Getting to know the Force: Ideas and Culture

Discussion Questions

1. In chapter 6, Hansen describes the three dominant nineteenth and early twentieth century constructions of the ‘the Balkans’. These constructions have critical importance for the two discourses that we see today (i.e. The Balkan discourse and the Genocide discourse) Can you think of other examples in which the discourse surrounding a particular area/subject changed throughout history leading to a particular construction today?  

2. What are the differences between the three historical discourses that Hansen describes in terms of their spatial, temporal, and ethical identities? In what ways is the degree of “Otherness” different in each of these discourses?

3. Chapter 7 brings out how security discourse is shaped by different governments based on their national interests and foreign policy agendas and not on assessments of moral responsibilities. Do you agree? Can you give another example of a how the discourse of a war was shaped differently by different governments based on their respective national interests?

4. Hansen says that in order for a discourse to reach closure and stability, there are elements of “ambiguity, openness or blank spots” that have to be left in silence so as to maintain the stability of the discourse. Can you think of an example of a popular (stable) discourse that skipped the mention of critical instances that could have possibly changed how the discourse was formulated?

5. Hansen points out a number of problems with the humanitarian responsibility discourse. For instance, the dichotomy between “leaders” and “civilians” is problematic and it may fail to recognize the concept of “civilian agency.” According to Hansen, this discourse, among many things, is also a sort of response to media pressure. Do you think that media can influence how a discourse is shaped and recalled for years? Can you think of cases in which media reporting played a major role in forming its discourse?

6. According to the chapter, what explains the policy convergence - lift and strike - between a neorealist interpretation of the Balkan discourse and the Genocide discourse?

7. Would you agree that there is an orientalist approach in Rebecca West’s and Robert D. Kaplan’s texts and in their understandings of the Balkans? Please give a few examples to justify your position.

8. In chapter 9, Hansen writes on how the Bush Administration is criticized for staying inside the Balkan discourse by engaging in a “serious of calculated evasions”, calling the war against Bosnia “a blood feud” and “a complex, convoluted conflict that grows out of old-age animosities”. Can you think of a contemporary discourse in which a U.S. administration has used similar rhetoric? What is the foreign policy that has resulted so far from the discourse/issue you cited and is it any similar to the foreign policy generated by the U.S. during the Bosnian War; have identities been “re-articulated” during the process?

9. In what ways did the Balkan discourse differ from the Genocide discourse described in chapter 9 and why do you think this distinction is significant for understanding the West’s response to the Bosnian War? What are some of the foreign policy outcomes that were influenced by the “discursive variations” of each of the discourses? 

10. In searching for a way to understand the political impact of culture, political science has drawn from other fields like economics. How does Lisa Wedeen suggest political analysis should look to understand culture and political phenomena?

The Power of the Force: Discourse Analysis

1. Hansen points out that languages and the construction of identity is highly structured, but simultaneously inherently unstable. Why do you think this is the case?
2. Does identity have a casual effect on the creation of policy? Does policy cause identity? Explain why or why not.
3. What does Hansen mean by intertextuality, and how does she apply it to discourse analysis research with the three proposed models?
4. Describe the different ways that, according to Hansen, the genres addressing foreign policy (policy texts, journalism, academic analysis, travel writing, and memoir) claim authority through constructing knowledge. 
5. Is formulation of a proper narrative of identity in ethnographic research important?
6. How do you weight certain facets of identity in research? Do you think they are equally important to your research outcome? 

The Allure of the Dark Side: "Objectivity" and Science

1) Becker writes that one of the main differences between quantitative and qualitative methods is in how they collect and use data. Quantitative methods look more for key variables that explain or prove a concept, while quantitative methods collect highly detailed data in order to completely describe an event. This often leads to “thick” data sets that include even the smallest pieces of information. In your view, does more data clarify or cloud an objective?

2) In Becker’s The Epistemology of Qualitative Research, Herbert Blumer is cited as holding the belief that: all social scientists, implicitly or explicitly, attribute a point of view and interpretations to the people whose actions they analyze. What is Becker’s view on Blumer and how we should represent the viewpoint of those we analyze? Do you agree or disagree with his assertion?

3) According to Charmaz, what is the hallmark of grounded theory? What is the grounded researchers approach to their obtained data and how do they study meaning?

4) According to Katz’s “Ethnography’s Warrants,” what is a ‘normalizing’ view with regard to ethnographies warranted by deviant social reputations? Have you read any studies or seen any media in which a ‘normalizing’ view was expressed? Give an example.

5) Among the many shortcomings of the Failed States Index, the article also criticizes the FSI for its lack of practical utility and its inability to predict events like the Arab Spring. If the Failed States Index fails to accurately reflect the reality (just like other existing indexes like Democracy Index, Corruption-Perception Index, etc.) why do researchers often use these indicators in their studies? Do you think all quantitative analysis should be applicable in predicting future events?

6) Do you think that quantitative and ethnographic research have the same level of influence on policy? What are some real life examples of when quantitative or ethnographic research findings were used in policy discussions? 

Return to Dagobah: Interpretive Ethnography

“Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun," "... and that analysis of [culture] to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.” (Max Weber cited in Geertz)

As participant observers we can learn the culture or subculture of the people we are studying. We can come to interpret the world in the same way that they do. (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1989, p. 7)

Discussion Question:

1.     Explain the difference between case study and ethnography?

2.     What is Culture for you? How do you explain or define culture? Explain if you consider cultural interpretation as science or not?

3.     How important is to have a prior knowledge of your area of research when you do fieldwork research?

4.     How different is Erving Goffman’s view of participant observation from Robert Emerson and Melvin Pollner’s in their document on ‘Constructing Participant / Observation Relations?’

5.     Ethical concerns are inevitable and therefore render participant / observation an invalid method for data collection. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

6.     What are the qualities of an Ethnographer?

7.     To what extent should a field researcher come close to those being studied?

8.     Why do advocates of interpretive approaches reject the three positivists' assumptions of dualist ontology, objectivist epistemology, and language as an accurate representation of objective reality?

9.  To what extent should ethical considerations guide the work of an ethnographer?

10.  Is ethnographic work merely a constructed reality of the ethnographer?