Search

This article conceives of climate activists as emotion entrepreneurs to explain the emergence of particular emotional responses to climate change. Among these emotional responses is eco-grief or grief felt because of experienced or anticipated ecological losses. I elaborate on the concept of the emotion entrepreneur and theorize the emergence of eco-grief on the basis of a practice theoretical and Bourdieusian approach. I suggest that activists possessing cultural capital are well positioned to introduce new feelings and identify three mechanisms that contribute to explanations of the emergence and growing importance of eco-grief. Objectivation is about the most often reflexive practice of giving names to emotions to turn them into ontological entities. Cultivation is about the creation of social spaces for the experience and regulation of eco-grief among activists. Diffusion is about emotional contagion, the creation of emotional vocabularies, and the spread of activist feeling rules. Research on emotion entrepreneurs moves beyond conceptions of feelings as causes of activism and suggests there is a need for further research on emotional dynamics in heterogenous transnational advocacy coalitions, influences of language on emotions, and feelings rules in late-modern Western societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Practice theory has become a popular and avowedly pluralistic research programme in European and Canadian international relations (IR). It promises the end of monolithic grand theorising and armchair analysis. Yet, taken together, practice theory's pluralist character and methodological promises raise the question: who practises practice theory (and how)? I deal with this question through a discussion of three different, representative, and sociologically important books. On this basis, I depict three (ideal-)types of authorship. They include the (meta-)theorist, the scholar-practitioner, and the Bourdieusian researcher. I show that authors remake practice theory's theoretical claims by relating practice to theory in different manners, such as deep theorising, reworking of experience in inductive theorising, and reflexive conceptualisation. I focus less on the enduring position of (meta-)theorists. I rather argue that the different academic practices indicate that the authors seek prestige within practice theory and neighboring scientific communities. For this purpose, I approach prestige as durable esteem due to occupational achievements. Finally, I ask how the new scientific demands of practice theory might impact young, less established academics. Type de manuscrit : Recension d'ouvrage Qui pratique la théorie de la pratique (et comment)? (Méta-)théoriciens, praticiens-chercheurs, chercheurs (bourdieusiens) et prestige social à l'Universit [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Welfare internationalism was and still is one of the most powerful justifications for establishing international organizations. It suggests that public international organizations should cater to the material needs of individuals, rather than solve conflicts among states. In this article, we trace the origins of welfare internationalism, challenging the dominant narrative that depicts it as a projection of the British welfare state or the American New Deal to the globe. We show that welfare internationalism emerged earlier and combined ideational elements of very different origins. Notions of professional colonial administration migrated to the international context and dovetailed with a cosmopolitan interpretation of 19th-century public unions as caretakers of citizen interests. Reform socialist approaches to the social question inspired domestic and international developments simultaneously, leading to the foundation of the International Labour Organization, which became a crucial venue for the promulgation of welfare internationalism. We thus document how international theorists and practitioners of the early 20th century established a new perspective on international affairs, emanating from individuals and their needs. That perspective came to rival the traditional conception of international politics as intergovernmentalism and delivered important building blocks for the (self-)legitimation of the League of Nations and the United Nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]