Comments on: Central Asia: That N.G.G. metaphor http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/ American Foreign Policy Analysis in Central Asia Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:04:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.0 by: Central Asia » Blog Archive » Central Asia, World: Realist theory and nostalgia http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/#comment-1360 Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:31:50 +0000 http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/#comment-1360 [...] 1. FPA’s own Robert Nolan on the Middle East–Global Views: A return to Realism? 2. Ben Paarman at Neweurasia.net with a great roundup of articles pertaining to Central Asia: “No-New-Zero-Sum-Great Game!” 3. An old post at FPA Central Asia on “The N.G.G. Metaphor“ 4. The IR Theory Knowledge Base Web site [...] […] 1. FPA’s own Robert Nolan on the Middle East–Global Views: A return to Realism? 2. Ben Paarman at Neweurasia.net with a great roundup of articles pertaining to Central Asia: “No-New-Zero-Sum-Great Game!” 3. An old post at FPA Central Asia on “The N.G.G. Metaphor“ 4. The IR Theory Knowledge Base Web site […]

]]> by: Bonnie Boyd http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/#comment-485 Thu, 17 May 2007 23:03:52 +0000 http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/#comment-485 I think any readers of these comments could reflect upon the sad state of international relations discourse that would make the use of such buzz words, inaccurate or no, necessary in order to get official policy attention and grant money for research. This is not new, however, as any perusal of an old Journal of Soviet Studies will tell you. It remains a major mistake of U.S. grant writing and policy formulation, however. My favorite genius, the late Susan Strange, pointed out that Europeans were far more comfortable with using more than one theory at once to describe issues in international politics. She derided the theoretical purity of American thought (as well as its insularity). She was as capable of theory as anyone, but as the doyenne of political economy, part of her theory was to be multidisciplinary as well as rigorous. I really feel the issues of insularity and over-fidelity to theory are critical lacks to U.S. policy formation. They also destroy trust in the international sphere. Therefore, I must agree with your comments about research while expressing regret that it must be so. Thanks to both of you for writing in! Bonnie Reference: Strange, S. (1998). Why do international organizations never die? In Autonomous Policy-Making in International Organizations. pp. 213-220. B. Reinalda (Ed.). Florence, Kentucky: Routledge. These specific comments are primarily on pp. 213-214. Available from ebrary database. I think any readers of these comments could reflect upon the sad state of international relations discourse that would make the use of such buzz words, inaccurate or no, necessary in order to get official policy attention and grant money for research. This is not new, however, as any perusal of an old Journal of Soviet Studies will tell you. It remains a major mistake of U.S. grant writing and policy formulation, however.

My favorite genius, the late Susan Strange, pointed out that Europeans were far more comfortable with using more than one theory at once to describe issues in international politics. She derided the theoretical purity of American thought (as well as its insularity). She was as capable of theory as anyone, but as the doyenne of political economy, part of her theory was to be multidisciplinary as well as rigorous. I really feel the issues of insularity and over-fidelity to theory are critical lacks to U.S. policy formation. They also destroy trust in the international sphere. Therefore, I must agree with your comments about research while expressing regret that it must be so.

Thanks to both of you for writing in!
Bonnie

Reference: Strange, S. (1998). Why do international organizations never die? In Autonomous Policy-Making in International Organizations. pp. 213-220. B. Reinalda (Ed.). Florence, Kentucky: Routledge. These specific comments are primarily on pp. 213-214. Available from ebrary database.

]]> by: Afghanistanica http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/#comment-484 Thu, 17 May 2007 18:02:00 +0000 http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/#comment-484 Unfortunately it may turn out that the newsmedia and a few authors in the mainstream publishing world will popularize that Kiplingism. And you're right, it does shape perceptions of the region. Some still look at Kazakh energy resources as a prize to be claimed by one party and one party only. And then you have to explain that it's not a "winner takes all game." But if I thought that it would help fund my research I would probably include it in the first line of my grant/scholarship proposal. Unfortunately it may turn out that the newsmedia and a few authors in the mainstream publishing world will popularize that Kiplingism. And you’re right, it does shape perceptions of the region. Some still look at Kazakh energy resources as a prize to be claimed by one party and one party only. And then you have to explain that it’s not a “winner takes all game.”

But if I thought that it would help fund my research I would probably include it in the first line of my grant/scholarship proposal.

]]> by: Joshua Foust http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/#comment-469 Tue, 15 May 2007 14:32:20 +0000 http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/15/central-asia-that-ngg-metaphor/#comment-469 Thank you! I find the NGG talk more than a bit stale myself, and, much like "the coming spring offensive" I take it to be a sign of laziness. Another Hopkirk book I want to read is <i>Setting the East Ablaze: Lenin's Dream of an Empire in Asia</i>, which is, as you rightly call it, NGG-1. I think we're in NGG-3 or something at this point, which means you might as well call the whole thing bupkiss. But seriously, this is very much a point that needs to be made, perhaps repeatedly. Thank you! I find the NGG talk more than a bit stale myself, and, much like “the coming spring offensive” I take it to be a sign of laziness. Another Hopkirk book I want to read is Setting the East Ablaze: Lenin’s Dream of an Empire in Asia, which is, as you rightly call it, NGG-1. I think we’re in NGG-3 or something at this point, which means you might as well call the whole thing bupkiss.

But seriously, this is very much a point that needs to be made, perhaps repeatedly.

]]>