Understanding
Contemporary Islamism as a
Nationalist Ideology
(Findings will be presented at
the Midwest Political Science
Association 2010 annual
conference)
Click
here to read an excerpt from
this paper. If you're
interested in reading the
complete version, email the
author at jdj37 [asperand]
georgetown.edu.
This paper will argue that
contemporary Islamism is a
nationalist ideology. The
central claim is that adherents
of this movement interpret
Islam’s medieval political
tradition through the lens of
modern European theories of
nationalism. Accordingly, the
paper first distinguishes modern
from premodern types of
political philosophy, and it
locates classical Islamic
political theory within the
latter category. It next
recounts the theoretical
development of nationalism as a
modern ideology – drawing upon
the writings of historian Elie
Kedourie – and then describes
the political philosophy that an
Islamist nationalism entails.
The paper’s penultimate section
explores Islamists’ motivations
for adopting such a philosophy;
the final section presents two
case studies of modern Islamist
political theorists to
illustrate hermeneutically the
influence of nationalist
ideology on contemporary
Islamism.
The Impact of
Israeli Leaders’ Military
Experiences on Israeli Foreign
Policy
(Findings will be presented
at the International Studies
Association Midwest 2009 annual
conference)
This paper will investigate
whether Israeli prime ministers’
military backgrounds have
socialized them into Israeli
military norms and doctrines and
thereby influenced their
respective governments’ foreign
policies. The paper’s
first section draws on
historical studies and Israel
Defense Forces (IDF) data in
order to articulate three
dynamics which link military
socialization to foreign policy
decisionmaking. The second
section develops and tests
several hypotheses on the
connection between prime
ministers’ IDF experiences and
their negotiated or unilateral
territorial concessions to the
Palestinians of the
West Bank and Gaza
Strip.
This paper’s findings are most
applicable to the case of
Israel.
Yet Israel is hardly unique in electing
former military officers as its
leaders. The dearth of
literature on this subject
simply makes Israel – with its many
military-careerists-turned-politicians
– an ideal source of data with
which to theorize the link
between military experience and
foreign policy decisionmaking.
And because none of the
socialization dynamics
identified in this paper relies
on Israeli military
idiosyncrasies, all may be
adapted to other case studies or
to a more generalized model.
Political
Ideology in International
Relations
Click
here to read an excerpt from
this paper. If you're
interested in reading the
complete version, email the
author at jdj37 [asperand]
georgetown.edu.
This paper will develop a theory
of international relations that
explains states’ foreign
policies as the product of their
leaders’ political ideologies.
I begin by
classifying human action as
volitional, purposive, and
rational, in the sense that
individuals pursue their aims by
choosing to act in accordance
with their ideas about how to
achieve those aims. The second
section argues that individuals
who use coercion prevent others
from acting on the basis of
these ideas, whereas uncoerced
exchanges permit individuals to
continue acting on their
thoughts. The third part
identifies uncoerced exchanges
as the subject matter of
economics, and the fourth tasks
political science with
explaining coercive actions.
Because the first section finds
that ideas are the prime mover
of human action, and later
segments classify politics as
the realm of human action in
which coercion is employed, the
fifth part concludes that the
prime mover of political action
is individuals’ ideas about the
proper use of coercion – i.e.,
their political ideologies.
Accordingly, politicians craft
foreign policies (as they craft
other government programs) on
ideological grounds.
