Frank Gadinger

Bio: Frank Gadinger is an academic researcher from University of Duisburg-Essen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Practice theory & International relations. The author has an hindex of 11, co-authored 35 publications receiving 607 citations. Previous affiliations of Frank Gadinger include University of Mainz.

Introducing International Practice Theory

Abstract: International Relations scholars increasingly are interested in practice. Following a larger turn to practices in the social sciences, a broad movement of scholars aims at studying practices. In this introduction we discuss what is fascinating about practice. International Practice Theory offers a genuine novel perspective on politics and international relations and comes along with a range of promises to analyze the world differently. We also provide an overview of the different strategies we adopt to explain what International Practice Theory is and does.

The Normativity of International Practices

Abstract: The normativity of practice remains a major research challenge in practice turn scholarship. Recent debates have nevertheless demonstrated the promise of international practice theory for a wider IR audience. Instead of focusing on the effects of norms, constructivist norm research, for instance, has turned its attention to processes, practices, and actions in world politics through which norms are negotiated, contested, and embedded. This processual perspective overcomes simple explanations built on the agency-structure dichotomy, and resembles the research objectives of practice-oriented scholars. I argue, first, that a conversation between practice theorists and norm researchers is analytically fruitful thanks to their shared interest in normativity; this includes the consideration of power and agency, a social understanding of learning, and the contestation and multiplicity of normative orders. Secondly, I argue that practice approaches provide innovative conceptual vocabulary and methodological tools. Thirdly, in contrast to norm research, however, practice-oriented scholars (following Wittgenstein) do not ontologically distinguish practices from norms and attribute theoretical and methodological primacy to practice. I present three different practice-oriented research examples that study normativity from different angles: through power relations of structuring normative orders, learning processes via active participation in communities, and disputes on political actors’ competing moral claims.

Amerikanische Außenpolitik im Zeichen des "Krieges gegen den Terror"

Abstract: Der Literaturbericht strukturiert die breite wissenschaftliche Debatte zur US-Ausenpolitik nach dem 11. September 2001. Im Fokus des Beitrags stehen unterschiedliche Erklarungsansatze zu den Ursachen und Folgen des War on Terror. Dieser problemorientierte Zugriff ergibt sich aufgrund der auserst heterogenen Debatte, die keineswegs den bisherigen Strukturprinzipien von Ausenpolitik- und IB-Forschung folgt, sondern sich von ihnen emanzipiert hat. Durch die disziplinare Offnung kann die inhaltliche Diskussion durch die Integration neuer Argumentationsmuster erheblich bereichert werden.

Making Sense of Marx

Abstract: Preface and acknowledgments Introduction 1. Explanation and dialectics Part I. Philosophy and Economics: 2. Philosophical anthropology 3. Economics 4. Exploitation, freedom and justice Part II. Theory of History: 5. Modes of production 6. Classes 7. Politics and the state 8. Ideologies 9. Capitalism, communism and revolution Conclusion references Index of names index of subjects.

국제정치이론 = Theory of international politics

Abstract: Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and de‹ciency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself the enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency. (Ibn al-Haytham)1