–515.

Jones, Eric L., The European Miracle: Environments, Economics, and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

Kahler, Miles, “External Ambition and Economic Performance,” World Politics 40, no.4 (1988), 419–51.

Kang, David C., “Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks,” International Security 27, no.4 (2003), 57–85.

Kantemir, Dimitri, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Yükseliş ve Çöküş Tarihi, Özdemir Çobanoğlu, trans. (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1979 [1716]).

Karacan, Ali Naci, Lozan (Istanbul: Nokta Kitap, 2006 [1943]). Kassianova, Allia, “Russia: Still Open to the West? Evolution of the State

Identity in the Foreign Policy and Security Discourse,” Europe-Asia Studies 53, no.6 (2001), 821–39.

Katzenstein, Peter J., Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996).

 

ed., Civilizations in World Politics (New York: Routledge, 2010). Katzenstein, Peter J., Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner,

eds., Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).

Katzenstein, Peter J. and Okawara Nobuo, Japan’s National Security: Structures, Norms and Policy Responses in a Changing World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).

“Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism,”

International Security 26, no.3 (2001/02), 153–85.

Katzenstein, Peter J. and Rudra Sil, “Rethinking Asian Security,” in

J. J. Suh, Peter J. Katzenstein, and Allen Carlson, eds., Rethinking Security in East Asia (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004),

pp. 1–33.

Keene, Edward, Beyond Anarchical Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Kennedy-Pipe, Caroline, Russia and the World, 1917–1991 (New York: Arnold, 1998).

Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).

ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).

“Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond,” in R. O. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics, pp. 158–203.

Kerr, David, “The New Eurasianism: The Rise of Geopolitics in Russia’s Foreign Policy,” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no.6 (1995), 977–88.

Khalid, Adeeb, “Backwardness and the Quest for Civilization: Early Soviet Central Asia in Comparative Perspective,” Slavic Review 65, no.2 (2006), 231–51.

Kingsbury, Benedict, “Sovereignty and Inequality,” in A. Hurrell and

N. Woods, eds., Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 66–94.

Kinnvall, Catarina, Globalization and Religious Nationalism in India

(New York: Routledge, 2006).

Kissinger, Henry, “The New Russian Question,” Newsweek 119, no. 6 (1992) 119, no.6 (1992), 34-5.

Klien, Susanne, Rethinking Japan’s Identity and International Role: An Intercultural Perspective (New York: Routledge, 2002).

Klotz, Audie, “Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and

U.S. Sanctions Against South Africa,” International Organization 49, no.3 (1995), 451–78.

“Norms and Sanctions: Lessons from the Socialization of South Africa,”

Review of International Studies 22, no.2 (1996), 173–90.

 

Kojève, Alexandre, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, Allan Bloom, ed., James H. Nichols, trans. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980).

Konrad, Sebastian, “Entangled Memories: Versions of the Past in Germany and Japan, 1945–2001,” Journal of Contemporary History 38, no.1 (2003), 85–99.

Koslowski, Rey and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, “Understanding Change in International Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System,” International Organization 48, no.2 (1994), 215–47.

Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983).

“Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” in Krasner, ed., International Regimes, pp. 1–21.

Structural  Conflict:  The  Third  World  against  Global  Liberalism

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).

Krastev, Ivan, “What Russia Wants,” Foreign Policy no.166 (2008), 48–51.

Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, Memoirs of a Revolutionist (New York: Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1899).

Fields, Factories and Workshops: Industry Combined with Agriculture and Brain Work with Manual Work, new, rev., and enlarged edn. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913).

Kubálková, V. and A. A. Cruickshank, Thinking New About Soviet “New Thinking” (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1989).

Laing, R. D., The Divided Self (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969).

Larson, Deborah Welch and Alexei Shevchenko, “Shortcut to Greatness: The New Thinking and the Revolution in Soviet Foreign Policy,” International Organization 57, no.1 (2003), 77–109.

Laue, Theodore von, “Soviet Diplomacy: G.V. Chicherin, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, 1918–1930,” in G. A. Craig and

F. Gilbert, eds., The Diplomats, 1919–1939 (New York: Athenaeum, 1963), pp. 234–81.

Lavoy, Peter, “Nuclear Myths and the Causes of Nuclear Proliferation,”

Security Studies 2, no.3/4 (1993), 192–212.

Lawrence, Philip K., Modernity and War: The Creed of Absolute Violence

(New York: Macmillan, 1997).

Lebow, Richard Ned, “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism,” International Organization 48, no.2 (1994), 249–77.

A Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

 

Legro, Jeffrey, Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005).

Leheny, David, The Rules of Play (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003).

“The Samurai Ride to Huntington’s Rescue,” in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed.,

Civilizations in World Politics (New York: Routledge, 2009), ch. 5. Levy, Jack S., “Historical Trends in Great Power War, 1495–1975,”

International Studies Quarterly 26, no.2 (1982), 278–300.

Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961).

Little, Richard and John Williams, The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

Ludwig, Gerhard, A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Lustick, Ian S., “The Absence of Middle Eastern Great Powers: Political ‘Backwardness’ in Historical Perspective,” International Organization 51, no.4 (1997), 653–83.

Lynch, Allen C., “The Realism of Russia’s Foreign Policy,” Europe-Asia Studies 53, no.1 (2001), 7–31.

Mahoney, James, “Comparative-Historical Methodology,” Annual Review of Sociology 30, August (2004), 81–101.

Maines, David R., “The Social Construction of Meaning,” Contemporary Sociology 29, no.4 (2000), 577–84.

Malcolm, Neil and Alex Pravda, “Democratization and Russian Foreign Policy,” International Affairs 72, no.3 (1996), 537–52.

Malesevic, Sinisa and Mark Haugaard, eds., Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

“Introduction: An Intellectual Rebel with a Cause,” in Malesevic and Haugaard, eds., Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought,

pp. 1–28.

Mann, Michael, States, War, and Capitalism: Studies in Political Sociology

(New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988).

“Predation and Production in European Imperialism,” in Malesevic and Haugaard, eds., Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought,

pp. 50–74.

March, James and Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions (New York: Free Press, 1989).

Markell, Patchen, Bound by Recognition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).

Marshall, T. H., “Citizenship and Social Class,” in Thomas Humphrey Marshall, ed., Sociology at the Crossroads (London: Heinemann, 1963), pp. 67–127.

 

Martin, Lisa, Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).

Marx, Karl, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976 [1867]).

Matsuda, Takeshi, Soft Power and Its Perils: U.S. Cultural Policy in Early Postwar Japan and Permanent Dependency (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Press, 2007).

Matsuyama, Yukio, “The Outlook for U.S.–Japan Relations,” in Iriye, ed.,

Japan and the New Asia, pp. 42–61.

Maull, Hanns W., “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers,”

Foreign Affairs 69, no.5 (1990/91), 91–106.

McFaul, Michael, Russia’s 1996 Presidential Election: The End of Polarized Politics (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1997).

“Getting Russia Right,” Foreign Policy 117, Winter (1999–2000), 58–73.

McNeill, William Hardy, The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community (New York: The New American Library, 1965).

“A Defence of World History: The Prothero Lecture,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 32 (1982), 75–89.

Pursuit of Power (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

The Age of Gunpowder Empires, 1450–1800 (Washington, DC: American Historical Association, 1989).

McSweeney, Bill, Security, Identity and Interests (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Melson, Robert, “Paradigms of Genocide: The Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide and Contemporary Mass Destructions,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 548, no.1 (1996), 156–68.

Mendelson, Sarah E., “Internal Battles and External Wars: Politics, Learning, and the Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan,” World Politics 45, no.3 (1993), 327–60.

Changing Course: Ideas, Politics, and the Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).

“Democracy Assistance and Political Transition in Russia: Between Success and Failure,” International Security 25, no.4 (2001), 68–106.

Mendl, Wolf, Japan’s Asia Policy: Regional Security and Global Interests

(London: Routledge, 1995).

Mercer, Jonathan, Reputation and International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996).

Meyer, John W., “The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation-state,” in A. J. Bergesen, ed., Studies of the Modern World-System (New York: Academic Press, 1980), pp. 109–37.

 

Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez, “World Society and the Nation-State,” The American Journal of Sociology 103, no.1 (1997), 144 –81.

Meyer, John W. and Ronald L. Jepperson, “The ‘Actors’ of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency,” Sociological Theory 18, no.1 (2000), 100 –20.

Meyer, John W., Joanne Nagel, and Conrad W. Snyder, “The Expansion of Mass Education in Botswana: Local and World Society Perspectives,” Comparative Education Review 37, no.4 (1993), 454 –75.

Mikhailov, M. I. and N. V. Shelgunov, The Proclamation to the Younger Generation [K molodomu pokoleniiu] (St. Petersburg, 1861).

Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (New York: Penguin, 2007 [1869]).

Mitchell, Tim, Colonising Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Rule of Experts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).

Mitzen, Jennifer, “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma,” European Journal of International Relations 12, no.3 (2006), 341–70.

Miwa, Kimitada, “Japanese Policies and Concepts for Regional Order in Asia, 1938–1940,” in James W. White, Michio Umegaki, and Thomas

R. H. Havens, eds., The Ambivalence of Nationalism: Modern Japan between East and West (New York: University Press of America, 1990), pp. 133–56.

Moore,  Barrington,  Social  Origins  of  Dictatorship  and  Democracy

(Boston: Beacon Press, 1966).

Morelli, Elizabeth, “Ressentiment and Rationality,” unpublished draft accessible at http://bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anth/AnthMore.htm.

Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th edn. (New York: Knopf, 1978).

Morley, James W., “Between Two Eras,” in Iriye, ed., Japan and the New Asia, pp. 1–31.

Motyl, Alexander J., “Structural Constraints and Starting Points: The Logic of Systemic Change in Ukraine and Russia,” Comparative Politics 29, no.4 (1997), 433–47.

“Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Politics 31, no.2 (1999), 127–45.

Mouzelis, Nicos, “Nationalism: Restructuring Gellner’s Theory,” in Malesevic and Haugaard, eds., Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought, pp. 125–39.

Mukae, Ryuji, “Japan’s Diet Resolution on World War Two: Keeping History at Bay,” Asian Survey 36, no.10 (1996), 1011–30.

 

Murphy, Raymond, “The Structure of Closure: A Critique and Development of the Theories of Weber, Collins, and Parkin,” The British Journal of Sociology 35, no.4 (1984), 547–67.

“Weberian Closure Theory: A Contribution to the Ongoing Assessment,”

The British Journal of Sociology 37, no.1 (1986), 21–41.

Myint, Hla, “The Inward and Outward Looking Countries of Southeast Asia and the Economic Future of the Region,” in Inoki, ed., Japan’s Future in Southeast Asia, pp. 1–29.

Naff, Thomas, “Ottoman Empire,” in Bull and Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, pp. 143–69.

Nettl, J. P. and Roland Robertson, “Industrialization, Development and Modernization,” The British Journal of Sociology 17, no.3 (1966), 274 –91.

Neumann, Iver B., “Review: International Relations Theory and the New World Order,” Mershon International Studies Review 40, no.2 (1996), 349–51.

Russia and the Idea of Europe (New York: Routledge, 1996).

Russia as Europe’s Other (San Domenico, Italy: EUI Working Paper, 1996).

“Self and Other in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 2, no.2 (1996), 139–74.

Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation

(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998).

“Beware of Organicism: The Narrative Self of the State,” Review of International Studies 30, no.2 (2004), 259–67.

Neumann, Iver B. and Jennifer M. Welsh, “The Other in European Self- Definition: An Addendum to the Literature on International Society,” Review of International Studies 17 (1991), 327–48.

Nicholson, Martin, “Putin’s Russia: Slowing the Pendulum without Stopping the Clock,” International Affairs 77, no.4 (2001), 867–84.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, On the Genealogy of Morals (New York: Vintage Books, 1989 [1887]).

Beyond Good and Evil, Walter Kaufmann, trans. (New York: Vintage Books, 1989 [1886]).

North, Douglass C. and Robert Paul Thomas, The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).

O’Hagan, Jacinta, Conceptualizing the West in International Relations: From Spengler to Said (New York: Palgrave, 2002).

O’Loughlin, John, Gearóid Ó Tuathail, and Vladimir Kolossov, “A ‘Risky Westward Turn’? Putin’s 9–11 Script and Ordinary Russians,” Europe- Asia Studies 56, no.1 (2004), 3–34.

 

O’Neill, Barry, Honor, Symbols and War (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999).

Olofsson, Gunnar, “Norbert Elias,” in Heine Andersen and Lars Bo Kaspersen, eds., Classical and Modern Social Theory (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2000), pp. 361–75.

Olson, Mancur, Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

Orbay, Rauf, Siyasi Hatıralar (1914–1939), A. Uğurlu, ed. (Istanbul: Örgün Yayınevi, 2005).

Osgood, Robert E., “Japan and the United States in Asia,” in Japan and the United States in Asia (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968),

pp. 1–30.

Ottoman Archives, Yıldız Collection, The Armenian Question (Istanbul: Tarihi Araştirmalar ve Dokumentasyon Merkezleri Kurma ve Geliştirme Vakfi, 1989).

Owen, IV, John M., “Transnational Liberalism and U.S. Primacy,”

International Security 26, no.3 (2001/02), 117–52.

Oye, Kenneth, ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).

Özer,  Ahmet,  Osmanlıdan  Cumhuriyete  (Istanbul:  Sis  Yayıncılık, 2002).

Özer, İlbeyi, Avrupa Yolunda Batılaşma ya da Batılılaşma (Istanbul: Truva, 2005).

Özyürek, Esra, Nostalgia for the Modern: State Secularism and Everyday Politics in Turkey (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006).

Packard III, George R., “Living with the Real Japan,” in R. E. Osgood, ed., Japan and the Real Asia (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968),

pp. 31–47.

Paige, Jeffery M., “Theory in Macrosocial Inquiry,” The American Journal of Sociology 105, no.3 (1999), 781–800.

Pamuk, Orhan, Snow (New York: Knopf, 2004).

“My Father’s Suitcase,” Nobel Lecture, given on December 7, 2006 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2006/pamuk- lecture_en.html).

Patman, Robert G., “Reagan, Gorbachev and the Emergence of ‘New Political Thinking’,” Review of International Studies 25, no.4 (1999), 577–601. Patomaki, Heikki, “How to Tell Better Stories about World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations 2, no.1 (1996), 105–33.

Pempel, T. J., Policymaking in Contemporary Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977).

“Japanese Foreign Economic Policy: The Domestic Bases for International Behavior,” International Organization 31, no.4 (1977), 723 –74.

 

Perinçek, Mehmet, Atatürk’ün Sovyetlerle Gorüşmeleri (Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 2005).

Perlmutter, Amos, “Who Lost Russia … Our New Rival? Neither Ally nor Partner,” Washington Times February 18 (1998), A17.

Plato, The Republic of Plato, 2nd edn., Allan Bloom, trans. (New York: Basic Books, 1991).

Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, 2nd edn. (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001).

Polunov, Alexander, Russia in the Nineteenth Century, Thomas C. Owen and Larissa G. Zakharova, eds., Marshall S. Shatz, trans. (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2005).

Rachman, Giedon, “America is Losing the Free World,” Financial Times

January 5, 2010, p. 9.

Ramirez, Francisco O., “Global Changes, World Myths, and the Demise of Cultural Gender,” in T. Boswell and A. J. Bergesen, eds., America’s Changing Role in the World-System (New York: Praeger, 1987), pp. 257–74.

Ramirez, Francisco O. and John Boli, “The Political Construction of Mass Schooling: European Origins and Worldwide Institutionalization,” Sociology of Education 60, no.1 (1987), 2–17.

Reginster, Bernard, “Nietzsche on Ressentiment and Valuation,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57, no.2 (1997), 281–305.

Reisch, George A., “Chaos, History, and Narrative,” History and Theory

30, no.1 (1991) 1–20.

Reus-Smit, Christian, The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).

Rhee, Syngman, Japan Inside Out: The Challenge of Today, 2nd edn. (New York: Revell, 1941).

Ringmar, Erik, “On the Ontological Status of the State,” European Journal of International Relations 2, no.4 (1996), 439–66.

“The Recognition Game: Soviet Russia against the West,” Cooperation and Conflict 37, no.2 (2002), 115–36.

Risse-Kappen, Thomas, “Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War,” International Organization 48, March (1994), 185–214.

Roberts, Cynthia and Thomas Sherlock, “Bringing the Russian State Back in: Explanations of the Derailed Transition to Market Democracy,” Comparative Politics 31, no.4 (1999), 477–98.

Rockingham, Alexandra, “Interview with Orhan Pamuk,” The Believer May (2006), 74–8.

Rodríguez, Ileana, ed., The Latin American Subaltern Studies Reader

(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001).

 

Rousseau, Jean Jacques, The Social Contract or Principles of Right

(Kessinger Publishing, 1994 [1776]) .

Ruggie, John Gerard, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis,” in Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics, pp. 131–57.

“Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations,” International Organization 47, no.1 (1993), 139–74.

“What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” International Organization 52, no.4 (1998), 855–85.

Russett, Bruce, Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).

Said, Edward, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).

Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de, The Little Prince, K. Woods, trans. (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1943).

Salter, Mark B., Barbarians and Civilization in International Relations

(Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2002).

Scheff, Thomas J., “Shame and the Social Bond: A Sociological Theory,”

Sociological Theory 18, no.1 (2000), 84–99.

Schmitt, Richard, Alienation and Class (Cambridge, MA: Schenkman, 1983).

Schofer, Evan, “Science Associations in the International Sphere 1875– 1990: The Rationalization of Science and the Scientization of Society,” in J. Boli and G. M. Thomas, eds., Constructing World Culture: International Non-Governmental Organizations since 1875 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), pp. 249–66.

Schweller, Randall L. and William C. Wohlforth, “Power Test: Evaluating Realism in Response to the End of the Cold War,” Security Studies 9, no.3 (2000), 60 –107.

Scott, W. Richard and John W. Meyer, eds., Institutional Environment and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994).

Sergeev, Viktor, The Wild East: Crime and Lawlessness in Post-Communist Russia (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1998).

Service, Robert, A History of Twentieth-Century Russia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).

The Russian Revolution, 1900–1927, 3rd edn. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999).

A History of Modern Russia: From Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).

 

Sewell, William Hamilton, “Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology,” in T. J. McDonald, ed., The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996).

Shaw, Stanford J., “The Financial and Administrative Organization and Development of Ottoman Egypt (1517–1798)” (PhD Thesis, Princeton University, 1959).

Between Old and New: The Ottoman Empire under Sultan Selim III, 1789–1807 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).

The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991).

Shermer, Michael, “Exorcising Laplace’s Demon: Chaos and Antichaos, History and Metahistory,” Historical Theory 34, no.1 (1995), 59–83.

Shevtsova, L., “Vladimir Putin,” Foreign Policy 164 (2008), 34–6, 38,

40.

Shigeru, Yoshida, The Yoshida Memoirs: The Story of Japan in Crisis

(London: Heinemann, 1961).

Last Meiji Man, Hiroshi Nara and Yoshida Ken-Ichi, eds. (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).

Shulman, Marshall D., “Japan’s Changing Relations with the Soviet Union,” in Iriye, ed., Japan and the New Asia, pp. 32–42.

Sikkink, Kathryn, “Transnational Politics, International Relations Theory, and Human Rights,” PS: Political Science and Politics 31, no.3 (1998), 516–23.

Sil, Rudra and Eileen M. Doherty, Beyond Boundaries?: Disciplines, Paradigms, and Theoretical Integration in International Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000).

Silan, Necmettin Şahir, İlk Meclis Anketi: Birinci Dönem TBMM Milletvekillerinin Gelecekten Bekledikleri (Ankara: TBMM Kültür, Sanat ve Yayın Kurulu, 2004 [1923]).

Simmel, George, “The Stranger,” in H. K. Wolff, ed., The Sociology of George Simmel (New York: Free Press, 1950), pp. 402–9.

Simpson, Gerry, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Şimşir, Bilâl N., İngiliz Belgelerinde Atatürk, 1919–1938 (British Documents on Atatürk, 1919–1938) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1973).

Homage to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk; Hero of the East: Documents from the Turkish Archives, with Additions from the Pakistan Archives (Islamabad: Institute of Islamic History Culture and Civilization Islamic University, 1981).

 

Singer, Max and Aaron Wildavsky, The Real World Order: Zones of Peace/Zones of Turmoil (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1996).

Skocpol, Theda,“Review: Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: ATheoretical

and Historical Critique,” The American Journal of Sociology 82, no.5 (1977), 1075–90.

States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

Slaughter, Ann Marie, “International Law in a World of Liberal States,”

European Journal of International Law 6, no.1 (1995), 503–38.

Slevin, Peter and Peter Baker, “Bush Changing Views on Putin; Administration That Hailed Russian Leader Alters Course,” The Washington Post, December 14 (2003), p. 26.

Smith, Steve, “Wendt’s World,” Review of International Studies 26, no.1 (2000), 151–63.

Smuts, J. C., “The British Empire and World Peace,” Journal of the Royal Institute of Royal Affairs 9, no.2 (1930), 141–53.

Snyder, Jack L., Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991).

“Russia: Responses to Relative Decline,” in T. V. Paul and J. A. Hall, eds., International Order and the Future of World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Soroos, Marvin S., “Global Interdependence and the Responsibilities of States: Learning from the Japanese Experience,” Journal of Peace Research 25, no.1 (1988), 17–29.

Spruyt, Hendrik, “Institutional Selection in International Relations: State Anarchy as Order,” International Organization 48, no.4 (1994), 527–57.

The Sovereign State and its Competitors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).

Ending Empire: Contested Sovereignty and Territorial Partition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005).

Stavrianos, Leften Stavros, The Ottoman Empire: Was It the Sick Man of Europe? (New York: Rinehart, 1957).

Global Rift: The Third World Comes of Age, 1st edn. (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1981).

Steele, Brent J., Ontological Security in International Relations (New York: Routledge, 2008).

Stein, Janice Gross, “Political Learning by Doing: Gorbachev as Uncommitted Thinker and Motivated Learner,” International Organization 48, no.2 (1994), 155–83.

 

Steinmetz, George, “Odious Comparisons: Incommensurability, the Case Study, and ‘Small N’s’ in Sociology,” Sociological Theory 22, no.3 (2004), 371–400.

Steven, Rob, Japan’s New Imperialism (Houndmills: Macmillan, 1990). Stinchcombe, Arthur L., Constructing Social Theories (New York: Harcourt

Brace & World, 1968).

The Logic of Social Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).

Stokes, Bruce, “Divergent Paths: US–Japan Relations towards the Twenty- First Century,” International Affairs 72, no.2 (1996), 281–91.

Strang, David, “From Dependency to Sovereignty: An Event History Analysis of Decolonization, 1870–1987,” American Sociological Review 55, no.6 (1990), 346–60.

“Global Patterns of Decolonization, 1500–1987,” International Studies Quarterly 35, no.4 (1991), 429–54.

Stryker, R., “Beyond History versus Theory: Strategic Narrative and Sociological Explanation,” Sociological Methods Research 24, no.3 (1996), 304–52.

Suganami, Hidemi, “Japan’s Entry into International Society,” in Bull and Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, pp. 185–99.

Suphi, Hamdullah, “Irk ve Milliyet,” Yeni Mecmua 67, no.1 (1923 [1339- lunar]), 7.

Suzuki, Shogo, “Japan’s Socialisation into Janus-Faced European International Society,” European Journal of International Relations 11, no.1 (2005), 137–64.

Civilization and Empire: China and Japan’s Encounter with European International Society (New York: Routledge, 2008).

“Seeking ‘Legitimate’ Great Power Status in Post-Cold War International Society: China’s and Japan’s Participation in UNPKO,” International Relations 22, no.1 (2008), 45–63.

“The Strange Masochism of the Japanese Right: Redrawing Moral Boundaries in Sino-Japanese Relations,” draft (2008), pp. 1–21.

Tajfel, Henri, Human Groups and Social Categories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

Tanaka, Stefan, Japan’s Orient (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).

Taylor, Robert H., ed., Asia and the Pacific (New York: Facts on File, 1991).

Tekeli, İlhan and Selim İlkin, eds., Köktenci Modernitenin Doğuşu

(Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi, 2004).

eds., Modernitenin Altyapisi Olusurken (Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi, 2004).

 

Thies, Cameron G., “A Social Psychological Approach to Enduring Rivalries,” Political Psychology 22, no.4 (2001), 693–725.

Thomas, George M., John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and John Boli, eds., Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1987).

Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990

(Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990).

European Revolutions, 1492–1992 (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1993).

Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2005).

Tilly, Charles and Gabriel Ardant, The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).

Tipps, D.C. “Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 15, no.2 (1973), 196–226.

Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America (New York: Penguin, 2003).

Tönnies, Ferdinand, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (Devon, UK: Dover, 2002 [1887]).

Totman, Conrad D., A History of Japan, 2nd edn. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004).

Toynbee, Arnold, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1923).

Turkey, with Kenneth Kirkwood (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927).

Toynbee, Arnold and Denison Ross, “The Modernisation of the Middle East,” Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs 8, no.4 (1929) 344 –66.

Trimberger, Ellen Kay, Revolution from Above: Military Bureaucrats and Development in Japan, Turkey, Egypt, and Peru (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1978).

Trotsky, Leon, The Revolution Betrayed (London: New Park, 1972 [1937]).

History of the Russian Revolution, Max Eastman, trans. (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1980).

Tsunoda, Ryusaku, Sources of the Japanese Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958).

Tsygankov, Andrei, “From International Institutionalism to Revolutionary Expansionism: The Foreign Policy Discourse of Contemporary Russia,” Mershon International Studies Review 41, no.2 (1997), 247–68.

 

Tunaya,  Tarık  Zafer,  Türkiye’de  Siyasal  Gelişmeler  [1876–1938]

(Istanbul: Istanbul University Press, 2004).

Türkiye’nin Siyasi Hayatında Batılılaşma Hareketleri (Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi, 2004).

“The Turkish Temptation,” The Wall Street Journal, October 30 (2009), p. A24.

Turner, Jonathan H. and Robert A. Hanneman, “Some Theoretical Principles of Societal Stratification,” Sociological Theory 2 (1984), 21–2.

Ubicini, Abdolonyme, Lettres sur la Turquie (Paris, 1854: Eng. trans. (by Lady Easthope) London, 1856).

Uğurlu, Andaç, ed., Yabancı Gözüyle Cumhuriyet Türkiyesi (1928–1938)

(Istanbul: Örgün Yayınevi, 2003).

ed.,  Türkiye’nin  Parçalanması  ve  İngiliz  Politikasi  (1900–1920)

(Istanbul: Örgün Yayınevi, 2005).

Uldricks, Teddy J., Diplomacy and Ideology: The Origins of Soviet Foreign Relations, 1917–1930 (London: Sage, 1979).

Üstel, Füsun, Türk Ocakları (1912–1931) (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2004).

Van der Vat, Dan The Pacific Campaign: The Second World War: The US–Japanese Naval War (1941–1945) (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991).

Vincent, R. J., “Racial Equality,” in Bull and Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, pp. 239–54.

Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice, The Modern World-System (New York: Academic Press, 1974).

World Inequality: Origins and Perspectives on the World System

(Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1975).

The Capitalist World-Economy: Essays (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

“The Development of the Concept of Development,” Sociological Theory

2, no.1 (1984), 102–16.

“The World-System after the Cold War,” Journal of Peace Research 30, no.1 (1993), 1–6.

Waltz, Kenneth Neal, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).

Man, State and the War (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001).

Wang, Hongying, “Multilateralism in Chinese Foreign Policy: The Limits of Socialization,” Asian Survey 40, no.3 (2000), 475–91.

Watson, Adam, “Introduction,” in Bull and Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, pp. 1–12.

“European International Society and Its Expansion,” in Bull and Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, pp. 13–32.

 

“Russia and the European States System,” in Bull and Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society, pp. 61–74.

The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis (New York: Routledge, 1992).

Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947).

Basic Concepts in Sociology, H. P. Secher, ed. (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press, 1962).

Economy  and  Society:  An  Outline  of  Interpretive  Sociology

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).

Max Weber on Capitalism, Bureaucracy, and Religion: A Selection of Text, Stanislav Andreski, ed. (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1983).

“Politics as a Vocation,” in The Vocation Lectures, Rodney Livingstone, trans. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2004).

Weinstein, Martin, Japan’s Postwar Defense Policy, 1947–1968 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971).

Weldes, Jutta, Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson, and Raymond Duvall, eds., Cultures of Insecurity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999).

Wendt, Alexander, “Collective Identity Formation and the International State,” American Political Science Review 88, no.2 (1994), 384–96.

“Constructing International Politics,” International Security 20, no.1 (1995), 71–81.

Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

“Why a World State is Inevitable,” European Journal of International Relations 9, no.4 (2003), 491–542.

“State as a Person,” Review of International Studies 30, no.2 (2004), 289–316.

White, Stephen, The Origins of Détente: The Genoa Conference and Soviet–Western Relations, 1921–1922 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

White, Stephen and Ian McAllister, “Putin and His Supporters,” Europe- Asia Studies 55, no.3 (2003), 383–99.

Wight, Colin, “State Agency: Social Action without Human Activity?”

Review of International Studies 30, no.2 (2004), 269–80.

Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Wight, Martin, “Western Values in International Relations,” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1966), pp. 89–131.

 

Systems of States, Hedley Bull, ed. (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977).

Willetts, Peter, The Non-Aligned Movement: The Origins of a Third World Alliance (London: F. Pinter, 1978).

Wittfogel, Karl A., “Russia and Asia: Problems of Contemporary Area Studies and International Relations,” World Politics 2, no.4 (1950), 445–62.

“Russia and the East: A Comparison and Contrast,” Slavic Review 22, no.4 (1963), 627–43.

Wohlforth, William C., “Realism and the End of the Cold War,”

International Security 19, no.3 (1994/5), 91–129.

Woods,  Ngaire,  Explaining  International  Relations  since  1945

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Worringer, Renee, “‘Sick Man of Europe’ or ‘Japan of the Near East’?: Constructing the Ottoman Modernity in the Hamidian and Young Turk Eras,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36, no.2 (2004), 207–30.

Wuthnow, Robert, “The World Economy and the Institutionalization of Science in Seventeenth-Century Europe,” in A. Bergesen, ed., Studies of the Modern World-System (New York: Academic Press, 1980),

pp. 25–55.

Yack,  Bernard,  “Review:  Reconciling  Liberalism  and  Nationalism,”

Political Theory 23, no.1 (1995), 166–82.

Yılmaz, Mustafa, İngiliz Basını ve Atatürk’ün Türkiye’si (Ankara: Phoenix, 2002).

Zaionchkovsky, Petr Andreevich and Susan Wobst, The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia (Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press, 1978).

Zarakol, Ayşe, “Ontological (In)security and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and Japan,” International Relations 24, no.1 (2010), 3–23.

Zeldin, Mary-Barbara, Peter Yakovlevich Chaadayev, Philosophical Letters & Apology of a Madman, trans. Mary-Barbara Zeldin (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1970).

Zolberg, Aristide R., “Review: Origins of the Modern World System: A Missing Link,” World Politics 33, no.2 (1981), 253–81.

 

Index






 

9/11 232

1856 declaration (Islahat Fermanι) 118, 123


Abdülmecid II 34

acceptance, stigmatization 96

Afghanistan 134 agrarian empires

modernity transition 38, 42–4

stigmatization 61

AKP (Justice and Development Party) (Turkey) 246

Alexander II, Emperor of Russia 208 animalistic behavior 70

Ankara Assembly 127, 129

anomie 66, 71

Aras, Tevfik Rüştü 135, 140

argument outline 12

Aristotle 69, 241

armed forces 151

arriviste strategy 106–8

assimilation 22, 247–8

Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal 36, 112, 113,

127–9, 142–3, 145–8, 153, 155

Atay, Falih Rιfkι 146 atrocities 198

authenticity 94

autonomy 67


Badgley, John H. 188 Balkans 135

Bauman, Zygmunt 55, 98, 242, 243,

247

Befu, Harumi 193

Berlin, Isaiah 67, 72

Billington, James 208

Bolsheviks 36, 210–12, 213, 216

Bourdieu, Pierre 100

Brines, Russell 175

Britain 48

 

empire 86, 112

Turkey relations 141 views on Turkey 139

Brown, Charlie 248

Bukovansky, Mlada 45

Bull, Hedley 62

Burke, Edmund 74

Buruma, Ian 160, 161, 176

Buzan, Barry 23


Caliphate 126, 129, 133, 144, 146

capitalism 41 Carr, E. H. 46

case studies, use of 23, 25 Cecil, Lord Robert 111 Chaadaev, Peter 208

chapter outlines 13–26

Chechnya 232

China 162, 167

Japanese war against 167, 168–70

Christians 117, 120

citizenship 80–2

civilization standard 53, 83–7, 93

Japan 161–6

Ottoman Empire 119

Turkey 143–8

Clark, Ian 90, 93

closure 52

Cold War 197, 215, 217, 224

collective narratives 4

Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) (Turkey) 35, 124

Concert of Europe 205 constitutions 177

constructivism 14–16, 17

“correction,” stigmatization 97, 105

Crimean War 207

critical realism 25

CUP (Committee of Union and Progress) (Turkey) 35, 124

 



286

 

defeat, state responses to 105 defense expenditure 190

democratic governance 91–5 Democratic Party of Japan (DJP) 246 Derluguian, Georgi 29, 214, 217

Deudney, Daniel 218

development theory 90–1, 92

dichotomies 5, 6, 48, 87, 242

discrimination 95

DJP (Democratic Party of Japan) 246

Dodge, Joseph 179

dominant groups 83

dress codes 60

Dulles, John Foster 179


East/West dichotomy 5, 6, 48, 87

economic development 87–91

educated classes 55

egalitarianism 78

Elias, Norbert 10, 52, 57, 101, 102

elites 32, 54–6, 165 emancipation of serfs 208 empiricism 25

emulation 19, 39

English, Robert 207

equal recognition 72–82, 83

see also recognition relationships equality 74, 83

Esat, Mahmut 144

established-outsider dynamic 10, 21,

39, 58–62, 82–95, 192, 243

Europe 138–40, 204

exclusion, collectivist criteria 52, 83


foreign policy 63, 221–35, 246 Foreign Policy Concept (1993)

(Russia) 225, 227

Foreign Policy Concept (2000) (Russia) 231

foreigners 81

formal equality 83

freedom 67, 70, 72–82, 254

French Revolution 44, 46

Fukuyama, Francis 90


G-7 229

G-8 231

Galtung, Johan 193

Gellner, Ernest 41, 45, 50, 218

 

Germans, The (Elias) 101, 102

Germany 52, 76, 199

Giddens, Anthony 45, 62

Gilman, Sander 79

global hierarchies 92

Goffman, Erving 3, 8, 11, 59, 63, 95,

123, 154, 249

Goldstone, Jack 25

Gong, Gerrit 23, 39

Gorbachev, Mikhail 218–20

governance 91–5

great powers 64, 199

Greece 84, 97

Turkey relations 135 Turkish Independence War

129

Greenfeld, Liah 78 Grew, Joseph C. 129 Grotius, Hugo 48

group narratives 4

Group of Eight (G-8) 231 Group of Seven (G-7) 229 gunpowder empires see agrarian

empires


habitus concept 100–2, 104

Halis, Keriman 158

hat law 147, 151

Hatoyama Ichiro 184 Hayes, Louis D. 183 headscarves 156

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, 254

Herriot, M. E. 114 hierarchies 51, 67, 92

Himba tribe 60

Hobbes, Thomas 74 Hobson, John M. 48 Huntington, Samuel 90


Ikeda Hayato 186, 187 Ikenberry, John G. 218 Imperial Japan 166–74

imperialism 47, 49

individual, the 73

industrialization 45, 88

inferiority 69

Inoguchi, Takashi 183

insider–outsider status 29–56

internalization, stigmatization 96

 

international hierarchies 92 international relations theories 241 international system 17, 250, 252–3

common ground 21 established-outsider dynamic

58–62, 82–95, 192

insider–outsider status 29–56

Japan 181–3, 193–200, 251

modern states system emergence 46–9

modernity 6–8, 38–45

Russia 251

sociological frameworks 19

Soviet Union 219

stigmatization 63–82

Turkey 149–50, 251

Iran 134

Islahat Fermanι 118, 123

Israel 65


Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus 25 Japan 130, 244

1945–1974 160–200

American occupation 194

American traders 162

anti-American riots 185

Asia strategy 196

attitudes to Asia 164, 182–3

China relations 189

civilization standard 161–6

constitution 177

defeat 175–83, 193, 197

defense expenditure 190

economic policies 177, 187–8

elites 56, 165

foreign policy 183, 188, 189,

246, 250

“frustrated great power” 199 Germany comparison 199

imperialism 166–74, 192

insider–outsider status 29–30

in the international system 181–3, 193–200, 251

leftists 178

Meiji Restoration 161–6

militarism 35, 166–74, 192

national habitus 102

nationalism 200

peace treaty 180

post-defeat dynamic 247

 

recognition strategy 248

reforms 34, 163

response to World War II defeat 175–83

Russia comparison 224

security treaty 180, 185

socialization of 30–8

status enhancement 191–200, 248

stigmatization of 9–12, 170–2, 183,

189, 199

trade 164, 187

Turkey comparisons 174–5, 196

United Nations 184

US occupation 194

US partnership 186

war against China 167, 168–70 war against Russia 167

war crimes 198

Westernization 163

Jews, German emancipation of 76 Justice and Development Party (AKP)

(Turkey) 246


Kafka, Franz 27, 109

Karahan, Comrade 137

Keene, Edward 48

Kemal, Mustafa see Atatürk Kemalist Republic 33

Kenkichi, Odera 170

Kishi Nobusuke 185

Kojève, Alexandre 70, 254

Korea 167, 169

Kuchuk Kainardji, Treaty of 116, 120

Kunio, Yanagida 171


Lausanne Conference 130–2

LDP (Liberal Democrat Party) (Japan) 184

League of Nations 86, 140–1

Lebow, Richard Ned 22, 75, 88 legitimation of the state 77 Leninism 217

Liberal Democrat Party (LDP) (Japan) 184

Loti, Pierre 163

Lynch, Allen 229


MacArthur, Douglas 175, 178, 179

McNeill, William 1

Manchuria 169

 

Mann, Michael 49

Markell, Patchen 68, 72, 76

Marxism 88, 91, 211, 217

Masaru, Nakayama 172

master–slave relationship 68–71, 77

Matsuda, Takeshi 181 mediocre man, the 79

Meiji Restoration 34, 161–6

Metternich, Prince 118

military spending 190

Miss Universe competition 158 Mitchell, Tim 50

modern states system 46–9 modernity 5, 10, 22

economic development 87–91 and the international system 6–8,

38–45

outsider status 49–53

social stratification 49–53

modernization theory 90–1

Mongols 215–16


nation states see states national identity 100–2, 103

Japan 102

Russia 102, 220

stigmatization 3–5

Turkey 1–5

National Security Concept (1997) (Russia) 227

nationalism 50, 77, 200, 222

negative freedom 74

neorealism 31 Nettl, J. P. 89

Neumann, Iver B. 203, 204, 213, 235 New Order in the East Proclamation

172

New Thinking, Soviet reforms 218–20, 225

Nicholas I, Emperor of Russia 206–7 Nietzsche, Friedrich 78–9

normalcy, stigmatization 96

“normals” 241

normative dichotomies 242

normative frameworks 94

norms 16, 82, 94, 239, 242


ontological security 62

Oriental Christendom 120

Orientalism 193, 215

 

Ottoman Empire 33, 61, 111, 204,

244

Christian groups within 117 civilization standard 119

collapse of 123–5

Committee of Union and Progress 35, 124

declinist historical tradition 121 elites 56

historical phases 121

Japan comparison 174–5

reforms 34

Russia comparison 210

“Sick Man of Europe” label 119, 122

stigmatization of 115–25

Westernization 44, 120, 121

outsider states 49–53, 57–108, 253


pacifism 200

Pamuk, Orhan 1, 2, 5, 6, 255

Pan-Turkism 124

Pasha, İsmet 130

“passing,” stigmatization 96–7, 105

peripheral regions 94

persuasion 16

Peter the Great 203 Plato 75

Polevoi, Nikolai 205

popular sovereignty 44

positive freedom 67, 70, 72–82, 254

power differentials 58

priestly strategy 104, 107

Putin, Vladimir 221, 228, 230–5


racism 48, 170

recognition relationships 67–71,

72–82, 83, 217, 248, 254

reform strategies 34–5

rejection strategy, stigmatization 171 research approach 24–5

ressentiment strategy 78, 104, 106–8

revolutions 210

Rhodes, Cecil 47

Robertson, Roland 89

Ruggie, John Gerard 13, 19, 31, 40 Russia

1990–2007 201–39

anti-Western policies 229

authoritarianism 234, 238

 

Russia (cont.) Bolshevism 36

elites 56

energy exports 234

Eurasian identity 233, 236

foreign policy 221–35

insider–outsider status 29–30 in the international system 251 Japan comparison 224

moderate conservatives 222

moderate liberals 221

national habitus 102

national identity 220

National Security Concept 227 nationalism 222

norms 239

Ottoman Empire comparison 210 Ottoman Empire relations 116 post-defeat dynamic 244–6

post-Napoleonic Wars 205

pro-Western groups 221, 225–6

pro-Western policies 232

recognition quest 238

reforms 34, 208, 209

revolution 210

socialization of 30–8

state identity 223

status restoration 235–9

stigmatization of 9–12, 223

Turkey comparison 211–12, 224

US relations 234

war against Japan 167 and the West 236–9 Westernization 203 see also Soviet Union


Sadabad Pact 134

Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de 111

SCAP see Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers

Scheler, Max 106

scientific method 50

secularism 157

self-sovereignty 73

serfs, emancipation of 208 shame 52, 59–60, 95 Sharman, J. C. 48

Sher’ia law 118

“Sick Man of Europe” label 119, 122 slave morality 78

 

see also master–slave relationship Slavophiles 207

social exclusion 67

social hierarchies 67

social inequalities 254

social stratification 49–53, 252

socialization 14–16, 19, 22–3,

30–8

society, perspectives of 20

“sour grapes” strategy, stigmatization 171

sovereignty 44, 49, 70, 73, 254

Soviet Union 87, 91, 98, 153, 213–18

collapse of 220

economic policies 214

economic stagnation 218

equal recognition demands 217 in the international system 219 Japan relations 178

reforms 218–20

stigmatization of 213, 215–16

Turkey relations 137–8

Stalinism 91, 214 Standard of Civilization

see civilization standard states

formation of 102

habitus concept 100–2, 104

identity attributes 63, 65, 103

as outsiders 49–53, 57–108, 253

personification of 100 responses to defeat 105

stigmatization responses 95–108

strategy selection 102–8

status standards 191–200

stigmatization 7, 241, 243, 249, 253

acceptance 96

agrarian empires 61

“correction” 97, 105

embracing of 98

existential dilemmas 95

historical timing 99

internalization 96

in the international system 63–82

Japan 9–12, 170–2, 183, 189, 199

modern state emergence 71–82 and national identity 3–5 normalcy 96

Ottoman Empire 115–25

 

“passing” 96–7, 105

Russia 9–12, 223

Soviet Union 213, 215–16

state strategies 95–108

timing of 99

Turkey 7–12, 150, 156

stratification 49–53, 252 Suleiman the Magnificent 116 Suphi, Hamdullah 144

Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP) 176, 178

Suzuki, Shogo 164, 166, 199, 200


Tanaka, Stefan 165

Tanzimat Declaration 34, 117

terrorism 94

Thirty Years War 40 Tocqueville, Alexis de 74 tourism 94

Toynbee, Arnold 84, 120, 155, 240

toyo (Eastern culture) 165

Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji 116, 120

Tsygankov, Andrei 201

Turkey 244

1918–1938 111–59

army modernization 151

Balkan relations 135

civilization standard 143–8 Eastern state relations 132–5 European views on 138–40

foreign policy 246, 250

Independence War 125–9

insider–outsider status 29–30

in the international system 149–50, 251

Kemalist regime 33, 211–12

League of Nations 140–1

modernization 141–8

national habitus 102

national identity 1–5

normalcy quest 125–32

post-defeat dynamic 247

recognition strategy 248

religion 146

Republic’s birth 129–32

Russia comparison 211–12, 224

secularism 157

socialization of 30–8, 152

 

sovereignty movements 154

Soviet relations 135–8, 153–4

state identity 156–8

status enhancement 248

stigmatization of 7–12, 84, 150,

156

Westernization 85, 141–8, 153,

155, 156, 240

see also Ottoman Empire Turkish Hearth, The 143

Twenty Years’ Crisis, The (Carr) 47


underdeveloped countries 89–91

United Nations 89, 184

United States 162, 194, 195

universal identity 73

US–Japan Security Treaty 180, 185


Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice 43, 217

Waltz, Kenneth 58, 63, 64 comments on socialization 213

war crimes 198

Washington Times 228

Weber, Max 51

Wendt, Alexander 17, 31, 64 West, the, Russia relations 228,

236–9

Western Europe 40–5

Western hegemony, social impact of 53–6

Western Question in Greece and Turkey, The (Toynbee) 84

Westernization 10

Japan 163

Ottoman Empire 120, 121

Russia 203

Turkey 141–8, 153, 155, 156, 240

Winston Parva study (Elias and

Scotson) 52, 58–9, 65, 69, 82

Wittfogel, Karl A. 215 World Polity school 5, 17, 23 World War II 172


Yack, Bernard 77

Yeltsin, Boris 226–9

Yoshida Doctrine 184, 194, 195

Yoshida Shigeru 36, 176, 180, 181–3

 

Cambridge Studies in International Relations










105  Ken Booth

Theory of world security

104  Benjamin Miller

States, nations and the great powers

The sources of regional war and peace

103 Beate Jahn (ed.)

Classical theory in international relations

102  Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami The English School of international relations A contemporary reassessment

101 Colin Wight

Agents, structures and international relations

Politics as ontology

100  Michael C. Williams

The realist tradition and the limits of international relations

99 Ivan Arreguín-Toft

How the weak win wars

A theory of asymmetric conflict

98 Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall

Power in global governance

97 Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach

Remapping global politics

History’s revenge and future shock

96 Christian Reus-Smit

The politics of international law

95 Barry Buzan

From international to world society?

English School theory and the social structure of globalisation

94 K. J. Holsti

Taming the sovereigns

Institutional change in international politics

93 Bruce Cronin

Institutions for the common good

International protection regimes in international security

92 Paul Keal

European conquest and the rights of indigenous peoples

The moral backwardness of international society

 

91  Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver

Regions and powers

The structure of international security

90  A. Claire Cutler

Private power and global authority

Transnational merchant law in the global political economy

89  Patrick M. Morgan

Deterrence now

88  Susan Sell

Private power, public law

The globalization of intellectual property rights

87  Nina Tannenwald

The nuclear taboo

The United States and the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945

86  Linda Weiss

States in the global economy

Bringing domestic institutions back in

85  Rodney Bruce Hall and Thomas J. Biersteker (eds.)

The emergence of private authority in global governance

84  Heather Rae

State identities and the homogenisation of peoples

83  Maja Zehfuss

Constructivism in international relations

The politics of reality

82  Paul K. Ruth and Todd Allee

The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century

81  Neta C. Crawford

Argument and change in world politics

Ethics, decolonization and humanitarian intervention

80  Douglas Lemke

Regions of war and peace

79  Richard Shapcott

Justice, community and dialogue in international relations

78  Phil Steinberg

The social construction of the ocean

77  Christine Sylvester

Feminist international relations

An unfinished journey

76  Kenneth A. Schultz

Democracy and coercive diplomacy

75  David Houghton

US foreign policy and the Iran hostage crisis

74  Cecilia Albin

Justice and fairness in international negotiation

73  Martin Shaw

Theory of the global state

Globality as an unfinished revolution

 

72  Frank C. Zagare and D. Marc Kilgour

Perfect deterrence

71  Robert O’Brien, Anne Marie Goetz, Jan Aart Scholte and Marc Williams

Contesting global governance

Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements

70  Roland Bleiker

Popular dissent, human agency and global politics

69  Bill McSweeney

Security, identity and interests

A sociology of international relations

68  Molly Cochran

Normative theory in international relations

A pragmatic approach

67  Alexander Wendt

Social theory of international politics

66  Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink (eds.)

The power of human rights

International norms and domestic change

65  Daniel W. Drezner

The sanctions paradox

Economic statecraft and international relations

64  Viva Ona Bartkus

The dynamic of secession

63  John A. Vasquez

The power of power politics

From classical realism to neotraditionalism

62  Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds.)

Security communities

61  Charles Jones

E. H. Carr and international relations

A duty to lie

60  Jeffrey W. Knopf

Domestic society and international cooperation

The impact of protest on US arms control policy

59  Nicholas Greenwood Onuf

The republican legacy in international thought

58  Daniel S. Geller and J. David Singer

Nations at war

A scientific study of international conflict

57  Randall D. Germain

The international organization of credit

States and global finance in the world economy

56  N. Piers Ludlow

Dealing with Britain

The Six and the first UK application to the EEC

55  Andreas Hasenclever, Peter Mayer and Volker Rittberger

Theories of international regimes

 

54  Miranda A. Schreurs and Elizabeth C. Economy (eds.)

The internationalization of environmental protection

53  James N. Rosenau

Along the domestic–foreign frontier

Exploring governance in a turbulent world

52  John M. Hobson

The wealth of states

A comparative sociology of international economic and political change

51  Kalevi J. Holsti

The state, war, and the state of war

50  Christopher Clapham

Africa and the international system

The politics of state survival

49  Susan Strange

The retreat of the state

The diffusion of power in the world economy

48  William I. Robinson

Promoting polyarchy

Globalization, US intervention, and hegemony

47  Roger Spegele

Political realism in international theory

46  Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber (eds.)

State sovereignty as social construct

45  Mervyn Frost

Ethics in international relations

A constitutive theory

44  Mark W. Zacher with Brent A. Sutton

Governing global networks

International regimes for transportation and communications

43  Mark Neufeld

The restructuring of international relations theory

42  Thomas Risse-Kappen (ed.)

Bringing transnational relations back in

Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions

41  Hayward R. Alker

Rediscoveries and reformulations

Humanistic methodologies for international studies

40  Robert W. Cox with Timothy J. Sinclair

Approaches to world order

39  Jens Bartelson

A genealogy of sovereignty

38  Mark Rupert

Producing hegemony

The politics of mass production and American global power

37  Cynthia Weber

Simulating sovereignty

Intervention, the state and symbolic exchange

 

36  Gary Goertz

Contexts of international politics

35  James L. Richardson

Crisis diplomacy

The Great Powers since the mid-nineteenth century

34  Bradley S. Klein

Strategic studies and world order

The global politics of deterrence

33  T. V. Paul

Asymmetric conflicts

War initiation by weaker powers

32  Christine Sylvester

Feminist theory and international relations in a postmodern era

31  Peter J. Schraeder

US foreign policy toward Africa

Incrementalism, crisis and change

30  Graham Spinardi

From Polaris to Trident

The development of US Fleet Ballistic Missile technology

29  David A. Welch

Justice and the genesis of war

28  Russell J. Leng

Interstate crisis behavior, 1816–1980

Realism versus reciprocity

27  John A. Vasquez

The war puzzle

26 Stephen Gill (ed.)

Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations

25  Mike Bowker and Robin Brown (eds.)

From cold war to collapse

Theory and world politics in the 1980s

24  R. B. J. Walker

Inside/outside

International relations as political theory

23  Edward Reiss

The strategic defense initiative

22  Keith Krause

Arms and the state

Patterns of military production and trade

21  Roger Buckley

US–Japan alliance diplomacy 1945–1990

20  James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel (eds.)

Governance without government

Order and change in world politics

19  Michael Nicholson

Rationality and the analysis of international conflict

 

18  John Stopford and Susan Strange

Rival states, rival firms

Competition for world market shares

17  Terry Nardin and David R. Mapel (eds.)

Traditions of international ethics

16  Charles F. Doran

Systems in crisis

New imperatives of high politics at century’s end

15  Deon Geldenhuys

Isolated states

A comparative analysis

14  Kalevi J. Holsti

Peace and war

Armed conflicts and international order 1648–1989

13  Saki Dockrill

Britain’s policy for West German rearmament 1950–1955

12  Robert H. Jackson

Quasi-states

Sovereignty, international relations and the third world

11  James Barber and John Barratt

South Africa’s foreign policy

The search for status and security 1945–1988

10  James Mayall

Nationalism and international society

9  William Bloom

Personal identity, national identity and international relations

8  Zeev Maoz

National choices and international processes

7 Ian Clark

The hierarchy of states

Reform and resistance in the international order

6 Hidemi Suganami

The domestic analogy and world order proposals

5 Stephen Gill

American hegemony and the Trilateral Commission

4 Michael C. Pugh

The ANZUS crisis, nuclear visiting and deterrence

3 Michael Nicholson

Formal theories in international relations

2 Friedrich V. Kratochwil

Rules, norms, and decisions

On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs

1 Myles L. C. Robertson

Soviet policy towards Japan

An analysis of trends in the 1970s and 1980s


選擇汪精衛中華帝國會像奧匈帝國鄂圖曼土耳其帝國一樣戰敗解體

選擇汪精衛 中華帝國會像奧匈帝國鄂圖曼土耳其帝國一樣戰敗解體 因為站錯了隊伍 北洋軍閥頭腦比汪精衛清楚 所以一戰才能拿回山東 孫文拿德國錢,他是反對參加一戰 選擇蔣介石, 中國將淪為共產主義國家 因為蔣介石鬥不過史達林 蔣介石即使打贏毛澤東 中國一樣會解體 中國是靠偽裝民族主義的...