Search

This paper analyses from a modern systems theoretical perspective political discourses of conflict and cooperation in the Middle East. The specific regional focus of the paper are the Mashreq countries (Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon) and Israel in the period 1991-2005. The paper argues that the constructivist perspective of modern systems theory is particularly well suited to study both conflict and cooperation structures in the Middle East, thereby overcoming some of the shortcomings of more rationalist approaches which tend to conceptualise the Middle East as a regional ?container of conflict?. In contrast to such arguments, the paper argues that in spite of the prominence of political conflicts on the interstate and intrastate levels, the Middle Eastern region is also characterised by formal and informal structures of cooperation that limit the overall societal reach of conflict. By combining IR-approaches on ?regional security complexes? with insights from modern systems theory, the paper looks in particular at the relationship between collective identity constructions in the Middle East, on the one hand, and regional conflict and cooperation structures, on the other. The first part of the paper takes a closer look at the processes of collective identity constructions in the aforementioned countries. On this basis, it proposes a model of Self/Other distinctions that allows to conceptualise both conflictive and cooperative identity relations in the region. The second part of the paper then relates these discourses of identity to the regional structures of conflict and cooperation. Here, the paper is particularly interested in how these patterns of identity relations shape concrete political structures in the Middle East. It hence addresses in particular the role of political, military, religious, media and economic structures. The paper argues that the ubiquitous structures of conflict in the Middle East are balanced by manifold, but often more informal structures of cooperation that limit the overall societal reach of conflict. Such an argument questions the usefulness of conceptualising the Middle East primarily in terms of ?conflict? without an adequate analysis of discourses and structures of cooperation. Moreover, these arguments challenge all those approaches that assume a distinct conflict-inclination of societies and cultures in the Middle East. Rejecting these approaches, the final section of this paper hence puts the study of conflict and cooperation patterns in the Middle East into a world societal perspective. It argues that such a focus on structural developments in world society ? such as functional differentiation, inclusion/exclusion, (de-)bordering ? is better suited to describe patterns of conflict and cooperation in the Middle East, than rationalist, actor-centred or area-specific foci on this region. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the transformations/distortions that the concept of the ‘rentier state’ has experienced as it has been detached from its context and reworked by the hegemonic epistemological and methodological practices of Political Science. In this paper, I argue that the hegemonic epistemological stance, and methodological practices in Political Science has evacuated this concept’s theoretical and social content by reducing it to a narrow understanding of ‘taxation without representation’. In this paper, I first explore the conceptual history of the ‘rentier state’ from its original usage - where it was the core concept employed to explain the democracy problem in the Middle East by referring to the social formations it perpetuated and the social struggles it shaped - to its contemporary metamorphosed usage by mainsteam Political Science. The form it takes in this mainstream approach is embodied in the idea of ‘taxation without representation’, which itself is utilizaed in a reduced form. After describing the historical development of this concept, I aim to explain the phenomenon. The explanation focuses on two distinct aspects of hegemony in the discipline: first, on the very specific understanding of the western epistemological tradition to which it submits; and second, the particular methodology it implements. Finally, I will demonstrate how this concept - which originated in the Middle East, was mediated by the hegemonic practices of the field, and was exported back to the Middle Eastern - has lost its explanatory capacity in its original context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]