Browsing by Subject "uuskonservatismi"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
-
(2011)In this thesis I study the Neo-Eurasianist movement in Russia and the ways the activists of the movement construct Eurasia as a unified entity and an empire. The central research questions of this work are: What is the empire and what are its central motivations and themes? How is the idea of empire constructed or understood, and how can this be interpreted? What could be seen to be the effects of their ways of imagining Eurasia? My material consists of interviews that were collected during the spring of 2008, and written materials produced by the movement (various printed publications and internet sites). By the Neo-Eurasianist movement I here mean the activists of the International Eurasianist Movement (Meždunarodnoe Evrazijskoe Dviženie) and its youth section the Eurasian Youth Union (Evrazijskij Sojuz Molodëži). The movement has been officially founded in 2003, but it draws a strong historical continuity from a movement in the 1930s called classic Eurasianism. Apart from this its discourse has a lot of on Soviet, fascist, neo-conservative and nationalist characteristics, among others. Its leader is the philosopher-geopolitician Alexander Dugin. In the background to this work I am interested in the ways the so called intelligentsia or intellectuals affect nationalism, or discourses that define the change and development of social groups. I look at my material from a discourse analytical point of view. I see discourse analysis as the research of the ways of producing social reality in different social practices. At the same the research of these discourses, following a Foucauldian tradition, critically examines the (actualized or potential) power relations that they produce. I also use the concept of 'imagined communities' of Benedict Anderson, which contributes to understanding the way my subjects build the empire as a community. In the speech of the activists the empire (imperiâ) comes out mostly as a positive thing, and as 'their own,' whereas the term imperialism (imperialism) mostly has a negative connotation, and is related to the main enemy, the USA. I separate the various themes that arise in to five main themes. Out of these I examine more closely the theme of empire as the benefactor of all peoples (political side), the source of external power (historical-geopolitical side) and as the creator of the collective subject (imperial-nationalist side). Throughout the work I try to contextualize the discourse and examine the ways it draws motives also from the historical-cultural ways of perceiving the area and its inhabitants. I also discuss the concepts of people, nation, ethnos and nationalism and how they are used in the Neo-Eurasianist discourse. The concept of imperial nationalism (imperskij nacionalizm) helps in understanding the ways the movement is trying to distance itself from nationalism and at the same time use some of the basic themes of the nationalist discourse. One of the main differences to the so called mainstream of nationalism is that the word 'nation (naciâ)' has a strong negative connotation. In opposition to nation, the concept of people (narod) is highlighted. However, at the same time the concept russkij (more an ethnic Russia) is used in a wider and more all-encompassing way than usually, and first and foremost Russia is the main referent of the empire. Of the positive images attached to the Eurasian empire, I look more closely in to the idea of multinationalism and the empire as the house of peoples, which I see to be a considerable rhetoric theme in all the material. Closely related to this there is also the 'liberating' role of empire, which I see as a branch of the same discussion. I interpret that their empire -discourse has an instrumentalist character: it legitimizes Russian claims to influence especially over the area of the former Soviet Union. The 'Eurasian people' works as a possible unifying factor instead of the 'Soviet people' for Eurasia. On the basis of my material I interpret that on the background of this 'people' is Russia and Russian -specific claims more than others. I also shortly discuss the reasons for the criticism of nation in Russia and the suitability of the term to Russia, and the stratification of concepts of Russianness. All in all, the empire is presented as an abstract, utopian and a 'total' entity.
-
(2010)In this thesis I examine the U.S. foreign policy discussion that followed the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. In the politically charged setting that preceded the presidential elections, the subject of the debate was not only Washingtons response to the crisis in the Caucasus but, more generally, the direction of U.S. foreign policy after the presidency of George W. Bush. As of November 2010, the reasons for and consequences of the Russia-Georgia war continue to be contested. My thesis demonstrates that there were already a number of different stories about the conflict immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. I want to argue that among these stories one can discern a 'neoconservative narrative' that described the war as a confrontation between the East and the West and considered it as a test for Washington’s global leadership. I draw on the theory of securitization, particularly on a framework introduced by Holger Stritzel. Accordingly, I consider statements about the conflict as 'threat texts' and analyze these based on the existing discursive context, the performative force of the threat texts and the positional power of the actors presenting them. My thesis suggests that a notion of narrativity can complement Stritzel’s securitization framework and take it further. Threat texts are established as narratives by attaching causal connections, meaning and actorship to the discourse. By focusing on this process I want to shed light on the relationship between the text and the context, capture the time dimension of a speech act articulation and help to explain how some interpretations of the conflict are privileged and others marginalized. I develop the theoretical discussion through an empirical analysis of the neoconservative narrative. Drawing on Stritzel’s framework, I argue that the internal logic of the narrative which was presented as self-evident can be analyzed in its historicity. Asking what was perceived to be at stake in the conflict, how the narrative was formed and what purposes it served also reveals the possibility for alternative explanations. My main source material consists of transcripts of think tank seminars organized in Washington, D.C. in August 2008. In addition, I resort to the foreign policy discussion in the mainstream media.
Now showing items 1-2 of 2