Silabus Teori Dan Hubungan Internasional

Silabus Mata-Kuliah THI
Oleh: Hizkia Yosie Polimpungp

Part I
1. Historiography of IR Theorization: Two Approach—Debates and Turns
2. Contemporary Classic I: Realism and its evolution
3. Contemporary Classic II: Liberalism and its evolution
4. Rational Choice & Game Theory
5. Critical Turn: Critical Theory, Feminism, and Green Theory
6. Normative & Ethical turn: Citizenship between Cosmopolitanism & Communitarianism
7. Constructivist & Linguistic Turn: Constructivism and Postmodernism
8. UTS
Part II
9. Global Turn/Order I: International to World Society [English School Theory]
10.
Global Turn/Order II: Globalization to Governance [Liberal]
11.
Global Turn/Order III: Governmentality to Empire [Postmarxism]
12.
Political Turn: Bringing the political back in
13.

2nd Postmodern /Aesthetic Turn: Photographic, Cinematic & Poetic IR theorizing
14.
Cultural & Religious Turn: Religious, Cultural & Pop IR theories
15.
Non-Western IR Theory; Beyond IR Theory?
16.
UAS

N
O
1

TOPIK & BACAAN
Pengantar: Historiograf THI: Pendekatan Debat Paradigma dan Peralihan
Baca
an
 Ole Wæver, “Figures of international thought:
introducing persons instead of paradigms” dalam
I.B.Neumann and O. Wæver, peny., The Future of
International Relations: Masters in the Making (London,

NY: Routledge, 1997)
 Brian C. Schmidt, “On the History and Historiography of
Wajib
International Relations,” dalam W. Carlsnaes et.al.,
peny., Handbook of International Relations (London:
SAGE, 2002)
 Steve Smith, “The Self-Images of a Discipline: A
Genealogy of International Relations Theory,” dalam K.
Booth & S. Smith, International Relations Theory Today
(Pennsylvania: Penn. State Uni Press, 1995)
Rekom.
 Brian Schmidt, “International Relations Theory:
Hegemony or Pluralism?” dan Steve Smith, “Debating
Schmidt: Theoretical Pluralism in IR” Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 36, 2, 2007.
 Ken Booth, “Master-Debating in International Relations”
dan Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wrever, “A Rejoinder to
Ken Booth,” Millennium: Journal of lnternational Studies,
27, 1, 1998.
 Alexander Astrov, “Who’s Afraid of Deconstruction? Postdebatism and Beyond,” Cooperation and Confiit, 38, 2,

2003, hal. 149–158.
 Peter Wilson, “The myth of the ‘First Great Debate’”
Review of International Studies, 1998.
 Emmanuel Navon, “The ‘third debate’ revisited,” Review

POKOK BAHASAN
 Memahami evolusi studi
HI dari perdebatan antar
teorisasi di dalamnya
 Penulisan sejarah Teori
HI
 Empat The Great Debates
 Pendekatan peralihan
dalam memahami evolusi
teorisasi HI
 Selayang pandang
perkuliahan

of International Studies (2001), 27, 611–625
Contemporary Classic I: Realism and its evolution

2

3

Wajib

 Robert Jervis, “Realism in the Study of World Politics,”
International Organization, 52, 4, (Autumn, 1998), hal.
971-991.
 Kenneth N. Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold
War,” International Seiurity, 25 (1) (Summer, 2000), hal.
5-41
 Joseph M. Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of
Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal
Institutionalism,” International Organization, 42, 3,
(Summer, 1988), pp. 485-507.
 William Wohlforth, “Realism and the End of the Cold
War,” International Seiurity 19, 3 (Winter 1994/95), hal.
91-129.

Rekom.

 Hans Morgenthau, Politiis Among Nations, Part 1.
 Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politiis (Mass:
Addison-Waesley, 1979), Ch. 5 & 6
 John Vasquez, The Power of Power Politiis: From
Classiial Realism to Neotraditionalism (Cambridge:
Cambridge Uni Press, 1999)
 Caverley, J. D., “Power and Democratic Weakness:
Neoconservatism and Neoclassical Realism,” Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 38 (3), 2010, h. 593-614

Baca
an

Contemporary Classic II: Liberalism and its evolution
Baca Wajib
an
 Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics,” The

Ameriian Politiial Siienie Review, 80, 4 (Dec., 1986),

 Asumsi dan proposisi
teoretik (neo)realism
 Teori Perimbangan
Kekuasaan
 Keuntungan relatif
 Defensive vs. offensive
Realism
 Kritik realisme neoklasik
 Implikasi realisme bagi
studi HI dan kebijakan
luar negeri

 Asumsi dasar dan
proposisi teoretik
Neoliberalisme

pp. 1151-1169
 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Power and

Interdependence revisited,” International Organization,
41, 4 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 725-753
 Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A
Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International
Organization, 51, 4. (Autumn, 1997), pp. 513-553.
 James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamiis Beyond
Globalization (Princeton: Princeton Uni Press, 2003), Ch.
1 & 2.

Rekom.

4

 Robert O. Keohane, Power and Governance in a Partially
Globalized World (London & NY: Routledge, 2002)
 James N. Rosenau, The Study of World Politiis. Volume
1: theoretiial and methodologiial ihallenges (London &
NY: Routledge, 2006)
 Benjamin Miller, “Democracy Promotion: Offensive
Liberalism versus the Rest (of IR Theory),” Millennium:

Journal of International Studies, 38, 3, 2010, pp. 561–591
 Beate Jahn, “Liberal internationalism: from ideology to
empirical theory—and back again,” International Theory,
1, 3, 2009, hal. 409–438

Rational Choice & Game Theory
Baca Wajib
an
 Rudolf Avenhaus & I. William Zartman, "Introduction:
Formal Models of, in, and for International
Negotiations,"dalam R. Avenhaus & I.W. Zartman, peny.,
Diplomaiy Games: Formal Models and International
Negotiations (Berlin: Springer, 2007)
 Stephen M. Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis?: Rational
Choice and Security Studies,” International Seiurity, Vol.

 Regime Theory/Neoliberal
Institutionalism
 Varian Neoliberalism
(Sociological, commercial

dan republican liberalism)
 Persamaan dan
perbedaan Neoliberalism
dan Neorealism
 Kritik New liberalism
Moravscik
 Reformulasi ilmiah atas
teori liberalisme

 Latar belakang
kemunculan teori rasional
dalm teorisasi HI
 Kontekstualisasi teorisasi
rasional dan permainan
HI
 Pengaruh Perang Dingin

23, No. 4. (Spring, 1999), pp. 5-48.
 Scott Gates and Brian D. Humes, Games, Information,
and Politiis: Applying Game Theoretii Models to Politiial

Siienie (Ann Arbor: Uni of Michigan Press, 1997), Ch. 2.
 George Ehrhardt, “Beyond the Prisoners’ Dilemma:
Making Game Theory a Useful Part of Undergraduate
International Relations Classes,” International Studies
Perspeitives, 9, 2008, hal. 57–74

Rekom.

5

pada proliferasi teori
pilihan rasional
 Model-model teori
permainan

 Miles Kahler, “Rationality in International Relations,”
International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, (Autumn,
1998), pp. 919-941.
 Robert Jervis, “Realism, Game Theory, and Cooperation,”
World Politiis, Vol. 40, No. 3. (Apr., 1988), pp. 317-349.

 Lisa L. Martin, “The Contributions of Rational Choice: A
Defense of Pluralism,” dalam Michael E. Brown dkk.,
peny., Rational Choiie and Seiurity Studies: Stephen
Walt and His Critiis (Camb. Mass.: MIT Press, 2000)

Critical Turn: Critical Theory, Feminisme, dan Green Theory
Baca Wajib
an
 Yosef Lapid, “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of
International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era,”
International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3. (Sep.,
1989), pp. 235-254.
 Mark Rupert, “Globalising common sense: a MarxianGramscian (re-) vision of the politics of
governance/resistance,” Review of International Studies
(2003), 29, 181–198
 J Ann Tickner, “Gendering a Discipline: Some Feminist
Methodological Contributions to International Relations,”
Signs, 30, 4 (Summer, 2005)
 Robyn Eckersley, “Green Theory,” dalam T. Dunne, M.

 Latar belakang peralihan
kritis dalam HI
 Asumsi dasar & proposisi
teoritik peralihan kritis.
 Debat Besar ketiga dalam
teorisasi HI
 Kritik idiologi
(kapitalisme dan
patriarki) dalam kajian
HI.

Kurki, S. Smith, peny., International Relations Theories:
Disiipline and Diversity (Oxford: OUP, 2006)

Rekom.

6

 Nicholas Rengger & Ben Thirkell-White, “Introduction:
Still critical after all these years? The past, present and
future of Critical Theory in International Relations,”
Review of International Studies (2007), 33, 3–24
 Steven C. Roach, “Critical International Theory and
Meta-Dialectics”, Millennium: Journal of International
Studies, 35, 2, 2007, pp. 321-342
 Richard Wyn Jones, Critiial Theory and World Politiis
(Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 2001)
 Marysia Zalewski, Ann Tickner, Christine Sylvester, dkk.
“Roundtable Discussion: Refections on the Past,
Prospects for the Future in Gender and International
Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
37, 1, 2008, pp. 153–179
 Jane L. Parpart & Marysia Zalewski, peny., Rethinking
the Man Question: Sex, Gender and Violenie in
International Relations (London, NY: Zed Books, 2008)
 Robyn Eckersley, The Green State: Rethinking
Demoiraiy and Sovereignty (Mass.: MIT Press, 2004)
 Thom Kuehls, “Theories of Ecopolitics: Machines,
Organisms, Cyborgs,” dalam Beyond Sovereign Territory:
The Spaie of Eiopolitiis (Minneapolis: Uni of Minnesota
Press, 1996)

Constructivist & Linguistic Turn: Constructivism, Postmodernism, Postcolonialism
Baca Wajib
 Latar belakang peralihan
an
 Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what States Make of it:
linguistik dalam teorisasi
The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International
HI
Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2. (Spring, 1992), pp. 391-425.

 Richard Devetak, “Theories, practices and
postmodernism in international relations,” Cambridge
Review of International Afairs, 12: 2, hal. 61-76.
 Karin M. Fierke, “Links across the Abyss: Language and
Logic in International Relations,” International Studies
Quarterly, 46, 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 331-354
 Geeta Chowdhry, “Edward Said and Contrapuntal
Reading: Implications for Critical Interventions in
International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of
International Studies, 36, 1, 2007, pp. 101-116.
 Emanuel Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground:
Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of
International Relations, 3(3), 1997, hal. 319-363.
Rekom.
 Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander, peny.,
Construitivism and International Relations: Alexander
Wendt and his iritiis (London, NY: Routledge, 2006)
 Jeffrey T. Checkel, “The Constructivist Turn in
International Relations Theory,” World Politiis, 50, 2
(Jan., 1998), pp. 324-348
 James Der Derian, "The (S)pace of International
Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed," dalam
idem., Critiial Praitiies in International Theory:
Seleited essays (London, NY: Routledge, 2009)
 Jim George, Disiourses of Global Politiis: A Critiial
(Re)Introduition to International Relations (Boulder,
Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1994), Ch. 1 & 8.
 Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, peny., Power,
Postiolonialism and International Relations: Reading
raie, gender and ilass (London: Routledge, 2002), Ch. 1.
 Maja Zehfuss, Construitivism in International Relations:
The politiis of reality (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press,
2002), (esp.) ch. 5.

 Asumsi dasar & proposisi
teoretik peralihan
linguistik
 Asal-usul konstruktivisme
 Asumsi-asumsi dasar
konstruktivisme dan
proposisi teoretiknya
 Strategi tekstual dan
diskursif

7

Ethical & Normative Turn: Globalization, Cosmopolitanism &
Communitarianism
Baca
an
 Molly Cochran, “Cosmopolitanism: Rawlsian Approaches
to International Distributive Justice,” dalam Normative
Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatii Approaih
(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press, 1999)
 Molly Cochran, “Communitarianism: Michael Walzer and
International Justice,” dalam Normative Theory in
International Relations: A Pragmatii Approaih
Wajib
(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press, 1999)
 James Brassett, “Cosmopolitanism vs. Terrorism?
Discourses of Ethical Possibility Before and After 7/7,”
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 36, 2, 2008,
pp. 311-337
 Arjun Appadurai, “Disjuncture and Difference in the
Global Cultural Economy,” Publii Culture, 2, 2 (Spring,
1990)
Rekom.
 Mervyn Frost, “A turn not taken: Ethics in IR at the
Millennium,” Review of International Studies, 1998
 Nicholas J. Rengger, “A City Which Sustains All Things?
Communitarianism and International Society,”
Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 21, 3,
1992, 353
 Andrew Linklater, Critiial Theory and World Politiis:
Citizenship, sovereignty and humanity (London, NY:
Routledge, 2007), ch. 7 & 8.
 Molly Cochran, “Beyond the Impasse? Hegelian Method
in the Cosmopolitanism of Andrew Linklater and the
Communitarianism of Mervyn Frost,” dalam Normative
Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatii Approaih

 Asumsi dasar & proposisi
teoretik
Kosmopolitanisme dan
Komunitariannisme.
 Perdebatan etik &
normativitas dalam HI.
 Identitas/Perbedaan
dalam globalisasi.

(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press, 1999).
 Farid Abdel-Nour, “An International Ethics of Evil?”
International Relations, 18, 4, 2004, hal. 425–439.
8
9

Ujian Tengah Semester
Global Turn/Order I: International to World Society [English School Theory]
Baca
an
 Hedley Bull, The Anarihiial Soiiety: A Study of Order in
World Politiis, edisi ketiga (NY: Palgrave, 2002), Ch. 1.
 Barry Buzan, From International to World Soiiety?
English Sihool Theory and the Soiial Struiture of
Wajib
Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press, 2004),
Ch. 1 & 2
 Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, “Postinternationalism and IR Theory,” Millennium: Journal of
International Studies, 35, 3, 2007, pp. 529-549
Rekom.
 Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarihiial Soiiety: Grotius,
Colonialism and Order in World Politiis (Cambridge:
Cambrisge Uni Press, 2002), Ch. 5.
 Nicholas J. Rengger, IR, Politiial Theory and the Problem
of Order: Beyond IR Theory (London: Routledge, 2000),
Ch. Introduction
 Barry Buzan, “The English School: an underexploited
resource in IR,” Review of International Studies, 27,
(2001), hal. 471–488
 Hendrik Spruyt, “Institutional Selection in International
Relations: State Anarchy as Order,” International
Organization, 48, 4 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 527-557.
 Jenny Edkins & Maja Zehfuss, “Generalising the
international,” Review of International Studies, 31, 2005,
51–472

 Mengembalikan studi HI
ke studi tatanan dunia
 Dunia pasca-Westphalia:
Inter-nasional
 Anarki, kedaulatan dan
tata-dunia
 Tantangan terhadap
sistem negara-bangsa
 Negara-bangsa di era
kontemporer

Global Turn/Order II: Globalization to Governance [Liberal]

10

11

Wajib

 Samuel Huntington , The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996),
Ch. 1.
 Francis Fukuyama, “End of History?” The National
Interest (Summer 1989).
 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Globalization:
What's New? What's Not? (And So What?), Foreign
Policy, No. 118 (Spring, 2000), pp. 104-119
 James N. Rosenau, “Governance, order, and change in
world politics,” dalam J.N. Rosenau & E-O Czempiel,
Governanie without Government: Order and Change in
World Politiis, (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press, 1992)

Rekom.

 G. John Ikenberry, “The Liberal International Order and
its Discontents,” Millennium: Journal of International
Studies, 38, 3, 2010, pp. 509–521
 David Held, “Restructuring Global Governance:
Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and the Global Order,”
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37, 3, 2009,
pp. 535–547
 James N. Rosenau, The Study of World Politiis, Vol. 2:
Globalization and Governanie (London, NY: Routledge,
2006), Part I, III, IV.
 Rodney Bruce Hall and Thomas J. Biersteker, peny., The
Emergenie of Private Authority in Global Governanie
(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press, 2002), Ch. 1, 2, 6, 10.

Baca
an

Global Turn/Order III: Governmentality to Imperium [Postmarxism]

 Tantangan era globalisasi
kepada negara-bangsa
 Proliferasi aktor-aktor
non- & anti-negara
 Proliferasi entitas sub
nasional
 Sistem tata-dunia
“poliarki”
 Pengaruh kapitalisme
global pada global
governanie

Wajib

 Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders:
Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 10, 2, 1981, hal. 126155.
 Wendy Larner and William Walters, peny., Global
Governmentality: Governing International Spaies
(London: Routledge, 2004), Ch. Intro.
 Suhail Malik, “Global Sovereignty,” Theory, Culture &
Soiiety 23(2–3), 2006, hal. 512-17.
 Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, Empire (Mass.: Harvard
Uni Press, 2000), Preface-Part 1.
 Philip G. Cerny, Rethinking World Politiis: A Theory of
Transnational Neopluralismax (Oxford: Oxord Uni Press,
2010), Ch. 1 & 9.

Rekom.

 David Chandler, “The Global Ideology: Rethinking the
Politics of the ‘Global Turn’ in IR,” International
Relations, 23(4), 2009, hal. 530–547
 Stephen Gill, Power and Resistanie in the New World
Order, edisi kedua & revisi (NY: Palgrave, 2008), Ch. 7.
 Ole Jacob Sending and Iver B. Neumann, “Governance to
Governmentality; Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power,”
International Studies Quarterly, 50, 2006, hal. 651–672
 Ronnie D.Lipschutz with James K.Rowe, Globalization,
Governmentality and Global Politiis: Regulation for the
rest of us (London, NY: Routledge, 2005),Ch 1.
 Robert A. Denemark , World System History: Frank,
Arrighi and the Way Forward. Paper for presentation at
the annual meeting of the International Studies
Association, NY, February 2009.

Baca
an

 Latar belakang perlaihan
global: kapitalisme &
unilateralisme AS.
 Rasionalitas politik
tatanan dunia
kontemporer:
governmentality
 Penataan seluruh aspek
kehidupan dan keseharian
 Konstelasi aktor/kekuatan
dalam tatanan imperium
global

Political Turn: Bringing the political back in

12

13

Wajib

 Jenny Edkins, Poststruituralism and International
Relations: Bringing the Politiial Baik In (London: Lynne
Rienner, 1999), ch. 1.
 Giorgio Agamben, Homo Saier: Sovereign Power and
Bare Life, terj. Daniel Heller-Roazer (California: Stanford
Uni Press, 1998), part 3.
 Michael Hard & Antonio Negri, Commonwealth (Mass.:
Harvard Uni Press, 2009), Preface-Part 1.
 Ronnie Lipschutz, with James K. Rowe, Globalization,
Governmentality and Global Politiis. Regulation for the
rest of us (NY: Routledge, 2005), ch 1 & 8.

Rekom.

 Jenny Edkins, Trauma and Memory of Politiis
(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press, 2003), ch. 1.
 Michael Dillon & Julian Reid, “Global Liberal
Governance: Biopolitics, Security and War,” Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 30, 1, 2001, hal. 41-66.
 Jodi Dean, “The Networked Empire: Communicative
Capitalism and the Hope for Politics,” dalam P. A.
Passavant & J. Dean, peny., Empire's New Clothes:
Reading Hardt & Negri (NY: Routledge, 2004), ch 13
 Michel Foucault, Soiiety Must Be Defended: Leitures at
the College de Franie, 1975-1976, terj. David Macey
(NY: Picador, 2003), ch 2.

Baca
an

 Latar belakang dan
konteks peralihan politis
dalam teorisasi HI
 Kritik praktik kedaulatan
dalam kuliah-kuliah
Michel Foucault
 Unilateralisme &
eksepsionalisme AS
 Politik vs. Yang-Politis
 Biopolitik,
Governmentality, dan the
Common

2nd Postmodern /Aesthetic Turn: Photographic, Cinematic & Poetic IR theorizing
Baca Wajib
 Latar belakang peralihan
an
 Roland Bleiker, “The Aesthetic Turn in International
estetis dalam teorisasi HI.
Political Theory,” Millennium: Journal of International
 Problem representasi dan
Studies, 30, 3, 2001, pp. 509-533

 Michael J. Shapiro, “The New Violent Cartography,”
Seiurity Dialogue, 38, 3, 2007, hal. 291–313
 Mark J. Lacy, “War, Cinema, and Moral Anxiety,”
Alternatives: Global, Loial, Politiial, 28, 2003, hal. 61136.
 Prem Kumar Rajaram, “Disruptive writing and a critique
of territoriality,” Review of International Studies (2004),
30, 201–228
 Gerard Holden, “Cinematic IR, the Sublime, and the
Indistinctness of Art,” Millennium: Journal of
International Studies, 34, 3, 2006, pp. 793-818

Rekom.

14

abstraksi THI: mimetis
dan estetis.
 Gaya analisis dan
aesthetiial sourie
 Teorisasi HI melalui
artifak kultural (foto, flm,
puisi, sastra, dst)
 Kebaruan dan dimensi
politis teori-teori estetis
HI.

 Roland Bleiker, “Poetic World Politics,” dalam Aesthetii
and World Politiis (London: Palgrave, 2009), Ch. 4-7.
 Gerard Holden, “World Literature and World Politics: In
Search of a Research Agenda,” Global Soiiety, Vol. 17,
No. 3, July, 2003
 Heather Johnson, Let us start from that: Aesthetiis in
International Relations. Makalah pada Konferensi
International Studies Association, San Fransisco, 2008.
 Emma Hutchison, “Trauma and the Politics of Emotions:
Constituting Identity, Security and Community after the
Bali Bombing,” International Relations, 24(1), 2010, hal.
65–86
 Neta C. Crawford, “The Passion of World Politics:
Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships,”
International Seiurity, Vol. 24, No. 4. (Spring, 2000), pp.
116-156.

Cultural & Religious Turn: Religious, Cultural & Pop IR theories
Baca Wajib
an
 Stephen Chan, “Writing Sacral IR: An Excavation
Involving Küng, Eliade, and Illiterate Buddhism,”

 Faktor-faktor budaya dan
agama dalam teorisasi HI.

Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29, 3, 2000,
pp. 565-589
 Mika Luoma-aho, “Political Theology,
Anthropomorphism, and Person-hood of the State: The
Religion of IR,” International Politiial Soiiology, 3, 2009,
hal. 293–309
 Morten Valbjørn, Culture and IR – Culture in IR:
Ignoring, introduiing, up-dating or forgetting the
ioniept of iulture in International Relations. Paper
prepared for 45th Annual ISA Convention Montreal,
Quebec, Canada March 2004
 Iver B. Neumann and Daniel H. Nexon, “Introduction:
Harry Potter and the Study of World Politics,” dalam
idem, peny., Harry Potter & International Relations
(Maryland: Lowman & Littlefeld, 2006)

Rekom.

 Vendulka Kubálková, “Towards an International Political
Theology,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
29, 3, 2000, pp. 675-704
 Pavlos Hatzopoulos and Fabio Petito, Religion in
International Relations: The Return from Exile (NY:
Palgrave, 2003)
 Angela Bee McCracken, Being diferent: Contesting
gendered norms through globalizing youth
iounteriultures? Paper Presented International Studies
Annual Convention, New York, 2009
 Jutta Weldes, peny., To Seek Out New Worlds: Siienie
Fiition and World Politiis (London: Palgrave, 2003), Ch.
1.
 Richard Ned Lebow, A Cultural Theory of International
Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press, 2008), Ch.
1.

 Konteks peralihan
kultural & relijius dalam
teorisasi HI.
 Identitas/perbedaan:
keliyanan (otherness)
dalam konstruksi
identitas.
 Kontribusi pemikiran
kebudayaan dan agama
dalam teorisasi HI

15

Non-Western IR Theory; Beyond IR Theory?
Baca
an
 Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, peny., Non-Western
International Relations Theory: Perspeitives on and
beyond Asia (London, NY: Routledge, 2010), ch. 1.
 Jeremy Paltiel, “Mencius and World Order Theories,” The
Chinese Journal of International Politiis, 3, 2010, 37–54
 See Seng Tan, “Can Asians Theorize?” Refeitions on the
Debate over the Plaie of Theory in Asian International
Relations. Makalah pada Konferensi International
Wajib
Studies Association 2006.
 John M. Hobson, “Is critical theory always for the white
West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphilian
towards a post-racist critical IR,” Review of International
Studies, 33, 2007, 91–116\
 Douglas A. Van Belle, “Dinosaurs and the Democratic
Peace: Paleontological Lessons for Avoiding the
Extinction of Theory in Political Science,” International
Studies Perspeitives, 7, 2006, 287–306.
Rekom.
 Edward Said, Orientalism (NY: Vintage Books, 1978), Ch.
Intro.
 Stephen Chan, “Beyond the north-west: Africa and the
east,” dalam A.J.R. Groom & Margot Light, peny.,
Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory
(London, NY: Pinter, 1994)
 Ole Waever, “The Sociology of a Not So International
Discipline: American and European Developments in
International Relations,” International Organization, 52,
4, (Autumn, 1998), pp. 687-727.
 Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”
dalam G. Nelson & L. Grossber, peny., Marxism and the
Interpretation of Culture (Urbana: Uni Ilinois Press,

 Refeksi teorisasi-teorisasi
HI dalam konteks keIndonesia-an.
 THI non-Barat (ada kah?)
 Prospek teorisasi HI di
Indonesia

1988)
16

Ujian Akhir Semester