Friedrich Nietzsche witnessed the development of the modern state first-hand, and perceptively identified many of its major features. His analysis of modern politics was initially marked by a qualified sympathy, or at least thoughtful acquiescence. Nevertheless, in later writings Nietzsche became a virulent critic of the modern world, sketching out a radically anti-modern political counter-project. Nietzsche’s political thought is therefore relevant to both those who want to better understand the foundations and leading characteristics of modern politics, and to those who want to explore influential criticisms of it. At the same time, it presents a substantial interpretive dilemma, since it is not clear how these two poles of Nietzsche’s thought can be squared. Indeed, most readers have tended to approach them in isolation from one another, either focusing on the radical project of Nietzsche’s late writings, or looking to his “middle period” as a welcome-but-discrete alternative. In this dissertation I argue that these two poles of Nietzsche’s thought are more closely linked than most readers have realized. Drawing on the extensive autobiographical self-assessments that Nietzsche published during his last two productive years, I show that he shows that he helps readers to see how a critical dialogue between the more moderate and the more radical aspects of his thought can be established – and, moreover, that Nietzsche himself subtly engaged in just such a dialogue throughout his career. The result is a picture of Nietzsche’s thought that is more nuanced and self-conscious in both its criticism and its endorsement of modern politics than has been generally appreciated. Moreover, using Nietzsche’s autobiographical self-accounts to negotiate the tensions in his writings sheds light on the precise motivation lying behind his political ambitions, and thereby also helps to sketch out the lines of defense that are required against the sort of anti-modern politics that Nietzsche pioneered. / text

“Shakespeare and the Drama of Politic Stratagems” focuses on how Shakespeare dramatically explores strategic issues similar to those discussed by Machiavelli and other early modern politic authors. The thesis is structured in order to tackle the diverse nature of strategy while developing and expanding on its most essential issues. The first chapter deals with the amoral and dangerous political world of the first tetralogy, a world in which one must be strategic in order to survive. Since not every strategist engages in the same kind of strategy or even agrees about what the best strategy might be, the second chapter outlines the different characteristics of Shakespeare’s strategists. These strategists can sometimes achieve success on their own, but no one can survive alone indefinitely, and the third chapter thus outlines the importance of strategic alliances and the dangers of making the wrong alliance. The fourth chapter deals with the numerous kinds of enemies that a strategist must contend with. Not all enemies fight in the same way, so a strategist must be on guard against an enemy’s deceptions, the focus of the fifth chapter. Even if these obstacles are overcome, even the most successful strategists will almost inevitably fail at some point or another. That failure may be due to some flaw in their schemes, or it may be due to the extreme difficulty of achieving success indefinitely. The final chapter deals with the perennial conflict between virtù and fortuna and thus the limits of politic stratagems. Machiavelli’s works can be seen as an epicenter of strategic thinking in the early modern period, and so they act as a guide through complex, contradictory, but ultimately rewarding issues of strategy and their consequences. Machiavelli serves as both analogue and foil, for while Shakespeare dramatizes similar strategic ideas, his dramatizations reveal greater truths about what is at stake when one explores the nature and consequences of politic stratagems. This thesis demonstrates the multiple factors that make strategy so dynamic and useful to a young dramatist in the process of discovering his own interests in the art of politics and the art of drama.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Virginia, 1979. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 229-243) and index.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Virginia, 1979. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 229-243) and index.

[pt] A tese investiga as narrativas de crise e crítica na trajetória das teorias de relações internacionais, a fim de compreender como o atual debate acerca do fim ou crise da disciplina expõe os limites paradoxos da crítica neste campo. Para tanto, a tese está dividida em dois movimentos estruturantes. No primeiro movimento (Capítulos 2 a 4), questiona-se as atuais narrativas da crise teórica em sua trajetória histórica e conceitual, a fim de debater suas implicações políticas e axiológicas. No segundo movimento (Capítulos 5 a 7), explora-se o status teórico das narrativas críticas contemporâneas, a tendência para a análise crítica incorrer em dogmatismo, e a possibilidade de resistir o potencial dogmático das narrativas de crise nas relações internacionais. De maneira geral, a análise apresenta crise e crítica como diferentes possibilidades de articular a política moderna, apoiadas em pressupostos distintos sobre (i) temporalidade, (ii) soberania, e (iii) conhecimento. Consequentemente, a tese argumenta que os pontos mais vulneráveis das narrativas de crise na política internacional se dão em relação aos limites do sujeito do conhecimento e da política soberana de amigos e inimigos. Nesse contexto, uma abordagem mais efetivamente crítica da política deve oferecer um enquadramento distinto do problema, no qual o sujeito estético abra a possibilidade de buscar formas de universalidade que se baseiem em uma afirmação mais profunda da diferença e da pluralidade, bem como em um maior entendimento dos limites das narrativas - mesmo as mais progressistas - sobre o sujeito soberano do conhecimento. Esse argumento aponta para a necessidade de as teorias de relações internacionais irem além de si mesmas. / [en] The dissertation investigates the narratives of crisis and critique expressed at significant moments in the history of international relations theory in order to explain how recent debates on the end or crisis of international relations theory expose the paradoxical limits of critique in this field. The dissertation is structured by two organizing movements. The first movement, Chapters 2-4, examines the recent debates about a crisis of theorizing, placing them in their historical and conceptual context, and highlighting their axiological and political stakes. The second movement, Chapters 5-7, explores the contemporary theoretical status of claims to critique, the tendency for critical analysis to relapse into dogma, and the possibility of resisting the dogmatic potential of narratives of crisis in international relations. The overall analysis presents crisis and critique as two different possibilities of framing modern politics, predicated on diverging assumptions about (i) temporality, (ii) sovereignty, and (iii) knowledge. As a consequence, the dissertation argues that the points at which claims about crisis and international politics become most vulnerable to dogmatic tendencies occur in relation to the limits of the subject of knowledge and the sovereign politics of friends and enemies. A more effectively critical approach to politics in this context must work through a different framing in which the aesthetic subject may pursue claims to universality that rest on much stronger affirmations of difference and plurality and a much greater awareness of the limits of established and even progressive accounts of a sovereign subject of knowledge. Thus international relations theory must consider what it means to go beyond itself.

No description available.