The most important feature that differentiates poststructuralist approaches from other social theories, including constructivism, is that language/ discourse is the basis of its ontology. 

The environmental sector is the most controversial and the most difficult sector to define. The environmental sector has both scientific and political agendas and they often overlap and sometimes shape each other. A concern for the preservation of the existing levels of civilization (Buzan et. al., 1998: 75) can also be considered as the referent object of environmental security since environmental degradation can have detrimental consequences for the future of present civilization. The CS argues that securitizing actors in the environmental sector may vary according to the specific issue at hand. States, epistemic communities (scientists, researchers) and non-governmental organizations (Greenpeace) can be effective on securitizing environmental issues. 

In this context, poststructuralism can be defined as a worldview or even an antiworldview suspicious about the fact that events in the world can not be explained without grand theories. They chose not to use grand theories’ methods but rather to analyze in detail how people were influenced in specific historical periods with a specific way of thinking, which was shaped with the relations of knowledge and power in any given time. Put another way, rather than being a theory, poststructuralism is regarded as a critical attitude or approach that emphasizes the importance of representation, the role of discoure in the meaning of international relations and the relationship between knowledge and power. So, poststructuralism is not a new school with its own actors, subject and members, but an approach that tries to explain its concerns with some questions. It is an attitude or mentality that tries to make alternative policies possible with its critiques. 

The Copenhagen School's view of security is closely associated with speech act. The correct answer is C.

Foucault was also interested in the analysis of discourse that relied on power and knowledge relations throughout his career. For Foucault, discourse cannot be inconceivable separated from the epistemes of the historical period in which it arises. Discourse, is an instrument of constituting knowledge, together with the social practice and power relations. On the one hand, discourse is created and perpetuated by the power; on the other hand, power is produced and transmitted by discourse. As expressed by Foucault, discourses constitute the reality, what can be thought and said about the world. Discourse as defined by Foucault, is the whole of the practices that construct the objects it speaks on or creates its own truth. So, according to Foucault there is no universal reality or truth as in poststructuralist thought. He asserts that meaning, truth and morality are created through discourse. 

The most important part where Bhabha is different from Said and Spivak is that he considers the colonial phenomenon as an opportunity for cultural exchange, and, unlike Spivak, subaltern can actually speak for themselves and this speech emerges as a mimicry and is hybrid.In Bhabha’s words: “Stereotyping is not only the setting up of a false image which becomes the scapegoat of discriminatory practices. It is a much more ambivalent text of projection and introjections, metaphoric and metonymic strategies, displacement, guilt, aggressivity; the masking and splitting of ‘official’ and fantastic knowledges” (Bhabha, 1986: 169). Bhabha points out that the fantasies of the colonial stereotypes often appear as horrors. The discourse of colonialism is frequently populated with ‘terrifying stereotypes of savagery, cannibalism, lust and anarchy’ (Bhabha, 1994: 72). In his essay ‘Of Mimicry and Man’, Bhabha builds on these ideas and explores how the ambivalence of colonized subject becomes a direct threat to the authorities of the colonizers through the effects of ‘mimicry’. Bhabha describes mimicry as ‘one of the most elusive and effective strategies of colonial power and knowledge’ (Bhabha, 1994).

The psychological effects of colonialism were analyzed by Memmi in his book “Portrait of the Colonial” (1957). According to Memmi, it is not possible for the colonists to be unaware of the illegitimacy of their position, but on the contrary, the colonists demonstrate through their actions that they are aware that their welfare has actually been promoted through the misery of what they colonize. Memmi, a member of one of the nonMuslim families of Tunisia, put forward originally the “dual refusal” and “dual responsibility” of his life because, as Sartre points out, Memmi has a slightly more privileged position than most of the colonized because of his non-Muslim status, but he has not yet been fully accepted by the colonists. Thus, the problem of Memmi really is as Sartre answered; Memmi is neither the colonialist nor the colonized, or both. Memmi points at a simple fact: If colonialist’s life standards are high, this is due to the low level of the colonized people (2003). Although he had a relatively privileged position in the community he lived in, Memmi experienced a dual exclusion from both the colonial and the colonized. In his works he dealt with the relationship between these two groups and with one of the most important reference sources of the postcolonial literature with his writings in this field.

Poststructuralist thought begins its assumption by questioning the traditional assertions that there is an outer place from which the world can be observed objectively and theories can be neutral. But this is not possible according to the poststructural approach. As Edkins says, scholar must be a Godlike detachment or have otherworldliness for this assumption to be possible. Because, scholars of IR are necessarily participants in the world politics, not independent observers. So neither theorists nor theories which consist of ideas can not be politically neutral contrarily they do have a political and social impact. From this point of view, it is seen that poststructuralist thought has a lot in common with the post-empricisim and assumptions of Frankfurt School in critical theory. All of these approaches share similar ideas about the central role of languge to the construction of social life, the historicity of knowledge (it means knowledge is related with power and is historically produced within socio-cultural structures) and rejection of the idea of universal (timeless and spaceless) knowledge. In fact, as stated by Robert Cox, one of the prominent names of Frankfurt School, “theory is always for someone and for some purpose”. For this reason they reject the possibility of value-free social analysis. In other words, theoretical knowledge is not independent from the values, thoughts and ideological beliefs of the theorist. As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is E. All arguments in the answer choices can be used by an advocator of poststructualism in the context of International Relations.

Poststructuralist critics focus on the construction of modern state in an historical context. According to poststructuralists’ discursive practices, sovereignty plays a major role in making the state the most important and rational actor. This is why sovereignty is considered as the least and most significant common ground for discursive construction of the modern state. Sovereignty separates “inside” -place under control- from “outside” -uncontrollable anarchic international system- when it is understood as having authorization over a specific territory. 

The economic sector, according to the CS, revolves “around access to the resources, finance and markets necessary to sustain acceptable levels of welfare and state power” (Williams, 2008: 4). Economic threats can have direct consequences for individuals, nations and states thus threaten the very existence of these entities. However, one should keep in mind that while some economic threats can be thought of in terms of economic security, others can only be regarded as politicized issues because of the highly political nature of some economic problems. Thus, it is of crucial importance to make the distinction. Economic threats must be existential threats to be included in the category of securitization. In the economic sector, one can detect various referent objects at different levels. States, individuals, or the global market can be identified as referent objects. The CS argues that economic threats can directly affect the welfare of individuals or social classes and thus can be regarded as existential threats. An economic crisis, for example, can hamper individuals’ access to basic necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter and constitute an existential threat to individuals. Economic threats can also be presented as threats in other sectors. “What is merely economic or political within the economic sector may have security implications in other sectors” (Buzan et. al., 1998: 106). State representatives, for example, can present an economic crisis as an impediment to the funding of national defense expenditures and consequently an existential threat to national security. States also can securitize threats to the existence of large firms or companies through linking their activities to national security. In the economic sector, state representatives, international organizations and firms can be included in the category of securitizing actors.

Jacques Derrida indicates that when it comes to discourse, not only speech is necessary to come to mind but should also be contained in writing. To poststructuralists, language and discourse are quite important: object, subject, states, material structures etc. are constructed through the language. Unlike positivist claims, language is not a tool that is used for registration of data. Discourses are not only constative but are also performative. So you do/constitute something while you say something. For instance, sovereign states are constructed by discoursive practices, such as security discourse, immigration policies, policymakers’ discourse about national interest, economic invesment, threat, danger or existence of foreigners in their countries etc. Hence, in poststructuralist thought, discourse not only describes the world but also constructs it. As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is E. All statements in the answer choices can be used to strengthen the argument that “Discourses are not only constative but are also performative” in the context of poststructualism.

In the Lockean culture, a perspective drawn from the writings of philosopher John Locke, on the other hand, although states view each other as rivals, they nevertheless “recognize each other’s sovereignty, and therefore submit to a minimum standard of common norms”. 

Michel Foucault emphasized the concept of discourse that has been significant to construct the ideological structure of post-colonialism. Foucault linked knowledge with power, deciphered Western secret interests in social, health, and physical sciences. Therefore, the correct option is C.

The answer is A.

Deconstruction tries to find blind spots in Western history. In other words, deconstruction as re-reading and counter-reading strategy, attempts to expose anomalies or inconsistencies in a given text. In this context, Derrida aspired to reread Western thought to give voice to which has been systematically excluded and silenced.

Unit-level constructivism starts with the critique of systemic approach and contends that systemic constructivism’s focus on the role of the international environment and norms in constructing state identities and interest, leaves out the important role that domestic factors play in the formation of state identity and interests. “Instead of focusing on the external, international domain, unit-level constructivists concentrate on the relationship between domestic social and legal norms and the identities and interests of states, the very factors bracketed by Wendt”

Neoclassical constructivists incorporate values, norms, and other ideational factors into their theorizing, but “they do not reject the canons of science, standards, and methodologies for testing hypotheses or propositions”.

While Realism is concerned with national/ military security, the CS argues that this is a very narrow definition of security and must be widened as to include other sectors. Buzan defines security as “the pursuit of freedom from threat and the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and their functional integrity against forces of change which they see as hostile” (Buzan, 1991: 432). However, Buzan adds that even though security is about survival, it also includes a substantial range of issues other than the state (Buzan, 1991: 433). This is the first difference between Realism and the CS. According to the CS, security cannot be confined only to the military sector but should include other sectors, such as economic, societal, political and environmental.

There is no certain date of the beginning of the post-colonial theory, but this theory generally could be based on Frantz Fanon’s “Black Skin, White Masks” (1952) and “The Wretched of the Earth” (1961) books that were basic works on colonization and psychological effects of colonialism. He focused not only its effects on physical violence but also on its mental effects on indigenous people. Those have built awareness among other nations that made anti-colonialist movements in Africa and Asia. The correct answer is B.

The investigation of new investment and market opportunities for unused capital and non-consumable goods within the country leads to imperialism (Arı, 2013: 287). The correct answer is D.