Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:49:28.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Area Studies, Regional Studies, and International Relations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Peter J. Katzenstein
Peter J. Katzenstein*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses area, regional, and international relations studies as seen from the vantage point of the United States. Part I situates the issue of regionalism in the current debate about conceptualizing international relations since the end of the Cold War and at the dawn of a new millennium. Against the historical backdrop of a powerful case for area studies made soon after the end of World War II, Part II focuses attention on the crosscurrents that are affecting area studies from three different directions: (1) disciplinary-based, scientific critics who value nomothetic approaches more than contextualization; (2) cultural critiques developed from the perspective of the humanities and, at times, post-modernism; and (3) the growing emphasis on cross-regional studies that seek to blend and incorporate elements from both scientific and humanistic perspectives. Part III concludes with some brief reflections on the relations, in the classroom, between areas, regional and international studies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 127 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Benedict. 1992. The Changing Ecology of Southeast Asian Studies in the United States, 1950–1990. In Southeast Asian Studies in the Balance: Reflections from America, edited by Hirschman, Charles, Keyes, Charles, and Hutterer, Karl. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association of Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert H. 1997. Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy? PS: Political Science and Politics 30(2): 166–169.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert H. et al. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Karl W. 1981. On Nationalism, World Regions, and the Nature of the West. In Mobilization, Center-Periphery Structures and Nation-Building: A Volume in Commemoration of Stein Rokkan, edited by Torsvik, Per Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. and Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Globalization and Area Studies: When Is too Broad too Narrow? Chronicle of Higher Education 44: 20, January 23, pp. 134–135.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert. 1948. Area Studies: With Special Reference to Their Implications for Research in the Social Sciences. New York: Committee on World Area Research Program, Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
Pempel, T. J. 1998. Regime Shift: Comparative Dynamics of the Japanese Political Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth. 1996a. Presidential Items. Items (March), pp. 15–18.Google Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth. 1996b. Presidential Items. Items (June/September), pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
Rafael, Vincent L. 1994. The Cultures of Area Studies in the United States. Social Text 41: 91–111.Google Scholar
Scott, James. 1992. Foreword. In Southeast Asian Studies in the Balance: Reflections from America, edited by Hirschman, Charles, Keyes, Charles, and Hutterer, Karl. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association of Asian studies.Google Scholar