Modernism allows the individual to exist as the only unit within all social fields. It does not permit the ontology of identities public representation and the original formation of the subject at all. It is shaped by the adaptation of scientific knowledge to the process of production and consumption in economy by separating space and time and in this sense, it is quite deterministic. It retains a deep underlying continuity with the optimistic tradition of rationality, realism, and materialism. In modernism, it is emphasized that the control of nature and a system based on knowledge will ensure human salvation.

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. From Realism’s views about security, one can infer that states’ power positions vis-à-vis each other determine whether states are secure or insecure in the system. In this sense, Realism implies that threats to security are objective and exist out there regardless of whether states recognize them as such. This point constitutes the second difference between Realism and the CS. Whereas Realism argues that threats are objective; the CS argues that they are intersubjective.

Postmodern constructivists “reject the conventional epistemology of social science. They emphasize the linguistic construction of subjects, resulting in ‘discursive practices’ constituting the ontological or foundational units of reality and analysis”. Therefore, the correct option is D.

Césaire, is one of the most important figures of Martinique like Fanon and he deeply influenced contemporary postcolonial writers with his opinions. “Discourse on Colonialism” (1955) is his book which later became one of the most fundamental works of post-colonial writing. He advocates that the pseudo-humanism that is actually the colonialist has got a fake understanding of humanity. Pseudo-humanism makes the colonialist uncivilized and brutal.

The answer is A

Deconstruction is the best-known and noteworthy form of poststructural criticism. The concept was first outlined by Jacques Derrida in Of Grammatology published in 1976, so the correct answer is A. Derrida explained the interaction between language and the construction of meaning in this book. As defined by Derrida, deconstruction is a “strategy some rules for reading, interpretation and writing”. He claims that rather than “destruction”, deconstruction signifies how the whole is structured and also restructured. It does not have a negative meaning.

Joseph A. Schumpeter rejects the perspective of imperialism based on the economic basis put forward by Hobson and Lenin. Schumpeter acknowledges that imperialism is an expression of the desire for unlimited expansion. He sees imperialism as an irrational behavior, such as nationalism, as a remnant of atavistic social culture

Poststructuralist approach highligts how the sovereign states, even the liberal ones, construct themselves through violence and exclusion. Another important topic that poststructuralists focus on is identities. But, it is worth noting that poststructuralists, and constructivists constitute their analyses on different perspectives: Poststructuralists do not adopt an attitude that accepts identity’s causal effects on foreign policy even though identity is considered as one of potential causal influences on foreign policy in social constructivist approaches. The most important feature that differentiates poststructuralist approaches from other social theories, including constructivism, is that language/ discourse is the basis of its ontology. While constructivists are interested in what a state’s identity is and how it affects foreign policy, poststructuralists are interested in how any difference is marginalized by discourse as contrast, danger, or threat. As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is E. All statements are correct related to the features that differentiate poststructualist approaches from other social theories in the context of International Relations.

Many in the area of security studies define the societal security as the most intriguing of the five sectors considered in the CS. “In this case, reference object of security is not the state as a government or a territorial entity, but rather as a collective identity” (Panic, 2009: 31). Buzan et. al. argue that “the organizing concept in the societal sector is identity. Societal insecurity exists when communities of whatever kind define a development or potentiality as a threat to their survival as a community” (Buzan et. al. 1998: 119). According to the CS, the state is the referent object for political, military environmental and economic security, but society is the referent object for societal security. Thus, the CS treats societal security as a separate referent object of societal security. In this understanding, survival of society is different from survival of the state. “This view implies a duality of security, namely the state and societal security, with the former guarding its sovereignty whilst the latter attempting to keep its identity” (Hama, 2017: 4). Societal security represents the security of ‘we’ identities such as national identity groups (Wæver et. al., 1993: 21). Members of a society share common ideas and practices that help them develop a common identity and form a social group. This identity also helps individuals identify themselves as members of a community. Societal insecurity therefore involves “a development or potentiality as a threat to their survival as a community”.

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”

The answer is C.

The answer is A.

The answer is A.

According to Spivak, the concept of subaltern is concentrated on all exploited people, particularly Hindu women, and there are two options of a widowed Indian woman, who lost her husband, one is the self killing tradition (Sati tradition) and being inferior in the process of emancipation of the contemporary world. Spivak is interested in feminist side of post-colonialism, because subaltern women are much more inferior than the others. This is the only thing in Spivak’s perspective that combines feminism and post-colonial basis. An important detail for the women of India at the center of Spivak’s work is the separation of the first world women and the third world women on fate, grievances and rights, and the first world women is close to the metropolitan, that is, the third world women is the lowermost in class system. According to Spivak, the feminist ideology as a main stream is universal and masculine, this is wrong to understand real feminist ideology.

In the traditional approach, state is considered as natural and necessary. Though poststructuralists oppose to this idea strictly and focus on the creation of state. For it does not exist a priori, according to poststructuralist thinking. As expressed by Cynthia Weber, the sovereign state shouldnot be understood as it was a priori presence; as opposed to traditional belief, the state is an ‘ontological effect of practices which are performatively enacted’. In other words, ‘sovereign nation-states are not pre-given subjects but subjects in process”. There is no existence of subject/state prior to the political practice. Sovereign states are continuously rebuilt through historical and political practices. It acquires an identity hereby with these actions. More clearly the state’s existence/identity is an effect of performativity that is constructed with discursive practise about foreign and domestic policies, security and defence strategies, or being a member of any international organization. 

The Hobbesian culture is characterized by a constant enmity between states that see each other as enemies. It is a world of all-against-all in which states prioritize power and interests. Norms and rules that dominate the system reflect the ideas of Thomas Hobbes who argued that society without a supreme ruler resembles a state of nature.

Michel Foucault approached the issue of power with different perspective from the traditional theories. In traditional approaches, power is considered to be something that can be possessed: individuals or states have power but some have more than others. For example liberal theory sees power as something that is established by a social contract. According to Marxism, power is a function of class domination that rests on the control of economic factors. Foucault conceptualized the traditional power as ‘juridico-discursive” where power comes from above, from a sovereign. He suggests a new way of thinking about power. According to Foucault, “power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society.” What is alluded to here is that power should not be seen as something that preexisting entities possess but as something generated in relationships. Therefore, according to Foucault, there is no power, but there are power relations.

The effects of poststructuralism on International Relations felt in the early 1980s through the works of Richard Ashley, Robert Walker, Der Derrian and Michael Shapiro. Among these writers, Ashley and Walker designed their works to expose the imaginative boundaries and limitations drawn by traditionalist approaches to understand the domain of world politics through certain concepts (state, sovereignty, etc.).

According to Hans J. Morgenthau, imperialism is a chain of foreign policies aimed at changing power relations between two or more states and destroying the status quo in their favor. He asserts it worthstressing not “what imperialism is” but rather “what imperialism is not”. Morgenthau, does not accept any attempt by states to increase their powers in the international arena as imperialism. Therefore, every activity that a nation carries out in order to increase its strength cannot be regarded as imperialism. He defines that imperialism is reversing the power relation between two or more states and rebuilds the status quo.

Constructivists target exactly these two points: structure and identity/interest formation. Therefore, the correct option is C.