Browsing by discipline "Allmän statslära, forskning i världspolitik"

Tämä pro gradu -tutkielma sijoittuu postmodernin feministisen maailmanpolitiikan tutkimuksen kentälle, ja analysoi terrorismin vastaista sotaa sukupuolen — ja sen häivyttämisen — perspektiivistä. Tutkielman lähtökohtana on ajatus siitä, Yhdysvaltain ulkopolitiikkaa ohjaa maskulistinen ideologia, ja sitä ilmentävä kontekstisidonnainen hegemonisen maskuliinisuuden diskurssi. Toiseksi oletetaan, että kieli on maskuliinisuuksien ymmärtämisen keskiössä. Maskuliinisuus on diskursiivinen saavutus, sosiaalinen konstruktio, joka on mahdollista dekonstruoida. Kolmanneksi tutkielmaa kantaa postmodernin feminismin ajatus sukupuolen performatiivisuudesta, ja feminismin kriittinen käänne kohti maskuliinisuuden vapauttamista sen oletetusta kehoon liittyvästä luonnollisesta olemuksesta. Näiden lähtökohtien kautta tutkielmassa selvitetään Faircloughin kriittisen diskurssianalyysin avulla, minkälaisella hegemonisen maskuliinisuuden diskurssilla USA:n ulkopolitiikassa Irakin ja terrorismin vastaista sotaa legitimoitiin 9/11 jälkeen — minkälainen yhteiskunnallinen, institutionaalinen ja tilanteellinen käytäntö on tämän diskurssin taustalla, miten tämä diskurssi suhteutuu Charlotte Hooperin esittelemiin maskuliinisuuksien ideaalityyppeihin, ja minkälaisista subjektiasemista tai toimijarooleista 9/11 jälkeistä diskurssia rakennetaan. Hegemonisen maskuliinisuuden diskurssia analysoidaan Yhdysvaltain kansallisen turvallisuusneuvonantajan Condoleezza Ricen puheista ja haastatteluista sanoja tai sanoitusta tutkimalla. 9/11 jälkeinen diskurssi saa piirteitä kolmesta Charlotte Hooperin esittelemästä maskuliinisuuden ideaalityypistä: Kreikkalaisesta kansalais-sotilaasta ollessaan militarismia ja voimankäyttöä rationalisoiva, uhrautuva ja sankarillinen; patriarkaalisesta juutalaiskristitystä ollessaan vastuuta, omistajuutta ja isän auktoriteettia painottava; kunniallisuus/suojelus-mallista korostaessaan kaksintaistelua ja siteitä maskulististen valtioiden välillä. Feminiinimmän, protestanttisen porvarillisrationalistisen maskuliinisuuden mallin poissaolo ja maskulististen piirteiden korostuminen nimetään tutkielmassa hypermaskulinisoitumiseksi. Tätä hypermaskuliinista diskurssia rakennetaan edelleen erilaisten feminiinien ja maskuliinien subjektiasemien kautta. Feminiini, mutta remaskulinisoitu amerikkalainen kansa, hypermaskuliini Yhdysvallat ja sen hallinto, hirmumaskuliinit terroristiryhmät ja niitä tukevat poliittiset johtajat, feminisoitu Irakin kansa, sekä feminisoitu värillinen vähemmistö luovat hypermaskulinisoituneeseen diskurssiin uudenlaisen pelastajan piirteen. Pelastajan diskurssi tarvitsee kolmenlaisia subjektiasemia: pelastajan (Yhdysvaltain hallinto), pelastettavan (Irakin ja Yhdysvaltain kansa) ja sen, keneltä pelastetaan (terroristiryhmittymät). Yhdysvaltain ulkopolitiikan 9/11 jälkeinen hegemonisen maskuliinisuuden diskurssi nimetään siten hypermaskuliiniseksi pelastajaksi. Hegemonisen maskuliinisuuden muuttuvien piirteiden nähdään vastaavan kansainvälisen politiikan muuttuvia haasteita, kuten sota. Luomalla vahva hegemonisen hypermaskuliinin pelastajan diskurssi, joka soveltuu amerikkalaisten käsitykseen legitimoidusta maskulistisesta johtajasta ja ulkopolitiikasta, luotiin legitimiteettiä militaristisille toimille terrorismia ja Irakia vastaan. Maskulistisessa ideologiassa legitimiteetin ja hegemonisen maskuliinisuuden diskurssin rakentaminen kulkevat käsi kädessä. Poliittisen puheen keskiössä on linkin luominen politiikan ja maskulismin ideologian välille, joka saa ne kaksi näyttämään yhteneväisiltä. Tämä linkki Yhdysvaltain ulkopoliittisessa diskurssissa 9/11 jälkeen oli hegemonisen hypermaskuliinin pelastajan diskurssi.

Tutkielman tavoitteena on ymmärtää, onko ajatuspajoilla valtaa ja millaisia vallankäyttäjiä ne ovat. Ajatuspajoja kannattaa tutkia, koska niillä on aiempaa enemmän valtaa. Tutkielmassa tarkastellaan erityisesti ajatuspajoja uusliberalismin levittäjinä. Tarkka tutkimuskysymys on, käyttävätkö ajatuspajat tiedontuotantoon perustuvaa valtaansa edelleen uusliberalismin levittämiseen? Tätä tutkitaan analysoimalla, uusintavatko Chatham Housen (The Royal Institute of International Affairs), Center for European Policy Studiesin (CEPS) ja Bruegelin kirjoitukset Euroopan taloudesta vuosina 2008 ja 2012 uusliberalismia. Nämä vaikutusvaltaisimmat Brysselissä toimivat ajatuspajat valitaan James McGannin listauksen perusteella. Tutkielmassa muodostetaan tutkimuskirjallisuuden valossa kolme hypoteesia, jotka toimivat tutkimuskysymyksen ja johtopäätösten taustaoletuksina. Tutkielman valtateoria nojaa Michel Foucault’n, Stephen Lukesin, Clarissa Rile Haywardin, Stefano Guzzinin, Michael Barnettin, Raymond Duvallin, Norman Fairclough’n ja Alexander Wendtin näkökulmiin. Valta käsitetään rajoittavana ja tuottavana: toimijat tuottavat ja rajoittavat rakennetta (totuutta ja tietoa), joka taas rajoittaa toimijuutta ja tuottaa koko toimijan subjektina. Valta on kykyjen, arvojen, agendan, intressien, normien ja identiteetin tuottamista ja rajoittamista. Ajatuspajat määritellään episteemiseksi yhteisöksi ja uusliberalismi hegemoniseksi epistemeksi eli kuplaksi, jonka kautta ymmärretään maailmaa ja tuotetaan sosiaalisia faktoja. Tämän pohjalta muodostetaan ensimmäinen hypoteesi: ajatuspajoilla on mahdollisuus tiedon tuottamisen kautta käyttää valtaa rajaamalla mahdollisuuksia, tuottamalla normeja ja depolitisoimalla totuuksia. Toiseksi käsitellään tarkemmin ajatuspajoja toimijoina: määritelmää, historiaa ja vallankäyttöä. Ajatuspajat määritellään tiedontuottajiksi, jotka toimivat siltana akateemisen ja poliittisen maailman välillä. Toisen hypoteesin mukaan ajatuspajat ovat käyttäneet valtaa juuri tiedon tuottamisen kautta. Vallankäyttöä on sekä ajatuspajojen suositusten pohjalta tehtävät päätökset että totuuden tuottaminen ja rajoittaminen keskusteluun osallistumalla. Valta riippuu kontekstista ja perustuu muun muassa tuotetun tiedon nopeuteen, ajankohtaisuuteen, uutuuteen ja käytettävyyteen, hyviin yhteyksiin päätöksentekijöihin ja mahdollisesti hyviin rahallisiin resursseihin. Uusliberalismin määrittelyn, historian ja rahoitus- ja eurokriisin uusliberalismisuhteen läpikäymisen perusteella muodostetaan kolmas hypoteesi: Ajatuspajat ovat käyttäneet valtaansa levittämällä aktiivisesti uusliberalismia aina 1970-luvulta lähtien. Ne ovat olleet tärkeässä roolissa uusliberalismin nostamisessa hegemoniseen asemaan. Tutkielmassa tarkastellaan aineistoa Hayward R. Alkerin ja David Sylvanin, Fairclough’n, Foucault’n ja Ernesto Laclaun teorioihin perustuvan diskurssianalyysin kautta. Etsimällä määriteltyjä uusliberalismin kiinnekohtia analysoidaan, käyttävätkö tutkitut ajatuspajat tiedontuotantoon perustuvaa valtaansa uusliberalismin levittämiseen. Analyysin tuloksena on, että Chatham Housen, CEPSin ja Bruegelin tekstit uusintavat uusliberalismia totuutena, mutta ei yksisilmäisesti ja teoriasta poiketen. Monia uusliberalismin kiinnekohtia ei esiinny. Isoin ristiriita suhteessa teoriaan on valvonnan, koordinaation ja sääntelyn korostaminen. Kuitenkin ydinasioista pidetään kiinni ja aiemminkin on teoriasta poikettu vastaavasti: uusliberalismin täytäntöönpano on kasvattanut valtiota. Monessa tekstissä sääntelyn lisääminen halutaan myös tehdä uusliberalismin mukaisen uuskonstitutionalismin keinoin. Vaikka analyysi ei suoraan vastaa, vaikuttavatko ajatuspajat siihen, tuleeko eurooppalaisten päätöksentekijöiden maailmankuvasta uusliberalistinen, näyttää se, että vaikutusvaltaisimmat Brysselissä toimivat ajatuspajat (vahvimmin Chatham House) allekirjoittavat edelleen uusliberalistiset opit.

This thesis descirebes violence by non-state actors as a struggle for recognition. It uses terrorist organization al-Qaida as en example. The goal is to scrutinize if moral questions arise as an important motive for the non-state actors to use violence. The concept of recognition was created by Hegel. The idea is that individuals desire recognition from each other. The one who is recognazied is a selfconcios subject, but those from whom the recognition is denied, are seen as objects. Reciprocity is an absolute condition for the recognition, because only self-concious subject can give meaningful recognition. Being recognized is more important than life. Reciprocal recognition enables collective consiousnes, through which individuals form conception about themselves as part of it. Later the concept of recognition was linked to the relations of societies and cultures. The idea is that recognition can be given or denied as a result of an ethnic or cultural background of an individual. Frantz Fanon problematized reciprocal recognition by suggesting that in a western society only white members of the society with western cultural background can achieve recognition. From this perspective, those who are subordinated by the western culture needs make themselves as subjects by breaking ranks against the western culture. In this struggle subordinates show their desire to be recognized as separate and different from the westerners. The desire stems from that they have observed that western culture is a racist one and subordinates them as a group. Reciprocal recognition becomes problematized in this context where it becomes impossible to recognize members from another group based on the qualities and values of that group. This thesis suggests that al-Qaida acts in this kind of context where centeral feature are relations between groups of humans. Those relations cannot be easily limited geographically or to interstate relations. Material for the research are letters by Osama bin Laden from 1994 to 1998. I analyze the letters from the perspective of the recognition. Through the concept I create a structure for the discourse so that the discourse could be portrayd as a struggle for recognition. The focus is in that how the own group is distinguished as a subject and the other as an object, and also how in this context violence becomes acceptable and even necessary. The discourse displayed in Bin Laden´s letters is portrayed as a struggle for the recognition. The method to analyze the letters is critical discourse analysis through which I try to portray the discourse in relation to the framework. At the discourse portrayed, muslims are one honorable and great nation, which is unjustly oppressed. Enemy for this subject are foremost the western nations, but the object is created especially through the hostility towards muslim leaders. However the muslim leaders are seen as minions and vassals of the west and they represent greedy and corrupted values and hostility towards muslims, which are attributes of the western societies. Western nations and muslim leaders together with the jews form a conspiracy to annihilate islam and to loot muslims and their lands. The violence is unavoidable in this context, because the conpirators that represent falsehood won´t retreat from their intentions. The muslims need to defend the truth and themselves against the attacking falsehood for the sake of the truth and for the sake of themselves. The discourse portrayed in the letters have parellels to earlier research about that how the struggle for the recognition builds up when the non-reconized becomes to demand recognition. The discourse actually don´t tell why the object is so hostile towards muslims and its hostility comes as given quality of the object. In this sense the discourse emphasizes the special role of the subject as a rationale for the demand of the recognition but it also emphasize the evilness of the object as a rationale why the subject is unrecognized. In this manner the discourse has especially parelles to the Fanon´s outlook about the difficultness of the reciprocal recognition between the groups and his outlook about the necessity of the violence between them. Moral arguments seem to have pivotal role in that how al-Qaida forms its motives to violence and how it generates support for its existence. Opression is foremost seen from the moral perspectives and economic and political oppression are results of moral corruption and wickidness of the object.

This study relates to the conflict in Nepal and its peace process in particular, which is examined from the perspective of discourse theory. The conflict started in 1996 when a group calling themselves ‘Maoists’ launched their ‘people’s war’. Over the years, the conflict was marked by several negotiation rounds, intermittent ceasefires and a power-political struggle between the king, the mainstream political parties and the Maoists. The peace process can be deemed to have started upon the signing of a 12-Point Understanding between the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists in November 2005. Despite its promising start, it is still too early to talk about the peace process in the past tense since researchers have considered the promulgation of a new constitution as a necessity for its closure. The conflict and its peace process have provided an interesting topic of inquiry for instance because Nepal’s Maoist insurgency has been considered the most successful one among other contemporary Maoist rebellions. The purpose of this study is to analyse how a ‘new Nepal’ was articulated in discourses of transformation during the peace process between 2005 and 2012 and determine potential shifts or changes in the discourses. Since the peace process is understood as a discursive process, a further objective is to evaluate the process and the prospects of sustainable peace on the basis of the discourses. Following the theory of conflict transformation, this study understood the peace process as a long-term project where sustainable peace necessitates addressing the root causes of conflict. The motive for choosing the discourse-theoretical perspective was that discourses have been suggested to have a significant role in conflict transformation. In their discourses, political actors may seek cooperation and consensus or reproduce the antagonistic relationship that existed between them during conflict. This study utilised the post-structuralist theory of discourse developed by Laclau and Mouffe as it has been considered suitable for studying political conflicts and changes. According to the fundamental premises of the theory, discourses are historically constructed and contingent systems of meaning in which signifiers receive their meaning in relation to other signifiers and which are susceptible to change. The empirical data of this study consisted of three official documents that have been said to provide a blueprint for a new Nepal as well as of newspaper articles published in The Kathmandu Post. Temporally the study was limited to a period between November 2005 and June 2012. The concept of new Nepal was understood as referring to the political, social, economic and cultural transformation of the country needed to address the root causes of the conflict, for which reason the analysis concentrated on discourses dealing with these aspects. Furthermore, the main focus was on the discourses of the political actors who were the chief adversaries during the conflict, i.e. the mainstream political parties, the Maoists and the king. The empirical analysis utilised the key concepts of Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of discourse, including articulation, floating signifier, nodal point, empty signifier, hegemonic practice, dislocation, social antagonism, political frontier, and the logics of equivalence and difference. According to the analysis, the discourses of the political actors were arranged around political transformation, which was closely linked with social, economic and cultural transformation. The discourses of transformation can be deemed to have formed a discourse on new Nepal, where the meaning of new Nepal was constructed around such salient signifiers as democracy, republic, federalism, secularism, peace, development, progress, change, social justice and inclusiveness. A chain of equivalence was articulated between these signifiers to establish a clear frontier between the past and the future. A significant finding was that the Maoists and the mainstream political parties were able to combine their particular interests into a common discourse by articulating the king as a common enemy and a threat to a new Nepal, which would appear to have made the peace process possible. However, this discursive unity seems to have dissolved after the king was removed and Nepal declared a republic. Since then the Maoists and the non-Maoist parties appear to have reproduced the previous antagonistic relationship between them and the situation has begun to resemble the circumstances before and during the conflict. Due to the discursive struggles between the actors, the Constituent Assembly failed to promulgate the new constitution that was articulated as a document which could bring peace and socio-economic transformation, and consequently it is argued that the prospects of achieving sustainable peace still seem rather bleak. The discursive struggles also pose a threat to the hegemonic discourse on new Nepal and to the new Nepal articulated therein. As regards sustainable peace, it would be important for the actors to find again the consensus that existed between them at the initial stages of the peace process.

Tutkielma pureutuu sodankäynnin muutoksiin ja sääntelyyn ja siihen millainen rooli uudella teknologialla voi tässä kentässä olla. Tutkielma keskittyy aseellisiin miehittämättömiin lennokkeihin , niiden vaikutuksiin sodankäyntiin ja pyrkimyksiin säädellä lennokkien käyttöä. Historiallisesti teknologiset mullistukset sodankäynnissä ovat usein herättäneet kysymyksiä niiden suhteesta olemassa oleviin sodankäynnin sääntöihin. Samoin erityisen merkittävät konfliktit ovat johtaneet aiempaa ponnekkaampiin yrityksiin vahvistaa edellytyksiä rauhalle. Aseellisten miehittämättömien lennokkien käyttö on liittynyt leimallisesti Yhdysvaltojen sotaan kansainvälistä terrorismia vastaan. Lennokki-iskujen käyttö on herättänyt paljon keskustelua ja kysymyksiä niin tutkijakentässä kuin kansainvälisen yhteisön piirissä. Lennokkeja koskevasta asesääntelystä on tehty ehdotuksia eri tahojen toimesta. Tutkielman tavoitteena on ymmärtää mitkä tekijät vaikuttavat aseellisten miehittämättömien lennokkien sääntelyyn ja minkälaisia tulevaisuudenskenaarioita näiden tekijöiden pohjalta voidaan hahmottaa. Tutkielman metodina käytetään tulevaisuusskenaarioita. Sskenaariot voidaan nähdä tulevaisuutta koskevina kontrafaktuaaleina. Kontrafaktuaaleja on hyödynnetty kansainvälisen politiikan tutkimuksessa jonkin verran. Tulevaisuusskenaarioiden osalta esimerkkejä on vähemmän. Menetelmä on kuitenkin laajalti hyödennetty muilla tieteenaloilla; esimerkiksi yritysmaailmaa koskevassa tutkimuksessa skenaariot ovat yleisessä käytössä. Tulevaisuusskenaariot soveltuvat metodina hyvin aseellisten miehittämättömien lennokkien mahdollisen sääntelyn tutkimukseen, sillä varsinaista lennokkeja koskevaa sääntelyä ei ole vielä olemassa. Tarkastelemalla lennokkien sääntelyä koskevia tulevaisuusskenaarioita voidaan lisätä ymmärrystä niistä tekijöistä, jotka vaikutta sääntelyn muodostumiseen. Samoin skenaariot antavat osviittaa siitä, millaista sääntelyä voidaan odottaa erilaisissa tilanteissa. Tutkielman aineiston kautta pyritään luomaan yhdessä kattavan kirjallisuuskatsauksen kanssa selkeä pohja tulevaisuusskenaarioille. Tästä syystä aineistossa käsitellään lennokkeja sekä kansainvälisen yhteisön että Yhdysvaltojen näkökulmasta. Tutkielman aineistona käytetään Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien tutkielmaa aseellisista miehittämämistä lennokeista ja niiden mahdollisista sääntelytarpeista; Yhdysvaltojen korkeassa asemassa olevien virkamiesten sekä presidentti Barack Obaman lausuntoja aseellisiin miehittämättömiin lennokkeihin liittyen; ja Euroopan parlamentin kahta päätöslauselmaa, jotka liittyvät lennokkien sääntelyyn ja laajemmin asesääntelyyn. Kirjallisuuskatsauksen ja aineiston pohjalta rakennetut neljä tulevaisuuskenaariota muodostavat nelikentän, jonka avulla voidaan kartoittaa miehittämättömien aseellisten lennokkien sääntelyä suhteessa sodankäynnin muutoksiin ja kansainvälisen yhteisön vahvistumiseen ja heikentymisiin. Tulevaisuuskenaarioiden kautta nähdään, että suurin vaikutus lennokkien sääntelylle syntyy sodankäynnin muutosten kautta. Lennokkiteknologian merkitys on sidottu sen hyödyllisyyteen sitä käyttävien maiden turvallisuusstrategiassa. Mikäli sodankäynti muuttuu sellaiseen suuntaan, että lennokkiteknologia ei tarjoa merkittäviä etuja strategisten tavoitteiden saavuttamiseen, on todennäköisempää, että lennokkien käyttö voitaisiin jopa kieltää. Mikäli aseelliset miehittämättömät lennokit pysyvät tulevaisuudessakin tärkeinä esimerkiksi taistelussa terrorismia vastaan, on todennäköistä että niiden käyttöön liittyvistä läpinäkyvyys-, valvonta- ja vastuullisuusongelmista johtuen syntyy asesääntelyä, joka pyrkii ratkaisemaan lennokkien käyttöön liittyvät epäselvyydet. Tämä voi olla luonteeltaan sopimuspohjaista virallista asesääntelyä tai epämuodollista itsesääntelyä. Tutkielman johtopäätöksistä käy ilmi, että teknologialla itsessään ei välttämättä ole keskeistä merkitystä sodankäynnin muutoksille ja asesääntelyllä. Tärkeää on miten teknologiaa käytetään. Teknologian merkitys kasvaa suhteessa sen mahdollisuuksin vastata sodankäynnin muutoksiin ja strategisiin tarpeisiin. Jatkotutkimuksen kannalta olisi hyödyllistä teoretisoida, syventää ja tuoda paremmin esiin sodankäynnin, asesääntelyn ja uusien teknologioiden välisiä yhteyksiä. Tulevaisuudenskenaarioiden laajemman käytön kannalta olisi hyödyllistä entisestään kehittää metodologiaa sekä ottaa menetelmää käyttöön, mikä voisi johtaa sen vielä nykyistä helpompaan ja hedelmällisempään hyödyntämiseen kansainvälisen politiikan tutkimuksessa.

In 1987, the United Nations concerned with global challenges to human development called for a new model of growth to be erected upon the notion of sustainable development. Today, twenty five years later, the world continues to be beset by these global challenges and a governance gap around this issue has become manifest. Overtime, the international community came to the realization that, first, tackling these challenges requires the collective action of a multiplicity of relevant actors. And second, that the private sector, with its resources, know-how, experience and jurisdiction, could have a pivotal role to play to this end. The problem with these assumptions was the scepticism generated by mainstream interpretations of corporate nature and rationality. Despite the potential for contribution, corporations as self-interested agents in the struggle for the maximization of individual advantage could not be expected to contribute to the promotion of sustainable development; let alone through collective action. And yet contemporary evidence shows, that this scepticism is unwarranted. For that reason, the main purpose of this descriptive study was to account for the existing cases of collective action, and identify by listening to corporate actors, what was the rationale that underpinned their decisions to engage in these forms of collective action. In doing so, the aim was to assess the current suitability of mainstream approaches to reflect reality. Because of that, special attention was devoted to the notion of corporate self-interest (the key concept used by mainstream approaches to nurture the egoistic interpretation of the corporate actor). In listening to corporate actors two related qualitative analyses were conducted. On the one hand, a set of archival material - corporate responsibility reports and codes of conduct - was approached through a story-line narrative technique the purpose of which was to set the contextual and notional framework for the content analysis of interview transcripts that was to follow. On the other hand, semi-structured elite interviews were conducted on corporate executives of four transnational corporations, all of which are leaders in their respective industries and have a record of collective action that contributes to sustainable development. These corporations were Novartis, UPM, Tetra-Pak and Nokia and the overall purpose of the analytical chapter has been learn from corporate actors themselves what drove them to engage in these forms of collective action. At first glance the results of the analyses revealed that the rationale behind corporate engagement, continued to be explained by reference to corporate self-interest; just as mainstream approaches suggested. However, the point of divergence between these two interpretations was to be found in the way corporate self-interest was defined. According to mainstream approaches, corporate self-interest was defined in terms of profit maximization. Conversely, the findings unveiled in this study highlight the necessity to separate interests (instrumental reasons) from corporate self-interest (teleological reasons). In line with that differentiation, self-interest is defined as long-term survival, and all other interests are interpreted as instrumental to it. These findings have encouraging implications on the relevance of mainstream approaches to represent. Insofar a reassessment of the notion of corporate self-interest is undertaken to account for teleological reasons as distinct from instrumental reasons, mainstream approaches would be able to provide a fairer account of contemporary circumstances than they do today. In the absence of such an update, not only do they run the risk of not being able to reflect reality and becoming irrelevant, but they would also run the risk of rendering themselves unsuitable to account for changes in behaviours and interests, ultimately, downplaying rather than strengthening the rationality of actors. All in all, if what unrevised mainstream standards provide us with is an account for corporate rational behaviour, then what this study contributes is the possibility of moving past scepticism and understanding the potential for corporate behaviour to be better than rational.

This Master’s thesis examines civil society participation in European development governance. Traditionally civil society has been described according to its relation to states and markets. The story becomes more puzzling when one moves outside the territory of nation states. Common for divergent theories of global civil society is that they cherish a great faith in citizen participation and its beneficial consequences in global governance. It has been claimed that over-optimism and lack of a critical perspective have obscured the meaning of the concept, and more empirical research is needed. At the same time, the discussion of global governance is based on an idea of coordination and collaboration of different actors; thus neglecting the existence of power. By absorbing a critical approach to global governance, this paper aims to provide a better understanding of civil society at the transnational level. Civil society was examined from the perspective of the actors themselves by studying the language they used. The primary data was based on the reactions of civil society actors during the European Commission’s consultation period regarding the new Consensus on Development. The data was collected directly from the Commission’s Your voice in Europe web page, which manages the open consultations. These reactions were analysed by using Norman Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis. A specific focus was placed on social roles and identities, which were named as images of civil society. The core idea was that the way one speaks also tells who one is. The analysis showed that at least three divergent images can be drawn upon the texts: a normative actor defending civic spaces, a governance image demanding stronger leadership from the EU and a professionalized expert using knowledge claims. These images are interconnected but also partly contrasting; thus blurring the conceptualization of global civil society. As the existing literature on European civil society indicated, none of the images form a clear resistance or counter-hegemony for the EU, and they more or less match the conceptualizations of a collaborator. The images differ in their subject positioning and how they justify their being. It can be concluded that self-criticism of civil society actors is needed, and civil society groups should more deeply evaluate their ways of argumentation and relations to states, intergovernmental organizations and the private sector. While establishing conflicting images, civil society is losing some of its transformative possibilities and maintaining existing power structures.

In recent years, a resurgent leftist faction has arisen in the Democratic Party of the United States, emerging first in Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign to become the party’s nominee in the 2016 presidential election. Sanders’ campaign declared a ‘political revolution’, a left-wing project advocating socioeconomic and political transformation and problematizing inequality in American society. The primary election process drew deep factional lines in the party between Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s supporters, and ultimately resulted in Clinton’s candidacy and defeat in the general election. In the wake of Sanders’ campaign, multiple left-wing organisations emerged both within the Democratic Party and beyond it, adopting his policy goals and campaigning style. Among these was Justice Democrats, a factionally-oriented organization challenging Democratic incumbents and endeavouring to enact a political realignment towards the left on the intra-party level. The ongoing factional struggle is seen against the backdrop of a broader hegemonic crisis. The leftist faction of the party has produced a new populist discourse building a counter-hegemonic left-wing social imaginary. This thesis examines the discourse of the political revolution, and the discursive devices constituting its articulation of key dichotomies. The thesis applies a theoretical framework of Giovanni Sartori’s factionalism, Margaret Canovan’s populism, and Gramscian hegemony to conduct a discourse analysis of the resurgent leftist discourse on the meso and macro levels. This thesis asks: how does the discourse of the political revolution construct an adversarial dichotomy of an in-group and an out-group as part of its populist counter-hegemonic project? To answer its research question, the thesis develops its methodological approach by combining critical discourse analysis (CDA), discourse theory, and aspects of the complementary method of discourse tracing. This framework views discourses and social reality as mutually constitutive. The value of such analysis lies in practicing reflexivity and considering what kind of social reality the discourse strives to generate, reproducing and disrupting dominant ideas and structures. Examining a discourse yields insight into the possible real-world consequences of the adoption of the worldview it constitutes, and facilitates the tracing of shifts in political culture. The thesis finds that, on the meso level, the discourse constructs a logic of difference to dismantle the conception of the Democratic Party as monolithic, producing an ideologically-based factional challenge through the dichotomisation of two factional groups. The discourse articulates an ideologically committed left-wing factional in-group, and a clientelist party establishment out-group corrupted by established campaign finance practices. The adversarial in-group and out-group constitute factions of principle and interest (as per Sartori), drawing from the redemptive and pragmatic faces of democracy, respectively. On the macro level, the discourse constructs a logic of equivalence through articulating a populist people-elite binary. ‘The people’ are conceived of as a broad, diverse collective connected by class-based grievances and interests, sovereign but unrepresented. This is juxtaposed with the articulation of an out-of-touch, oligarchic elite configuration consisting of dominant economic forces, a political elite, and a discursive elite. The elite are likewise connected by class interests, exercising undue influence over the political system and reproducing a hegemony facilitating economic inequality. The elite is articulated as the common Other for ‘the people’ as the groups’ class interests conflict and systemic structures privilege the elite at the expense of the needs of the people. This people-vs-elite dichotomisation produces the articulation of ‘the people’ as a historical bloc, a class alliance with transformative capacity, whose political action is seen as necessary to usher in a democratic renewal at both the meso and macro levels. The discourse scandalizes the existing level of inequalities in American society and articulates campaign finance practices yielding wealthy elites influence over the political process as impermissible. These scandalisations challenge existing social structures and dominant ideas. The discourse seeks to thereby shift these ideas and practices beyond the hegemonic limits of intelligibility through the production of a left-wing social imaginary. Understanding the effects of discourses and discursive shifts on social reality, and vice versa, is useful for academics examining social reproduction and transformation. A discursive shift the like of which the political revolution seeks to achieve holds practical policy implications and has potentially wide-reaching consequences on U.S. political culture and social practices. Ramifications may be felt beyond borders in the political discourses of other nations due to the prominent position the U.S. holds in the international community. Should this counter-hegemonic discourse become more broadly adopted within the Democratic Party and beyond, it may provide a blueprint for similar movements in comparable contexts.

This graduate thesis studies the foreign- and security politics of the United States through the formation of national identity. It specifically investigates the country's foreign policy towards the United Nations, and changes in it, during two presidential terms. The thesis observes the second term of President George. W. Bush (from 2005 to 2008) and the first term of President Barack Obama (from 2009 to 2012). The subject matter is relevant in the field of world political studies for multiple reasons: The hegemonic status of the United States in an increasingly interconnected world, the unilateral tendency of the country tied to the attitude towards and the meaning of the UN, and the concepts of security and danger tied to the current discussion on the relevance of a nation-state as the main actor in responding to the common threats the world faces today. The method of critical identity and discourse analysis is used when approaching the subject. The basis for the US foreign policy formation is understood as coming from domestic structures and challenges instead of from outside threats, and for that reason the main empirical material for analysis is the State of the Union- speeches by the presidents. After analyzing the rhetoric of these speeches, the thesis indicates changes in concrete policy decisions by both presidents. The beginning hypothesis is that as the presidency shifts from the republican party to the democratic party, some changes in the foreign policy paradigm should occur. This is closely tied to the nature of the US political structure of Constitutional and Presidential democracy. The main discourses emerging from the analysis are danger and unilateralism for President Bush, and responsible leadership and multilateralism for President Obama. The strongest discourse, however, is determined as the discourse of American exceptionalism, and that serves both presidents. The presidential rhetoric shows a wide array of changes in the foreign and security- policy paradigms of the presidents, but the concrete decision-making indicates more continuity than change. The thesis concludes that even though President Bush was seen unfavorably by the international community at the end of his presidency, and much hope and expectations were placed on the shoulders of President Obama, have many at the end of Obama's first term expressed feelings of disappointment towards his achievements and indicated a lack of delivery. The results of the research show that the dominant backbone behind the US foreign policy, the identity of American exceptionalism, has not changed with the presidential shift. The foreign and security political paradigm still reflects domestic struggles with the national identity and aim towards the continuity of the country's hegemonic status in the world order. The research concludes that only through changes in the national political identity can the US reform its attitude towards the international community and act as a visionary in world politics.

Jag granskar i min avhandling pro gradu den ekonomiska krisen i Grekland som kulminerade under våren 2010 när Grekland vände sig tili de övriga medlemsländerna i Ekonomiska och monetära Unionen (EMU) med en förfrågan om ekonomisk hjälp i form av län. Syftet med avhandlingen är att undersöka hur de övriga EMU-medlemmarna fattade sitt beslut om att ekonomiskt stöda Grekland efter att landets kreditvärdighet sänkts av de internationella kreditvärderingsinstituten. Jag granskar Greklandskrisen och dess utveckling, de lösningar som man gick in för inom ramen för valutaunionen, hur besluten om stödpaketet fattades och vilka faktorer som påverkade besluten. Jag tar avstamp i Optimum Currency Area-teorin (OCA-teorin) och teorier om europeisk ekonomisk integration. Dessutom för jag en diskussion kring solidariteten mellan EU-länderna, som också använts som argument för stödpaketet tili Grekland. Jag klassificerar euroländerna utgående för hur det nationella beslutet om Greklandspaketet fattats och gör därefter en agglomerativ klusteranalys, med ambitionen att förklara vilka faktorer som påverkat besluten. Syftet med klusteranalysen är att klargöra huruvida politiska faktorer, som härrör sig till regeringen och dess sammansättning, eller ekonomiska faktorer, som belyser statsfinansernas tillstånd, bäst förklarar hur ett land fattat sitt beslut. Resultatet visar att de politiska variablerna har påverkat ländernas beslut mer an de ekonomiska, men förklaringsgraden är relativt lag i bägge fallen. Jag för vidare en diskussion om resultatet ur ett OCA-perspektiv, kriterierna för ett optimalt valutaområde samt EMU:s utveckling i dito riktning. Jag avslutar avhandlingen med en diskussion kring EMU:s framtid.